Commenter PM observed that the feminist fiction spun around Amelia Earhart seems harmless enough:
Men are still doing most of jobs that keep civilization going. I don’t see that changing. A few women are being propped up with false accomplishments here and there but it doesn’t have much impact overall.
Most people male or female won’t invent something that changes the world or be the first to do anything. I think that Amelia Earheart’s “success” inspired a lot of women. My sister has her pilot’s license and it seems harmless enough. Doesn’t change the fact that most pilots are men.
This has been the reaction by men to feminist envy from the beginning. Pointing out the outrageous pettiness of feminists feels petty, and men would far prefer to be gracious by playing along with the fiction. Yet indulging envy only feeds the beast and fuels even more envy and discontent. Moreover, the farther along you follow this path, the harder it becomes to stop indulging it.
After Lindbergh’s amazing feat he was an instant hero. What he attempted was so astounding that before he even landed there were huge crowds gathered at the intended landing field outside Paris, waiting to see if this unknown airmail pilot from America could pull it off:
The airfield was not marked on his map and Lindbergh knew only that it was some seven miles northeast of the city. He initially mistook the airfield for some large industrial complex with bright lights spreading out in all directions. The lights were, in fact, the headlights of tens of thousands of cars all driven by eager spectators now caught in “the largest traffic jam in Parisian history.”[55]
A crowd estimated at 150,000 spectators stormed the field, dragged Lindbergh out of the cockpit, and literally carried him around above their heads for “nearly half an hour”.
This was just the crowd that gathered to see if he could pull it off. Lindbergh had no radio on board so all the crowd knew was that he had taken off 33 hours prior and was intending to land at that airfield. After he landed he was an instant worldwide sensation.
The adulation and celebration of Lindbergh that emerged after the solo Atlantic flight were unprecedented. People were “behaving as though Lindbergh had walked on water, not flown over it.”[64]:17…
Within a year of his flight, a quarter of Americans (an estimated 30 million) personally saw Lindbergh and the Spirit of St. Louis.[76]
For feminists the idea of a man receiving this much praise and attention was unbearable. All of the attention given to “Lucky Lindy” created a frantic search for a woman who could be named “Lady Lindy”. This was not a race to see which woman would be the first to prove her mettle, it was a race to change the subject and mark aviation as a feminine space. This is why all that mattered was that a woman ride in an airplane across the Atlantic, so long as she looked the part.
Earhart was actually fairly late in the game. In 1927 actress Ruth Elder set out to be “Lady Lindy”:
[Elder] was a twenty-three year old, some-time actress when she heard of “Lucky Lindy’s” flight from New York, to Paris.
She made up her mind that she would be the first “Lady Lindy,” the first woman to fly across the Atlantic.
Elder wasn’t the only person to coin the term Lady Lindy before the “accomplishment” was even in progress. The man who interviewed Earhart for the part had the term in mind the day he met her:
Railey claims to have been struck by a strong resemblance in Amelia’s appearance to Lindbergh and he immediately coined the sobriquet “Lady Lindy” in his mind.
A big part of the problem is that we don’t recognize envy in women because it seems so normal. If a man had set out to upstage Lindbergh by hiring someone to chauffeur him across the Atlantic (or anything else short of real achievement), he would be a laughingstock. But when we observe this same kind of pettiness from women we reflexively overlook it; pointing out pettiness in women feels petty.
Again, this was not about women setting out to create their own achievements, it was about extinguishing manly pride. The desire wasn’t to inspire little girls so that one day, if they worked hard enough, they too could have a man fly them in an airplane. This wasn’t about inspiring little girls, it was about not inspiring little boys. Feminists understand this in their guts, which is why feminists today still love Earhart’s absurd book about the time a man flew her across the ocean. Earhart’s ride was triumphant not because she accomplished anything, but because she helped change the subject away from Lindbergh.
This raises the question; what is the cost of extinguishing manly pride? What is the cost of downplaying the importance of manly virtues? At the individual incident level, the costs seem too small to be measurable; manly pride has turned out to be nearly as indefatigable as feminist envy has proven unquenchable. Indeed, our society is ordered on the assumption that men’s graciousness towards women is as inexhaustible as women’s envy of men. So far at least, this has been a winning bet.
But this isn’t just about one incident. Clearly the boys growing up in the 1930s were still inspired to work hard and take incredible risks despite the feminist parasite siphoning off as much recognition as possible; there was no shortage of men who were willing to storm the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima. As successful as feminists were at changing the subject, they weren’t able to stop young boys and men from seeing Lindbergh honored for his achievements. And even if feminists had managed to entirely prevent the recognition of Lindbergh, there were still other role models to inspire young men. This is about a beast that wasn’t satiated with with muting the celebration of Lindbergh’s success, a beast which grew more ravenous with each meal. This is about a relentless and ever more effective movement to stamp out all celebration of manly virtues over the last eight decades. Looking the other way when feminists were petty about Lindbergh’s achievement lead to looking the other way when feminists marked our armed forces as a feminine space and snuffed out or neutered the heroes quest.
We live in a bizarre age. We complain that young men lack manly virtues, while claiming that there is no cost to feminists’ envy driven need to denigrate manhood. If manly virtues are important to our society, then we must once again unashamedly celebrate men who display these virtues. We must call out this pettiness so that we can recognize courage, even though we find it uncomfortable.
“This was not a race to see which woman would be the first to prove her mettle, it was a race to change the subject …”
True statement. Everything around women has to point to women. I saw something on TV last night in which a man was talking about something that had happened to him and the woman sitting with him (his wife, maybe, I don’t know) immediately turned HIS statement into something about HER. The person doing the interview took it hook, line and sinker, and the next thing we know, all eyes on the woman and HER problem with what happened to the man.
