The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
WaPo: "Why Can’t We Hate Men?"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Washington Post opinion section:

Why can’t we hate men?

Film producer Harvey Weinstein leaves court in New York on June 5.

By Suzanna Danuta Walters
June 8

Suzanna Danuta Walters, a professor of sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, is the editor of the gender studies journal Signs.

It’s not that Eric Schneiderman (the now-former New York attorney general accused of abuse by multiple women) pushed me over the edge. My edge has been crossed for a long time, before President Trump, before Harvey Weinstein, before “mansplaining” and “incels.” Before live-streaming sexual assaults and red pill men’s groups and rape camps as a tool of war and the deadening banality of male prerogative.

Seen in this indisputably true context, it seems logical to hate men

“Seen in this indisputably true context, it seems logical to hate men” — Take that, Aristotle, Boole, and Frege! Your male logic is, like, over.

I can’t lie, I’ve always had a soft spot for the radical feminist smackdown, for naming the problem in no uncertain terms. I’ve rankled at the “but we don’t hate men” protestations of generations of would-be feminists and found the “men are not the problem, this system is” obfuscation too precious by half. …

So, in this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men? … I love Michelle Obama as much as the next woman, but when they have gone low for all of human history, maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise and Foxy Brown on their collective butts.

The world has little place for feminist anger.

Other than the oped page of the WaPo, the various women’s studies and gender studies departments, etc etc. But it’s more effective to not come out and admit you are filled with hate. Instead, act like the SPLC and accuse the people you hate of being driven by hate. You’ll be amazed by how gullible the human race is.

So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.

From her Northeastern U. bio:

Dr. Suzanna Danuta Walters’ work centers on questions of gender, feminist theory and politics, sexuality, and popular culture and she is a frequent commentator on these issues for the media. Her most recent book, The Tolerance Trap: How God, Genes, and Good Intentions are Sabotaging Gay Equality (NYU Press), explores how notions of tolerance limit the possibilities for real liberation and deep social belonging. This book has been the subject of numerous radio and press interviews and discussions, which can be heard and read on her website www.suzannawalters.com. Walters’ previous book, All the Rage: The Story of Gay Visibility in America (University of Chicago Press, 2001), examined the explosion of gay visibility in culture and politics over the past 15 years and raised pressing questions concerning the politics of visibility around sexual identity. The book was a finalist for several literary awards (including the Lambda Literary Award).

Walters founded the first in the nation Ph.D. program in gender studies at Indiana University, where she was a professor of gender studies and held positions in sociology and communication and culture. Previously, Walters was professor of sociology and director of women’s studies at Georgetown University. She was also a visiting senior scholar at the Center for Narrative Research at the University of East London. She received her Ph.D. from the Graduate Center, City University of New York.

It’s almost as if stereotypes about feminist ideologues tending to be man-hating lesbians are not wholly untrue.

 
Hide 305 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. El Dato says:

    Dr. Suzanna Danuta Walters’ work centers on questions of gender, feminist theory and politics, sexuality, and popular culture and she is a frequent commentator on these issues for the media.

    I bet she is.

    This personality blurb reads like something from a MIT book on “sociology” or “gender studies”.

    Everything is either “first”, “pressing”, there are “explosions”, “limits” are being explored and “possibilities” are either fought for or opened.

    It’s like finding “Chillingly believable – NYT book review” on the cover of some fantasy novel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:

    In case you were wondering:

    Why This Socialist Feminist Is For Hillary
    By Suzanna Danuta Walters

    My immigrant Jewish grandparents met in New York City, at a meeting of the Young People’s Socialist League on the Lower East Side

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra
    We are positively shocked, shocked at this revelation. Especially those of us who attended college in America during the past several decades. This "woman" is--sadly--par for the course in modern academe.

    Not that it's just academe--this is our entire culture in microcosm. The people who relinquished power to people like her were too polite, too civilized, too trusting, too forgiving. Too Christian you might say.

    , @Father O'Hara
    L TFOL! Indeed.

    Now if one hates men,surely the wise Chinese,for example, should not suffer for the sins of other men?
    So gradations of hate shall be allowed. Who is it being "over represented" in these cases?

    Well,seems to be jews,blacks, latinx,and other low IQ non-whites. What do you know? No one could've predicted this!

    So hate away,darlin'! And if I am correct,I sense a desire to,ya might say,embody this hate...physically. Given the grotesque amount of rape and violence emanating from some-well,one-particular group,I'd say, "Madam,report to your nearest ghetto and commence feminizzum!"

    (If that is a bit daunting,might I suggest the nearest synagogue? Yes hate men! Feels good! Arragh!)
    , @Altai
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGnePGYgOoA

    Wasn't a giveaway name (Though being a boomer from NYC named Suzanna is a bit of one) or face and wasn't on her wiki, I was like 'Huh she was so filled with anger and hatred I just assumed, guess not this time afterall'.
    , @Alfa158
    I wasn’t wondering, in fact I notice that increasingly I don’t even have to bother wondering and just take it as a given.
    , @AnotherDad
    I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that maybe a Jewish lesbian, tax-eating, gender-studies professor probably isn't your best bet for a based--rational, realistic, emotion-free--analysis what's going on and who's doing the heavy lifting in society.
    , @Gordo
    It's almost as if she is trying to divert the discourse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Henry Kissinger supposedly said “No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.”

    What happens increasingly more men & women aren’t at all interested in fraternizing with the enemy, whether as lesbian feminist supremacists or Men Going their own Way seperatists?

    Can we look forward to more mutual mistrust, hostility and enthusiastic mutual assured destruction?

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril
    I think what will happen is that eventually technology will improve to the point where men and women actually don't need each other any more.

    Even today, women desperately need men to provide for them and protect them. This can be done directly, through marriage, or indirectly -- by government redistribution of wealth and public police forces. For men's part, we don't need women in an economic sense but we do have psychological need for sex and female validation.

    But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn't constantly ask her man for money. And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs. In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.
    , @RonaldB
    It's hilarious to me that this radical feminist, man-hating lesbian concedes in so many words that if men compete on an equal basis with women, lesbians, and socialists, the men will win every time. She's reduced to begging men to simply not compete.

    Of course, she and her ilk do more than beg men to not compete. They burrow into the educational bureaucracies and systematically feminize the milieu. That is, any sign of male characteristics: assertion, physical competition, physical activity, hierarchical dominance are immediately suppressed by female nanny-teachers hovering over the children like hawks. The tax-payer-supported, feminized educational establishment is churning out beta soy-males who will, indeed, concede the field by simply quitting.

    Her anger and rage stem not so much from male aggressions, of which she is highly unlikely to be a target, but from the usual rage of the highly-verbal academic with no discernible skills other than the ability to write a mediocre book or article. This academic is enraged at the fact that she has no power or money other than what she can coerce from an unaccountable bureaucracy backed up by a police state. People like Donald Trump actually accumulate wealth, power, and sexual conquests on their own, and it drives the effete socialist academics nuts.

    Paradoxically, a real man will have little trouble attracting the interest of women. I don't mean a hyper-macho Delta Force member, but someone who is not afraid to assert himself, speak his mind, approach other people, and will not back down immediately when confronted with a problem or someone trying to overstep his boundaries.

    One reason for the fanatic desire for gun control is that gun owners are not so easy to push around personally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. As soon as women learn how to build railroads, they will put us all into boxcars and send us off camps.

    I’m not worried.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kylie
    "As soon as women learn how to build railroads, they will put us all into boxcars and send us off camps."

    Women don't need to learn how to build railroads. Men have already done that. Men have also created the life-saving and labor-saving civilization that gives these vile women the leisure to denigrate men in such deluded, absolutist terms.
    , @Cagey Beast
    As soon as women learn how to build railroads, they will put us all into boxcars and send us off camps.

    I’m not worried.



    Brilliant. Using similar logic, there's no reason to fear "youths" while walking on the streets at 2 AM because they'd need access to nuclear weapons to do you any real harm.
    , @Forbes
    But first, we'll be sent to campus for the indoctrination...
    , @pyrrhus
    "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts." Camille Paglia
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Lesbians dominate feminism because they have more testosterone. If they had any self-awareness, they’d realise the implications of that. Lately, trannies have been directing the vanguard of feminism – they have even more testosterone. The future is Dwayne Johnson in a wig and bra, telling people that men are bad.

    Read More
    • LOL: ic1000
    • Replies: @Anon
    Have you heard about the allegedly self identified trans boys have been winning the girls high school track meets ?

    Concerned parents of girl athelests are objecting . The inclusion of men and boys pretending to be women could destroy girls sports. And self identifying as a trans gender as well as high school sports is a sure admission to college and scholarships

    The old Soviet bloc used to inject real women athletes with testosterone, steroids and other things to produce
    Olympic winners. Now America is just making things simpler. To join the girls team just self identify as a girl.

    This trend could destroy girls and women’s sports. Too bad but women’s sports has always been a full employment program for lesbians who are the enemy of real women.
    , @unpc downunder
    Maybe not. Once race is taken into account, trannies are probably the least left-wing LGBT group after bisexuals, which may be one reason why they are over-represented in the military. Lesbians and "gender queer" types are the most left-wing, with gays in the middle.

    Overall, LGBTs probably appear to be more left-wing than they are because their opinions aren't broken down by race and type, and dissenting voices in the Coalition of the Fringes are censored. For example, gays are supposed to vote Democrat, but for all we know white gays may tend to vote Republican.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Why can’t we hate men?

    But you can, darling, and actually I see you already do. But are you sure you want to do this?

    I mean, what if they decide to hate you back?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rod1963
    Big picture.

    All this hatred is aimed at one group - white men. Remember this stuff is generated by crazed Jewish females and male Jewish intellectuals. It is not a organic movement arising from goy women. It was planted in their minds by the tribe.

    This is why they never point fingers at Blacks, Hispanics or Muslims.

    It's just another attack on whites by the tribe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Tyrion 2 says: • Website

    This article gives credit to the theory that most lesbians are actually just non-sexual beings whose development arrested pre-adolescence at around the 9 year old stage. Replace ‘men’ with ‘boys’ and it reads like the work of a fairly unpleasant, socially ostracised and self-important pre-adolescent girl.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. It’s almost as if stereotypes about feminist ideologues tending to be man-hating lesbians are not wholly untrue.

    Taken with a grain of salt, your opinion might not even be accused as being totally over the top.
    (Ours are funny times. Funny WaPo opeds, too.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Kylie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    As soon as women learn how to build railroads, they will put us all into boxcars and send us off camps.

    I'm not worried.

    “As soon as women learn how to build railroads, they will put us all into boxcars and send us off camps.”

    Women don’t need to learn how to build railroads. Men have already done that. Men have also created the life-saving and labor-saving civilization that gives these vile women the leisure to denigrate men in such deluded, absolutist terms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Seen in this indisputably true context, it seems logical to hate men
     
    That's the thing, Kylie. It seems perfectly logical to hate men when you focus exclusively on things you hate about them, and take the good they do for granted. Go figure!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. ccz says:

    “Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.”

    I agree. I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters. Start with “step away from the power” and literally have men take a collective vacation and ignore the electric utility grid for a week. Let the gender studies professors keep the generators running and perform “hot wire” maintenance on the 500 kVA transmission lines that carry the electricity all those feminist social media influencers and complainers rely on to “power” their daily lives.

    Read More
    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk, Mishra
    • Replies: @Simon Tugmutton
    This comment deserves a gold box. And those guys deserve a medal!
    , @sabril

    I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters
     
    It's a nice fantasy, but in reality the entire country would collapse if men went on strike for a week. I do wish these female pseudo-intellectuals would have some respect and grattitude for the men who make their lives safe and comfortable. But I don't think it's psychologically possible. Even average women have a strong tendency to assume that (most) men are basically NPC's whose sole function is to protect and serve them.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    Yes! That's the coolest, most outrageous job ever. Good post.
    , @eah
    men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do

    You should watch some of Karen Straughan's videos, which are available here on the Unz site -- she talks about this.
    , @Stan d Mute

    Let the gender studies professors keep the generators running and perform “hot wire” maintenance on the 500 kVA transmission lines that carry the electricity all those feminist social media influencers and complainers rely on to “power” their daily lives.
     
    At risk of feeding the troll Jew-haters, can you imagine the JewFro after an arc flash?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P35HRYHFz7c
    , @Jim Don Bob
    I drove 3000+ miles around Alaska last February and went deep into BC on roads where you wouldn't see 10 vehicles in 50 miles. Yet everywhere I went there were power lines strung by some Deplorable.
    , @Patrick Costello
    Great post, but as others have mentioned the feminist fantasy is men as slaves doing the technical/dirty/dangerous work while a bunch of female CEOs and senators have meetings with each other all day. Of course this is just a perverted version of the ultra-girly "princess fantasy" these same feminists claim to despise, but hey, nobody ever said they have a sense of irony.

    "For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted"

    , @AnotherDad

    I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters.
     
    It's not a week.

    The thought experiment I've offered to all this "women make 70 cents", "women discriminated against", women not getting X,Y,Z, is one day.

    Women don't show up for their paid jobs any more. What's the fallout?

    -- Some men, who would otherwise do productive labor, would have to spend a bunch of time answering the phone and finding paperwork. So we'd be less efficient.
    -- Some a few men would have to be cut loose to go to school and teach the kids. Though sending the young ones home to their mothers is probably the better option.
    -- The only real critical hit would be nursing. We'd have a skilled nursing shortage in the hospitals. We couldn't handle the current patient volumes. We'd have to triage and send a bunch of people home, while we staffed up with men and we'd definitely lose some--mostly old--people. (Although there's a lot of medical care that doesn't need doing.)

    Now the reverse. Men don't show up for their paid jobs. What's the fallout?

    Well almost immediately we'll have power grids failing and everything grinding to a halt. For some, the water stops flowing and the sewers are backing up. Refineries--if not given orderly shutdown--will be exploding and burning. When the criminals realize that the male cops aren't going to show up it's open season--starting of course, on the urban single females, where the odds are no gun toting man is at home. By the end of the day it is a dystopian nightmare, of fire, looting, rape and murder.

    Even if we run the thought experiment to be completely male free--no men around at all, so no male criminals to make stuff worse--by the end of day we have complete breakdown of what one thinks of as "modern civilization"--including no cell phones and facebook so women are deprived the pleasure of bitching. In a week, the no running water and backed up sewers disease will be ramping up dramatically. What's left in the supermarket warehouses is cleaned out within a month and urban and suburban women--now finally slimmed down!--will start starving. You'll see some inevitable cannibalism. (The sisterhood is powerful!) The smarter ones will have streamed out of the urban areas to find rural towns and farmsteads where their might be food--and less disease. Within months the only survivors will be rural women--or rural women supplemented by a few of the more resourceful urban women they take in--who are knowledgeable about agricultural and well armed.


    The bottom line here.
    -- Men don't show up for their jobs -- complete and utter societal collapse.
    -- Women don't show up for their jobs -- some inefficiency, a lot of scrambling, some early and preventable deaths from reduction in health care capacity .... and then a return to a pleasant patriarchy. Within a few months, a lot of people might be wondering, "why did we have women working outside the home at all?"
    , @Johanus de Morgateroyde
    Come on up, ladies, and get your equal pay.

    https://twitter.com/LAReviewofBooks/status/827406373050658816

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. sabril says:

    I wonder what psychological process causes masculine lesbians to hate men so much.

    Possible explanations I thought of:

    1. Everyone has anti-male bias, but with men it’s balanced by a sense of identity with other men and in straight women it’s balanced by sexual attraction.

    2. Lesbians realize at some level that they are physically and intellectually inferior to actual men which causes jealousy and bitterness.

    3. Women become lesbians if they are mistreated by men and this mistreatment results in lasting hatred.

    Anyway, I’m pretty confident that sexual misconduct by the likes of Harvey Weinstein is more an excuse than an actual reason for this woman’s misandry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Medvedev
    Because high-testosterone lesbians compete for the same resources as straight men - for female bodies. It is hard to compete with men when the playing field is equal. Because those lesbians neither have dicks, nor as much testosterone as real men (as a result men are bigger, more masculine and motivated to achieve things). Unable to compete they try to denigrate and vilify any man, hiding behind the shield of feminism/female gender.
    All (man-like) lesbians I knew were bitter, venomous creatures, who hated men. And even though personal experience is meaningless for statistics, my gut tells me that most men-like lesbians are like this.
    Gays I knew weren't anti-men or anti-women. Although, some were hardcore SJWs I haven't noticed hatred or disgust, which I noticed among lesbians.
    , @Daniel Chieh

    I wonder what psychological process causes masculine lesbians to hate men so much.

     

    I imagine its the same reason why some gays really, really hate women. Competition.
    , @Rosie

    Anyway, I’m pretty confident that sexual misconduct by the likes of Harvey Weinstein is more an excuse than an actual reason for this woman’s misandry.

     

    You are correct here. Harvey W is nothe cause of the hatred. He is just a convenient, isolated target. The real reason is not hard to figure out.
    , @L Woods
    Uniquely, mankind has developed the capacity for reason and the ability to reshape his environment to his own ends. Overwhelmingly, these developments are expressed in the male. The lizard brain hasn't caught up to this relatively recent reversal in the value of the sexes; hence, the manifest atavistic anti-male bias (expressed as male white knightism and female narcissism). We used to have this thing called "civilization" that worked to curb irrational and destructive impulses, but that's out of fashion now.
    , @Forbes
    What did Harvey Weinstein ever do to a lesbian to deserve their hatred?

    Were any of his alleged victims actual lesbians?
    , @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Penis envy.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Definitely not #3:

    3. Women become lesbians if they are mistreated by men and this mistreatment results in lasting hatred.
     
    For some reason, women who survived or grew up around abusive relationships are more likely to gravitate to more abusive (het) relationships than to go Lesbian. There may really be a genetic/ hormonal element to same sex-attraction. In addition, the first intense physical experience while the hormones are overcharged may become the prototype for the rest. If her first makeout session with that guy in Jr. High was enjoyable, she is unlikely to be as susceptible to a crush on a female classmate or be put off permanently by a later bad experience with a guy in High School.
    , @Derlgfnda
    I've thought the fact lesbians are so much more androgynous than regular women and often resemble men in appearance, voice, style of dress and behavior, and usually make little to no effort to appear more feminine to cause some serious dissonance. They hate men yet look, sound and act so much like them.

    As a corollary, gay men are very rarely misogynistic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @ccz
    “Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.”

    I agree. I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters. Start with “step away from the power” and literally have men take a collective vacation and ignore the electric utility grid for a week. Let the gender studies professors keep the generators running and perform "hot wire" maintenance on the 500 kVA transmission lines that carry the electricity all those feminist social media influencers and complainers rely on to "power" their daily lives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGywP1-ZPAk

    This comment deserves a gold box. And those guys deserve a medal!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. sabril says:
    @ccz
    “Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.”

    I agree. I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters. Start with “step away from the power” and literally have men take a collective vacation and ignore the electric utility grid for a week. Let the gender studies professors keep the generators running and perform "hot wire" maintenance on the 500 kVA transmission lines that carry the electricity all those feminist social media influencers and complainers rely on to "power" their daily lives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGywP1-ZPAk

    I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters

    It’s a nice fantasy, but in reality the entire country would collapse if men went on strike for a week. I do wish these female pseudo-intellectuals would have some respect and grattitude for the men who make their lives safe and comfortable. But I don’t think it’s psychologically possible. Even average women have a strong tendency to assume that (most) men are basically NPC’s whose sole function is to protect and serve them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I do wish these female pseudo-intellectuals would have some respect and grattitude for the men who make their lives safe and comfortable. But I don’t think it’s psychologically possible.
     
    Fortunately, respect for force can be instilled even if there is contempt for ability and accomplishment.  For instance, I doubt that Louise Rosealma will try to physically confront a man again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Why can’t we hate lesbian academics?

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril

    Why can’t we hate lesbian academics?
     
    We can, but there's also the option of not taking them seriously. Which for them is quite likely less preferable.

    There's no option not to take men seriously.
    , @Forbes
    Indifference would be my recommended course. I couldn't bother expending emotional energy on lesbians...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Anon[397] • Disclaimer says:

    Maybe someone should rejigger her op piece with another group substituted for men, a la the Derbyshire “The Talk” redo.

    Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.

    And if you read Inside Higher Education, “Step away from STEM, let us handle science and engineering in a female way; we don’t need your patriarchal logic and competitive meritocracy, we feel, we empathize, we consult indiginous ways of knowing.”

    Little things like this make me think that the Long Arc of History is leading us into a new Dark Age. I just hope that the “Women in Charge” can manage to power down the nuclear power plants and store away the radioactive stuff before the Dark Age begins, or the world will be covered in Chernobyl islands.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. sabril says:
    @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    Henry Kissinger supposedly said “No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there's too much fraternizing with the enemy.”

    What happens increasingly more men & women aren’t at all interested in fraternizing with the enemy, whether as lesbian feminist supremacists or Men Going their own Way seperatists?

    Can we look forward to more mutual mistrust, hostility and enthusiastic mutual assured destruction?

    I think what will happen is that eventually technology will improve to the point where men and women actually don’t need each other any more.

    Even today, women desperately need men to provide for them and protect them. This can be done directly, through marriage, or indirectly — by government redistribution of wealth and public police forces. For men’s part, we don’t need women in an economic sense but we do have psychological need for sex and female validation.

    But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money. And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs. In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money.
     
    We are well on our way to this now. And look at the unhinged hysterical reaction from women (ie Daily Mail)..

    And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs. In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.
     
    Who fixes the robot when it breaks?

    Is the root cause here the “babies are bad” mantra of the leftists? A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies. Without this function, a woman is an utterly pathetic man who doesn’t even have a penis and can’t pee standing up. These idiots just OD’d on the koolaid (purple drink) from Planned Spinsterhood intended for negro females and now rage that they are such laughably inferior men.

    Insanity.
    , @Rosie

    Even today, women desperately need men to provide for them and protect them.
     
    I don't know about other women, but as for myself, I would rather die than depend on you for anything, because I have self-respect, which Right-wing very often find intolerable in a woman.
    , @Corvinus
    "But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money. And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs."

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    "In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way."

    Not as many as you think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. sabril says:
    @Paleo Retiree
    Why can’t we hate lesbian academics?

    Why can’t we hate lesbian academics?

    We can, but there’s also the option of not taking them seriously. Which for them is quite likely less preferable.

    There’s no option not to take men seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    We can, but there’s also the option of not taking them seriously. Which for them is quite likely less preferable.

    This woman be dykesplaining.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. DFH says:

    I have some ideas for future comment pieces for the WaPo;

    Why can’t we hate blacks?
    Why can’t we hate women
    Why can’t we hate Jews?
    Why can’t we hate Muslims?
    Why can’t we hate homosexuals?
    Why can’t we hate Mexicans?

    They could get years worth of articles from this simple format.

    Read More
    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Tiny Duck
    I don't think you understand the concept of privilege and punching down


    The responses here prove the articles poinnt


    white men are way too fragile and needs to be contained
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @ccz
    “Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.”

    I agree. I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters. Start with “step away from the power” and literally have men take a collective vacation and ignore the electric utility grid for a week. Let the gender studies professors keep the generators running and perform "hot wire" maintenance on the 500 kVA transmission lines that carry the electricity all those feminist social media influencers and complainers rely on to "power" their daily lives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGywP1-ZPAk

    Yes! That’s the coolest, most outrageous job ever. Good post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Medvedev says:
    @sabril
    I wonder what psychological process causes masculine lesbians to hate men so much.

    Possible explanations I thought of:

    1. Everyone has anti-male bias, but with men it's balanced by a sense of identity with other men and in straight women it's balanced by sexual attraction.

    2. Lesbians realize at some level that they are physically and intellectually inferior to actual men which causes jealousy and bitterness.

    3. Women become lesbians if they are mistreated by men and this mistreatment results in lasting hatred.

    Anyway, I'm pretty confident that sexual misconduct by the likes of Harvey Weinstein is more an excuse than an actual reason for this woman's misandry.

    Because high-testosterone lesbians compete for the same resources as straight men – for female bodies. It is hard to compete with men when the playing field is equal. Because those lesbians neither have dicks, nor as much testosterone as real men (as a result men are bigger, more masculine and motivated to achieve things). Unable to compete they try to denigrate and vilify any man, hiding behind the shield of feminism/female gender.
    All (man-like) lesbians I knew were bitter, venomous creatures, who hated men. And even though personal experience is meaningless for statistics, my gut tells me that most men-like lesbians are like this.
    Gays I knew weren’t anti-men or anti-women. Although, some were hardcore SJWs I haven’t noticed hatred or disgust, which I noticed among lesbians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Medvedev:

    Some time ago (maybe in National Review) our host Steve noted that preconceived positive notions about lesbians turned negative after in-life encountering their petty bitchiness (not that Steve used that particular descriptor). This was just the opposite for gays: preconceived negative notions turned positive after encountering them!

    In my own life experience I found this aphorism to hold true.

    , @sabril

    Because high-testosterone lesbians compete for the same resources as straight men – for female bodies.
     
    That can't be the only thing that's going on. You don't see short men writing articles about how much they hate tall men. You don't see Asian-American men writing articles about how much they hate White men. Well, perhaps these things happen on occasion but masculine lesbians seem to be dripping with hatred for men in a very extreme way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Adopting generalized misanthropy is the only solution to discrimination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. This question seems relevant here:

    WHO IS JOHN GALT?

    Read More
    • Replies: @the one they call Desanex
    https://i.imgur.com/lKNOSeR.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. eah says:

    questions of gender, feminist theory and politics, sexuality, and popular culture

    Given the continuing trend of (significantly) more women than men attending college, and considering what women typically, err, study, a thoughtful person ought to ponder the future…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Given the continuing trend of (significantly) more women than men attending college, and considering what women typically, err, study, a thoughtful person ought to ponder the future…
     
    Is this more a function of too few men, or too many women, going to college? I suspect it's the latter.
    , @MEH 0910
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Jupiter_and_its_shrunken_Great_Red_Spot.jpg/600px-Jupiter_and_its_shrunken_Great_Red_Spot.jpg
    , @eah
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfMb1NdXUAAd4VM.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. eah says:
    @ccz
    “Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.”

    I agree. I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters. Start with “step away from the power” and literally have men take a collective vacation and ignore the electric utility grid for a week. Let the gender studies professors keep the generators running and perform "hot wire" maintenance on the 500 kVA transmission lines that carry the electricity all those feminist social media influencers and complainers rely on to "power" their daily lives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGywP1-ZPAk

    men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do

    You should watch some of Karen Straughan’s videos, which are available here on the Unz site — she talks about this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. JohnnyD says:

    Sounds like Ms. Walters wants more of the cool jobs to go to women…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Jason Liu says:

    Any criticism of patriarchy demonstrates the need for more patriarchy. Her article is a prime example.

    Also look up her pic. Some people’s politics can be dismissed on the basis of looks alone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Any criticism of patriarchy demonstrates the need for more patriarchy. Her article is a prime example.
     
    Now that's a breathtaking piece of logic right there. I don't doubt many feminists have said precisely the same, with at least as much reason as you have here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Her real name is Tina Duckins.

    Read More
    • LOL: Abe
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    I laughed!
    , @res
    Yes, and if our TD truly was woke zhe would step aside for a woman.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Dan Hayes says:
    @Medvedev
    Because high-testosterone lesbians compete for the same resources as straight men - for female bodies. It is hard to compete with men when the playing field is equal. Because those lesbians neither have dicks, nor as much testosterone as real men (as a result men are bigger, more masculine and motivated to achieve things). Unable to compete they try to denigrate and vilify any man, hiding behind the shield of feminism/female gender.
    All (man-like) lesbians I knew were bitter, venomous creatures, who hated men. And even though personal experience is meaningless for statistics, my gut tells me that most men-like lesbians are like this.
    Gays I knew weren't anti-men or anti-women. Although, some were hardcore SJWs I haven't noticed hatred or disgust, which I noticed among lesbians.

    Medvedev:

    Some time ago (maybe in National Review) our host Steve noted that preconceived positive notions about lesbians turned negative after in-life encountering their petty bitchiness (not that Steve used that particular descriptor). This was just the opposite for gays: preconceived negative notions turned positive after encountering them!

    In my own life experience I found this aphorism to hold true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    In my own life experience I found this aphorism to hold true.
     
    Agreed, and yet one must hold in ones mind the fact that fags are a massive public health problem that dykes are not. The one thing the media always withholds from us is the danger of exposure to fecal matter. We’re never supposed to contemplate the realities, the mechanics and biology, of faggotry. Nor are we ever to google “gay bowel syndrome.” Is this related at all to how we sanitize our view of India and Africa where they routinely crap in their own water supplies? Is it because of the color of crap (don’t laugh, leftists are that stupid)?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Joe Walker says: • Website

    So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.

    In other words, don’t compete against women as equals as women are obviously inferior. Instead, throw in the towel immediately since that is the only way women can succeed against men. Women can only triumph when men do nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    In other words, don’t compete against women as equals as women are obviously inferior.
     
    At what?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Mishra says:
    @Anonymous
    In case you were wondering:

    Why This Socialist Feminist Is For Hillary
    By Suzanna Danuta Walters
     


    My immigrant Jewish grandparents met in New York City, at a meeting of the Young People’s Socialist League on the Lower East Side
     

     

    We are positively shocked, shocked at this revelation. Especially those of us who attended college in America during the past several decades. This “woman” is–sadly–par for the course in modern academe.

    Not that it’s just academe–this is our entire culture in microcosm. The people who relinquished power to people like her were too polite, too civilized, too trusting, too forgiving. Too Christian you might say.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. If men are going to be assumed to be rapists/harassers/cads anyway, then doesn’t that create an incentive to go ahead and live up to the stereotype for those otherwise unconstrained by personal decency?

    Read More
    • Agree: Thea
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. @Anonymous
    In case you were wondering:

    Why This Socialist Feminist Is For Hillary
    By Suzanna Danuta Walters
     


    My immigrant Jewish grandparents met in New York City, at a meeting of the Young People’s Socialist League on the Lower East Side
     

     

    L TFOL! Indeed.

    Now if one hates men,surely the wise Chinese,for example, should not suffer for the sins of other men?
    So gradations of hate shall be allowed. Who is it being “over represented” in these cases?

    Well,seems to be jews,blacks, latinx,and other low IQ non-whites. What do you know? No one could’ve predicted this!

    So hate away,darlin’! And if I am correct,I sense a desire to,ya might say,embody this hate…physically. Given the grotesque amount of rape and violence emanating from some-well,one-particular group,I’d say, “Madam,report to your nearest ghetto and commence feminizzum!”

    (If that is a bit daunting,might I suggest the nearest synagogue? Yes hate men! Feels good! Arragh!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Tiny Duck says:
    @DFH
    I have some ideas for future comment pieces for the WaPo;

    Why can't we hate blacks?
    Why can't we hate women
    Why can't we hate Jews?
    Why can't we hate Muslims?
    Why can't we hate homosexuals?
    Why can't we hate Mexicans?
     
    They could get years worth of articles from this simple format.

    I don’t think you understand the concept of privilege and punching down

    The responses here prove the articles poinnt

    white men are way too fragile and needs to be contained

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    white men are way too fragile and needs to be contained
     
    I'll bite on this one: Not agreed on the fragile part, but otherwise--yeah.

    White men are just too damn dangerous. We should be penned up in reservations, with any bad thinking women who wish to join us.

    Europe is one. All non-white men there should be moved to safety along with any women wishing to be saved, then the whole thing fenced off. Same in America. Draw as short a fencing line as you can--around the US-Mexico border seems logical--move all non-white men above it below, along with all non-deplorable women--including Suzanna Dunata Walters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anonym says:
    @sabril

    Why can’t we hate lesbian academics?
     
    We can, but there's also the option of not taking them seriously. Which for them is quite likely less preferable.

    There's no option not to take men seriously.

    We can, but there’s also the option of not taking them seriously. Which for them is quite likely less preferable.

    This woman be dykesplaining.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    How about "coochysplaining"?

    Or plays on "assert", "emote", or "complain".

    I can't take any more of the professor's coochplaining about men.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Hunsdon says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike
    Her real name is Tina Duckins.

    I laughed!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. TheJester says:

    The ugly feminist-generated war against men and the traditional family is going to end in a soft puff of Darwinian natural selection. Almost every reader on an HBD blog should recognize the process. Feminists and their anti-social ideology and dispositions will be purged from the gene pool … since feminists generally do not stoop so low as to reproduce with men. Of course, if there are accidents, they have recourse to abortion.

    In the early 1970s, I taught university-level ethics courses. I always included a section on feminism (impossible today) in which the class explored the logical foundation and logical implications of the movement.

    I usually ended the section with a story about an aging, childless Gloria Steinem sitting in her rocker on the front porch watching a pudgy woman walk by with four daughters in tow. Gloria looks at the woman with the acrid disdain feminist reserve for traditional women with families. Then, it struck her who had won the “war” against men and their patriarchy.

    In a more recent and far-reaching scenario credited to Frau Angela Merkel, a feminist and generally childless European society imports millions of Muslim men and women to replace the missing demographic. Same outcome … end of the feminist ideology as the genes and dispositions of its adherents are progressively purged from the gene pool.

    The problem: This interregnum from nonsense to sense takes time. It is our unfortunate lot in life to suffer the feminists until the biological process of natural selection runs its course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril
    I agree that feminism is a self-correcting problem and what's more the solution may come a lot quicker than people anticipate. Because it's not just that feminists are having few babies, it's also that ultra-religious groups -- which teach women to follow traditional female roles -- are having lots of babies.

    Even today, feminists in Israel are unable to get the government to combine the male-only and female-only prayer sections at the Western Wall. And the window of opportunity is quickly closing as the religious parties in Israel grow in influence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. sabril says:
    @Medvedev
    Because high-testosterone lesbians compete for the same resources as straight men - for female bodies. It is hard to compete with men when the playing field is equal. Because those lesbians neither have dicks, nor as much testosterone as real men (as a result men are bigger, more masculine and motivated to achieve things). Unable to compete they try to denigrate and vilify any man, hiding behind the shield of feminism/female gender.
    All (man-like) lesbians I knew were bitter, venomous creatures, who hated men. And even though personal experience is meaningless for statistics, my gut tells me that most men-like lesbians are like this.
    Gays I knew weren't anti-men or anti-women. Although, some were hardcore SJWs I haven't noticed hatred or disgust, which I noticed among lesbians.

    Because high-testosterone lesbians compete for the same resources as straight men – for female bodies.

    That can’t be the only thing that’s going on. You don’t see short men writing articles about how much they hate tall men. You don’t see Asian-American men writing articles about how much they hate White men. Well, perhaps these things happen on occasion but masculine lesbians seem to be dripping with hatred for men in a very extreme way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Resentment is only human. But our culture discourages short men from being too obvious in their resentment of tall men, even though it's a pretty reasonable resentment. It's not that tall men are a protected class per se, although they are somewhat privileged, it's that short men are not at all privileged, so they can be insulted back.

    In recent decades in our culture, however, it's been considered highly inappropriate for men to make fun of lesbian animus, so there is less social cost for lesbians to not suppress their feelings.

    It's much like how Jewish journalists were shocked a couple of years ago when they got insulted back on Twitter for insulting whites in the press. That never happened in the press, so they barely noticed they were doing it a lot.

    The funny thing about Twitter insult wars is that it never results in the original aggressors saying, Oh, yeah, I guess I was getting out of line, maybe I should tone it down.

    Instead, they conclude: See, I was right to hate those bastards all along.

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    These things are rather confusing. I remember I've seen somewhere (forgot the source) that feminine lesbians are actually, most of them, scared of men & avoid them. Butch lesbians can be subdivided into a few categories, but perhaps 50-80% of them have had sex with men (not romantic involvement, just sex).

    So, if some lesbians crave for physical intercourse with men, these are mostly man-like bull-dyke tattooed lesbians, not femme types from porn fantasies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. On no! Just when we thought Janet Reno was gone, she’s merely changed her name?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    Pure visable insanity, in it's most extreme apparition.

    Just for the fun of it I would really love to have a conversation with her, as she represents everything a sane person would reject.

    AJM
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @sabril

    Because high-testosterone lesbians compete for the same resources as straight men – for female bodies.
     
    That can't be the only thing that's going on. You don't see short men writing articles about how much they hate tall men. You don't see Asian-American men writing articles about how much they hate White men. Well, perhaps these things happen on occasion but masculine lesbians seem to be dripping with hatred for men in a very extreme way.

    Resentment is only human. But our culture discourages short men from being too obvious in their resentment of tall men, even though it’s a pretty reasonable resentment. It’s not that tall men are a protected class per se, although they are somewhat privileged, it’s that short men are not at all privileged, so they can be insulted back.

    In recent decades in our culture, however, it’s been considered highly inappropriate for men to make fun of lesbian animus, so there is less social cost for lesbians to not suppress their feelings.

    It’s much like how Jewish journalists were shocked a couple of years ago when they got insulted back on Twitter for insulting whites in the press. That never happened in the press, so they barely noticed they were doing it a lot.

    The funny thing about Twitter insult wars is that it never results in the original aggressors saying, Oh, yeah, I guess I was getting out of line, maybe I should tone it down.

    Instead, they conclude: See, I was right to hate those bastards all along.

    Read More
    • LOL: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEKw6tRnnhE&feature=youtu.be&t=54
    , @Cagey Beast
    The funny thing about Twitter insult wars is that it never results in the original aggressors saying, Oh, yeah, I guess I was getting out of line, maybe I should tone it down.

    Instead, they conclude: See, I was right to hate those bastards all along.


    You're quite right about this. The difference, I think, is that people can dismiss the push-back they get on Twitter by telling themselves it's coming from paid trolls, dumb teenagers "in their mother's basement" or from a relative handful of nuts "out there". In other words, the social correction isn't coming from a "real" person. Those comforting excuses aren't available if it's a guy in the sandwich shop or bar who didn't think much of someone's comment.
    , @TheBoom
    "It’s much like how Jewish journalists were shocked a couple of years ago when they got insulted back on Twitter for insulting whites in the press. That never happened in the press, so they barely noticed they were doing it a lot."

    That is a key reason that Jews have become so fanatical in their jihad against whites lately and why the ADL sms SPLC have been elevated to our chief censors. I would also add:

    2. Trump and Deplorables not even caring about the daily proclamations that Trump is Hitler 2.0 and even having the temerity to laugh about it

    3. Trump winning in spite of Jews making it very loud and clear that the US is Germany 1933.
    , @Sabril
    I would have to disagree with this, just look at online support forums for short people, particularly short men. You may find general complaints about how society treats them,but you won't find post after post dripping with venemous hatred towards tall men.

    So even when short men are perfectly free to lash out at tall men without any cost or consequences, they generally don't do it.

    The closest thing I can think of is male incels, many of whom do harbor the sort of hatred expressed by so many masculine lesbians. However most of these incels' hatred is directed at the women who reject them and not the incels' male competitors.

