The Spearhead has a new post up by Aych titled The Suddenly Radioactive ‘Have it All’ Promise. Aych makes the observation that feminists are in the process of walking back from the promise that women can have it all. He references a recent column at Salon by Rebecca Traister Can modern women “have it all”? Ms. Traister makes the specious claim that feminism is being held to account for promises it didn’t make:
It is a trap, a setup for inevitable feminist short-fall. Irresponsibly conflating liberation with satisfaction, the “have it all” formulation sets an impossible bar for female success and then ensures that when women fail to clear it, it’s feminism – as opposed to persistent gender inequity – that’s to blame.
The problem with her argument is twofold. First, modern feminism is founded on women’s tendency to feel a vague (yet powerful) sense of dissatisfaction. It is the solution to the problem with no name. Betty Friedan was the founder of NOW and wrote the book The Feminine Mystique, which is generally credited with launching second wave feminism. From Wikipedia:
The “Problem That Has No Name” was described by Friedan in the beginning of the book:
“The problem lay buried, unspoken, for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning [that is, a longing] that women suffered in the middle of the 20th century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries … she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question — ‘Is this all?”
Sorry feminists, you absolutely own that. Vague female dissatisfaction is your founding philosophy, and solving it is your reason for being. Just because you figured out that it is a feature, not a bug, you can’t beg off having to fix it. In an amazing blunder, feminists have stepped in to the scapegoat role for women’s unhappiness and are now the new henpecked husband. All I can do is offer some advice: Just try being nice to her feminists, maybe ask her about her feelings more and she will snap right out of her malaise. If she isn’t happy, it must be something you are doing wrong.
The other problem is that feminists have been telling women they can have it all for decades (H/T Oz Conservative). Now we have a generation of young women who are seriously testing that theory and in a few years time the results will be in. Some will live the feminist dream, others will find it to be a nightmare.
The fact of the matter is that history is replete with examples of movements that started from a bad premise, and falied to deliver what they promise.
I think the men’s movement take a lesson from this, and should not assume that we are not making the same mistake. I feel that we should be proactiv against feminists, and ensure we are not just reacting! We will be doomed to the same feature failure, and just do to women (read our daughters) of the future what feminists did to the men of their future: their sons, husbands, brothers….. you get the idea.
Feminists only claimed to want to fix a wrong/need of society. It is as if the members of the Shark Tank bought into a crappy idea, and never cut thier losses, they just kept dumping money into a money hole, while the inventor of the idea just kept reaping the benifits, not getting crushed like the cockroach they are. We need to learn how to offer a better “product” then feminists did. Or we are just the male version of them!
Note here that the author blames the inability to “have it all” on “persistent gender inequity.” However, the truth, as anyone who studied first year college economics knows, is that scarcity, not “persistent gender inequity”, is the reason that no one–male or female–can “have it all.” Feminism is simply another version of the same old Marxist utopianism that says that scarcity is just a social construct and somehow if we just get rid of individual freedom and/or masculinity, we will suddenly have an infinite supply of everything.
This, of course, also violates one of the most basic laws of physics, the conservation of matter. And if the subject is having both career, hot alpha sex, and children, the same law of scarcity still applies: No matter if a society is patriarchal or matriarchal, there are still only 24 hours in a day.
But of course the Devil promised Eve she could have it all too, if she just dumped that God fellow who was –the Devil alleged– oppressing her and keeping her from reaching her full potential.
“What I want to know is, when did we get so unambitious? When did feminism narrow its horizons so that the absolute maximum we’re prepared to fight for is the rights of a minority of women to be admitted into a sexist labour market whilst managing the school run on the side?”
Why would “it”(The reason i call “her” “it” because i dont know maybe “it” would mind me calling “it” a “she”) calls womyn as minority? If only “It” would have done a google search then “it” would have find out that ‘As of 2011 Female population in US of A is 50.8%’ (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html) Hmm minority ha lolz if that rate of population of female is whats called minority, then i am living in an insane world.
And what is with this word “Sexist” Oh yah! it can only be used for womyn, By Womyn, and against Womyn. Nop Womyn can’t be sexist, it is those damn Men and Patriarchy (Fuck i hate them if only i knew where Xenu is, I would throw them in a volcano and blow them up with hydrogen bombs) Ok so what is the solution for this Highly Sexist Labor Market, already there are laws, “It” might have forgotten THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LAW, THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW, THE MATERNITY PAY LEAVE LAW.
And lastly Mr Rebecca is just frustrated that “it” didnt ‘Have it all’ as “It” was promised but still “It” doesn’t blame feminism for it NO! No! No! it would be against “it” policy and “It” would be called a Gender Traitor afterall there is an asset that can be blame well and they are disposable and pretty much NOBODY cares about them well “it” guessed it Blame the Patriarch Men, those pesky pigs are the reason “it” couldn’t have it all, if only all Men would become Kitchen Bitches and serve “it” every need and help “it” to achieve the height of “it” career, “It” Might “Have it all” but to “it” dismay there arn’t any “Good Men” left, so Yah blame them, Afterall they “are not realistically able to maintain the dominance they’ve enjoyed for millennia” Yes! Yes! Yes!, the sheer dominance i enjoyed, the privileges, MY GOD those were days when i could just be born, and go to school, enroll myself in a college, get higher education, find myself a good and satisfying job where i would bang my head on the desk or on the industrial lining, and would work like a horse day and night without any safety, and later would marry a womyn (bitch) and squat some children and would pay day and night for their expensive luxury and wouldn’t buy myself some time but would do everything thats needed and later if i am stuck in a cruise ship, i would gladly give my seat on a life boat to “it” and the children and would drown in the ice cold water and would wait for the slow death just for them to live their life.
Yep those were days of sheer dominance i am glad that Patriarchy was slayed by feminist, this is the one thing i am thankful for them.
But sarcasm aside I just wanna give this “it” one last pet on the Back and would wisely give “it” an advice, “that you reap what you sow”.
Well lets have some Budweiser now.
End.
…holy crap. A feminist actually saying they’re wrong, they can’t have it all, and maybe they should stop trying?
I mean, I know that a lot of it is trying to paint the inability to have it all on the patriarchy. Or the failings on the individual women themselves. Or that ‘having it all’ is different for every woman…
But still, I think feminism’s first round of apologies, concessions, and supplication to women will go over about as well as….. well, as well as a husband doing the same thing! Enjoy your loss of respect, standing, accountability, and expect the demands to grow greater and greater! After all, its all your fault (and this time, it really is!).
Lets just hope feminism doesn’t learn how to game women and resuscitate the zombie movement back to life.
Oh, Dalrock. On the same lines with ‘having it all,’ there’s a new spoof video to “Call me maybe” called “Lets Make a Baby.” 38 year old with baby rabies music video. Hilarious. I wrote a post about it on my blog, but figured it’s something you might want to get more into than I did.
http://stagedreality.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/lets-make-a-baby/
[D: Funny video.]
My mind envisions the whole video as the same alpha chasing woman later in life. Having always given her number and body to Alpha’s, she’s now wondering why she can’t find a hot alpha to actually give her the baby her body wants. The irony makes me laugh.
I need to hamsterlate from Traister’s screed.
Traister: “Here is what is wrong, what has always been wrong, with equating feminist success with “having it all”: It’s a misrepresentation of a revolutionary social movement. The notion that female achievement should be measured by women’s ability to “have it all” recasts a righteous struggle for greater political, economic, social, sexual and political parity as a piggy and acquisitive project.”