So this feminist attempt t denigrate manly achievements and “change the subject” has a longer history than just the past few decades? Is it timeless, or did it accelerate at some point in time?
I love this film.
It points out a good deal of what I lived with in my bluepill years.
@ Robert What?
It accelerated with the Industrial Revolution, and all the comforts that it bestowed on the middle class.
Women can only (falsely) crow that ‘they don’t need a man’ so long as men continue to bring all of life’s necessities to their front doorstep. Whether it be food, electricity, water, or clothing.
I’m still looking for those images of the women storming the beaches at Normandy.
I’m guessing the photographer was a man and was given explicit instructions from the patriarchal military to bury the evidence.
That had to be what happened.
Not only does it feel petty but one is more likely to face a firestorm of “How dare you?!” from his coworkers, his acquaintances, his wife/gf, society, etc.
@ Rugby11
I see she didn’t beat the male Long Trail running record.
Big surprise.
However, she did close the gap between the men & women’s record, by a full 2 days.
The expedition was a success (her words). Even though she set out to defeat the men’s record.
Now please forget that she was nearly a full day later than the men’s record.
It is indeed petty, and unrelentingly so.
In the next great world conflict, women will not hesitate to play the “I’m just a girl card” and be handing out ‘white feathers’ to male passersby to shame them into signing up for military service.
The Abolition of Man by C. S. Lewis. Men without chests and geldings chastised for not breeding. If you haven’t read it you should do so asap and take it to heart.
Railey claims to have been struck by a strong resemblance in Amelia’s appearance to Lindbergh and he immediately coined the sobriquet “Lady Lindy” in his mind.
*MouthVomit*
I sincerely hope that the goal was not to sell Earhart as a sex symbol (to men). If it was, and the effort in any measure succeeded, then that forces me to re-evaluate my grandfather’s generation in a manner that will lead to some unpleasant and uncomplimentary conclusions.
Casey,
In the next great world conflict, women will not hesitate to play the “I’m just a girl card” and be handing out ‘white feathers’ to male passersby to shame them into signing up for military service.
Good. Red-pill men won’t be swayed, but manginas and whiteknights will bear the brunt, as they should. Being red-pill can save a man’s life, in the example you gave..
Just like with female ‘entrepreneurs’ that swindle manginas out of their money, anything that transfers the costs onto manginas, is good.
Nature arguably wants women to purge manginas out of the gene pool, and we, hence, should not get in the way of this process….
Robert What?
So this feminist attempt t denigrate manly achievements and “change the subject” has a longer history than just the past few decades? Is it timeless, or did it accelerate at some point in time?
If you know how biology works, then the scarcer reproductive resource will be seen as more valuable than the more abundant one. Hence, the female imperative goes back millions of years. Even in bands of gorillas, the beta males die for the safety of females who are not mating with them.
Anyone who claims that ‘feminism’ started in 1968, or 1858 at Seneca Falls, or is the result of a group that is just 2% of the population of the US (and totally absent in many other countries with ‘feminism’) really does not understand the biological basis of ‘feminism’.
It has apparently accelerated recently only because there is enough surplus prosperity to subsidize this wastage of resources, but the innate tendencies were always part of the human psyche. Both men and women are hardwired to place the well-being of women above that of men or even children…
OT, but my church is about to use a Tim and Kathy Keller DVD for a Sunday night Bible study. I’m rereading your old posts on those two and trying to form coherent refutations, but is there any other advice you can give me? I’m a single man, so I expect a lot of shaming from blue pill married folks, but the un-cucking has to start somewhere.
Makes perfect sense when you apply it to a more recent achievement. A guy lands a space craft on a moving comet 300 million miles away and 98% of the media a attention was about the shirt the guy was wearing.
This scientist successfully put a craft on a ballistic trajectory to intercept a comet 300 million miles away (think about that the next time you run the calculations for the 1000 yard shot at the rifle range), then landed on that comet. But, but, but…his shirt!!!
There is actually quite a bit of harm, if you consider curie-hulgren syndrome, of which Amelia was a victim. A tremendous amount of people are put at risk because of this nonsense.
And the feminized armed forces are a perfect example of something that is going to lead to the United States’ biggest humiliation in the near to middle future, just wait.
This is as old as history, happens all the time.
You cannot shame someone that no longer has any pride, or places his pride in externals, as the cathedral is discovering with the alt right and neoright.
This scientist successfully put a craft on a ballistic trajectory to intercept a comet 300 million miles away (think about that the next time you run the calculations for the 1000 yard shot at the rifle range), then landed on that comet. But, but, but…his shirt!!!
Not just that, but the team was so distracted by the lynch mob that they could not focus on the actual mission and lost the probe a couple of days later (i.e. the end of a $100M program).
Talk about a destruction of wealth and knowledge potential….
Another post well done Dalrock. The summary speaks volumes.
Robert What? says:
June 7, 2016 at 3:23 pm
So this feminist attempt t denigrate manly achievements and “change the subject” has a longer history than just the past few decades? Is it timeless, or did it accelerate at some point in time?
The feminine imperative is as old as Man but feminism in the United States, though not yet common practice, can be traced back at least as far as July 1848 (the Seneca Falls Convention).
I’m guessing the photographer was a man and was given explicit instructions from the patriarchal military to bury the evidence.
Either that or the “evil Patriarchy” wouldn’t let them for fear of men being usurped.
Now please forget that she was nearly a full day later than the men’s record.
I’m still trying to forget that high school boys track teams out perform women’s Olympic track teams.
Calling Title IX .. Calling Title IX .. it’s time to use it against the wimminz now .. jus sayin’
DalRock it’s very sad you have to explain this after yiur last two posts. I thought it was abundantly clear .. I guess we still have a lot of work to do .. to undue the current brain-washing of a century or more.