    And note that there is huge social stigma for a man who publicly hates women for rejecting him.
    , @Simply Simon
    Do you think Napoleon resented tall men? Probably somewhat, but it's far more probable that tall men resented Napoleon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. MEH 0910 says:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. @ccz
    “Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.”

    I agree. I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters. Start with “step away from the power” and literally have men take a collective vacation and ignore the electric utility grid for a week. Let the gender studies professors keep the generators running and perform "hot wire" maintenance on the 500 kVA transmission lines that carry the electricity all those feminist social media influencers and complainers rely on to "power" their daily lives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGywP1-ZPAk

    Let the gender studies professors keep the generators running and perform “hot wire” maintenance on the 500 kVA transmission lines that carry the electricity all those feminist social media influencers and complainers rely on to “power” their daily lives.

    At risk of feeding the troll Jew-haters, can you imagine the JewFro after an arc flash?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. ” Professor of sociology, and director of womens gender studies program”

    Translation : Six figure paid BS artist, operating in the most usless and destructive “Scientific” field thinkable.

    ” I love MO as much as the next woman”

    Translation : I am insane beyond hope, and I want everyone else to become insane.

    Holy shit , nutcases such as this abberation are actually in the majority in the now defunct US edumacation system, and millions of hapless parents are sending their air-brained kids to have the tiny remaining fragments of sanity removed from their already deceased brains.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BenKenobi

    is it really so illogical to hate men? … I love Michelle Obama as much as the next woman
     
    She better watch out. They killed Joan Rivers for that kind of rhetoric.

    Ben Kenobi, Gatsby-esque infantry veteran and functional alcoholic.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @sabril
    I think what will happen is that eventually technology will improve to the point where men and women actually don't need each other any more.

    Even today, women desperately need men to provide for them and protect them. This can be done directly, through marriage, or indirectly -- by government redistribution of wealth and public police forces. For men's part, we don't need women in an economic sense but we do have psychological need for sex and female validation.

    But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn't constantly ask her man for money. And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs. In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.

    But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money.

    We are well on our way to this now. And look at the unhinged hysterical reaction from women (ie Daily Mail)..

    And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs. In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.

    Who fixes the robot when it breaks?

    Is the root cause here the “babies are bad” mantra of the leftists? A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies. Without this function, a woman is an utterly pathetic man who doesn’t even have a penis and can’t pee standing up. These idiots just OD’d on the koolaid (purple drink) from Planned Spinsterhood intended for negro females and now rage that they are such laughably inferior men.

    Insanity.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Rosie

    A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies. Without this function, a woman is an utterly pathetic man who doesn’t even have a penis and can’t pee standing up.
     
    I hope I don't get banned for this, but on behalf of all normal women hoping for better relations between men and women, Fuck you!
    , @sabril

    Who fixes the robot when it breaks?
     
    Another robot. Because at a certain point, AI is advanced enough to be self-sustaining just like humans (as a group) are self-sustaining.

    A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies.
     
    I wouldn't go that far, but I agree that's her primary evolutionary purpose. And more importantly, the reason why Western culture is so deferential to and protective of women.

    That's one of the many reasons feminism is so annoying. Women expect men to fulfill their traditional responsibilities of providing and protecting but are often reluctant to uphold their own traditional responsibilities of being devoted mothers and wives.
    , @Mr. Rational
    The appropriate response is for men to simply refuse to build such robots for women.  "You want a man?  Try being a woman."

    If anyone did build them, hacking them would be a constant game/threat.  Programming one to bite, for example.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    It is possible for women to answer the Call of Nature standing up, as women who go camping can attest. It merely requires a Wide Stance.

    As for not having a penis, any woman who really has need of one can always borrow somebody else's. Can you say as much, Mr. Mute?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @sabril

    Because high-testosterone lesbians compete for the same resources as straight men – for female bodies.
     
    That can't be the only thing that's going on. You don't see short men writing articles about how much they hate tall men. You don't see Asian-American men writing articles about how much they hate White men. Well, perhaps these things happen on occasion but masculine lesbians seem to be dripping with hatred for men in a very extreme way.

    These things are rather confusing. I remember I’ve seen somewhere (forgot the source) that feminine lesbians are actually, most of them, scared of men & avoid them. Butch lesbians can be subdivided into a few categories, but perhaps 50-80% of them have had sex with men (not romantic involvement, just sex).

    So, if some lesbians crave for physical intercourse with men, these are mostly man-like bull-dyke tattooed lesbians, not femme types from porn fantasies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    So, if some lesbians crave for physical intercourse with men, these are mostly man-like bull-dyke tattooed lesbians, not femme types from porn fantasies.
     
    My sense is that femmes are more likely to have been or later become involved with men. Perhaps we are talking about subtly different things? I am sure there is plenty of variation though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Yak-15 says:

    Another shriveled crone, miserable in childlessness and lashing out at the cruel deniers of her happiness. Perhaps life would have been brighter, more satisfying and meaningful if she had simply accepted normality. Instead, from her pulpit of dreary, she implores young women to adopt her hate and fill their own lives with the sadness of growing old alone and the squalor of living without seeing the bounty of progeny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. MEH 0910 says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Resentment is only human. But our culture discourages short men from being too obvious in their resentment of tall men, even though it's a pretty reasonable resentment. It's not that tall men are a protected class per se, although they are somewhat privileged, it's that short men are not at all privileged, so they can be insulted back.

    In recent decades in our culture, however, it's been considered highly inappropriate for men to make fun of lesbian animus, so there is less social cost for lesbians to not suppress their feelings.

    It's much like how Jewish journalists were shocked a couple of years ago when they got insulted back on Twitter for insulting whites in the press. That never happened in the press, so they barely noticed they were doing it a lot.

    The funny thing about Twitter insult wars is that it never results in the original aggressors saying, Oh, yeah, I guess I was getting out of line, maybe I should tone it down.

    Instead, they conclude: See, I was right to hate those bastards all along.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Dan Hayes
    Medvedev:

    Some time ago (maybe in National Review) our host Steve noted that preconceived positive notions about lesbians turned negative after in-life encountering their petty bitchiness (not that Steve used that particular descriptor). This was just the opposite for gays: preconceived negative notions turned positive after encountering them!

    In my own life experience I found this aphorism to hold true.

    In my own life experience I found this aphorism to hold true.

    Agreed, and yet one must hold in ones mind the fact that fags are a massive public health problem that dykes are not. The one thing the media always withholds from us is the danger of exposure to fecal matter. We’re never supposed to contemplate the realities, the mechanics and biology, of faggotry. Nor are we ever to google “gay bowel syndrome.” Is this related at all to how we sanitize our view of India and Africa where they routinely crap in their own water supplies? Is it because of the color of crap (don’t laugh, leftists are that stupid)?

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @TheMediumIsTheMassage
    In terms of raw (heh) numbers, I’d be willing to bet there are more women being anally penetrated by their partners than gay men any given week (except for pride, perhaps).

    The gay public health issue is STDs, not fecal matter. And no, they’re not related. As a gay man I’d prefer not to go back to 1950s style criminalization and repression, but I do think some intra-gay community prudishness would be useful. Perhaps this is where gay marriage becoming so mainstream can help out.
    , @Anon
    Glad you pointed that out. You’re absolutely right. As early as the 1960s public health noticed that even then gay men had the highest rate of STDs.

    Gays actually created AIDS HIV with their promiscuity. Billions have been spend not just in the diseases but the endless grant hustling poverty pimp do gooder agencies that raised awareness.

    Worst thing about the gay men is that many are bi sexual and their disease got into the heterosexual population

    There are a lot of reasons why health care is so expensive. 1 is free medical care for immigrants another is dealing with the gay men and their self inflicted diseases.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Buzz Mohawk
    As soon as women learn how to build railroads, they will put us all into boxcars and send us off camps.

    I'm not worried.

    As soon as women learn how to build railroads, they will put us all into boxcars and send us off camps.

    I’m not worried.

    Brilliant. Using similar logic, there’s no reason to fear “youths” while walking on the streets at 2 AM because they’d need access to nuclear weapons to do you any real harm.

    Read More
    • LOL: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Using similar logic, there’s no reason to fear “youths” while walking on the streets at 2 AM because they’d need access to nuclear weapons to do you any real harm.
     
    I'll start walking the wrong streets at 2 AM when women start building railroads.

    Anyway, my comment was a feeble attempt at humor, with a word left out even. I will try better next time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Steve Sailer
    Resentment is only human. But our culture discourages short men from being too obvious in their resentment of tall men, even though it's a pretty reasonable resentment. It's not that tall men are a protected class per se, although they are somewhat privileged, it's that short men are not at all privileged, so they can be insulted back.

    In recent decades in our culture, however, it's been considered highly inappropriate for men to make fun of lesbian animus, so there is less social cost for lesbians to not suppress their feelings.

    It's much like how Jewish journalists were shocked a couple of years ago when they got insulted back on Twitter for insulting whites in the press. That never happened in the press, so they barely noticed they were doing it a lot.

    The funny thing about Twitter insult wars is that it never results in the original aggressors saying, Oh, yeah, I guess I was getting out of line, maybe I should tone it down.

    Instead, they conclude: See, I was right to hate those bastards all along.

    The funny thing about Twitter insult wars is that it never results in the original aggressors saying, Oh, yeah, I guess I was getting out of line, maybe I should tone it down.

    Instead, they conclude: See, I was right to hate those bastards all along.

    You’re quite right about this. The difference, I think, is that people can dismiss the push-back they get on Twitter by telling themselves it’s coming from paid trolls, dumb teenagers “in their mother’s basement” or from a relative handful of nuts “out there”. In other words, the social correction isn’t coming from a “real” person. Those comforting excuses aren’t available if it’s a guy in the sandwich shop or bar who didn’t think much of someone’s comment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Buzz Mohawk
    This question seems relevant here:

    WHO IS JOHN GALT?

    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2250882/images/n-ATLAS-SHRUGGED-628x314.jpg

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Altai says:
    @Anonymous
    In case you were wondering:

    Why This Socialist Feminist Is For Hillary
    By Suzanna Danuta Walters
     


    My immigrant Jewish grandparents met in New York City, at a meeting of the Young People’s Socialist League on the Lower East Side
     

     

    Wasn’t a giveaway name (Though being a boomer from NYC named Suzanna is a bit of one) or face and wasn’t on her wiki, I was like ‘Huh she was so filled with anger and hatred I just assumed, guess not this time afterall’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. TheBoom says:

    still trying to puzzle out why I want was not shocked to find out she is Jewish. Has anyone noticed a pattern of Jewish women hating white men?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Jewish women hate White women as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. TheBoom says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Resentment is only human. But our culture discourages short men from being too obvious in their resentment of tall men, even though it's a pretty reasonable resentment. It's not that tall men are a protected class per se, although they are somewhat privileged, it's that short men are not at all privileged, so they can be insulted back.

    In recent decades in our culture, however, it's been considered highly inappropriate for men to make fun of lesbian animus, so there is less social cost for lesbians to not suppress their feelings.

    It's much like how Jewish journalists were shocked a couple of years ago when they got insulted back on Twitter for insulting whites in the press. That never happened in the press, so they barely noticed they were doing it a lot.

    The funny thing about Twitter insult wars is that it never results in the original aggressors saying, Oh, yeah, I guess I was getting out of line, maybe I should tone it down.

    Instead, they conclude: See, I was right to hate those bastards all along.

    “It’s much like how Jewish journalists were shocked a couple of years ago when they got insulted back on Twitter for insulting whites in the press. That never happened in the press, so they barely noticed they were doing it a lot.”

    That is a key reason that Jews have become so fanatical in their jihad against whites lately and why the ADL sms SPLC have been elevated to our chief censors. I would also add:

    2. Trump and Deplorables not even caring about the daily proclamations that Trump is Hitler 2.0 and even having the temerity to laugh about it

    3. Trump winning in spite of Jews making it very loud and clear that the US is Germany 1933.

    Read More
    • Agree: Malcolm X-Lax
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Dr. X says:

    What enrages me about this is not that she wrote it (I believe in freedom of the press) but that she’s significantly subsidized by the government, with my tax dollars, to do so.

    Every single college in this country, both public and private, pays no income taxes, no property taxes, and no taxes on its endowment. Beyond that, colleges typically get direct transfers to money from the government, plus the government gives “students” guaranteed loans and direct grants to attend. Without Uncle Sugar, she’d just be ranting on a street corner in the Lower East Side with a tin cup for donations instead of being a outrageously well-paid and tenured.

    And then there’s this:

    Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.

    Sounds ridiculous on the face of it, but it’s pretty much been government policy backed by the full force of the law for fifty years in both the public and private sectors under the guise of affirmative action.

    The thing I can’t wrap my mind around is this: when a Jewish lesbian professor whose job is subsidized by the government writes an article about openly hating and displacing men, which is actual government policy anyway, in the Jewish-controlled Washington Post… people still think you’re the one who’s some sort of conspiracy nut if you start complaining about the ZOG.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril
    The Washington Post is owned by Jeffrey Jorgensen n/k/a Jeff Bezos. I kinda doubt he's a m/o/t but let's see your evidence.

    Also, does this article say anything about white men? Gentile men? Or is it about men in general?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Sabril says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Resentment is only human. But our culture discourages short men from being too obvious in their resentment of tall men, even though it's a pretty reasonable resentment. It's not that tall men are a protected class per se, although they are somewhat privileged, it's that short men are not at all privileged, so they can be insulted back.

    In recent decades in our culture, however, it's been considered highly inappropriate for men to make fun of lesbian animus, so there is less social cost for lesbians to not suppress their feelings.

    It's much like how Jewish journalists were shocked a couple of years ago when they got insulted back on Twitter for insulting whites in the press. That never happened in the press, so they barely noticed they were doing it a lot.

    The funny thing about Twitter insult wars is that it never results in the original aggressors saying, Oh, yeah, I guess I was getting out of line, maybe I should tone it down.

    Instead, they conclude: See, I was right to hate those bastards all along.

    I would have to disagree with this, just look at online support forums for short people, particularly short men. You may find general complaints about how society treats them,but you won’t find post after post dripping with venemous hatred towards tall men.

    So even when short men are perfectly free to lash out at tall men without any cost or consequences, they generally don’t do it.

    The closest thing I can think of is male incels, many of whom do harbor the sort of hatred expressed by so many masculine lesbians. However most of these incels’ hatred is directed at the women who reject them and not the incels’ male competitors.

    And note that there is huge social stigma for a man who publicly hates women for rejecting him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Jack D says:

    The old canard is that the Battle of the Sexes will never be won because there is too much sleeping with the enemy. So one path to “victory” for the female side is “no more sleeping with the enemy”. For lesbian feminists this is a win-win. However, it’s not going to happen = most normal women are not inclined in that direction and will always be attracted to, and have relationships with, men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L Woods
    Ultimate interdependence does not preclude eternal rivalry nor irreconcilable conflicting interests. See: labor vs management. That old cliche is empty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. “Why can’t we hate men?”

    Why can’t we fire all women’s studies professors? Why can’t we junk all women’s studies programs? After all, they have said and done nothing to prevent the invasion of the West by patriarchs from the Middle East. They have not had a single march to show support for those girls who were trafficked in Rotherham, Telford, etc. They have never protested against honor killings, female genital mutilation, and all the other anti-women practices that these invaders are bringing with them.

    Fire them all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Alfa158 says:
    @Anonymous
    In case you were wondering:

    Why This Socialist Feminist Is For Hillary
    By Suzanna Danuta Walters
     


    My immigrant Jewish grandparents met in New York City, at a meeting of the Young People’s Socialist League on the Lower East Side
     

     

    I wasn’t wondering, in fact I notice that increasingly I don’t even have to bother wondering and just take it as a given.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this

    Yup, like the gal in charge of Theranos. #grrrrlpower

    This is basically Sarah Connor’s rant in T-2. I take it this dingbat will refuse medical attention from a male trauma surgeon if she drives off a cliff (like those 2 women in California recently), and will only allow a woman to rebuild her engine when the head gasket goes because she forgot to swap the coolant. And when she gets on a plane and a deep male voice announces he’s the captain, will she disembark and demand a woman pilot? Could be a long wait.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. Tulip says:

    Unfortunately, unlike Jews and Kulaks, you can’t just cart all the men off to concentration camps to starve or gas. You need some population in order to continue the species. The question is how to reduce them to a race of compliant thralls.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. If you happen to be applying for a job there are three or four forms at the end of every application. One establishes race/ethnicity and/or gender, another establishes veteran status and the last establishes disability status. This is an absolutely universal set of documents for employment in the US. Similar documents are provided for college admissions. The information collected from these documents is used for decisions about hiring, admissions, promotion, firing, layoffs, scholarships and other opportunities.
    Based on an assessment of the answers to these questions, applications are placed in a rank order and applications with certain answers are considered last in every pile and sometimes after being considered last, the recruiters keep looking.

    That’s what this is about. I wish we would all stop having this discussion about changing cultural norms and cultural Marxism and double standards and whatnot and whatever.

    Double standards are the law – not practiced by exception – they are practiced by routine. Everyone does it. If you are hiring or in HR, you do it. It’s the law. You don’t do it because it’s the culture, you do it because it’s the law.

    We have a legal precedent and everyone follows it. More than that: all of the people on the other side of this divide look at all of you, they look at all the conservatives on Twitter or the National Review … and they notice something:

    All you do is complain. All you do is argue – as if there was an argument.

    There is no argument. It’s the law.

    And look at how impotent you are. The GOP controls the House, controls the Senate, controls the Oval Office, and conservatives have a majority on the Supreme Court …

    And all you can do is complain. Your politicians argue about building a wall – because apparently – they are helpless with a historical majority – a majority that would be increased if they simply did their job and passed laws that would fix this problem – and yet they stand as if helpless.

    Your politicians are happy to let you do what you can – complain – so that they don’t have to do what they can – change the law.

    And so the Suzanna Danuta Walters look at this, see complainers, not doers, see people saying “please respect me, it’s only right, it’s only fair, please treat me fair”, and they answer with contempt.

    So what do we do? Argue? More? As if this were an argument?

    Read More
    • Replies: @EdwardM
    These duplicative, invidious, time-wasting forms at the end of all job applications are mandated, I assume, by Federal regulation. They have an OMB control number on them. I would like to see President Trump and Director Mulvaney abolish these requirements with a stroke of the pen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. I appreciate the honesty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. @sabril
    I wonder what psychological process causes masculine lesbians to hate men so much.

    Possible explanations I thought of:

    1. Everyone has anti-male bias, but with men it's balanced by a sense of identity with other men and in straight women it's balanced by sexual attraction.

    2. Lesbians realize at some level that they are physically and intellectually inferior to actual men which causes jealousy and bitterness.

    3. Women become lesbians if they are mistreated by men and this mistreatment results in lasting hatred.

    Anyway, I'm pretty confident that sexual misconduct by the likes of Harvey Weinstein is more an excuse than an actual reason for this woman's misandry.

    I wonder what psychological process causes masculine lesbians to hate men so much.

    I imagine its the same reason why some gays really, really hate women. Competition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril

    I imagine its the same reason why some gays really, really hate women. Competition.
     
    I haven't noticed much woman-hatred among gay men. In fact, a lot of gay men (the very feminine ones) seem to enjoy hanging out with women and being one of the girls.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Rosie says:
    @Kylie
    "As soon as women learn how to build railroads, they will put us all into boxcars and send us off camps."

    Women don't need to learn how to build railroads. Men have already done that. Men have also created the life-saving and labor-saving civilization that gives these vile women the leisure to denigrate men in such deluded, absolutist terms.

    Seen in this indisputably true context, it seems logical to hate men

    That’s the thing, Kylie. It seems perfectly logical to hate men when you focus exclusively on things you hate about them, and take the good they do for granted. Go figure!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Tulip says:

    What is amusing about these kinds of articles is who is her audience? Is it women? Is it men?

    So a man is going to give two $#!+s about whether this bimbo hates him?

    A woman is going to want to join the cause of a bunch of man-hating shrews to live the “awesome” bitter sterile cat-woman lifestyle?

    Its like reading a white supremacist writing a “love letter” to Blacks–you better get behind the cause of Whitey, son, or we’re gonna get really mad and do somethin’ nasty!

    But what are feminists really going to do? Make up more fake rape allegations? Pass some new stupid double-standard into law? Betta watch out or the man-hating GYNO-KLAN gonna come take you down Boy!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. Rosie says:
    @Stan d Mute

    But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money.
     
    We are well on our way to this now. And look at the unhinged hysterical reaction from women (ie Daily Mail)..

    And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs. In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.
     
    Who fixes the robot when it breaks?

    Is the root cause here the “babies are bad” mantra of the leftists? A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies. Without this function, a woman is an utterly pathetic man who doesn’t even have a penis and can’t pee standing up. These idiots just OD’d on the koolaid (purple drink) from Planned Spinsterhood intended for negro females and now rage that they are such laughably inferior men.

    Insanity.

    A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies. Without this function, a woman is an utterly pathetic man who doesn’t even have a penis and can’t pee standing up.

    I hope I don’t get banned for this, but on behalf of all normal women hoping for better relations between men and women, Fuck you!

    Read More
    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Sexy!

    Napoleon Bonaparte thought the same thing, and of course, fucked a lot of women.

    , @stillCARealist
    Be cool, Rosie. Mr. d Mute has already outed himself as a fierce atheist. That's the real source of his antipathy for other human beings. Don't take him personally since he can mean nothing personally.
    , @BB753
    Rosie, we've missed you! Lol!
    Well, you gotta admit that women without kids sooner or later turn bitter and go crazy. There's a biological reason for that.
    , @Stan d Mute
    No thanks, but surely there may be someone desperate enough around here. An Incel maybe?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Tulip says:

    “When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality.”

    –Friedrich Nietzsche

    Read More
    • LOL: Malcolm X-Lax
    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    Hard to believe Lou Salome wasn't into him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Rosie says:
    @Joe Walker
    So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.

    In other words, don't compete against women as equals as women are obviously inferior. Instead, throw in the towel immediately since that is the only way women can succeed against men. Women can only triumph when men do nothing.

    In other words, don’t compete against women as equals as women are obviously inferior.

    At what?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. sabril says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    I wonder what psychological process causes masculine lesbians to hate men so much.

     

    I imagine its the same reason why some gays really, really hate women. Competition.

    I imagine its the same reason why some gays really, really hate women. Competition.

    I haven’t noticed much woman-hatred among gay men. In fact, a lot of gay men (the very feminine ones) seem to enjoy hanging out with women and being one of the girls.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    How many gay men do you actually know or is that just another stereotype you’ve picked up from TV? Judging by your comments I highly doubt you move in a milieu where there are any gay men at all.

    Psychiatrists used to claim men were gay because their mommies were dominant and that gays hated women because of that. It was totally wrong of course as was every diagnosis and pronouncement the followers of Dr Fraud ever made.

    Effiminate gays are competitive with women about things like decorating cooking table setting and feminine things. They tend to like masculine gay men.

    I’ve noticed that in the workplace gay men supervisors tend to be harsh with women and very, very accomodating to men.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Rosie says:
    @sabril
    I think what will happen is that eventually technology will improve to the point where men and women actually don't need each other any more.

    Even today, women desperately need men to provide for them and protect them. This can be done directly, through marriage, or indirectly -- by government redistribution of wealth and public police forces. For men's part, we don't need women in an economic sense but we do have psychological need for sex and female validation.

    But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn't constantly ask her man for money. And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs. In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.

    Even today, women desperately need men to provide for them and protect them.

    I don’t know about other women, but as for myself, I would rather die than depend on you for anything, because I have self-respect, which Right-wing very often find intolerable in a woman.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    Everyone finds that intolerable. "I would rather die than depend on you for anything" is an extremely hostile phrase, practically a declaration of hatred and contempt, that anyone at all you said it to (if they have any self respect) would find it offensive.

    Are you in any kind of relationship?
    , @res

    I would rather die than depend on you for anything, because I have self-respect
     
    I think you might want to ponder how interdependent our society really is. And how likely it is that you depend on some men whose views you would find reprehensible if you knew them. Our infrastructure does not maintain itself. Nor does our garbage get picked up, our cars get repaired, etc. without many mostly male workers doing their jobs every day.

    A fun thought experiment is how the population of a major university (professors and administrators) would do if left on a desert island without their maintenance staff.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    One commentator makes huge generalisation about women, Rosie responds with another huge generalisation. News at 11.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Rosie says:
    @Jason Liu
    Any criticism of patriarchy demonstrates the need for more patriarchy. Her article is a prime example.

    Also look up her pic. Some people's politics can be dismissed on the basis of looks alone.

    Any criticism of patriarchy demonstrates the need for more patriarchy. Her article is a prime example.

    Now that’s a breathtaking piece of logic right there. I don’t doubt many feminists have said precisely the same, with at least as much reason as you have here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Rosie says:
    @eah
    questions of gender, feminist theory and politics, sexuality, and popular culture

    Given the continuing trend of (significantly) more women than men attending college, and considering what women typically, err, study, a thoughtful person ought to ponder the future...

    http://blogs-images.forbes.com/ccap/files/2012/02/blog-chart1.jpg

    Given the continuing trend of (significantly) more women than men attending college, and considering what women typically, err, study, a thoughtful person ought to ponder the future…

    Is this more a function of too few men, or too many women, going to college? I suspect it’s the latter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Unfortunately it doesn’t matter what science engineering math an American majors in. Indian and Asian H1 Bs are preferred for those jobs
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. sabril says:
    @TheJester
    The ugly feminist-generated war against men and the traditional family is going to end in a soft puff of Darwinian natural selection. Almost every reader on an HBD blog should recognize the process. Feminists and their anti-social ideology and dispositions will be purged from the gene pool ... since feminists generally do not stoop so low as to reproduce with men. Of course, if there are accidents, they have recourse to abortion.

    In the early 1970s, I taught university-level ethics courses. I always included a section on feminism (impossible today) in which the class explored the logical foundation and logical implications of the movement.

    I usually ended the section with a story about an aging, childless Gloria Steinem sitting in her rocker on the front porch watching a pudgy woman walk by with four daughters in tow. Gloria looks at the woman with the acrid disdain feminist reserve for traditional women with families. Then, it struck her who had won the "war" against men and their patriarchy.

    In a more recent and far-reaching scenario credited to Frau Angela Merkel, a feminist and generally childless European society imports millions of Muslim men and women to replace the missing demographic. Same outcome ... end of the feminist ideology as the genes and dispositions of its adherents are progressively purged from the gene pool.

    The problem: This interregnum from nonsense to sense takes time. It is our unfortunate lot in life to suffer the feminists until the biological process of natural selection runs its course.

    I agree that feminism is a self-correcting problem and what’s more the solution may come a lot quicker than people anticipate. Because it’s not just that feminists are having few babies, it’s also that ultra-religious groups — which teach women to follow traditional female roles — are having lots of babies.

    Even today, feminists in Israel are unable to get the government to combine the male-only and female-only prayer sections at the Western Wall. And the window of opportunity is quickly closing as the religious parties in Israel grow in influence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Israel’s a tiny country with a tiny population. The ultra orthodox have a unique position that enables the separation.

    An incredible number of hetero married women with children are very active in the hate men branch of the feminazis

    The entire feminazi thing was created by the Ford Rockefeller Woods McArthur foundations in the space of a few years. Motive was private sector union busting price inflation wage stagnation and to increase the work force by about 1/3 in just a few years.

    The increase of married women in The workplace coupled with the baby boomers entering the workplace gave the capitalists the vast army of the unemployed they needed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. L Woods says:
    @Jack D
    The old canard is that the Battle of the Sexes will never be won because there is too much sleeping with the enemy. So one path to "victory" for the female side is "no more sleeping with the enemy". For lesbian feminists this is a win-win. However, it's not going to happen = most normal women are not inclined in that direction and will always be attracted to, and have relationships with, men.

    Ultimate interdependence does not preclude eternal rivalry nor irreconcilable conflicting interests. See: labor vs management. That old cliche is empty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Anonymous[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies. Without this function, a woman is an utterly pathetic man who doesn’t even have a penis and can’t pee standing up.
     
    I hope I don't get banned for this, but on behalf of all normal women hoping for better relations between men and women, Fuck you!

    Sexy!

    Napoleon Bonaparte thought the same thing, and of course, fucked a lot of women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    He was a loser until he became a famous general, and even then he was cuckolded by the older single mother he married
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Rosie says:
    @sabril
    I wonder what psychological process causes masculine lesbians to hate men so much.

    Possible explanations I thought of:

    1. Everyone has anti-male bias, but with men it's balanced by a sense of identity with other men and in straight women it's balanced by sexual attraction.

    2. Lesbians realize at some level that they are physically and intellectually inferior to actual men which causes jealousy and bitterness.

    3. Women become lesbians if they are mistreated by men and this mistreatment results in lasting hatred.

    Anyway, I'm pretty confident that sexual misconduct by the likes of Harvey Weinstein is more an excuse than an actual reason for this woman's misandry.

    Anyway, I’m pretty confident that sexual misconduct by the likes of Harvey Weinstein is more an excuse than an actual reason for this woman’s misandry.

    You are correct here. Harvey W is nothe cause of the hatred. He is just a convenient, isolated target. The real reason is not hard to figure out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You are right.

    A few decades ago the feninazis were writing sneering articles about the 2 Mrs Bushes and Mrs Regean because they never really had careers after marriage and were “ just
    wives”. They never sneered at Mrs Kennedy for being “ just a wife” though
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. L Woods says:
    @sabril
    I wonder what psychological process causes masculine lesbians to hate men so much.

    Possible explanations I thought of:

    1. Everyone has anti-male bias, but with men it's balanced by a sense of identity with other men and in straight women it's balanced by sexual attraction.

    2. Lesbians realize at some level that they are physically and intellectually inferior to actual men which causes jealousy and bitterness.

    3. Women become lesbians if they are mistreated by men and this mistreatment results in lasting hatred.

    Anyway, I'm pretty confident that sexual misconduct by the likes of Harvey Weinstein is more an excuse than an actual reason for this woman's misandry.

    Uniquely, mankind has developed the capacity for reason and the ability to reshape his environment to his own ends. Overwhelmingly, these developments are expressed in the male. The lizard brain hasn’t caught up to this relatively recent reversal in the value of the sexes; hence, the manifest atavistic anti-male bias (expressed as male white knightism and female narcissism). We used to have this thing called “civilization” that worked to curb irrational and destructive impulses, but that’s out of fashion now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Uniquely, mankind has developed the capacity for reason and the ability to reshape his environment to his own ends. Overwhelmingly, these developments are expressed in the male.
     
    iSteve dudes say the darndest things.

    Hey Achmed, weren't you saying just the other day that women are the ones who always want to remodel the house? Rosie's first law again.

    As luck should have it, Mr. R caught me in the kitchen with the tape measure the other day, and accused me of "scheming." LOL. Yes, indeed. It's getting to be that time, again.

    BTW, upon reflection, it occurred to me that you might be able to figure out why women always want to remodel the house.

    If I'm not mistaken, Americans move house every five to seven years, or something like that. Well, by the time you've got your house just as you like it, something comes up and you sell your house. Then, you're back where you started at a new place, wanting to make it your own.

    The way to figure out if home improvement is driven by status concerns would be to look into how often women ask for repeat remodels in the same house. I am going to guess that they rarely do so, because they are not trying to keep up with the latest fashions. Rather, they prioritize, first asking hubby to deal with whatever they hate the most. Then, they move on to the next area that needs attention.

    Now, obviously, none of this makes remodeling any cheaper, but it does shed light on the why's and wherefores. You have to understand that a woman's home is the physical manifestation of some of her deepest fantasies going back to little girlhood.

    We really got terribly carried away with the ostentatious kitchens back in the aughties. You could spend tens of thousands on custom cabinets with innovative interior fittings that gave you, maybe a few square feet more storage space than a kitchen that cost half as much. For everyone's good, the days of the $75,000 kitchen remodel are over.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Rosie says:

    The world has little place for feminist anger.

    Equating anger with hate is at best wrong and at worst dishonest. Anger can only be taken seriously in the absence of hate. Anger can be assuaged; hate cannot. Once you decide to hate, you have taken away any reason the object of your anger might ever have had to hear you out. Indeed, it makes fair-minded people (who have heard you out) appear foolish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. Rosie says:

    We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.

    Somebody put me out of my misery!

    Read More
    • Replies: @jim jones
    https://i.redd.it/oyzaht2fw9311.png
    , @Anon
    And they say hysteria isn't real!

    7 posts and counting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. jim jones says:
    @Rosie

    We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
     
    Somebody put me out of my misery!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Rosie says:

    …and deep social belonging.

    Here she laments that gays have been left out, then points the finger at Christians. It appears she has a rather zero-sum view of this conflict. I must disagree with her about that. Gays and lesbians have genetic and cultural interests, too. I know it’s unfashionable in right-wing circles to say so, but gays probably have as much to lose from the destruction of Western Civilization as the rest of us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise and Foxy Brown on their collective butts.

    Well, Thelma and Louise ended up dead and accomplished nothing of import, so she has my blessing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Her doctoral adviser was Stanley Aronowitz. LOL. Thanks for encouraging her, Stanley!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Aronowitz

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " Her doctoral advise(o)r was Stanley Aronowitz"

    There is nothing more superfluous, worthless and pretentious than a so-called "Doctor" title.

    The most profound idiots I have ever encountered, I lived in Heidelberg for years a town bursting with "Doktoren", were the ones strutting around like human Peacocks, and informing the world of their "Doktortitel" at every chance.

    I can recall standing inside the door of a privat club while an American guy, without a membership card, was arguing with the doorman, and claiming that because he a "Doktor" they must let him in.

    AJM
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @ccz
    “Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.”

    I agree. I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters. Start with “step away from the power” and literally have men take a collective vacation and ignore the electric utility grid for a week. Let the gender studies professors keep the generators running and perform "hot wire" maintenance on the 500 kVA transmission lines that carry the electricity all those feminist social media influencers and complainers rely on to "power" their daily lives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGywP1-ZPAk

    I drove 3000+ miles around Alaska last February and went deep into BC on roads where you wouldn’t see 10 vehicles in 50 miles. Yet everywhere I went there were power lines strung by some Deplorable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. BenKenobi says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    " Professor of sociology, and director of womens gender studies program"

    Translation : Six figure paid BS artist, operating in the most usless and destructive "Scientific" field thinkable.

    " I love MO as much as the next woman"

    Translation : I am insane beyond hope, and I want everyone else to become insane.

    Holy shit , nutcases such as this abberation are actually in the majority in the now defunct US edumacation system, and millions of hapless parents are sending their air-brained kids to have the tiny remaining fragments of sanity removed from their already deceased brains.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    is it really so illogical to hate men? … I love Michelle Obama as much as the next woman

    She better watch out. They killed Joan Rivers for that kind of rhetoric.

    Ben Kenobi, Gatsby-esque infantry veteran and functional alcoholic.

    Read More
    • LOL: YetAnotherAnon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Rosie

    Even today, women desperately need men to provide for them and protect them.
     
    I don't know about other women, but as for myself, I would rather die than depend on you for anything, because I have self-respect, which Right-wing very often find intolerable in a woman.

    Everyone finds that intolerable. “I would rather die than depend on you for anything” is an extremely hostile phrase, practically a declaration of hatred and contempt, that anyone at all you said it to (if they have any self respect) would find it offensive.

    Are you in any kind of relationship?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Are you in any kind of relationship?
     
    I've been married for over 20 years, fortunately to a man who sees me as a human being, unlike Sabril, who admits himself that he is only interested in women insofar as they are of use to him.
    , @sabril
    She's just an hysterical female who's annoyed because I caught her in a lie and won't engage with her any more.

    Actually, she makes the case against feminism pretty well with her posting style.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Anonym
    We can, but there’s also the option of not taking them seriously. Which for them is quite likely less preferable.

    This woman be dykesplaining.

    How about “coochysplaining”?

    Or plays on “assert”, “emote”, or “complain”.

    I can’t take any more of the professor’s coochplaining about men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. res says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike
    Her real name is Tina Duckins.

    Yes, and if our TD truly was woke zhe would step aside for a woman.

    Read More
    • LOL: Rosie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. res says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    These things are rather confusing. I remember I've seen somewhere (forgot the source) that feminine lesbians are actually, most of them, scared of men & avoid them. Butch lesbians can be subdivided into a few categories, but perhaps 50-80% of them have had sex with men (not romantic involvement, just sex).

    So, if some lesbians crave for physical intercourse with men, these are mostly man-like bull-dyke tattooed lesbians, not femme types from porn fantasies.

    So, if some lesbians crave for physical intercourse with men, these are mostly man-like bull-dyke tattooed lesbians, not femme types from porn fantasies.

    My sense is that femmes are more likely to have been or later become involved with men. Perhaps we are talking about subtly different things? I am sure there is plenty of variation though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    Sure. Some- most?- "lesbians" who later become involved with men are basically "hasbians", i.e. they were not brain hard-wired to lesbianism. They are either bisexuals or heterosexuals who "experimented", at some time, with grrrls. True "femmes", i.e. feminine looking lesbians with sex orientation hard-wired in the brain generally avoid & loathe men.

    https://thoughtcatalog.com/cassie-meade/2014/08/13-awkward-truths-about-being-a-lipstick-lesbian/


    Butches, on the other hand, have this sex drive in some respects similar to men & not infrequently like to get the erotic tension "out of system" by having sex with men. Of course, this is not love.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoACusH2M44
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Rosie

    A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies. Without this function, a woman is an utterly pathetic man who doesn’t even have a penis and can’t pee standing up.
     
    I hope I don't get banned for this, but on behalf of all normal women hoping for better relations between men and women, Fuck you!

    Be cool, Rosie. Mr. d Mute has already outed himself as a fierce atheist. That’s the real source of his antipathy for other human beings. Don’t take him personally since he can mean nothing personally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. BB753 says:
    @Rosie

    A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies. Without this function, a woman is an utterly pathetic man who doesn’t even have a penis and can’t pee standing up.
     
    I hope I don't get banned for this, but on behalf of all normal women hoping for better relations between men and women, Fuck you!

    Rosie, we’ve missed you! Lol!
    Well, you gotta admit that women without kids sooner or later turn bitter and go crazy. There’s a biological reason for that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    There’s a biological reason for that.
     
    There may be a problem related to oxytocin deficiency. Women in traditional roles get a natural anti-depressant/anti-anxiety effect when nursing/caring for our children. Women in cubicles have the same amount of stress, if not more, but they don't get that help from Mother Nature. That's my theory anyway. I suspect it takes its toll after awhile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Anon[208] • Disclaimer says:

    “You don’t see short men writing articles about how much they hate tall men. You don’t see Asian-American men writing articles about how much they hate White men…but masculine lesbians seem to be dripping with hatred for men in a very extreme way.”

    Short men can put lifts in their shoes. Asian men can date Asian women, or at least play video games with hot girls in them. Feminists? What recourse do they have? They can put lifts in their shoes but still be short, and all the really hot/feminine girls will end up with hot guys (or rich guys) no matter what they do, and video games cater to Asian/White men who want the hot girls they can never get. It’s no wonder they are so jealous. They live in a world where they are constantly teased with that which they can never have; even dorky beta males have it way better than they do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I tend to lean toward the C. Pagilia explanation that angry lesbians are some sort of uniquely unbalanced types. They exist only to destroy.
    , @Rosie

    They live in a world where they are constantly teased with that which they can never have; even dorky beta males have it way better than they do.
     