Hamsterlation: Feminism never actually said every woman could “have it all”. We really just meant that woman should be equal. You mean men are misrepresenting us, just like you always do, when you claim that we said women can have it all. We NEVER SAID THAT! *stomps feet indignantly* (And even if we did, you should have known better than to take us at our word.)
Traister: “What does “having it all” even mean? Affordable childcare or a nanny who speaks Mandarin? Decent school lunches or organic string cheese? A windowed office or a higher minimum wage? Public transportation that reliably gets you to work or a driver who will whisk you from kindergarten dropoff in time for the board meeting? Does it mean never feeling stress or guilt? Does it mean feeling satisfied all the time?”
Hamsterlation: See how stupid this idea of “having it all” is? No one really knows what it means, except us women. “Having it all” means whatever I want it to mean, or whatever any woman wants it to mean at any given moment. It means everything, and nothing, and everything in between. So you can’t prove we said that women can have it all, when its meaning is so vague and ambiguous that no one, not even us women, can figure it out.
Traister: “It is a trap, a setup for inevitable feminist short-fall. Irresponsibly conflating liberation with satisfaction, the “have it all” formulation sets an impossible bar for female success and then ensures that when women fail to clear it, it’s feminism – as opposed to persistent gender inequity – that’s to blame.”
Hamsterlation: Oh shit, the jig is up and they’ve got us dead to rights. *must think of deflectionary tactic — ok got it* How dare you hold us to our words! How dare you demand proof of success! All we said was women would be freed and have choices with feminism. We didn’t say women would actually LIKE any of it (even though we really did).
Traister: “Thanks to the “have it all” phantom, she’s experiencing betrayal at the hands of feminism itself. She may well be betraying herself! The movement she actually needs more of – to advocate for universal daycare, better schools, a higher minimum wage, paid family leave, a workplace culture that doesn’t continue to treat all employees as if they were “men” in a historic sense, with wives at home taking care of their lives – takes the blame because thousands of years of sexual inequity have not been reversed fully in the past 50 years.”
Hamsterlation: The “have it all” mirage is actually the problem created by opponents of women’s freedom. Women completely control marriage, divorce, childcare, and outearn most men. Women own all the institutions, have infiltrated and taken over every bastion of maledom. But men still oppress us because we’re still not haaaaappy. The answer? MORE FEMINISM! We still don’t have enough feminism. We still don’t have enough unhaaaaappiness. We still don’t have enough dissatisfaction.
By it’s very nature the ‘have it all’ promise was destined to fail. Feminism must therefore fall back on an old favorite. Move the goal posts and blame sexism/the patriarchy. As with previous movements of the same ilk, it will devolve to infighting for ‘not being feminist enough.’ Should be fun to watch.
This author decries the “have it all” idea and then promises women that feminism will give them tons of free stuff at the expense of men. This is a blatant act of phenomenal hamsterbatics. If hamsterbatics were an Olympic sport (and someday it probably will be), I would give her a 9.8. I would give her a full 10.0, except she omitted the obligatory “IT’S NOT MY FAULT” line at the end.
Here’s the rest. I’ll spare you all and give the Hamsterlation only:
Why are you guys actually asking us to produce RESULTS? Why are you actually testing what we say and how things are now, and measuring and quantifying them to see if it lines up with what we said feminism would do? No one does that to men. Jeez. You guys are always asking us how we’re doing, what we’re up to, if we’re all right, if we have what we need. We don’t do that with men because, hell, they don’t need it, I guess.
ANne Marie Slaughter (that traitorous, ungrateful bitch! Can’t believe she sold us out to the eeeeeevil pay tree ar keee!) had some good things to say, but it just shows that men get the gold mine, we women get the shaft — every single time. She had it all and didn’t want it all. Can’t figure out why not. But Slaughter (the ungrateful bitch) blamed it all on feminism, and that just shows we NEED MORE FEMINISM!!
We’ve come a long way, baby, but our lives are still hard because we’re …. trying to have it all (which we NEVER EVER said, by the way). We’re trying to work and have “fulfilling, meaningful careers” as writers for commielib internet rags. We’re trying to raise kids, and volunteer at the homeless shelter, and raise money for the Save the Snail Darter campaign. (Oh yeah, somewhere we need to work being wives and having Deep, Meaningful, Mind-Blowing Sex in there somehow.)
[D: Well done Deti. I told you that extra torque would come in handy. Maybe you shouldn’t put so much through it at once though. I think you smoked some if the internal clutches with that last batch.]
Gamerp4 says:
July 11, 2012 at 1:39 pm
You must have misread what she said, she says “A MINORITY OF WOMEN” not women are a minority. I happen to agree with her, because political ‘feminism’ is almost 100% interested in the advancement of slutty high-milegae, white upper-middle classes females. Whose beta boy daddies are pretty much the greatest impediment to an actual mens movement (see JJ’s obsession with OUR DAUGHTERS above your post).
Off-topic, but… Katie Holmes snookered Tom Criuise, feminist-celebrating press congratulatory.
“How Katie Holmes outwitted Tom Cruise: the roundup,” by Kathleen Perricone, omg! from Yahoo!, 11 July 2012
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/katie-holmes-used-disposable-cell-phone-to-secretly-plan-divorce-from-tom-cruise–report.html
Used a disposable cellphone to plan things, waited until he was out of the country in Iceland to pop it on him, took Suri with her… lots of “my daughter” selfishness (she didn’t want her daughter raised in Scientology, she shouldn’t have married a Scientologist) soon to jusify massive cash and prizes (“Half!” like Eddie Murphy said plus a house, alimony and child support, too, probably).
And the remaining hamsterlation:
In addition to working, being mothers and wives : BEFORE we get married, we’re busy trying to find the hottest alpha men we can find, and have sex with as many of them as we can.
Now THAT’s “having it all” (which we NEVER EVER said, by the way).
@anonymous
Yesterday, my wife and I were in line to pay for groceries. My first sighting of thei “glorious news” was one of those worthless pseuo news mags. Totally painted her as the victim and not the oppressor.
So I said out loud, “oh poor katie, she had to steal “HER” daughter from that evil man whom she married!” My wife looked at me and said “what are you talking about?” generally confused what I was saying! However, the gay grocery bagger siad “what’s his probelm?” followed by the minority female grocery bagger “yeah, like we have to listen to him.” She actually left from bagging our groceries, and the clerk, she was laughing with them, had to do it. They were actually offended I did not take Katie’s side? Also that I had the audacity to say something out loud!
Muahahahahhahahahahhaahahaha
I just smiled at them with my crap eating grin! Then said “yeah, she is sucha poor, poor thing. She had to “save” her daughter from a guy she at one point claimed t love like a coward” Booh hoo!”
Yeah, the female carpet bagger, I mean groery bagger left the counter area, and the smile dropped from the other guy’s face. Priceless!
Katie Holmes should remember this:
Yeah, it sucks that all this happened, but… She’s the one who said “yes” to marrying Tom Cruise.
“Having it all” means reward without sacrifice. It is equivalent to wanting rights and choices without associated responsibilities or consequences.
While this whole thing may seem like a tiny bit of feminist backtracking, go do a search of articles about “having it all”. You will see a lot of recent articles in the wake of the Anne-Marie Slaughter piece that recently came out in Atlantic magazine. If you look at these articles, it’s mostly talk about needing better work policies (paid leave and child care, for example). Basically, it’s about ways to make it easier for women to keep trying to have it all… without much regard at all for the consequences.