“The feminine imperative is as old as Man” – Perhaps I should have said “The feminine imperative is as old as the Fall of Man.”
feeriker @ 3:56 pm:
“I sincerely hope that the goal was not to sell Earhart as a sex symbol (to men).”
Unlikely. A female daredevil pilot might have been impressive but hardly sexy. Female jealousy combined with some white-knighting is a more plausible motive.
…
Anon @ 4:09 pm:
“If you know how biology works, then the scarcer reproductive resource will be seen as more valuable than the more abundant one. Hence, the female imperative goes back millions of years.”
Except the human father is the rarer and more valuable reproductive resource. Childhood is nine months’ gestation followed by 12-18 years of feeding, sheltering and socializing. Any woman can get knocked up but provider husbands willing to stick around don’t just happen. This world thinks otherwise only because “we’ll just tax him into submission”.
…
Dave @ 4:23 pm:
“OT, but my church is about to use a Tim and Kathy Keller DVD for a Sunday night Bible study. I’m rereading your old posts on those two and trying to form coherent refutations, but is there any other advice you can give me?”
If possible, watch the DVD in advance. That’ll give you the opportunity to prepare good comments and arguments before matters become stressful.
I still cannot believe I found out Earheart was JUST a damned passenger rather recently.
How annoying and utterly pathetic.
@Patrick Albanese
I’m still looking for those images of the women storming the beaches at Normandy.
I’m guessing the photographer was a man and was given explicit instructions from the patriarchal military to bury the evidence.
Funny you should bring that up; Rollo already addressed it earlier last week on Twitter:
It’s just like Saving Private Ryan, only not.
Except the human father is the rarer and more valuable reproductive resource. Childhood is nine months’ gestation followed by 12-18 years of feeding, sheltering and socializing. Any woman can get knocked up but provider husbands willing to stick around don’t just happen. This world thinks otherwise only because “we’ll just tax him into submission”.
An interesting contrary position. The women is better suited for nurturing the young child though, and can have multiple kids.
At the macro level, men are expendable for war and survival, while women are much less suited for those roles.
My goal is to do better than the best man in this sport! My oh my, look how much I beat the other women by!
“The more you feed the beast, the hungrier it gets”
-Apt description of feminism, Dalrock.
Most men ignore feminist rants – the “man flu” is one. They don’t want to call out women’s bullshit, because they don’t want to appear petty. As one friend said to me, “It feels like bullying”.
Problem is, women don’t get the hint. They think that if you don’t reply, it is a sign that they have won the argument, made the point, or whatever it is they want to achieve.It is time to use the ever-available and always-effective weapon against them: the judgement of a righteous man. Women in general and feminists in particular shy away from such judgement as Dracula does from a wooden stake.
@ Dalrock
“We live in a bizarre age. We complain that young men lack manly virtues, while claiming that there is no cost to feminists’ envy driven need to denigrate manhood. If manly virtues are important to our society, then we must once again unashamedly celebrate men who display these virtues. We must call out this pettiness so that we can recognize courage, even though we find it uncomfortable.”
I’ve said this before but I think it’s worth saying again. TradCons and SoCons who peddle this “peter pan, men aren’t acting like men anymore” myth won’t ever acknowledge they’re water carriers for feminism.
Much of this can simply be chalked up to ego investment. They have invested so much of their life into this false narrative they can’t go back. They can’t turn around. They can’t admit they were wrong and have caused so much harm.
The TradCons will beat this drum and scream “man up!” until their last breath. What frightens me is what will cause them to draw that final breath.
Elsewhere on the Net people are coming to a very sad conclusion; these people are worse and more dangerous than the feminists. Feminists are very open about what they want. They are an avowed enemy. It’s not hard to establish the battle lines with them.
The cuckservatives are traitors who pretend to be looking out for the wellbeing of young men but in reality are only looking out for themselves. They lie, deceive and distort. They seek division. Feminism relies on these people to fool men into enabling the social engineering we have today.
The conclusions among many is they will have to be dealt with before feminists or the Left. That day may be coming soon.
>>>”what is the cost of extinguishing manly pride? What is the cost of downplaying the importance of manly virtues?”
The cost is seen in the Millennial males. These boys are so steeped in feminine values it is sickening. My son (17) doesn’t care about “gays in the military” or “women dominating education.” None of it matters. Girls don’t matter and he is so turned off by the girls his age it is terrifying. He doesn’t care about school. He has no ambitions for the future. No plans. No goals except “maybe” community college.
The cost of removing manly values is the loss of initiative in men, male apathy, and entire generations of lost boys living in their parents basement.
>>>”our society is ordered on the assumption that men’s graciousness towards women is as inexhaustible as women’s envy of men. So far at least, this has been a winning bet.”
Thus, MGTOW. Removing the inexhaustible graciousness of men towards women. I don’t think we are going to find them the next time we need 400 good men willing and able to storm the cliffs at Pointe De Hoc. Unless it is on X-Box.
>>>”this isn’t just about one incident.”
Indeed it is not . It is about a constant drip, drip, drip of “woman good/man bad” combined with “men and women are exactly the same except for some minor plumbing” until even the contrary and opposed messages are simply ignored. The constant, never ending cries of more for women, less for men in the face of men yawning and saying: “It seems harmless enough.” What’s the problem? Let the girls have some recognition. What? Do you hate women? You must have been hurt in your past to feel this way.
After decades of generational abuse we finally reach the current Millennials, most of whom honestly accept that transgenerism is normal, gender is fluid, being gay is “cool”, masculinity is the cause of the world’s problems, lie is Peace, Freedom is slavery and we have always been at war with Eastasia.
“I still cannot believe I found out Earheart was JUST a damned passenger rather recently. How annoying and utterly pathetic.”