    This of course raises the question why noone is asked to try to see things from their point of view, as we are asked to empathize with the "incels" who won't join a club that will have them as a member.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Rosie

    A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies. Without this function, a woman is an utterly pathetic man who doesn’t even have a penis and can’t pee standing up.
     
    I hope I don't get banned for this, but on behalf of all normal women hoping for better relations between men and women, Fuck you!

    No thanks, but surely there may be someone desperate enough around here. An Incel maybe?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. res says:
    @Rosie

    Even today, women desperately need men to provide for them and protect them.
     
    I don't know about other women, but as for myself, I would rather die than depend on you for anything, because I have self-respect, which Right-wing very often find intolerable in a woman.

    I would rather die than depend on you for anything, because I have self-respect

    I think you might want to ponder how interdependent our society really is. And how likely it is that you depend on some men whose views you would find reprehensible if you knew them. Our infrastructure does not maintain itself. Nor does our garbage get picked up, our cars get repaired, etc. without many mostly male workers doing their jobs every day.

    A fun thought experiment is how the population of a major university (professors and administrators) would do if left on a desert island without their maintenance staff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Nor does our garbage get picked up, our cars get repaired, etc. without many mostly male workers doing their jobs every day.
     
    I choose to believe Sabril doesn't represent them.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    No, she'll surely manage to build the computer mouse on her own. Its very mundane and common, after all.

    But yes, this is a pretty good example of how there's not much of a social contract in the modern world thanks to the overall result of material autonomy. Lots of fun subsequently results.

    , @Anonymous
    Isn't that ye olde (70s) feminist critique, a la Virginia Held? That Western Civilization is biased by an overweening, typically male belief in self-determination and authorship, a/k/a "genius," whereas women are inclined to recognize the dyads conceale under every fish-story of innovation a-go-go? BTW I do think there's something to this school of thought but most wahhhhmen lack the discipline to articulate it
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Incidentally, have you read more on Mindware? I was thinking there's an interesting case to be made for cognitive error in terms of rights to be explained in terms of loss aversion around page 95 or so. Once rights are gained, there is probably no way to "rationally" explain why they should be removed to the right holders.

    If you have an email address, I wouldn't mind going over the chapters and speculating on how they apply to the present day situations; I understand that you have doubts about Dr. Nisbett due to his combination error, but I think there's still a lot of value in the research.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Anon[267] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
     
    Somebody put me out of my misery!

    And they say hysteria isn’t real!

    7 posts and counting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    7 posts and counting.
     
    I'll admit I have trouble coping with stupidity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Forbes says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    As soon as women learn how to build railroads, they will put us all into boxcars and send us off camps.

    I'm not worried.

    But first, we’ll be sent to campus for the indoctrination…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Anon
    "You don’t see short men writing articles about how much they hate tall men. You don’t see Asian-American men writing articles about how much they hate White men...but masculine lesbians seem to be dripping with hatred for men in a very extreme way."

    Short men can put lifts in their shoes. Asian men can date Asian women, or at least play video games with hot girls in them. Feminists? What recourse do they have? They can put lifts in their shoes but still be short, and all the really hot/feminine girls will end up with hot guys (or rich guys) no matter what they do, and video games cater to Asian/White men who want the hot girls they can never get. It's no wonder they are so jealous. They live in a world where they are constantly teased with that which they can never have; even dorky beta males have it way better than they do.

    I tend to lean toward the C. Pagilia explanation that angry lesbians are some sort of uniquely unbalanced types. They exist only to destroy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Rosie says:
    @res

    I would rather die than depend on you for anything, because I have self-respect
     
    I think you might want to ponder how interdependent our society really is. And how likely it is that you depend on some men whose views you would find reprehensible if you knew them. Our infrastructure does not maintain itself. Nor does our garbage get picked up, our cars get repaired, etc. without many mostly male workers doing their jobs every day.

    A fun thought experiment is how the population of a major university (professors and administrators) would do if left on a desert island without their maintenance staff.

    Nor does our garbage get picked up, our cars get repaired, etc. without many mostly male workers doing their jobs every day.

    I choose to believe Sabril doesn’t represent them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @res

    I would rather die than depend on you for anything, because I have self-respect
     
    I think you might want to ponder how interdependent our society really is. And how likely it is that you depend on some men whose views you would find reprehensible if you knew them. Our infrastructure does not maintain itself. Nor does our garbage get picked up, our cars get repaired, etc. without many mostly male workers doing their jobs every day.

    A fun thought experiment is how the population of a major university (professors and administrators) would do if left on a desert island without their maintenance staff.

    No, she’ll surely manage to build the computer mouse on her own. Its very mundane and common, after all.

    But yes, this is a pretty good example of how there’s not much of a social contract in the modern world thanks to the overall result of material autonomy. Lots of fun subsequently results.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Corvinus says:
    @sabril
    I think what will happen is that eventually technology will improve to the point where men and women actually don't need each other any more.

    Even today, women desperately need men to provide for them and protect them. This can be done directly, through marriage, or indirectly -- by government redistribution of wealth and public police forces. For men's part, we don't need women in an economic sense but we do have psychological need for sex and female validation.

    But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn't constantly ask her man for money. And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs. In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.

    “But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money. And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs.”

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    “In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.”

    Not as many as you think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.
     
    Why should human wetware be any less hackable than machinery of any other type? Is it not obvious that modernity has already compromised it from its biological purpose pretty significantly?
    , @Rosie

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.
     
    Incels, MGTOWs, or whatever you want to call them, project their utilitarian attitude towards other human beings on to the rest of us.
    , @res
    A Corvinus comment I agree with. So much for that ice concession in Hell.
    , @AnotherDad

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    “In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.”

    Not as many as you think.
     
    I tend to think you are correct. Man/woman is comfy, complementary--and fun!

    I'd imagine that we're already evolving where there is a selection for genotypes, where when presented with the switching and hormonal cascade kicked off by having XX, the resulting phenotype actually *really likes* being a woman. (Not a man, or a tedious shrew.) In other words, while male selected and female selected genotypes are always sort of "at war" in the gene pool, one would suspect we'll be getting--or are getting--selection for stronger sexual "switching" that makes women more womanly and men more manly given whatever other genes are at hand. I.e. selection for enhanced sexual dimorphism to actually keep the sexes interested and reproducing. The only question is will this be to slow to be relevant?

    Faster is the cultural side: White "liberals" are a--too slowly--dying breed with their 1.3ish fertility. My impression is young white men are decreasingly willing to wife up any SJW garbage, so hopefully their dying off speeds up. Muslims, Mormons, Trad-Catholics, Quiverfull leaning Christians, Ultra-orthodox Jews. Those pro-natal folks will be the ones inheriting the earth. Along unfortunately with the Africans.

    The big problem for the West remains just keeping the riff-raff out while their own society recovers. And unfortunately we've empowered too many Suzanna Walters and their fellow-traveller Merkel types endlessly bitching and whining and destroying what our ancestors built.
    , @sabril

    But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.
     
    We're internally programmed to enjoy procreative sex, and yet doing with birth control still feels pretty good.

    We're internally programmed to like sugary foods and drinks, and yet Coke Zero tastes excellent.

    A robot waifu would be like Sean Young's character in Blade Runner. Beautiful, devoted, and very difficult to distinguish from the real thing. Except that she won't get fat; she won't make up false accusations of domestic abuse or sexual assault; she won't suddenly decide she needs to leave you, take half your stuff, and start f*cking other men; she won't hysterically insist on having the last word in every discussion; she won't freak out at any observation that puts women in a negative light.

    I'm not saying all men would take it, but I think it would get pretty popular once people get past the initial stigma.
    , @Kaz
    Yeah but the idea of marriage and sustained relationships would die.

    People can barely manage marriage right now.

    Take away complete monetary and physical necessity and most marriages are done.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Forbes says:
    @sabril
    I wonder what psychological process causes masculine lesbians to hate men so much.

    Possible explanations I thought of:

    1. Everyone has anti-male bias, but with men it's balanced by a sense of identity with other men and in straight women it's balanced by sexual attraction.

    2. Lesbians realize at some level that they are physically and intellectually inferior to actual men which causes jealousy and bitterness.

    3. Women become lesbians if they are mistreated by men and this mistreatment results in lasting hatred.

    Anyway, I'm pretty confident that sexual misconduct by the likes of Harvey Weinstein is more an excuse than an actual reason for this woman's misandry.

    What did Harvey Weinstein ever do to a lesbian to deserve their hatred?

    Were any of his alleged victims actual lesbians?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Lesbians see themselves as the defenders and spokes critters of all
    women. Also, their biggest issue is women’s issues which includes sex assault and harassment
    , @res

    Were any of his alleged victims actual lesbians?
     
    The lesbian version of a white knight? Or put another way, recruiting?
    , @sabril
    It might very well be that subconsciously, this lesbian is envious of Harvey Weinstein and wishes she were in a position to trade opportunities for sexual favors from attractive young women.

    But having thought about it, I think it's more likely that she just hates men in general and she knows that Harvey Weinstein is a useful example to use to stoke the flames of hatred against men.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Rosie says:
    @Anon
    "You don’t see short men writing articles about how much they hate tall men. You don’t see Asian-American men writing articles about how much they hate White men...but masculine lesbians seem to be dripping with hatred for men in a very extreme way."

    Short men can put lifts in their shoes. Asian men can date Asian women, or at least play video games with hot girls in them. Feminists? What recourse do they have? They can put lifts in their shoes but still be short, and all the really hot/feminine girls will end up with hot guys (or rich guys) no matter what they do, and video games cater to Asian/White men who want the hot girls they can never get. It's no wonder they are so jealous. They live in a world where they are constantly teased with that which they can never have; even dorky beta males have it way better than they do.

    They live in a world where they are constantly teased with that which they can never have; even dorky beta males have it way better than they do.

    This of course raises the question why noone is asked to try to see things from their point of view, as we are asked to empathize with the “incels” who won’t join a club that will have them as a member.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Forbes says:
    @Paleo Retiree
    Why can’t we hate lesbian academics?

    Indifference would be my recommended course. I couldn’t bother expending emotional energy on lesbians…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Rosie says:
    @Anon
    And they say hysteria isn't real!

    7 posts and counting.

    7 posts and counting.

    I’ll admit I have trouble coping with stupidity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Rosie says:
    @BB753
    Rosie, we've missed you! Lol!
    Well, you gotta admit that women without kids sooner or later turn bitter and go crazy. There's a biological reason for that.

    There’s a biological reason for that.

    There may be a problem related to oxytocin deficiency. Women in traditional roles get a natural anti-depressant/anti-anxiety effect when nursing/caring for our children. Women in cubicles have the same amount of stress, if not more, but they don’t get that help from Mother Nature. That’s my theory anyway. I suspect it takes its toll after awhile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It’s true about the pregnancy raising little ones euphoria. But it wears off after about 12 years.
    , @BB753
    Yes, the mere near presence of a child is soothing.. when they are quiet! Lol!
    , @Lot
    Seems correct to me, though in traditional societies childless women would bond closely to other children in the family.

    Breast and ovarian cancer risk is higher in women who do not have children, though most ovarian cancer is caused by STDs. This ovarian cancer higher risk for childless females also extends to most other mammals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Corvinus
    "But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money. And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs."

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    "In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way."

    Not as many as you think.

    But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    Why should human wetware be any less hackable than machinery of any other type? Is it not obvious that modernity has already compromised it from its biological purpose pretty significantly?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Why should human wetware be any less hackable than machinery of any other type?
     
    Because it is much more complex? In any case, an interesting question which we will likely get some empirical answers for in the not too distant future.

    Is it not obvious that modernity has already compromised it from its biological purpose pretty significantly?
     
    It has, but I think that is more an indication of the evolved behavior having an imperfect mapping to its biological purpose. Exploiting that disconnect is very hackable IMHO. Changing the evolved behavior not so much. I think the human need for interpersonal bonding is on the less hackable side. The need for sexual release on the other hand...
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Why should human wetware be any less hackable than machinery of any other type?
     
    You can hack the machinery, but you cannot hack the humanity. Now cinch up your straps and tuck that materialist slip out of sight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Tulip
    "When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality."

    --Friedrich Nietzsche

    Hard to believe Lou Salome wasn’t into him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Tiny Duck
    I don't think you understand the concept of privilege and punching down


    The responses here prove the articles poinnt


    white men are way too fragile and needs to be contained

    white men are way too fragile and needs to be contained

    I’ll bite on this one: Not agreed on the fragile part, but otherwise–yeah.

    White men are just too damn dangerous. We should be penned up in reservations, with any bad thinking women who wish to join us.

    Europe is one. All non-white men there should be moved to safety along with any women wishing to be saved, then the whole thing fenced off. Same in America. Draw as short a fencing line as you can–around the US-Mexico border seems logical–move all non-white men above it below, along with all non-deplorable women–including Suzanna Dunata Walters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    All non-white men there should be moved to safety along with any women wishing to be saved, then the whole thing fenced off.
     
    That really would be best for all concerned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @TelfoedJohn
    Lesbians dominate feminism because they have more testosterone. If they had any self-awareness, they’d realise the implications of that. Lately, trannies have been directing the vanguard of feminism - they have even more testosterone. The future is Dwayne Johnson in a wig and bra, telling people that men are bad.

    Have you heard about the allegedly self identified trans boys have been winning the girls high school track meets ?

    Concerned parents of girl athelests are objecting . The inclusion of men and boys pretending to be women could destroy girls sports. And self identifying as a trans gender as well as high school sports is a sure admission to college and scholarships

    The old Soviet bloc used to inject real women athletes with testosterone, steroids and other things to produce
    Olympic winners. Now America is just making things simpler. To join the girls team just self identify as a girl.

    This trend could destroy girls and women’s sports. Too bad but women’s sports has always been a full employment program for lesbians who are the enemy of real women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    This trend could destroy girls and women’s sports. Too bad but women’s sports has always been a full employment program for lesbians who are the enemy of real women.
     
    This is yet another one of those issues that shows "feminists" up for the phonies they are. At best, they hush up when the interests of groups higher on the PC totem pole are at stake.
    , @TelfoedJohn

    for lesbians who are the enemy of real women.
     
    This is the crux of the matter. Lesbian feminists do not represent women, but they bark so loudly many men and women think they do. It’s as if an Eskimo Rights group had been taken over by people who really love building sandcastles. All the talk about inclusion and equity disappears if you were to point out that straight women, married women, women with children, conservative women, etc are under-represented in feminism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    There’s a biological reason for that.
     
    There may be a problem related to oxytocin deficiency. Women in traditional roles get a natural anti-depressant/anti-anxiety effect when nursing/caring for our children. Women in cubicles have the same amount of stress, if not more, but they don't get that help from Mother Nature. That's my theory anyway. I suspect it takes its toll after awhile.

    It’s true about the pregnancy raising little ones euphoria. But it wears off after about 12 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    God in his infinite wisdom sends us teenagers when we already learned to love them!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. BB753 says:
    @Rosie

    There’s a biological reason for that.
     
    There may be a problem related to oxytocin deficiency. Women in traditional roles get a natural anti-depressant/anti-anxiety effect when nursing/caring for our children. Women in cubicles have the same amount of stress, if not more, but they don't get that help from Mother Nature. That's my theory anyway. I suspect it takes its toll after awhile.

    Yes, the mere near presence of a child is soothing.. when they are quiet! Lol!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. DFH says:
    @Anonymous
    Sexy!

    Napoleon Bonaparte thought the same thing, and of course, fucked a lot of women.

    He was a loser until he became a famous general, and even then he was cuckolded by the older single mother he married

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Napoleon married Josephine when he was 26 and she was 32. It was an incredibly quick fall in love for the young man, and it's safe to say that she had more sexual experience than he did. Prior to her, he had a (failed) relationship and engagement with Desiree Clary, the future queen of Sweden, and prior to that, well, the occasional prostitute: the usual sexual resource for young, unmarried men at the time. Josephine, on the other hand, was legendary in Parisian society for her sexual skills. Prior to Bonaparte, she was the mistress of Paul Barras, the de facto head of the Directory who was an integral patron for young Napoleon: it is thanks to him that Napoleon got to crush the 13 Vendemiaire uprising. That pretty much kick-started everything for him after the close call of the immediate post-Robespierre environment.

    During the Italian campaign, he was loyal to her, but she wasn't loyal to him. The time period when he figured out what was going on behind his back coincided with his skyrocketing to power-Egypt, the consulship, etc. And from that point onwards, it was always the other way around: she was always loyal to him, but he slept around. I suppose that's karma.

    Ironically enough, Josephine seemed to more authentically fall in love with Napoleon around this time. But while he'd always hold a special place in his heart for her, it was never the same: the enrapturement of 1796 was permanently broken. The power dynamic in the relationship had been completely reversed.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Rosie says:
    @Lars Porsena
    Everyone finds that intolerable. "I would rather die than depend on you for anything" is an extremely hostile phrase, practically a declaration of hatred and contempt, that anyone at all you said it to (if they have any self respect) would find it offensive.

    Are you in any kind of relationship?

    Are you in any kind of relationship?

    I’ve been married for over 20 years, fortunately to a man who sees me as a human being, unlike Sabril, who admits himself that he is only interested in women insofar as they are of use to him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Rosie says:
    @AnotherDad

    white men are way too fragile and needs to be contained
     
    I'll bite on this one: Not agreed on the fragile part, but otherwise--yeah.

    White men are just too damn dangerous. We should be penned up in reservations, with any bad thinking women who wish to join us.

    Europe is one. All non-white men there should be moved to safety along with any women wishing to be saved, then the whole thing fenced off. Same in America. Draw as short a fencing line as you can--around the US-Mexico border seems logical--move all non-white men above it below, along with all non-deplorable women--including Suzanna Dunata Walters.

    All non-white men there should be moved to safety along with any women wishing to be saved, then the whole thing fenced off.

    That really would be best for all concerned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Rosie says:
    @Corvinus
    "But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money. And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs."

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    "In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way."

    Not as many as you think.

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    Incels, MGTOWs, or whatever you want to call them, project their utilitarian attitude towards other human beings on to the rest of us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Malcolm X-Lax
    Her doctoral adviser was Stanley Aronowitz. LOL. Thanks for encouraging her, Stanley!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Aronowitz

    ” Her doctoral advise(o)r was Stanley Aronowitz”

    There is nothing more superfluous, worthless and pretentious than a so-called “Doctor” title.

    The most profound idiots I have ever encountered, I lived in Heidelberg for years a town bursting with “Doktoren”, were the ones strutting around like human Peacocks, and informing the world of their “Doktortitel” at every chance.

    I can recall standing inside the door of a privat club while an American guy, without a membership card, was arguing with the doorman, and claiming that because he a “Doktor” they must let him in.

    AJM

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    I used to work with a brilliant thoracic surgeon who would chide me whenever I'd call him doctor. "Call me, Jim," he'd say. I always snicker at these "doctors" of education, women's studies, african american studies etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. res says:
    @Corvinus
    "But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money. And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs."

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    "In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way."

    Not as many as you think.

    A Corvinus comment I agree with. So much for that ice concession in Hell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    LOL!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Anon[280] • Disclaimer says:
    @Forbes
    What did Harvey Weinstein ever do to a lesbian to deserve their hatred?

    Were any of his alleged victims actual lesbians?

    Lesbians see themselves as the defenders and spokes critters of all
    women. Also, their biggest issue is women’s issues which includes sex assault and harassment

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. res says:
    @Forbes
    What did Harvey Weinstein ever do to a lesbian to deserve their hatred?

    Were any of his alleged victims actual lesbians?

    Were any of his alleged victims actual lesbians?

    The lesbian version of a white knight? Or put another way, recruiting?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Corvinus
    "But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money. And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs."

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    "In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way."

    Not as many as you think.

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    “In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.”

    Not as many as you think.

    I tend to think you are correct. Man/woman is comfy, complementary–and fun!

    I’d imagine that we’re already evolving where there is a selection for genotypes, where when presented with the switching and hormonal cascade kicked off by having XX, the resulting phenotype actually *really likes* being a woman. (Not a man, or a tedious shrew.) In other words, while male selected and female selected genotypes are always sort of “at war” in the gene pool, one would suspect we’ll be getting–or are getting–selection for stronger sexual “switching” that makes women more womanly and men more manly given whatever other genes are at hand. I.e. selection for enhanced sexual dimorphism to actually keep the sexes interested and reproducing. The only question is will this be to slow to be relevant?

    Faster is the cultural side: White “liberals” are a–too slowly–dying breed with their 1.3ish fertility. My impression is young white men are decreasingly willing to wife up any SJW garbage, so hopefully their dying off speeds up. Muslims, Mormons, Trad-Catholics, Quiverfull leaning Christians, Ultra-orthodox Jews. Those pro-natal folks will be the ones inheriting the earth. Along unfortunately with the Africans.

    The big problem for the West remains just keeping the riff-raff out while their own society recovers. And unfortunately we’ve empowered too many Suzanna Walters and their fellow-traveller Merkel types endlessly bitching and whining and destroying what our ancestors built.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    There's a pretty decent blackpill case to be made that any selection has been broken by the Pill, as it is evolutionarily novel and selection works pretty slowly - the dinosaurs, for example, did not really survive the evolutionarily novel extinction event that hit them.

    The link between sex and procreation is so strong in nature that its probable that most of our wetware behaviors evolved primarily to seek sex, with procreation being just a side effect(and one should note, the high fertility groups are also those which for religious reasons, object to birth control).

    With that step broken, I think a decent case can be made that we will not be able to outwit ourselves any more than the rats of Rat Utopia outwitted their behaviorial sinks. What if a step in the Krebs Cycle of cells, for example, was suddenly blocked because of a new chemical introduced almost universally to their environment? The likelihood that they will evolve a workaround is somewhat dubious, its probably just death or at least, significant death.
    , @Rosie

    My impression is young white men are decreasingly willing to wife up any SJW garbage, so hopefully their dying off speeds up.
     
    The problem with this is that women's potential as mothers is not clear until they have children. IMO motherhood potential is femininity, not submissiveness or high heels or other shallow proxies like that. Women change radically when we have children.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4026981/

    , @sabril

    Faster is the cultural side:
     
    Agreed. From the perspective of genetic evolution, 150 years is the blink of an eye. And yet if you do the math, that's how long it will take for the ultra-religious to dominate the West demographically.

    As I mentioned above, it's already happening in Israel. The feminists in Israel are demanding access by women to traditionally male areas: The male prayer section at the Western Wall and Wilson's Arch. The usual script is that women try to invade traditionally male spaces and succeed by screaming to Big Daddy Government, but the religious right in Israel seems to be holding the line.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. res says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.
     
    Why should human wetware be any less hackable than machinery of any other type? Is it not obvious that modernity has already compromised it from its biological purpose pretty significantly?

    Why should human wetware be any less hackable than machinery of any other type?

    Because it is much more complex? In any case, an interesting question which we will likely get some empirical answers for in the not too distant future.

    Is it not obvious that modernity has already compromised it from its biological purpose pretty significantly?

    It has, but I think that is more an indication of the evolved behavior having an imperfect mapping to its biological purpose. Exploiting that disconnect is very hackable IMHO. Changing the evolved behavior not so much. I think the human need for interpersonal bonding is on the less hackable side. The need for sexual release on the other hand…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    There is an active market to find a way to exploit that need for interpersonal relationships; those seeking to deliver on that market are not seeking to increase procreation because rather to maximize the dopamine output in order to increase the addictiveness of their content.

    As such, the incentives are aligned to encourage human ingenuity to find a way to destroy humanity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Stan d Mute
    On no! Just when we thought Janet Reno was gone, she’s merely changed her name?

    https://www.phillymag.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/06/4-519x705.jpeg

    Pure visable insanity, in it’s most extreme apparition.

    Just for the fun of it I would really love to have a conversation with her, as she represents everything a sane person would reject.

    AJM

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Your understanding of what 'conversation' means probably differs significantly from hers...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. sabril says:
    @Dr. X
    What enrages me about this is not that she wrote it (I believe in freedom of the press) but that she's significantly subsidized by the government, with my tax dollars, to do so.

    Every single college in this country, both public and private, pays no income taxes, no property taxes, and no taxes on its endowment. Beyond that, colleges typically get direct transfers to money from the government, plus the government gives "students" guaranteed loans and direct grants to attend. Without Uncle Sugar, she'd just be ranting on a street corner in the Lower East Side with a tin cup for donations instead of being a outrageously well-paid and tenured.

    And then there's this:

    Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
     
    Sounds ridiculous on the face of it, but it's pretty much been government policy backed by the full force of the law for fifty years in both the public and private sectors under the guise of affirmative action.

    The thing I can't wrap my mind around is this: when a Jewish lesbian professor whose job is subsidized by the government writes an article about openly hating and displacing men, which is actual government policy anyway, in the Jewish-controlled Washington Post... people still think you're the one who's some sort of conspiracy nut if you start complaining about the ZOG.

    The Washington Post is owned by Jeffrey Jorgensen n/k/a Jeff Bezos. I kinda doubt he’s a m/o/t but let’s see your evidence.

    Also, does this article say anything about white men? Gentile men? Or is it about men in general?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    The Washington Post is owned by Jeffrey Jorgensen n/k/a Jeff Bezos. I kinda doubt he’s a m/o/t but let’s see your evidence.

     

    Katherine Meyer Graham ran the WaPo for about forty years beginning in the '60s. Bezos's conglomerate owns it today, but Martin Baron, the current editor, is a certified MOT:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Baron
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Anon[280] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Anyway, I’m pretty confident that sexual misconduct by the likes of Harvey Weinstein is more an excuse than an actual reason for this woman’s misandry.

     

    You are correct here. Harvey W is nothe cause of the hatred. He is just a convenient, isolated target. The real reason is not hard to figure out.

    You are right.

    A few decades ago the feninazis were writing sneering articles about the 2 Mrs Bushes and Mrs Regean because they never really had careers after marriage and were “ just
    wives”. They never sneered at Mrs Kennedy for being “ just a wife” though

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @AnotherDad

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    “In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.”

    Not as many as you think.
     
    I tend to think you are correct. Man/woman is comfy, complementary--and fun!

    I'd imagine that we're already evolving where there is a selection for genotypes, where when presented with the switching and hormonal cascade kicked off by having XX, the resulting phenotype actually *really likes* being a woman. (Not a man, or a tedious shrew.) In other words, while male selected and female selected genotypes are always sort of "at war" in the gene pool, one would suspect we'll be getting--or are getting--selection for stronger sexual "switching" that makes women more womanly and men more manly given whatever other genes are at hand. I.e. selection for enhanced sexual dimorphism to actually keep the sexes interested and reproducing. The only question is will this be to slow to be relevant?

    Faster is the cultural side: White "liberals" are a--too slowly--dying breed with their 1.3ish fertility. My impression is young white men are decreasingly willing to wife up any SJW garbage, so hopefully their dying off speeds up. Muslims, Mormons, Trad-Catholics, Quiverfull leaning Christians, Ultra-orthodox Jews. Those pro-natal folks will be the ones inheriting the earth. Along unfortunately with the Africans.

    The big problem for the West remains just keeping the riff-raff out while their own society recovers. And unfortunately we've empowered too many Suzanna Walters and their fellow-traveller Merkel types endlessly bitching and whining and destroying what our ancestors built.

    There’s a pretty decent blackpill case to be made that any selection has been broken by the Pill, as it is evolutionarily novel and selection works pretty slowly – the dinosaurs, for example, did not really survive the evolutionarily novel extinction event that hit them.

    The link between sex and procreation is so strong in nature that its probable that most of our wetware behaviors evolved primarily to seek sex, with procreation being just a side effect(and one should note, the high fertility groups are also those which for religious reasons, object to birth control).

    With that step broken, I think a decent case can be made that we will not be able to outwit ourselves any more than the rats of Rat Utopia outwitted their behaviorial sinks. What if a step in the Krebs Cycle of cells, for example, was suddenly blocked because of a new chemical introduced almost universally to their environment? The likelihood that they will evolve a workaround is somewhat dubious, its probably just death or at least, significant death.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Rosie says:
    @L Woods
    Uniquely, mankind has developed the capacity for reason and the ability to reshape his environment to his own ends. Overwhelmingly, these developments are expressed in the male. The lizard brain hasn't caught up to this relatively recent reversal in the value of the sexes; hence, the manifest atavistic anti-male bias (expressed as male white knightism and female narcissism). We used to have this thing called "civilization" that worked to curb irrational and destructive impulses, but that's out of fashion now.

    Uniquely, mankind has developed the capacity for reason and the ability to reshape his environment to his own ends. Overwhelmingly, these developments are expressed in the male.

    iSteve dudes say the darndest things.

    Hey Achmed, weren’t you saying just the other day that women are the ones who always want to remodel the house? Rosie’s first law again.

    As luck should have it, Mr. R caught me in the kitchen with the tape measure the other day, and accused me of “scheming.” LOL. Yes, indeed. It’s getting to be that time, again.

    BTW, upon reflection, it occurred to me that you might be able to figure out why women always want to remodel the house.

    If I’m not mistaken, Americans move house every five to seven years, or something like that. Well, by the time you’ve got your house just as you like it, something comes up and you sell your house. Then, you’re back where you started at a new place, wanting to make it your own.

    The way to figure out if home improvement is driven by status concerns would be to look into how often women ask for repeat remodels in the same house. I am going to guess that they rarely do so, because they are not trying to keep up with the latest fashions. Rather, they prioritize, first asking hubby to deal with whatever they hate the most. Then, they move on to the next area that needs attention.

    Now, obviously, none of this makes remodeling any cheaper, but it does shed light on the why’s and wherefores. You have to understand that a woman’s home is the physical manifestation of some of her deepest fantasies going back to little girlhood.

    We really got terribly carried away with the ostentatious kitchens back in the aughties. You could spend tens of thousands on custom cabinets with innovative interior fittings that gave you, maybe a few square feet more storage space than a kitchen that cost half as much. For everyone’s good, the days of the $75,000 kitchen remodel are over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    BTW, little girls' fantasies have gotten rather pricey of late. But no worries,a family of modest means can surely come up with 6.5K for the Fairy Tale house from Posh Tots:

    http://www.poshtots.com/_common/_assets/product_images/47/33126_PD4.jpg

    On the other hand, if money is no object ...
    , @Rosie
    The Victorian Playhouse will set you back a mere 27K.

    http://www.poshtots.com/_common/_assets/product_images/49/519_PD7.jpg
    , @Anon
    My grandmother rebuilt her house after the original one mostly burned down, so there was money from the insurance.

    if your date mentions anything about her Posh Tots playhouse
     
    If my date still used a playhouse I'd be somewhat disturbed, to say the least.
    , @MBlanc46
    Women always want to remodel the house because they’re perpetually dissatisfied. The shoes are never quite right. The outfit is never quite right. The house is never quite right. The boyfriend/husband is never quite right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. sabril says:
    @Stan d Mute

    But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money.
     
    We are well on our way to this now. And look at the unhinged hysterical reaction from women (ie Daily Mail)..

    And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs. In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.
     
    Who fixes the robot when it breaks?

    Is the root cause here the “babies are bad” mantra of the leftists? A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies. Without this function, a woman is an utterly pathetic man who doesn’t even have a penis and can’t pee standing up. These idiots just OD’d on the koolaid (purple drink) from Planned Spinsterhood intended for negro females and now rage that they are such laughably inferior men.

    Insanity.

    Who fixes the robot when it breaks?

    Another robot. Because at a certain point, AI is advanced enough to be self-sustaining just like humans (as a group) are self-sustaining.

    A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies.

    I wouldn’t go that far, but I agree that’s her primary evolutionary purpose. And more importantly, the reason why Western culture is so deferential to and protective of women.

    That’s one of the many reasons feminism is so annoying. Women expect men to fulfill their traditional responsibilities of providing and protecting but are often reluctant to uphold their own traditional responsibilities of being devoted mothers and wives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @res

    Why should human wetware be any less hackable than machinery of any other type?
     
    Because it is much more complex? In any case, an interesting question which we will likely get some empirical answers for in the not too distant future.

    Is it not obvious that modernity has already compromised it from its biological purpose pretty significantly?
     
    It has, but I think that is more an indication of the evolved behavior having an imperfect mapping to its biological purpose. Exploiting that disconnect is very hackable IMHO. Changing the evolved behavior not so much. I think the human need for interpersonal bonding is on the less hackable side. The need for sexual release on the other hand...

    There is an active market to find a way to exploit that need for interpersonal relationships; those seeking to deliver on that market are not seeking to increase procreation because rather to maximize the dopamine output in order to increase the addictiveness of their content.

    As such, the incentives are aligned to encourage human ingenuity to find a way to destroy humanity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Anon[280] • Disclaimer says:
    @sabril
    I agree that feminism is a self-correcting problem and what's more the solution may come a lot quicker than people anticipate. Because it's not just that feminists are having few babies, it's also that ultra-religious groups -- which teach women to follow traditional female roles -- are having lots of babies.

    Even today, feminists in Israel are unable to get the government to combine the male-only and female-only prayer sections at the Western Wall. And the window of opportunity is quickly closing as the religious parties in Israel grow in influence.

    Israel’s a tiny country with a tiny population. The ultra orthodox have a unique position that enables the separation.

    An incredible number of hetero married women with children are very active in the hate men branch of the feminazis

    The entire feminazi thing was created by the Ford Rockefeller Woods McArthur foundations in the space of a few years. Motive was private sector union busting price inflation wage stagnation and to increase the work force by about 1/3 in just a few years.

    The increase of married women in The workplace coupled with the baby boomers entering the workplace gave the capitalists the vast army of the unemployed they needed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril

    The ultra orthodox have a unique position that enables the separation.
     
    I don't think it's unique; in any democracy a minority that is significant and cohesive can set the agenda on issues which are important to them.

    Israel’s a tiny country with a tiny population
     
    It's not the overall size that matters so much as the percentages.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @ccz
    “Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.”

    I agree. I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters. Start with “step away from the power” and literally have men take a collective vacation and ignore the electric utility grid for a week. Let the gender studies professors keep the generators running and perform "hot wire" maintenance on the 500 kVA transmission lines that carry the electricity all those feminist social media influencers and complainers rely on to "power" their daily lives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGywP1-ZPAk

    Great post, but as others have mentioned the feminist fantasy is men as slaves doing the technical/dirty/dangerous work while a bunch of female CEOs and senators have meetings with each other all day. Of course this is just a perverted version of the ultra-girly “princess fantasy” these same feminists claim to despise, but hey, nobody ever said they have a sense of irony.

    “For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. sabril says:
    @Lars Porsena
    Everyone finds that intolerable. "I would rather die than depend on you for anything" is an extremely hostile phrase, practically a declaration of hatred and contempt, that anyone at all you said it to (if they have any self respect) would find it offensive.

    Are you in any kind of relationship?

    She’s just an hysterical female who’s annoyed because I caught her in a lie and won’t engage with her any more.

    Actually, she makes the case against feminism pretty well with her posting style.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Anon[280] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Given the continuing trend of (significantly) more women than men attending college, and considering what women typically, err, study, a thoughtful person ought to ponder the future…
     
    Is this more a function of too few men, or too many women, going to college? I suspect it's the latter.

    Unfortunately it doesn’t matter what science engineering math an American majors in. Indian and Asian H1 Bs are preferred for those jobs

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Rosie says:
    @AnotherDad

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    “In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.”

    Not as many as you think.
     
    I tend to think you are correct. Man/woman is comfy, complementary--and fun!

    I'd imagine that we're already evolving where there is a selection for genotypes, where when presented with the switching and hormonal cascade kicked off by having XX, the resulting phenotype actually *really likes* being a woman. (Not a man, or a tedious shrew.) In other words, while male selected and female selected genotypes are always sort of "at war" in the gene pool, one would suspect we'll be getting--or are getting--selection for stronger sexual "switching" that makes women more womanly and men more manly given whatever other genes are at hand. I.e. selection for enhanced sexual dimorphism to actually keep the sexes interested and reproducing. The only question is will this be to slow to be relevant?

    Faster is the cultural side: White "liberals" are a--too slowly--dying breed with their 1.3ish fertility. My impression is young white men are decreasingly willing to wife up any SJW garbage, so hopefully their dying off speeds up. Muslims, Mormons, Trad-Catholics, Quiverfull leaning Christians, Ultra-orthodox Jews. Those pro-natal folks will be the ones inheriting the earth. Along unfortunately with the Africans.

    The big problem for the West remains just keeping the riff-raff out while their own society recovers. And unfortunately we've empowered too many Suzanna Walters and their fellow-traveller Merkel types endlessly bitching and whining and destroying what our ancestors built.

    My impression is young white men are decreasingly willing to wife up any SJW garbage, so hopefully their dying off speeds up.

    The problem with this is that women’s potential as mothers is not clear until they have children. IMO motherhood potential is femininity, not submissiveness or high heels or other shallow proxies like that. Women change radically when we have children.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4026981/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill P

    The problem with this is that women’s potential as mothers is not clear until they have children.
     
    I don't believe that. I think you can judge a woman's motherhood (not to mean fertility here) potential pretty well from her behavior and personality.

    Agreeable, calm and conscientious women make better mothers, as a rule. This precludes most feminists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. RonaldB says:
    @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    Henry Kissinger supposedly said “No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there's too much fraternizing with the enemy.”

    What happens increasingly more men & women aren’t at all interested in fraternizing with the enemy, whether as lesbian feminist supremacists or Men Going their own Way seperatists?

    Can we look forward to more mutual mistrust, hostility and enthusiastic mutual assured destruction?

    It’s hilarious to me that this radical feminist, man-hating lesbian concedes in so many words that if men compete on an equal basis with women, lesbians, and socialists, the men will win every time. She’s reduced to begging men to simply not compete.

    Of course, she and her ilk do more than beg men to not compete. They burrow into the educational bureaucracies and systematically feminize the milieu. That is, any sign of male characteristics: assertion, physical competition, physical activity, hierarchical dominance are immediately suppressed by female nanny-teachers hovering over the children like hawks. The tax-payer-supported, feminized educational establishment is churning out beta soy-males who will, indeed, concede the field by simply quitting.

    Her anger and rage stem not so much from male aggressions, of which she is highly unlikely to be a target, but from the usual rage of the highly-verbal academic with no discernible skills other than the ability to write a mediocre book or article. This academic is enraged at the fact that she has no power or money other than what she can coerce from an unaccountable bureaucracy backed up by a police state. People like Donald Trump actually accumulate wealth, power, and sexual conquests on their own, and it drives the effete socialist academics nuts.

    Paradoxically, a real man will have little trouble attracting the interest of women. I don’t mean a hyper-macho Delta Force member, but someone who is not afraid to assert himself, speak his mind, approach other people, and will not back down immediately when confronted with a problem or someone trying to overstep his boundaries.

    One reason for the fanatic desire for gun control is that gun owners are not so easy to push around personally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Rosie says:
    @Anon
    Have you heard about the allegedly self identified trans boys have been winning the girls high school track meets ?

    Concerned parents of girl athelests are objecting . The inclusion of men and boys pretending to be women could destroy girls sports. And self identifying as a trans gender as well as high school sports is a sure admission to college and scholarships

    The old Soviet bloc used to inject real women athletes with testosterone, steroids and other things to produce
    Olympic winners. Now America is just making things simpler. To join the girls team just self identify as a girl.

    This trend could destroy girls and women’s sports. Too bad but women’s sports has always been a full employment program for lesbians who are the enemy of real women.

    This trend could destroy girls and women’s sports. Too bad but women’s sports has always been a full employment program for lesbians who are the enemy of real women.

    This is yet another one of those issues that shows “feminists” up for the phonies they are. At best, they hush up when the interests of groups higher on the PC totem pole are at stake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. pyrrhus says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    As soon as women learn how to build railroads, they will put us all into boxcars and send us off camps.

    I'm not worried.

    “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” Camille Paglia

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. I detect a threat of violence here…. possibly using an AR-15: “Honey, the gun is jammed again… can you help me?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. sabril says:
    @Corvinus
    "But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money. And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs."

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    "In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way."

    Not as many as you think.

    But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    We’re internally programmed to enjoy procreative sex, and yet doing with birth control still feels pretty good.

    We’re internally programmed to like sugary foods and drinks, and yet Coke Zero tastes excellent.

    A robot waifu would be like Sean Young’s character in Blade Runner. Beautiful, devoted, and very difficult to distinguish from the real thing. Except that she won’t get fat; she won’t make up false accusations of domestic abuse or sexual assault; she won’t suddenly decide she needs to leave you, take half your stuff, and start f*cking other men; she won’t hysterically insist on having the last word in every discussion; she won’t freak out at any observation that puts women in a negative light.

    I’m not saying all men would take it, but I think it would get pretty popular once people get past the initial stigma.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "We’re internally programmed to enjoy procreative sex, and yet doing with birth control still feels pretty good."

    Yet, men continue to marry and have children.

    "We’re internally programmed to like sugary foods and drinks, and yet Coke Zero tastes excellent."

    Not relevant here.

    "A robot waifu would be like Sean Young’s character in Blade Runner. Beautiful, devoted, and very difficult to distinguish from the real thing."

    Could be like. Beauty and devotion is in the eye of the beholder. And the artificial intelligence, regardless of its sophistication, does NOT substitute actual human emotion.

    "Except that she won’t get fat..."

    Which ultimately is shallow. Guys get pudgy over time just as much as the ladies. Of course, men and women generally desire that their partner remain physically fit, but there are those cases where couples do not place a high priority on demanding that their partner fit a particular mold.

    "she won’t make up false accusations of domestic abuse or sexual assault..."

    Assuming that women generally do make false accusations here, or that men are indeed predators of a vile nature.

    "she won’t suddenly decide she needs to leave you, take half your stuff, and start f*cking other men;"

    Likewise with men.

    "she won’t hysterically insist on having the last word in every discussion; she won’t freak out at any observation that puts women in a negative light."

    Likewise with men.

    "I’m not saying all men would take it, but I think it would get pretty popular once people get past the initial stigma."

    No, it would be a niche population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @res

    So, if some lesbians crave for physical intercourse with men, these are mostly man-like bull-dyke tattooed lesbians, not femme types from porn fantasies.
     
    My sense is that femmes are more likely to have been or later become involved with men. Perhaps we are talking about subtly different things? I am sure there is plenty of variation though.

    Sure. Some- most?- “lesbians” who later become involved with men are basically “hasbians”, i.e. they were not brain hard-wired to lesbianism. They are either bisexuals or heterosexuals who “experimented”, at some time, with grrrls. True “femmes”, i.e. feminine looking lesbians with sex orientation hard-wired in the brain generally avoid & loathe men.

    https://thoughtcatalog.com/cassie-meade/2014/08/13-awkward-truths-about-being-a-lipstick-lesbian/

    Butches, on the other hand, have this sex drive in some respects similar to men & not infrequently like to get the erotic tension “out of system” by having sex with men. Of course, this is not love.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Also, regarding this bit

    maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise and Foxy Brown

    The left has clearly internalized cornball Hollywood tropes to the point where they now view them as a how-to manual. We’re ruled by a bunch of overgrown fanboys (of both genders). Their model of reality is comic books: Wakanda and Wonder Woman are ideals to be worked towards.

    Ugh.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  142. @ccz
    “Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.”

    I agree. I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters. Start with “step away from the power” and literally have men take a collective vacation and ignore the electric utility grid for a week. Let the gender studies professors keep the generators running and perform "hot wire" maintenance on the 500 kVA transmission lines that carry the electricity all those feminist social media influencers and complainers rely on to "power" their daily lives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGywP1-ZPAk

    I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters.

    It’s not a week.

    The thought experiment I’ve offered to all this “women make 70 cents”, “women discriminated against”, women not getting X,Y,Z, is one day.

    Women don’t show up for their paid jobs any more. What’s the fallout?

    – Some men, who would otherwise do productive labor, would have to spend a bunch of time answering the phone and finding paperwork. So we’d be less efficient.
    – Some a few men would have to be cut loose to go to school and teach the kids. Though sending the young ones home to their mothers is probably the better option.
    – The only real critical hit would be nursing. We’d have a skilled nursing shortage in the hospitals. We couldn’t handle the current patient volumes. We’d have to triage and send a bunch of people home, while we staffed up with men and we’d definitely lose some–mostly old–people. (Although there’s a lot of medical care that doesn’t need doing.)

    Now the reverse. Men don’t show up for their paid jobs. What’s the fallout?

    Well almost immediately we’ll have power grids failing and everything grinding to a halt. For some, the water stops flowing and the sewers are backing up. Refineries–if not given orderly shutdown–will be exploding and burning. When the criminals realize that the male cops aren’t going to show up it’s open season–starting of course, on the urban single females, where the odds are no gun toting man is at home. By the end of the day it is a dystopian nightmare, of fire, looting, rape and murder.

    Even if we run the thought experiment to be completely male free–no men around at all, so no male criminals to make stuff worse–by the end of day we have complete breakdown of what one thinks of as “modern civilization”–including no cell phones and facebook so women are deprived the pleasure of bitching. In a week, the no running water and backed up sewers disease will be ramping up dramatically. What’s left in the supermarket warehouses is cleaned out within a month and urban and suburban women–now finally slimmed down!–will start starving. You’ll see some inevitable cannibalism. (The sisterhood is powerful!) The smarter ones will have streamed out of the urban areas to find rural towns and farmsteads where their might be food–and less disease. Within months the only survivors will be rural women–or rural women supplemented by a few of the more resourceful urban women they take in–who are knowledgeable about agricultural and well armed.

    The bottom line here.
    – Men don’t show up for their jobs — complete and utter societal collapse.
    – Women don’t show up for their jobs — some inefficiency, a lot of scrambling, some early and preventable deaths from reduction in health care capacity …. and then a return to a pleasant patriarchy. Within a few months, a lot of people might be wondering, “why did we have women working outside the home at all?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril

    Some a few men would have to be cut loose to go to school and teach the kids.
     
    When I was growing up, it happened a couple times that a teacher would be sick; no substitute was available; and they would send a police officer to act as a substitute. Of course it was perfectly fine.

    Actually, I think people would be surprised at just how good men are at teaching compared to women, and not just at maintaining order in the classroom.

    Refineries–if not given orderly shutdown–will be exploding and burning.
     
    I wonder what would happen with nuclear power plants.

    ncluding no cell phones and facebook so women are deprived the pleasure of bitching.

     

    This reminds me of a science fiction story (by a feminist author) I read recently about one of those end-of-the-world scenarios where everyone knows an asteroid is hitting in a week or two. Of course the female protagonist stays calm while her husband freaks out. But what's really funny is that electricity, telephones, internet all worked fine even though nobody was showing up for work.

    Women really seem to think that all this infrastructure works by magic and not due to the continual efforts of hundreds of thousands of men.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Uniquely, mankind has developed the capacity for reason and the ability to reshape his environment to his own ends. Overwhelmingly, these developments are expressed in the male.
     
    iSteve dudes say the darndest things.

    Hey Achmed, weren't you saying just the other day that women are the ones who always want to remodel the house? Rosie's first law again.

    As luck should have it, Mr. R caught me in the kitchen with the tape measure the other day, and accused me of "scheming." LOL. Yes, indeed. It's getting to be that time, again.

    BTW, upon reflection, it occurred to me that you might be able to figure out why women always want to remodel the house.

    If I'm not mistaken, Americans move house every five to seven years, or something like that. Well, by the time you've got your house just as you like it, something comes up and you sell your house. Then, you're back where you started at a new place, wanting to make it your own.

    The way to figure out if home improvement is driven by status concerns would be to look into how often women ask for repeat remodels in the same house. I am going to guess that they rarely do so, because they are not trying to keep up with the latest fashions. Rather, they prioritize, first asking hubby to deal with whatever they hate the most. Then, they move on to the next area that needs attention.

    Now, obviously, none of this makes remodeling any cheaper, but it does shed light on the why's and wherefores. You have to understand that a woman's home is the physical manifestation of some of her deepest fantasies going back to little girlhood.

    We really got terribly carried away with the ostentatious kitchens back in the aughties. You could spend tens of thousands on custom cabinets with innovative interior fittings that gave you, maybe a few square feet more storage space than a kitchen that cost half as much. For everyone's good, the days of the $75,000 kitchen remodel are over.

    BTW, little girls’ fantasies have gotten rather pricey of late. But no worries,a family of modest means can surely come up with 6.5K for the Fairy Tale house from Posh Tots:

    On the other hand, if money is no object …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Stan d Mute

    In my own life experience I found this aphorism to hold true.
     
    Agreed, and yet one must hold in ones mind the fact that fags are a massive public health problem that dykes are not. The one thing the media always withholds from us is the danger of exposure to fecal matter. We’re never supposed to contemplate the realities, the mechanics and biology, of faggotry. Nor are we ever to google “gay bowel syndrome.” Is this related at all to how we sanitize our view of India and Africa where they routinely crap in their own water supplies? Is it because of the color of crap (don’t laugh, leftists are that stupid)?

    In terms of raw (heh) numbers, I’d be willing to bet there are more women being anally penetrated by their partners than gay men any given week (except for pride, perhaps).

    The gay public health issue is STDs, not fecal matter. And no, they’re not related. As a gay man I’d prefer not to go back to 1950s style criminalization and repression, but I do think some intra-gay community prudishness would be useful. Perhaps this is where gay marriage becoming so mainstream can help out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "but I do think some intra-gay community prudishness would be useful. Perhaps this is where gay marriage becoming so mainstream can help out."

    Do you really think that is why things are the way they are though? Really?

    I'm sure some people become lonely or find that they really are just meant to be in a monogamous relationship.

    But be honest. Do straight men, even the "Alpha" males have sex as often as gay men can if they wish and aren't physically unattractive?

    My take is a gay man can quite literally have sex with 10 or 12 men in a night if he wishes (and this has been done, and is being done frequently). If Whiskey wants, he can describe how this happens all the time for his Alpha Dogs, but I ain't buyin' it.

    If all you want is to get that rush of endorphins in your brain from sex, it is a darn sight more convenient and productive to be gay. Plus you don't have to call the other person the next day.

    If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. But I've wondered for a bit, exactly how many gay people are really gay? In some parts of the country it's a useful social trait for employment, and well just socially.

    And if you view sex as just another way to get high, and don't need what is in the end just a sex toy to have a vagina, well....

    , @BB753
    "In terms of raw (heh) numbers, I’d be willing to bet there are more women being anally penetrated by their partners than gay men any given week (except for pride, perhaps). (...)
    As a gay man.. (...)"

    Stop right there, dude! It's pretty obvious you know nothing about women. Many of them are reluctant to fellatio, never mind anal penetration.
    And were it not for "poppers", fewer gays would be game for butt piracy, I'd wager.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Uniquely, mankind has developed the capacity for reason and the ability to reshape his environment to his own ends. Overwhelmingly, these developments are expressed in the male.
     
    iSteve dudes say the darndest things.

    Hey Achmed, weren't you saying just the other day that women are the ones who always want to remodel the house? Rosie's first law again.

    As luck should have it, Mr. R caught me in the kitchen with the tape measure the other day, and accused me of "scheming." LOL. Yes, indeed. It's getting to be that time, again.

    BTW, upon reflection, it occurred to me that you might be able to figure out why women always want to remodel the house.

    If I'm not mistaken, Americans move house every five to seven years, or something like that. Well, by the time you've got your house just as you like it, something comes up and you sell your house. Then, you're back where you started at a new place, wanting to make it your own.

    The way to figure out if home improvement is driven by status concerns would be to look into how often women ask for repeat remodels in the same house. I am going to guess that they rarely do so, because they are not trying to keep up with the latest fashions. Rather, they prioritize, first asking hubby to deal with whatever they hate the most. Then, they move on to the next area that needs attention.

    Now, obviously, none of this makes remodeling any cheaper, but it does shed light on the why's and wherefores. You have to understand that a woman's home is the physical manifestation of some of her deepest fantasies going back to little girlhood.

    We really got terribly carried away with the ostentatious kitchens back in the aughties. You could spend tens of thousands on custom cabinets with innovative interior fittings that gave you, maybe a few square feet more storage space than a kitchen that cost half as much. For everyone's good, the days of the $75,000 kitchen remodel are over.

    The Victorian Playhouse will set you back a mere 27K.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    The 42K Petit Chalet

    s'il vous plait.

    http://www.poshtots.com/_common/_assets/product_images/29/2754_PD2.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Bill P says:
    @Rosie

    My impression is young white men are decreasingly willing to wife up any SJW garbage, so hopefully their dying off speeds up.
     
    The problem with this is that women's potential as mothers is not clear until they have children. IMO motherhood potential is femininity, not submissiveness or high heels or other shallow proxies like that. Women change radically when we have children.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4026981/

    The problem with this is that women’s potential as mothers is not clear until they have children.

    I don’t believe that. I think you can judge a woman’s motherhood (not to mean fertility here) potential pretty well from her behavior and personality.

    Agreeable, calm and conscientious women make better mothers, as a rule. This precludes most feminists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Agreeable, calm and conscientious women make better mothers, as a rule. This precludes most feminists.
     
    The problem is that you don't know whether a woman will be that way with her children or not until she has one. Even number of desired children is not an accurate predictor of actual enjoyment of motherhood. I don't have it on hand, but I believe this has been studied.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    I think that would have been more true when feminism wasn't a mainstream ideology/religion. Its since poisoned the source(especially since it acts as a spoils system) enough that a probable plurality of women will at least mouth some proper piety to it. I tend to agree based on my own experience on what a female poster(Thea) here said: women are fairly malleable to the social environment.

    Alter the social environment sufficiently, and you'll manage to more successfully get the behavior you wish. This has, at least, been true in my own experiences with women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Rosie says:
    @Rosie
    The Victorian Playhouse will set you back a mere 27K.

    http://www.poshtots.com/_common/_assets/product_images/49/519_PD7.jpg

    The 42K Petit Chalet

    s’il vous plait.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    Oops. It's actually 48K.

    And don't worry. If none of the stock options suit Her Royal Highness, you can have a custom replica of her choice built to order. Call for price.

    http://www.poshtots.com/_common/_assets/product_images/47/27411_PD6.jpg

    Fellas, all I can say is, if your date mentions anything about her Posh Tots playhouse, run, do not walk, to the nearest exit.
    , @njguy73
    That place is nicer than my first apartment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. sabril says:
    @AnotherDad

    A future by which some men and women will opt out for mechanical comfort. But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.

    “In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.”

    Not as many as you think.
     
    I tend to think you are correct. Man/woman is comfy, complementary--and fun!

    I'd imagine that we're already evolving where there is a selection for genotypes, where when presented with the switching and hormonal cascade kicked off by having XX, the resulting phenotype actually *really likes* being a woman. (Not a man, or a tedious shrew.) In other words, while male selected and female selected genotypes are always sort of "at war" in the gene pool, one would suspect we'll be getting--or are getting--selection for stronger sexual "switching" that makes women more womanly and men more manly given whatever other genes are at hand. I.e. selection for enhanced sexual dimorphism to actually keep the sexes interested and reproducing. The only question is will this be to slow to be relevant?

    Faster is the cultural side: White "liberals" are a--too slowly--dying breed with their 1.3ish fertility. My impression is young white men are decreasingly willing to wife up any SJW garbage, so hopefully their dying off speeds up. Muslims, Mormons, Trad-Catholics, Quiverfull leaning Christians, Ultra-orthodox Jews. Those pro-natal folks will be the ones inheriting the earth. Along unfortunately with the Africans.

    The big problem for the West remains just keeping the riff-raff out while their own society recovers. And unfortunately we've empowered too many Suzanna Walters and their fellow-traveller Merkel types endlessly bitching and whining and destroying what our ancestors built.

    Faster is the cultural side:

    Agreed. From the perspective of genetic evolution, 150 years is the blink of an eye. And yet if you do the math, that’s how long it will take for the ultra-religious to dominate the West demographically.

    As I mentioned above, it’s already happening in Israel. The feminists in Israel are demanding access by women to traditionally male areas: The male prayer section at the Western Wall and Wilson’s Arch. The usual script is that women try to invade traditionally male spaces and succeed by screaming to Big Daddy Government, but the religious right in Israel seems to be holding the line.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. I clicked through on the links just to see if physiognomy is still real.

    * Manjaw.
    * Short, unattractive hairstyle.
    * Way, WAY post-wall (if she didn’t hit it emerging from her mother).

    No surprises there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  150. Rosie says:
    @Bill P

    The problem with this is that women’s potential as mothers is not clear until they have children.
     
    I don't believe that. I think you can judge a woman's motherhood (not to mean fertility here) potential pretty well from her behavior and personality.

    Agreeable, calm and conscientious women make better mothers, as a rule. This precludes most feminists.

    Agreeable, calm and conscientious women make better mothers, as a rule. This precludes most feminists.

    The problem is that you don’t know whether a woman will be that way with her children or not until she has one. Even number of desired children is not an accurate predictor of actual enjoyment of motherhood. I don’t have it on hand, but I believe this has been studied.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    So I was looking for articles on "maternal satisfaction," and I bet you all won't believe what I found!

    This article

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/singletons/201002/mothers-one-child-are-happiest

    with this picture

    https://goo.gl/images/y1C24u

    Imagine my shock!

    Of course, this article doesn't mention the cumulative changes in women's brains that prepare them to cope with subsequent children.

    , @AnotherDad


    Agreeable, calm and conscientious women make better mothers, as a rule. This precludes most feminists.
     
    The problem is that you don’t know whether a woman will be that way with her children or not until she has one. Even number of desired children is not an accurate predictor of actual enjoyment of motherhood. I don’t have it on hand, but I believe this has been studied.
     
    Both are no doubt in play.

    It was no surprise to me that AnotherMom took well to motherhood. I wouldn't have been with her otherwise. Likewise no surprise my undergrad girlfriend--i was too immature and stupid to ship that--has done well as wife and mother. I generally have attraction to smart, level-headed gals of high character--imprinting from my mom?--no whiners, drama queens, shopaholics, etc.

    No doubt some gals improve dramatically with the in-rush of hormones and reality-check of motherhood. And probably there are a few--not many--quality, feminine, level-headed gals for whom motherhood just doesn't "click".

    But still, upfront character, smarts, non-drama feminity are the way to bet. The hormones make these gals more "motherly" but they don't alter fundamental character. Wifing-up any sort of SJW or drama-queen or girl-who-can-put-down-her-cell-phone and praying motherhood will improve her is a fool's errand. If you're any kind of man--have your shit together--you can do better.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Don't girls still babysit, or take part-time jobs in day care after school? They'd find out pretty fast if they're bored by feeding, burping, and playing peek-a-boo, or view changing messy babies as nauseating rather than no big deal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Rosie says:
    @Rosie
    The 42K Petit Chalet

    s'il vous plait.

    http://www.poshtots.com/_common/_assets/product_images/29/2754_PD2.jpg

    Oops. It’s actually 48K.

    And don’t worry. If none of the stock options suit Her Royal Highness, you can have a custom replica of her choice built to order. Call for price.

    Fellas, all I can say is, if your date mentions anything about her Posh Tots playhouse, run, do not walk, to the nearest exit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @sabril

    I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters
     
    It's a nice fantasy, but in reality the entire country would collapse if men went on strike for a week. I do wish these female pseudo-intellectuals would have some respect and grattitude for the men who make their lives safe and comfortable. But I don't think it's psychologically possible. Even average women have a strong tendency to assume that (most) men are basically NPC's whose sole function is to protect and serve them.

    I do wish these female pseudo-intellectuals would have some respect and grattitude for the men who make their lives safe and comfortable. But I don’t think it’s psychologically possible.

    Fortunately, respect for force can be instilled even if there is contempt for ability and accomplishment.  For instance, I doubt that Louise Rosealma will try to physically confront a man again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. sabril says:
    @AnotherDad

    I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters.
     
    It's not a week.

    The thought experiment I've offered to all this "women make 70 cents", "women discriminated against", women not getting X,Y,Z, is one day.

    Women don't show up for their paid jobs any more. What's the fallout?

    -- Some men, who would otherwise do productive labor, would have to spend a bunch of time answering the phone and finding paperwork. So we'd be less efficient.
    -- Some a few men would have to be cut loose to go to school and teach the kids. Though sending the young ones home to their mothers is probably the better option.
    -- The only real critical hit would be nursing. We'd have a skilled nursing shortage in the hospitals. We couldn't handle the current patient volumes. We'd have to triage and send a bunch of people home, while we staffed up with men and we'd definitely lose some--mostly old--people. (Although there's a lot of medical care that doesn't need doing.)

    Now the reverse. Men don't show up for their paid jobs. What's the fallout?

    Well almost immediately we'll have power grids failing and everything grinding to a halt. For some, the water stops flowing and the sewers are backing up. Refineries--if not given orderly shutdown--will be exploding and burning. When the criminals realize that the male cops aren't going to show up it's open season--starting of course, on the urban single females, where the odds are no gun toting man is at home. By the end of the day it is a dystopian nightmare, of fire, looting, rape and murder.

    Even if we run the thought experiment to be completely male free--no men around at all, so no male criminals to make stuff worse--by the end of day we have complete breakdown of what one thinks of as "modern civilization"--including no cell phones and facebook so women are deprived the pleasure of bitching. In a week, the no running water and backed up sewers disease will be ramping up dramatically. What's left in the supermarket warehouses is cleaned out within a month and urban and suburban women--now finally slimmed down!--will start starving. You'll see some inevitable cannibalism. (The sisterhood is powerful!) The smarter ones will have streamed out of the urban areas to find rural towns and farmsteads where their might be food--and less disease. Within months the only survivors will be rural women--or rural women supplemented by a few of the more resourceful urban women they take in--who are knowledgeable about agricultural and well armed.


    The bottom line here.
    -- Men don't show up for their jobs -- complete and utter societal collapse.
    -- Women don't show up for their jobs -- some inefficiency, a lot of scrambling, some early and preventable deaths from reduction in health care capacity .... and then a return to a pleasant patriarchy. Within a few months, a lot of people might be wondering, "why did we have women working outside the home at all?"

    Some a few men would have to be cut loose to go to school and teach the kids.

    When I was growing up, it happened a couple times that a teacher would be sick; no substitute was available; and they would send a police officer to act as a substitute. Of course it was perfectly fine.

    Actually, I think people would be surprised at just how good men are at teaching compared to women, and not just at maintaining order in the classroom.

    Refineries–if not given orderly shutdown–will be exploding and burning.

    I wonder what would happen with nuclear power plants.

    ncluding no cell phones and facebook so women are deprived the pleasure of bitching.

    This reminds me of a science fiction story (by a feminist author) I read recently about one of those end-of-the-world scenarios where everyone knows an asteroid is hitting in a week or two. Of course the female protagonist stays calm while her husband freaks out. But what’s really funny is that electricity, telephones, internet all worked fine even though nobody was showing up for work.

    Women really seem to think that all this infrastructure works by magic and not due to the continual efforts of hundreds of thousands of men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Anonymous
    In case you were wondering:

    Why This Socialist Feminist Is For Hillary
    By Suzanna Danuta Walters
     


    My immigrant Jewish grandparents met in New York City, at a meeting of the Young People’s Socialist League on the Lower East Side
     

     

    I’m going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that maybe a Jewish lesbian, tax-eating, gender-studies professor probably isn’t your best bet for a based–rational, realistic, emotion-free–analysis what’s going on and who’s doing the heavy lifting in society.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Bill P

    The problem with this is that women’s potential as mothers is not clear until they have children.
     
    I don't believe that. I think you can judge a woman's motherhood (not to mean fertility here) potential pretty well from her behavior and personality.

    Agreeable, calm and conscientious women make better mothers, as a rule. This precludes most feminists.

    I think that would have been more true when feminism wasn’t a mainstream ideology/religion. Its since poisoned the source(especially since it acts as a spoils system) enough that a probable plurality of women will at least mouth some proper piety to it. I tend to agree based on my own experience on what a female poster(Thea) here said: women are fairly malleable to the social environment.

    Alter the social environment sufficiently, and you’ll manage to more successfully get the behavior you wish. This has, at least, been true in my own experiences with women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    Women internalize moral norms to a greater degree than men. I can attest to this myself. I experienced intense pangs of profound shame when I first began to acknowledge the truths of race realism to myself. Women have a harder time going against the grain of society in this way.

    It is deeply unsettling, even painful, to face the fact that one is Beyond the Pale. That's why women in Europe don't vote for FR parties, despite expressing a desire for immigration restriction.

    The two-party system worked to Trump's advantage because of this. Because he was the nominee of a major party, women felt more at liberty to express their true feelings. The same phenomenon was evident in the yes/no Brexit vote. The very fact that the referendum was being held, I suspect, lowered women's inhibitions about violating Globalist taboos against ethnic self-assertion.

    I have said before that I do believe women are attracted to defiance. At its most pathological extreme, this manifests as attraction to criminals. (I can't remember the name of the disorder.). I suspect this is a classic case of being attracted to what is opposite of ourselves. Defiance is a luxury that we cannot afford owing to our weaknesses. When we see defiance in a man, it translates as strength.

    Loki embodies the trickster, bad boy variety of hot.

    https://goo.gl/images/zXJFw7

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. MEH 0910 says:
    @eah
    questions of gender, feminist theory and politics, sexuality, and popular culture

    Given the continuing trend of (significantly) more women than men attending college, and considering what women typically, err, study, a thoughtful person ought to ponder the future...

    http://blogs-images.forbes.com/ccap/files/2012/02/blog-chart1.jpg

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Daniel Chieh

    But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.
     
    Why should human wetware be any less hackable than machinery of any other type? Is it not obvious that modernity has already compromised it from its biological purpose pretty significantly?

    Why should human wetware be any less hackable than machinery of any other type?

    You can hack the machinery, but you cannot hack the humanity. Now cinch up your straps and tuck that materialist slip out of sight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    There's a theory that Rome was successfully mindhacked by a desire for urban piping. Urban lead piping. The Romans seemed pretty human to me.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/111/18/6594


    By measuring Pb isotope compositions of sediments from the Tiber River and the Trajanic Harbor, the present work shows that “tap water” from ancient Rome had 100 times more lead than local spring waters.
     
    Fortunately, even Rome at the time was too limited to spread this technology and implement it worldwide. That, however, is no longer true of the modern world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @res
    A Corvinus comment I agree with. So much for that ice concession in Hell.

    LOL!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Uniquely, mankind has developed the capacity for reason and the ability to reshape his environment to his own ends. Overwhelmingly, these developments are expressed in the male.
     
    iSteve dudes say the darndest things.

    Hey Achmed, weren't you saying just the other day that women are the ones who always want to remodel the house? Rosie's first law again.

    As luck should have it, Mr. R caught me in the kitchen with the tape measure the other day, and accused me of "scheming." LOL. Yes, indeed. It's getting to be that time, again.

    BTW, upon reflection, it occurred to me that you might be able to figure out why women always want to remodel the house.

    If I'm not mistaken, Americans move house every five to seven years, or something like that. Well, by the time you've got your house just as you like it, something comes up and you sell your house. Then, you're back where you started at a new place, wanting to make it your own.

    The way to figure out if home improvement is driven by status concerns would be to look into how often women ask for repeat remodels in the same house. I am going to guess that they rarely do so, because they are not trying to keep up with the latest fashions. Rather, they prioritize, first asking hubby to deal with whatever they hate the most. Then, they move on to the next area that needs attention.

    Now, obviously, none of this makes remodeling any cheaper, but it does shed light on the why's and wherefores. You have to understand that a woman's home is the physical manifestation of some of her deepest fantasies going back to little girlhood.

    We really got terribly carried away with the ostentatious kitchens back in the aughties. You could spend tens of thousands on custom cabinets with innovative interior fittings that gave you, maybe a few square feet more storage space than a kitchen that cost half as much. For everyone's good, the days of the $75,000 kitchen remodel are over.

    My grandmother rebuilt her house after the original one mostly burned down, so there was money from the insurance.

    if your date mentions anything about her Posh Tots playhouse

    If my date still used a playhouse I’d be somewhat disturbed, to say the least.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Stan d Mute

    But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money.
     
    We are well on our way to this now. And look at the unhinged hysterical reaction from women (ie Daily Mail)..

    And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs. In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.
     
    Who fixes the robot when it breaks?

    Is the root cause here the “babies are bad” mantra of the leftists? A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies. Without this function, a woman is an utterly pathetic man who doesn’t even have a penis and can’t pee standing up. These idiots just OD’d on the koolaid (purple drink) from Planned Spinsterhood intended for negro females and now rage that they are such laughably inferior men.

    Insanity.

    The appropriate response is for men to simply refuse to build such robots for women.  “You want a man?  Try being a woman.”

    If anyone did build them, hacking them would be a constant game/threat.  Programming one to bite, for example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Negrolphin Pool
    Any robot sophisticated enough to cook is sophisticated enough to kill. This could be a major hurdle to widespread sales. Ending in a ball of fire when your Tesla accidentally mistakes an overpass for a straightaway is an unpleasant possibility, but a surmountable PR challenge.

    The first time, however, a sleeping Skynet customer is given a median sternotomy with a steak knife will be a tough thing for the robotic-man-replacement industry to live down.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    I think that would have been more true when feminism wasn't a mainstream ideology/religion. Its since poisoned the source(especially since it acts as a spoils system) enough that a probable plurality of women will at least mouth some proper piety to it. I tend to agree based on my own experience on what a female poster(Thea) here said: women are fairly malleable to the social environment.

    Alter the social environment sufficiently, and you'll manage to more successfully get the behavior you wish. This has, at least, been true in my own experiences with women.

    Women internalize moral norms to a greater degree than men. I can attest to this myself. I experienced intense pangs of profound shame when I first began to acknowledge the truths of race realism to myself. Women have a harder time going against the grain of society in this way.

    It is deeply unsettling, even painful, to face the fact that one is Beyond the Pale. That’s why women in Europe don’t vote for FR parties, despite expressing a desire for immigration restriction.

    The two-party system worked to Trump’s advantage because of this. Because he was the nominee of a major party, women felt more at liberty to express their true feelings. The same phenomenon was evident in the yes/no Brexit vote. The very fact that the referendum was being held, I suspect, lowered women’s inhibitions about violating Globalist taboos against ethnic self-assertion.

    I have said before that I do believe women are attracted to defiance. At its most pathological extreme, this manifests as attraction to criminals. (I can’t remember the name of the disorder.). I suspect this is a classic case of being attracted to what is opposite of ourselves. Defiance is a luxury that we cannot afford owing to our weaknesses. When we see defiance in a man, it translates as strength.

    Loki embodies the trickster, bad boy variety of hot.

    https://goo.gl/images/zXJFw7

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    An important corollary to all this, of course, is that talk of White Sharia, or even disenfranchisement of women, is utterly beside the point. By the time the Right was in any position to do this, there would be no need, because the Right will have retaken control of the culture.
    , @Rosie
    Here's the research on the disconnect between women's desire for right-wing immigration policy but reluctance to vote far-right.

    https://www-researchgate-net.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.researchgate.net/publication/309268584_Why_Women_Avoid_the_Radical_Right_Internalized_Norms_and_Party_Reputations/amp?amp_js_v=a1&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F309268584_Why_Women_Avoid_the_Radical_Right_Internalized_Norms_and_Party_Reputations
    , @Rosamond Vincy

    I suspect this is a classic case of being attracted to what is opposite of ourselves. Defiance is a luxury that we cannot afford owing to our weaknesses
     
    .

    Not necessarily. There are real-life equivalents of Catherine Earnshaw and Scarlett O'Hara: attracted to Heathcliff and Rhett Butler because they're troublemakers themselves, and can't relate to "nice" guys because, despite all effort to fake their way through, they themselves are not nice. Note that Catherine would prefer to like Edgar Linton so she can be like Edgar Linton, and Scarlett wants to be the sort of girl Ashley Wilkes would approve of. They resist their natural inclination to troublemaking men, because it says too much about who they are inside--something they can't bear to acknowledge.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Rosie says:
    @Rosie
    Women internalize moral norms to a greater degree than men. I can attest to this myself. I experienced intense pangs of profound shame when I first began to acknowledge the truths of race realism to myself. Women have a harder time going against the grain of society in this way.

    It is deeply unsettling, even painful, to face the fact that one is Beyond the Pale. That's why women in Europe don't vote for FR parties, despite expressing a desire for immigration restriction.

    The two-party system worked to Trump's advantage because of this. Because he was the nominee of a major party, women felt more at liberty to express their true feelings. The same phenomenon was evident in the yes/no Brexit vote. The very fact that the referendum was being held, I suspect, lowered women's inhibitions about violating Globalist taboos against ethnic self-assertion.

    I have said before that I do believe women are attracted to defiance. At its most pathological extreme, this manifests as attraction to criminals. (I can't remember the name of the disorder.). I suspect this is a classic case of being attracted to what is opposite of ourselves. Defiance is a luxury that we cannot afford owing to our weaknesses. When we see defiance in a man, it translates as strength.

    Loki embodies the trickster, bad boy variety of hot.

    https://goo.gl/images/zXJFw7

    An important corollary to all this, of course, is that talk of White Sharia, or even disenfranchisement of women, is utterly beside the point. By the time the Right was in any position to do this, there would be no need, because the Right will have retaken control of the culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Quite incorrect. If cultural norms were traditionalist and moved away from it, then it is likely to happen again due to same reasons - autonomy seeking by individuals, in this case, women. Disenfranchisement of women would prevent the same exact steps of decline, at least. Countries where women are relatively more disenfranchised tend to be more traditionalist.

    That said, I do not think that it would actually solve all problems or anything.

    The actual issues with human maladaption to the modern environment are not limited or isolated to a single sex. Complete disenfranchisement of women(a bit silly, anyway) would probably just result in another path of crazy to merrily head down into.

    That said, women are so incredibly unsuited to decision-making on a major level that I have intentionally sabotaged groups by promoting women into them and its pretty humorous in some ways the level of self-inflicted damage that "liberated" societies bring upon themselves. Its plainly a harmful meme, the question is how to stop it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Rosie says:
    @Rosie
    Women internalize moral norms to a greater degree than men. I can attest to this myself. I experienced intense pangs of profound shame when I first began to acknowledge the truths of race realism to myself. Women have a harder time going against the grain of society in this way.

    It is deeply unsettling, even painful, to face the fact that one is Beyond the Pale. That's why women in Europe don't vote for FR parties, despite expressing a desire for immigration restriction.

    The two-party system worked to Trump's advantage because of this. Because he was the nominee of a major party, women felt more at liberty to express their true feelings. The same phenomenon was evident in the yes/no Brexit vote. The very fact that the referendum was being held, I suspect, lowered women's inhibitions about violating Globalist taboos against ethnic self-assertion.

    I have said before that I do believe women are attracted to defiance. At its most pathological extreme, this manifests as attraction to criminals. (I can't remember the name of the disorder.). I suspect this is a classic case of being attracted to what is opposite of ourselves. Defiance is a luxury that we cannot afford owing to our weaknesses. When we see defiance in a man, it translates as strength.

    Loki embodies the trickster, bad boy variety of hot.

    https://goo.gl/images/zXJFw7

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Rosie
    An important corollary to all this, of course, is that talk of White Sharia, or even disenfranchisement of women, is utterly beside the point. By the time the Right was in any position to do this, there would be no need, because the Right will have retaken control of the culture.

    Quite incorrect. If cultural norms were traditionalist and moved away from it, then it is likely to happen again due to same reasons – autonomy seeking by individuals, in this case, women. Disenfranchisement of women would prevent the same exact steps of decline, at least. Countries where women are relatively more disenfranchised tend to be more traditionalist.

    That said, I do not think that it would actually solve all problems or anything.

    The actual issues with human maladaption to the modern environment are not limited or isolated to a single sex. Complete disenfranchisement of women(a bit silly, anyway) would probably just result in another path of crazy to merrily head down into.

    That said, women are so incredibly unsuited to decision-making on a major level that I have intentionally sabotaged groups by promoting women into them and its pretty humorous in some ways the level of self-inflicted damage that “liberated” societies bring upon themselves. Its plainly a harmful meme, the question is how to stop it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Disenfranchisement of women would prevent the same exact steps of decline, at least.
     
    It wasn't "decline," it was subversion.

    As I have said elsewhere, the feminist movement would have been over in the 70s but for elite meddling. It is a Zombie movement with no real constituency being kept on life support by elite shekels. Nothing more.

    Look what happened to UKIP after the Brexit vote. That's what happens to movements that accomplish their agenda when they lack elite support.

    , @Daniel Chieh
    I should add: that I think that women are uniquely unsuited for decision making doesn't mean that I think men are that much better. Small levels of increased ability nonetheless can lead to significant domination in a field, as the performance of colts versus fillies have demonstrated in races.

    But more specifically, a hypothetical homo rationalis economicus would, at minimum, evaluate the ROI of his next action while being mindful of the opportunity cost to engage in said action. I'm pretty sure almost no one does that, our heuristics heavily being optimized evolutionarily for best guesses under limited information and therefore enormously influenced by the limbic system by what we call "emotions."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Agreeable, calm and conscientious women make better mothers, as a rule. This precludes most feminists.
     
    The problem is that you don't know whether a woman will be that way with her children or not until she has one. Even number of desired children is not an accurate predictor of actual enjoyment of motherhood. I don't have it on hand, but I believe this has been studied.

    So I was looking for articles on “maternal satisfaction,” and I bet you all won’t believe what I found!

    This article

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/singletons/201002/mothers-one-child-are-happiest

    with this picture

    https://goo.gl/images/y1C24u

    Imagine my shock!

    Of course, this article doesn’t mention the cumulative changes in women’s brains that prepare them to cope with subsequent children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Quite incorrect. If cultural norms were traditionalist and moved away from it, then it is likely to happen again due to same reasons - autonomy seeking by individuals, in this case, women. Disenfranchisement of women would prevent the same exact steps of decline, at least. Countries where women are relatively more disenfranchised tend to be more traditionalist.

    That said, I do not think that it would actually solve all problems or anything.

    The actual issues with human maladaption to the modern environment are not limited or isolated to a single sex. Complete disenfranchisement of women(a bit silly, anyway) would probably just result in another path of crazy to merrily head down into.

    That said, women are so incredibly unsuited to decision-making on a major level that I have intentionally sabotaged groups by promoting women into them and its pretty humorous in some ways the level of self-inflicted damage that "liberated" societies bring upon themselves. Its plainly a harmful meme, the question is how to stop it.

    Disenfranchisement of women would prevent the same exact steps of decline, at least.

    It wasn’t “decline,” it was subversion.

    As I have said elsewhere, the feminist movement would have been over in the 70s but for elite meddling. It is a Zombie movement with no real constituency being kept on life support by elite shekels. Nothing more.

    Look what happened to UKIP after the Brexit vote. That’s what happens to movements that accomplish their agenda when they lack elite support.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    No movement is without elite support. A meaningful majority of humans , quite logically, don't really care about anything beyond their immediate life so movements are always driven by the "intolerant minority" as defined by Taleb. The Pareto Principle applies to this as well as anything else.

    However, the specific direction which feminism took does not need any conspiratorial explanation. It was a combination of takeover by the intolerant minority of lesbians(as C. Pagilia noted) and the ever-increasing demand for labor by corporations which by selling female employment as empowerment, proceeded to further increase their labor pool and successfully disguised the lack of any actual increase in wage since 1980.

    From a "march of history" perspective, one could consider that this was just a gradual process of destruction of the domestic sphere, which began with factory work in the 1890s and was solidified with urbanization in the 1930s-40s when men shifted from home work to industrialized urban work. From that perspective, women were just laggards; after the domestic work environment was destroyed for men, then it would be destroyed for women.

    This also accelerates the centralization of power away from the family unit, which is a competitor to state power. This is all, in a way, quite funny, because it essentially manages to domesticate humans into vastly passive economic units while selling the notion of individual autonomy to them. An interesting trick, that is, much like democracy itself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Daniel Chieh
    Quite incorrect. If cultural norms were traditionalist and moved away from it, then it is likely to happen again due to same reasons - autonomy seeking by individuals, in this case, women. Disenfranchisement of women would prevent the same exact steps of decline, at least. Countries where women are relatively more disenfranchised tend to be more traditionalist.

    That said, I do not think that it would actually solve all problems or anything.

    The actual issues with human maladaption to the modern environment are not limited or isolated to a single sex. Complete disenfranchisement of women(a bit silly, anyway) would probably just result in another path of crazy to merrily head down into.

    That said, women are so incredibly unsuited to decision-making on a major level that I have intentionally sabotaged groups by promoting women into them and its pretty humorous in some ways the level of self-inflicted damage that "liberated" societies bring upon themselves. Its plainly a harmful meme, the question is how to stop it.

    I should add: that I think that women are uniquely unsuited for decision making doesn’t mean that I think men are that much better. Small levels of increased ability nonetheless can lead to significant domination in a field, as the performance of colts versus fillies have demonstrated in races.

    But more specifically, a hypothetical homo rationalis economicus would, at minimum, evaluate the ROI of his next action while being mindful of the opportunity cost to engage in said action. I’m pretty sure almost no one does that, our heuristics heavily being optimized evolutionarily for best guesses under limited information and therefore enormously influenced by the limbic system by what we call “emotions.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Rosie

    Agreeable, calm and conscientious women make better mothers, as a rule. This precludes most feminists.
     
    The problem is that you don't know whether a woman will be that way with her children or not until she has one. Even number of desired children is not an accurate predictor of actual enjoyment of motherhood. I don't have it on hand, but I believe this has been studied.

    Agreeable, calm and conscientious women make better mothers, as a rule. This precludes most feminists.

    The problem is that you don’t know whether a woman will be that way with her children or not until she has one. Even number of desired children is not an accurate predictor of actual enjoyment of motherhood. I don’t have it on hand, but I believe this has been studied.

    Both are no doubt in play.

    It was no surprise to me that AnotherMom took well to motherhood. I wouldn’t have been with her otherwise. Likewise no surprise my undergrad girlfriend–i was too immature and stupid to ship that–has done well as wife and mother. I generally have attraction to smart, level-headed gals of high character–imprinting from my mom?–no whiners, drama queens, shopaholics, etc.

    No doubt some gals improve dramatically with the in-rush of hormones and reality-check of motherhood. And probably there are a few–not many–quality, feminine, level-headed gals for whom motherhood just doesn’t “click”.

    But still, upfront character, smarts, non-drama feminity are the way to bet. The hormones make these gals more “motherly” but they don’t alter fundamental character. Wifing-up any sort of SJW or drama-queen or girl-who-can-put-down-her-cell-phone and praying motherhood will improve her is a fool’s errand. If you’re any kind of man–have your shit together–you can do better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    But still, upfront character, smarts, non-drama feminity are the way to bet.
     
    Except that I'm told there aren't enough of these to go around.

    The hormones make these gals more “motherly” but they don’t alter fundamental character.
     
    I don't know what you mean by altering fundamental character, but what motherhood most certainly can do is totally reorder a woman's priorities.
    , @Bill P

    I generally have attraction to smart, level-headed gals of high character–imprinting from my mom?–no whiners, drama queens, shopaholics, etc.
     
    Lucky you. I have attraction to adventurous, mercurial types. I have paid dearly for that, but it's been quite a ride.

    I wish I preferred level-headed nice girls, but they bore me, and I don't treat them as well as I ought to.

    But ultimately I think good fatherhood, i.e. benevolent patriarchy, is more important to children's development than whether or not their mothers are supermoms, which most women are not.

    By working to destroy patriarchy, feminists have done more harm to children than anyone else in our society (both meanings of that sentence are true). If people don't believe me when I say that, I tell them to look up the sexual assault stats for daughters of single moms vs. daughters who live with their bio dads. The figures are very instructive. People who know them should be outraged by feminists and the judges who indulge them.

    There are of course scores of other measures that prove my point, but the above may be the most salient to women who might otherwise agree with witches like the lesbian who wrote the WaPo screed (and who actually have a conscience).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Rod1963 says:
    @ThirdWorldSteveReader

    Why can't we hate men?
     
    But you can, darling, and actually I see you already do. But are you sure you want to do this?

    I mean, what if they decide to hate you back?

    Big picture.

    All this hatred is aimed at one group – white men. Remember this stuff is generated by crazed Jewish females and male Jewish intellectuals. It is not a organic movement arising from goy women. It was planted in their minds by the tribe.

    This is why they never point fingers at Blacks, Hispanics or Muslims.

    It’s just another attack on whites by the tribe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Anon
    Have you heard about the allegedly self identified trans boys have been winning the girls high school track meets ?

    Concerned parents of girl athelests are objecting . The inclusion of men and boys pretending to be women could destroy girls sports. And self identifying as a trans gender as well as high school sports is a sure admission to college and scholarships

    The old Soviet bloc used to inject real women athletes with testosterone, steroids and other things to produce
    Olympic winners. Now America is just making things simpler. To join the girls team just self identify as a girl.

    This trend could destroy girls and women’s sports. Too bad but women’s sports has always been a full employment program for lesbians who are the enemy of real women.

    for lesbians who are the enemy of real women.

    This is the crux of the matter. Lesbian feminists do not represent women, but they bark so loudly many men and women think they do. It’s as if an Eskimo Rights group had been taken over by people who really love building sandcastles. All the talk about inclusion and equity disappears if you were to point out that straight women, married women, women with children, conservative women, etc are under-represented in feminism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Rosie

    Disenfranchisement of women would prevent the same exact steps of decline, at least.
     
    It wasn't "decline," it was subversion.

    As I have said elsewhere, the feminist movement would have been over in the 70s but for elite meddling. It is a Zombie movement with no real constituency being kept on life support by elite shekels. Nothing more.

    Look what happened to UKIP after the Brexit vote. That's what happens to movements that accomplish their agenda when they lack elite support.

    No movement is without elite support. A meaningful majority of humans , quite logically, don’t really care about anything beyond their immediate life so movements are always driven by the “intolerant minority” as defined by Taleb. The Pareto Principle applies to this as well as anything else.

    However, the specific direction which feminism took does not need any conspiratorial explanation. It was a combination of takeover by the intolerant minority of lesbians(as C. Pagilia noted) and the ever-increasing demand for labor by corporations which by selling female employment as empowerment, proceeded to further increase their labor pool and successfully disguised the lack of any actual increase in wage since 1980.

    From a “march of history” perspective, one could consider that this was just a gradual process of destruction of the domestic sphere, which began with factory work in the 1890s and was solidified with urbanization in the 1930s-40s when men shifted from home work to industrialized urban work. From that perspective, women were just laggards; after the domestic work environment was destroyed for men, then it would be destroyed for women.

    This also accelerates the centralization of power away from the family unit, which is a competitor to state power. This is all, in a way, quite funny, because it essentially manages to domesticate humans into vastly passive economic units while selling the notion of individual autonomy to them. An interesting trick, that is, much like democracy itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    However, the specific direction which feminism took does not need any conspiratorial explanation.
     
    Here you seem to assume that a "conspiratorial explanation" is ipso facto less satisfactory. There is no basis in logic for this assumption.

    From a “march of history” perspective,
     
    History doesn't March. It is directed by elites who very much like the idea that history marches. It makes it that much easier for them to pretend everything always just happens to turn out exactly as they like purely asa matter of totally unforeseeable coincidence that noone could have predicted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Steve Sailer
    Resentment is only human. But our culture discourages short men from being too obvious in their resentment of tall men, even though it's a pretty reasonable resentment. It's not that tall men are a protected class per se, although they are somewhat privileged, it's that short men are not at all privileged, so they can be insulted back.

    In recent decades in our culture, however, it's been considered highly inappropriate for men to make fun of lesbian animus, so there is less social cost for lesbians to not suppress their feelings.

    It's much like how Jewish journalists were shocked a couple of years ago when they got insulted back on Twitter for insulting whites in the press. That never happened in the press, so they barely noticed they were doing it a lot.

    The funny thing about Twitter insult wars is that it never results in the original aggressors saying, Oh, yeah, I guess I was getting out of line, maybe I should tone it down.

    Instead, they conclude: See, I was right to hate those bastards all along.

    Do you think Napoleon resented tall men? Probably somewhat, but it’s far more probable that tall men resented Napoleon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Napoleon was 5'7, anyway. That was the average height for a European male at the time.

    What Napoleon was not was conventionally good looking or embued with social graces, especially in his early years. This earned him a fair amount of disdain from some of the higher-ups in post-Revolution France. But he'd show them better. 10 years later, it is safe to say that they resented him far more than he resented them.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Rosie says:
    @AnotherDad


    Agreeable, calm and conscientious women make better mothers, as a rule. This precludes most feminists.
     
    The problem is that you don’t know whether a woman will be that way with her children or not until she has one. Even number of desired children is not an accurate predictor of actual enjoyment of motherhood. I don’t have it on hand, but I believe this has been studied.
     
    Both are no doubt in play.

    It was no surprise to me that AnotherMom took well to motherhood. I wouldn't have been with her otherwise. Likewise no surprise my undergrad girlfriend--i was too immature and stupid to ship that--has done well as wife and mother. I generally have attraction to smart, level-headed gals of high character--imprinting from my mom?--no whiners, drama queens, shopaholics, etc.

    No doubt some gals improve dramatically with the in-rush of hormones and reality-check of motherhood. And probably there are a few--not many--quality, feminine, level-headed gals for whom motherhood just doesn't "click".

    But still, upfront character, smarts, non-drama feminity are the way to bet. The hormones make these gals more "motherly" but they don't alter fundamental character. Wifing-up any sort of SJW or drama-queen or girl-who-can-put-down-her-cell-phone and praying motherhood will improve her is a fool's errand. If you're any kind of man--have your shit together--you can do better.

    But still, upfront character, smarts, non-drama feminity are the way to bet.

    Except that I’m told there aren’t enough of these to go around.

    The hormones make these gals more “motherly” but they don’t alter fundamental character.

    I don’t know what you mean by altering fundamental character, but what motherhood most certainly can do is totally reorder a woman’s priorities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Cagey Beast
    As soon as women learn how to build railroads, they will put us all into boxcars and send us off camps.

    I’m not worried.



    Brilliant. Using similar logic, there's no reason to fear "youths" while walking on the streets at 2 AM because they'd need access to nuclear weapons to do you any real harm.

    Using similar logic, there’s no reason to fear “youths” while walking on the streets at 2 AM because they’d need access to nuclear weapons to do you any real harm.

    I’ll start walking the wrong streets at 2 AM when women start building railroads.

    Anyway, my comment was a feeble attempt at humor, with a word left out even. I will try better next time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    No movement is without elite support. A meaningful majority of humans , quite logically, don't really care about anything beyond their immediate life so movements are always driven by the "intolerant minority" as defined by Taleb. The Pareto Principle applies to this as well as anything else.

    However, the specific direction which feminism took does not need any conspiratorial explanation. It was a combination of takeover by the intolerant minority of lesbians(as C. Pagilia noted) and the ever-increasing demand for labor by corporations which by selling female employment as empowerment, proceeded to further increase their labor pool and successfully disguised the lack of any actual increase in wage since 1980.

    From a "march of history" perspective, one could consider that this was just a gradual process of destruction of the domestic sphere, which began with factory work in the 1890s and was solidified with urbanization in the 1930s-40s when men shifted from home work to industrialized urban work. From that perspective, women were just laggards; after the domestic work environment was destroyed for men, then it would be destroyed for women.

    This also accelerates the centralization of power away from the family unit, which is a competitor to state power. This is all, in a way, quite funny, because it essentially manages to domesticate humans into vastly passive economic units while selling the notion of individual autonomy to them. An interesting trick, that is, much like democracy itself.

    However, the specific direction which feminism took does not need any conspiratorial explanation.

    Here you seem to assume that a “conspiratorial explanation” is ipso facto less satisfactory. There is no basis in logic for this assumption.

    From a “march of history” perspective,

    History doesn’t March. It is directed by elites who very much like the idea that history marches. It makes it that much easier for them to pretend everything always just happens to turn out exactly as they like purely asa matter of totally unforeseeable coincidence that noone could have predicted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The invention of mass production would have no possible effect on the importance of craftmanship workshops?

    The introduction of guns would have no effect on the traits emphasized on soldiering?

    The proliferation of the Pill would have no effect on the number of unexpected children?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Rosie

    However, the specific direction which feminism took does not need any conspiratorial explanation.
     
    Here you seem to assume that a "conspiratorial explanation" is ipso facto less satisfactory. There is no basis in logic for this assumption.

    From a “march of history” perspective,
     
    History doesn't March. It is directed by elites who very much like the idea that history marches. It makes it that much easier for them to pretend everything always just happens to turn out exactly as they like purely asa matter of totally unforeseeable coincidence that noone could have predicted.

    The invention of mass production would have no possible effect on the importance of craftmanship workshops?

    The introduction of guns would have no effect on the traits emphasized on soldiering?

    The proliferation of the Pill would have no effect on the number of unexpected children?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    The invention of mass production would have no possible effect on the importance of craftmanship workshops?

    The introduction of guns would have no effect on the traits emphasized on soldiering?

    The proliferation of the Pill would have no effect on the number of unexpected children?
     

    Sure. Now I have a question for you. If history is a foregone conclusion, Why is Tommy Robinson in jail?

    Why is Steve Sailer relegated to this ghetto back alley of the internet with the likes of Whiskey and Sabril?

    Why was this dentist fired for attempting to inform Swedish women that their hostile, puppet government is cynically manipulating their femininity by trying to pass off thirty year old men as vulnerable "children"?

    The elites should have nothing to fear from free speech if history is determined by impersonal material forces.

    Here's the deal: The elite control discourse in order to control politics in order to direct history.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Stan d Mute

    In my own life experience I found this aphorism to hold true.
     
    Agreed, and yet one must hold in ones mind the fact that fags are a massive public health problem that dykes are not. The one thing the media always withholds from us is the danger of exposure to fecal matter. We’re never supposed to contemplate the realities, the mechanics and biology, of faggotry. Nor are we ever to google “gay bowel syndrome.” Is this related at all to how we sanitize our view of India and Africa where they routinely crap in their own water supplies? Is it because of the color of crap (don’t laugh, leftists are that stupid)?

    Glad you pointed that out. You’re absolutely right. As early as the 1960s public health noticed that even then gay men had the highest rate of STDs.

    Gays actually created AIDS HIV with their promiscuity. Billions have been spend not just in the diseases but the endless grant hustling poverty pimp do gooder agencies that raised awareness.

    Worst thing about the gay men is that many are bi sexual and their disease got into the heterosexual population

    There are a lot of reasons why health care is so expensive. 1 is free medical care for immigrants another is dealing with the gay men and their self inflicted diseases.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @TheBoom
    still trying to puzzle out why I want was not shocked to find out she is Jewish. Has anyone noticed a pattern of Jewish women hating white men?

    Jewish women hate White women as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    The invention of mass production would have no possible effect on the importance of craftmanship workshops?

    The introduction of guns would have no effect on the traits emphasized on soldiering?

    The proliferation of the Pill would have no effect on the number of unexpected children?

    The invention of mass production would have no possible effect on the importance of craftmanship workshops?

    The introduction of guns would have no effect on the traits emphasized on soldiering?

    The proliferation of the Pill would have no effect on the number of unexpected children?

    Sure. Now I have a question for you. If history is a foregone conclusion, Why is Tommy Robinson in jail?

    Why is Steve Sailer relegated to this ghetto back alley of the internet with the likes of Whiskey and Sabril?

    Why was this dentist fired for attempting to inform Swedish women that their hostile, puppet government is cynically manipulating their femininity by trying to pass off thirty year old men as vulnerable “children”?

    The elites should have nothing to fear from free speech if history is determined by impersonal material forces.

    Here’s the deal: The elite control discourse in order to control politics in order to direct history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    But why are they the elite? Certainly there are members privileged in this zeitgeist, but why are they the zeitgeist? Why aren't they, for example, Oneida complex marriage perfectionists or Realian worshippers? Even if repugnant, there's something about what they do which clearly is functioning on a political level.

    An accurate view of reality needs to take in account that humans, like other animals, exist inside a habitat. Humans are unique in that our habitat of possibilities is impacted by technological change, specifically in emergent and disruptive ways, which I find quite unfortunate but nonetheless must integrate into an accurate view of reality, e.g. women would never be liberated if the washing machine didn't exist or if birth mortality remained high; democracy probably not exist if the gun did not level humanity and encourage mass conscription/enfranchisement of common man.

    Certainly these larger trends, an elite will often manipulate or affect things to benefit themselves. Nonetheless, it behooves us to understand why such an elite is there, why they are thus capable of exerting power, even if we do not agree with their presence or find it actively toxic.

    Otherwise it pretty much becomes "a demon did it," which while may be mentally satisfying, it can have poor predictive value which is probably the most important part of any theory. Whiskey's demon is clearly not the same as yours, but in both cases, its demons.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Why was this dentist fired for attempting to inform Swedish women that their hostile, puppet government is cynically manipulating their femininity by trying to pass off thirty year old men as vulnerable “children”?

     

    Calling male Arabs of any age "children" is, to borrow Steve's locution, not wholly untrue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @ccz
    “Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.”

    I agree. I think a week without men doing all the physically and mentally demanding and dangerous things that men do would be a good response to all the hate the patriarchy lesbians and their political sisters. Start with “step away from the power” and literally have men take a collective vacation and ignore the electric utility grid for a week. Let the gender studies professors keep the generators running and perform "hot wire" maintenance on the 500 kVA transmission lines that carry the electricity all those feminist social media influencers and complainers rely on to "power" their daily lives.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGywP1-ZPAk

    Come on up, ladies, and get your equal pay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    It doesn't even have to be something terrifying.

    Let's see a crew of 6 women frame, pour, and finish 1o0 yards (400,000 pounds) of concrete curb a day in the 90 degree heat.

    https://youtu.be/Sov6kfzsmVE
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Dr. X says:
    @sabril
    The Washington Post is owned by Jeffrey Jorgensen n/k/a Jeff Bezos. I kinda doubt he's a m/o/t but let's see your evidence.

    Also, does this article say anything about white men? Gentile men? Or is it about men in general?

    The Washington Post is owned by Jeffrey Jorgensen n/k/a Jeff Bezos. I kinda doubt he’s a m/o/t but let’s see your evidence.

    Katherine Meyer Graham ran the WaPo for about forty years beginning in the ’60s. Bezos’s conglomerate owns it today, but Martin Baron, the current editor, is a certified MOT:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Baron

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril
    :shrug: There are Jewish people in positions of importance in almost every large organization in the Northeastern United States.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Rosie

    The invention of mass production would have no possible effect on the importance of craftmanship workshops?

    The introduction of guns would have no effect on the traits emphasized on soldiering?

    The proliferation of the Pill would have no effect on the number of unexpected children?
     

    Sure. Now I have a question for you. If history is a foregone conclusion, Why is Tommy Robinson in jail?

    Why is Steve Sailer relegated to this ghetto back alley of the internet with the likes of Whiskey and Sabril?

    Why was this dentist fired for attempting to inform Swedish women that their hostile, puppet government is cynically manipulating their femininity by trying to pass off thirty year old men as vulnerable "children"?

    The elites should have nothing to fear from free speech if history is determined by impersonal material forces.

    Here's the deal: The elite control discourse in order to control politics in order to direct history.

    But why are they the elite? Certainly there are members privileged in this zeitgeist, but why are they the zeitgeist? Why aren’t they, for example, Oneida complex marriage perfectionists or Realian worshippers? Even if repugnant, there’s something about what they do which clearly is functioning on a political level.

    An accurate view of reality needs to take in account that humans, like other animals, exist inside a habitat. Humans are unique in that our habitat of possibilities is impacted by technological change, specifically in emergent and disruptive ways, which I find quite unfortunate but nonetheless must integrate into an accurate view of reality, e.g. women would never be liberated if the washing machine didn’t exist or if birth mortality remained high; democracy probably not exist if the gun did not level humanity and encourage mass conscription/enfranchisement of common man.

    Certainly these larger trends, an elite will often manipulate or affect things to benefit themselves. Nonetheless, it behooves us to understand why such an elite is there, why they are thus capable of exerting power, even if we do not agree with their presence or find it actively toxic.

    Otherwise it pretty much becomes “a demon did it,” which while may be mentally satisfying, it can have poor predictive value which is probably the most important part of any theory. Whiskey’s demon is clearly not the same as yours, but in both cases, its demons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    But why are they the elite?
     
    Is this the part where you tell me, all else having failed, that I shouldn't take my own side because my people are weak and deserve to perish?

    Certainly these larger trends, an elite will often manipulate or affect things to benefit themselves. Nonetheless, it behooves us to understand why such an elite is there, why they are thus capable of exerting power, even if we do not agree with their presence or find it actively toxic.
     
    Pretty much.

    Otherwise it pretty much becomes “a demon did it,” which while may be mentally satisfying, it can have poor predictive value which is probably the most important part of any theory. Whiskey’s demon is clearly not the same as yours, but in both cases, its demons.
     
    I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not playing dumb here. Radical feminism is being used as an excuse to roll back the clock to, I don't know, the Stone Age, on women's rights, on precisely the slippery slope grounds you resorted above. IOW, we have to pull up feminism from the very root, otherwise we'll just wind up back in the same place. I am telling you I don't agree with that. Under ordinary circumstances, men would have started resisting feminist excesses a long time ago. There would have been a backlash, and I mean that in a healthy sense. What we have is one of those "conversations" the Left is always demanding, the kind where only one side gets to have their say. Now, I consider this fact absolutely critical to a realistic evaluation of your slippery slope, or march of history, argument. You can call that "demons" if you like. I rather suspect you are trying, consciously or not, to prevent any rapprochement between White men and women because you feel threatened by White identity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @sabril

    I imagine its the same reason why some gays really, really hate women. Competition.
     
    I haven't noticed much woman-hatred among gay men. In fact, a lot of gay men (the very feminine ones) seem to enjoy hanging out with women and being one of the girls.

    How many gay men do you actually know or is that just another stereotype you’ve picked up from TV? Judging by your comments I highly doubt you move in a milieu where there are any gay men at all.

    Psychiatrists used to claim men were gay because their mommies were dominant and that gays hated women because of that. It was totally wrong of course as was every diagnosis and pronouncement the followers of Dr Fraud ever made.

    Effiminate gays are competitive with women about things like decorating cooking table setting and feminine things. They tend to like masculine gay men.

    I’ve noticed that in the workplace gay men supervisors tend to be harsh with women and very, very accomodating to men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I think there's some variation and women certainly do seem to like gay men. But the nastiest, most horrid insults I've ever heard about women - which go well beyond anything Whiskey said - came from gay men in my experience.

    Its a lot like women with women, in some ways. They smile and call each other sister, wait until the other is out of sight, and immediately badmouths her friend.
    , @sabril

    How many gay men do you actually know
     
    Lots and lots, as (1) I am a professional in NYC; and (2) my children study dance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Bill P says:
    @AnotherDad


    Agreeable, calm and conscientious women make better mothers, as a rule. This precludes most feminists.
     
    The problem is that you don’t know whether a woman will be that way with her children or not until she has one. Even number of desired children is not an accurate predictor of actual enjoyment of motherhood. I don’t have it on hand, but I believe this has been studied.
     
    Both are no doubt in play.

    It was no surprise to me that AnotherMom took well to motherhood. I wouldn't have been with her otherwise. Likewise no surprise my undergrad girlfriend--i was too immature and stupid to ship that--has done well as wife and mother. I generally have attraction to smart, level-headed gals of high character--imprinting from my mom?--no whiners, drama queens, shopaholics, etc.

    No doubt some gals improve dramatically with the in-rush of hormones and reality-check of motherhood. And probably there are a few--not many--quality, feminine, level-headed gals for whom motherhood just doesn't "click".

    But still, upfront character, smarts, non-drama feminity are the way to bet. The hormones make these gals more "motherly" but they don't alter fundamental character. Wifing-up any sort of SJW or drama-queen or girl-who-can-put-down-her-cell-phone and praying motherhood will improve her is a fool's errand. If you're any kind of man--have your shit together--you can do better.

    I generally have attraction to smart, level-headed gals of high character–imprinting from my mom?–no whiners, drama queens, shopaholics, etc.

    Lucky you. I have attraction to adventurous, mercurial types. I have paid dearly for that, but it’s been quite a ride.

    I wish I preferred level-headed nice girls, but they bore me, and I don’t treat them as well as I ought to.

    But ultimately I think good fatherhood, i.e. benevolent patriarchy, is more important to children’s development than whether or not their mothers are supermoms, which most women are not.

    By working to destroy patriarchy, feminists have done more harm to children than anyone else in our society (both meanings of that sentence are true). If people don’t believe me when I say that, I tell them to look up the sexual assault stats for daughters of single moms vs. daughters who live with their bio dads. The figures are very instructive. People who know them should be outraged by feminists and the judges who indulge them.

    There are of course scores of other measures that prove my point, but the above may be the most salient to women who might otherwise agree with witches like the lesbian who wrote the WaPo screed (and who actually have a conscience).

    Read More
    • Replies: @JSM
    Gents, let me explain something to you. In 1974, Congress passed and Gerald Ford signed "Equal Credit Opportunity Act." Supposedly to "stop discriminating against women in getting credit." "How terrible that a married woman can't have credit in her own name" blah blah blah. Prior to ECOA, to qualify a married couple for a mortgage, a bank could only consider the husband's income, because it's common sense that, even if the wife is working now, when the kids show up, she'll be a stay at home mom, so we can't write loans for 30 years for income that won't continue that long.

    So, when Congress (more men than women, you'll note) in its infinite wisdom of bowing to feminist pressures, decided to make it so that the wife's income could be considered under ECOA, that very act is what has utterly destroyed the American family.

    As my dad (a home builder) pointed out at the time, all this will do is drive up housing prices. Because, since a couple CAN borrow more now, the sellers will demand more money. And, as we see, that's EXACTLY what's happened. Such that, nowadays a family can NOT buy a house in most cases unless the wife works too to pay the mortgage.

    But, a full time job and full time motherhood are just incompatible. It's just too hard. And since houses in neighborhoods with "good schools" (i.e., safe, i.e., White) cost so much that the wife has to work to make the payment and since motherhood and full time work are too hard to do at the same time, American women either don't have kids (cuz they're NOT gonna put em in bad, i.e., minority, schools) or have to leave kids in daycare, where godknowswhat will happen to them.

    So, decry the feminists, by all means. But let's heap the requisite share of opprobrium upon the MEN in Congress (only 16 of the 535 members of Congress were women in the 93rd Congress) who are, in actual FACT, the ones responsible for the single most destructive act against Affordable Family Formation that's ever occurred.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. I have four very successful daughters who have made their mark in life without hating anyone, men included.Women like this author are trash.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  186. @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Why should human wetware be any less hackable than machinery of any other type?
     
    You can hack the machinery, but you cannot hack the humanity. Now cinch up your straps and tuck that materialist slip out of sight.

    There’s a theory that Rome was successfully mindhacked by a desire for urban piping. Urban lead piping. The Romans seemed pretty human to me.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/111/18/6594

    By measuring Pb isotope compositions of sediments from the Tiber River and the Trajanic Harbor, the present work shows that “tap water” from ancient Rome had 100 times more lead than local spring waters.

    Fortunately, even Rome at the time was too limited to spread this technology and implement it worldwide. That, however, is no longer true of the modern world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Anon[226] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    It’s true about the pregnancy raising little ones euphoria. But it wears off after about 12 years.

    God in his infinite wisdom sends us teenagers when we already learned to love them!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Anon
    How many gay men do you actually know or is that just another stereotype you’ve picked up from TV? Judging by your comments I highly doubt you move in a milieu where there are any gay men at all.

    Psychiatrists used to claim men were gay because their mommies were dominant and that gays hated women because of that. It was totally wrong of course as was every diagnosis and pronouncement the followers of Dr Fraud ever made.

    Effiminate gays are competitive with women about things like decorating cooking table setting and feminine things. They tend to like masculine gay men.

    I’ve noticed that in the workplace gay men supervisors tend to be harsh with women and very, very accomodating to men.

    I think there’s some variation and women certainly do seem to like gay men. But the nastiest, most horrid insults I’ve ever heard about women – which go well beyond anything Whiskey said – came from gay men in my experience.

    Its a lot like women with women, in some ways. They smile and call each other sister, wait until the other is out of sight, and immediately badmouths her friend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Its a lot like women with women, in some ways. They smile and call each other sister, wait until the other is out of sight, and immediately badmouths her friend.
     
    How would yo know, Daniel? Or should I call you Danielle?

    This is the imperative of female solidarity.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LVOpMzz8t20

    , @nebulafox
    From my observation, many women (far from all-tomboys aren't susceptible to this-but enough to make it noteworthy) like gay men who conform to their stereotype of gay men for the reasons you'd logically expect: they share their interests and personality without being social competition in the way that other women are.

    Homosexual men who do not conform to pop culture's ideal (i.e, they aren't effeminate and don't really define themselves through their sexual identity), on the other hand... well, they don't tend to like the "special relationship" very much. I mean at all. It's been a while since I've drunkenly listened to a drunken rant about the subject, but I recall the sheer irritation on their faces when they were immediately asked-without any sort of prompting-if they wanted to do nails or shop or listen to a tearful monologue about their feelings about their ex-boyfriend upon women learning of their sexuality. "No, no, you don't seem to get it, I'm still a guy..."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @sabril
    I wonder what psychological process causes masculine lesbians to hate men so much.

    Possible explanations I thought of:

    1. Everyone has anti-male bias, but with men it's balanced by a sense of identity with other men and in straight women it's balanced by sexual attraction.

    2. Lesbians realize at some level that they are physically and intellectually inferior to actual men which causes jealousy and bitterness.

    3. Women become lesbians if they are mistreated by men and this mistreatment results in lasting hatred.

    Anyway, I'm pretty confident that sexual misconduct by the likes of Harvey Weinstein is more an excuse than an actual reason for this woman's misandry.

    Penis envy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Mr. Rational
    The appropriate response is for men to simply refuse to build such robots for women.  "You want a man?  Try being a woman."

    If anyone did build them, hacking them would be a constant game/threat.  Programming one to bite, for example.

    Any robot sophisticated enough to cook is sophisticated enough to kill. This could be a major hurdle to widespread sales. Ending in a ball of fire when your Tesla accidentally mistakes an overpass for a straightaway is an unpleasant possibility, but a surmountable PR challenge.

    The first time, however, a sleeping Skynet customer is given a median sternotomy with a steak knife will be a tough thing for the robotic-man-replacement industry to live down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Authenticjazzman
    Pure visable insanity, in it's most extreme apparition.

    Just for the fun of it I would really love to have a conversation with her, as she represents everything a sane person would reject.

    AJM

    Your understanding of what ‘conversation’ means probably differs significantly from hers…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. eah says:
    @eah
    questions of gender, feminist theory and politics, sexuality, and popular culture

    Given the continuing trend of (significantly) more women than men attending college, and considering what women typically, err, study, a thoughtful person ought to ponder the future...

    http://blogs-images.forbes.com/ccap/files/2012/02/blog-chart1.jpg

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfHdriCXcAAf9hL.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. JSM says:
    @Bill P

    I generally have attraction to smart, level-headed gals of high character–imprinting from my mom?–no whiners, drama queens, shopaholics, etc.
     
    Lucky you. I have attraction to adventurous, mercurial types. I have paid dearly for that, but it's been quite a ride.

    I wish I preferred level-headed nice girls, but they bore me, and I don't treat them as well as I ought to.

    But ultimately I think good fatherhood, i.e. benevolent patriarchy, is more important to children's development than whether or not their mothers are supermoms, which most women are not.

    By working to destroy patriarchy, feminists have done more harm to children than anyone else in our society (both meanings of that sentence are true). If people don't believe me when I say that, I tell them to look up the sexual assault stats for daughters of single moms vs. daughters who live with their bio dads. The figures are very instructive. People who know them should be outraged by feminists and the judges who indulge them.

    There are of course scores of other measures that prove my point, but the above may be the most salient to women who might otherwise agree with witches like the lesbian who wrote the WaPo screed (and who actually have a conscience).

    Gents, let me explain something to you. In 1974, Congress passed and Gerald Ford signed “Equal Credit Opportunity Act.” Supposedly to “stop discriminating against women in getting credit.” “How terrible that a married woman can’t have credit in her own name” blah blah blah. Prior to ECOA, to qualify a married couple for a mortgage, a bank could only consider the husband’s income, because it’s common sense that, even if the wife is working now, when the kids show up, she’ll be a stay at home mom, so we can’t write loans for 30 years for income that won’t continue that long.

    So, when Congress (more men than women, you’ll note) in its infinite wisdom of bowing to feminist pressures, decided to make it so that the wife’s income could be considered under ECOA, that very act is what has utterly destroyed the American family.

    As my dad (a home builder) pointed out at the time, all this will do is drive up housing prices. Because, since a couple CAN borrow more now, the sellers will demand more money. And, as we see, that’s EXACTLY what’s happened. Such that, nowadays a family can NOT buy a house in most cases unless the wife works too to pay the mortgage.

    But, a full time job and full time motherhood are just incompatible. It’s just too hard. And since houses in neighborhoods with “good schools” (i.e., safe, i.e., White) cost so much that the wife has to work to make the payment and since motherhood and full time work are too hard to do at the same time, American women either don’t have kids (cuz they’re NOT gonna put em in bad, i.e., minority, schools) or have to leave kids in daycare, where godknowswhat will happen to them.

    So, decry the feminists, by all means. But let’s heap the requisite share of opprobrium upon the MEN in Congress (only 16 of the 535 members of Congress were women in the 93rd Congress) who are, in actual FACT, the ones responsible for the single most destructive act against Affordable Family Formation that’s ever occurred.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Very interesting point, JSM. It's an example of how the most benign-sounding acts of government can have huge unintended consequences.

    You may argue that "they knew what they were doing", but I'd say, for > 90 % of those congressman voting Yeah, it was probably just:

    1) Why not? Who cares? Whatever is gonna get me a few more votes - I'm for it!
    2) Now that's gotta be good for the economy, right?
    3) It's only fair.

    That's not to say there aren't people behind the scenes who realize the future consequences, but even most of them I doubt have this all planned out nicely. Stupidity exists at all levels.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Johanus de Morgateroyde
    Come on up, ladies, and get your equal pay.

    https://twitter.com/LAReviewofBooks/status/827406373050658816

    It doesn’t even have to be something terrifying.

    Let’s see a crew of 6 women frame, pour, and finish 1o0 yards (400,000 pounds) of concrete curb a day in the 90 degree heat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. J.Ross says: • Website

    She’s taking her own head, screwing it on right, and no man is going to tell her that it’s not.

    (There used to be a shorter edit and it seems to have been taken down. tldr all of modern feminism predicted in a ten minute SCTV sketch segment, especially the part where the man climbs the stairs.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  196. Anonymous[604] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    I would rather die than depend on you for anything, because I have self-respect
     
    I think you might want to ponder how interdependent our society really is. And how likely it is that you depend on some men whose views you would find reprehensible if you knew them. Our infrastructure does not maintain itself. Nor does our garbage get picked up, our cars get repaired, etc. without many mostly male workers doing their jobs every day.

    A fun thought experiment is how the population of a major university (professors and administrators) would do if left on a desert island without their maintenance staff.

    Isn’t that ye olde (70s) feminist critique, a la Virginia Held? That Western Civilization is biased by an overweening, typically male belief in self-determination and authorship, a/k/a “genius,” whereas women are inclined to recognize the dyads conceale under every fish-story of innovation a-go-go? BTW I do think there’s something to this school of thought but most wahhhhmen lack the discipline to articulate it

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Sunbeam says:
    @TheMediumIsTheMassage
    In terms of raw (heh) numbers, I’d be willing to bet there are more women being anally penetrated by their partners than gay men any given week (except for pride, perhaps).

    The gay public health issue is STDs, not fecal matter. And no, they’re not related. As a gay man I’d prefer not to go back to 1950s style criminalization and repression, but I do think some intra-gay community prudishness would be useful. Perhaps this is where gay marriage becoming so mainstream can help out.

    “but I do think some intra-gay community prudishness would be useful. Perhaps this is where gay marriage becoming so mainstream can help out.”

    Do you really think that is why things are the way they are though? Really?

    I’m sure some people become lonely or find that they really are just meant to be in a monogamous relationship.

    But be honest. Do straight men, even the “Alpha” males have sex as often as gay men can if they wish and aren’t physically unattractive?

    My take is a gay man can quite literally have sex with 10 or 12 men in a night if he wishes (and this has been done, and is being done frequently). If Whiskey wants, he can describe how this happens all the time for his Alpha Dogs, but I ain’t buyin’ it.

    If all you want is to get that rush of endorphins in your brain from sex, it is a darn sight more convenient and productive to be gay. Plus you don’t have to call the other person the next day.

    If I’m wrong, I’m happy to be corrected. But I’ve wondered for a bit, exactly how many gay people are really gay? In some parts of the country it’s a useful social trait for employment, and well just socially.

    And if you view sex as just another way to get high, and don’t need what is in the end just a sex toy to have a vagina, well….

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheMediumIsTheMassage
    I don't know anyone who's a 'fake gay' and I can't imagine that happening, most straight men, even the ones who are completely ok with it and have some gay friends, would never want to be considered one. Unless you're in Broadway or the fashion industry, I don't think it would be useful for employment at all.

    12 in a night would be possible in an orgy setting I suppose, but 12 individual men? You'd have to be incredibly attractive and have a lot of stamina I suppose. Personally the most I've been with is two different guys in a week, which I would say is much closer to the norm for the average gay guy in a big city. As with straight guys, there is a small percentage of gay men who have most of the sex. On apps, it's mostly the same faces that you'll see week after week. Then there's a large segment of gay men who flit in and out of hook up phases. The problem with the grid-system gay dating apps is that while it makes sex very easy (far easier than Tinder is for straight people), there are so many options that people end up having a mental stack of candidates and they 'flake' out very easily so that they might have a chance of sleeping with a hotter guy. So it really ends up being you on the phone for hours talking to all these guys trying to arrange a hook up or date or whatever and you'll probably get one that night, but it will take you a few hours. So twelve of those would be very time-consuming and aggravating.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    I think there's some variation and women certainly do seem to like gay men. But the nastiest, most horrid insults I've ever heard about women - which go well beyond anything Whiskey said - came from gay men in my experience.

    Its a lot like women with women, in some ways. They smile and call each other sister, wait until the other is out of sight, and immediately badmouths her friend.

    Its a lot like women with women, in some ways. They smile and call each other sister, wait until the other is out of sight, and immediately badmouths her friend.

    How would yo know, Daniel? Or should I call you Danielle?

    This is the imperative of female solidarity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    But why are they the elite? Certainly there are members privileged in this zeitgeist, but why are they the zeitgeist? Why aren't they, for example, Oneida complex marriage perfectionists or Realian worshippers? Even if repugnant, there's something about what they do which clearly is functioning on a political level.

    An accurate view of reality needs to take in account that humans, like other animals, exist inside a habitat. Humans are unique in that our habitat of possibilities is impacted by technological change, specifically in emergent and disruptive ways, which I find quite unfortunate but nonetheless must integrate into an accurate view of reality, e.g. women would never be liberated if the washing machine didn't exist or if birth mortality remained high; democracy probably not exist if the gun did not level humanity and encourage mass conscription/enfranchisement of common man.

    Certainly these larger trends, an elite will often manipulate or affect things to benefit themselves. Nonetheless, it behooves us to understand why such an elite is there, why they are thus capable of exerting power, even if we do not agree with their presence or find it actively toxic.

    Otherwise it pretty much becomes "a demon did it," which while may be mentally satisfying, it can have poor predictive value which is probably the most important part of any theory. Whiskey's demon is clearly not the same as yours, but in both cases, its demons.

    But why are they the elite?

    Is this the part where you tell me, all else having failed, that I shouldn’t take my own side because my people are weak and deserve to perish?

    Certainly these larger trends, an elite will often manipulate or affect things to benefit themselves. Nonetheless, it behooves us to understand why such an elite is there, why they are thus capable of exerting power, even if we do not agree with their presence or find it actively toxic.

    Pretty much.

    Otherwise it pretty much becomes “a demon did it,” which while may be mentally satisfying, it can have poor predictive value which is probably the most important part of any theory. Whiskey’s demon is clearly not the same as yours, but in both cases, its demons.

    I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not playing dumb here. Radical feminism is being used as an excuse to roll back the clock to, I don’t know, the Stone Age, on women’s rights, on precisely the slippery slope grounds you resorted above. IOW, we have to pull up feminism from the very root, otherwise we’ll just wind up back in the same place. I am telling you I don’t agree with that. Under ordinary circumstances, men would have started resisting feminist excesses a long time ago. There would have been a backlash, and I mean that in a healthy sense. What we have is one of those “conversations” the Left is always demanding, the kind where only one side gets to have their say. Now, I consider this fact absolutely critical to a realistic evaluation of your slippery slope, or march of history, argument. You can call that “demons” if you like. I rather suspect you are trying, consciously or not, to prevent any rapprochement between White men and women because you feel threatened by White identity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Is this the part where you tell me, all else having failed, that I shouldn’t take my own side because my people are weak and deserve to perish?

     

    No, "deserving" has nothing to do with anything. If it was up to me, I'd make Bronze Age Pervert the demiurge of the world-reality and all things shall be determined through surfing and deadlift contests. I wouldn't do great in that world, but damn if it wouldn't be awesome. That's be "deserving." But its also not real.

    But more importantly, if you want to "win", its important to understand the actual nature of the world and as much as possible, how the technology and environment affect human nature and adapt to it. Just as the introduction of gunpowder changed the tactical landscape to require a different emphasis to prevail, so does the introduction of technology impact the social landscape and its important to realize this even when its disagreeable. Its only then can someone work with it.


    Under ordinary circumstances, men would have started resisting feminist excesses a long time ago. There would have been a backlash, and I mean that in a healthy sense.
     
    How do you know that this isn't the backlash? At any rate, I actually do not think that's necessarily true. Under traditional circumstances, women were significantly weaker but still prioritized, and with the relatively reduced importance of men, there's no specific reason why women wouldn't essentially be unusually advantaged, and that they wouldn't want to use this advantage(even if it causes them long-term harm).

    I think that expecting that nature has, or tends toward balance is an error. It doesn't, not in the way that we think of balance, at any rate. If fertilizer is dumped into a pond, algae blooms, overshades everything else and then dies off en masse. If a cell gets too greedy in a body and it can't be stopped, it becomes cancerous and kills the host(and yes, itself). When a predator is removed from a niche, it often isn't replaced by another, and the prey species just overexpands until it starves and causes massive devastation along the way.

    Nature's balance, unfortunately, is just excess and die offs.


    I rather suspect you are trying, consciously or not, to prevent any rapprochement between White men and women because you feel threatened by White identity.
     
    At first I laughed out loud, but then I envisioned an eternal conga line of pussywhipped white men dancing endlessly while screaming forth feminist pieties in rhyme. It was truly a terrifying, Lovecraftian nightmare.

    I shall call it Sweden.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. BB753 says:
    @TheMediumIsTheMassage
    In terms of raw (heh) numbers, I’d be willing to bet there are more women being anally penetrated by their partners than gay men any given week (except for pride, perhaps).

    The gay public health issue is STDs, not fecal matter. And no, they’re not related. As a gay man I’d prefer not to go back to 1950s style criminalization and repression, but I do think some intra-gay community prudishness would be useful. Perhaps this is where gay marriage becoming so mainstream can help out.

    “In terms of raw (heh) numbers, I’d be willing to bet there are more women being anally penetrated by their partners than gay men any given week (except for pride, perhaps). (…)
    As a gay man.. (…)”

    Stop right there, dude! It’s pretty obvious you know nothing about women. Many of them are reluctant to fellatio, never mind anal penetration.
    And were it not for “poppers”, fewer gays would be game for butt piracy, I’d wager.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    And were it not for “poppers”, fewer gays would be game for butt piracy, I’d wager.
     
    What do poppers have to do with anal piracy? I've done the former, but not the latter.
    , @anonymous

    And were it not for “poppers”, fewer gays would be game for butt piracy, I’d wager.
     
    Nah. I'm gay and did poppers the one time they were ever offered to me. Gave me a headache for the better part of a week. Would not recommend.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. njguy73 says:
    @Rosie
    The 42K Petit Chalet

    s'il vous plait.

    http://www.poshtots.com/_common/_assets/product_images/29/2754_PD2.jpg

    That place is nicer than my first apartment.

    Read More
    • LOL: Rosie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Lot says:
    @Rosie

    There’s a biological reason for that.
     
    There may be a problem related to oxytocin deficiency. Women in traditional roles get a natural anti-depressant/anti-anxiety effect when nursing/caring for our children. Women in cubicles have the same amount of stress, if not more, but they don't get that help from Mother Nature. That's my theory anyway. I suspect it takes its toll after awhile.

    Seems correct to me, though in traditional societies childless women would bond closely to other children in the family.

    Breast and ovarian cancer risk is higher in women who do not have children, though most ovarian cancer is caused by STDs. This ovarian cancer higher risk for childless females also extends to most other mammals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Het men are not the only ones who base career advancement on sex. Lesbians do it too, and they can be even nastier when they don’t get their way, because there’s still the usual female competition along with frustrated desire. Ask any of Prof. Bulldagger’s former students. Or ask actresses who’ve worked with lesbian directors who gets all the leads.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  204. sabril says:
    @Anon
    How many gay men do you actually know or is that just another stereotype you’ve picked up from TV? Judging by your comments I highly doubt you move in a milieu where there are any gay men at all.

    Psychiatrists used to claim men were gay because their mommies were dominant and that gays hated women because of that. It was totally wrong of course as was every diagnosis and pronouncement the followers of Dr Fraud ever made.

    Effiminate gays are competitive with women about things like decorating cooking table setting and feminine things. They tend to like masculine gay men.

    I’ve noticed that in the workplace gay men supervisors tend to be harsh with women and very, very accomodating to men.

    How many gay men do you actually know

    Lots and lots, as (1) I am a professional in NYC; and (2) my children study dance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. sabril says:
    @Dr. X

    The Washington Post is owned by Jeffrey Jorgensen n/k/a Jeff Bezos. I kinda doubt he’s a m/o/t but let’s see your evidence.

     

    Katherine Meyer Graham ran the WaPo for about forty years beginning in the '60s. Bezos's conglomerate owns it today, but Martin Baron, the current editor, is a certified MOT:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Baron

    :shrug: There are Jewish people in positions of importance in almost every large organization in the Northeastern United States.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    :shrug: There are Jewish people in positions of importance in almost every large organization in the Northeastern United States.
     
    Q.E.D.... Z.O.G.

    I don't see how we're in any disagreement here. Let's put it this way: would the Washington Post publish an op-ed by a Gentile academic asking "Why can't we just hate Jews?" and advocating that Jews give up positions of power? Or would the Jewish editor spike it immediately?

    To ask the question is to answer it.

    But the a Jewish lesbian academic can publish such tripe about hating men is published by a Jewish editor as if it were common sense... and you greet that with a shrug.

    That puzzles me greatly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @Rosie

    But why are they the elite?
     
    Is this the part where you tell me, all else having failed, that I shouldn't take my own side because my people are weak and deserve to perish?

    Certainly these larger trends, an elite will often manipulate or affect things to benefit themselves. Nonetheless, it behooves us to understand why such an elite is there, why they are thus capable of exerting power, even if we do not agree with their presence or find it actively toxic.
     
    Pretty much.

    Otherwise it pretty much becomes “a demon did it,” which while may be mentally satisfying, it can have poor predictive value which is probably the most important part of any theory. Whiskey’s demon is clearly not the same as yours, but in both cases, its demons.
     
    I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not playing dumb here. Radical feminism is being used as an excuse to roll back the clock to, I don't know, the Stone Age, on women's rights, on precisely the slippery slope grounds you resorted above. IOW, we have to pull up feminism from the very root, otherwise we'll just wind up back in the same place. I am telling you I don't agree with that. Under ordinary circumstances, men would have started resisting feminist excesses a long time ago. There would have been a backlash, and I mean that in a healthy sense. What we have is one of those "conversations" the Left is always demanding, the kind where only one side gets to have their say. Now, I consider this fact absolutely critical to a realistic evaluation of your slippery slope, or march of history, argument. You can call that "demons" if you like. I rather suspect you are trying, consciously or not, to prevent any rapprochement between White men and women because you feel threatened by White identity.

    Is this the part where you tell me, all else having failed, that I shouldn’t take my own side because my people are weak and deserve to perish?

    No, “deserving” has nothing to do with anything. If it was up to me, I’d make Bronze Age Pervert the demiurge of the world-reality and all things shall be determined through surfing and deadlift contests. I wouldn’t do great in that world, but damn if it wouldn’t be awesome. That’s be “deserving.” But its also not real.

    But more importantly, if you want to “win”, its important to understand the actual nature of the world and as much as possible, how the technology and environment affect human nature and adapt to it. Just as the introduction of gunpowder changed the tactical landscape to require a different emphasis to prevail, so does the introduction of technology impact the social landscape and its important to realize this even when its disagreeable. Its only then can someone work with it.

    Under ordinary circumstances, men would have started resisting feminist excesses a long time ago. There would have been a backlash, and I mean that in a healthy sense.

    How do you know that this isn’t the backlash? At any rate, I actually do not think that’s necessarily true. Under traditional circumstances, women were significantly weaker but still prioritized, and with the relatively reduced importance of men, there’s no specific reason why women wouldn’t essentially be unusually advantaged, and that they wouldn’t want to use this advantage(even if it causes them long-term harm).

    I think that expecting that nature has, or tends toward balance is an error. It doesn’t, not in the way that we think of balance, at any rate. If fertilizer is dumped into a pond, algae blooms, overshades everything else and then dies off en masse. If a cell gets too greedy in a body and it can’t be stopped, it becomes cancerous and kills the host(and yes, itself). When a predator is removed from a niche, it often isn’t replaced by another, and the prey species just overexpands until it starves and causes massive devastation along the way.

    Nature’s balance, unfortunately, is just excess and die offs.

    I rather suspect you are trying, consciously or not, to prevent any rapprochement between White men and women because you feel threatened by White identity.

    At first I laughed out loud, but then I envisioned an eternal conga line of pussywhipped white men dancing endlessly while screaming forth feminist pieties in rhyme. It was truly a terrifying, Lovecraftian nightmare.

    I shall call it Sweden.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    If a cell gets too greedy in a body and it can’t be stopped, it becomes cancerous and kills the host(and yes, itself).
     
    Fortunately, women are not cancer but sentient beings.

    At first I laughed out loud, but then I envisioned an eternal conga line of pussywhipped white men dancing endlessly while screaming forth feminist pieties in rhyme. It was truly a terrifying, Lovecraftian nightmare.

    I shall call it Sweden.
     

    Well, that's a relief. I hate to think badly of people, you know.

    As for the Swedes, they are indeed puzzled by the extreme hatred of women found in the alt-Right. They recognize that women are not to blame for their problems. The funny thing is, Swedish women have been relatively fertile compared to supposedly more traditional Italian women. I'm not fond of feminism, but it's relationship to low birth rates is more complicated than many are willing to admit. Old-fashioned hedonism is at least as much to blame.

    , @BB753
    Where doth Bronze Age Pervert abide? 4Chan?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. sabril says:
    @Forbes
    What did Harvey Weinstein ever do to a lesbian to deserve their hatred?

    Were any of his alleged victims actual lesbians?

    It might very well be that subconsciously, this lesbian is envious of Harvey Weinstein and wishes she were in a position to trade opportunities for sexual favors from attractive young women.

    But having thought about it, I think it’s more likely that she just hates men in general and she knows that Harvey Weinstein is a useful example to use to stoke the flames of hatred against men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. sabril says:
    @Anon
    Israel’s a tiny country with a tiny population. The ultra orthodox have a unique position that enables the separation.

    An incredible number of hetero married women with children are very active in the hate men branch of the feminazis

    The entire feminazi thing was created by the Ford Rockefeller Woods McArthur foundations in the space of a few years. Motive was private sector union busting price inflation wage stagnation and to increase the work force by about 1/3 in just a few years.

    The increase of married women in The workplace coupled with the baby boomers entering the workplace gave the capitalists the vast army of the unemployed they needed.

    The ultra orthodox have a unique position that enables the separation.

    I don’t think it’s unique; in any democracy a minority that is significant and cohesive can set the agenda on issues which are important to them.

    Israel’s a tiny country with a tiny population

    It’s not the overall size that matters so much as the percentages.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @Stan d Mute

    But one can envision a future with robots that satisfy these needs. i.e. a robotic waifu for men who is always sexy, a great cook, and doesn’t constantly ask her man for money.
     
    We are well on our way to this now. And look at the unhinged hysterical reaction from women (ie Daily Mail)..

    And some kind of robot for women who similarly takes care of her economic and other needs. In that future, I would expect that a lot of people really will go their own way.
     
    Who fixes the robot when it breaks?

    Is the root cause here the “babies are bad” mantra of the leftists? A woman’s sole purpose in existence is creating and nurturing babies. Without this function, a woman is an utterly pathetic man who doesn’t even have a penis and can’t pee standing up. These idiots just OD’d on the koolaid (purple drink) from Planned Spinsterhood intended for negro females and now rage that they are such laughably inferior men.

    Insanity.

    It is possible for women to answer the Call of Nature standing up, as women who go camping can attest. It merely requires a Wide Stance.

    As for not having a penis, any woman who really has need of one can always borrow somebody else’s. Can you say as much, Mr. Mute?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    As for not having a penis, any woman who really has need of one can always borrow somebody else’s. Can you say as much, Mr. Mute?
     
    For the life of me I can't work out why men think we covet their genitalia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @sabril
    I wonder what psychological process causes masculine lesbians to hate men so much.

    Possible explanations I thought of:

    1. Everyone has anti-male bias, but with men it's balanced by a sense of identity with other men and in straight women it's balanced by sexual attraction.

    2. Lesbians realize at some level that they are physically and intellectually inferior to actual men which causes jealousy and bitterness.

    3. Women become lesbians if they are mistreated by men and this mistreatment results in lasting hatred.

    Anyway, I'm pretty confident that sexual misconduct by the likes of Harvey Weinstein is more an excuse than an actual reason for this woman's misandry.

    Definitely not #3:

    3. Women become lesbians if they are mistreated by men and this mistreatment results in lasting hatred.

    For some reason, women who survived or grew up around abusive relationships are more likely to gravitate to more abusive (het) relationships than to go Lesbian. There may really be a genetic/ hormonal element to same sex-attraction. In addition, the first intense physical experience while the hormones are overcharged may become the prototype for the rest. If her first makeout session with that guy in Jr. High was enjoyable, she is unlikely to be as susceptible to a crush on a female classmate or be put off permanently by a later bad experience with a guy in High School.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril
    I tend to agree with you. When I hear feminist stories of mistreatement by men, most of them seem made up or wildly exaggerated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Rosie says:
    @Rosamond Vincy
    It is possible for women to answer the Call of Nature standing up, as women who go camping can attest. It merely requires a Wide Stance.

    As for not having a penis, any woman who really has need of one can always borrow somebody else's. Can you say as much, Mr. Mute?

    As for not having a penis, any woman who really has need of one can always borrow somebody else’s. Can you say as much, Mr. Mute?

    For the life of me I can’t work out why men think we covet their genitalia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    LOLOLOLOLOL! My achin' sides! This has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard.

    From Wikipedia:

    Freud thought girls:

    Soon after the libidinal shift to the penis, the child develops her first sexual impulses towards her mother.
    The girl realizes that she is not physically equipped to have a heterosexual relationship with her mother, since she does not have a penis.
    She desires a penis, and the power that it represents. This is described as penis envy. She sees the solution as obtaining her father's penis.
    She develops a sexual desire for her father.
    The girl blames her mother for her apparent castration (what she sees as punishment by the mother for being attracted to the father) assisting a shift in the focus of her sexual impulses from her mother to her father...
     
    If you notice, the girl develops the attraction for her father after noticing her missing penis, but thinks the castration was a punishment for said attraction. Oh well I guess it's fair to assume toddlers don't have a clear sense of linear time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Is this the part where you tell me, all else having failed, that I shouldn’t take my own side because my people are weak and deserve to perish?

     

    No, "deserving" has nothing to do with anything. If it was up to me, I'd make Bronze Age Pervert the demiurge of the world-reality and all things shall be determined through surfing and deadlift contests. I wouldn't do great in that world, but damn if it wouldn't be awesome. That's be "deserving." But its also not real.

    But more importantly, if you want to "win", its important to understand the actual nature of the world and as much as possible, how the technology and environment affect human nature and adapt to it. Just as the introduction of gunpowder changed the tactical landscape to require a different emphasis to prevail, so does the introduction of technology impact the social landscape and its important to realize this even when its disagreeable. Its only then can someone work with it.


    Under ordinary circumstances, men would have started resisting feminist excesses a long time ago. There would have been a backlash, and I mean that in a healthy sense.
     
    How do you know that this isn't the backlash? At any rate, I actually do not think that's necessarily true. Under traditional circumstances, women were significantly weaker but still prioritized, and with the relatively reduced importance of men, there's no specific reason why women wouldn't essentially be unusually advantaged, and that they wouldn't want to use this advantage(even if it causes them long-term harm).

    I think that expecting that nature has, or tends toward balance is an error. It doesn't, not in the way that we think of balance, at any rate. If fertilizer is dumped into a pond, algae blooms, overshades everything else and then dies off en masse. If a cell gets too greedy in a body and it can't be stopped, it becomes cancerous and kills the host(and yes, itself). When a predator is removed from a niche, it often isn't replaced by another, and the prey species just overexpands until it starves and causes massive devastation along the way.

    Nature's balance, unfortunately, is just excess and die offs.


    I rather suspect you are trying, consciously or not, to prevent any rapprochement between White men and women because you feel threatened by White identity.
     
    At first I laughed out loud, but then I envisioned an eternal conga line of pussywhipped white men dancing endlessly while screaming forth feminist pieties in rhyme. It was truly a terrifying, Lovecraftian nightmare.

    I shall call it Sweden.

    If a cell gets too greedy in a body and it can’t be stopped, it becomes cancerous and kills the host(and yes, itself).

    Fortunately, women are not cancer but sentient beings.

    At first I laughed out loud, but then I envisioned an eternal conga line of pussywhipped white men dancing endlessly while screaming forth feminist pieties in rhyme. It was truly a terrifying, Lovecraftian nightmare.

    I shall call it Sweden.

    Well, that’s a relief. I hate to think badly of people, you know.

    As for the Swedes, they are indeed puzzled by the extreme hatred of women found in the alt-Right. They recognize that women are not to blame for their problems. The funny thing is, Swedish women have been relatively fertile compared to supposedly more traditional Italian women. I’m not fond of feminism, but it’s relationship to low birth rates is more complicated than many are willing to admit. Old-fashioned hedonism is at least as much to blame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Ah, power corrupts everyone except women. Quite special, I can see. I had not known of this exception to nature. But you can't be not fond of feminism unless you have a complicated relationship with yourself: you're a feminist, after all. Usually, its a good idea to be fond of oneself. For example, I'm quite fond of myself.

    Anyway...

    I believe that your premises are fundamentally wrong, and have illustrated the arguments demonstrating why. Beyond that, well, good luck - and I mean that unironically. I'll like to see you prove me wrong; it'll be interesting and I always do heed the higher calling for epistemic virtue.

    Truly, Sweden should be the future of the Alt-Right. Sweden yes!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    As for not having a penis, any woman who really has need of one can always borrow somebody else’s. Can you say as much, Mr. Mute?
     
    For the life of me I can't work out why men think we covet their genitalia.

    LOLOLOLOLOL! My achin’ sides! This has got to be one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard.

    From Wikipedia:

    Freud thought girls:

    Soon after the libidinal shift to the penis, the child develops her first sexual impulses towards her mother.
    The girl realizes that she is not physically equipped to have a heterosexual relationship with her mother, since she does not have a penis.
    She desires a penis, and the power that it represents. This is described as penis envy. She sees the solution as obtaining her father’s penis.
    She develops a sexual desire for her father.
    The girl blames her mother for her apparent castration (what she sees as punishment by the mother for being attracted to the father) assisting a shift in the focus of her sexual impulses from her mother to her father…

    If you notice, the girl develops the attraction for her father after noticing her missing penis, but thinks the castration was a punishment for said attraction. Oh well I guess it’s fair to assume toddlers don’t have a clear sense of linear time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    If she has brothers or male cousins, she'll have noticed it long before, and not think it anything special. Especially if they're younger brothers or cousins, and she's changed them.

    Freud seems to have grown up in one of those determinedly proper, middle-class 19th-century households where physical things were kept mysterious and fascinating. If he'd grown up with a large family packed into one urban flat or a small cottage, with at least one baby always underfoot, or on a farm with biological realities an everyday thing, he wouldn't have had all these obsessions--nor felt the need to project them on everybody else.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Paleo says:

    I notice a picture of Harvey Weinstein with this post. Has anyone noticed that Harvey’s antagonists are in New York? The New York Times, The New Yorker, and he’s being prosecuted by NYC courts. Odd to see the Tribe throwing one of their own under the bus. Does anyone understand it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    He's an embarrassment?
    , @sabril
    There's no Jewish conspiracy to undermine the West. There is just individuals virtue-signalling and jockeying for social status, a lot of whom are Jewish. That's why it's common for Leftist Jews to undermine Israel and to support immigration from parts of the world which have a lot of anti-Semites. Such people don't care at all about the future of Jews as a group, the United States as a country, or anything like that. They simply want to enhance their short-term social status.
    , @Anonymous
    I understand that he was siccing his ex-Mossad goon squad to harass his fellow media moguls, not just powerless actresses. I'm sure he was given multiple warnings to desist but ignored them. He got arrogant.
    , @BB753
    Weinstein crossed the gay/pedo mafia (which is 75% Jewish anyway) and also a powerful witches' coven (Argento, McCowan, etc). Some ecologists might also resent his treatment of potted plants.
    Compared to his enemies, Harvey Weinstein is a choirboy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @Rosie

    If a cell gets too greedy in a body and it can’t be stopped, it becomes cancerous and kills the host(and yes, itself).
     
    Fortunately, women are not cancer but sentient beings.

    At first I laughed out loud, but then I envisioned an eternal conga line of pussywhipped white men dancing endlessly while screaming forth feminist pieties in rhyme. It was truly a terrifying, Lovecraftian nightmare.

    I shall call it Sweden.
     

    Well, that's a relief. I hate to think badly of people, you know.

    As for the Swedes, they are indeed puzzled by the extreme hatred of women found in the alt-Right. They recognize that women are not to blame for their problems. The funny thing is, Swedish women have been relatively fertile compared to supposedly more traditional Italian women. I'm not fond of feminism, but it's relationship to low birth rates is more complicated than many are willing to admit. Old-fashioned hedonism is at least as much to blame.

    Ah, power corrupts everyone except women. Quite special, I can see. I had not known of this exception to nature. But you can’t be not fond of feminism unless you have a complicated relationship with yourself: you’re a feminist, after all. Usually, its a good idea to be fond of oneself. For example, I’m quite fond of myself.

    Anyway…

    I believe that your premises are fundamentally wrong, and have illustrated the arguments demonstrating why. Beyond that, well, good luck – and I mean that unironically. I’ll like to see you prove me wrong; it’ll be interesting and I always do heed the higher calling for epistemic virtue.

    Truly, Sweden should be the future of the Alt-Right. Sweden yes!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    But you can’t be not fond of feminism unless you have a complicated relationship with yourself: you’re a feminist, after all. Usually, its a good idea to be fond of oneself. For example, I’m quite fond of myself.
     
    When I said I'm not fond of feminism, I meant normal-people feminism, that is, feminism as normal people understand it. I quite readily admit to being feminist by your reckoning.

    Beyond that, well, good luck – and I mean that unironically. I’ll like to see you prove me wrong; it’ll be interesting and I always do heed the higher calling for epistemic virtue.
     
    I won't fall for your burden-shifting ruse.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Dr. X says:
    @sabril
    :shrug: There are Jewish people in positions of importance in almost every large organization in the Northeastern United States.

    :shrug: There are Jewish people in positions of importance in almost every large organization in the Northeastern United States.

    Q.E.D…. Z.O.G.

    I don’t see how we’re in any disagreement here. Let’s put it this way: would the Washington Post publish an op-ed by a Gentile academic asking “Why can’t we just hate Jews?” and advocating that Jews give up positions of power? Or would the Jewish editor spike it immediately?

    To ask the question is to answer it.

    But the a Jewish lesbian academic can publish such tripe about hating men is published by a Jewish editor as if it were common sense… and you greet that with a shrug.

    That puzzles me greatly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril

    “Why can’t we just hate Jews?” and advocating that Jews give up positions of power? Or would the Jewish editor spike it immediately?
     
    The answer to your question is that the Jewish editor would spike it immediately, but not because he is Jewish.

    Let me propose another hypothetical. What if the proposed article was called "Why can't we just hate Muslims?" Or "Why can't we just hate Black people?" Or "Why can't we just hate women?"

    What do you suppose the JEWISH editor would do in that situation? Also, what if the editor Christian, but a product of the same college and journalism school?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. nebulafox says:
    @DFH
    He was a loser until he became a famous general, and even then he was cuckolded by the older single mother he married

    Napoleon married Josephine when he was 26 and she was 32. It was an incredibly quick fall in love for the young man, and it’s safe to say that she had more sexual experience than he did. Prior to her, he had a (failed) relationship and engagement with Desiree Clary, the future queen of Sweden, and prior to that, well, the occasional prostitute: the usual sexual resource for young, unmarried men at the time. Josephine, on the other hand, was legendary in Parisian society for her sexual skills. Prior to Bonaparte, she was the mistress of Paul Barras, the de facto head of the Directory who was an integral patron for young Napoleon: it is thanks to him that Napoleon got to crush the 13 Vendemiaire uprising. That pretty much kick-started everything for him after the close call of the immediate post-Robespierre environment.

    During the Italian campaign, he was loyal to her, but she wasn’t loyal to him. The time period when he figured out what was going on behind his back coincided with his skyrocketing to power-Egypt, the consulship, etc. And from that point onwards, it was always the other way around: she was always loyal to him, but he slept around. I suppose that’s karma.

    Ironically enough, Josephine seemed to more authentically fall in love with Napoleon around this time. But while he’d always hold a special place in his heart for her, it was never the same: the enrapturement of 1796 was permanently broken. The power dynamic in the relationship had been completely reversed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. nebulafox says:
    @Simply Simon
    Do you think Napoleon resented tall men? Probably somewhat, but it's far more probable that tall men resented Napoleon.

    Napoleon was 5’7, anyway. That was the average height for a European male at the time.

    What Napoleon was not was conventionally good looking or embued with social graces, especially in his early years. This earned him a fair amount of disdain from some of the higher-ups in post-Revolution France. But he’d show them better. 10 years later, it is safe to say that they resented him far more than he resented them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. nebulafox says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    I think there's some variation and women certainly do seem to like gay men. But the nastiest, most horrid insults I've ever heard about women - which go well beyond anything Whiskey said - came from gay men in my experience.

    Its a lot like women with women, in some ways. They smile and call each other sister, wait until the other is out of sight, and immediately badmouths her friend.

    From my observation, many women (far from all-tomboys aren’t susceptible to this-but enough to make it noteworthy) like gay men who conform to their stereotype of gay men for the reasons you’d logically expect: they share their interests and personality without being social competition in the way that other women are.

    Homosexual men who do not conform to pop culture’s ideal (i.e, they aren’t effeminate and don’t really define themselves through their sexual identity), on the other hand… well, they don’t tend to like the “special relationship” very much. I mean at all. It’s been a while since I’ve drunkenly listened to a drunken rant about the subject, but I recall the sheer irritation on their faces when they were immediately asked-without any sort of prompting-if they wanted to do nails or shop or listen to a tearful monologue about their feelings about their ex-boyfriend upon women learning of their sexuality. “No, no, you don’t seem to get it, I’m still a guy…”

    Read More
    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    "Straight" women feel more relaxed around gay guys, as the sexual tension is not present and they know that gay guys are not relentlessly trying to figure how they can get in their, the girl's, pants, and then there is the erroneous viewpoint that gay guys are more tuned into womens "issues"

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro Jazz artist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. @Rosie
    LOLOLOLOLOL! My achin' sides! This has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard.

    From Wikipedia:

    Freud thought girls:

    Soon after the libidinal shift to the penis, the child develops her first sexual impulses towards her mother.
    The girl realizes that she is not physically equipped to have a heterosexual relationship with her mother, since she does not have a penis.
    She desires a penis, and the power that it represents. This is described as penis envy. She sees the solution as obtaining her father's penis.
    She develops a sexual desire for her father.
    The girl blames her mother for her apparent castration (what she sees as punishment by the mother for being attracted to the father) assisting a shift in the focus of her sexual impulses from her mother to her father...
     
    If you notice, the girl develops the attraction for her father after noticing her missing penis, but thinks the castration was a punishment for said attraction. Oh well I guess it's fair to assume toddlers don't have a clear sense of linear time.

    If she has brothers or male cousins, she’ll have noticed it long before, and not think it anything special. Especially if they’re younger brothers or cousins, and she’s changed them.

    Freud seems to have grown up in one of those determinedly proper, middle-class 19th-century households where physical things were kept mysterious and fascinating. If he’d grown up with a large family packed into one urban flat or a small cottage, with at least one baby always underfoot, or on a farm with biological realities an everyday thing, he wouldn’t have had all these obsessions–nor felt the need to project them on everybody else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @Paleo
    I notice a picture of Harvey Weinstein with this post. Has anyone noticed that Harvey’s antagonists are in New York? The New York Times, The New Yorker, and he’s being prosecuted by NYC courts. Odd to see the Tribe throwing one of their own under the bus. Does anyone understand it?

    He’s an embarrassment?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. @Authenticjazzman
    " Her doctoral advise(o)r was Stanley Aronowitz"

    There is nothing more superfluous, worthless and pretentious than a so-called "Doctor" title.

    The most profound idiots I have ever encountered, I lived in Heidelberg for years a town bursting with "Doktoren", were the ones strutting around like human Peacocks, and informing the world of their "Doktortitel" at every chance.

    I can recall standing inside the door of a privat club while an American guy, without a membership card, was arguing with the doorman, and claiming that because he a "Doktor" they must let him in.

    AJM

    I used to work with a brilliant thoracic surgeon who would chide me whenever I’d call him doctor. “Call me, Jim,” he’d say. I always snicker at these “doctors” of education, women’s studies, african american studies etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    In the UK there's a strange convention that while general practitioners and hospital doctors are "Dr", the surgeons, biggest beasts in the medical jungle, are plain "Mr", a kind of inverse snobbery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. @res

    I would rather die than depend on you for anything, because I have self-respect
     
    I think you might want to ponder how interdependent our society really is. And how likely it is that you depend on some men whose views you would find reprehensible if you knew them. Our infrastructure does not maintain itself. Nor does our garbage get picked up, our cars get repaired, etc. without many mostly male workers doing their jobs every day.

    A fun thought experiment is how the population of a major university (professors and administrators) would do if left on a desert island without their maintenance staff.

    Incidentally, have you read more on Mindware? I was thinking there’s an interesting case to be made for cognitive error in terms of rights to be explained in terms of loss aversion around page 95 or so. Once rights are gained, there is probably no way to “rationally” explain why they should be removed to the right holders.

    If you have an email address, I wouldn’t mind going over the chapters and speculating on how they apply to the present day situations; I understand that you have doubts about Dr. Nisbett due to his combination error, but I think there’s still a lot of value in the research.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Incidentally, have you read more on Mindware?
     
    I have been meaning to get back to you on that. Thanks for the reminder. I finished Mindware a few days ago. I am torn about what to think. There are many superficially appealing ideas (and I like the way he summarizes each chapter at the end, handy for reviewing).

    But at the end of the day I can't get past the mistakes and the confidence with which he presents things I find unconvincing--like his own IQ work. This makes it hard for me to take on faith what he says about things I don't know much about. I was particularly disappointed by following note 24 on page 183 (effect of adoption on IQ) to see what his evidence was only to find a vague reference to his book. It is worth noting that he appears sensible about Head Start (page 166).

    Your loss aversion reference is a good example of something I think Nisbett gets right which is also a valuable tool for reasoning. And I really like your mapping that to rights (which I hadn't thought about before). I think combining that with the idea of small groups with a strong interest in something vs. large groups with a more diffuse interest (cf. pollution) makes a compelling mechanism for driving a "rights ratchet" ever increasing those "rights" for minorities.

    And latest possible mistake I would appreciate a double check for. This logic question on page 228.:

    ARGUMENT 3
    Premise 1: No A are B.
    Premise 2: Some C are B.
    ——————————
    Conclusion: Some C are not A.
     
    The text says that argument is invalid, but it looks valid to me. Am I mistaken?

    Perhaps the part I find most interesting is his discussion of logical and dialectical modes of thought. If you know of any good resources on that I would be interested.

    I also have trouble with what I see as a large component of "don't trust your own reasoning" without a corresponding "here is how to do it better." I would contrast this with Gerd Gigerenzer's work which I think is better for actionable ideas for improving thinking.

    Perhaps a less good reason for being critical, but I am turned off by his "not good at math" shtick (e.g. page 107). And find that especially annoying when combined with the errors.

    I would be happy to exchange emails with you (and your proposed topic sounds interesting), but I don't know a good way to get to that given both of our anonymity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. eah says:
    @eah
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfMb1NdXUAAd4VM.jpg

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Ah, power corrupts everyone except women. Quite special, I can see. I had not known of this exception to nature. But you can't be not fond of feminism unless you have a complicated relationship with yourself: you're a feminist, after all. Usually, its a good idea to be fond of oneself. For example, I'm quite fond of myself.

    Anyway...

    I believe that your premises are fundamentally wrong, and have illustrated the arguments demonstrating why. Beyond that, well, good luck - and I mean that unironically. I'll like to see you prove me wrong; it'll be interesting and I always do heed the higher calling for epistemic virtue.

    Truly, Sweden should be the future of the Alt-Right. Sweden yes!

    But you can’t be not fond of feminism unless you have a complicated relationship with yourself: you’re a feminist, after all. Usually, its a good idea to be fond of oneself. For example, I’m quite fond of myself.

    When I said I’m not fond of feminism, I meant normal-people feminism, that is, feminism as normal people understand it. I quite readily admit to being feminist by your reckoning.

    Beyond that, well, good luck – and I mean that unironically. I’ll like to see you prove me wrong; it’ll be interesting and I always do heed the higher calling for epistemic virtue.

    I won’t fall for your burden-shifting ruse.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Don't take the bait. I know exactly what you're talking about. Some of the worst bullies of women in academia and the workplace are other women, and the ones who consider themselves feminists are the worst of all. Regular bullies tell you what to do; feminist bullies tell you what to think, and damned if they don't consider themselves to be doing you a favor in the process.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Her edge has been crossed since before rape camps were used as a tool of war? That’s one oooooooooold bitch.

    #0thWaveFeminism

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  227. @Rosie

    But you can’t be not fond of feminism unless you have a complicated relationship with yourself: you’re a feminist, after all. Usually, its a good idea to be fond of oneself. For example, I’m quite fond of myself.
     
    When I said I'm not fond of feminism, I meant normal-people feminism, that is, feminism as normal people understand it. I quite readily admit to being feminist by your reckoning.

    Beyond that, well, good luck – and I mean that unironically. I’ll like to see you prove me wrong; it’ll be interesting and I always do heed the higher calling for epistemic virtue.
     
    I won't fall for your burden-shifting ruse.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

    Don’t take the bait. I know exactly what you’re talking about. Some of the worst bullies of women in academia and the workplace are other women, and the ones who consider themselves feminists are the worst of all. Regular bullies tell you what to do; feminist bullies tell you what to think, and damned if they don’t consider themselves to be doing you a favor in the process.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. @TelfoedJohn
    Lesbians dominate feminism because they have more testosterone. If they had any self-awareness, they’d realise the implications of that. Lately, trannies have been directing the vanguard of feminism - they have even more testosterone. The future is Dwayne Johnson in a wig and bra, telling people that men are bad.

    Maybe not. Once race is taken into account, trannies are probably the least left-wing LGBT group after bisexuals, which may be one reason why they are over-represented in the military. Lesbians and “gender queer” types are the most left-wing, with gays in the middle.

    Overall, LGBTs probably appear to be more left-wing than they are because their opinions aren’t broken down by race and type, and dissenting voices in the Coalition of the Fringes are censored. For example, gays are supposed to vote Democrat, but for all we know white gays may tend to vote Republican.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. sabril says:
    @Rosamond Vincy
    Definitely not #3:

    3. Women become lesbians if they are mistreated by men and this mistreatment results in lasting hatred.
     
    For some reason, women who survived or grew up around abusive relationships are more likely to gravitate to more abusive (het) relationships than to go Lesbian. There may really be a genetic/ hormonal element to same sex-attraction. In addition, the first intense physical experience while the hormones are overcharged may become the prototype for the rest. If her first makeout session with that guy in Jr. High was enjoyable, she is unlikely to be as susceptible to a crush on a female classmate or be put off permanently by a later bad experience with a guy in High School.

    I tend to agree with you. When I hear feminist stories of mistreatement by men, most of them seem made up or wildly exaggerated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. sabril says:
    @Paleo
    I notice a picture of Harvey Weinstein with this post. Has anyone noticed that Harvey’s antagonists are in New York? The New York Times, The New Yorker, and he’s being prosecuted by NYC courts. Odd to see the Tribe throwing one of their own under the bus. Does anyone understand it?

    There’s no Jewish conspiracy to undermine the West. There is just individuals virtue-signalling and jockeying for social status, a lot of whom are Jewish. That’s why it’s common for Leftist Jews to undermine Israel and to support immigration from parts of the world which have a lot of anti-Semites. Such people don’t care at all about the future of Jews as a group, the United States as a country, or anything like that. They simply want to enhance their short-term social status.

    Read More
    • Agree: Sunbeam, Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Such people don’t care at all about the future of Jews as a group, the United States as a country, or anything like that. They simply want to enhance their short-term social status.
     
    I think that's something essential to realize, which is what my entire argument is about. The "tragedy of the commons" is exactly that; extrapolate en masse to a larger group of people and change the negative externality to social damage, magnify it with social media and its attendant impact on dopamine kicks, and its very reasonable to see how individual stupidity becomes multiplied into society-destroying trends.

    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity, as the saying goes.

    The thing is, there are probably some conspiracies running on top of that, or what we would consider as conspiracies. Consider the shenainigans that Soros runs. So there is malice, on top of the stupidity, too.

    When a body is dying, its usually not due to a single issue - probably an origin cause, and then a host of secondary diseases(one of which actually kills the person). I've always thought that's the same for society, which is why trying to get super-focused on any one of the symptoms is a classic case of being ineffective, and at best, pallative care.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    I think you've got it. This is their Vietnam war protest. How else can they prove they're the Cool Kids? How else can they exile anyone who doesn't agree with them to the outer darkness of the ideological cafeteria?

    This is their chance to redo high school, replacing jocks, cheerleaders, and the Student Council with people who are More Socially Conscious Than Thou.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. @nebulafox
    From my observation, many women (far from all-tomboys aren't susceptible to this-but enough to make it noteworthy) like gay men who conform to their stereotype of gay men for the reasons you'd logically expect: they share their interests and personality without being social competition in the way that other women are.

    Homosexual men who do not conform to pop culture's ideal (i.e, they aren't effeminate and don't really define themselves through their sexual identity), on the other hand... well, they don't tend to like the "special relationship" very much. I mean at all. It's been a while since I've drunkenly listened to a drunken rant about the subject, but I recall the sheer irritation on their faces when they were immediately asked-without any sort of prompting-if they wanted to do nails or shop or listen to a tearful monologue about their feelings about their ex-boyfriend upon women learning of their sexuality. "No, no, you don't seem to get it, I'm still a guy..."

    “Straight” women feel more relaxed around gay guys, as the sexual tension is not present and they know that gay guys are not relentlessly trying to figure how they can get in their, the girl’s, pants, and then there is the erroneous viewpoint that gay guys are more tuned into womens “issues”

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Gordo says:
    @Anonymous
    In case you were wondering:

    Why This Socialist Feminist Is For Hillary
    By Suzanna Danuta Walters
     


    My immigrant Jewish grandparents met in New York City, at a meeting of the Young People’s Socialist League on the Lower East Side
     

     

    It’s almost as if she is trying to divert the discourse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. @sabril
    There's no Jewish conspiracy to undermine the West. There is just individuals virtue-signalling and jockeying for social status, a lot of whom are Jewish. That's why it's common for Leftist Jews to undermine Israel and to support immigration from parts of the world which have a lot of anti-Semites. Such people don't care at all about the future of Jews as a group, the United States as a country, or anything like that. They simply want to enhance their short-term social status.

    Such people don’t care at all about the future of Jews as a group, the United States as a country, or anything like that. They simply want to enhance their short-term social status.

    I think that’s something essential to realize, which is what my entire argument is about. The “tragedy of the commons” is exactly that; extrapolate en masse to a larger group of people and change the negative externality to social damage, magnify it with social media and its attendant impact on dopamine kicks, and its very reasonable to see how individual stupidity becomes multiplied into society-destroying trends.

    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity, as the saying goes.

    The thing is, there are probably some conspiracies running on top of that, or what we would consider as conspiracies. Consider the shenainigans that Soros runs. So there is malice, on top of the stupidity, too.

    When a body is dying, its usually not due to a single issue – probably an origin cause, and then a host of secondary diseases(one of which actually kills the person). I’ve always thought that’s the same for society, which is why trying to get super-focused on any one of the symptoms is a classic case of being ineffective, and at best, pallative care.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @DFH

    and then a host of secondary diseases
     
    Like you
    , @Reg Cæsar

    When a body is dying, its usually not due to a single issue
     
    Even in the soundest of bodies:

    FIRST OF NOVEMBER, — the [centennial of the Lisbon] Earthquake-day, —
    There are traces of age in the one-hoss shay,
    A general flavor of mild decay,
    But nothing local, as one may say.
    There couldn’t be, — for the Deacon’s art
    Had made it so like in every part
    That there wasn’t a chance for one to start.
    For the wheels were just as strong as the thills,
    And the floor was just as strong as the sills,
    And the panels just as strong as the floor,
    And the whipple-tree neither less nor more,
    And the back crossbar as strong as the fore,
    And spring and axle and hub encore.
    And yet, as a whole, it is past a doubt
    In another hour it will be worn out...

    All at once the horse stood still,
    Close by the meet’n’-house on the hill.
    First a shiver, and then a thrill,
    Then something decidedly like a spill, —
    And the parson was sitting upon a rock,
    At half past nine by the meet’n-house clock, —
    Just the hour of the Earthquake shock!
    What do you think the parson found,
    When he got up and stared around?
    The poor old chaise in a heap or mound,
    As if it had been to the mill and ground!
    You see, of course, if you’re not a dunce,
    How it went to pieces all at once, —
    All at once, and nothing first, —
    Just as bubbles do when they burst...


    --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr

    http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm
    , @Rosie

    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity, as the saying goes
     
    The question is whether ethnomasochism would have become pervasively fashionable in the absence of Jewish influence. Ethnopatriots won in 1924. What changed?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. Corvinus says:
    @sabril

    But for the most part, human beings are internally programed to develop and sustain relationships with their own kind, rather than AI-based substitutes.
     
    We're internally programmed to enjoy procreative sex, and yet doing with birth control still feels pretty good.

    We're internally programmed to like sugary foods and drinks, and yet Coke Zero tastes excellent.

    A robot waifu would be like Sean Young's character in Blade Runner. Beautiful, devoted, and very difficult to distinguish from the real thing. Except that she won't get fat; she won't make up false accusations of domestic abuse or sexual assault; she won't suddenly decide she needs to leave you, take half your stuff, and start f*cking other men; she won't hysterically insist on having the last word in every discussion; she won't freak out at any observation that puts women in a negative light.

    I'm not saying all men would take it, but I think it would get pretty popular once people get past the initial stigma.

    “We’re internally programmed to enjoy procreative sex, and yet doing with birth control still feels pretty good.”

    Yet, men continue to marry and have children.

    “We’re internally programmed to like sugary foods and drinks, and yet Coke Zero tastes excellent.”

    Not relevant here.

    “A robot waifu would be like Sean Young’s character in Blade Runner. Beautiful, devoted, and very difficult to distinguish from the real thing.”

    Could be like. Beauty and devotion is in the eye of the beholder. And the artificial intelligence, regardless of its sophistication, does NOT substitute actual human emotion.

    “Except that she won’t get fat…”

    Which ultimately is shallow. Guys get pudgy over time just as much as the ladies. Of course, men and women generally desire that their partner remain physically fit, but there are those cases where couples do not place a high priority on demanding that their partner fit a particular mold.

    “she won’t make up false accusations of domestic abuse or sexual assault…”

    Assuming that women generally do make false accusations here, or that men are indeed predators of a vile nature.

    “she won’t suddenly decide she needs to leave you, take half your stuff, and start f*cking other men;”

    Likewise with men.

    “she won’t hysterically insist on having the last word in every discussion; she won’t freak out at any observation that puts women in a negative light.”

    Likewise with men.

    “I’m not saying all men would take it, but I think it would get pretty popular once people get past the initial stigma.”

    No, it would be a niche population.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. DFH says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Such people don’t care at all about the future of Jews as a group, the United States as a country, or anything like that. They simply want to enhance their short-term social status.
     
    I think that's something essential to realize, which is what my entire argument is about. The "tragedy of the commons" is exactly that; extrapolate en masse to a larger group of people and change the negative externality to social damage, magnify it with social media and its attendant impact on dopamine kicks, and its very reasonable to see how individual stupidity becomes multiplied into society-destroying trends.

    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity, as the saying goes.

    The thing is, there are probably some conspiracies running on top of that, or what we would consider as conspiracies. Consider the shenainigans that Soros runs. So there is malice, on top of the stupidity, too.

    When a body is dying, its usually not due to a single issue - probably an origin cause, and then a host of secondary diseases(one of which actually kills the person). I've always thought that's the same for society, which is why trying to get super-focused on any one of the symptoms is a classic case of being ineffective, and at best, pallative care.

    and then a host of secondary diseases

    Like you

    Read More
    • Agree: Rosie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. @JSM
    Gents, let me explain something to you. In 1974, Congress passed and Gerald Ford signed "Equal Credit Opportunity Act." Supposedly to "stop discriminating against women in getting credit." "How terrible that a married woman can't have credit in her own name" blah blah blah. Prior to ECOA, to qualify a married couple for a mortgage, a bank could only consider the husband's income, because it's common sense that, even if the wife is working now, when the kids show up, she'll be a stay at home mom, so we can't write loans for 30 years for income that won't continue that long.

    So, when Congress (more men than women, you'll note) in its infinite wisdom of bowing to feminist pressures, decided to make it so that the wife's income could be considered under ECOA, that very act is what has utterly destroyed the American family.

    As my dad (a home builder) pointed out at the time, all this will do is drive up housing prices. Because, since a couple CAN borrow more now, the sellers will demand more money. And, as we see, that's EXACTLY what's happened. Such that, nowadays a family can NOT buy a house in most cases unless the wife works too to pay the mortgage.

    But, a full time job and full time motherhood are just incompatible. It's just too hard. And since houses in neighborhoods with "good schools" (i.e., safe, i.e., White) cost so much that the wife has to work to make the payment and since motherhood and full time work are too hard to do at the same time, American women either don't have kids (cuz they're NOT gonna put em in bad, i.e., minority, schools) or have to leave kids in daycare, where godknowswhat will happen to them.

    So, decry the feminists, by all means. But let's heap the requisite share of opprobrium upon the MEN in Congress (only 16 of the 535 members of Congress were women in the 93rd Congress) who are, in actual FACT, the ones responsible for the single most destructive act against Affordable Family Formation that's ever occurred.

    Very interesting point, JSM. It’s an example of how the most benign-sounding acts of government can have huge unintended consequences.

    You may argue that “they knew what they were doing”, but I’d say, for > 90 % of those congressman voting Yeah, it was probably just:

    1) Why not? Who cares? Whatever is gonna get me a few more votes – I’m for it!
    2) Now that’s gotta be good for the economy, right?
    3) It’s only fair.

    That’s not to say there aren’t people behind the scenes who realize the future consequences, but even most of them I doubt have this all planned out nicely. Stupidity exists at all levels.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    Achmed I wrote you a note up yonder. Did you get it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. BB753 says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Is this the part where you tell me, all else having failed, that I shouldn’t take my own side because my people are weak and deserve to perish?

     

    No, "deserving" has nothing to do with anything. If it was up to me, I'd make Bronze Age Pervert the demiurge of the world-reality and all things shall be determined through surfing and deadlift contests. I wouldn't do great in that world, but damn if it wouldn't be awesome. That's be "deserving." But its also not real.

    But more importantly, if you want to "win", its important to understand the actual nature of the world and as much as possible, how the technology and environment affect human nature and adapt to it. Just as the introduction of gunpowder changed the tactical landscape to require a different emphasis to prevail, so does the introduction of technology impact the social landscape and its important to realize this even when its disagreeable. Its only then can someone work with it.


    Under ordinary circumstances, men would have started resisting feminist excesses a long time ago. There would have been a backlash, and I mean that in a healthy sense.
     
    How do you know that this isn't the backlash? At any rate, I actually do not think that's necessarily true. Under traditional circumstances, women were significantly weaker but still prioritized, and with the relatively reduced importance of men, there's no specific reason why women wouldn't essentially be unusually advantaged, and that they wouldn't want to use this advantage(even if it causes them long-term harm).

    I think that expecting that nature has, or tends toward balance is an error. It doesn't, not in the way that we think of balance, at any rate. If fertilizer is dumped into a pond, algae blooms, overshades everything else and then dies off en masse. If a cell gets too greedy in a body and it can't be stopped, it becomes cancerous and kills the host(and yes, itself). When a predator is removed from a niche, it often isn't replaced by another, and the prey species just overexpands until it starves and causes massive devastation along the way.

    Nature's balance, unfortunately, is just excess and die offs.


    I rather suspect you are trying, consciously or not, to prevent any rapprochement between White men and women because you feel threatened by White identity.
     
    At first I laughed out loud, but then I envisioned an eternal conga line of pussywhipped white men dancing endlessly while screaming forth feminist pieties in rhyme. It was truly a terrifying, Lovecraftian nightmare.

    I shall call it Sweden.

    Where doth Bronze Age Pervert abide? 4Chan?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Twitter mostly. He maintains a presence on Salo for his more serious thoughts, which are usually darker. People generally want to see the silly and happy BAP though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. @sabril
    There's no Jewish conspiracy to undermine the West. There is just individuals virtue-signalling and jockeying for social status, a lot of whom are Jewish. That's why it's common for Leftist Jews to undermine Israel and to support immigration from parts of the world which have a lot of anti-Semites. Such people don't care at all about the future of Jews as a group, the United States as a country, or anything like that. They simply want to enhance their short-term social status.

    I think you’ve got it. This is their Vietnam war protest. How else can they prove they’re the Cool Kids? How else can they exile anyone who doesn’t agree with them to the outer darkness of the ideological cafeteria?

    This is their chance to redo high school, replacing jocks, cheerleaders, and the Student Council with people who are More Socially Conscious Than Thou.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    But Jews do this better than other people, even high-IQ other people. I think there's some merit to E. Michael Jones' idea of the Jewish revolutionary spirit. But the interesting thing is that the most successful practical implementers are not Jewish-- Lenin and Mohammed being the two biggest examples I can think of, and in both cases the Revolution eventually turned on the Jews, though the Communists were much less hard on them than the Muslims.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. @Rosie
    Women internalize moral norms to a greater degree than men. I can attest to this myself. I experienced intense pangs of profound shame when I first began to acknowledge the truths of race realism to myself. Women have a harder time going against the grain of society in this way.

    It is deeply unsettling, even painful, to face the fact that one is Beyond the Pale. That's why women in Europe don't vote for FR parties, despite expressing a desire for immigration restriction.

    The two-party system worked to Trump's advantage because of this. Because he was the nominee of a major party, women felt more at liberty to express their true feelings. The same phenomenon was evident in the yes/no Brexit vote. The very fact that the referendum was being held, I suspect, lowered women's inhibitions about violating Globalist taboos against ethnic self-assertion.

    I have said before that I do believe women are attracted to defiance. At its most pathological extreme, this manifests as attraction to criminals. (I can't remember the name of the disorder.). I suspect this is a classic case of being attracted to what is opposite of ourselves. Defiance is a luxury that we cannot afford owing to our weaknesses. When we see defiance in a man, it translates as strength.

    Loki embodies the trickster, bad boy variety of hot.

    https://goo.gl/images/zXJFw7

    I suspect this is a classic case of being attracted to what is opposite of ourselves. Defiance is a luxury that we cannot afford owing to our weaknesses

    .

    Not necessarily. There are real-life equivalents of Catherine Earnshaw and Scarlett O’Hara: attracted to Heathcliff and Rhett Butler because they’re troublemakers themselves, and can’t relate to “nice” guys because, despite all effort to fake their way through, they themselves are not nice. Note that Catherine would prefer to like Edgar Linton so she can be like Edgar Linton, and Scarlett wants to be the sort of girl Ashley Wilkes would approve of. They resist their natural inclination to troublemaking men, because it says too much about who they are inside–something they can’t bear to acknowledge.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. @Rosie

    Agreeable, calm and conscientious women make better mothers, as a rule. This precludes most feminists.
     
    The problem is that you don't know whether a woman will be that way with her children or not until she has one. Even number of desired children is not an accurate predictor of actual enjoyment of motherhood. I don't have it on hand, but I believe this has been studied.

    Don’t girls still babysit, or take part-time jobs in day care after school? They’d find out pretty fast if they’re bored by feeding, burping, and playing peek-a-boo, or view changing messy babies as nauseating rather than no big deal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Don’t girls still babysit, or take part-time jobs in day care after school? They’d find out pretty fast if they’re bored by feeding, burping, and playing peek-a-boo, or view changing messy babies as nauseating rather than no big deal.
     
    Nope. Liking or disliking other people's kids has very little to do with how you will relate to your own children.

    A girl who doesn't particularly like children makes a huge mistake if she postpones or declines motherhood based on her unpleasant experiences with other people's kids. She may have her first child at 38, find she loves it, and wish she could have more, only to find out that is not possible.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. @Rosie

    The invention of mass production would have no possible effect on the importance of craftmanship workshops?

    The introduction of guns would have no effect on the traits emphasized on soldiering?

    The proliferation of the Pill would have no effect on the number of unexpected children?
     

    Sure. Now I have a question for you. If history is a foregone conclusion, Why is Tommy Robinson in jail?

    Why is Steve Sailer relegated to this ghetto back alley of the internet with the likes of Whiskey and Sabril?

    Why was this dentist fired for attempting to inform Swedish women that their hostile, puppet government is cynically manipulating their femininity by trying to pass off thirty year old men as vulnerable "children"?

    The elites should have nothing to fear from free speech if history is determined by impersonal material forces.

    Here's the deal: The elite control discourse in order to control politics in order to direct history.

    Why was this dentist fired for attempting to inform Swedish women that their hostile, puppet government is cynically manipulating their femininity by trying to pass off thirty year old men as vulnerable “children”?

    Calling male Arabs of any age “children” is, to borrow Steve’s locution, not wholly untrue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. @Daniel Chieh

    Such people don’t care at all about the future of Jews as a group, the United States as a country, or anything like that. They simply want to enhance their short-term social status.
     
    I think that's something essential to realize, which is what my entire argument is about. The "tragedy of the commons" is exactly that; extrapolate en masse to a larger group of people and change the negative externality to social damage, magnify it with social media and its attendant impact on dopamine kicks, and its very reasonable to see how individual stupidity becomes multiplied into society-destroying trends.

    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity, as the saying goes.

    The thing is, there are probably some conspiracies running on top of that, or what we would consider as conspiracies. Consider the shenainigans that Soros runs. So there is malice, on top of the stupidity, too.

    When a body is dying, its usually not due to a single issue - probably an origin cause, and then a host of secondary diseases(one of which actually kills the person). I've always thought that's the same for society, which is why trying to get super-focused on any one of the symptoms is a classic case of being ineffective, and at best, pallative care.

    When a body is dying, its usually not due to a single issue

    Even in the soundest of bodies:

    FIRST OF NOVEMBER, — the [centennial of the Lisbon] Earthquake-day, —
    There are traces of age in the one-hoss shay,
    A general flavor of mild decay,
    But nothing local, as one may say.
    There couldn’t be, — for the Deacon’s art
    Had made it so like in every part
    That there wasn’t a chance for one to start.
    For the wheels were just as strong as the thills,
    And the floor was just as strong as the sills,
    And the panels just as strong as the floor,
    And the whipple-tree neither less nor more,
    And the back crossbar as strong as the fore,
    And spring and axle and hub encore.
    And yet, as a whole, it is past a doubt
    In another hour it will be worn out…

    All at once the horse stood still,
    Close by the meet’n’-house on the hill.
    First a shiver, and then a thrill,
    Then something decidedly like a spill, —
    And the parson was sitting upon a rock,
    At half past nine by the meet’n-house clock, —
    Just the hour of the Earthquake shock!
    What do you think the parson found,
    When he got up and stared around?
    The poor old chaise in a heap or mound,
    As if it had been to the mill and ground!
    You see, of course, if you’re not a dunce,
    How it went to pieces all at once, —
    All at once, and nothing first, —
    Just as bubbles do when they burst…

    –Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr

    http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Even in the soundest of bodies:
     
    Daniel overstates the case. There is often more than one but-for cause for any given phenomenon, but by a certain definition, any but-for cause is also the sole cause.

    Imagine White genocide as a scary green monster sitting on a three-legged stool. One of those legs is women's weaker ethnocentrism, another is male greed, and yet another is Jewish influence.

    If you kick out one of the legs, the stool tips over and the monster tumbles.

    You can guess which leg I think needs to be kicked out from under the monster.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosamond Vincy
    I think you've got it. This is their Vietnam war protest. How else can they prove they're the Cool Kids? How else can they exile anyone who doesn't agree with them to the outer darkness of the ideological cafeteria?

    This is their chance to redo high school, replacing jocks, cheerleaders, and the Student Council with people who are More Socially Conscious Than Thou.

    But Jews do this better than other people, even high-IQ other people. I think there’s some merit to E. Michael Jones’ idea of the Jewish revolutionary spirit. But the interesting thing is that the most successful practical implementers are not Jewish– Lenin and Mohammed being the two biggest examples I can think of, and in both cases the Revolution eventually turned on the Jews, though the Communists were much less hard on them than the Muslims.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. res says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Incidentally, have you read more on Mindware? I was thinking there's an interesting case to be made for cognitive error in terms of rights to be explained in terms of loss aversion around page 95 or so. Once rights are gained, there is probably no way to "rationally" explain why they should be removed to the right holders.

    If you have an email address, I wouldn't mind going over the chapters and speculating on how they apply to the present day situations; I understand that you have doubts about Dr. Nisbett due to his combination error, but I think there's still a lot of value in the research.

    Incidentally, have you read more on Mindware?

    I have been meaning to get back to you on that. Thanks for the reminder. I finished Mindware a few days ago. I am torn about what to think. There are many superficially appealing ideas (and I like the way he summarizes each chapter at the end, handy for reviewing).

    But at the end of the day I can’t get past the mistakes and the confidence with which he presents things I find unconvincing–like his own IQ work. This makes it hard for me to take on faith what he says about things I don’t know much about. I was particularly disappointed by following note 24 on page 183 (effect of adoption on IQ) to see what his evidence was only to find a vague reference to his book. It is worth noting that he appears sensible about Head Start (page 166).

    Your loss aversion reference is a good example of something I think Nisbett gets right which is also a valuable tool for reasoning. And I really like your mapping that to rights (which I hadn’t thought about before). I think combining that with the idea of small groups with a strong interest in something vs. large groups with a more diffuse interest (cf. pollution) makes a compelling mechanism for driving a “rights ratchet” ever increasing those “rights” for minorities.

    And latest possible mistake I would appreciate a double check for. This logic question on page 228.:

    ARGUMENT 3
    Premise 1: No A are B.
    Premise 2: Some C are B.
    ——————————
    Conclusion: Some C are not A.

    The text says that argument is invalid, but it looks valid to me. Am I mistaken?

    Perhaps the part I find most interesting is his discussion of logical and dialectical modes of thought. If you know of any good resources on that I would be interested.

    I also have trouble with what I see as a large component of “don’t trust your own reasoning” without a corresponding “here is how to do it better.” I would contrast this with Gerd Gigerenzer’s work which I think is better for actionable ideas for improving thinking.

    Perhaps a less good reason for being critical, but I am turned off by his “not good at math” shtick (e.g. page 107). And find that especially annoying when combined with the errors.

    I would be happy to exchange emails with you (and your proposed topic sounds interesting), but I don’t know a good way to get to that given both of our anonymity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    The text says that argument is invalid, but it looks valid to me. Am I mistaken?
     
    Me too.
    , @Tulip
    some (sŭm)
    adj.
    5. Logic Being part and perhaps all of a class.

    (from free dictionary).

    Since "some" can mean all, "Some C are not A" is not logically true as "All C are not A" is not logically true.

    I suspect instead of "some" you defined a set as the subsection of C and B, then that set would not intersect the set of A. [In other words, "some" is by nature indefinite, and a defined set is by nature definite.]

    , @Anon
    Here is my thinking in not-so-rigorous form. Call the subset of C whose members are B as per 2) D. Then D->B. 1) can be restated as A-> (~B) which is equivalent to B->(~A). Then D->(~A). So some C (as we defined D) are not A.

    So the text is mistaken.


    I would be happy to exchange emails with you (and your proposed topic sounds interesting), but I don’t know a good way to get to that given both of our anonymity.
     
    Set up a temporary email on Yandex or something, get a private message from Daniel, send your real email (or another sockpuppet if you're paranoid) in response, then delete the temp account. That has the vulnerability that someone else can pretend to be Daniel but that's not really likely. And you can get him to verify the contents on this board.

    edit: Also, I'd say "our mutual anonymity".

    , @Daniel Chieh

    The text says that argument is invalid, but it looks valid to me. Am I mistaken?

     

    He indicates on page 224 that "And the meaningless argument 3, as it happens, is valid" on my version. Are you talking about argument 1?


    Premise 1:No A are B.
    Premise 2: Some C are B.

    Conclusion: Some C are A.

     

    Drawing out a Venn Diagram, the conclusion does seem indeed invalid. Shading between C & B does not have to include an area of overlap between A & C.

    I have not checked into Gerd Gigerenzer before - an interesting resource. I'll take a look at it. Insofar as email goes, I think I can create an email address specifically for this and let you know. I'll also like to contact Nisbett and ask him about his errors, if nothing else, so he can correct it in a future edition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. Rosie says:
    @Rosamond Vincy
    Don't girls still babysit, or take part-time jobs in day care after school? They'd find out pretty fast if they're bored by feeding, burping, and playing peek-a-boo, or view changing messy babies as nauseating rather than no big deal.

    Don’t girls still babysit, or take part-time jobs in day care after school? They’d find out pretty fast if they’re bored by feeding, burping, and playing peek-a-boo, or view changing messy babies as nauseating rather than no big deal.

    Nope. Liking or disliking other people’s kids has very little to do with how you will relate to your own children.

    A girl who doesn’t particularly like children makes a huge mistake if she postpones or declines motherhood based on her unpleasant experiences with other people’s kids. She may have her first child at 38, find she loves it, and wish she could have more, only to find out that is not possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    BTW RV, the oxytocin effect doesn't apply only to biological parents and babies. When people joke about pets taking the place of children, they are more correct than they may realize. We get an oxytocin rush from gazing into our pet's eyes as well, but only as a result of sustained contact. It is a self-reinforcing cycle.

    Intimacy>oxytocin>more oxytocin>more intense bonding>more intimacy>more bonding

    That's why the death of a beloved dog will reduce the manliest of grown men will reduce to convulsive sobs. Again, this is the result of bonding over time, not casual, sporadic contact.

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6232/333.full

    , @Rosamond Vincy
    It may be that girls who are indifferent to other people's babies will find unexpected reserves of maternal instincts upon having their own (alas! they don't always: witness the many yuppie families where all care is left to the rotating staff of nannies), but I hardly think it likely that girls who love cuddling and caring for others' babies would discover that their own leave them indifferent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. Rosie says:
    @res

    Incidentally, have you read more on Mindware?
     
    I have been meaning to get back to you on that. Thanks for the reminder. I finished Mindware a few days ago. I am torn about what to think. There are many superficially appealing ideas (and I like the way he summarizes each chapter at the end, handy for reviewing).

    But at the end of the day I can't get past the mistakes and the confidence with which he presents things I find unconvincing--like his own IQ work. This makes it hard for me to take on faith what he says about things I don't know much about. I was particularly disappointed by following note 24 on page 183 (effect of adoption on IQ) to see what his evidence was only to find a vague reference to his book. It is worth noting that he appears sensible about Head Start (page 166).

    Your loss aversion reference is a good example of something I think Nisbett gets right which is also a valuable tool for reasoning. And I really like your mapping that to rights (which I hadn't thought about before). I think combining that with the idea of small groups with a strong interest in something vs. large groups with a more diffuse interest (cf. pollution) makes a compelling mechanism for driving a "rights ratchet" ever increasing those "rights" for minorities.

    And latest possible mistake I would appreciate a double check for. This logic question on page 228.:

    ARGUMENT 3
    Premise 1: No A are B.
    Premise 2: Some C are B.
    ——————————
    Conclusion: Some C are not A.
     
    The text says that argument is invalid, but it looks valid to me. Am I mistaken?

    Perhaps the part I find most interesting is his discussion of logical and dialectical modes of thought. If you know of any good resources on that I would be interested.

    I also have trouble with what I see as a large component of "don't trust your own reasoning" without a corresponding "here is how to do it better." I would contrast this with Gerd Gigerenzer's work which I think is better for actionable ideas for improving thinking.

    Perhaps a less good reason for being critical, but I am turned off by his "not good at math" shtick (e.g. page 107). And find that especially annoying when combined with the errors.

    I would be happy to exchange emails with you (and your proposed topic sounds interesting), but I don't know a good way to get to that given both of our anonymity.

    The text says that argument is invalid, but it looks valid to me. Am I mistaken?

    Me too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. Tulip says:
    @res

    Incidentally, have you read more on Mindware?
     
    I have been meaning to get back to you on that. Thanks for the reminder. I finished Mindware a few days ago. I am torn about what to think. There are many superficially appealing ideas (and I like the way he summarizes each chapter at the end, handy for reviewing).

    But at the end of the day I can't get past the mistakes and the confidence with which he presents things I find unconvincing--like his own IQ work. This makes it hard for me to take on faith what he says about things I don't know much about. I was particularly disappointed by following note 24 on page 183 (effect of adoption on IQ) to see what his evidence was only to find a vague reference to his book. It is worth noting that he appears sensible about Head Start (page 166).

    Your loss aversion reference is a good example of something I think Nisbett gets right which is also a valuable tool for reasoning. And I really like your mapping that to rights (which I hadn't thought about before). I think combining that with the idea of small groups with a strong interest in something vs. large groups with a more diffuse interest (cf. pollution) makes a compelling mechanism for driving a "rights ratchet" ever increasing those "rights" for minorities.

    And latest possible mistake I would appreciate a double check for. This logic question on page 228.:

    ARGUMENT 3
    Premise 1: No A are B.
    Premise 2: Some C are B.
    ——————————
    Conclusion: Some C are not A.
     
    The text says that argument is invalid, but it looks valid to me. Am I mistaken?

    Perhaps the part I find most interesting is his discussion of logical and dialectical modes of thought. If you know of any good resources on that I would be interested.

    I also have trouble with what I see as a large component of "don't trust your own reasoning" without a corresponding "here is how to do it better." I would contrast this with Gerd Gigerenzer's work which I think is better for actionable ideas for improving thinking.

    Perhaps a less good reason for being critical, but I am turned off by his "not good at math" shtick (e.g. page 107). And find that especially annoying when combined with the errors.

    I would be happy to exchange emails with you (and your proposed topic sounds interesting), but I don't know a good way to get to that given both of our anonymity.

    some (sŭm)
    adj.
    5. Logic Being part and perhaps all of a class.

    (from free dictionary).

    Since “some” can mean all, “Some C are not A” is not logically true as “All C are not A” is not logically true.

    I suspect instead of “some” you defined a set as the subsection of C and B, then that set would not intersect the set of A. [In other words, "some" is by nature indefinite, and a defined set is by nature definite.]

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I don't find that persuasive. If "Some C" in premise 2 is really all C then the conclusion is all C as well.

    To translate "some" into logic terms, I would consider it equivalent to "there exists", as in "There exists a C which is a member of B":
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols
    Does anyone have a better alternative? Perhaps "Some C are B" as "C intersect B is non-empty"?

    The thing I find odd is Nisbett talks about using a Venn diagram to solve problems like this. Which I think supports my conclusion. A and B are clearly disjoint sets from"Premise 1: No A are B." Any C in the set B can not be in A.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. Rosie says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    When a body is dying, its usually not due to a single issue
     
    Even in the soundest of bodies:

    FIRST OF NOVEMBER, — the [centennial of the Lisbon] Earthquake-day, —
    There are traces of age in the one-hoss shay,
    A general flavor of mild decay,
    But nothing local, as one may say.
    There couldn’t be, — for the Deacon’s art
    Had made it so like in every part
    That there wasn’t a chance for one to start.
    For the wheels were just as strong as the thills,
    And the floor was just as strong as the sills,
    And the panels just as strong as the floor,
    And the whipple-tree neither less nor more,
    And the back crossbar as strong as the fore,
    And spring and axle and hub encore.
    And yet, as a whole, it is past a doubt
    In another hour it will be worn out...

    All at once the horse stood still,
    Close by the meet’n’-house on the hill.
    First a shiver, and then a thrill,
    Then something decidedly like a spill, —
    And the parson was sitting upon a rock,
    At half past nine by the meet’n-house clock, —
    Just the hour of the Earthquake shock!
    What do you think the parson found,
    When he got up and stared around?
    The poor old chaise in a heap or mound,
    As if it had been to the mill and ground!
    You see, of course, if you’re not a dunce,
    How it went to pieces all at once, —
    All at once, and nothing first, —
    Just as bubbles do when they burst...


    --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr

    http://holyjoe.org/poetry/holmes1.htm

    Even in the soundest of bodies:

    Daniel overstates the case. There is often more than one but-for cause for any given phenomenon, but by a certain definition, any but-for cause is also the sole cause.

    Imagine White genocide as a scary green monster sitting on a three-legged stool. One of those legs is women’s weaker ethnocentrism, another is male greed, and yet another is Jewish influence.

    If you kick out one of the legs, the stool tips over and the monster tumbles.

    You can guess which leg I think needs to be kicked out from under the monster.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Such people don’t care at all about the future of Jews as a group, the United States as a country, or anything like that. They simply want to enhance their short-term social status.
     
    I think that's something essential to realize, which is what my entire argument is about. The "tragedy of the commons" is exactly that; extrapolate en masse to a larger group of people and change the negative externality to social damage, magnify it with social media and its attendant impact on dopamine kicks, and its very reasonable to see how individual stupidity becomes multiplied into society-destroying trends.

    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity, as the saying goes.

    The thing is, there are probably some conspiracies running on top of that, or what we would consider as conspiracies. Consider the shenainigans that Soros runs. So there is malice, on top of the stupidity, too.

    When a body is dying, its usually not due to a single issue - probably an origin cause, and then a host of secondary diseases(one of which actually kills the person). I've always thought that's the same for society, which is why trying to get super-focused on any one of the symptoms is a classic case of being ineffective, and at best, pallative care.

    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity, as the saying goes

    The question is whether ethnomasochism would have become pervasively fashionable in the absence of Jewish influence. Ethnopatriots won in 1924. What changed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I recall the commentator Thorfinnsson has already explained this to you before, I believe, repeating this seems silly. Its essentially the continued spread of the liberalism meme that arguably started with the notions of the Rights of Man. Abolition, female rights, etc, all spread from that. My contribution is that emergent effect of technology also played a significant, probably unpredictable role(and will continue to be unpredictable).

    Memes, like any other diseases, take some time to spread. And if they are successful in some way, it takes a heck of a long time before they cause fatal damage.

    We've explained this to you many times, and its quite logical if you consider that most things in life are always processes rather than a steady state. The trick to society is a bit like the trick to flying: how do you fall without hitting the ground. Its therefore a difficult problem, and not one that can simply be solved by "dealing with the Jews."

    You don't want to accept that premise and have your own, which is fine, but you just keep repeating it as if we haven't explained this before. The existence of other parasites to accelerate a disease doesn't change a much deeper vein of vulnerability to it, which would be replaced by other parasites(including internal ones).

    Your lack of understanding has to be deliberate. That's fine; that's your premise, and if it is correct, then you just need to execute along its lines and it should have predictive value, then you'll have your solution to all that ills you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Don’t girls still babysit, or take part-time jobs in day care after school? They’d find out pretty fast if they’re bored by feeding, burping, and playing peek-a-boo, or view changing messy babies as nauseating rather than no big deal.
     
    Nope. Liking or disliking other people's kids has very little to do with how you will relate to your own children.

    A girl who doesn't particularly like children makes a huge mistake if she postpones or declines motherhood based on her unpleasant experiences with other people's kids. She may have her first child at 38, find she loves it, and wish she could have more, only to find out that is not possible.

    BTW RV, the oxytocin effect doesn’t apply only to biological parents and babies. When people joke about pets taking the place of children, they are more correct than they may realize. We get an oxytocin rush from gazing into our pet’s eyes as well, but only as a result of sustained contact. It is a self-reinforcing cycle.

    Intimacy>oxytocin>more oxytocin>more intense bonding>more intimacy>more bonding

    That’s why the death of a beloved dog will reduce the manliest of grown men will reduce to convulsive sobs. Again, this is the result of bonding over time, not casual, sporadic contact.

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6232/333.full

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "the result of bonding over time, not casual, sporadic contact"

    Hence the phenomenon of "wife goggles", by which a man, looking at the mother of his children, still sees what initially attracted him to her, even though many of those attributes be diminished or now absent.

    Someone at Dalrock's described it thus


    "You women who lurk: “wife goggles” are what enables a man in his 50’s to look at his wife and “see” a kind of overlay or shadow of the way she was when she was younger. We men aren’t sure if all men have “wife goggles” but they seem to be common among those couples together for a long time. “Wife goggles” are to your benefit.

    The younger a woman was when she pair bonded with her man, the better the “wife goggles” work."
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Incidentally, have you read more on Mindware?
     
    I have been meaning to get back to you on that. Thanks for the reminder. I finished Mindware a few days ago. I am torn about what to think. There are many superficially appealing ideas (and I like the way he summarizes each chapter at the end, handy for reviewing).

    But at the end of the day I can't get past the mistakes and the confidence with which he presents things I find unconvincing--like his own IQ work. This makes it hard for me to take on faith what he says about things I don't know much about. I was particularly disappointed by following note 24 on page 183 (effect of adoption on IQ) to see what his evidence was only to find a vague reference to his book. It is worth noting that he appears sensible about Head Start (page 166).

    Your loss aversion reference is a good example of something I think Nisbett gets right which is also a valuable tool for reasoning. And I really like your mapping that to rights (which I hadn't thought about before). I think combining that with the idea of small groups with a strong interest in something vs. large groups with a more diffuse interest (cf. pollution) makes a compelling mechanism for driving a "rights ratchet" ever increasing those "rights" for minorities.

    And latest possible mistake I would appreciate a double check for. This logic question on page 228.:

    ARGUMENT 3
    Premise 1: No A are B.
    Premise 2: Some C are B.
    ——————————
    Conclusion: Some C are not A.
     
    The text says that argument is invalid, but it looks valid to me. Am I mistaken?

    Perhaps the part I find most interesting is his discussion of logical and dialectical modes of thought. If you know of any good resources on that I would be interested.

    I also have trouble with what I see as a large component of "don't trust your own reasoning" without a corresponding "here is how to do it better." I would contrast this with Gerd Gigerenzer's work which I think is better for actionable ideas for improving thinking.

    Perhaps a less good reason for being critical, but I am turned off by his "not good at math" shtick (e.g. page 107). And find that especially annoying when combined with the errors.

    I would be happy to exchange emails with you (and your proposed topic sounds interesting), but I don't know a good way to get to that given both of our anonymity.

    Here is my thinking in not-so-rigorous form. Call the subset of C whose members are B as per 2) D. Then D->B. 1) can be restated as A-> (~B) which is equivalent to B->(~A). Then D->(~A). So some C (as we defined D) are not A.

    So the text is mistaken.

    I would be happy to exchange emails with you (and your proposed topic sounds interesting), but I don’t know a good way to get to that given both of our anonymity.

    Set up a temporary email on Yandex or something, get a private message from Daniel, send your real email (or another sockpuppet if you’re paranoid) in response, then delete the temp account. That has the vulnerability that someone else can pretend to be Daniel but that’s not really likely. And you can get him to verify the contents on this board.

    edit: Also, I’d say “our mutual anonymity”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for your comment. Both good points.

    edit: Also, I’d say “our mutual anonymity”.
     
    Yes. My wording was tortured.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. @BB753
    "In terms of raw (heh) numbers, I’d be willing to bet there are more women being anally penetrated by their partners than gay men any given week (except for pride, perhaps). (...)
    As a gay man.. (...)"

    Stop right there, dude! It's pretty obvious you know nothing about women. Many of them are reluctant to fellatio, never mind anal penetration.
    And were it not for "poppers", fewer gays would be game for butt piracy, I'd wager.

    And were it not for “poppers”, fewer gays would be game for butt piracy, I’d wager.

    What do poppers have to do with anal piracy? I’ve done the former, but not the latter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Poppers relax anal sphincter muscles and also enhance sexual pleasure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. @Rosie

    Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity, as the saying goes
     
    The question is whether ethnomasochism would have become pervasively fashionable in the absence of Jewish influence. Ethnopatriots won in 1924. What changed?

    I recall the commentator Thorfinnsson has already explained this to you before, I believe, repeating this seems silly. Its essentially the continued spread of the liberalism meme that arguably started with the notions of the Rights of Man. Abolition, female rights, etc, all spread from that. My contribution is that emergent effect of technology also played a significant, probably unpredictable role(and will continue to be unpredictable).

    Memes, like any other diseases, take some time to spread. And if they are successful in some way, it takes a heck of a long time before they cause fatal damage.

    We’ve explained this to you many times, and its quite logical if you consider that most things in life are always processes rather than a steady state. The trick to society is a bit like the trick to flying: how do you fall without hitting the ground. Its therefore a difficult problem, and not one that can simply be solved by “dealing with the Jews.”

    You don’t want to accept that premise and have your own, which is fine, but you just keep repeating it as if we haven’t explained this before. The existence of other parasites to accelerate a disease doesn’t change a much deeper vein of vulnerability to it, which would be replaced by other parasites(including internal ones).

    Your lack of understanding has to be deliberate. That’s fine; that’s your premise, and if it is correct, then you just need to execute along its lines and it should have predictive value, then you’ll have your solution to all that ills you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    You don’t want to accept that premise and have your own, which is fine, but you just keep repeating it as if we haven’t explained this before. The existence of other parasites to accelerate a disease doesn’t change a much deeper vein of vulnerability to it, which would be replaced by other parasites(including internal ones).
     
    This is where you are wrong. As you say, Enlightenment individualism is a vulnerability, not a defect, that should put the the White man that much more on his guard for collectivist group's working a dual strategy.. Your contention that any parasite "would be replaced by other parasites (including internal ones)" is nothing but hollow, self-serving speculation. Rather like, but for Pakistani grooming gangs, White men would have raped all those girls.

    The curious thing about this slippery slope nonsense is that it could just as well apply to men's advocacy. Anglin is just James Damore taken to his logical conclusions.
    , @Rosie

    I recall the commentator Thorfinnsson has already explained this to you before, I believe, repeating this seems silly.
     
    Daniel, this is precisely why you get on my nerves. I have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic, yet you just keep repeating yourself as though your points are self-evident. What's more, your point of view is very divisive and nearly destroyed the alt-Right on at least one occasion.

    Now, individualism is not a poison but a remedy. Because of the Enlightenment, we no longer have slavery or cruel and unusual punishment. Like many powerful remedies, it must be carefully dosed or it is deadly. Yet, a hostile elite has relentlessly demanded that we keep chugging the medicine bottle to the point of overdose, accusing us of hypocrisy if we ball.

    It simply does not logically follow that if too much of something is bad, even a little is also bad. Nor is it particularly difficult to see where to draw the line.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. @Rosie

    Don’t girls still babysit, or take part-time jobs in day care after school? They’d find out pretty fast if they’re bored by feeding, burping, and playing peek-a-boo, or view changing messy babies as nauseating rather than no big deal.
     
    Nope. Liking or disliking other people's kids has very little to do with how you will relate to your own children.

    A girl who doesn't particularly like children makes a huge mistake if she postpones or declines motherhood based on her unpleasant experiences with other people's kids. She may have her first child at 38, find she loves it, and wish she could have more, only to find out that is not possible.

    It may be that girls who are indifferent to other people’s babies will find unexpected reserves of maternal instincts upon having their own (alas! they don’t always: witness the many yuppie families where all care is left to the rotating staff of nannies), but I hardly think it likely that girls who love cuddling and caring for others’ babies would discover that their own leave them indifferent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    alas! they don’t always: witness the many yuppie families where all care is left to the rotating staff of nannies),
     
    Well, here you have to consider to what extent this is the mother's real preference, as opposed to economic necessity. Certainly I agree that a woman who loves other people's babies will love her own that much more. OTOH, not caring for other people's babies doesn't mean you won't be crazy about your own.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. @res

    Incidentally, have you read more on Mindware?
     
    I have been meaning to get back to you on that. Thanks for the reminder. I finished Mindware a few days ago. I am torn about what to think. There are many superficially appealing ideas (and I like the way he summarizes each chapter at the end, handy for reviewing).

    But at the end of the day I can't get past the mistakes and the confidence with which he presents things I find unconvincing--like his own IQ work. This makes it hard for me to take on faith what he says about things I don't know much about. I was particularly disappointed by following note 24 on page 183 (effect of adoption on IQ) to see what his evidence was only to find a vague reference to his book. It is worth noting that he appears sensible about Head Start (page 166).

    Your loss aversion reference is a good example of something I think Nisbett gets right which is also a valuable tool for reasoning. And I really like your mapping that to rights (which I hadn't thought about before). I think combining that with the idea of small groups with a strong interest in something vs. large groups with a more diffuse interest (cf. pollution) makes a compelling mechanism for driving a "rights ratchet" ever increasing those "rights" for minorities.

    And latest possible mistake I would appreciate a double check for. This logic question on page 228.:

    ARGUMENT 3
    Premise 1: No A are B.
    Premise 2: Some C are B.
    ——————————
    Conclusion: Some C are not A.
     
    The text says that argument is invalid, but it looks valid to me. Am I mistaken?

    Perhaps the part I find most interesting is his discussion of logical and dialectical modes of thought. If you know of any good resources on that I would be interested.

    I also have trouble with what I see as a large component of "don't trust your own reasoning" without a corresponding "here is how to do it better." I would contrast this with Gerd Gigerenzer's work which I think is better for actionable ideas for improving thinking.

    Perhaps a less good reason for being critical, but I am turned off by his "not good at math" shtick (e.g. page 107). And find that especially annoying when combined with the errors.

    I would be happy to exchange emails with you (and your proposed topic sounds interesting), but I don't know a good way to get to that given both of our anonymity.

    The text says that argument is invalid, but it looks valid to me. Am I mistaken?

    He indicates on page 224 that “And the meaningless argument 3, as it happens, is valid” on my version. Are you talking about argument 1?

    Premise 1:No A are B.
    Premise 2: Some C are B.

    Conclusion: Some C are A.

    Drawing out a Venn Diagram, the conclusion does seem indeed invalid. Shading between C & B does not have to include an area of overlap between A & C.

    I have not checked into Gerd Gigerenzer before – an interesting resource. I’ll take a look at it. Insofar as email goes, I think I can create an email address specifically for this and let you know. I’ll also like to contact Nisbett and ask him about his errors, if nothing else, so he can correct it in a future edition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    He indicates on page 224 that “And the meaningless argument 3, as it happens, is valid” on my version.
     
    Interesting. So someone is at least paying attention. In my version (hardcover 2015 First edition) it says (page 229): "And the meaningless argument 3, as it happens, is invalid." You can see the same text in the epub available at libgen (that's what I am using for my cut and pastes) and the version Amazon uses for "Look Inside!" (search for meaningless). I don't see the argument 1 you describe (I agree with your interpretation). Argument 1 in my version is about police dogs.

    I have not checked into Gerd Gigerenzer before – an interesting resource.
     
    There is some good discussion of his work on James Thompson's blog. That is where I found out about him. One excellent piece of advice he gives is to turn probabilities (especially combinations of them, like medical test outcomes in 2x2 table form) into frequencies. Even if you can intuit probabilities, most people can't so it is good for communicating with others. Underlying research: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-10283-001

    I think I can create an email address specifically for this and let you know.
     
    Sounds good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. EdwardM says:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    If you happen to be applying for a job there are three or four forms at the end of every application. One establishes race/ethnicity and/or gender, another establishes veteran status and the last establishes disability status. This is an absolutely universal set of documents for employment in the US. Similar documents are provided for college admissions. The information collected from these documents is used for decisions about hiring, admissions, promotion, firing, layoffs, scholarships and other opportunities.
    Based on an assessment of the answers to these questions, applications are placed in a rank order and applications with certain answers are considered last in every pile and sometimes after being considered last, the recruiters keep looking.

    That's what this is about. I wish we would all stop having this discussion about changing cultural norms and cultural Marxism and double standards and whatnot and whatever.

    Double standards are the law - not practiced by exception - they are practiced by routine. Everyone does it. If you are hiring or in HR, you do it. It's the law. You don't do it because it's the culture, you do it because it's the law.

    We have a legal precedent and everyone follows it. More than that: all of the people on the other side of this divide look at all of you, they look at all the conservatives on Twitter or the National Review ... and they notice something:

    All you do is complain. All you do is argue - as if there was an argument.

    There is no argument. It's the law.

    And look at how impotent you are. The GOP controls the House, controls the Senate, controls the Oval Office, and conservatives have a majority on the Supreme Court ...

    And all you can do is complain. Your politicians argue about building a wall - because apparently - they are helpless with a historical majority - a majority that would be increased if they simply did their job and passed laws that would fix this problem - and yet they stand as if helpless.

    Your politicians are happy to let you do what you can - complain - so that they don't have to do what they can - change the law.

    And so the Suzanna Danuta Walters look at this, see complainers, not doers, see people saying "please respect me, it's only right, it's only fair, please treat me fair", and they answer with contempt.

    So what do we do? Argue? More? As if this were an argument?

    These duplicative, invidious, time-wasting forms at the end of all job applications are mandated, I assume, by Federal regulation. They have an OMB control number on them. I would like to see President Trump and Director Mulvaney abolish these requirements with a stroke of the pen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  257. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:

    Obviously the author had this in mind:

    (My last comment on this thread, at least for a while.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  258. Rosie says:
    @Rosamond Vincy
    It may be that girls who are indifferent to other people's babies will find unexpected reserves of maternal instincts upon having their own (alas! they don't always: witness the many yuppie families where all care is left to the rotating staff of nannies), but I hardly think it likely that girls who love cuddling and caring for others' babies would discover that their own leave them indifferent.

    alas! they don’t always: witness the many yuppie families where all care is left to the rotating staff of nannies),

    Well, here you have to consider to what extent this is the mother’s real preference, as opposed to economic necessity. Certainly I agree that a woman who loves other people’s babies will love her own that much more. OTOH, not caring for other people’s babies doesn’t mean you won’t be crazy about your own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Andrew yet there are teen moms who love the cuddly babies and attention they saw their friends get, and are shocked to find how much actual work is involved--if they don't leave it all to Grandma while they go off and party.

    Yes, they are too young to make such an important decision, but some people STAY immature, and our culture doesn't help. Medieval and pioneer women, even WWII brides often married young, but they were expected to know how to run a household, and had chores to get them ready.

    The downside is some people spent so much of their childhood and adolescence looking after younger siblings, they decided never to have kids of their own. Those who did have them may not have had the expected flare-up of protective feelings, and deeply resented their own kids or any kids they later brought up. John Lennon's aunt Mimi was of this type: she resented younger sister Julia because she thought she was spoiled and irresponsible, but when she took over care of John, she was emotionally manipulative to a degree usually left out of her strict yet loving mother-substitute image.

    Some people really are awful with children, even if they stay within the law.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  259. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    I recall the commentator Thorfinnsson has already explained this to you before, I believe, repeating this seems silly. Its essentially the continued spread of the liberalism meme that arguably started with the notions of the Rights of Man. Abolition, female rights, etc, all spread from that. My contribution is that emergent effect of technology also played a significant, probably unpredictable role(and will continue to be unpredictable).

    Memes, like any other diseases, take some time to spread. And if they are successful in some way, it takes a heck of a long time before they cause fatal damage.

    We've explained this to you many times, and its quite logical if you consider that most things in life are always processes rather than a steady state. The trick to society is a bit like the trick to flying: how do you fall without hitting the ground. Its therefore a difficult problem, and not one that can simply be solved by "dealing with the Jews."

    You don't want to accept that premise and have your own, which is fine, but you just keep repeating it as if we haven't explained this before. The existence of other parasites to accelerate a disease doesn't change a much deeper vein of vulnerability to it, which would be replaced by other parasites(including internal ones).

    Your lack of understanding has to be deliberate. That's fine; that's your premise, and if it is correct, then you just need to execute along its lines and it should have predictive value, then you'll have your solution to all that ills you.

    You don’t want to accept that premise and have your own, which is fine, but you just keep repeating it as if we haven’t explained this before. The existence of other parasites to accelerate a disease doesn’t change a much deeper vein of vulnerability to it, which would be replaced by other parasites(including internal ones).

    This is where you are wrong. As you say, Enlightenment individualism is a vulnerability, not a defect, that should put the the White man that much more on his guard for collectivist group’s working a dual strategy.. Your contention that any parasite “would be replaced by other parasites (including internal ones)” is nothing but hollow, self-serving speculation. Rather like, but for Pakistani grooming gangs, White men would have raped all those girls.

    The curious thing about this slippery slope nonsense is that it could just as well apply to men’s advocacy. Anglin is just James Damore taken to his logical conclusions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Crime is a symptom, not the goal of parasites, which to maximize personal wealth and influence. However, in a world where a game optimal strategy is to externalize diffuse cost publically while internalizing gains privately means that someone is going to assume the role inevitably. The alternative is to assume that no one is smart enough to ever aim to maximize himself at the expense of society, which...is dubious.

    So while you might not see the exact same crimes(though this is arguable, as sex gangs definitely existed even in homogenous societies, and Japan infamously continues to basically kidnap women from neighboring countries through semi-legal yazuka), the same trends will happen due to liberalism. You basically are insisting that you can have all of the liberalism, especially for women, since that's what you care about, and it won't affect anything else. That's very dubious.

    And yes, it can apply to male authority as well, though I think the social/technological conditions prevent it from realistically ever getting too far - exit seems to be a strategy for women from what I've studied when they find their societies too restrict, and I doubt that can be stopped in today's world. However, the excessive patriarchy historically is a direct reflection of the result of such a process.

    I approve of this understanding that everything is ultimately a process. Our bodies are in a process toward death, every second. The homostasis is going to fail eventually. Our sun is on the process of burning out. Human societies are no different in essence from such, they are not eternally functioning entities except for a single problem.
    , @res

    Anglin is just James Damore taken to his logical conclusions.
     
    I don't know about that. What do you disagree with in Damore's well referenced memo? Beyond some needlessly inflammatory wording I think he is on target with his facts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  260. @Rosie

    You don’t want to accept that premise and have your own, which is fine, but you just keep repeating it as if we haven’t explained this before. The existence of other parasites to accelerate a disease doesn’t change a much deeper vein of vulnerability to it, which would be replaced by other parasites(including internal ones).
     
    This is where you are wrong. As you say, Enlightenment individualism is a vulnerability, not a defect, that should put the the White man that much more on his guard for collectivist group's working a dual strategy.. Your contention that any parasite "would be replaced by other parasites (including internal ones)" is nothing but hollow, self-serving speculation. Rather like, but for Pakistani grooming gangs, White men would have raped all those girls.

    The curious thing about this slippery slope nonsense is that it could just as well apply to men's advocacy. Anglin is just James Damore taken to his logical conclusions.

    Crime is a symptom, not the goal of parasites, which to maximize personal wealth and influence. However, in a world where a game optimal strategy is to externalize diffuse cost publically while internalizing gains privately means that someone is going to assume the role inevitably. The alternative is to assume that no one is smart enough to ever aim to maximize himself at the expense of society, which…is dubious.

    So while you might not see the exact same crimes(though this is arguable, as sex gangs definitely existed even in homogenous societies, and Japan infamously continues to basically kidnap women from neighboring countries through semi-legal yazuka), the same trends will happen due to liberalism. You basically are insisting that you can have all of the liberalism, especially for women, since that’s what you care about, and it won’t affect anything else. That’s very dubious.

    And yes, it can apply to male authority as well, though I think the social/technological conditions prevent it from realistically ever getting too far – exit seems to be a strategy for women from what I’ve studied when they find their societies too restrict, and I doubt that can be stopped in today’s world. However, the excessive patriarchy historically is a direct reflection of the result of such a process.

    I approve of this understanding that everything is ultimately a process. Our bodies are in a process toward death, every second. The homostasis is going to fail eventually. Our sun is on the process of burning out. Human societies are no different in essence from such, they are not eternally functioning entities except for a single problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Crime is a symptom, not the goal of parasites, which to maximize personal wealth and influence. However, in a world where a game optimal strategy is to externalize diffuse cost publically while internalizing gains privately means that someone is going to assume the role inevitably. The alternative is to assume that no one is smart enough to ever aim to maximize himself at the expense of society, which…is dubious.
     
    Very interesting that you play the expert on criminal psychology.

    Our sun is on the process of burning out. Human societies are no different in essence from such, they are not eternally functioning entities except for a single problem.
     
    Don't bother White. Just give up and die! I'm having a really hard time understanding why White men pay you any mind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  261. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    I recall the commentator Thorfinnsson has already explained this to you before, I believe, repeating this seems silly. Its essentially the continued spread of the liberalism meme that arguably started with the notions of the Rights of Man. Abolition, female rights, etc, all spread from that. My contribution is that emergent effect of technology also played a significant, probably unpredictable role(and will continue to be unpredictable).

    Memes, like any other diseases, take some time to spread. And if they are successful in some way, it takes a heck of a long time before they cause fatal damage.

    We've explained this to you many times, and its quite logical if you consider that most things in life are always processes rather than a steady state. The trick to society is a bit like the trick to flying: how do you fall without hitting the ground. Its therefore a difficult problem, and not one that can simply be solved by "dealing with the Jews."

    You don't want to accept that premise and have your own, which is fine, but you just keep repeating it as if we haven't explained this before. The existence of other parasites to accelerate a disease doesn't change a much deeper vein of vulnerability to it, which would be replaced by other parasites(including internal ones).

    Your lack of understanding has to be deliberate. That's fine; that's your premise, and if it is correct, then you just need to execute along its lines and it should have predictive value, then you'll have your solution to all that ills you.

    I recall the commentator Thorfinnsson has already explained this to you before, I believe, repeating this seems silly.

    Daniel, this is precisely why you get on my nerves. I have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic, yet you just keep repeating yourself as though your points are self-evident. What’s more, your point of view is very divisive and nearly destroyed the alt-Right on at least one occasion.

    Now, individualism is not a poison but a remedy. Because of the Enlightenment, we no longer have slavery or cruel and unusual punishment. Like many powerful remedies, it must be carefully dosed or it is deadly. Yet, a hostile elite has relentlessly demanded that we keep chugging the medicine bottle to the point of overdose, accusing us of hypocrisy if we ball.

    It simply does not logically follow that if too much of something is bad, even a little is also bad. Nor is it particularly difficult to see where to draw the line.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    What’s more, your point of view is very divisive and nearly destroyed the alt-Right on at least one occasion.
     
    I'm sure that the Alt-Right would solve its problems by turning into a feminist organization and placing women in all its top positions. Meh.

    Don’t bother White. Just give up and die! I’m having a really hard time understanding why White men pay you any mind.

     

    This isn't what I've ever said, but I think that its been quite enough time so you can basically talk to yourself. All in all, the main purpose of this was to demonstrate, unfortunately, the limited ability of women to grasp a larger picture(and for that matter, solve the problems afflicting whites in America). In that, I suppose, you've executed your role well.

    Anyway, beyond that, good luck with telling white men that they need to listen to you and then all will be well. As I've mentioned before, if it indeed works, I'll be quite impressed.

    Tata.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  262. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Crime is a symptom, not the goal of parasites, which to maximize personal wealth and influence. However, in a world where a game optimal strategy is to externalize diffuse cost publically while internalizing gains privately means that someone is going to assume the role inevitably. The alternative is to assume that no one is smart enough to ever aim to maximize himself at the expense of society, which...is dubious.

    So while you might not see the exact same crimes(though this is arguable, as sex gangs definitely existed even in homogenous societies, and Japan infamously continues to basically kidnap women from neighboring countries through semi-legal yazuka), the same trends will happen due to liberalism. You basically are insisting that you can have all of the liberalism, especially for women, since that's what you care about, and it won't affect anything else. That's very dubious.

    And yes, it can apply to male authority as well, though I think the social/technological conditions prevent it from realistically ever getting too far - exit seems to be a strategy for women from what I've studied when they find their societies too restrict, and I doubt that can be stopped in today's world. However, the excessive patriarchy historically is a direct reflection of the result of such a process.

    I approve of this understanding that everything is ultimately a process. Our bodies are in a process toward death, every second. The homostasis is going to fail eventually. Our sun is on the process of burning out. Human societies are no different in essence from such, they are not eternally functioning entities except for a single problem.

    Crime is a symptom, not the goal of parasites, which to maximize personal wealth and influence. However, in a world where a game optimal strategy is to externalize diffuse cost publically while internalizing gains privately means that someone is going to assume the role inevitably. The alternative is to assume that no one is smart enough to ever aim to maximize himself at the expense of society, which…is dubious.

    Very interesting that you play the expert on criminal psychology.

    Our sun is on the process of burning out. Human societies are no different in essence from such, they are not eternally functioning entities except for a single problem.

    Don’t bother White. Just give up and die! I’m having a really hard time understanding why White men pay you any mind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  263. res says:
    @Tulip
    some (sŭm)
    adj.
    5. Logic Being part and perhaps all of a class.

    (from free dictionary).

    Since "some" can mean all, "Some C are not A" is not logically true as "All C are not A" is not logically true.

    I suspect instead of "some" you defined a set as the subsection of C and B, then that set would not intersect the set of A. [In other words, "some" is by nature indefinite, and a defined set is by nature definite.]

    I don’t find that persuasive. If “Some C” in premise 2 is really all C then the conclusion is all C as well.

    To translate “some” into logic terms, I would consider it equivalent to “there exists”, as in “There exists a C which is a member of B”:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols

    Does anyone have a better alternative? Perhaps “Some C are B” as “C intersect B is non-empty”?

    The thing I find odd is Nisbett talks about using a Venn diagram to solve problems like this. Which I think supports my conclusion. A and B are clearly disjoint sets from”Premise 1: No A are B.” Any C in the set B can not be in A.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tulip
    Yeah, I was trying too hard to save it. On second thought, you're correct. Although logical validity is merely a disguised form of heteronormative patriarchy used to justify genocide and the oppression of women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  264. res says:
    @Anon
    Here is my thinking in not-so-rigorous form. Call the subset of C whose members are B as per 2) D. Then D->B. 1) can be restated as A-> (~B) which is equivalent to B->(~A). Then D->(~A). So some C (as we defined D) are not A.

    So the text is mistaken.


    I would be happy to exchange emails with you (and your proposed topic sounds interesting), but I don’t know a good way to get to that given both of our anonymity.
     
    Set up a temporary email on Yandex or something, get a private message from Daniel, send your real email (or another sockpuppet if you're paranoid) in response, then delete the temp account. That has the vulnerability that someone else can pretend to be Daniel but that's not really likely. And you can get him to verify the contents on this board.

    edit: Also, I'd say "our mutual anonymity".

    Thanks for your comment. Both good points.

    edit: Also, I’d say “our mutual anonymity”.

    Yes. My wording was tortured.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  265. @Rosie

    I recall the commentator Thorfinnsson has already explained this to you before, I believe, repeating this seems silly.
     
    Daniel, this is precisely why you get on my nerves. I have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your logic, yet you just keep repeating yourself as though your points are self-evident. What's more, your point of view is very divisive and nearly destroyed the alt-Right on at least one occasion.

    Now, individualism is not a poison but a remedy. Because of the Enlightenment, we no longer have slavery or cruel and unusual punishment. Like many powerful remedies, it must be carefully dosed or it is deadly. Yet, a hostile elite has relentlessly demanded that we keep chugging the medicine bottle to the point of overdose, accusing us of hypocrisy if we ball.

    It simply does not logically follow that if too much of something is bad, even a little is also bad. Nor is it particularly difficult to see where to draw the line.

    What’s more, your point of view is very divisive and nearly destroyed the alt-Right on at least one occasion.

    I’m sure that the Alt-Right would solve its problems by turning into a feminist organization and placing women in all its top positions. Meh.

    Don’t bother White. Just give up and die! I’m having a really hard time understanding why White men pay you any mind.

    This isn’t what I’ve ever said, but I think that its been quite enough time so you can basically talk to yourself. All in all, the main purpose of this was to demonstrate, unfortunately, the limited ability of women to grasp a larger picture(and for that matter, solve the problems afflicting whites in America). In that, I suppose, you’ve executed your role well.

    Anyway, beyond that, good luck with telling white men that they need to listen to you and then all will be well. As I’ve mentioned before, if it indeed works, I’ll be quite impressed.

    Tata.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    I’m sure that the Alt-Right would solve its problems by turning into a feminist organization and placing women in all its top positions. Meh.
     
    False dilemma. I understand. It's all you've got.

    All in all, the main purpose of this was to demonstrate, unfortunately, the limited ability of women to grasp a larger picture(and for that matter, solve the problems afflicting whites in America). In that, I suppose, you’ve executed your role well.
     
    It would seem that any discussion with woman-haters is a lose-lose proposition. Either you agree with them that it's all women's fault, or you're stupid.

    Tata.
     
    Toodaloo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  266. @Rosie

    alas! they don’t always: witness the many yuppie families where all care is left to the rotating staff of nannies),
     
    Well, here you have to consider to what extent this is the mother's real preference, as opposed to economic necessity. Certainly I agree that a woman who loves other people's babies will love her own that much more. OTOH, not caring for other people's babies doesn't mean you won't be crazy about your own.

    Andrew yet there are teen moms who love the cuddly babies and attention they saw their friends get, and are shocked to find how much actual work is involved–if they don’t leave it all to Grandma while they go off and party.

    Yes, they are too young to make such an important decision, but some people STAY immature, and our culture doesn’t help. Medieval and pioneer women, even WWII brides often married young, but they were expected to know how to run a household, and had chores to get them ready.

    The downside is some people spent so much of their childhood and adolescence looking after younger siblings, they decided never to have kids of their own. Those who did have them may not have had the expected flare-up of protective feelings, and deeply resented their own kids or any kids they later brought up. John Lennon’s aunt Mimi was of this type: she resented younger sister Julia because she thought she was spoiled and irresponsible, but when she took over care of John, she was emotionally manipulative to a degree usually left out of her strict yet loving mother-substitute image.

    Some people really are awful with children, even if they stay within the law.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  267. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    What’s more, your point of view is very divisive and nearly destroyed the alt-Right on at least one occasion.
     
    I'm sure that the Alt-Right would solve its problems by turning into a feminist organization and placing women in all its top positions. Meh.

    Don’t bother White. Just give up and die! I’m having a really hard time understanding why White men pay you any mind.

     

    This isn't what I've ever said, but I think that its been quite enough time so you can basically talk to yourself. All in all, the main purpose of this was to demonstrate, unfortunately, the limited ability of women to grasp a larger picture(and for that matter, solve the problems afflicting whites in America). In that, I suppose, you've executed your role well.

    Anyway, beyond that, good luck with telling white men that they need to listen to you and then all will be well. As I've mentioned before, if it indeed works, I'll be quite impressed.

    Tata.

    I’m sure that the Alt-Right would solve its problems by turning into a feminist organization and placing women in all its top positions. Meh.

    False dilemma. I understand. It’s all you’ve got.

    All in all, the main purpose of this was to demonstrate, unfortunately, the limited ability of women to grasp a larger picture(and for that matter, solve the problems afflicting whites in America). In that, I suppose, you’ve executed your role well.

    It would seem that any discussion with woman-haters is a lose-lose proposition. Either you agree with them that it’s all women’s fault, or you’re stupid.

    Tata.

    Toodaloo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  268. res says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    The text says that argument is invalid, but it looks valid to me. Am I mistaken?

     

    He indicates on page 224 that "And the meaningless argument 3, as it happens, is valid" on my version. Are you talking about argument 1?


    Premise 1:No A are B.
    Premise 2: Some C are B.

    Conclusion: Some C are A.

     

    Drawing out a Venn Diagram, the conclusion does seem indeed invalid. Shading between C & B does not have to include an area of overlap between A & C.

    I have not checked into Gerd Gigerenzer before - an interesting resource. I'll take a look at it. Insofar as email goes, I think I can create an email address specifically for this and let you know. I'll also like to contact Nisbett and ask him about his errors, if nothing else, so he can correct it in a future edition.

    He indicates on page 224 that “And the meaningless argument 3, as it happens, is valid” on my version.

    Interesting. So someone is at least paying attention. In my version (hardcover 2015 First edition) it says (page 229): “And the meaningless argument 3, as it happens, is invalid.” You can see the same text in the epub available at libgen (that’s what I am using for my cut and pastes) and the version Amazon uses for “Look Inside!” (search for meaningless). I don’t see the argument 1 you describe (I agree with your interpretation). Argument 1 in my version is about police dogs.

    I have not checked into Gerd Gigerenzer before – an interesting resource.

    There is some good discussion of his work on James Thompson’s blog. That is where I found out about him. One excellent piece of advice he gives is to turn probabilities (especially combinations of them, like medical test outcomes in 2×2 table form) into frequencies. Even if you can intuit probabilities, most people can’t so it is good for communicating with others. Underlying research: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-10283-001

    I think I can create an email address specifically for this and let you know.

    Sounds good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    hardcover 2015 First edition
     
    I am using the kindle 1st edition (2015). Seems like there were edits on the sly - and our page numbers are different as well.


    Sounds good.

     

    [email protected] should work.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  269. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Very interesting point, JSM. It's an example of how the most benign-sounding acts of government can have huge unintended consequences.

    You may argue that "they knew what they were doing", but I'd say, for > 90 % of those congressman voting Yeah, it was probably just:

    1) Why not? Who cares? Whatever is gonna get me a few more votes - I'm for it!
    2) Now that's gotta be good for the economy, right?
    3) It's only fair.

    That's not to say there aren't people behind the scenes who realize the future consequences, but even most of them I doubt have this all planned out nicely. Stupidity exists at all levels.

    Achmed I wrote you a note up yonder. Did you get it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  270. res says:
    @Rosie

    You don’t want to accept that premise and have your own, which is fine, but you just keep repeating it as if we haven’t explained this before. The existence of other parasites to accelerate a disease doesn’t change a much deeper vein of vulnerability to it, which would be replaced by other parasites(including internal ones).
     
    This is where you are wrong. As you say, Enlightenment individualism is a vulnerability, not a defect, that should put the the White man that much more on his guard for collectivist group's working a dual strategy.. Your contention that any parasite "would be replaced by other parasites (including internal ones)" is nothing but hollow, self-serving speculation. Rather like, but for Pakistani grooming gangs, White men would have raped all those girls.

    The curious thing about this slippery slope nonsense is that it could just as well apply to men's advocacy. Anglin is just James Damore taken to his logical conclusions.

    Anglin is just James Damore taken to his logical conclusions.

    I don’t know about that. What do you disagree with in Damore’s well referenced memo? Beyond some needlessly inflammatory wording I think he is on target with his facts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    I don’t know about that. What do you disagree with in Damore’s well referenced memo? Beyond some needlessly inflammatory wording I think he is on target with his facts.
     
    I don't have a problem with Damore's memo at all. I was challenging D.C. on his all-or-nothing fallacy about women's rights. I most certainly do not think Damore's memo leads inexorably to Anglin's misogyny.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  271. Rosie says:
    @res

    Anglin is just James Damore taken to his logical conclusions.
     
    I don't know about that. What do you disagree with in Damore's well referenced memo? Beyond some needlessly inflammatory wording I think he is on target with his facts.

    I don’t know about that. What do you disagree with in Damore’s well referenced memo? Beyond some needlessly inflammatory wording I think he is on target with his facts.

    I don’t have a problem with Damore’s memo at all. I was challenging D.C. on his all-or-nothing fallacy about women’s rights. I most certainly do not think Damore’s memo leads inexorably to Anglin’s misogyny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Slightly OT, when "equality" becomes unfair:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5836021/Students-parents-demand-rule-change-trans-teen-wins-girls-state-championship.html#article-5836021

    I knew something like this was going to happen! There go the scholarships and the trophies, thanks to people who refuse to be gender realists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  272. Anonymous[150] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paleo
    I notice a picture of Harvey Weinstein with this post. Has anyone noticed that Harvey’s antagonists are in New York? The New York Times, The New Yorker, and he’s being prosecuted by NYC courts. Odd to see the Tribe throwing one of their own under the bus. Does anyone understand it?

    I understand that he was siccing his ex-Mossad goon squad to harass his fellow media moguls, not just powerless actresses. I’m sure he was given multiple warnings to desist but ignored them. He got arrogant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  273. @res

    He indicates on page 224 that “And the meaningless argument 3, as it happens, is valid” on my version.
     
    Interesting. So someone is at least paying attention. In my version (hardcover 2015 First edition) it says (page 229): "And the meaningless argument 3, as it happens, is invalid." You can see the same text in the epub available at libgen (that's what I am using for my cut and pastes) and the version Amazon uses for "Look Inside!" (search for meaningless). I don't see the argument 1 you describe (I agree with your interpretation). Argument 1 in my version is about police dogs.

    I have not checked into Gerd Gigerenzer before – an interesting resource.
     
    There is some good discussion of his work on James Thompson's blog. That is where I found out about him. One excellent piece of advice he gives is to turn probabilities (especially combinations of them, like medical test outcomes in 2x2 table form) into frequencies. Even if you can intuit probabilities, most people can't so it is good for communicating with others. Underlying research: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-10283-001

    I think I can create an email address specifically for this and let you know.
     
    Sounds good.

    hardcover 2015 First edition

    I am using the kindle 1st edition (2015). Seems like there were edits on the sly – and our page numbers are different as well.

    Sounds good.

    [email protected] should work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    I am using the kindle 1st edition (2015). Seems like there were edits on the sly – and our page numbers are different as well.
     
    Interesting. I am surprised the Amazon "Look Inside!" matches my version rather than yours.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  274. @Rosie

    I don’t know about that. What do you disagree with in Damore’s well referenced memo? Beyond some needlessly inflammatory wording I think he is on target with his facts.
     
    I don't have a problem with Damore's memo at all. I was challenging D.C. on his all-or-nothing fallacy about women's rights. I most certainly do not think Damore's memo leads inexorably to Anglin's misogyny.

    Slightly OT, when “equality” becomes unfair:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5836021/Students-parents-demand-rule-change-trans-teen-wins-girls-state-championship.html#article-5836021

    I knew something like this was going to happen! There go the scholarships and the trophies, thanks to people who refuse to be gender realists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  275. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this.

    First female President, what’s that “thingy” do?

    https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2018-02%2Fnuclear%2520football%2520teaser.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fnews%2F2018-02-19%2Fchinese-official-tackled-us-secret-service-agent-nuclear-football-scuffle&docid=tnSHn5LCzrNsmM&tbnid=9dDSz2_2606ipM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwi2ut_fjM_bAhWMkpQKHbUSCm8QMwhvKAQwBA..i&w=1280&h=703&bih=631&biw=1280&q=nuclear%20football&ved=0ahUKEwi2ut_fjM_bAhWMkpQKHbUSCm8QMwhvKAQwBA&iact=mrc&uact=8

    but hey on the bright side, the patriarchy returns ;-)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveman

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    First female President, what’s that “thingy” do?
     
    Laugh if you will but at least we know to ask before the fact!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  276. Kaz says:
    @Corvinus
    "But one can envision a future with robots tha