From ‘You Be the Boy’ – https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/you-be-the-boy/
One of the most ingenious features to be designed into feminist ideology is the fluidity with which it redefines its failures as successes in the face of its imagined oppression.
We’re coming upon a generation that’s becoming rudely aware of the consequences and fallout of the inconsistencies to outright lies that feminization (in the guise of equality) has woven into our social fabric for the past 60+ years. As these women become painfully aware of the results of an ideology a few embraced, but most simply took passively as part of their socialization, the disillusionment is starting to set it. They’re not living the triumphant, empowering ‘have it all’ ideal – far from it. They look back at 30, 40, 50 years of the course their lives took as a result and they realize the rewards feminist doctrine had promised weren’t as satisfying as the brochure advertised.
So in order to survive in the face of this glaring and provable dissatisfaction, feminism deftly reinvents itself, and just like a meta-hamster, rationalizes its failures as integral to its ideology. It’s not enough to just blame men for “misunderstanding” the intents of its necessity-shifting goals; built into its ideology, feminism reverses its failures to be the result of the patriarchy’s deliberate influence.
Universal day care is necessarily geosynchronous.
This, and Rollo’s comment, reminds me of the old saws about communism.
“True feminism has never really been tried. If we had real, true feminism, we’d have utopia by now.”
“We just need more time! If you give us more time, feminism’s going to work! You’ll see!”
Forgive me if I don’t celebrate women turning against feminism. What will they replace it with is a good analysis to look at:
-They’ll convince men that they are weak, dainty, inferior little creatures who need a man to protect and guide them.
-They’ll probably want to go back to being able to stay at home while hubby works 60+ hours a week at a pay lower than inflation adjusted incomes from the 60s.
– The divorce/alimony/child support/ racket will be kept
– Alpha fucks beta bucks is a genie that wont be going back into the bottle, neither will female promiscuity.
– They will expect chivalry from men again. Including men being conscripted to fight wars for them, ‘women and children first’ and the man always paying on dates.
Some victory. Congrats men! Lay done your arms, the war is over! WE WON!!
And I think for the majority of idiot males, they’d actually think they won.
>>Off-topic, but… Katie Holmes snookered Tom Criuise, feminist-celebrating press congratulatory.
That’s just so funny: if you’re priority is family and children why indeed marry a Scientologist whose previous 2 marriages failed. If on the other hand, you’re motivated by other drivers, it’s a no-brainer and nice little cash cow. I would consider marriage but only to a fair wealthier asset rich women. Shame the daughter is used as a bargining chip.
Your!!!
Ybm, the German’s are taking a stand against the Fembots:
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/904627-german-mayor-designates-more-challenging-parking-spaces-to-men
Jon, what is illustrative of that is how quickly the sisterhood is attacking Toms status to lower him into complacency. Rupert Murdoch comes out and calls Scientology ‘creepy’, Nicole Kidman contacts Katie Holms to ‘reach out to her’.
the matriarchy is in full swing gentlemen. Ignore how distasteful Tom Cruise may be (he certainly is to me now, and he was one of the coolest most alpha guys ever in the 80s). This is the typical action of the sisterhood, convince beta men to attack the alpha males when the sisterhood doesn’t need them anymore.
Cruise is alpha again when “Reacher” the movie comes out. Jack Reacher, it gets no more alpha than that
ybm, yes agree and you make some good points on the Fembots in your previous comment.
>>- Alpha fucks beta bucks is a genie that wont be going back into the bottle, neither will female promiscuity.
I think technology is too smart now though – they’ll be prenatal blood tests available to determine paternity soon and there are mail order kits available now which are easy to use on babies. Men aren’t fools, they built empires…..
Plus I do think more men are wising up to the new rules regarding male equality and rights.
Jon:
add to the home paternity tests and prenatal paternity testing:
–More men insisting on paternity testing
–more prenups
–more substitutions of “love contracts” and “relationship contracts” for marriage
–more “longtime companions” and separate residences and finances for couples in LTRs, so as to avoid the appearance of common law marriage, cohabitation or anything resembling marriage
–tools to detect affairs or promiscuity: computer keyloggers. GPS trackers for vehicles and cell phones. voice activated audio recorders. Surreptitious video surveillance. Detailed review of credit card statements and cell phone bills.
@deti
They will also be needing more money and incentives at college and work in addition to more time. But its okay since its for the children. Well…the girl children anyway… you know, the ones that they don’t decide to abort.
Anonymous 2:15:
Good find. this article confirms much of what many men say about their being blindsided in divorce. It’s all there:
The meticulous planning.
The months-long pre-announcement work.
Lawyers already in place (in three states, no less).
The cloak-and-dagger machinations, the behind-the-scenes scheming.
The waiting in the wings until the husband is neck-deep in demanding work and out of the country. She waits until he is as distracted and disadvantaged as possible, so that he is off-balance, away from personal and monetary support, and unable to prepare a response or mount a defense.
Men should take heed.
Holmes left absolutely nothing to chance.
I have to admit i find it very difficult to feel any sympathy for a Scientologist.
Jon says:
July 11, 2012 at 3:27 pm
I appreciate that there are marginal changes occurring among men, but really, is there ever going to be a ‘mandatory paternity test’ law passed? Women would organize an enormous campaign against it and recruit a whole lot of ‘libertarian’ useful idiots under the auspices of conspiracy theory and that oh-so-american obsession with Individual Rights.
I am neither an American, nor an Anglo, though I live in an anglosphere country, so I am intensely critical of this coquetry Anglo men call chivalry. Really its just a self-imposed mental slavery. Anglo-educated men, and a majority of protestant men in Northern Europe seem completely incapable of seeing women as anything more than pure innocent inferior being that need their protection but are too frail to ask for it, and there women are only too happy to let that lie continue.
The roots of this go far beyond feminism, even further back than the suffragettes, and perhaps even before the First Great Awakening. Feminism makes a great strawman for men to attack, but its not the REAL issue.
If I’m not mistaken, it was Devlin who observed that feminism is the perfect ideology, because it creates problems for women, and then blames those problems on anti-feminists and men in general – in other words, it creates its own believers.
@Deti
Nice point, and it very much reminds me that David Stove made the same point about the supposed intellectual equality of women: More time was needed to prove it, but as he said, it has been tried in the widest possible of circumstances and over a vast period of time and even with affirmative action still comes up badly wanting.
Only today I learnt of a man by the name of Michael Moritz – never heard of him before – a poor boy from Wales, who is one of those Internet Billionaires, and he is in the news as he has just donated Seventy Five Million Pounds sterling to Oxford University where he read for an MBA in 1978. Think of all the Internet people who you know of – Jobs, Zuckerberg, Gates, now Moritz, – they are all men – where are the women?
These guys do not have it all. If they are like some of the lawyers I know, they eat sleep and drink the stuff and sex and family come a very poor second. Most are married, I doubt any are players. For a woman to chase the business lifestyle goal is as pointless it seems as the woman who thinks she might beat Federer at Tennis – ain’t going to happen but if that is what you chase you will not be a (proper) Mum and if you don’t do that then either you must be Celibate or a Slut – as it always has been. Financial independence, for a woman, comes at a very high price.