Felt liberating to me. Re-visions the Lindbergh/Earhart events from the snoozy propaganda I was fed, into something much more consistent with the truth. That gets me (and presumable some others) slightly closer to Christ. Plus this world makes a bit more sense.
Pulls back the curtain a little on satan, and on his trans-temporal works. And whatta surprise, there they are as usual! attacking and silencing the sons of adam.
People have bizarre ideas nowdays what a pastor or minister is. We all have sins and faults, but it’s pretty obvious who is who.
BPP — “After decades of generational abuse we finally reach the current Millennials, most of whom honestly accept that transgenerism is normal, gender is fluid, being gay is “cool”, masculinity is the cause of the world’s problems, lie is Peace, Freedom is slavery and we have always been at war with Eastasia.”
Well, we HAVE always been at war with Eastasia. The East reverences dragons for a reason.
Question — “Much of this can simply be chalked up to ego investment. They have invested so much of their life into this false narrative they can’t go back. They can’t turn around. They can’t admit they were wrong and have caused so much harm. ”
Right, ego investment, finances, usually their social and church affiliations, extended family, etc. If the ‘conservatives’ admit the Narrative was and is wrong, what do they say to their Thirties daughters, sent to college and careers? What do they say to their wives, friends, pastors? ‘I was wrong about mostly everything and so are you’? Probly not. Now we see why Scripture demands putting Father and Christ above friends and even family.
First we have to admit to ourselves that we’ve been duped, and that means either our intelligence or courage isn’t perfect, like we always assumed. :O) Even after many years, I still struggle with the damage I did during my full-blind period. I share responsibility for the harm done due to my ignorance and/or selfishness, and it’s not fun to think about it and my role in it. So I agree that the cuckservatives, in particular, are fleeing from their own share of responsibility, while positioning themselves are precisely that.
and entire generations of lost boys living in their parents basement.
Nothing wrong with that. Those are men saving their labor rather than slaving away to pay mortgage interest on a wooden box that some stupid female demands be bought for her, in return for sex that the man can get for free if he stops being a blue-pill mangina….
A man ‘living in his parents basement’ is depriving an ungrateful shrike of a great deal. He is doing God’s work.
“The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’ — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”
– Aldous Huxley
It is, obviously, far worse in America. Certainly ones knows the names of Lindberg and Earhart but who they were nobody knows. Flying the Atlantic means little. We all know however that in 1909 the English Channel – which is, at its most narrow, twenty-two miles wide – was crossed in a Monoplane (of his own design) by a Frenchman Louis Bleriot which netted him a £1,000 prize offered by The Daily Mail. Bleriot (like Lindberg) had already achieved considerably more than merely risking death over La Manche (which was of course later to swallow Glenn Miller) and indeed was to go onto greater non-death defying achievements for like Lindberg he was an engineer and inventor. The other aviators known in England hail from the Second World War – the legless fighter-pilot Douglas Bader, not that that disability prevented him from escaping from Colditz! and Guy Gibson of Dam Busters fame (cue Eric Coates’ March). Never heard of a female pilot (other than the one who nearly killed me – see previous thread).
Gunner Q says: June 7, 2016 at 5:30 pm
Unlikely. A female daredevil pilot might have been impressive but hardly sexy. Female jealousy combined with some white-knighting is a more plausible motive.
absolutely NOT true. Earhart’s ability to look good in a photograph was no small part of the reason why she received such a massive publicity push.
Dalrock
Again, this was not about women setting out to create their own achievements, it was about extinguishing manly pride.
you failed to cite the fact which is MOST damning in this regard:
there actually WERE accomplished female aviators ( the term used back then was “aviatrix” ) back in the day.
http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/photos/8-famous-female-aviators/jacqueline-cochran#top-desktop
http://www.wai.org/pioneers/100womenscript.cfm
the fact that women like this were *ignored* in favor of promoting no talent hacks like Earhart BECAUSE Earhart had “done” something that could take attention away from the man who was a real pioneer tells you what their real purpose is.
Earhart actually did make several ‘firsts’ … due to the fact that it was impossible for men to cover every single possible permutation. for instance, she’s the first person to solo long distance to and from … Mexico City? The Red Sea to Karachi?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Earhart#Records_and_achievements
@Dalrock,
In extinguishing manly pride, and pointing out that, “a woman did that too”, I’d also cite the example of the girl who sued her way into the Virginia military academy, the woman who, with much hand holding & see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil; “graduated” from the Rangers School, and the woman who went thru the special forces training. All of which discovered that they couldn’t keep up to the male standards.
Feminism is demonstrating that there isn’t an activity that a woman can’t force themselves into, and from that point on, “women did that too”. Therefore, there is nothing for a man to feel proud of, which was the point of “Lady Lindy”, the passenger.
Though the reasoning here is right, i.e. that she was not the first and her celebration had more to do with being a woman than true accomplishment, she DID make a solo flight across the Atlantic in 1932, and was the second ever pilot to do it (man or woman). Painting her as just luggage isn’t entirely fair…
“It is time to use the ever-available and always-effective weapon against them: the judgement of a righteous man.” We are seeing the judgement of a righteous man acted out as more and more men refuse to marry. The problem is, women just don’t get it. It’s too subtle for them to understand why it is no good man will date the. And there’re so many other good excuses for them to fall back on, like men can’t handle a strong independent woman. Why do women aim to advertise their independence for entering a relationship? “I don’t need you at all, let’s get married for life!” As a father, I would gladly shoulder the burden of my sons living at home with me over entering the dating market currently flooded with shrews.
All women could be struck retarded tomorrow and science and technological progression would continue at pace. If all men were struck retarded, yeah, humans would die out. You don’t need to force women into these positions, they are not needed. No women is needed to advance science, medicine, robotics, engineering, computers, not one. Any female who wishes to enter should do so knowing that she needs to add to the fullest of the men in her group, and not to sabotage them.
And there’re so many other good excuses for them to fall back on, like men can’t handle a strong independent woman.
Men can “handle” SIWs (“handle” in the sense of smacking them down [literally or figuratively] and putting them back in their rightful place). The thing is, what self-respecting man would want a relationship with any woman in which this is a perpetual requirement? It would be like taking a “vacation” in the inner city where you have to contend with vermin and violence 24/7.
One may be forgiven for thinking there were better days when the bulk of female pettiness was vented upon females, in small groups.
Any female who wishes to enter should do so knowing that she needs to add to the fullest of the men in her group, and not to sabotage them.
Or at least demonstrate awareness that she is at best superfluous to the group’s efforts and behave accordingly.
@Werkof Rodann
It isn’t unfair at all. She herself described herself as baggage:
Moreover, there is a reason no one soloed across the Atlantic in the five years between Lindbergh’s astounding feat and Earhart’s failed attempt to fly to Paris; it didn’t matter any more, so there was no more reason to do it. If you are going to go to the trouble of flying across the Atlantic and there is no glory in flying solo, why not let someone else come along? Two weeks after Lindbergh was the first to fly from NYC to Paris, famed polar explorer Admiral Byrd lead the second flight to make the crossing. Yet we don’t hear about it, because it doesn’t matter. Had Byrd been first, we would never have heard of Lindbergh.
Lastly, she is only famous for making the second flight because she was glorified for making the first one. Had she declined the ride in 1928 and then waited four years for the technology to advance (incredibly) while honing her skills, we wouldn’t know her name. She became an “aviation pioneer” because of the first flight. Everything else she did later would have been unnoteworthy had she not already been elevated to the level of female Lindbergh in 1928.
“I was just baggage, like a sack of potatoes.”
As was Valentina Tereshkova.
@robert: “So this feminist attempt t denigrate manly achievements and “change the subject” has a longer history than just the past few decades? Is it timeless, or did it accelerate at some point in time?”
I believe it is the curse of eve so it certainly dates back more than a few decades. The difference is that today men are so divided and demoralized that they no longer put up any resistance to the story. Men laugh along with the women when men are depicted as incompetent or foolish. Men do not speak up when the women whine. They go along with “the pay gap” and a thousand other memes. Men only speak up to minimize the scope of what is being done and to credit women in the hopes of gaining their favor.
Here is Piers Morgan responding to Ali’s death, and the left falling over themselves to claim him as their own. Funny, considering how full of masculinity he was.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/muhammad-ali-said-far-more-racist-things-than-donald-trump-says-piers-morgan-a7066521.html
Except the human father is the rarer and more valuable reproductive resource. Childhood is nine months’ gestation followed by 12-18 years of feeding, sheltering and socializing. Any woman can get knocked up but provider husbands willing to stick around don’t just happen.
Except that, on average, beta provision is also cheap. Finding a beta provider is actually pretty easy even for the average woman, because the majority of men are lame-ass betas. Sad but true. The average man is perfectly willing to become a provider beta. Hell, there have been many men throughout history who willingly, knowingly raised other men’s children. And even if a pregnant woman is abandoned by the sire and is unable to find some beta cuck, there’s a fairly high chance that her grandparents, or brother, or other relatives will ease her burden.
There’s a small piece of aviation history that is sort of related to this subject. In 1938, three Soviet female aviators have set a new world record in the history of flight. From the Wikipedia page of Marina Raskova:
The most famous of these records was the flight of the Rodina (Russian for “Motherland”), Ant-37 – a converted DB-2 long range bomber, on September 24–25, 1938. She was the navigator of the crew that also included Polina Osipenko and Valentina Grizodubova. From the start, the goal was to set an international women’s record for a straight-line distance flight. The plan was to fly from Moscow to Komsomolsk (in the Far East). When finally completed, the flight took 26 hours and 29 minutes, over a straight-line distance of 5,947 km (total distance of 6,450 km).
However, the ordeal took 10 days when the plane was unable to find an airfield due to poor visibility. Because the navigator’s cockpit had no entrance to the rest of the plane and was vulnerable in a crash landing, Raskova parachuted out before they touched down. She had forgotten her emergency kit and was unable to find the plane for 10 days, with no water and almost no food. The rescue crew had found the aircraft 8 days after the landing, and was waiting when she found her way to it, after which all three women were taken to safety.
From the Wikipedia page of Polina Osipenko:
On September 24, Grizodubova, Osipenko, and Raskova set on what was supposed to be a non-stop flight from Moscow to Komsomolsk-on-Amur. Their plane was Tupolev ANT-37. However, the weather conditions were difficult, they missed the Komsomolsk airfield, and found themselves at the shore of the Sea of Okhotsk without any fuel left. Grizodubova, who was the commander of the aircraft, decided to crash-land in the forest. Raskova was ordered to jump out of the plane and was found in the woods ten days later. Grizodubova and Osipenko remained in the aircraft and survived the crash landing.
My guess is that the Americans or the British never attempted something similar. The white-knighting Victorian impulse was probably too forceful for that. And I’m also pretty sure even the Soviets would have cancelled any further attempts if any of the women had died as a result.
So this feminist attempt t denigrate manly achievements and “change the subject” has a longer history than just the past few decades? Is it timeless, or did it accelerate at some point in time?
The average woman has been convinced of two things throughout history anywhere in the world:
1. Men have it better, plus they’re such dumb entitled shits they can’t even recognize that being a woman is, like, so hard.
2. Women know better, no matter what the subject is.
@Dalrock
Had no idea about Byrd, so I stand corrected there.
When I said painting her as luggage was unfair, I meant that this and previous posts seemed to ignore the later solo flight and instead focus on the passenger flight. I know that that was the subject of the book, but I don’t think she would be quite the celebrity among feminists today had she not made the solo flight; it’s the latter action that’s more amazing. And the fact is there were probably a glut of men and women who were too scared to make that kind of trip even in 1932, so it’s still impressive. Just because Hank Aaron holds the single season home run record (Bonds is a juicer, I won’t give him that mantle) doesn’t mean I don’t have an enormous amount of respect for Griffen Jr for coming in 5th.
And as far as role models go, I’d much rather women looked to Earhart than Miley.
@Werkof Rodann
Just to clarify, to my understanding Earhart really was the second person to solo across the Atlantic. Byrd’s flight was not a solo, and it sounds like he wasn’t the major flyer. The point I was making is that Byrd’s expedition would have won the prize if Lindbergh had been two week’s later. The prize was for the first nonstop flight from NYC to Paris. Lindbergh not only earned the prize, he did it solo.
It isn’t unfair at all. She became a celebrated aviation pioneer by riding in the back of a plane while the menfolk did the flying and navigating. She took notes, which came in handy when she wrote her book about her accomplishment. And her flight four years later isn’t that amazing. She was the second not because it was especially difficult, but because there was no reason to solo from Newfoundland to Ireland after Lindbergh had made a 50% longer solo, especially since aviation technology had advanced so rapidly in the five years in between. Your argument is she started as a fake, but eventually was able to do something that kinda sorta looked like what Lindbergh did. This is true, but not compelling.
One more point: I didn’t ignore her flight. If you go back over my recent posts you will see that I referenced it multiple times.
This comment is why the assault and total lack of respect for men in general is unfounded.
Overall Dalrock your recent articles show female nature is and always has been. Though the current behavior from women is enough to fill the manosphere will material to post about the behavior was and is normal for women , it is who they are. There is no argument , no religious back ground or foriegn culture that will change anything. They are women and that fact in itself to be women means nothing will change. The only real difference that can be made is that the civilized society keeps female nature in check. Changing women or more foolishly meeting female demands with the idea they will happily work to a thriving civilization as full participants in its maintenance and growth will fail every time.
As the comment quoted above states the beta male nature is mans nature and can be counted on. Though his drive and efficiency can be influenced by his understanding of reality.
Morgan says:
June 8, 2016 at 9:30 am
“…Why do women aim to advertise their independence for entering a relationship? “I don’t need you at all, let’s get married (for a while). Then when I become ‘unhaaaapy’, I can divorce you for ‘cash and prizes’! THAT’s when I ‘need’ you.”…”
There, FIFY.
Women have shown that they don’t NEED men — until they can profitably use them.
But more and more men are getting wise to the scam.
Hells Hound @ 11:31 am:
“Except that, on average, beta provision is also cheap. Finding a beta provider is actually pretty easy even for the average woman, because the majority of men are lame-ass betas. Sad but true. The average man is perfectly willing to become a provider beta. Hell, there have been many men throughout history who willingly, knowingly raised other men’s children. And even if a pregnant woman is abandoned by the sire and is unable to find some beta cuck, there’s a fairly high chance that her grandparents, or brother, or other relatives will ease her burden.”
This isn’t what we’re seeing, though. Average men are choosing to NOT be provider betas as they wake up to feminism. The huge, unaffordable, tyrannical welfare state is proof of how much men DON’T want to raise other mens’ kids or provide one-way to women. If Beta fathers were not the reproductive bottleneck then replacing them with paychecks or Grandpa would not have resulted in dismal fertility rates.
The modern cuckold is a tragic, short-termed example of what happens when Christian morality is separated from Christ. If they represented the male norm then bastardy wouldn’t have been such a negative term throughout history. One wonders if the main reason so many pagan societies practiced infanticide was to dispose of other mens’ babies.
One of the changes I’ve been seeing a lot more from younger men is that they tend to hit women back far more frequently and much harder than previous generations did when women assault them. It’s like they’ve adjusted to the feminist gender neutral society by treating aggressive women like aggressive men far more than they once did. Personally, I think that’s part of the package for feminists. If they want to hit, then they can get hit back imo. I would not convict a man who did exercise self-defense on a smaller woman who perpetuated punches and kicks on his person if I’m ever on a jury. Welcome to the new normal. Keep your hands to yourselves “ladies” or you might get put on your back looking up the sky wondering how it happened.
I was, last night, reading an interview with Germaine Greer on her subject, literature, but the points that she was making to her Feminist Interviewer – who was not getting the answers she wanted – struck me as being equally pertinent to Female Aviatrices.
Greer (who I must add was recently no-platformed) begins by observing that Literature is a male invention, that it is a way for men to demonstrate status and that women are objectified in Literature. The interviewer wanted Greer to say that women were prevented by the evil Patriarchy from achieving success in this male field but Greer countered that if if anything women were promoted beyond their abilities. She then observed that in doing Literature instead of finding a suitable female rhetoric, women tended to imitate what they had already read and thus produced pale imitations of male work – works about Literature rather than Literature itself. Is not the same dynamic to be seen with the Aviatrices.
I came across this essay by a round-about route and on the way discovered that the most successful Nineteenth Century poet was… Who? Not Keats or Wordsworth, not Longfellow or Whitman, but someone I had never heard of, a woman(!) named Hemans. I knew the first two lines of her most famous poem and so read the first and a few other verses. She is bad bad bad – though regrettably not in a McGonagall way – yet even Wordsworth himself had had good things to say about her in the preface to Lyrical Ballads. I arrived there from Anne Finch a Seventeenth century Poetess who as Greer observed, no one wanted to read for her printed verse was issued three times but on all occasions would not sell. Wiki presents her as oppressed yet predictably she was from the Aristocracy and succeeding to the title became the Countess of Wynchelsea (what a surprise). She was well educated of course – far better educated than at the time almost all males but this is lost on Wiki. I got to her because it is suspected that in 1684 she wrote the libretto to Venus and Adonis for John Blow which libretto Wiki then describes as Feminist – but I cannot trace that the authoress included a Slut Walk or Bra burning for Venus. Who’s have guessed that Feminism goes back at least as far the Restoration.
I’m not convinced that early feminists wanted to extinguish manly pride. Today’s feminists are incredibly petty, but earlier feminists had some legitimate grievances. Dismissing their complaints as merely envy is unfair.
A woman who attempts to achieve something that a man has achieved in the past isn’t necessarily motivated by envy or pettiness. We don’t assume that men who are inspired to do it too are merely envious. Was the second or the 100th man to climb Mt. Everest merely envious of those who came before him or was he inspired to attempt greatness too?
As to the reaction to Amelia Earheart, the media which was male owned, could’ve reported the truth about her passenger ride across the Atlantic but instead chose to celebrate her as if she’d flown the plane herself on that first trip. How can women be blamed for that?
Veey good, Dalrock.
@PM:
You’ve never read up on early Feminists, I see.
How can women be blamed for that?
Women aren’t being blamed for the Earheart spectacle.
but earlier feminists had some legitimate grievances.
There were no legitimate grievances. Feminism, from the beginning, was and still is based on lies. Women in Western nations have always been a protected class. Women as a group have never had it worse than men as a group.
Men and women are not “equal”, not the same, and not interchangeable. Autonomy should not be given without responsibility.
As to the reaction to Amelia Earheart, the media which was male owned…
This is how a feminist thinks.
There were no legitimate grievances. Feminism, from the beginning, was and still is based on lies. Women in Western nations have always been a protected class. Women as a group have never had it worse than men as a group.
Men and women are not “equal”, not the same, and not interchangeable. Autonomy should not be given without responsibility.
As to the reaction to Amelia Earheart, the media which was male owned…
This is how a feminist thinks.
I have no issue with women voting, owning property, being paid fairly and being treated fairly in general. You speak of autonomy and responsibility but then blame women for things that are controlled almost entirely by men. Men spread the lie about Amelia Earheart. If men choose to cater to women then you can’t blame the women. That didn’t fly in the garden of Eden and it doesn’t fly now.
I have no issue with women voting, owning property, being paid fairly and being treated fairly in general.
Women have always been treated fairly when compared to how the men also were treated. You have been indoctrinated into thinking that women must treated as if they are men or they are being treated unfairly. Men and women are not the same and treating them as if they are is foolish.
We used to have something called a family where the woman was protected by the head of the family (father or husband). Thanks to women voting and men who think like you do the role that once belonged to husbands and fathers has been supplanted by bureaucracy and the family is all but disintegrated.
You speak of autonomy and responsibility but then blame women for things that are controlled almost entirely by men.
You think because hypocrisy and short comings are pointed out that blame is being thrown at women, but that is because you have been taught to put women on a pedestal. You have been lied to all your life, so I understand why you can’t see or smell the manure you are peddling for what it is.
Also, you apparently think that men were “almost entirely” responsible for and “almost entirely” in control during the “evil patriarchy”. I beg to differ.
“Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in full Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight.”
– John Adams to Abigail Adams, April 14, 1776.
I urge you to research actual history (1st source documents) and prayerfully read your Bible without any cultural blinders on.
You can start with the videos below. Although one features a devout Christian and the other a secular egalitarian, both address the fact that for decades history has been deliberately misrepresented in academia and the media to paint a false narrative in order to change laws and society at large.
What we need is a return to Patriarchy.
This is from PM
And this is where it is going. As the comment suggest there is no female agency with out external requirement period. If asked Merkel of Germany will give a similer answer to what is happening in Germany and she is the head of that state. That is just how it is and why any solution that requires the slightest hint of any requirement from women will fail.
This nice guy discussion has been going on for years and it will always end with no solution to the madness because nice guys finish last when up against reality and civilization’s survival.
I have no issue with women voting, owning property, being paid fairly and being treated fairly in general.
Feminism, like Communism is a radical ideology where a palatable outer-core protects a radical inner-core. The outer core of communism is egalitarianism, end of poverty, equality ect… The radical inner core it protects is the abolition of private property and state totalitarianism. The outer-core shields and protects the advancement of the radical inner core.
It’s the same with feminism. The goal of feminism is the destruction of the family, population control, plummeting wages, and a broader tax base. The outer core is equal pay, voting rights ect… You’ll notice that when feminism is questioned, feminists often chant: “Feminism is about treating women like human beings.” These feminists retreat behind the out-core whenever the inner core is exposed. Similarly, the outer-core of fat acceptance is women’s self esteem ect whereas the inner core is about restructuring the beauty paradigm across culture.
Challenging the palatable outer core makes the challenger look like a villain, which allows the radical inner core to evade scrutiny. It’s a neat trick that Marxist charlatans have perfected over the last 150 years.
@JDG: “There were no legitimate grievances. Feminism, from the beginning, was and still is based on lies. Women in Western nations have always been a protected class. Women as a group have never had it worse than men as a group.”
I just finished an article in Touchstone Magazine called “Emancipated Surf” by one Rebekah Curtis, a pastor’s wife with 7 children. Unfortunately, not available on the web, Her take on the three grievances of first-wave feminism:
1. Suffrage. In early U.S. history, the states limited the right to vote to landowners, as those who literally had a “stake” in the community, The head of the household voted in his family’s interest, keeping the nuclear family at the center of community concern. The main argument feminists used against this was that society is built on individual people, not families. This shift in thinking had the unintended consequence of reducing the family to just a collection of individuals. Women now had the chance to tell the government directly what they wanted. This ultimately meant that women who had depended on the family now depended on the government (the family being their backup).
2. Temperance. This was almost completely driven by female sentiment. Usually a woman married to a violent drunk had her family to back her up. But expansion on the frontier often meant that a woman was alone with her husband, detached by hundreds of mile from family ties. So the law became her protection. This moved women’s safety out from under the clan to be dependent on government,
3. Property rights. Owning of property by married women was seen as a protection against a husband risking the entire household’s future on a harebrained venture. What a woman held in her name was a form of insurance against the husband’s catastrophes. As we are all aware, this weakened dependency weakened the bonds of marriage, because it was less catastrophic to the woman to dissolve it. Unfortunately, it also allowed children to be used as a bargaining chip, because they lost their absolute claim on both parents.
So the result of first-wave feminism’s three emphases was weakening of the family bond and increased dependence on government rather than family. These unintended consequences are papered over (or even embraced) by modern feminists, who rather idolize their 100+ year old forbears.
The Temperance movement wasn’t actually addressing much of a real issue. It was simply a way to force Women into a Male space and exert authority over Men. All of the major “Isms” are part of Utopian Socialism, which necessitated the remaking of Man in a “better” way. The way that impulse came out, here in the States, was through the corruption of the Church. “Make the World a better place” really is about crushing those that dissent against your view of the world.
Looking Glass
It looks like Eve is still eating the forbidden fruit from that tree to know what god knows.
At 09.35 on the 10th June PM writes that ‘earlier feminists had legitimate grievances’. It is a remark often seen in one form or another and usually before the writer is about to object to the latest assertion of the female Imperative. I usually stop reading (or viewing) at that point for it is hard to argue and with success against an ideology whose tenets one largely accepts – at the very least it places one in a weak or whining position.
PM does not go on to say what those grievances which he finds to have been legitimate might have been. Perhaps he did not say because he thinks (viewed with the 20/20 hindsight we all have) that it is obvious. Unlike TFH or even Novaseeker I am not a futurist; I find the present difficult enough to understand; but I can, I believe speak with some accuracy as to the past. Would PM care therefore to reveal what those legitimate grievances are and thus give me the chance to either learn something to my historical advantage or in the alternative in disagreeing with him/her take the greatest of exception and why as to the views expressed.
@Looking Glass: “The Temperance movement wasn’t actually addressing much of a real issue.”
The temperance movement was a somewhat overblown reaction to the harsh realities of the tavern trade. Taverns would run credit for their patrons, and many men would leave work on payday and blow their entire pay packets on alcohol, or be forced to pay off their bar tabs at usurious rates, leaving their families destitute. Prohibition, however wrong-headed it looks in retrospect, did break the back of the taverners. Unfortunately, it also fueled the rise of organized crime, and of course put more power into the hands of government.
In my opinion, damage to male space was incidental.
Left out of my comments on temperance is that it was also an outgrowth of a movement in the churches that began to see alcohol as a poison, thus making it (for them) theologically impossible that God could intend its use. Once Mr. Welch learned how to bottle grape juice in a way that prevented fermentation, there was no need to serve “poison” in communion at church. Scripture was reinterpreted to treat the wine that Jesus created from water as “new” (unfermented) wine – grape juice, despite other scriptural evidence to its intoxicating nature. That 19th century sentiment affected some branches of the Evangelical church well into the 1990s (and may still, for all I know).
Islam bans both usury and alcohol. I tip my hat to Mohammed for that. A broken clock is right at least two times a day.
Pingback: Manhood includes manly virtue – wisdom4dummies
Pingback: Dad teaches how to shave. | Dalrock
Pingback: Maritime Supremacy | Dalrock
It is far too easy to get in bondage to alcohol, but it is quite easy to get into many bondages, so banning alcohol merely for that is not bright.
The Scriptures indicate it is hard drink that is the biggest challenge, not the fruit of the vine.
Jesus didn’t turn water into grape juice!
I missed the comment by Hmm, though my assertion is still valid. They wouldn’t have spoken about keeping the “best for last” if it was just nonfermented grape juice. (I don’t think he was arguing it was just grape juice, but those who do miss some key points.)
Pingback: It could be no other way. | Dalrock
Pingback: Unquenchable | Dalrock
Pingback: A tough spot for conservatives. | Dalrock
Pingback: They’re her bros. | Dalrock
Pingback: The History of Cheerleaders, the Future of America | Things that We have Heard and Known
At the macro level, men are expendable for war and survival, while women are much less suited for those roles.
This is the doctrine the elites have for the cloth of the land. It is not biblical; not even the suggestion of this doctrine exists is in the bible. It is not moral. It is not Christian. That men are the sex that goes to war does not mean that men are expendable.
Casey says:
June 7, 2016 at 3:47 pm
@ Rugby11
I see she didn’t beat the male Long Trail running record.
Big surprise.
However, she did close the gap between the men & women’s record, by a full 2 days.
The expedition was a success (her words). Even though she set out to defeat the men’s record.
Now please forget that she was nearly a full day later than the men’s record.
Related:
1) Multiple high school boys every year in the U.S. run miles at around (or perhaps better) than the woman’s world record time.
2) World Cup women soccer players struggle when they play good (not even the best) high school boy’s teams.
3) The Appalachian Trail Conservancy does not recognize speed records of any kind for thruhiking the AT. There basically ARE no records for that, whatever some publicity hound athlete may try to hoodwink a gullible nonhiking reporter into writing.
Pingback: She joined the feminist brotherhood. | Dalrock
Pingback: Manspreading is about envy, not space. | Dalrock
Pingback: Roundup | Eternity Matters