I’d put it this way. Not only does the empirical evidence not match the Feminsts model, it is impossible to even work out what the Feminist model is, as it keeps changing depending which Feminist or which generation of Feminists is writing. This is simply incoherent and no way that any government can plan to run the country – other than into the gound.
@ Deti
“Holmes left absolutely nothing to chance.”
And if you look at the comments of that article, it’s filled with women hamstering about why Holmes cutthroat attitude is ok.
“Well, he was a Scientologist, she was escaping from a cult!”
“If there was the need of this much secrecy, the marriage was doomed anyways!”
“If she had to use this much secrecy, she must have been scared for some reason. He probably abused her emotionally or threatened her physically!”
Bleh. Hamster turds all over the place in that article’s comments.
Jack Dublin says:
July 11, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Hahaha! You picked up on that too? Beta men always ALWAYS have daughters. Whether it is a biological reason that the women’s own womb rejects a male of beta genes, or if it is a conscious decision like abortion. They ALWAYS have daughters.
ybm,
Although there’s not much publicity, I’m sure many wealthy men already take covert measures to check paternity and as most guys joke about it, as soon as it’s as easy as pregnancy test (a quick cheek swap and insertion into a portable machine, everyone will do it even if illegal and driven underground…. (and as in the film Gattica, the same dna testing will also inform the dating market with women chasing the higher dna ranking males via snatching samples of dna to compare males….)
Agree mandatory paternity tests would be unpopular but they’ll probably come one day via life insurance or medical screening /identity cards or some other vehicle…..Technology is unstoppable. And if tests were a by product of giving your children the best chance in life via screening, I’m sure most responsible couples would opt for it anyway. Or maybe the marriage market will simply become so hostile in a generation that tight legal frameworks including paternity verification will become the norm.
Anyone whose ever been married knows why this is: Something is wrong because she doesn’t “feel” haaaaaappy. Ask her what it is. She can’t say. She doesn’t know, really, but YOU are supposed to know what it is even if she doesn’t. And even if she doesn’t know why she’s unhaaaaaapy, she does know that it’s your fault, and she expects YOU to do something for her or giver her something to fix it all. What? She doesn’t really know.
Feminism is the same thing. Really, it all makes sense if you see feminism as nothing but a culture-wide shit test. Once you understand that, you understand that there is no true long-run bedrock principle underneath it all. The model keeps changing because there is no model. It’s simply a giant shit test and men in society are failing it terribly.
I´ve noticed a lot of women use the “feminism never said that” or women never said that excuse about other things. For example in discussions about dating advice they will suddenly deny that men have been advice to use beta behaviors and claim no one ever said men were`t supposed to be manly and take the lead etc. Or they will deny that feminism or women are in any way to blame for the decline of chivalry and deny that stuff such as opening doors and other gentlemanly behavior was ever criticized by feminists. So I think we can expect this sort of denial every step of the way. That means what we need to do is gather evidence of what has been said to slam in their faces when those excuses come up.
About womens vague discomfort. One thing I have have wondered about is why feminism succeeded so well in the west but not in the same way in eastern europe and asia. Why are eastern european women still happy to be feminine and not experiencing the same type of animosity towards a fairly traditional female role? I think there might have been something in western culture that made women feel less worthy in traditional feminine roles and less worthy being feminine than in the areas where feminism did not succeed as well. I think this can be tied into westerners being very focused on direct and visible male power while in Asia, for example, they have a far better understanding of how a woman has a lot of power indirectly. This meme existed in the west previously for sure but I think it did not do so as strongly as I know it does in Asia where the power of yin – the feminine – is held very high.
More and more men will do paternity testing on the downlow. Cheek swab test on the infant and the putative father. All a man needs is the money and an email account that only he has access to.
If discovered, men will tell the mothers that testing is in the child’s interest, because the child need to know if s/he has any inheritable defects. The man will have a good idea of his genetic predispositions to certain diseases. He will tell the mother that the child has a “right to know” his/her parentage for medical purposes.
@bskillet81
Good point. Feminism as shit test certainly explains the ‘mystery’ of girls chasing the bad boy. Heck, just spend time around women, pre and post red pill and watch the magic. My dear sister became pleasant company once I started calling her on the BS.
You do a better job of proving my point than I do. Again, legislation and social change only occurs under the female prerogative. Mandatory paternity testing will only occur if it serves the feminine; the ‘undesirable genes’ must be mercilessly weeded out. failing that, paternity must be established immediately to facilitate the wealth transfer that will occur at divorce.
Sadly, men are too stupid, weak, divided and pathetic to stand up for their own rights, again.
We’ve been bred this way.
Another great quote from the Salon piece:
Gotta love the dig on Slaughter’s age. Beyond that, the whole complaint is absurd. She is a professional feminist. She earns her living writing about soap operas and bitching that women like her aren’t given enough. She makes it sound like she actually does the things that feminism claimed it would allow women to do. I’m not sure what that really was, but I’m sure it must have been something other than professional feminists. How is it even possible that the patriarchy is making it hard for her (as a woman) to be a professional feminist? What barriers did she have to break to be accepted as a female feminist?
MPT will never happen; the best men can do is to do meticulous risk assessment.
A growing number will conclude the risks of marriage and parentage aren’t worth it.
Some will marry and have children and manage the risks as best they can; more than half will fail; a little less than half will succeed (‘success’ defined as “not getting divorced”).
Many will rush in headlong without knowing the risks; more than half will get burned; a little less than half will be quite fortunate.
Dalrock says:
July 11, 2012 at 4:40 pm
White, upper-middle class women are the most privileged group of humans that have ever fucking existed. Who else in all of human history can play ‘around the world in 80 satisfied cocks’ while being bankrolled by a beta-boy daddy she hates?
In the meantime he is sitting in the office 80 hours per week just hoping she doesn’t come back from her ‘volunteering’ in Somalia pregnant, again. Maybe if he buys her another pair of Salvatore Ferragamos she’ll listen to him and take that internship he found her in New York City through his business connections.
Pingback: A short exercise in exegesis. | Dark Brightness
It is possible that discontent is “wired into” women. The irony may be that the maligned 1950s might have been the time of peak happiness for Western women. Too much choice may be making women unhappy now.
Women seem less happy and more feminist in Protestant countries. Catholic and Orthodox countries seem to have happier women.
Feminists remind me of those Lebanese gunmen I used to see on the news, in full retreat but still crazily firing their rifles in the air and declaring a great victory.
Opus, really creative men will always succeed. I remember at the time that whiner at MIT, Nancy Hopkins, was complaining about lab space, Steve Sailer pointed out that a male scientist had made technical advances on centrifugation while captive in a Soviet labour camp.
David, I cannot comment much on Catholic women but I think the secret to Orthodox women being happy is because they actually are women. American women want to be strong and empowered and just like men. They are neither strong or “just like men” while at the same time they aren’t really feminine either. Many of them have become androgynous. The Russian and Serbian women I have had the absolute pleasure of knowing were wanted to be feminine and as a result were. At the same time, they have been stronger than most American men. They also respect men. One time my priest was asked by an American who had married a Russian woman if Serbian women were as strong willed and hot-tempered as Russian women. He answered, “yes…but they know when to stop it.” I’m not sure if it is so much a matter of Serbian women knowing when to chill as much as the Serbian men being able to tell them ‘no’ during a shit test.
“It is possible that discontent is “wired into” women. The irony may be that the maligned 1950s might have been the time of peak happiness for Western women. Too much choice may be making women unhappy now.”
An interesting thought….. Makes sense when you look at the ways that women have acquired happiness throughout human evolution – which is that they acquired it indirectly through men. If a woman wanted to have a better life for her or her children, she had to appeal to a man of some sort for it to happen. That could be father, brother, lover, husband; whatever.
So, after generations of having to do that and evolving that way psychologically, is it surprising that women constantly push men for more, constantly shit test, and constantly have a need to have it all? Maybe the only way they can be truly happy is through submissively accepting her position and being told that she is/should be happy by a successful and dominant man.
Some good food for thought.
I do think women are suggestible and will tend to be about as happy as they are told they are.
If you look at the main centres of feminism: northern Europe, NE United States, Canada: they seem to be places with a strong Protestant ethos. This is not a new idea, but Protestantism has never quite known what to with women. Catholic women have Mary and the female saints as exemplars. And the less wifely types used to find a healthy outlet as nuns.
My broader point was that women have instincts, such as hypergamy, that are effectively insatiable. And instincts that are in conflict: freedom on one hand, desire for submission on the other hand; some of which change as a woman’s hormones change monthly. Feminist writing was once described as what happens when a woman with a typewriter is having a bad period.
Feminism might simply be a micro sociological response to larger macro economic trends, increased energy, technology, credit expansion, taxation, globalization and government largess.
They are the new bourgeois, while the lower class men the new serfs. Considering the credit crunch coming around the hill one wonders what the consequences will be, I guess the classic history minded will have numerous examples of the potential outcomes.
The idea of career + family was always a false promise and a scam. Feminism is about sexual license for women and the family and “achievement” be damned if need be.
JoeS, feminism is driven by fear of ending up married to a boring guy. This is touched on in a book as early as Mary McCarthy’s The Group. One of the girls suffers the “horror” of ending up married to “a Republican”.
No matter what stripe of modern woman you’re dealing with – whether they are nominally “pro-life” (knowing the law will never change) support “the traditional family” (so long as modern family law remains unassailable) or are full-blown feminist hags, the one thing they have in common is that no man is going to impose consequences for feminine bad behavior. That’s what feminism is all about, and it is almost universally accepted by today’s women. Precipitous social decline is now unavoidable, there will be few islands of sanity, and those that exist are being rapidly eroded away.
Watch as women would clamor to be stay at home mothers. And thirsty ass American men would be only too happy to indulge them forgetting the lessons learned of the previous generation.
Yes, I think women have done permanent damage to their reputation.
@Leap of Beta
“Bleh. Hamster turds all over the place in that article’s comments.”
I think its more than just hamsterlation. Women have a collective vested interest in propagating the meme that the MAN is at fault in the Marriage thus justifying Womens Divorce otherwise more Men might wake up to the Marriage/Divorce scam/racket.
Its perception management or spin and Women do this not only regarding Marriage but also do this and have a vested interest in the culturally propagated and accepted image of Women in all areas of life. And it doesn’t nescarily have to be conscious for it to be happening. Bur perhaps Women collectively are engaging in conscious dissumulation to a greater degree than we Men might realise.
@David Collard
Excellent point about Freedom and Submission.
On the subject of Submission: It’s still the most popular book – Shades of Gray that is; so much so that my local Waterstones [Barnes and Noble] have an entire wall of their shop full from floor to ceiling with copies thereof. Elsewhere in the store is a stack of them up to waist height, which are selling faster than hot-cakes.
It seems to me therefore that women switch between wanting freedom (Eat Pray Love) and submission (Shades of Gray). Clearly these are indeed the type of books that your wife or servant wish to read.
“Feminist writing was once described as what happens when a woman with a typewriter is having a bad period.”
Brilliant!
Leap of Beta I think you are onto something. Since women’s ambitions are realized through men they need to get dissatisfied and push men to get what they want while men channel their dissatisfaction into doing something themselves. I read about a study that found women with high levels of the estrogen estradiol where more attractive than other women and where more easily dissatisfied and more serially monogamous and cheated more and where competitive with other women. It might be the dissatisfaction hormone. And it makes sense that it correlates with attractiveness because attractive women are more in a position to place demands.
Opus, nice subtle reference to Lady Chatterley. Now Mellors had game, in more senses than one …
I have no plans to read Shades of Grey. And my wife seems not to have sourced it. In fact, I have not seen copies in Oz yet. There is an underground tradition of this kind of literature, probably going back to Sade via Reage. In pop form, it is found in romance novels. The heroines of those often get treated rather strangely. We touched on the masochistic tinge to the character of Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged at Heartiste recently too.
I’ve seen copies of that book here in Australia, DC. In fact, one of my female co workers today was reading it. She thinks it’s garbage.
But then again, this is also the same woman with whom I was arguing with because she stated that if a man wants to get a woman then he should change himself to become what she wants. She became quite flustered when I asked her why the onus is always on the men to change and why women seem to get away with it.
I’m not really sure that I’m comfortable defending my opinions in public though. Disharmony tends to rattle me a bit and I’m not quite sure I could deal with being the rock in the center of a sea of people telling me I’m wrong. Baby steps.
ybm says:
July 11, 2012 at 2:12 pm
I know “it” didnt said that Womyn are minority what “It” meants was minority of womyn, but my only reason to specify the womyn population as of 2011 was to break the charm spell of feminist in general who in every turn as stated womyn to be in the minority club, that is why Womyn are mostly using Affirmative Action which is why womyn have all the privileges.
End.
Phanta, it all depends how you say it. You can sometimes just state your case calmly, and you may get more support than you expect. I defended Humanae Vitae once at a table full of other public servants, who were only lukewarm Catholics or irreligious. But, yes, nobody likes to be constantly in the line of fire.
Another method is to ask Socratic questions. On the Internet, I just tell it like it is. Feminists are easy to offend; one might as well give them something to be offended by.
I am good under fire in real life because I continue to think cool. But many people become flustered easily.
Men need to reopen old fronts, and attack feminism from the rear, so to speak.
Men need to reopen old fronts, and attack feminism from the rear
With a paddle or a whip, DC? Be specific. 😉
This is headed wrong
Will:
“”Bur perhaps Women collectively are engaging in conscious dissumulation to a greater degree than we Men might realise.””
————————————————
This I think on often, and it is my opinion that very few have the innate moxy, the cleverness, to effect this kind of propaganda. I find the initiations and/or the reactions of feminists to be parroting something, or some mode, heard before and sort of memorized. These things are reflex, push button, for the most part.
I love feminists, they’re much subject for my humour. They have that dull stare (similar to a mugshot face), that looks like they’ve just realized their limited usefulness (from the dehumanization of casual sex). Feminism has hurt women more than it helped. Also, because radical feminists screwed around like whores, men now view women more as sex objects than they did in the past.
Now women are simply judged on their looks, whereas before they were judged on their personalities, and their suitability of being a mother. Even the traditional and submissive girls will give up sex within a 3 dates max, I’ve had one fling ask if she could prepare me dinner for when I return from the job and suggested I give her a key to my place. This is what a traditional good girl looks like, sure she seems very nice, and caring but she throws herself at the first guy who likes her back. I don’t think I know of any girls who are reserved, innocent or pure. This is pretty much as good as it gets.
Bskillet has dropped another brilliance on us at Christian Men’s Defense Network:
http://cmd-n.org/2012/07/12/why-hamsterbation-causes-blindness/
Go read it now. It’s that good. Big pimpin’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglerfish
The Anglerfish is the dream species as far as the feminists are concerned. The males are reduced to small frail appendages that are attached to the females. They are completely dependent on the females for everything. They don’t think. All they do is provide the female with sperm. In addition, the female may have several males attached to her thus providing constant polygamous sex.
This is the feminist utopia!
SunshineMary
“Thou goest to woman? Forget not thy whip!”
Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra.
AJ Miller, I’ve known girls that kind looked like that!
Nope, with a bayonet.
A pork sword is sufficient.
>>failing that, paternity must be established immediately to facilitate the wealth transfer that will occur at divorce.
What marriage…. ! In the UK DNA kits are widely available in pharmacys now (I didn’t realize) and home kits are less than the first months child support…. (I didn’t used to be so cynical!)
http://www.homednapaternitytest.co.uk/collections/paternity-dna-tests
A port sword used on a feminist is a wasted pork sword…
A pork sword is sufficient
Oh my Lord, when a sheltered woman tries to keep up around here…I didn't know what was meant by "pork sword" so I Google Image-d it. That was disturbing. I get it now, though. haha
Feminist Hater – A fleischgewehr is never wasted. Any port sword in a storm…
Ah, so a fleischgewehr is a feminist’s first pork sword of call…
It was never about “having it all”. It was always about making women to enter the workplace.
The first feminist (Simone de Beauvoir) said it clearly:
No, we don’t believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make it.
After that, every feminist has glorified the career lifestyle and has regarded housewives with contempt. But, outside a small circle of radical feminists and their corporate overlords, no woman was willing to give up the possibility of being a mother only to be a corporate drone. Women don’t understand cause and effect but they are not that stupid.
So feminists soon realized that, in order to sell feminism to the masses, it was impossible to say “forget about being a mother so you can be a better worker”. The lie to be publicized had to be “You can have it all: an exciting corporate career, a lot of LTR’s with alphas and, at the end of the path, a marriage with a provider and a family in the suburbs with a white picket fence”. In short, having it all. All the privileges of a traditional female with all the privileges of a traditional alpha male.
It speaks volumes about women’s intelligence that women swallowed this nonsense hook, line and sinker, but they did. They have taken about thirty years to start realizing that this lie might not be true. Slow learners, I know.
Now the lie has outlived its usefulness and it’s time to do without it. The same with the “Feminism is about equality” lie. The new slogan will be: “Biologically, we are the most valuable sex. We need a special treatment for the good of society”:
Some will try to ‘repackage’ the lies in camouflage, as in this article from an alt-lefty website that is also associated with the so-called ‘Good Men Project’ (groan): What About the Men? Why Our Gender System Sucks for Men, Too
Hah!
Alternet…..that place will make you crazy. I was debating there in the 2006 time fram and some ass hat somehow tracked me down and then said in a comment something like “hey there (my first name here), you need to be careful someone will come up to your house on (my street here) and show you how bad we hate conservatives…..something like that.
Nice
You know, I don’t understand how the people here manage to hold strong to their beliefs in the face of the firing squad. I’m currently arguing with 4 people at once on a forum about how I think sluts are bad. Even though I’m trying my best to just present factual arguements based on societal norms today and not trying to engage in personal attacks or strawmen or any other logical fallacy, I’ve already been called a misogynist, a woman hater, accused of slut shaming and being told I’m bitter and hateful about woman.
So I have a lot of respect for the people who can hold onto their beliefs in the face of shaming tactics.
gdgm wrote: Some will try to ‘repackage’ the lies in camouflage, as in this article from an alt-lefty website that is also associated with the so-called ‘Good Men Project’ (groan): What About the Men? Why Our Gender System Sucks for Men, Too
My, but that article was boring, repetitive, poorly-argued, and inexplicably long, wasn’t it?. One paragraph, however, needs to be examined. If I may just quote it here (I highlighted my favorite lines):
Underscoring this point is the fact that there is something that calls itself a men’s rights movement, but it consists of nothing but kneejerk anti-feminism. It is made up primarily of angry, alienated men who have fully bought into the myths of hegemonic masculinity and gender roles, and not found the success and happiness that the myths implicitly promised. Since feminism is the only movement around that is attempting to dismantle those myths, they conclude that feminism is the cause of their unhappiness. If not for those meddling feminists, things would be okay. They would argue that this is a mischaracterization, but a thorough examination of their arguments reveals that this is, in fact, their sole intellectual basis. Any analysis of any issue that does not begin and end by blaming feminists, or preferably all women, is immediately discarded. Thus, lacking the social analysis tools feminists pioneered, they can accomplish nothing but surly misogyny and occasional outbreaks of violence. We spent quite some time attempting to find MRMs who could be engaged in a constructive manner, but eventually gave up.If men’s rights are to be addressed on any kind of serious level, it will have to be by feminism.
Gentleman, good news! We can all go home now. Go on, go back to reading the Bible or downloading porn or whatever it was you were doing before you got interested in manosphere issues. The feminists will be addressing your rights “on a serious level” now. You’re welcome.
Thank you, feminists, but I am not interested in your nostrums.
Phanta, don’t worry one bit about being called a misogynist. It is name-calling, nothing more, and shows the limits of their arguments and their intelligence.
I’m not bothered by it anymore. It does both depress and anger me though. Depressing that they feel the need to resort to name calling when I did my best to prevent a logical, unbiased arguement without resorting to personal attacks or strawmen or other logical fallacies. Angry that it just seems to be the done thing to try and avoid the harsh truth. I’m tired of people getting away with saying any opinion that they don’t like about women is misogyny. It just really grinds my gears.
Phanta, you don’t argue to convince your opponent. You argue to convince the audience.
I have had women tell me that “sexism” from a man is a turn-on. Deep down they realise they are being stupid. And they want to be called on it.
Sluts are disgusting. That is why women call each other “whore” and “slut”. They are not terms of endearment.
Remember: it must be tough being a feminist: going through life with no penis and no brains.
David,
When you are down to name calling you have lost the argument. The most recent examples involve two certain premiers — Gillard (going) and Bligh (gone) who basically insulted the (then or now) Leader of the Opposition because he was religious, faithful and heterosexual.
It is an ugly tactic that backfires, and is why younger women start conversations by saying that they are not feminists.
Gillard has done everything wrong. I don’t dislike her as a person. But she has provided a master-class in how not to lead a nation. It has not helped that the members of her government have made one offensive remark after another. Only a miracle can save them.
As Steve Sailer says, ideology makes you stupid.
Unfortunately, the audience I was trying to convince had a pretty feminine bias. That, and having to speak in generalities didn’t really help me much despite them being obvious societal observations.
That said though, the responses I got were basically “how can you say that”, “wow, that’s very sexist and prejudiced”, “citation needed, show us your proof” and being told that my entire arguement was wrong because I used generalities.
I think that’s what happens when you have opinions that aren’t the social standard though. Won’t stop me from speaking up, but I guess I have to learn to pick my battles.
Pingback: Links and Other Stuff | The Society of Phineas
Phanta, you may be better not to argue in generalities and with too much logic on display. A better strategy may just be to refer to your feelings. Women will get the point, and generalise from your feelings. They can argue till the cows come home, using demands for citations, which are really just ways of going into denial and derailing the discussion. Simply giving your feelings may, paradoxically, be more effective. Rhetoric includes appeals to emotions.
Writing something like, “Most of my mates think sluts are kind of pathetic” could be a better approach. Assuming this is true, it is very hard to argue against. They can call you a “sexist”, but it doesn’t change your feelings. You can even come back with something like, “Are you denying my feelings?”
Fundamentally, these debates are about values. The debate is really in these terms: are sexually active unmarried women exciting, liberated and hip; or are they just skanky sluts who will make shithouse wives?
Yeah, remember Phanta, to a woman feelings > logic.
So, in order to win an argument with them, you have to feed their hamster along your path of argument through emotions and feelings. Then you snap cold the jaws of your logical trap on the fat, bloated hamster that can’t get away.
I personally don’t think it’s worth the trouble unless I’m also upping the sexual tension and trying to get sex out of the whole thing as well. Otherwise no change will be lasting and you’ve wasted hours, if not days, for a woman that will immediately forget about everything you just taught her as soon as she gets off the next Alpha cock she finds and goes to a church/beta orbiter/feminist/whatever for comfort and understanding.
Well, that’s the thing. It seems any time I refer to my feelings I get attacked even more. So I thought trying to be logical and not directly attacking anyone then maybe I could convince people. I’m apparently just a misogynistic bigot now though. I’ve been called misogynistic so many times now it’s really losing all it’s meaning. I still can’t make people understand that not liking things that some women do does not mean I hate women as a whole.
And LB, I wasn’t getting anything out of it except for the satisfaction that I was sticking up for myself and my beliefs for once. I knew I didn’t have much of a chance of convincing them otherwise. And the women I was trying to convince I wouldn’t sleep with regardless, nor the manginas who came up to bat (I really don’t like mangina as a word but I’m unsure what else to call them).
I don’t know. It’s really more about sticking to my guns for me. I’ve spent far too long being passive about my opinions and not defending my beliefs. It isn’t like they’re going to respect me any less or anything, I’m fairly sure they don’t respect me at all as is.
Phanta, “sexism” is a pantie-wetter. Trust me.
“Universal day care is necessarily geosynchronous”
That actually took 24s to percolate to fruition.
Back in the days of the more rational patriarchal system
it was presumed father custody,with all the resultant lack of modern day problems.
(Girls gone wild)
“We spent quite some time attempting to find MRMs who could be engaged in a constructive manner, but eventually gave up.”
Translated:
Those bad logic driven men refuse to accept the emotion based supremacist narrative/agenda replete with shaming language.
Those crazy angry rascals dare to oppose their enslavement!
How very stupid of them.”
Reminds me of a line from “Full Metal Jacket:”
“Those stupid bastards (Vietnamese) would rather be dead than free.”
Why waste your time arguing with a woman, Phanta? Tell her to get her ass back in the kitchen and be done with it. David Collard is right. Women know they’re being stupid and they want to be called on it.
The phrase I use with my wife is “Woman, mind your kitchen”.
“Universal day care is necessarily geosynchronous”
That actually took 24s to percolate to fruition.
——————————————————–
Glad it made it
phantasma
Generalities are not understood by most women, a few understand them and of those the majority simply block them out, leaving only a very few who understand and are comfortable with actual generalities.
Part of the instinctual response I pointed out yesterday is this reject all generalities because “people cant be put in boxes ya know, and to suggest that every women is alike, well thats stupid, if that was the case you could have married any women and get the exact same thing” OY!
I nearly wore myself out with examples of what a generality is and how its not a value judgement its a statistic, and it allows high level discussions, and if not for them how could counselors know where to start with the individual snowflakes etc.
If you are discussing with feminists and they show rejection of generalities, there is zero chance of having a discussion.
There is a linkage between the rejection of generalities and the dearth of women in STEM
bsk:Tell her to get her ass back in the kitchen and be done with it. David Collard is right.
dc: The phrase I use with my wife is “Woman, mind your kitchen”
I think you’re totally right about this. Someone recently said feminism is a culture-wide fitness test, and it seems correct to me. Feminists, and all women really, want to be reined in when they’re acting out. It’s like with dogs – they get anxious when no one is firmly in control and start testing and trying to take control even if they’re not fit for it. A quick verbal take-down of a feminist is probably analogous to the “alpha-wolf rollover” technique that dog trainers use.
The line my husband sometimes uses with me is to fix me with a look and say, “Do you need something useful to do with your mouth?”
I could call them out and tell them to get back into the kitchen, yes. But that would quickly earn me either alienation from everyone else on the forums or a swift banning. It would be considered a fairly violent attack and sexist too boot at any rate.
I do feel a bit helpless though. How exactly does one manage to convey to people that you don’t hate a specific subset of humanity, be it gender or nationality or whatever, but that you hate the bullshit that they come up with? I’m getting tired of having to be politically correct all the time.
Give them both barrels and get yourself banned. They sound hopeless anyway.
Keyster said it better than I did.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/07/10/feminism-and-the-decline-of-an-institution/#comment-159592
Mary, we put one dog in a thunder jacket when it storms
trying to picture wife in one………
OT but it seems a parody right from the manosphere
http://thegloss.com/sex-and-dating/7-things-i-should-have-told-my-grandparents-when-they-asked-why-im-28-and-not-married-364/gallery-page/1/
[D: Thanks. That place is a gold mine.]
@Phantasmagoria
I haven’t read the whole exchange above for context, so I might be misunderstanding. What I would suggest is to make sure they don’t control your frame. There is a strong tendency to embrace the inaccurate caricature the PC crowd will want to label you with. In fact, I’d bet they’ve never run into someone who can resist this. Don’t do it. Be in command of your own frame. Speak the truth, but don’t feel the need to explain everything at once. Also don’t be afraid to agree with those points which others opposing you make which are correct. You aren’t trying to out debate them and win points for your “team”, but arrive at the truth in good faith. This is a serious advantage we have on our side; the truth is all we are after. Leave them perplexed, but respond outside of the feminist frame, as if it didn’t even exist. This will drive them nuts and it is more likely to get at least some other readers to consider your view. Always argue to the reasonable person in the middle who is reading but not participating in the discussion. Assume going in that you will never change the minds of anyone else who is commenting.
The thing that I’ve been considering, musing over lately is how feminism never had to actually be a functional ideology. It’s sole purpose is to corrupt and ruin God’s plan for men and women, it doesn’t have to viably replace that plan it simply has to deface it. That is why calling a liberal/feminist on the carpet for the abject failure of their ideology is an exercise in whack-a-mole. Their “hearts” are always in the right place…..how can they be held responsible for the outcome?
@Phantasmagoria
A quick point or three:
1) The point of PC is mostly to allow people with no capacity to argue points to argue something in the vague shape of a real argument. This renders most discussions similar to talking to a child. So accept that they are children and treat them as such. It’s actually a hilarious thing to do to college professors, too. (PC infantilizes the mind, it really does)
2) Never let anyone get away with “fake but accurate” points. If you can falsify something, call them specifically on that and force them to walk back the entire argument its being used on.
3) Always stay in your own frame and control what you respond to. Don’t get into pissing matches and don’t accept stupid assumptions. This mostly comes from directly denying the premise of questions.
4) Realize the people you’ll be arguing with can’t understand the concept of a “trade-off” or “secondary effect”. The fact that you have to bind a person’s choices so they don’t take out the rest of society in the process is simply not a concept they’ll be able to understand. (Once this reality sinks in about most people, your opinion of their intelligence will plummet. Which is why “Wisdom” is always the most important trait in a person. )
One thing about debating online to consider is that you don’t have to respond right away. If you read something that gets you riled up, don’t respond in the heat of the moment. I know a guy who refers to this as “grab a tea and take a pee”. Only then come back and make your response calmly. Really, arguing online doesn’t take as thick a skin as arguing in real life does. They can only see if what they say affects you if you choose to show it. Don’t show it. Then you will control the frame.
@DavidC
”Remember: it must be tough being a feminist: going through life with no penis and no brains.”
Hope that that isn’t copyright, because I think I’m going to get a coffee mug made with that on it. Maybe a beer mug, maybe both
Behold…
“Why Leaving Tom Cruise Makes Katie Holmes a Feminist Hero,” by Virginia Hefferman, Yahoo! News, 13 July 2012
http://news.yahoo.com/why-leaving-tom-cruise-makes-katie-holmes-a-feminist-hero.html
See? Can’t make this stuff up…
Well, I didn’t get the chance to respond or anything. This is my original arguement here (http://pastebin.com/taWmYrgf) and apparently, it’s considered hate speech and incredibly misogynistic. If any of the wiser minds here are willing to look at it and tell me if I was indeed being a hateful misogynist bigot who apparently wakes up each morning thinking about how to make life more miserable for women, I’d greatly appreciate it.
Of course if I actually am wrong, then I’ll get down off my soapbox and go back to just listening because I have a lot more to learn.
Phanta, Steve Sailer writes of “hate facts”. That is, facts that people don’t want to hear.
Pingback: Tell Them They’re Happy « stagedreality
>>Men should take heed. Holmes left absolutely nothing to chance.
Exactly. She doesn’t look too unhappy about it now:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2173448/Katie-Holmes-flashes-smile-bit-leg-reveals-petticoat-coffee-run.html#comments
One of the (female) comments was very telling:
“I’m starting to think TC has been played. What’s the downside for Katie? She seems to have gotten everything: a brief marriage to a man she fantasized about as a girl, world-wide-fame-by-association, a beautiful child, and more money than she knows what to do with. Also, worldwide sympathy as the “victim” of a “controlling man.” The cold, calculating, sneaky way she went about orchestrating her sudden disappearance from a short marriage does NOT smack of a woman who was emotionally invested in that relationship. Like his religion or detest it – TC isn’t a batterer, a drug addict, an alcoholic, or a substandard father. And anyone who saw him jumping up and down on Oprah’s couch could tell that HE, at least, was in love. Lastly, it’s detestable that Suri hasn’t seen her father in a month. He clearly loves his children and likewise. Before you further villify the “controlling” TC, you might want to consider KH’s apparent need to monopolize Suri and keep her from her own father.
– Sherry, Midwest, U.S., 14/7/2012 8:06″
“Woman, mind your kitchen”.
I love stuff like this. My husband does stuff like this to me when I am being dumb. I am not dumb. He knows it and I know it. Doesn’t mean I don’t say dumb stuff or do dumb things. When he says something like this (with that beautiful twinkle in his eye) I know I’m being demonstrably stupid and he is telling me to go back to what I excel at. It stings a bit, but I know he respects my kitchen minding and it brings me a great deal of pride at the same time.
Women being wired malcontent, indeed. 😉
First, modern feminism is founded on women’s tendency to feel a vague (yet powerful) sense of dissatisfaction.
I think this boils down to hypergamy as Leap says here.
However, this sense of dissatisfaction will lessen dramatically with a strong man at her side. I’ve said a few times that nothing calms the hamster like a strong man. Same with this phenomenon. I’m not trying to put the onus on men for a woman’s satisfaction. However, when a woman is striving to make a man happy, and she will do this for a strong man, her malcontent lessens considerably. Her making her man happy makes her happy. If she chooses well, a strong man will bolster her as well. Making what may be tedious for her, still worthwhile. Cleaning the bathrooms, while not groundbreaking, is still important. When she does things like this well and a man occasionally praises her for it, her happiness will likely go through the roof.
From a different perspective, though talking about much the same as this vague dissatisfaction, I talked about this at the end of this post
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – 7-15-12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
Good points, Stingray. Ride out the “shit tests”. For that is what most of them are, shit tests.
If you are doing it sort of OK, you may get what I get a fair bit. My wife “reporting” to me on what she has being doing around the house. “I’ve done two loads of washing, so you can’t say I’m lazy”.
When I say, “Woman, mind your kitchen”, I don’t get a very happy response. But I do think it turns her on, at some level, maybe unconscious. I mean that the long term response is better than the short term response.
Really, how did women really expect to “have it all”? They just are not very good at guy stuff like high intelligence and/or physical labor.
Furthermore, why do they deserve it all? As a reward for being especially capable or virtuous?
@Dalrock
Maybe you could do a post relating milestones in feminist history to women’s happiness, which keeps going down with time. I know, correlation is not causation, but just saying.
I’ve said a few times that nothing calms the hamster like a strong man.
Yes, this does work on the ladies. First hand experience is indisputable. However, it can be work, and how many women are worth the effort? Perhaps there are many, but is difficult to sort them out.
Nobody can “have it all”. There are compromises made at every stage of life. The best any of us can do is strive for balance and contentment.
“The problem lay buried, unspoken, for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning [that is, a longing] that women suffered in the middle of the 20th century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries … she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question — ‘Is this all?”
Imagine if there had been internet back in Friedan’s day! Then there would never have been a “problem with no name”. Blogging has managed to fill the void for many SAHMs today.
Imagine if there had been internet back in Friedan’s day! Then there would never have been a “problem with no name”.
I am not so sure about that. The web at time would have resulted in a hamster apocalypse, and who knows how that would have turned out.
Empath
There is a linkage between the rejection of generalities and the dearth of women in STEM
Title IX will fix that….
Pingback: DA GBFM rveoltoutinez da internetz woolrd with his ALPHA FUCKS BETA BUCKS POEM Zlsososlzlzl zlzlozozozooz alpha fux and beta bux poetry poeteriesz lozozozzo poem poem poem poetry lzlzlozozoz | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOK
Pingback: FIVE MINUTES OF ALPHA SHAKESPEAREAN SONNETZ a peomaz poem POEM a girlz wrote aboute da GBFM!!! | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl
Pingback: lzlozoz DR> HELEN CALLS OUT TUCKER CARLSON FATASSED DOUBLE CHINND TUCKER FUCKER FUCKTARD CARLOSON | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl
Pingback: THEY BERNANKIFIED MY SOUL AWAY & LEFT ME WITH CATSZ CATZ CATS! Bring Back Prima Noctes! Braveheart: “Grant them prima noctes. First night, when any common girl inhabiting their lands is married, our nobles shall have sexual rights to her on the nigh
Pingback: THEY BERNANKIFIED MY SOUL AWAY & LEFT ME WITH CATSZ CATZ CATS! Bring Back Prima Noctes! Braveheart: “Grant them prima noctes. First night, when any common girl inhabiting their lands is married, our nobles shall have sexual rights to her on the nigh
Pingback: “What The F*ck Happened To Dating In College?” askxks Briagenn Adams @ readunwritten lzozozo. DA GBFM ANSWERZ lzozozolzooz GBFM ECONOMICZ MAXIM # 1: A woman’s courtship value is equal or less than the lowest price she ever gave her pussy awa
Pingback: DA GBFM COINED THE PHRASE “ALHPA FUCKS BETA BUCKS” !!! lzlozoz JUST FOUR GUYS ARE DUMMY IDIOTNZ THEIEVESZ HIEVES Z | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl