Trailer #2 for the upcoming Transformer movie includes an industrial strength dose of girlpower:
The comments on youtube are brutal, including this one from Infamous Greed:
I was hoping for some robot on robot beat down, then they had to cut to the girl every few seconds, I mean damn! I get it, I get your point! you’re a strong girl! now let me see some robot action in peace!
And this one from AFiveSeven
Why is she talking to the camera like she’s trying to sell me her stank ass deodorant? Feminism really is cancer, how hard is it to just make her badass without the arrogance of “AND I A GURL TOO”
And perhaps best stated by MrGojira95:
This girl is giving me bad memories of Scrappy Doo. (Cringe) >_<
Modern audiences will accept a mountain of SJW nonsense, but as Marvel recently admitted, there is a limit. Push too far and eventually they will push back.
What we heard was that people didn’t want any more diversity. They didn’t want female characters out there. That’s what we heard, whether we believe that or not. I don’t know that that’s really true, but that’s what we saw in sales.
This doesn’t mean the new Transformers movie won’t be a smashing success. The movie could bomb the way that Ghostbusters did last year, or it could be a huge success like Logan was this year.
However, the main Logan trailer focuses on the pathos of two aging and well loved superheroes. This accurately depicts the bulk of the focus of the movie:
But Logan was also a feminist dream, with unintentionally hilarious scenes of a shrieking snarling little girl (Laura) flying through the air and slashing men to bits. Like the Transformers girl, she embodies the same comical spirit as the statue on Wall Street.
However even in Trailer 2, which features Laura, the marketers of Logan understood that they couldn’t include the most hilarious scenes feminists are sure to love. While Trailer 2 gives you a bit of a taste, you’ll have to watch the movie to see the most unintentionally comic scenes:
But the fact remains that while audiences will accept a huge amount of feminist propaganda in movies and other forms of entertainment, there is such a thing as too much. Cross that line and your product will flop at great expense. It will be interesting to see which side of the line audiences decide the upcoming Transformers movie falls on.
Hey, the took Rey from Star Wars and put her in Transformers! Cute!
That was the only trailer with the girl in it as a prominent role. The other ones show her some, but only in passing. The most recent ones don’t have her at all.
Also, in defense of Logan, the girl is a mutant, which would easily explain her ability to whip fully grown men. The girl in Transformers doesn’t appear to have any unique abilities other than ‘Moxy’ and ‘Attitude’, which we all know nearly EVERY girl in America has.
Pingback: How much girlpower is too much? | @the_arv
Looks like a young Muslima, too.
I’ve really dialed back on the super hero movies lately (and many others) because of the “you go girl” propaganda. I only saw Star Wars 7 once (SuperRey and Darth Emo made sure of that).
I have watched very few Marvel based movies because of the propaganda. The DC based live action movies seem to be so bad that I find their animated movies to be better, though I find the recently released Teen Titans; The Judas Contract to be poor, in part because of the girl power propaganda (and the never ending cheerleading for Damian Wayne, who isn’t even in the original story). Sad that they were able to basically ruin what many consider to be DC’s best story ever.
I agree with your point overall, but I think you’re being unfair to Logan. Laura is a mutant with claws, same as Wolverine, so of course she’d be able to kill grown men.
And as much as I wish Hugh Jackman would have just kept making those movies forever, he said he wanted to retire. So they set themselves up very nicely to keep making X-Men movies by using X-23, who’s been around in the comics since I think at least 2004.
Wow, that was even worse than I expected. Horrible.
” They didn’t want female characters out there. … I don’t know that that’s really true, but that’s what we saw in sales..”
Industrial. Strength. Denial.
In the end, both movies are exactly the same at their core, replacing men with women. In the case of Logan, this is directly the idea of the movie, the idea of Logan becoming old, useless and better replaced by the female version of him, who just also happens to of course be better than him, but he must still sacrifice himself, you know, for all the evil, vile male stuff he did before.
In the end, both equally vile crap.
I don’t watch these trash movies anymore, lost the taste years ago. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, is good about them. The stories are crap, the acting crap, the propaganda is full stream and the female betterment of men is a constant, ever dripping, tap like reminder of the forceful eradication of masculinity. It’s all fantasy though, like feminism, all play and no actual responsibility. That falls on the men.
Every super hero who happens to be a women can be replaced by every modern feminist trope except; instead of her super powers she has the state to back her up.
Women, without either the state or imagined super human powers, are nothing and that’s why this crap has to be sprouted. Men don’t have super powers either, nor does the state do our bidding, yet we build, create, conqueor and become greater through our own deeds, we don’t need super human strength, we don’t need grrrl power, we just have to get things done and do so. Society hates that, feminists hate it.
@Jim
It isn’t that she is a female mutant, but the pure comedy of her over the top shrieking as she flips and flies through the air. Pure animal girl-power aping Wolverine, but this one goes to 11. Have you seen the movie? Those scenes are truly hilarious but mercifully short. As you note Logan ostensibly sets the table for the “next generation”. That next movie is going to be fun to watch. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon crossed with “Fearless Girl” (statue) and Gremlins. Audiences were able to cringe and look away for the brief moments of hilarity in Logan, and the pathos of dying old heroes was the predominant theme the girlpower briefly distracted from. The next film will have to feature that comedy gold.
I would argue that they aren’t only because the history of Logan and X-23 is something that has been around for some time, and transitioning from one to the other makes sense. X-23 wasn’t made up for the films. And Logan losing his abilities over time is also part of comic book canon. It made a lot of sense to go with that storyline given Jackman wanted to quit and they wanted to give him a proper send off. Again, I haven’t seen the film yet, but I am somewhat familiar with the storyline and the characters. If anyone else more well versed than I am in Wolverine lore cares to correct me, please do so.
You guys are literally arguing the point Dalrock makes. Sure the comic canon says that, it was made to say that. That’s the whole point.. lol To eradicate or change every male hero, read every male endevour, into having women. There is no male space to be left untouched, no space left for men to be men. Just a mix-match of feminist strong women and weak men. That’s what you have to look forward to..
Still want to defend it..
I saw the movie. I dunno. I didn’t really find them funny, but I think you’re right; it’s because they were short. I didn’t have time to think about it much.
The main thrust of the movie was very good, though.
@Gunner_Q – “Industrial. Strength. Denial.”
+1000. They just don’t seem to get that it’s men who primarily buy comic books and who watch action and superhero movies. They aren’t going to watch movies about you go girl superheroes.
I wouldn’t be surprised when the Wonder Woman movie, complete with its masculine Wonder Woman, won’t draw the same box office as say the Batman, Superman or Justice League movies have/will. Its low box office will be blamed on “misogyny”. Never mind that Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman is more masculine than Bats, Supes, Flash, etc. Heck, the Flash on both the TV show and in the Justice League previews is beta and nerdy as the high school math club.
I haven’t seen a Transformers movie in the theater since the first one. I was disappointed with how the robot fights were just blurry wtf is going on moments. Megan Fox was hot though.
I was pleasantly surprised by Kong: Skull Island. The trailers left me unimpressed but a guy at work talked it up so I took my boys. We all enjoyed it as a fun popcorn flick. Its been a while since I walked out of a theater actually feeling good about a movie.
I may go see Guardians 2, since I really enjoyed the first one, but otherwise the MCU is not going to get my money.
X-23 (the girl) was a mutant? Oh, that explains a lot…I just thought that she was starting to menstruate. She reminded me a lot of my ex-wife…
“Not sure if tampon commercial or movie trailer.” That was from the YouTube page.
Like Frank K I only saw Episode VII once (and it was not in theaters). I didn’t see Rogue One and won’t.
To the protagonist of the trailer, I fight like a man. A boy your age could whip you. This girl power/feminism crap needs to be taken out back n triple tapped in the head.
“Not sure if tampon commercial or movie trailer.” That was from the YouTube page.
Like Frank K I only saw Episode VII once (and it was not in theaters). I didn’t see Rogue One and won’t.
To the protagonist of the trailer, I fight like a man. A boy your age could whip you. This girl power/feminism crap needs to be taken out back n triple tapped in the head.
Look at the comments. Look at the comments on the schmoe post. You VASTLY underestimate the effeminacy of the modern man. Modern men are socially malformed (by divorce, public school, media, church culture–everything) and pop-fandom provides a lure of in-group status that they find very hard to resist. In pop-fandom they are allowed to know things, and they are included. They also are allowed to like strong sassy women; even while they doublethink about it and conclude that a strong woman will appreciate their affections.
I am at the point where I see this everywhere. Of course we all see it everywhere all the time because it IS everywhere all the time, but feminism/misandry is so much part of the air we breathe now that most people rarely even notice it. Misandry is just background noise in the modern Western world, but I actually notice it now… a lot.
Nearly every commercial/book/show/movie/blog/churchian sermon in which there’s a protagonist and a foil has a male as the foil… and probably a white male at that. You will NEVER see the reverse.
Image, just for a moment, what would happen if this commercial had the sexes reversed:
First I switched my husband’s favorite cereal to this one. And he couldn’t tell the difference.
And then I switched his Almond milk to this one, and again he couldn’t tell the difference..
And since all that switching went so well, I decided to switch one more thing.
And believe me, I can tell the difference.
You’ll like them both but love our price. Aldi. Simply smarter shopping.
@Cane Caldo
As you note, even here there is much love for these things. And yet, there is a limit. The limit is absurdly high; Logan isn’t over the limit (even here), and neither is Corey Everson (again, as you point out, even here). But still, there is a limit, and content creators are finding it.
Dalrock
But still, there is a limit, and content creators are finding it.
For now there is a limit but it’s a moving target; GrllPower that would have been absurd 20 years ago is now passe’. So we are clearly not yet at peak Feminism. Yet.
There is a crying need for a superhero movie in which the GrrlPower superhero is called away before teaching her daughter to shave her legs. Then the man of the hour steps in to teach his wife’s child how to perform this essential act, in a caring but manly fashion of course.
x23 was always a crappy mutant piggybacking off an beloved, established character.
Just becuase she has been around 10+ years and people defending her, is troublesome. I hated her existence from her inception. Starwars Rey, in 10 years, is ok because she existed for some time (by then).
Its the same formula with all the recent gurl powa movies and comic. You have established characters that are sacrificed to shoehorn a gurl in. Iron man’s sole existence is so that a black gurl can replace him (and by the way, she is smarter than him too because….shes a gurl). Logan and x23, well, she is a XX chromosome version of him and happens to be better becau… she is a gurl. Luke Skywalker, the ultimate Jedi (in comics he eventually masters both dark and lightside powers) is surpased by Ray, just because she is a gurl. ect…
STOP DEFENDING GURL HEROS…those roles are better suited for XY chromosome characters.
Back in my teens in the 80’s, I sparred with a girl. I fought her in earnest, and was given hell for beating her. It was surprisingly easy, given that I was told men and women are the same (grew up in a liberal bubble). I’ve got no time for yougogirl attitude.
@Dalrock
I hate the strong female trope. Anonymous Reader’s maxim “If you’re not overtly fighting feminism, you’re part of the problem.” (I paraphrase) is apt here. If men give money to these villains: Fine. But it cannot be defended except as an investigation of how wicked and stupid is the idea of an ass-kicking woman; of what lengths propagandists will go to get us to say nonsense things, and get offended when the lie is uncovered.
We’ll see. Remember this?
That was 1997. It is happening now. Yes, even here men say, “Well, if G.I. Jane had a dick, I bet it’d be pretty big! She’s kind of like a mutant so it might be suckable…”
[D: Hilarious.]
Transformers has always been weak when it comes to story, since its inception. Humans fighting robots of that size, with that technology, with that power. Sorry, they would have destroyed humanity in the first battle. We’d be living in reservations with the Autobots having to fend off the Decepticons from finishing us off.
They think some snarling girl is going to fight Megatron? Lol! That’s like saying an ant is going to beat a man up… some times I just wish the bull and the sassy girl were real and the bull got let loose by accident and, well… let’s just say, feminism died that day..
@Anon Reader
True. The line continues to move, but even when it seems like it can be moved forever, eventually it will be too much. This is what Marvel is finding. The problem for SJWs is they always have to push the envelope or they become irrelevant. This gets harder and harder to do without turning into farce.
I’m not calling peak feminism, but simply pointing out that what can’t go on forever won’t. But then again as Keynes famously quipped, “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”
@ Cane Caldo says:
April 7, 2017 at 1:05 pm
“They also are allowed to like strong sassy women; even while they doublethink about it and conclude that a strong woman will appreciate their affections.”
Strength is good. Sassiness is not.
Prov 31:17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
…
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
“But the fact remains that while audiences will accept a huge amount of feminist propaganda in movies and other forms of entertainment, there is such a thing as too much.”
Like Caldo, I have to say no. Unplugging my friends & fellow nerds from feminized movies has been fruitless. Either they don’t notice all the feminist drivel or are unwilling to acknowledge it. They’ll say three hours of YuGo Grrlism was great because there was a passable 10-minute CGI fight.
It’s freakishly effective, subliminal hypnotism. So long as there’s one tiny bit of plausible deniability, the average Western male won’t even blink as he’s buried in bunk. That was Ballbusters’ mistake: the movie forgot to provide that veneer of deniability.
@Oscar
The context is this: Girls fighting. Girls fighting robots. Girls fighting men. Girls fighting superheroes. Girls fighting men. Girls fighting aliens. Girls fighting men…
Are you seeing the pattern here? It’s all always–and never not–about girls fighting men. A woman’s arms are to be strong for her tasks. Her tasks is not to fight men.
You’re muddying the water, and getting your mind dirty in the process.
@Oscar & Dalrock
Strong tag (heh) should have closed after “her tasks” in the next to last sentence of my second paragraph.
@Gunner Q
Nailed it.
@ Cane Caldo says:
April 7, 2017 at 2:14 pm
“Are you seeing the pattern here? It’s all always–and never not–about girls fighting men. A woman’s arms are to be strong for her tasks. Her tasks is not to fight men.
You’re muddying the water, and getting your mind dirty in the process.”
Yes, I see the pattern, and I agree that “her tasks is not to fight men”. I never said it was. I’m not muddying the water, I’m clearing it up. We need to stipulate that strength is not – in and of itself – the problem. The problem is how pop culture portrays female characters as “men with boobs” (I think Gavin McInnes said that).
@Gunner_Q – Personally, I now find the CGI and other special effects to be ho-hum. It isn’t 1977 anymore when Star Wars wowed audiences with giant space ships.
For me there needs to be a compelling story, which is something Star Wars 7 completely lacked. I did see Rogue One, and it was the same thing: boring. It was so boring I can’t even remember the names of the new characters. If fact I had to make up my own names for them: Resting bitch face girl. sullen love interest guy, droid with an attitude, blind guy, big gun guy, etc.
feminism is like a strong acid. it’s so caustic it will eat itself eventually.
@Oscar
The solution is to not talk about women being strong when someone says a girl can’t and shouldn’t try to kick a man’s ass. That is especially true when in the midst of fanboys who need no excuse to make excuse for their effeminate whims.
“droid with an attitude”
Buff-3PO.
@ Cane Caldo says:
April 7, 2017 at 2:34 pm
“The solution is to not talk about women being strong when someone says a girl can’t and shouldn’t try to kick a man’s ass.”
I think the solution is to say plainly; “a girl can’t and shouldn’t try to kick a man’s ass”.
Pingback: How much girlpower is too much? | Reaction Times
Strength is the problem. Why? Well… in this fantasy world, the strength being promoted for women is that specifically of men. It’s male strength. That is essentially what is being shown in these movies. Women, with male strength, being both better and stronger than the male, which nature and God, intended to be the one with strength. It’s cross-dressing and is evil.
The strength that is spoken of in the Bible, specifically as it regards women, can probably be guided into two spheres. Chores and work. Nothing to do with being manly. You could also argue a spiritual strength but not the strength being shown in these movies or the current social context.
@Oscar
That’s because you want to operate on a dialectic way. So do I. But In this case, that’s a poor tactic. We’ve been attacked with “Mutant girls kick robot ass”. If you respond with “Girls can’t and shouldn’t try to kick a man’s ass” you won’t be heard; not really. The listener will agree with your statement, be confused by the fact that you responded to what wasn’t said (because nobody actually said girls should fight men), and go on obeying the rhetorical and subliminal message that girls can and should fight.
How much ‘girrrl power’ is too much??? The second anyone else but the girls can’t pay their own way, its too damn much.
And that point arrived a long time ago
@ Cane Caldo says:
April 7, 2017 at 3:17 pm
“That’s because you want to operate on a dialectic way. So do I. But In this case, that’s a poor tactic.”
Well, you got me there. Rhetoric and subliminal messaging aren’t my forte.
Michael Bay has always been a master of the obvious.
And watching “robot on robot action” is even less entertaining than watching a tornado blow through a junk pile (“see the objects hitting each other!”).
My money says they’re trying to expand the transformer toy market and convince girls they want a Bumblebee this Christmas.
@Oscar
Hey man: “As iron sharpens iron”. I only passed on what I learned.
“In the end, both movies are exactly the same at their core, replacing men with women.”
You either die a bad boy or live long enough to become a cuck.
I had a comment go into moderation and it looks like it may have disappeared into the æther, so I’ll add my thoughts here (without all the troublesome hyperlinks).
I’m so freaking tired of Yugo-Gurz and all the crap that goes with them. Male superheroes are as old as the written word: guys like Achilles and Hercules were either part god or at least heavily aided by the gods, which accounted for their ability to perform superhuman feats. Likewise, their modern counterparts get their powers from mutations (Wolverine, Captain America), being aliens (Superman, Dr Who), magic/mysticism (Master Li Mu Bai, Luke Skywalker), or advanced technology (Ironman, Batman). Lesser heroes within the genre were exceptionally skilled, but often otherwise mostly normal mortals, from Hector to Sergeant Rock to Chuck Norris.
The characters worked because they possessed enhanced levels of the manly attributes they already had: usually strength and martial skill. They were exaggerations: they’re us, but better.
Prior to the modern age, there were no super-heroines. Their closest things were monsters (Calypso), actual deities (Athena), or occasionally inexplicable and unnatural freaks (the Amazons). Then along came Yugo-Gurlism, and we got Wonder Woman in 1941 and it’s been downhill ever since. Now you can’t swing a dead alien without hitting an Electra, or a Black Widow, or a Supergirl, etc, etc, ad nauseum. But these characters fall flat because they don’t exaggerate feminine characteristics, but rather masculine ones. When you hyper-exaggerate feminine characteristics you don’t get Nightstar… you get Jessica Rabbit.
Simply put, in the real world when women fight against men, women lose. There’s a reason why all sports involving strength, speed, agility, or coordination are segregated by sex above the club level. The best female athletes in the world are comparable to the best 13-14 year old boys in every sport in which both sexes participate… and not just in physical activities, either: in nearly every activity that has an established meritocratic hierarchy men overwhelmingly dominate the highest ranks. Every exception is either the result of extensive “affirmative action” or outright double standards.
Everybody instinctively knows that, but we’re supposed to pretend that we don’t, so the hum of the pumps has to get louder and louder.
The appeal of the super-heroine is based on the actresses who play them. It’s not that they’re plausible or “better” versions of women… it’s because beautiful women in tight outfits are pleasant to look at, whether we’re talking about Kristy Swanson with her wooden stake or Gal Gadot with her Lasso of Truth.
“Transformers has always been weak when it comes to story, since its inception. Humans fighting robots of that size, with that technology, with that power. Sorry, they would have destroyed humanity in the first battle.”
I seem to recall that in the 1980s, the Transformers was a cartoon about good, peace-loving robots fighting malicious, war-loving robots. Maybe the live-action movies have always involved humans, but to me, that just means that Transformers should stick to cartoons and should not involve live actors.
Fans of ancient cartoon history will also learn a bitter lesson from the short-running cartoon “Thundarr the Barbarian.” It was well-written, but somebody didn’t like a strong male hero, so the final episode tried to introduce three grrl-power superheroines to replace the main character. However, instead of getting rebooted as a grrl-power show, the show just died.
I loved Thundarr. I was probably too young to remember anything about a final episode. I will have to look it up.
Lyn87
When you hyper-exaggerate feminine characteristics you don’t get Nightstar… you get Jessica Rabbit.
For those who don’t know:
Lyn: “Prior to the modern age, there were no female superheroes”?
I’ll write up a rebuttal to that later. Just for grins, I’ll exclude the numerous female supervillains, like Morgan LeFay, Circe, etc.
For the moment, though, if anyone wants to get a torrent of cartoons, do a web search on:
idope.se
Real question here: There have always been tales of “warrior women” and such in various cultures, and those certainly didn’t seem to be part of some girl-power, feminist movement. I understand that the bad-ass warrior woman trope is very played out (I wrote about it on my own blog a while ago), but do we really have to look at every instance of this trope as a feminist attack? I mean, in talking about X-23, she wasn’t created to replace Wolverine but to act as a Wolverine type, along with several other young mutants, to appeal to a younger generation of comic book readers back in the early 2000’s. She had her own series of comics she appeared in (along with others) and her own series of comic books. Unlike “lady Thor” or Ironheart, who were created solely to replace their original male counterparts. The only reason she is “replacing” Wolverine now is because they are losing the man that was, in my opinion, born to play him. I mean, my own scifi story has two undead, super-psychic warrior chicks in it, and its simply because that’s how I wanted the story to be, not because I wanted to attack masculinity.
Serious question.
Lyn:
As she draws the rake the third time
From the Tuoni shores and waters,
In the rake she finds the body
Of her long-lost Lemminkainen,
In the metal teeth entangled,
In the rake with copper handle.
Thus the reckless Lemminkainen,
Thus the son of Kalevala,
Was recovered from the bottom
Of the Manala lake and river.
There were wanting many fragments,
Half the head, a hand, a fore-arm,
Many other smaller portions,
Life, above all else, was missing.
Then the mother, well reflecting,
Spake these words in bitter weeping:
“From these fragments, with my magic,
I will bring to life my hero.”
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/kveng/kvrune15.htm
So the Finns had a heroine who could command monsters and gods, succeed in epic tasks, and raise the dead … but she doesn’t count as a superheroine?
The extent of human mythology is vast. It has a lot of things in it that most Americans have never heard about. The apparent innovations of modern story-telling were often just re-workings of older stories.
We must have been on the same wavelength, man….
Clearing the waters . . .
“Strong” woman via Prov. 31: Physically fit to accomplish the tasks assigned by her husband.
“Strong” woman via feminism: Fights any attempt by any male (especially husband) to assert authority or superiority.
I just saw some SERIOUS GRRL Power on Faceblurg! My Niece is at Westpoint (aka Hudson High)…Don’t get me started. Anyway, she posted a video of her shooting various arms on the range.
No kidding this woman is 5’3″ and maybe weighs 110lbs soaking wet.
So watching her shoot a Garand wasn’t too bad, but dear Lord, watching her shoot a M-14 on full auto while the range officer holding her up (fitting image) so she could continue to point down range is really, really depressing.
This dress-up playing solider is going to get her killed. I’ve spoken my peace to my wife about this (very Black Pill, I know) but I’m not going to say a word to her or her mother.
Yes, because NAWALT, camel’s nose, and the exceptions aren’t.
You wouldn’t know if it was the only reason. You can only recognize it as one possible reason. And the truth is that Hollywood has a long track record of subversion and a feminist agenda.
They use their commercially successful films to churn out the unsuccessful but boundary pushing Social Justice tripe.
I myself like the female warrior thing, and I’ve come to realize it’s because I’m a product of this culture and have become detached from the concept of male heroes.
This is a time that needs men. It’s time for men to stop entertaining GoGrrl fantasy and take back the culture.
Make the fiction you want, but recognize the chains, and break them.
Lol, you guys should join a girl fan club then. You keep on trying to show that these are normal attributes to human imagination but they are based off of no sort of reality. Super Heroes are extensions of manly roles, not womanly ones. X-23 was brought about to use another predominiately a male role and make it female as well. Stop ignoring the obvious. The idea now that she gets to replace that male role is just perfect ‘cherry on the top’ stuff and more rubbing it in from the feminist gangs.
We all know about Vikings, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, all had female Gods. Their roles were very different compared to male ones though. Even Gaik’s little poem speaks to a mother weeping for her lost son; and only because she is a God does she get to raise him from the dead.
Any culture that has used women as actual fighters has ended up being conquered by one that didn’t. Patriarchy is better than all the rest. I never thought there would be a bunch of woman warrior worshipers here but hey… you learn something new everyday.
“you don’t get Nightstar… you get Jessica Rabbit”
For those who’ve never heard of Nightstar, her parents are Dick Grayson (the first Robin, later Nightwing) and Koriand’r/Starfire, a superpowered alien from the fictional planet Tamaran in the Vega star system. Nightstar mostly resembles her mother. She is a VERY minor character in the DC universe.
Most Dalrock readers reached peak feminism years ago. What’s taking everyone else so long?
Well, to be honest. It’s a bit of both. The story is rather about the robots fighting for eons and somehow making their way to planet Earth to continue the fight there, which obviously involves humans. Which would obviously entail the destruction of humanity and only possible survival due to the humane (LOL) nature of the Autobot robots keeping humanity safe on hidden reservations.
Still, guuuurl power isn’t going to bring Intergalatic, Cyber-Mechanical, Super Intelligent, Super Powerful Robots to their knees. Only in the minds of delusional feminists.
Looks like really excellent special effects / CGI in the Transformers movie. But waaayyy too much girl power for my tastes. They crossed the line with that one.
But yep, at least she doesn’t throw like a girl, hahaha!
Couldn’t stomach the Logan trailers. Complete crap. Seems the feminazis are really clutching at straws these days.
Then you’re missing my point. The supervillianesses like Circe and Morgan LeFay were bad. Nobody looked up to them… unlike Achilles and Aurthur (their male counterparts, respectively who possessed exaggerated quantities of the best of masculinity – although they didn’t always use them to the best ends) Circe and Morgan LeFay exemplified what happens when you exaggerate the worst feminine characteristics… they were manipulative and used their charms for destructive/selfish purposes. As for the mother of Lemminkainen in the poem you quoted, you should know that her efforts were unsuccessful. When she realized that she lacked the power to raise Lemminkainen from the dead, she petitioned the gods to so, and they did.
I suppose it’s possible to find some obscure reference to a “fighting female” who possesses enhanced masculine characteristics who is neither non-human nor an antagonist to all that is good, but I don’t know of any and none of your given examples suffice. Surely we can agree that such characters are far outside the norm, if they exist at all.
Frank K,
I know Nightstar is a minor character, but I had already named many of the major “female warriors” from the popular franchises and was trying to avoid repeating myself or use a “main” female character from a really obscure fantasy universe.
A lot of those are horrible: everyday girls whose transformation to super-status is some sort of feminist right-of-passage, like beating up their abusive fathers.
Another issue. The Mary Sueness of all female Super Heroes.
Logan had to live centuries to achieve a level of combat effectiveness. His essential super power allowing him to live through what would kill normal men so in effect allowing to learn lessons no other man could.
Young X-23 doesn’t need to do such training, she can kick ass already and doesn’t need no man; and is better than Logan who put in all that effort. You see, men have to sacrifice and earn their place but women are perfect and better than men in the end, that is the message these pathetic attempts at feminising the super hero or fantasy genre of films, comics and books send.
It’s the same shit from the Pulpit. Women good, men bad. Men must man-up whilst women have to do nothing.
Is it pedo to get a boner over Isabela Moner?
elmer,
Pedophilia? No. Ephebophilia? Yeah, or at it was known throughout most of human history: normal.
Every Disney property is a Princess property now.
Edit:
the sentence that reads, “Nobody looked up to them… unlike Achilles and Aurthur (their male counterparts, respectively who possessed exaggerated quantities of the best of masculinity – although they didn’t always use them to the best ends)…”
should read, “Nobody looked up to them… unlike Odysseus and Aurthur (their male counterparts, respectively who possessed exaggerated quantities of the best of masculinity – although they didn’t always use them to the best ends)…”
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled discussion.
What was that? I couldn’t hear the video over the sound of the shrieking pumps.
I think we are at or approaching peak feminism. We are saturated with this BS everywhere and so much so that it stinks. Even the comments on youtube reflect the growing realisation /awareness of this. Perhaps I’m premature in my call but I like to think the efforts of the various mens-movements are having affect.
“Fight like a girl,” is still an insult, despite what hollywood would want us to believe.
@GunnerQ
Sure you didn’t mean:
Industrial. Strength. Horseshit.
?
This is something of a technical explanation for why these things will always occur, not a defense of the properties. (Oh, and I closed that Transformers ad like 15 seconds in when I first saw it. Talk about stupid.)
The first thing to note is that Women are incredibly boring in fiction, especially in literature. Lyn mentioned that the point of a Hero is that they have extreme versions of masculine virtue. This works well in fiction because those virtues aren’t well-bounded. There’s always room to improve and most only become displayable under dire circumstances.
The same is simply untrue for feminine virtues. You can’t get hotter than the blazing sun, so there’s a functional cap to beauty. Faithfulness can be tested, but there is only so much strain that can be placed into the situation. (If you’ve already passed up an opportunity with one god, adding another opportunity doesn’t change anything.) The nature of feminine virtue puts a hard cap on the application, story possibilities and the reality of those virtues.
In short, there’s only 3 real ways to make a Woman relevant to the actions of a narrative: Expand the power of the world (Magic), Constrain the power of the world (Jane Austen) or make her an antagonist.
The latter is normally how things go. She might be on the side of the protagonist, but her actions further the narrative of the story by some choices she makes. Otherwise they’re just a MacGuffin in the plot and her memorableness is simply down to the skill of the creators.
The important point for our discussion is the first one: Expand the power of the world. Call it Fantasy, Science Fiction or Magic, if there is some fantastical element to the story, it allows for a female character to be involved in the story in a useful context. (Narratively speaking.) This is why the tropes are so common within Superhero & Sci-Fi fiction. And why it’s always a joke in any historically constrained fiction when a Woman is acting anything like a Man. You lose the suspension of disbelief really, really fast.
So the issue is that, in a fantastical setting, you just expect female “super” characters because it’s been that way for so very long. It’s been too easy for a writer or creator to just insert a female character via this means, especially as it makes their job a whole lot easier. Women are extremely boring primary characters for the reasons I stated, unless they’re evil. (You remember evil step-mom, not the step-sisters, from Cinderella for a reason.) Give a female character super-powers and suddenly you can stick her in the narrative and be useful. You’ll normally self-select them to less offensive abilities, but they’re useful in ways they are *never* in real life.
However, this is where all of the Territory Marking crops up. If anyone can be a super-powered character, then, obviously, they’ll demand more characters of whatever type they want. Thus they can build a new character by just gender-swapping a previous character and its thus “new!”. This is pretty much what happened with X-23 back in the day.
For Logan specifically, as I’ve not seen it yet but do know plenty about it, X-23 being a girl is actually unimportant to the plot. Thus, from the Blue Pilled creator’s point of view, there’s no reason to undo the Territory Marking that was previously done. Thus, I can see perfectly valid, logical reasons to not change the gender, yet it’s still a form of Territory Marking.
Though I am glad they finally figured out that Wolverine, as played by Hugh Jackman, is another version of the “Man with No Name” played by Clint Eastwood in the 3 spaghetti Westerns. So they put Wolverine in a remake of, mostly, Shane. Put the Western character in a comic-book Western; make money.
Though even for the Territory Marking, it only works for its intended purposes so long as you don’t think about it for too long. Wolverine, for all of his “berserker rage” aspects, is still in control of himself. X-23 simply isn’t. So even in Territory Marking events, the effect only works when you never think about it too hard. (Which is frankly what is required for all Feminist activities. Too much thought and you realize how evil they are.)
I don’t really go see movies anymore, but one little tip:
All of the good scenes end up on YouTube the instant the BluRay is out. There’s normally about 10 minutes of actually good content in most modern movies. You can watch it all, for free, on YouTube by waiting for the Disc-based release.
And, yes, it was nice to see Darth Vader actually being terrifying for the first time since 1983.
Oh, and to further my point that this isn’t new, but a skilled writer can work around a lot of the problems. I give you, Eowyn.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Éowyn
That’s JRR Tolkien, 1954.
Granted, Tolkien also had the Ent-wives, but this isn’t a new narrative technique. To the point that I would assume almost no one even notices.
There’s also an aspect to playing on the protective instincts of Men for using female characters in certain contexts. Deep instincts (WACF didn’t come from nowhere, remember), but they also create narrative problems. Only a Woman or deeply flawed Man glamorizes rape or torture of a female character. The emotional reaction from the audience of the work has to be expecting those types of things, otherwise they’re “beyond the pale” and too far. As they normally cause a really nasty response from those who would like a story but for those aspects.
Which is why female Superheroes are always pretty limited and have to be something of a Mary Sue. Watching a Woman be beat up just isn’t enjoyable media. The exception is a Woman beating up a Woman that wronged her, but you also can’t stretch it too far.
GunnerQ,
It’s freakishly effective, subliminal hypnotism.
I think this is related to my other observation that even seemingly ‘normal’ men who vote Democrat (i.e. they don’t look or act like faggots at first glance) are now vehemently arguing that 2016 Michelle Obama is better looking than Melania or even Ivanka.
This is beyond mere virtue signalling. They truly seem to believe that. I thought the male penis could not simply be reprogrammed by SJW propaganda. Now I am not so sure..
@SirH
This is it. Excellent! I want to see more of this. We find the rot in ourselves, we cut it out, and then we build up what was stunted by the disease. Then we prod the men around us to do the same.
Look at the comments. Look at the comments on the schmoe post. You VASTLY underestimate the effeminacy of the modern man. Modern men are socially malformed (by divorce, public school, media, church culture–everything) and pop-fandom provides a lure of in-group status that they find very hard to resist. In pop-fandom they are allowed to know things, and they are included. They also are allowed to like strong sassy women; even while they doublethink about it and conclude that a strong woman will appreciate their affections.
This is dead on here (as well as your further exploring it with oscar).
I am amazed at how thoroughly pro “grrrrl power” the average guy is.
When I confont it out in the open, the overwhelming chorus is the same “you can’t handle a strong woman?” canard and all it’s variants. It is now in the water. You can’t even describe another way without being shamed.
Cautiously Pessimistic says:
April 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm
“Back in my teens in the 80’s, I sparred with a girl. I fought her in earnest, and was given hell for beating her. It was surprisingly easy, given that I was told men and women are the same (grew up in a liberal bubble). I’ve got no time for yougogirl attitude.”
I had a similiar experience in the same decade. While a green belt sparring at half speed with a female 1st-degree black belt, I unintentionally broke her arm in the first 3 minutes. I think that women should be treated in the martial arts as the under-14s are; that is, they have belt progression, but there is NO equivalency deemed to adult men’s belts. That is, they’re all white belts compared to a man.
“When I confont it out in the open, the overwhelming chorus is the same “you can’t handle a strong woman?” canard and all it’s variants.”
They’ll be singing a different tune after their “strong woman” cheats on them and takes them to the cleaners in divorce court, and then blames her infidelity on him. If he’s lucky, she’ll cheat on him before he signs on the dotted line and he can get rid of her without having to cough up cash and prizes.
@Luke – “While a green belt sparring at half speed with a female 1st-degree black belt, I unintentionally broke her arm in the first 3 minutes.”
During my Tae Kwon Do days when I “sparred” with women I was reminded by the instructor to pull my punches. There was little doubt that I could serious injure the blackbelt ladies when I was still a color belt.
Student shaves head to confront her ‘hair privilege’
“Student shaves head to confront her ‘hair privilege’”
“Watching a Woman be beat up just isn’t enjoyable media. The exception is a Woman beating up a Woman that wronged her, but you also can’t stretch it too far.”
Which is why in action movies when its time for a female character to get beat up they’ll bring in another women to do it. Although they seem to be moving away from this.
“There was little doubt that I could serious injure the blackbelt ladies when I was still a color belt.”
This goes to show that contrary to what action moves might show, greater skill can only compensate for lesser strength to a very limited degree. You’ll see this particularly in boxing and other professional martial arts.
And the average man is considerably stronger than the average woman. Men are just thoroughly engineered for greater strength in all sorts of ways. Greater bone density, denser muscles, etc. This strength would come at the cost of consuming more energy even when at rest, which would be the evolutionary basis why women are weaker (food being scarce throughout most of human history).
But intersectionalist feminists seek to absolutely minimize these differences. You can see this particularly in Everyday Feminism site, with stupid articles like “No, Trans Women Are NOT ‘Biologically Male’”. I wonder how “cis” female athletes feel competing against trans-female athletes who are basically men who have undergone a couple years of hormone therapy. According to Everyday Feminism, these trans athletes should enjoy no significant advantages, right?
The average man in his 50’s has the equivalent aerobic capacity of a woman in her 20’s… the best shape she’ll ever be in. I’m in my 50’s, and although my fitness level is far above average for my age, I’m not the same as I was 30 years ago. When I think back and compare the difference it astounds me: I know what it’s like to be an in-shape 20-something male, and I sense how much I’ve lost in the interim, and despite all that, I’m still vastly physically superior to the overwhelming majority of women, even women who are in their physical primes and young enough to be my daughters.
As a soldier and martial artist I have to agree with White Guy, Cautiously Pessimistic, and Luke: the “female warrior” bit is pure, unadulterated fantasy, only made possible by the fact that modern society is far removed from a life that is “red in tooth and claw.” Strip away the veneer even for a moment and reality asserts itself in rude fashion.
There’s a reason why mortal, human “super-heroines” were unknown until after men developed weapons of war that didn’t require physical strength… nobody would have bought them for a moment. The exceptions were goddesses unbound by physical limitations or monsters whose powers were metaphors for female duplicity. Expanding on what I wrote earlier, human men with exceptional powers/prowess (think Hector or Chuck Norris) had their “best” masculine attributes enhanced, while women with exceptional powers (think Morgan LeFey or Beatrice Rappaccini), whose feminine attributes were enhanced, were agents of men’s destruction.
Our forefathers understood a lot more about women than the average modern blue-pill man… when given superhuman power (what else would one call being able to summon powerful entities to do violence on her behalf using only her voice?), many a modern woman thinks nothing of using those powers against men after luring him in with her feminine wiles. If there is a fundamental difference between Aphrodite sending Phaedra to bring about Hippolytus’ downfall for his failure to give her sufficient worship, and a modern housewife calling 9-1-1 to eject her hard-working but “boring” husband from his own house for failing to give her “tingles,” I fail to see it. While a normal woman cannot bring a normal man down by her own physical prowess if the man is aware and chooses to resist, the entities she can summon can… and will.
What’s different in the current super-heroine fad is that the women no longer do their violence by proxy or magic… they do it themselves. Again, that only “works” in a society like ours where women’s physical strength and prowess is rarely or never put to the test against men.
When I confront it out in the open, the overwhelming chorus is the same “you can’t handle a strong woman?” canard and all it’s variants. It is now in the water. You can’t even describe another way without being shamed.
“You can’t handle a strong woman?”
“That is correct, consequently I avoid them.”
*walks away* – works on a SIW chick, white knight and/or mangina. Might as well have some fun with all this.
Paging Mr. Anon. Paging Mr. Anon. Your commentary is requested in the “feminists embracing Islam” department.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4383522/Lindsay-Lohan-sports-Burkini-Thailand.html
Back to the point about writing female characters as “men with boobs”: there is no shortage of heroic women in history, but their brand of heroism is very different from masculine heroism. Writers would do well to look to some of these ladies for inspiration, but then, we know that ins’t their motivation.
Let me just restate the painfully obvious. Writing stories featuring women who are “men with boobs” is simply another instantiation of the blank-slate, equalist, interchangeable fallacy. It is a fundamental pillar of feminism going back at least 150 years, if not all the way to Woolstonecraft. The fact that this fallacy is disproven around the world daily, if not hourly, is irrelevant. It must be believed. It must be hammered into the heads of male and female humans. The pumps must run 24 / 7 to keep the fallacy, the myth, alive.
The entertainments containing this fallacy are propaganda on a par with anything Leni Reifenstahl ever produced (Godwin alert…). Propaganda of the “do not believe your eyes, citizen, believe what we tell you” sort. Propaganda with a huge emotional component, an emotional component that men buy into so far you can’t pull them out of it.
It’s like the Emperor’s new clothes, combined with Baghdad Bob, combined with the flat Earth society, combined with Rousseau. It’s pernicious, and that’s why it is so ubiquitous. Choose your entertainments with care, because you are being brainwashed.
GrrlPOWr not enough to win soccer match…
http://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/
…against 14 year old boys. We could post stuff like this all day, every day, for years.
In terms of speed and fitness, precocious and well trained 14 year old boys would be fairly close to adult peak wouldn’t they? Its no wonder those ladies lost to them, and they shouldn’t feel ashamed.
@ CSI says:
April 8, 2017 at 12:06 am
“In terms of speed and fitness, precocious and well trained 14 year old boys would be fairly close to adult peak wouldn’t they?”
Do you mean “adult peak” for men? If so; not even close, dude! Male athletes tend to plateau in their 30s. Depending on the sport, pitting 14-year-old boys against adult male athletes could be criminally negligent.
“Adult peak” for women? Yes, obviously.
@AR:
I believe the US Women’s National Team, in Ice Hockey, lost to a boys JV team, with no checking allowed. 8-0, I think?
Okay, it looks like they’ve played a number of varsity boy’s teams, and beaten a few by a score or two. But they normally lose.
As for the soccer one, scrimmages normally have worse defense, which makes that score… worse than it appears. The biggest advantages the boys should have is straight-line sprint speed on a quick move (so they can get behind the line faster) and a much easier shot options. Female goalkeepers simply don’t cover as much range as any decent Male one, plus they lack the leaping ability any high school goalkeeper can manage.
A goalkeeper on a bad high school team should be able to cover the entire goal, from the 6-yd box, in 2-3 sidesteps and a leap. A smaller Woman with much less leaping ability simply can’t do that. And, just to further the point, all of the US National Team’s goalkeepers are 5’9″.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alyssa_Naeher
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashlyn_Harris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Campbell_(soccer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope_Solo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrianna_Franch
Oh, I found a call up that’s 6’1″.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Murphy
Wow, the Under-15 Boy’s club (mindful, this is attached to FC Dallas, which means they probably have national-squad level guys, so not randoms) are probably taller. Almost assuredly heavier, though not necessarily faster. (+2 years and they would be.)
Whoops, too many links in the previous comment. Dalrock will let it through, eventually, I hope.
@CSI:
Muscle mass builds over time. 14-year old boys are going to be scrawny sticks compared to what they’ll be in 5-7 years. A Man’s physical peak doesn’t start until 22. 22-29 is peak, though depending on the sport, the Skill + Physical Ability may peak between 25 & 32.
CSI
In terms of speed and fitness, precocious and well trained 14 year old boys would be fairly close to adult peak wouldn’t they?
No. Not even close. I have to assume you are female for even asking.
Now think about how far away from reality we have been pushed in the last 20 years or so. Entertainments routinely show women beating up men who are bigger, stronger and faster, yet in reality high school hockey boys teams can beat the women’s Olympic team. The under 14 soccer team can beat the women’s team.
It’s an incredible disconnect from reality, and it leads young women to do really, really foolish things every day.
Tangent: Every mother of a son probably goes through a long moment somewhere after he turns 12 and before he turns 15, when she realizes that he’s probably stronger than she is, and a lot of disciplinary methods she used to use on him as a toddler or boy won’t work anymore. It’s worse for single mothers. It’s probably even worse for lesbians. Anyone want to wonder why so many young men are dazed, confused, and angry nowadays?
No. Not even close. I have to assume you are female for even asking.
Indeed. The cluelessness of women is embarrassing.
One could answer this question simply by noting that there is NO pro sport anywhere in the world where boys age 14 (or even 15) enter and compete at the top level.
I believe no male world record in a performance metric is held by any man younger than 22.
We could post stuff like this all day, every day, for years.
What I keep bringing up is that while physical underperformance is to be expected, women also are completely inferior in mental sports like Chess.
98% of all Chess Grandmasters are male. The 2% that are women reside at the bottom of the sample distribution. This is CHESS. It is the activity with the lowest possible barrier to entry, and women don’t even need men to practice with at all – they can just keep practicing with each other and keep improving. Yet, it does not happen. 98% of Chess Grandmasters are men, and that will not change.
That is I think even more damning than any physical sport.
Furthermore, the distribution of Chess Grandmasters by gender is probably a good indicator of gender contributions of useful work in a knowledge-based economy. Can anyone argue that a gender that produces only 2% of Chess Grandmasters can make a valuable contribution in the most high-cognitive fields?
@AR:
Unless it’s a small boy or a very tall mother, most boys will be stronger then their mothers by around age 8. It’s the reason a pack of 8-10 year old boys is actually very dangerous if they’re out of control.
Unless it’s a small boy or a very tall mother, most boys will be stronger then their mothers by around age 8.
Yeah, well, that depends. For sure by the teen years it’s true. I’m not going to quibble over this, frankly, my point stands on its own.
It’s the reason a pack of 8-10 year old boys is actually very dangerous if they’re out of control.
The author of
https://infogalactic.com/info/Lord_of_the_Flies was William Golding. He spent some time as a teacher of boys in the 8 to 12 age group if I remember right.
https://infogalactic.com/info/William_Golding
tl;dr
Modern entertainment is literally unreal. Unfortunately too many men and women accept the outright propaganda as truth.
Anon
What I keep bringing up is that while physical underperformance is to be expected, women also are completely inferior in mental sports like Chess.
Well, of course. Female intelligence is known to have a smaller variance than male intelligence.
Women are very verbal, and often good mimics, so they can talk a better “intelligence” game than they can deliver. Verbal ability means nothing in chess or other, similar games. Every man with a pair of The Glasses has seen this first hand, I’m sure.
Girl IQ power is very much right around the median. Scientifically this isn’t any more controversial than distribution of blood types. Politically of course it is highly controversial, because it contradicts the blank slate / equalist fallacy that undergirds feminism.
Just more modern propaganda films to avoid. My tolerance for these silly girl power films is zero. If it has even a little bit I avoid it. Are people THAT desperate to have their breads and circuses? That didn’t turn out too well for the Romans.
Why watch this shit anyway? It’s just repackaged Leftist political preaching. It’s insulting and pathetic. Add to that the umpteenth remake or sequel, total lack of humanity in these films (they’re just special effects wrapped in Leftist preaching) and I see no reason to spend your hard earned money on this shit. You’re only lining the pockets of Leftist maggots who should be deported to North Korea instead of rewarded.
Why watch this shit anyway?
Apparently a lot of people aged 15 to 25, maybe 30 or so. That seems to be the target demographic. That is why I keep pointing out how such propaganda can lead women to do foolish, stupid things. It’s also how so many men get brainwashed into believing the whole Strong, Independent Woman garbage.
I’ve followed the “genre community” (horror, sci-fi, comics, etc.) since the 1980s. As long as I can remember, fans and professionals have complained about the lack of women professionals (writers, directors, etc.) and the lack of “strong” women characters.
Whenever women complain, the men (geeks and nerds) fall over themselves in agreeing that “it’s about time” there were more women writers, more women presidents of genre organizations, and that we need more “strong” girl and women characters.
Since the 1990s, the Nebula Awards have increasing gone to feminized PC stories and novels, written by both women and manginas.
Since the 2000s, there have been “women only” horror film festivals. I went to a Viscera Film Fest. Horror films by women. Mostly awful. Amateurish and unoriginal. Films where the slasher is a “strong” woman. Or the victim of a rape, or just simple sexism, castrates a man. Just as often no discernible theme. Just a bad, amateurish, unoriginal film that only got accepted into the fest because it was written or directed by a woman.
Yet the genre press praised these films for showing “a woman’s perspective” and for “breathing fresh life into horror,” and expressed astonishment at all the female talent being ignored by Hollywood.
The horror community laments that less than 50% of its creators and fans are women. As if it’s to horror’s shame and disgrace that woman aren’t as interested in horror as are men.
None dares suggest that women are simply more interested in spending their leisure hours reading romance novels, and watching Lifetime and Hallmark movies. It’s somehow a given that every hobby must attract at least 50% female interest, otherwise that hobby has a problem with sexism that needs fixing.
“In terms of speed and fitness, precocious and well trained 14 year old boys would be fairly close to adult peak wouldn’t they?”
The quickest way to get the right answer on the Internets is to offer a wrong one.
Feministhater says:
April 7, 2017 at 5:20 pm
“Lol, you guys should join a girl fan club then. You keep on trying to show that these are normal attributes to human imagination but they are based off of no sort of reality. Super Heroes are extensions of manly roles, not womanly ones. X-23 was brought about to use another predominiately a male role and make it female as well. Stop ignoring the obvious.”
This is gold. I want to see a superhero character who is a woman who bears 25 blonde blue-eyed children, at least 60% male, all breast-fed, who needs about 15 minutes of sleep a night, who homeschools through Engineering B.S. degrees and the boys all become (all 6’+ at maturity) either military officers, Ph.D. scientists, or big-project engineers, while being well-known Alt-Right bloggers.
“The quickest way to get the right answer on the Internets is to offer a wrong one.”
Okay I was wrong here. I just figured for soccer at least, the peak in fitness might be at age 18, since its mostly about speed over strength, and I do vaguely remember some pretty big 14 year olds when I was in school (its been a while). But wrong on all counts here.
So to do some very rough estimates, a 14 year old boy might have half the strength, speed, endurance of a young man at his peak of 22. Yet that these 14 year olds still handily beat this woman’s team? So your average woman has maybe one third the strength of your average man? I’m sure these young women tried their best, but they were simply beaten by biological reality.
“What I keep bringing up is that while physical underperformance is to be expected, women also are completely inferior in mental sports like Chess.”
There could be a couple factors. Fewer exceptionally intelligent women than men – and to succeed at something like this, when you competing against the very best, you would need to be exceptionally good at it. Secondly, becoming very good at something like this requires many, many hours of obsessive practice. I thing its much harder for women to maintain this level of obsessive focus on something. As many women like to complain, men tend to have single track minds far more than women. In some cases, this can be a virtue.
And this is why there is such a hatred for Mary Sue characters. They show now sacrifice, they just simply get it, they are the best, no such work required. I remember a saying. 10% talent 90% hard work. A trained person with far less natural talent will beat a talented person with hardly any training almost every single time.
Dedication and the pursuit of excellence count for something. Women forget this at their own peril.
On several occasions I’ve shown feminists the hard truths of sexual dimorphism by putting side-by-side comparisons of Olympic records by women against U.S. high school boys records for the same events. The boys win nearly every time, and usually by a significant margin. The same holds true of nearly every sport. Think about that… a nation that contains 4% of the world’s population produces enough high-school age boys to beat the best adult women in the entire world at anything that requires speed, strength, coordination, or agility. And then realize that high school competitions take place at a significantly lower level than college programs, which in turn operate significantly below the level of professional/elite programs. And then realize that the “elite” women are full-time athletes being trained by the best coaches in the world, while the boys are mostly being trained by high school teachers earning a few extra bucks by coaching after school. And then realize that the women typically have practiced years longer than the boys if for no other reason than the fact that they’re a decade older and may well have started the sport when the boys were in diapers.
And the boys crush them anyway.
Yet we’re all supposed to pretend that waifish girls and women can double-back-flip over a wall and obliterate a dozen large, trained, adult men with their bare hands without breaking a nail or even taking a solid hit in return. It defies credulity, and is only possible for the reason I stated: most people have no Earthly idea how much difference sexual dimorphism makes because women are insulated from the unpleasant consequences of feminist rhetoric… when women say, “Anything you can do I can do better,” nobody ever says, “Prove it.”
Some day, someone will, and it will not just be the women who pay the price. As always, men will be expected to save them from their folly with their own blood. White Guy mentioned his niece at West Point being allowed to play soldier. Not only will she never come close to the physical prowess of even the weakest of her male classmates, but she’s taking up a spot that
could haveshould have gone to a man who would have used the experience for the benefit of the taxpayers who pay the bill for the charade.“side-by-side comparisons of Olympic records by women against U.S. high school boys records for the same events. The boys win nearly every time, and usually by a significant margin. The same holds true of nearly every sport. Think about that… a nation that contains 4% of the world’s population produces enough high-school age boys to beat the best adult women in the entire world at anything that requires speed, strength, coordination, or agility.”
I take issue with at least one of your leaky abstractions. Murder requires speed, strength, coordination, and agility, and yet women frequently commit murder and get away with it, because none of those physical attributes is the most important factor for murder, and furthermore murder is not a well-defined contest.
A less leaky abstraction would be “Boys will beat the best adult women in the entire world at any well-defined fair contest that is determined by speed, strength, coordination, or agility.”
What about soldiering?
“White Guy mentioned his niece at West Point being allowed to play soldier. Not only will she never come close to the physical prowess of even the weakest of her male classmates, …”
The most important factor is soldiering is not provably known. However, physical prowess is not the determining factor if the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army are representative. Furthermore, you might wonder whether the story of (Людмила Михайлівна Павличенко) Liudmyla Mykhailivna Pavlychenko is true. Is it possible that a mere farm-girl racked up 309 enemy kills? It doesn’t seem possible, if physical prowess is important for snipers. Perhaps her kill score was actually just 3, and the Russian Army lied about the other 306 for propaganda purposes.
“Super Heroes are extensions of manly roles, not womanly ones. …
We all know about Vikings, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, all had female Gods. Their roles were very different compared to male ones though. Even Gaik’s little poem speaks to a mother weeping for her lost son; and only because she is a God does she get to raise him from the dead.”
The conventional reading of the Kalevala is that magicians can command the gods within certain limits. The conventional belief is that she was a mortal woman who used magic to force the gods to obey her. Typical scholars claim that any character who knew the magic could have made the same demands of the gods, and the gods would have obeyed. Then again, mythography is not an exact science. We don’t know whether the ancient Finns thought she was humbly requesting or boldly commanding.
Reading through the comments, though, I note a huge disconnect: I seem to be working from a different definition of super-hero than everyone else is. I checked a dictionary, but I didn’t find anything about super-heroes always being manly, or super-powers always being manly.
In practice, figuring out which legendary persons are gods, which are mortals, and which are neither is far from easy in most cases.
I take great interest in legends of unusual abilities that are based on esoteric skills. Generally, these skills are called “occult” or “magical.” Many legendary heroes use “magic” the same way that Sherlock Holmes uses science. The implication of a Sherlock Holmes story is that anyone who knew as much science as Sherlock Holmes could accomplish the same sort of feats, and the implication of an “occult science” story is that anyone who learns the right “science” can achieve the same deeds under comparable circumstances.
Of particular interest are the legendary sciences of “gong fu”/”kung fu,” and “qigong.” The legend of He Xian’gu is that she was an ordinary mortal girl, born from mortal parents. But she ate a “scientific” diet that made her immortal and learned “gong fu” skills that allowed her to beat strong warriors and fly through the air. She is an example of a legendary mortal who could fight better than almost all men.
As for the Amazons of legend, they were not freaks; the Greeks despised them because they were not Greek. The Greeks despised a lot of non-Greeks. The Amazons were almost certainly a fictionalized version of the real-world Sarmatians. Their women were required to kill someone before they could be married. It is not known exactly which victims got killed. Were they helpless prisoners? Were they genuinely dangerous combatants who posed a lethal threat to the young women? No one can really prove the facts of the Sarmatians in detail.
What’s your deal, gaikokumaniakku? Are you deliberately nit-picking or do you have a point? In either case, perhaps you’d like to address what I wrote rather than playing “Gotcha’!” with the narrative in your head.
I was talking about sports, wherein everyone knows that the contest has been joined, the playing field is level, and there are rules. Men win every time or nearly so in such cases, and usually by huge margins, especially at the elite level. When I was talking about assault/murder up-thread I specifically wrote this, “While a normal woman cannot bring a normal man down by her own physical prowess if the man is aware and chooses to resist, the entities she can summon can… and will.”
In other words, I already addressed your point. So, sure, a woman can “win” an “ill-defined contest” like putting poison in her husband’s soup or dropping a cinder block on his head in his sleep. So what? No-one suggested otherwise.
As for soldiering, I’m going to assume you know nothing about it other than the Gurl-Power stuff you read about or saw while watching “Bitva za Sevastopol” on YouTube. There are quite a few of us with decades of real-world military experience – including time in combat zones – and we can tell you that, on the whole, the women are worse than useless. Some of them can perform useful tasks, but that’s more than negated by all the trouble they cause in the form of drama, morale issues, and duplication of facilities that wouldn’t be required in an all-male environment.
Just as there are a tiny group of women who are chess grand masters, there are a few outliers like Liudmyla Mykhailivna Pavlychenko who probably performed well (but still not as well as the top men), but she was backed up by the full might of Red Army logistics and was a poster-girl for the Soviet propaganda effort. Frankly, we have no idea how many kills she had, but it was almost certainly nowhere near 309. If the best example of girl soldiers you can come up with rests on the credibility of the Soviet Ministry of Propaganda during WW2, you might want to re-think your position… and your gullibility.
By the way, the Viet Cong was functionally obliterated as a fighting force in 1968, and the North Vietnamese Army never won a single significant victory over U.S. forces. The only times the NVA was successful above the small-unit level was long after the U.S. evacuated its combat troops, and their only enemy was the South Vietnamese Army, and even then only with the massive assistance of the Soviet Union and China.
I find kickass female warrior characters in Fantasy and Science Fiction nauseating. As if sex is only a skin a human being wears rather than something fundamental that results in not only both strengths and weaknesses that are unique but also ways of processing information and response to stimuli.
@Lyn87
We do keep hearing about kickass female kurdish fighters paving the way for gender equality in their own societies and destroying ISIS.
As a modern example.
@Lyn87
Not keep hearing but they seem to be held up as feminist amazons.
@SnapperTrx
And she was raised to be a human weapon which explains her behavior. Although there should be female ways of thinking that would dictate her actions in spite of the conditioning.
Girls are instinctively drawn to dolls as toddlers after all.
CSI – “In terms of speed and fitness, precocious and well trained 14 year old boys would be fairly close to adult peak wouldn’t they?”
In soccer, FIFA schedules different World Cups for different age groups: U17, U20. This is done for a reason.
@CSI – “I thing its much harder for women to maintain this level of obsessive focus on something. ”
It doesn’t seem to keep them away from obsessing over shoes, clothes and cosmetics.
@gaikokumaniakku – “I take issue with at least one of your leaky abstractions. Murder requires speed, strength, coordination, and agility, and yet women frequently commit murder”
One word: guns. Even a knife is a huge equalizer.
@Cane
This is where the action resides. This is the how (in terms of delivery of the BS) and the why (in terms of the effect the BS has on the receiver) I’ve tried to explain this to people. It is something that may be inexplicable because it is a built in internal trick that deflects explanations.
This is how, for instance, pastors can be white knight BP thru and thru, and yet have parishioners claim “not my pastor, he is spot on with his teaching on these things”. Its a contextual trick, Subliminal?….eh, maybe, sort of, It wasn’t devised so much as devolved to, like carefully pulling on a hair shirt so as to avoid most of the effects that are obvious reasons not to put it on..
“One word: guns. Even a knife is a huge equalizer.”
Indeed. Most historical accounts of female murders of adults involve weapons. (Some female killings of children don’t require weapons.)
[First reply to infowarrior included link which must have gotten spam-filtered.]
“We do keep hearing about kickass female kurdish fighters paving the way for gender equality in their own societies and destroying ISIS.”
I keep hearing conflicting reports about whether or not they are ineffective. First I hear the famous one is dead, then I hear claims the photos of her dead body were faked.
It’s pretty depressing, trying to make sense of claims about war. After I realized that warfighters lie about what they’ve done in wars, it made me much less motivated to figure out what wars are like.
broken link avoiding controversial page on Kurdish soldierettes:
[don’t spam me bro] original-research/obvious-observations/kurdish-female-soldiers-are-not-always-effective/
“Are you deliberately nit-picking or do you have a point? In either case, perhaps you’d like to address what I wrote…”
I suspect we have entirely different standards of how address points. The critique of “leaky abstractions” derives from Joel Spolsky. From my perspective, Spolsky’s “leaky abstraction” critique is relevant. I imagine that my arguments appear to be totally unskilled from your perspective.
“we have no idea how many kills she had, but it was almost certainly nowhere near 309. ”
Fine by me. My argument doesn’t depend on whether the Reds were lying or telling the truth. I would be happy to read an argument that the Red Army lied about the war, and that the Red Army cannot be trusted. (However, if anyone does write such an argument, the writer had better not travel to Russia, where it is illegal to doubt the history of the Great Patriotic War.) The problem is that a lot of Westerners are content to believe the Red Army when it suits their purposes, and to make unprincipled exceptions when it suits their purposes.
As I said before, I find it hard to believe that Lyudmilla killed 309 people. But what do I know about killing? I’ve never sighted down a gun barrel, pulled a trigger, and killed a person. Not even once. How many of us have done so? How much special insight does the personal experience of killing confer?
infowarrior,
The Kurdish girls are an interesting phenomenon. As with the story of Liudmyla Mykhailivna Pavlychenko, we’ll probably never know where the truth lies as far their performance relative to the men. I have no doubt that it is not on par, though. One thing to remember is that, in that society, being bested by a woman is considered to be a deeply shameful thing, so the Kurds are pulling off a PsyOp coup by highlighting pretty young women in uniforms. The take-away to their regional audience is that even young women can defeat ISIS. (They may have a different message for the world-wide audience: which is to trigger the protectiveness men feel for pretty young women, which can result in foreign aid and possibly direct military support.)
Also important to remember is that ISIS is the second-string, junior varsity, Division D team of armies. In a stand-up fight they get creamed by pretty much everyone else. They can’t win on the battlefield against real armies, so if they lose the propaganda war, they lose everything.
Another thing I should have mentioned earlier is the difference in the ways snipers are deployed in different armies. Russian/Soviet sniper doctrine is VERY different from ours. Soviet doctrine called for deploying “aimed fire” by marksmen organized into “sniper units,” which enabled individuals to rack up some very impressive kill-counts, but there are opportunity costs associated with that that are largely ignored. Also, just as we refer to Russian “doctors” who operate at the level of first-world LPNs, we refer to Russian/third-world “snipers” who are more akin to marksmen in a first-rate military. Compare the story of Carlos Hathcock, who went on long-range patrols with no support, to the story of Vasily Zaytsev, who did most of his shooting within a short distance of friendly lines.
Apples-and-oranges. (It’s also useful to remember that, of the top snipers of WW2, no woman even comes close to making it into the top 10. When looking at the top snipers of all time, only one woman even makes it into the top 30, and that requires us to take the Soviet Ministry of Propaganda’s claims about Pavlychenko at face value.)
@Lyn87:
I think the answer you’re looking for is, “the train is fine”.
All this talk of boys vs. men made me realize about how you rarely see “boys kicking butt” in movies. There is one major exception to this: Robin. Still, it was well established that Dick Grayson, even after he grew up and transitioned from Robin to Nightwing, was never Bruce’s equal, and this was for a simple reason: even in adulthood he’s smaller than Bruce. Also, of interest, these days Robin is only portrayed as a tween or early teen in animation, and the current Robin, the tweenish Damian Wayne (Bruce’s illegitimate son and Ra’s al Ghul’s grandson) has the arrogant attitude of the yugogirl heroines we are being spoon fed these days. He’s also the most despised version of Robin, hated even more that the very beta Time Drake, In live action movies, Robin has been portrayed as a young adult.
In honor of the Peter Principle (managers will be continued to be promoted till they reach their level of incompetence), I declare: The Otto Principle.
The Otto Principle: media will continue to expand its fan base by adding diverse characters till it alienates its fan base.
Where is Shia La Beouf when you need him?
Whereas the first movie had his wise-cracking charm, MeganFox was useful as eye candy. It was hardly believable that she understood cars better than a man, or that she could paint motor bikes in what is a very highly skilled job taking years of practice.
Millions of dollars are invested in movies. Each new movie that comes out with female heroines has less and less box-office power. Ghostbusters sank without trace. Wonder Woman has her own movie but no one is interested in watching it. Star Wars has been weakened badly. This too will, I predict, dwindle at the box office and sink much like Jack in “Titanic”….
@Anonymous Reader
I loved basketball, but basketball did not love me. As a freshman in a 5A high school I was put on the freshman B team; the worst of the worst. In my sophomore year I would be cut from the team altogether.
One day two upperclass starters on the girl’s varsity team challenged me and another freshman B-teamer to a 2v2 pickup game. We crushed them 21 to 4. Those girls went on to the state finals.
@RPL
Yes, absolutely. It is a slothful, envious, failed, tactic to win women’s approval, and so the hope is that the geek or nerd may move further in from the outer social circle of Tolerated By Women, into the smaller more intimate circle of Liked By Women. It is very like Steve Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism. I could write it as: The most heartfelt defense of strong women by fanboys tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the fanboy himself will be considered hotter-looking.
But even geeky women prefer strong men to geeky men, and most geeky men are merely tolerated rather than liked. By the time such men might realize this truth it is usually too late. They have already blinded themselves to what is right in front of their faces. If they marry at all, they marry great big whale-women, or women who won’t groom themselves; factors which are within their powers to improve, but which are not. Each refers to the other as strong and sexy because what they have bonded over is a love of sloth, envy, and a particular set of lies.
@Empath
It’s called an enthymeme. It’s a step in a logical argument which is purposefully skipped so that the listener must infer it, and we are very susceptible to them because it creates an emotional connection between the speaker and the listener. The listener subconsciously fills-in the enthymeme gap, and even if he doesn’t think it–especially if he doesn’t think it!–that he and the speaker share some esoteric knowledge. It creates an in-group feeling that you’re one of us.
The speaker uses the enthymeme to start a chain of logic (which may be right or wrong) to lead the listener wherever the speaker wants him to go. We tend to think of logic as inherently good, or right, but logic just has to be internally consistent. It does not have to be correct.
The glamor of the in-group feeling caused by an enthymeme can be irresistible to the outcast, or the introvert.
The transformers series has too much momentum behind it to bomb. Most people are expecting it to drop somewhat in established markets and do solid business in growing ones Even if it drops significantly everywhere it’s very unlikely (<5%) to make less than $800m worldwide (3rd and 4th installments both did over $1.1 billion). So even with a huge production budget in the 200-250m range it'll still be very profitable.
@Empath (and Oscar)
I left off an important point about arguing against an enthymeme.
To use my “girls fighting” example above (The context is this: Girls fighting. Girls fighting robots. Girls fighting men. Girls fighting superheroes. Girls fighting men. Girls fighting aliens. Girls fighting men…) the enthymeme is girls fighting men. Overtly, the movies display mutant girls fighting men, or robot girls fighting aliens, or whathaveyou. But, subvertly the part that is suppressed and assumed–the enthymeme–is girls can fight well and even beat men.
Remember that the enthymeme creates an in-group between the speaker (in this case Hollywood) and the listener (fanboys). So if Oscar recognizes the enthymeme (girls can fight well and even beat men) and confronts it (the enthymeme) directly by saying “A girl can’t and shouldn’t try to kick a man’s ass.” he addresses a ghostly secret: Nobody actually said girls can beat men–and who is Oscar to talk about their secret knowledge? He is not one of them; how dare he!
Rhetorically, he took a shit in the middle of the party Hollywood threw for the fanboys. It causes not only a logical response, but also an emotional one. They will shout Oscar down, or exclude him from further talk because to them he’s so retarded that he drops deuces in parties.
Category error. Leaky abstraction is a software engineering concept related to abstraction in software.
A general observation of real world results that “boys beat women in every physical contest” is not software, and criticizing it with a domain-specific term is sophistry. Yes, all generalizations are false. No, that does not make false generalizations equal.
As to soldiering, the multi-million dollar highly trained elite female force will be annihilated in the field by an illiterate band of teenage boys, who will use the survivors as their sex toys. You Go Grrls.
I might as well keep going…
Then how does one fight the enthymeme? If the people in the the in-group shared space created by an enthymeme exile you every time you try to get them to see truth, how can one respond?
1. You destroy it. You do not shit in their livingroom; you knock the whole house down. That’s what Vox Day does with his Rabid Puppies campaigns. Year by year he demolishes a portion of the Hugo awards because the people at the Hugo award “party” cannot be dissuaded by logic from their evil and stupidity. Sad Puppies isn’t successful because their plan is to merely keep coming back to drop a turd on the rug. The Hugo Party response is to curse the Sad Puppies, clean up the mess and then go back to the in-group lovefest about the nonsense of diversity and equality.
2. You create another party…and then when you are strong enough you come back to destroy the evil and stupid party which cannot listen to reason because of the enthymeme. That’s what Vox Day does with Castalia House.
“FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women’s National Team in a scrimmage”
And I bet those women get paid a lot more! That’s an outrage! Equal pay, dammit!
Enthymemes can be used in other ways, too. Homosexual activists have expertly used enthymemes to forward their agenda. Here is the stated argument, the syllogism: Homosexuals love each other, therefore homosexuals ought to be able to get married. Another is: Homosexuals love each other, therefore homosexuality ought to be accepted by everyone else.
In both cases the suppressed part of the argument–the enthymeme–is: Marriage is about the right to have sex, and homosexuals have sex by sticking their dicks in each other’s asses This is an effective and sophisticated enthymeme because it creates two different in-groups; each on the opposite side of the line of politeness.
The average westerner doesn’t want to talk about men rump-rangering each other. So he doesn’t, and other average westerners don’t talk about it either. Their in-group simply ignores the whole concept because it is violently distasteful to them to even ponder it.
On the other side of the line of politeness, homosexuals use the average westerner’s hatred of–and silence about–sodomy to guide the argument whichever way they want. “Can’t we all agree that we don’t want to talk about men sticking their dicks in each other’s asses? Let’s talk about the beauty of marriage instead.” It’s a question-begging form of enthymeme because you can’t talk about marriage without discussing sex, but it works because straight, conservative westerners would really rather the whole topic would go away.
@ CSI says:
April 8, 2017 at 5:15 am
“So to do some very rough estimates, a 14 year old boy might have half the strength, speed, endurance of a young man at his peak of 22.”
Holy crap, dude, men don’t peak at 22 in ANY sport! Don’t believe me? List the best male athletes in the major sports right now and their ages.
When it comes to strength, men plateau (NOT peak) even later. Power lifting is the one sport that is most biased towards strength. It’s normal for a masters-level powerlifter (40+) to out-lift open class (20-39) lifters in his weight class. If a boy starts lifting at 13, and keeps lifting regularly throughout his life, he can expect to keep getting stronger until his 40s*, plateau for a few years, then begin to slowly decline in his 50s.
*Provided, of course, that he avoids catastrophic injury.
This has probably been posted before, but in real life, this is what happens when a trained female marine takes on a trained male marine:
@cane
“Conservative westerners would really rather the whole topic go away”
Indeed, as we should. In order for it to go away though, people need to understand the disgusting practices are inseparable from homosexuality. Not only the buggering, but the predatory behaviors of older gay men towards teenage (and sometimes younger) boys. Once people can connect the ideas, then they will have healthy disgust and it only needs to be discussed when that attitude of disgust is threatened.
Another problem is that it’s not a topic western men are comfortable discussing in mixed company, which again is a healthy attitude. The problem is that it’s unavoidable in our society.
Thanks for the rhetorical lesson, I will be giving it more thought.
I hope the grrl-power is at a lethal dose for the franchise. It’s funny how the idea of hubris and naivety are common in many movies that feature a strong male protagonist, while the theme of a woman over-estimating herself never comes up. It’s a shame they have Wahlberg preventing the epic battle between Megatron and a little girl. I’d love to see how they would either have to stretch the Mary Sue trope to a new level of ludicrous or have the most pointless character death since ‘The Other Guys’.
The comments on that video are fun:
Lots of white-knight commenters as well, of course.
Here’s another example of real-life GrrrlPower:
IDF Probe: Female soldier hid instead of fighting during deadly Egypt border incident
Whoops, messed up link:
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/idf-probe-female-soldier-hid-instead-of-fighting-during-deadly-egypt-border-incident-1.466584
OT
Emotional Tampons: A Christian how-to guide
http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2014/may/brotherly-love-christians-and-male-female-friendships.html
SJWs and feminists don’t care about artistic integrity, an original plot or storytelling. Contrived stories and characters are ignored just so long as they align with the Strong Female Lead® narrative.
SJWs and feminists do nothing original because on some level of consciousness they know that writing a new story with a new character who aligns with that narrative will never be popular. Comic characters, superheroes, are fundamentally the expression of the Ids of Beta boys. They always have been. Exaggerated masculinity, super power and exaggerated sexualized femininity. When you rewrite those characters in any other perspective and the contrivance is unpalatable to the Id as to why those characters were originally appealing. What you get is garbage with a pink pussy hat on top.
The most popular pulp fantasy/sci fi will be the ones in which plots and characters unapologetically play to the male Id. Vox Day and his friends at the Hugos know this all too well.
@ Cane Caldo says:
April 8, 2017 at 10:38 am
“… and who is Oscar to talk about their secret knowledge? He is not one of them; how dare he!”
How dare they assume I’m not a 12-year-old girl? Transphobic, ageist bigots!
Anon2 @ April 7, 2017 at 8:51 pm:
“This is beyond mere virtue signalling. They truly seem to believe that. I thought the male penis could not simply be reprogrammed by SJW propaganda.”
You already knew this from the normalization of sodomy in a single generation. Look back and notice how clergyboys responded by saying how good marriage is instead of how sodomy was an abomination of God’s design and those who pushed it were evil. That’s the sleight of hand, the plausible deniability. They could accept sodomy because the devil gave them a noble-looking escape.
Cuckservatives. *spits*
@halt94,
I finished a biography of Alexander the Great recently. It went into detail explaining that male homosexuality was common and accepted in Greece at that time.
It pointed out that sex between adult males and prepubescent boys was also widely practiced and accepted. Several times, people bought young slave boys as presents for Alexander (assuming Alexander would want to use them sexually).
It seems difficult to find an example of a time when male homosexuality was widely practiced and male on male pedophilia was not common.
Splashman says:
April 7, 2017 at 5:16 pm
Yup. And guess which version gets the most endorsement from the pulpit (hint: it ain’t the Proverbs 31 version).
White Guy says:
April 7, 2017 at 5:17 pm
White Guy, I sincerely hope and pray that your niece doesn’t turn out to be this example, but the ONLY way this nonsense will ever stop and that sanity and reality will ever reassert themselves is if we take the Yugogrrlllz at their word and send them off to fight like men and let nature take is course.
Pick a fight with North Korea, Russia, or China (countries that don’t consider their military forces so superfluous as to staff them full of women and faggots/trsnsgender freaks)? Put women, as many of them as you can muster up, into the line of combat in the first wave (no exemptions for pregnancy, child care, or other nonsense either; you’re a woman on active duty or in the active reserves, off to the front you go!! Strong women don’t wuss out when their country needs them!!!). Let these women confront an all-male combat force uninfected by SJWism and watch the blood and guts flow- female blood and guts.
It’s going to be epic in its ugliness, but that’s what feminized, delusional Amerika needs to have its nose rubbed in, hard: to have its daughters, wives, sisters, and mothers destroyed by their own delusional hubris. Some of them burned, mangled, and mutilated beyond recognition. Some of them gang-raped to death after being captured by the enemy. Others fortunate(?) enough to survive, minus limbs, eyes, or full brain functions, or broken mentally and emotionally beyond repair by the horrors of captiivity or non-stop combat. Children made orphans, husbands made widows, fathers made to mourn the loss of their daughters under unimaginably horrifying circumstances. And women made to realize what it means to be genuinely “equal” to men – whether they want to be or not (you, collectively, asked for it, “ladies”; don’t runaway from your wish now that it has fully come true).
It’s for the same reason that I say that sexual distinctions and separations in sports should obliterated. Women want to play with or against men? Fine, let nature take its course. Let an entire league of Darryl Stingleysemerge from the fray.
Cold, hard reality: the ultimate cure for the delusion the ails.
@otto
Exactly. It’s a practice that is part of their culture and is passed on from generation to generation throughout the ages. We caught only a glimpse of it with the Milo debacle, and that didn’t even mention pedophilia. But most of our society would balk at the idea that homosexuals should not be allowed in positions where they are in close contact with children (teachers, clergy, etc.). This is because many in our society have conceded to framing the conversation, as cane has described above.
“The transformers series has too much momentum behind it to bomb.”
So did Iron man. Yet the last one was made in 2013.
You have to wonder if turning Pepper Pots into a superhero and having her save the day rather than Iron Man was a diversity too far.
@Halt94
My pleasure!
Rhetoric is vitally important for leaders. The in-groups created by enthymemes are where we get SJWs, fanboys, Cowboy Churches…lots of divisions come from them; some good, some bad, some just weird. If you get a big enough and influential enough group of people in a particular in-group around a particular subject, then something called an interpretive community is formed. being the interpretive community does not give them special access to the truth. It gives them clout to pronounce things. It gives them authority; whether they should have it or not. Nevertheless: They set the standards for how the topics of the particular subject of the enthymeme in-group are discussed; what is true, what is false, what can be said and what cannot be said. This is the idea which underlies the RC’s Magisterium. What Martin Luther did with his fight against the RCC was catalyze elements of a new interpretive community which were already in the RCC, but had yet to be truly activated.
Another example is what the NRx crowd calls The Cathedral. Leftists spent the 19th Century planning how to take over the previous interpretive communities of the schools, universities, government, military, hospitals, newspapers, film, publishing, etc. They spent the 20th Century acting out those plans. Now Leftists are the interpretive community of nearly everything! What the interpretive community allows to be said–what it does not contest, shout down, lock away, or burn–is called The Overton Window.
I’m sure you’ve all seen all these words before, but I’ve not seen them put together the way I do now; though I wouldn’t be surprised if they had but I just hadn’t found it.
“SJWs and feminists do nothing original because on some level of consciousness they know that writing a new story with a new character who aligns with that narrative will never be popular”
The Christian point of view is that lies can only exist in opposition to truth. Feminists have set themselves up in opposition to the truth of human sexuality. They cannot be original when their goal is denial. All they can do is falsify evidence and poison wells.
Transgender Texas boy gets new birth certificate.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/04/08/hold-transgender-texas-boy-gets-new-birth-certificate/
Otto Lamp says:
April 8, 2017 at 3:52 pm
“The transformers series has too much momentum behind it to bomb.”
So did Iron man. Yet the last one was made in 2013.”
It grossed over a billion dollars unfortunately…
Flip side is, Transformers had a trilogy. Shia and Megan, then Shia and a blonde. Now Mark Wahlberg. Problem also is that Age of Extinction pandered heavily to Chinese audiences, and despite poor reviews, also made a billion bucks. Can transformers bomb? They already switched out all the characters, literally. Ghosbusters bombed, but that was a new movie, not a number 4 in a series or 5.
Cane-
But walk through, if you will the problem if you don’t accept the premise: “marriage is about the right to have sex.”
I don’t believe this is what marriage is “about.” (Therefore the mechanics of the sex is irrelevant to me).
I think most of the western world is predisposed to this line of thinking, but when I argue with gay “marriage” advocates I go right to the destruction of that piece in particular.
Its why canonical form matters in the end. Its also why they are right when they tell us we are hypocrites for not caring about massive increases in “Christian” divorces, a problem which preceded gay “marriage.”
” Its also why they are right when they tell us we are hypocrites for not caring about massive increases in “Christian” divorces”
FWIW, the churches that turn a blind eye to divorce and happily remarry divorced people tend to be the same ones that are OK with sodomy.
@Scott
Can you rephrase? I don’t understand your question, or questions. Specifically, I don’t know to which things the various articles in your sentences point.
Sure. In order for the tactic to work, everyone must assent to this phrase:
“Marriage is about the right to have sex.”
Generally, when I find myself in a conversation about this topic I recognize this as an underlying principle and confront it directly.
(Marriage is not about “rights” at all in confessional traditions).
When I point out that all of nature and Gods creation cries out that marriage is a transcendent mysterious joining of man and woman, the retort is “that’s your belief/faith system.”
It’s saying “there is no such as gay marriage.”
“Yes there is”
“No there isn’t”
“Yes there is.”
Timely :
High school boys beat US Women’s Soccer Team 5-2.
The appeal of the super-heroine is based on the actresses who play them. It’s not that they’re plausible or “better” versions of women… it’s because beautiful women in tight outfits are pleasant to look at, whether we’re talking about Kristy Swanson with her wooden stake or Gal Gadot with her Lasso of Truth.
@Lyn —
Yes, this is a significant part of it. It’s visually appealing to look at Scarlet Johanson careeing around in tight outfits, watching her lithe body flex around and so on, even if what she is doing (kicking male characters in the ass physically) is totally implausible. This is a significant part of the issue, as is the latent attraction to femdom types of tropes by at least some portion of the male fandom of these films.
Its also why they are right when they tell us we are hypocrites for not caring about massive increases in “Christian” divorces, a problem which preceded gay “marriage.”
@Scott —
Yes, it’s directly related. Once we made straight marriage about a certified romantic relationship terminable at will, we changed it in such a way that it became very difficult to continue to restrict the institution from being extended to same sex romantic relationships. Even among the churches, it makes it look like some sins are being singled out for special treatment as compared with other ones, and that is because of the way that straight marriage relationships have been morphed into certified romances.
Nova-
I spoken to several Catholic and Orthodox priests and all (basically) agree, according to canonical form, a marriage has the following features:
1. A man and a woman
2. Baptized in the same confession
3. “Open to life”
4. Not married to anyone else
5. not under holy orders
6. Not under duress
7. Mental capacity to make the decision
8. No consanguinity
On the divorce issue Catholics and Orthodox essentially say the same thing officially but as you know, divorce and remarriage is permitted under very specific dispensation in Orthodoxy.
So it makes sense that they would think we are singling out only one part of the requirements while being loose with the others.
@Scott
Got it, thanks.
Actually, I did not put forth a specific tactic to use against gay marriage. I only explained how the homosexual agenda used enthymemes. If a man tries to reveal the homosexual agenda enthymeme (by introducing into a discussion on homosexual marriage the fact that gay sex is gross and harmful) he will rhetorically shit the carpet.
No one anymore believes marriage is about the right to have sex. That battle was lost a long time ago under no-fault divorce, as you and Novaseeker stated. The Leftists won that rhetorical battle too. Now modern marriage is thought about in abstract terms of feeling. So, yes, if a man wants to win the rhetorical battle against the homosexual agenda, he has to fight at least two enthymemes back, e.g., “Can’t we all agree that talking about divorce hurts the children most?”, or other things like that.
Call it authority instead of rights then. You would know better than I, though I think it little changes the conversation. At its center, marriage absolutely is concerned with who can have sex with whom.
In its fullness marriage is a transcendent mystery, but there are material world realities and consequences which we can all observe. Pagans marry, after all. Neither the Jews nor Christians nor anyone else said, “Well who cares that pagan man says she’s his wife? It’s not real transcendent mystery marriage: Go ahead and marry her!” You’re not going to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with your premise, and that’s why they respond: ““That’s your belief/faith system.” They’re right. And in rhetoric that belief system–that underlying and agreed upon yet suppressed belief system–is called the enthymeme. You won’t get anywhere until you can back them up to some shared point of belief prior to the concept of What Marriage Is. From there, you find your own enthymeme and create with your listener a shared in-group experience and use logic to lead them to your belief system that “Marriage is a transcendental mystery”.
…Or you knock their house down with superior force.
Heh . . .
World Cup-winning USA women’s team suffer 5-2 loss against Dallas academy under-15 boys
Again heh — CBS wrote this about the above-linked soccer match:
And another heh — a comment left on the above CBS article, apparently by a man:
Huh, color me shocked:
Female soccer players suffer the most concussions in high school sports
Among other findings, concussion rates for female soccer players were higher than for any boys’ sport, including football. And, “In gender matched sports, girls experienced significantly higher concussion rates than boys.”
And the funniest bit: “The study authors hypothesize that girls may face a greater risk of concussions and other injuries in soccer due to a lack of protective gear, an emphasis on in-game contact and the practice of “headers” — hitting the ball with your head.” As if these factors don’t affect boys as well.
Off topic Dalrock, but I’ve come across this gem: The report is in on Women’s performance in the Israeli Light Infantry. The results aren’t pretty when it gets tabled in the Knesset:
I found the Everyday Feminism article – “4 Myths That Keep Women Away from Non-Traditional Employment” – that specifically talks about the strength differences between men and women. It does everything it can to try and minimize these differences. The first talking point is the most amusing:
“Myth #1: Women don’t have the physical strength required to work in construction or other male-dominated blue collar work.”
Admittedly women could do most male-dominated blue collar jobs. But the proviso is they would be nowhere as efficient due to their lesser strength.
“Strength is a social construct, not a biological fact.”
I suppose gravity is a social construct too, so that in a post-patriarchial society everyone would be able to fly at will? But they do try and justify this statement. The justification is of course foolish. Leg strength usually cannot compensate for upper body strength. And this is irrelevant anyhow as men have greater leg strength too:
“So, we can dismiss women as physically inferior, or we can help individuals learn how to carry heavy objects based on their body type.Lifting for men is easier when they use their upper body strength, which is where most women are lacking. This uses men’s strength to their best advantage.”
“But if you let women determine how best to carry large weights, you notice that they tailor the movement to their strengths, by putting most of the weight and load on their hips and then on to their shoulders. It’s a simple adjustment, but it helps us do the same jobs while being safe.”
@Splashman:
I believe they also have the highest ACL tear rate of any group.
Among other findings, concussion rates for female soccer players were higher than for any boys’ sport, including football. And, “In gender matched sports, girls experienced significantly higher concussion rates than boys.”
This follows the typical feminist playbook. It’s nothing but a ploy to divert all research monies towards the girls. We’ve seen this before. It’s another form of “Woe is me; I am a victim” narrative.
In just a few years, legislation will come from Washington, making the study and prevention of concussion in girls a priority, and, as usual, ignoring the boys to wallow in their misery.
In healthcare, we have heard the drumbeat of how women are the worse victims of sex-specific cancers.
The result? The medical profession now devotes at least 4 times as much attention to female predominant cancers than they do to malignancies which affect only men, and government research monies are disproportionally diverted to female cancers as well.
E.g. Prostate cancer vs Breast cancer.
“According to estimates from the National Institutes of Health, in the United States in 2010, 207,090 women and 1,970 men will get new cases of breast cancer, while 39,840 women and 390 men will likely die from the disease. The estimated new cases of prostate cancer this year — all affecting men — is 217,730, while it is predicted 32,050 will die from the disease.
Dan Zenka, the Prostate Cancer Foundation’s vice president of communications, says the similarity in numbers is hard to ignore. “Prostate cancer is to men what breast cancer is to women,” he told The Daily Caller…
…In fiscal year 2009, breast cancer research received $872 million worth of federal funding, while prostate cancer received $390 million. It is estimated that fiscal year 2010 will end similarly, with breast cancer research getting $891 million and prostate cancer research receiving $399 million…”
How much of this attitude derives from the frontier settler wife archetype, who was expected to be able to fight off Indian raids alongside her man?
Is such a woman inherently unfeminine?
I know for my part I do NOT want a woman who is going to be helpless in that sort of crisis. I do advocate that women own and learn to use guns for self-defense, as well as some basic martial arts for the same reason; I do not advocate that they join the military. Yet both involve fighting other men.
“But if you let women determine how best to carry large weights, you notice that they …
…usually get a man to do it for them.
RE: “Training for one’s body type” so that women can perform as well as men.
Of course we all know it’s nonsense. Firefighting services have had to deal with this for years now, having been forced to accept and integrate women into their crews despite the fact that they can’t do the job as well as men. Whereas male candidates might have to pick up and carry 200 pounds in the past – and virtually no women can do that – most fire departments have simply substituted much lower weights and/or allowed the candidates to drag rather than carry.
Other organizations, such as the military, simply have two sets of standards right out in the open: one for men and a greatly reduced one for women. Look up “military physical fitness requirements” to see the disparity: they don’t even try to hide it. This one is specifically for the U.S. Army, but all other services and most other nations have similar charts. It’s possible for a man to fail a test even though he turned in the same performance as a woman who not only passed it, but received an Army Physical Fitness Badge for “exceeding the standard.” THAT’s how lopsided it is. Of course the woman in that case gets extra promotion points if she’s enlisted, while the man get red-flagged until he passes… even if he was scheduled to be promoted later that same day.
I’ll use another example. As my icon picture shows, I’m obviously a gym rat. What is not obvious is that I’m not very big, or that I have a slight deformity that prevents me from building a lot of upper body strength. It’s not so bad that it prevented me from meeting the physical requirements to be a man in the military, but in that way I’m in the same position as most women: my strength is concentrated in my lower body, and there isn’t much I can do about it.
Now let’s compare me to my gymbro, Tony. Tony is ripped. He’s also enormous. He can bench press 460 pounds and dead-lift 675 pounds. (For reference, I dead-lift 280 – just about twice my body weight – and my bench-press max is around 110 due to the aforementioned deformity.) He’s about twice my weight with a similar body fat percentage, as well as being 9 inches taller. In other words, he and I are a case study is what happens when you try to compare someone with lots of overall strength against someone whose (lesser) strength is disproportionately concentrated in the lower-body… like men and women.
Simply put, despite the fact that my lower-to-upper body strength ratio is higher than his (only because his upper body is so well developed and mine isn’t) his lower body is still much stronger than mine in absolute terms, and NO amount of training or learning new techniques is going to permit me to match Tony in any test of physical strength. Sure, I could probably drag a 400 pound person out of a burning building faster than he could carry one (which is how the “gurl power” nuts justify lower standards for women… on the grounds that a woman will “play to her strength”), but if the situation permitted dragging, Tony could drag him even faster, and if it wasn’t possible to drag him, I’d be out of options. No matter how long it took Tony to carry him, I couldn’t do it even with an infinite amount of time.
Obviously, that’s not what you want to hear in a life-and-death, time-sensitive emergency… like a structure fire or in combat. Sure, very few men are like Tony: he’s a genetic freak and he works harder at it than anyone I’ve ever known, but the point is that comparing women to men on the grounds that women have their strength “low” misses the point entirely.
The parallels to hand-to-hand combat should be obvious. There’s no way a “Lyn87” is going to take down a “Tony” in a hand-to-hand fight… much less a dozen “Tonys” without even breaking a sweat. The very idea of waifish super-heroines who use physical strength rather than magic or advanced technology is absurd and unbelievable.
That is what I never understood Lyn87. In combat, a wounded fellow soldier who is 6’3″ 175 lbs is going to be hauled to safety by a 5’4″ woman who is 125 lbs? Even in fire fighting…how is a woman this size going to break down a door, or life lift someone? I work with senior citizens and we had resident fall down, the paramedics are called……two female paramedics come, they can’t lift her….they had to call for ANOTHER ambulance with two guys to lift her up. This takes another ambulance off the circuit and increasing risk and safety of people who may need an ambulance immediately.
@Rollory
How much of this indian-fighting frontier woman derives from your parents worry that you might turn out to be too effeminate to take care of yourself?
Are girly men inherently unmanly?
A pansy may find that women aren’t very useful for sex, and therefore he is willing to sacrifice them for his own protection.
That’s a good point, Jason. When I was in Afghanistan I was by far the smallest person in my 15-man unit. The biggest guy was a 240-pound infantryman. If I went down, anybody on the team could have carried me and the big guy could have scooped me up like a paperweight, but if he went down only a few guys would have been able to even lift him, and it probably would have taken two guys to even move him very far or very fast. I couldn’t have moved him more than a few feet by myself: in addition to our own weight, we all had at least 30-40 pounds of gear strapped to our bodies any time we were outside the wire. I dead-lifted 280 yesterday (which is just about twice my own weight), but that was on a level floor, with a weight belt, using a hex bar, and nobody was shooting at me: in Afghanistan my gear plus his gear plus his weight was at least 300 pounds, and wounded soldiers don’t have convenient lifting handles like a hex bar does.
Most people have no idea how lop-sided the strength advantage is for men over women, because it so rarely gets put to the test in modern society. People paper over the differences and talk about equality all the time, and those in power make their official pronouncements, but whenever the metal meets the meat it’s clear that it’s pure feminist fantasy. Occasionally you’ll see an exceptional female, but on the whole they are as rare as hen’s teeth and even they are comparable to maybe the 90th percentile of men. A non-elite yet well-above-average woman is usually only comparable to an average man, and an average woman in her prime MIGHT be comparable to a boy approaching puberty. In sport-after-sport-after-sport this pattern asserts itself.
Cane, that’s about as cowardly a failure to address the point as anything I’ve ever seen.
@Rollory – “I know for my part I do NOT want a woman who is going to be helpless in that sort of crisis”
There is a great difference between a housewife who knows how to handle a pistol vs. a mythical G.I. Jane. I don’t think anyone here is advocating for “helpless” woman, though in this day and age I think most young men would be happy with a woman who isn’t a PITA.
But there is no doubt that masculine women are not feminine, even if they have a great rack on their chests,
Rollory,
You are correct. There’s nothing wrong with a woman knowing how to use a firearm (they didn’t call the Colt .45 “The Great Equalizer” for nothing), nor is there anything wrong with a woman doing physical training or martial arts.
I can’t always be around to protect my wife, and her pistol (which she is trained to use and licensed to carry) gives her a huge advantage if things go sideways, whether I’m there or not. Even if I’m with her, two guns are better than one, especially if there are multiple threats. Women have no more duty to die to assert their femininity than men do to assert their masculinity. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
As for martial arts or even regular exercise, women ought to do them. My wife is a small woman, and she can’t take a man in a fair fight, but an assault doesn’t operate by Marquess of Queensbury rules, and knowing where to strike (even with a small amount of force or with an ad hoc weapon), can mean the difference between her getting away or not getting away. We’re not talking about laying the smack-down on a bunch of men like Jennifer Garner in “Electra” – we’re talking about buying enough time to escape alive. When it comes to regular exercise – including strength training – women ought to do that as well. Their bones are thinner than ours, and weight training acts against stuff like osteoporosis… it also keeps them from getting fat Any guy who thinks that women should not be thin and toned is probably a chubby-chaser… the bottom-feeders of the SMP.
Frank: I agree.
What bothers me is the repeated comments in this thread that women should not fight men. No qualifications. If that’s not advocating helplessness, it’s as close as makes no difference.
Cane’s response to me is right in line with that. Shaming language, attempted AMOG of someone he doesn’t know – very insecure. It is classic Internet-Tough-Guy talk that takes absolutely no regard for what actually happens in dangerous situations, and that always looks totally silly in the context of real-world decisions in the face of danger.
The point of an army is that it is a bunch of men working cooperatively together. They know they have backup so they rely on each other. Outside the army, they don’t have that backup from other men, they need it from their family. Part of being a responsible father and head of household is making sure he’s taught his family what they need, within the limits of their abilities, to be able to support him and defend themselves when needed.
Would Cane Caldo refuse to permit women in his life from learning to use firearms because he doesn’t want to be called a pansy? A man who encounters a bad guy and, with the help of his woman, leaves the bad guy dead might be a pansy, but the much bigger pansy is the man who attempts to defend his family and fails.
There’s always someone stronger than you.
Just a little something different today.
https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/bureaucrats-on-the-battlefield-moral-injury-therapy-and-why-our-wars-no-longer-make-sense/
gaikokumaniakku says:
I take issue with at least one of your leaky abstractions.
Abstraction leakage is a software term generally used in connection to degraded real-world performance. For example, the convenience offered by TCP’s automatic retransmission features can backfire when stacking connections on top of another. So I really don’t understand what kind of point you’re making in this context.
Murder requires speed, strength, coordination, and agility
Poison doesn’t. Not surprisingly, it’s a weapon very commonly used by women.
The most important factor is soldiering is not provably known
I can’t think of a single position in the military where using women has resulted in an improvement. I can think of plenty of situations where it’s been a disaster (such as infantry).
However, physical prowess is not the determining factor if the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army are representative
Does it follow that women should be used in battle?
BTW, the Vietcong greatly outnumbered the Americans in casualties. Americans lost due to a combination of the war’s unpopularity, and the willingness of the Vietcong to sacrifice unreasonable amounts of men.
Liudmyla Mykhailivna Pavlychenko is true. Is it possible that a mere farm-girl racked up 309 enemy kills?
The Soviets have been known to exaggerate. Her record is also far behind the greatest male sniper Simo, Simo Häyhä (505 confirmed sniper kills and 200 with a submachine gun).
Sniper is one of the few military roles that women have been able to handle competently. It’s also an individualistic role that doesn’t require coordination with other soldiers. An incompetent female sniper will just get herself killed. An incompetent female infantry soldier can get every man in her platoon killed.
@Rollory – To be fair, your remark about pioneer wives fighting Indians (or at least shooting at them) did kind of sound like you were making a case for female combat soldiers. Predictably, some here reacted negatively to your comment. As for the shaming language you received, it was probably a knee jerk reaction, which to be honest I would not expect to see in this forum and was disappointed when I saw it. Being that we are often on the receiving end of it from SJW white knights and feminists in general, I suspect it was sent preemptively in your direction as you were confused with a SJW,
“The Soviets have been known to exaggerate.” – They certainly did, especially when there was an agenda to support. And even if it was true, does it mean that the average woman belongs in combat? I strongly suspect that Liudmyla was heavily protected by her male comrades, far more than a male sniper would have been.
@Rollory
“What bothers me is the repeated comments in this thread that women should not fight men. No qualifications. If that’s not advocating helplessness, it’s as close as makes no difference.”
they shouldn’t be fighting men in general. But there are always exceptions. You seem to have a weird obsession with exceptional cases (i.e. women having to fight men) and you seem to keep implying that no one here knows these exceptional cases exist. You also seem to think that given the case that a women does in fact fight a man, her “defense and shooting abilities” will actually help her out. The thing is, that is rarely if ever the case. When women do in fact get attacked, raped, molested, harassed, etc. they are rarely able to actually put up a proper defense EVEN WHEN they have a gun (the video of those swedish female cops unable to handle that one male refugee EVEN WHEN they had tasers on hand comes to mind) or self-defense abilities. You seem to think that just because you’ve taken some boxing lessons or just because you’ve shot a gun at a range a few times must mean you’ll know how to competently use those abilities when shit actually hits the fan. You would be completely mistaken. Surviving in a deadly encounter has more to do with (a) who is more violent and (b) who gets lucky. Women are terrible at being violent, which is why even when a women has a gun on her and knows how to use it, she will still be terrible at defending herself due to fear, uncertainty and other things. Men experience these emotions as well during a deadly encounter, but it isn’t nearly as pronounced as it is with women, which is why we are able to be much much much more violent than women, which is why we are better at defending ourselves and our families than women are. Simple logic bud but you sound a white-knight female pandering faggot so i don’t expect you to fully comprehend. Read it over 10 times then we’ll talk lollolol.
Also, frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with denying women the ability to learn how to use a firearm. Allowing and advocating for women to learn how to defend themselves with weapons and with self-defense is hilarious because you’re essentially advocating to society that women can in fact defend themselves competently, which means that men don’t have the responsibility to protect our women whatsoever, which implies that our job to protect our wives is unnecessary because she can protect the family with the “great equalizer” just fine. Hence your role to protect your family is in fact unnecessary because the wife can do it just as well.
by advocating that women should use the “great equalizer” and be competent at it, you are advocating for the idea that men and women are, ultimately, equal. This form of advocacy is not good. Why? Because it muddies the actual roles between men and women.
Also, you’re making a crazy claim in saying that people here are implying that women shouldn’t be using firearms at all. It’s a bogus claim. No ones really saying that here (except for me lol since you’re being a disingenuous faggot). It’s the different roles of men and women that are being advocated, and for good reason, because these different roles when practiced help serve the greater good of this nation lol by increasing birth rates and making relations between men and women better and other such benefits lol. It’s not the women ROLE to learn how use a firearm and its not the mans ROLE to be femininely nurturing to his kids, that doesn’t imply that there isn’t any cross over during some exceptional instances. Defending your home and nurturing your kids are both very important responsibilities, which can both be done by either parent. It just happens that biology has endowed men and women with different propensities that allow women to be better at nurturing and men to be better at defending. So gtfo faggot.
” Shaming language, attempted AMOG of someone he doesn’t know – very insecure. It is classic Internet-Tough-Guy talk that takes absolutely no regard for what actually happens in dangerous situations, and that always looks totally silly in the context of real-world decisions in the face of danger.”
lol you sound like a total faggot right here bud. so the fuck what if he’s using shaming language? quit being a pussy. It’s funny how you say he’s using shaming language then you go on to use shaming language yourself lol (“muh very insecure”). lol you must be retarded.
“Part of being a responsible father and head of household is making sure he’s taught his family what they need, within the limits of their abilities, to be able to support him and defend themselves when needed.”
kinda but not really. Men from 1000AD to 1968AD didn’t always do this. What are you going to do? Teach your daughter how to box lol? Teach your wife how to take a hit to the nose?
This is why male friends and families exist, to offer support when shit hits the fan.
You’re concern trolling has been noted though. gtfo lol
@Rollory (Oscar, I hope you are reading.)
😀 I did what you did.
Lyn87 wrote: “We’re not talking about laying the smack-down on a bunch of men like Jennifer Garner in “Electra” which is exactly wrong. The OP and the comments that followed are precisely about women laying the smack-down on a bunch of men like Jennifer Garner in Electra.
Into that context you stepped, and what did you do? You proposed an argument that there is a good reason for our society’s worship of kick-ass women. You wrote: “How much of this attitude derives from the frontier settler wife archetype, who was expected to be able to fight off Indian raids alongside her man?”
Your “question” is a re-ordered argument, and within it is a chain of enthymemes; many of which beg the question, and all of which are designed to create excuse evil and stupid propaganda. Who says it was good for frontier wives to fight Indians? Who says that it was good for frontiersmen to bring wives into the wilderness where there were Indian raids? How many Indians did frontier wives kill? Who says that frontier wives were any good at it at all? Did frontier wives tend to attack, or did they tend to flee?
You put forward an unsubstantiated argument loaded with fantastic assumptions about frontier women, which a clear observer of human nature (as those here say they strive to be) ought to reject out of hand. And you did it to give cover for the kick-ass woman propaganda. You did it to give the glamor of a myth to a twisted fantasy of female power.
Which is what I did to you. I could say, “I merely asked you a question…” but you sensed the dig, didn’t you? I inferred by what I did not say that you were a pansy. Then I asked a question about girly men in general. That is to say: I did not ask a question about you specifically. Then I made an assuming statement about pansies in general. Again, I didn’t actually call you a pansy. I didn’t say women should never defend themselves. I didn’t say women should just roll over and die to Indians. You assumed these things because I wanted you to.
And what did you do? You called me a coward, launched into a defense of yourself, and exposed your love of fighting females–your desire for women to fight, and then returned to scolding me.
Which is also what I wanted. It totally derailed you from the conversation you wanted to have, didn’t it? It is what you deserved.
You are chained in ignorance, as Sir Hamster wrote of above. Women should not fight men. It may be that times are dishonorable enough that it must happen. So what? You’re in the wrong context for that conversation.
safespaceplaypen writes “lol” nine times in one post.
Accuses the guy he’s addressing of sounding like a faggot.
The irony, it burns.
Lyn87 has a naked man as his gravatar pic
Accuses the guy he’s addressing of sounding like a faggot
The irony, it burns lol
safespaceplaypen sees a man wearing gym shorts and imagines that he’s naked.
Accuses other men of being faggots.
Dr. Freud… call your office, please.
This just keeps getting better and better.
My old roommate in San Francisco was a ‘desert shield / desert storm’ army veteran. We were roommies from 96-98. He told me straight out in the late summer and early fall of 1990 when the build up in Kuwait was gaining steam……..every female that served with him (he was in the motor pool at his base, and was deployed to Kuwait in November 1990) “suddenly” became pregnant and “you know….couldn’t be deployed” to the situation at hand. He said “Every single one of them got pregnant! Before this I had to hear day in an day out about how women were just as capable as men to defend this country. The digs. The passive aggressive attitude most of them had. But as soon as an actual deployment happened….every single one of them got pregnant.”
Frank K says:
… I strongly suspect that Liudmyla was heavily protected by her male comrades, far more than a male sniper would have been.
As I noted above, Soviet WW2 sniper doctrine is very different from ours. In major combat operations (as opposed to stability operations), the U.S. tends to use sniper teams well forward of the friendly lines. The Soviets in WW2 normally deployed units of “snipers” in close support of standard units like infantry formations. The snipers had scoped rifles and would deliver aimed fire from positions near friendly forces, rather than acting independently far from their support, which is what you’ll encounter by reading the biography of Carlos Hathcock, for example. Consequently, when they were engaging targets it was more likely to be in the context of a larger firefight when one more rifle round would not be noticed, rather than 30 miles from the nearest support when one rifle round would call down immediate retaliation.
That said, you can see why some WW2 snipers were able to rack up impressive kill counts (Carlos Hathcock had “only” 93 confirmed kills), but that isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. The two methods of sniper deployment are so different that it’s a misnomer to classify them using the same word. It’s the difference between shooting 10 privates on the front line versus shooting one general in the enemy division rear area.
lol hey man its not a big deal lol there’s nothing wrong with having a naked man as your gravatar pic. If that’s what you get off to then fine by me lol. No ones judging. You don’t have to get all “militar-bad-ass” pissy about it lol. Just chill. Although there definitely is something to be said about this gayness below lol:
“You are correct. There’s nothing wrong with a woman knowing how to use a firearm (they didn’t call the Colt .45 “The Great Equalizer” for nothing), nor is there anything wrong with a woman doing physical training or martial arts.
I can’t always be around to protect my wife, and her pistol (which she is trained to use and licensed to carry) gives her a huge advantage if things go sideways, whether I’m there or not. Even if I’m with her, two guns are better than one, especially if there are multiple threats. Women have no more duty to die to assert their femininity than men do to assert their masculinity. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
no offense bro. but from the above it sounds to me like you have a lot of conservative feminism going on in your family and in yourself. Care to talk about it? I’m not judging man, for real, i’m just curious why you’re trying to come off as an anti-feminist when its obvious from the above that you want your wife to be a military self-defense bad ass like yourself. It’s pretty self-contradictory, maybe even “ironic” lol. idk. Also, this:
“As for martial arts or even regular exercise, women ought to do them. My wife is a small woman, and she can’t take a man in a fair fight, but an assault doesn’t operate by Marquess of Queensbury rules, and knowing where to strike (even with a small amount of force or with an ad hoc weapon), can mean the difference between her getting away or not getting away. ”
lol yep. this is an interesting statement, which (and i really hope this doesn’t offend you lol forreal) really makes me suspicious of your military badassness and anti-feminist beliefs. You’re overstating the effectiveness of learning martial arts and your also understating the amount of time it takes to get good enough at a “martial art” in order for it to become even relatively effective in a violent encounter. Maybe you should go back to afghanistan and get in more badass violent encounters with other people before you go on thinking your super badass gurrl-power-i-can-defend-myself-just-like-the-menz wife should be wasting her time learning a martial art.
“This just keeps getting better and better.”
idk man. The above stuff that you’re pushing is pretty detrimental if you think about it. You’re advocating for women to learn martial arts without realizing that in order to get even relatively good at ANY martial art you have to train thousands of hours and you have to take severe beatings lol, all of which masculinizes women. This might make things “better and better” for yourself since its clear you’re into bad ass masculine gals (not judging lol), but its pretty unhealthy for women as a whole since it makes them ugly af and other things.
So idk bro. maybe you should take a break from the interwebz, stop trying to be a military-bad-ass-conservative-feminist and rethink your ideological beliefs in regards to women.
I mean this all in gay love lolololl
good luck!
safespace,
I’m not going to read all that. When you learn how to write like an adult rather than an emo teen-aged girl, get back to us.
My post in response to Frank K may require some clarification:
Carlos Hathcock was a U.S. sniper in Vietnam.
lol chill man.
not everyone can be a military bad ass like yourself lol. Shouldn’t you be fighting off sand people in afghanistan alongside your bad ass can-do-everything wife instead of playing on the internet?
@Safespaceplaypen
Lyn87 is a deformed (see above) shrimp (Lyn87: “I’m 5’7″ in my thick socks.”) with a selfie avatar who liked to play dress-up and fight with fake swords in the park. But then he took his fake sword home because they didn’t do it right. You know: Like he did. He’s always writing about his glory days in the military, though he is also an expert on many other things:
LARPing
Fencing
Comic books
Ancient goddesses
Arthurian women
Internet lingo
You know: To go with his selfie. That was a funny transition. A few weeks ago he changed his avatar to the current selfie for a couple days. Then he took it down. Then he put it back up again. Since then he has referenced his selfie avatar several times in his comments. The process reminded me of a girl who used to post here. She was an attention whore.
But the main thing to understand here, right now, is that you have taken my side. That offends Lyn87 because I used his totally wrong comment (““We’re not talking about laying the smack-down on a bunch of men like Jennifer Garner in “Electra”) to demonstrate Rollory’s errors; not to mention the fact that he followed Rollory down the fool’s path.
And now, just before I post this, I see you have called out Lyn87 as a conservative feminist. I agree. That’s why Sir Hamster’s comment was so good; because we have been lied to. Rollory, specifically, and for example, was lied to about the “fighting frontier woman”. It’s a lie.
I was wondering how long it was going to take Cane to join in and attack the vision in his head that goes by the name “Lyn87.”
Not long, I see.
Maybe you could go back to browsing your thesaurus: you’ve probably gotten all the mileage out of “enthymeme” that you’re likely to get.
@Cane Caldo
That’s some interesting stuff on our best friend Lyn87. I really hope lol he doesn’t change his pic to something less gay. Don’t want to trigger any latent PTSD lol
tbh Lyn87, as a form of apology for my insensitivity for your problems, i found this pic online for you to rub one out to when you’re wife’s denying you sex for not being badass enough for her
You guys really are obsessing about me, aren’t you?
This has been some great discussion. I think I learn as much in the comments as I do from the article. Thanks to Dalrock for getting (and keeping) the ball rolling.
@Cane
You’re playing chess – I’m playing checkers (but I am slowly learning to think rightly). I thought you might have been up to something with your first comment to Rollory. The real life example helped me understand it better, and how vulnerable I am to this as well.
Regards men. Keep up the good work.
8 in the Gate
@Lyn87
You bring it on yourself. I took my references–for you–from you. And you won’t learn. Rollory invoked the Internet-Tough-Guy meme. Dude, that is you. But you are smart enough to attempt to balance it out with with admissions of weakness for plausible deniability. It doesn’t work on me because, among other things, yes, I consult authority above my own; like a thesaurus.[1]
It’s all fun and games except even here there are men who try to shake off the lies of the modern world, but are frustrated because they don’t yet even understand the layers upon layers of facade that have been put over their eyes. Lyn87, you make things worse instead of better. It’s highly frustrating to me because sometimes you do say poignant things…right before you ruin it with some silly canard or conceit that you are a better man than others here–not that you know better, but that you are better. But you’re not. And you lead men astray in conversation so that they are no better off than they began.
[1] In this case, it was not a thesaurus. I listened to an audiobook called “Way with Words” by Michael Drout. I highly recommend it. Things I saw, but couldn’t put a name to, were named, and now I could describe them to others. As well, the author doesn’t talk about the Overton Window, SJWs, Liberalism, Leftism, Grrlpower, the Homosexual Agenda, or any of that. But once I had the names and themes it all made sense.
@8 in the Gate
We all are susceptible to it.
When I was a kid, everyone thought it was funny to ask someone “Do your parents know you’re gay? Yuk-yuk-yuk!” That joke works, and there is no good answer, because part of the argument is suppressed; it’s not actually said.
Now, instead of that, we are talking about kick-ass females. And instead of it happening five or six times on the playground in sixth grade, it happens on 20-foot screens in 40,000 theaters all around the US, every three hours, every day of the year. That doesn’t include the TV shows, books, magazines, ads. It is nothing less than a full-out assault on reality. This isn’t about some intarnation book-larnin’ from a thee-sorus. It’s mental, emotional, and spiritual war, and many of the readers are already prisoners of that war.
Stopped reading at “plausible deniability.”
Did it ever occur to you that not everyone is playing an angle? I try very hard write what I mean to convey… obfuscation is not my style. The fact that you “see” it is pure projection.
Brad Wilcox is at it again… this time his article appeared in yesterday’s “Denver Post.”
Why would millennial men prefer stay-at-home wives? Race and feminism.
Although he instinctively implies that men are responsible (it is Brad Wilcox, after all) apparently millennial women aren’t as keen on being the Masters of the Universe as they’re supposed to be according to feminist theory.
Nice little pigsty you have going, folks.
I’m going to have to agree no this one. I’m considered a hardcore misogynist (what else is new?) by many but even I see nothing wrong with a woman learning to use a gun or getting in shape (if that means martial arts that’s fine). What the hell is a woman supposed to do if she’s confronted by a guy twice her size who intends to kill her and I’m not there, suck his dick and hope he let’s her live? So yes, a gun is a great equalizer when you’re life’s on the line.
Women need strong discipline and are almost always fucking cunts without it but I have no wish to see them killed unless they do something like destroying a man’s life or committing murder.
Definitely. Not only do women have less bone mass and have thinner bones than men but they also can lose more bone mass than men as they age. And yes, weight training is also a fantastic way to keep them from becoming disgusting fat asses. Really everyone whose physically capable of doing it should. Too many people are too fucking lazy and would rather lie on the couch and eat a bag of Cheetos.
@Lyn87
That is a bald-faced lie. You said you are short. You said you are deformed. You said you LARP’d in the park until you realized the others were doing it wrong–as if there is a right way to LARP instead of it all being silly. You put up a selfie as an avatar. You talk about your selfie. Your own words are the measure, and I do not project them upon you.
Of course. But did it ever occur to you that unless you pick an angle then you will go any direction?
You should pick a side–a direction, an angle–and then edit yourself ruthlessly when you write. Do not try to show us “the real you”. Instead say true things. The real you–just like “the real me”–is slothful, vain, and deceptive. Talk about yourself less. You don’t have to validate your opinions with your “real-world” experience. No one cares except the people who shouldn’t. When you talk about ideas, you go wrong less. When you talk about “the real you”, you say stupid things. Because you try to use “the real you”–your own experience and supposed goodness–to defend ideas, then you make a personal attack on yourself logically relevant as an attack on truth itself. And you are blind to things anyways; like your own specks of conservative feminism when it comes to women fighting.
Not only that: Men who don’t have your abilities are likely to decide that the truth is all very well and good, but it is no help to him because he’s fat, or a civilian, or not married, or not as smart, or unsociable, whatever you are boasting about at the moment. You read the comments here, too. You read those men who have just given up. Don’t aid them in that.
Stopped reading mid-way through the second line this time, since it’s clear you’re not reading for comprehension, but rather you’re apparently just looking for “gotcha’s” to go with the weird obsession you seem to have with me (who keeps track of things I wrote days, weeks, or even months ago?).
@Lyn87
Willful blindness. That’ll work.
I rest my case.
safespaceplaypen says:
The above stuff that you’re pushing is pretty detrimental if you think about it. You’re advocating for women to learn martial arts without realizing that in order to get even relatively good at ANY martial art
I have to agree with that one. The stuff they would typically teach in a women’s self defense class is counterproductive. I remember debating one guy who was spouting off about how women should learn self defense to protect against knives and guns and had to laugh at his naivete. The reality is that most women are close to being helpless without a weapon.
you have to train thousands of hours and you have to take severe beatings lol, all of which masculinizes women
Based on my own experience, I think about 1000 hours would be enough time for a man to become a decent fighter in something like BJJ or MMA. He would be a long way from being an expert in it of course.
Don’t like the fact that I’m not reading you missives and responding to them with apologies? Tough. If you have something to say, say it like a man, without a bunch of your BS preambling.
Sorry, man, but when you lead off with nonsense like your last couple of posts directed at me – given your history of histrionics and out-of-context quote mining – I’m not going to wade through your walls-of-text to seek for something worthwhile. You accuse me of doing what you do (and I don’t), you impugn my motives when it’s clear that you have no idea what my motives are, you put words in my mouth because you infer things that I didn’t imply, and then you get pissy when I don’t accept you as the AMOG.
If you want to discuss ideas related to the topic at hand like an adult, go ahead. If you want to AMOG, go ahead, but I’m not going to play.
Your move.
Brad Wilcox is at it again… this time his article appeared in yesterday’s “Denver Post.”
Some day I’d like to visit this planet –or is it an alternate universe?– that Brad lives in.
(There has been some debate about the 2016 trend in this GSS attitude, but the overall pattern in the GSS and another survey, Monitoring the Future, is consistent with the idea that a growing minority of younger millennials hold a more traditional view on this male breadwinner-female homemaker item.)
To the extent that any significant numbers of millennials are even interested in marriage at all (and I’ve seen ZE-RO such evidence), those of my acquaintance (and I know and interact with LOTS of them) are adamant that both spouses work. This is especially true of young millennial men, very few of whom were raised in a single-earner two-parent household and thus either have no frame of reference for such an arrangement, or, equally likely, assume (generaĺly correctly) that any man who assumes such a role will work himself into an early grave while his wife enjoys all the benefits before at some point frivorcing him and stealing the rest of what little he has earned.
Part of the reason that today’s young adults are less likely to hold egalitarian gender attitudes regarding the division of family life is that minorities, especially Hispanics, make up a growing share of American millennials. In 1980, only 7 percent of young adults ages 18 to 25 were Hispanic; today, 22 percent are. That matters, because young Hispanics (especially young Hispanic men, who prefer traditional family arrangements at higher percentages than Hispanic women) are more likely to embrace a traditional division of family and work responsibilities than other young adults. Here, Hispanic families’ long-standing embrace of male breadwinning and female homemaking stands in tension with American progressivism’s commitment to gender equality in the home.
Brad must not get out very much, and when he does, he clearly doesn’t visit the barriosin areas with large Hispanic populations. If he did, he would see that young Hispanics are thoroughly Americanized and have been for the last couple of generations. With that comes contemporary American cultural attitudes anout marrage and family. This, in turn, means 1) fewer marriages, 2) tons of bastard children, and 3) men rutting about with multiple women and only sporadically supporting their offspring and their mothers, if ever supporting them at all. Just like the black ghetto for the last few generations. Just like, increasingly, lower class whites in this and future generations.
Brad is either a delusional liar, or he’s too lazy or afraid to vet the credibility of his sources. Probably some combination of both.
feeriker,
As you know, Brad is a “frequent flyer” in these parts, and I was looking for a way to bring it around to the topic of this thread. Feminism was behind the “You can have it all!” shtick that women have been fed for the past three generations, and (even?) Brad seems to have bought into the notion that the pendulum only swings one way.
But “You can have it all!” requires the suspension of disbelief in just how NOT powerful women are relative to nature and men (just like the “super-heroines” we’re talking about). As usual, Brad misses the point, but what he’s witnessing is young women – the ones who are harvesting the crop sewed by their mothers and grandmothers – beginning to realize that being “the first sex” isn’t as liberating as most everybody thought it would be.
In real life, when Wonder Woman takes a swing at a dozen hostile men she gets curb-stomped, and when a millennial women tries to stick the landing with her six-foot, six-figure, masculine-but-sensitive soulmate, she’s in for an equally rude surprise. The blood on the floor may be metaphorical, but it’s hers all the same.
@feeriker:
I wouldn’t want to visit it.
@Ray Manta
“Based on my own experience, I think about 1000 hours would be enough time for a man to become a decent fighter in something like BJJ or MMA. He would be a long way from being an expert in it of course.”
true. However, i’d even say it gets deeper than that lol. Just think, 1000 hours is a lot of hours lol, but what actually occurs within those 1000 hours is what’s actually important and is what ultimately determines whether or not the skill will be implemented real time. Like, for example, say you spend 99% of those 1000 hours “training” on a boxing bag, doing mock drills, and shit and only 1% actually doing an actual match where there’s a score, an audience, to the knockout, etc. Within that 1000 hours sure, you’ll learn to hit a bag and do safely coordinated drills, but you’re not going to develop the tenacity and mental will necessary to actually beat a guy whose actually trying to beat your ass. Going live ‘psychologically feels’ like a totally different ball field lol because as a participant in an actual match you realize that your reputation, skills and shit are actually being tested and your mental state is a huge determinant in whether you will win or lose.
All of this to say, that 1000 hours can’t just be composed of coordinated drills and shit. A significant percentage of it MUST be composed of actual competition, or else the skills you learned will never be tested and it will all basically be keyboard jockeying theoretical nonsense up until that point lol. It’s easy to “practice” a double leg takedown, but to actually do that shit live when the guys hammering your face is a totally different thing lol. This is what needs to be emphasized.
And to expect all of that out of a woman is absolutely retarded. You can’t expect a woman to truly learn a martial art without giving up a significant portion of her femininity. It just doesn’t happen because of the time, effort and mental viciousness you have to have in order to routinely train AND compete in live matches lol. Basically, if you want to win an actual match against an actual opponent, you have to actually want and desire to beat that guys ass, otherwise you simply won’t be intense enough and you will lose. This applies to all combat sports, BJJ included. it even applies to mental sports and competitions as well, like chess, programming competitions, math competitions, etc. No one should be expecting women to have this “i want to beat this guys ass” attitude. A woman mentally saying “ya sure i’ll play some chess sounds fun!” is one thing lol but a woman mentally saying “i’m going to fucking kick your ass and win no matter what. no exceptions” is another.
This is why saying “but muh women should learn some self-defense” is retarded. Its dodging the fact that showing a woman what a punch is and asking them to perform it 1000 times isn’t enough AT ALL to become even relatively competent at defending yourself. It’s your attitude and disposition that’s the most important asset you can have in a violent scenario. If you don’t want to kill the guy more than he wants to kill you then i’m sorry, you’re toast no matter how “skilled” you are. While you’re “skillfully” trying your finely trained double leg takedown he’s tearing your ear off and gouging your eye out.
Now, using firearms is a slightly different, more complex issue.
@Jim
The problem that exists with women using firearms is twofold:
(a) the symbolism behind the advocation of it, and
(b) the overall uselessness of teaching it
For (a), the symbolism behind the advocation of women knowing how to use firearms:
The problem here is that this kind of advocacy produces bad, manipulative propaganda, even though its coming from a good-hearted place, similar to how creating an interesting, strong comic-book mutant female hero is bad, manipulative propaganda that’s coming from a good-hearted place. What you’re doing is you’re prioritizing the usage of a weapon for self defense (A) over the societal role of the woman (B). The underlying principle of this whole “should women know how to use guns” debate is whether or not a woman’s societal role is more or less important than her ability to defend herself. By saying that women should be learning to use firearms to defend themselves, your aiding in the dissolution of women’s proper societal roles by promoting bad feminist-woman-can-be-equal-to-men-we-don’t-need-you-to-protect-us propaganda; you are in essence prioritizing A over B, when B is simply much more important. Even calling a firearm the “great equalizer” is total feminist propaganda bullshit, because it really doesn’t “equalize” shit unless used absolutely correctly. If a woman’s in the room or walking down the street with her gun hidden somewhere on her body and I come at her to do something terrible, her gun isn’t going to equalize a goddamn thing because her face would be smashed in by my fist by the time her hand is anywhere near her gun, with the safety off and with a bullet in the chamber lol. Most confrontations end up starting and ending just a few meters away from each other with little warning to begin with, so thinking a woman will just end that shit by pulling the gun out of her purse, turning the safety off and putting a bullet into the chamber is just total bull. Sure it might increase her chances of survival, but not enough to give a firearm the title of “the great equalizer”. Lol try drawing and preparing a gun for fire when you’re face is getting hammered lol. not so easy.
In essence, advocating that women “should” be learning how to use guns is bull shit because falling into the feminist propaganda “women can defend themselves just like the menz” frame. Your telling your daughter “see honey, this is the ‘great equalizer’. it can stop any man from harming you”, which is essentially telling her that doesn’t need a man to protect her so long as she has that “great equalizer” in her pocket <=== and this is just a dangerous dangerous thing to teach a woman. she'll be walking down a dark street thinking her 'great equalizer' will save her.
in summary: pepper spray is a much more proper and useful defense tool for a woman.
(b) the overall uselessness of teaching a woman how to use a firearm:
This kind of got touched on above, but basically, expecting your daughter/wife/whatever to become competent with a firearm so that it will be used absolutely correctly when the time comes WILL require her to practice very often, which is impractical because it requires a lot of time and money and ultimately she will have better luck relying on her man to protector and avoiding, using pepper spray or running away from shitty circumstances all together.
Now, showing your daughter/wife/whatever what a gun is, how it works, how to load it, how aim it, etc. is one thing. That can be done in like 5 minutes, and assuming they're slow learners or are intentionally being ditzy, then 30 minutes. But expecting her to be "competent" with it like a US soldier or like a huntsman is absolutely retarded because it requires a lot of hours, money, yadda yadda.
In summary: Expecting women to be competent with firearms is retarded when combined with the understanding that (a) such an expectation will teach your daughter that she is potentially "equal" to a man in terms of self defense, (b) it takes a long time (similar to martial arts) to become actually good with it, (c) it doesn't take long to figure out how a gun works, how to aim it, etc. at all, and (d) your daughter/wife/whatever isn't really going to give a shit enough to waste her time training training training in order to become competent enough to use a firearm in a live shit-just-hit-the-fan scenario.
…
To be honest, the point i'm trying to get at with the above is really hard to articulate. It's like trying to articulate why comic-book female super heroes are bad feminist propaganda even when they have nice tits and appear motherly. i'm actually straining my hungover brain here trying to describe the symbolism/self-defense issue and why its important when it comes to firearms. So a lot of the above is really poorly described and for that i apologize lol.
I think the reason why its so hard to describe and solve the issue is because its largely rhetorical rather than logical, which is how propaganda usually is. One the one hand your dealing with the obvious aspect of a woman protecting her life; on the other hand your dealing with the complex aspect of symbolism, propaganda, and their influences on society as a whole. Like, for example, pushing the propaganda that women should have "equal pay" sounds all well in good; but in practice it caused women to flood the job market, think they're "equal" to men, caused men to lose jobs and now unable to provide for families, lowered wages, etc.
i've gotta think more about it and elaborate more on it another time since its an interesting issue. Especially when I read this:
"I understand that the bad-ass warrior woman trope is very played out (I wrote about it on my own blog a while ago), but do we really have to look at every instance of this trope as a feminist attack? I mean, in talking about X-23, she wasn’t created to replace Wolverine but to act as a Wolverine type, along with several other young mutants, to appeal to a younger generation of comic book readers back in the early 2000’s. She had her own series of comics she appeared in (along with others) and her own series of comic books." by SnapperTrx
A fine example of something seeming all well and good (creating X-23 to appeal to younger generations) but actually being much deeper and subversive.
There were 2 hot girls at the bar next to me when I was ordering a beer and I wanted to open them, but my confidence was too low. One had on a black coat that looked like it was made out of fucking Gorilla or something and might have made an easy opener, but I bottled it. I imagined her being offended and thinking I was weird or something, I guess
False dichotomy. Do you see the difference between “ability to engage in a desparate effort of self defense” and “fighting with multiple men hand to hand and winning”? You and other posters have moved the goalposts from “runaway GirlPower telling lies to men and women”, and to “you can’t stop me from training my girl to use a gun”. Two things that are not the same. Not even close to the same.
As an aside, all the top competitive pistol shooters in the world are men, so far as I know. All of them. I’m all in favor of you or any other man teaching wifey how to shoot, because she doesn’t have to be a Grand Master class shooter, just better than the average thug or burglar….not a high bar to beat. But again, what a mother does with her 20 guage shotgun defending “down the stairs” is not the same thing as what combat infantry do – they go up the stairs, for a start.
Women can’t out fight men. If they could, rape would never happen. Duh.
“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” is a fantasy. Yet I wager any number of teens and 20-something women have those images in their subconscious as “I could do that too” in the GrrlPower sense. Therefore they do foolish things.
One more angle on women fighting men: there used to be a program called “Model Mugging”, often run by martial arts studios. It involved teaching women how to perform the most devestating strikes that they could, against an actual man. The “model” man would be encased in padding, so much that he looked like a Martian or a Michelin man. That enabled the women to kick, punch and strike at their full power against the most vulnerable targets. This was not teaching women to be street fighters, but to learn a few combinations of the “kick – strike – kick – strike – punch” run variety. Heavy on the run.
I’ve been told that some of the women who took these little seminars would get all full of themselves, convinced that they were now ready to take on any man. A little sparring time with the same man, but not encased in clumsy padding, would take all the air out of that particular balloon of pride.
tl;dr
Women cannot credibly fight men for very long. They can be taught how to break contact and escape. They can be taught how to perform very, very basic combat marksmanship.
That worked out well. Dalrock, you can delete the previous post, edit it with this one, or leave it as you see fit.
Jim
I’m considered a hardcore misogynist (what else is new?) by many but even I see nothing wrong with a woman learning to use a gun or getting in shape (if that means martial arts that’s fine). What the hell is a woman supposed to do if she’s confronted by a guy twice her size who intends to kill her and I’m not there, suck his dick and hope he let’s her live?
One of these things is not like the others. A woman lawfully carrying stopping an attack is not the same as infantry assaulting a position. A woman with no firearm using all the tools at her disposal to temporarily disable an attacker, then beating feet out of the scene is not the same thing as a woman trading punch for punch with someone bigger, stronger and faster than her.
Y’all stop moving the goalposts. Women can’t fight men. If they could, then real-deal rape (not “he forgot to call me in the morning” regret rape) would not happen.
The propaganda that men and women are interchangeable, that they have equal strength, is pernicious and very damaging. It is part of the Female Imperative, a key part of Feminism, and it must be opposed.
Oh, yeah, one more thing: it is a lie.
Can there really be too much after Rey? Ladybusters was bad for lots of reasons – ugly girls being a big one. But the transformer movie will not do any worse because girl power – it’s stupid and as realistic as giant robots but people apparently have the ability to swallow it with the same careless suspension of disbelief and it does not ruin anything. It makes me and my boys laugh but not going to impact ticket sales.
Not sure if it matters but here but Mychael carries. I taught her to shoot, some basic moving, covering and other tactical skills.
She was flagged down once and blocked in by a road raging asshole who then got out of his car and was standing at her window screaming at her while all my kid were in the car.
Her gun was useless. She was paralyzed with fear.
I’ve never known a woman who is not basically made of this same material, regardless of training or whatever.
@Lyn87
That’s a lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Probably a lie, though I confess I don’t know. Regardless, you could learn a thing or two if you did.
Lie. I have never claimed to be: short, deformed, into LARPing, a martial artist, ex-military, a fencer, or a selfie-poster.
Lie.
Half-truth; also known as a lie. I impugned your words and actions. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt for motives.
Lie.
Lie. What you meant to imply is not the same thing as what you have implied.
Sounds to me like you don’t want to believe your lying eyes.
Interesting point Scott, and an excellent discussion overall. I’ll probably put together a follow-up post tomorrow evening.
AR,
I see your point and maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see the moving of the goalposts that you do. I see a multi-party dispute over where the goalposts ought to be. We all agree that an average woman is absolutely no match for a criminal male assailant committing a strong-arm assault. The dispute is over what that means as a practical matter. Jim, myself, and all the statistics available suggest that a firearm is (while not a magic wand), a very good option to have available. Some martial arts training is also potentially useful… not that it will turn a person into a street fighter, but because it enhances a person’s ability to make a quick strike that permits escape, especially if the assailant isn’t expecting resistance from the victim.
Last year I was speaking with an acquaintance who’s had a lot more martial arts training than I have, who is also younger, taller, and heavier than I am. He had gotten away from it, though, and put on a lot of fat in the previous few years. He wanted to know how I thought a fight would go down between us, and I told him that my only chance would be to get in a very quick strike on something vital and then get out, because the longer the fight went on the worse my odds became. Either I would hit something debilitating in the first few seconds or I would get mauled. A woman facing a superior opponent is in much the same position: she’ll never have enough training to “win,” but she can get enough training so that she has a better-than-zero-percent-chance to get away.
So I think martial arts is best described as being better than nothing, but I also go about armed as a matter of routine. I just need my training to give me a second or two to either draw a weapon or get away. Truth is, at this point in my life I am at best a middling fighter, and even then only within my weight class (featherweight)… I mainly do it for the exercise and camaraderie.
I enjoy doing martial arts myself, and I make a point of telling newbies that it’s not a magic wand. It won’t turn you into a fighter – safespace is right that you only get that by fighting, and David Grossman’s excellent book “On Killing” goes into some detail about how that sort of “rip-yer-balls-off” aggressiveness is something you’re born with… or not. The “standard” way of thinking is that society is divided up between “wolves,” “sheep” and “sheepdogs.” I would posit a fourth category that I call “rams.” These are guys who don’t have the inborn aggressiveness of wolves or sheepdogs (which are cut from the same cloth – the difference being how they channel that aggression), but can be trained to defend themselves and the flock. Not being a “bad ass” by any means, I put myself in that category.
Women can benefit from physical exercise for the reasons I stated above: it’s good for heading off “old lady diseases” like osteoporosis, and it burns calories. Considering that the average American woman now weighs as much as the average American man weighed in 1960, almost anything that gets them moving regularly goes in the “plus” column in my book. I don’t know anyone who likes bodybuilder chicks, but obesity is even worse.
Good grief, Cane, give it up. I see that you are once again clamoring for my attention, but I told you that I stop reading once I get through the first line or two and see it for what it is. Who’s your audience, anyway?
Never mind: I don’t care.
@Scott
It’s your fault. You didn’t teach her to be a real frontier woman like a real man would.
Back in the real world… As I know you have thought: It could have gone much worse. Very scary. What if she’d pulled it out, but lost nerve after that? The road-raging asshole might have got more amped up and taken the gun in her paralysis.
Perhaps more women should carry. I don’t know. I know it sounds like a good way to get more lost and stolen guns onto the black market. In addition to paralysis, Men carry on their persons; not in purses which get lost, misplaced, and stolen.
@safespaceplaypen
You took what I said WAY to literally. I need to clarify though….I’m not going to tell a woman that she couldn’t use a gun in the house (where a woman belongs). When I was younger I can remember my mom could shoot well almost from the start at a distance of 10-15 feet. I’d prefer her to have a CHANCE of killing a shithead invading the house instead of her only being able to scream helplessly.
If you’re worried about the propaganda (and most of us here are) then direct your attention to the media, movies, government and academia. That’s where the naive little ladies foolishly pick up the BS their fed.
That isn’t what I said at all. I said that she should have the right to defend herself in her own home with a gun. It beats the shit out of her being a helpless victim of a rapist or murderer if she’s home alone. And you can’t depend on the cops. Sometimes it seems they show up only when they feel like it.
@Jim
I disagree. It’s bad tactics and it’s bad strategy. We simply cannot take on the estates of government. Even if we had the power (we don’t) Hollywood, the gov’t, and all the rest aren’t actually in our homes. It must be individual men who convince our families, friends, church groups, churches, and surrounding communities if we can, and if God permits. You or I are not given authority over Hollywood, but we are over our families. St. Paul asks the Church in Corinth: “12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” That is so.
But I do not think there is the stomach for that. Conservatives are ritually lazy. And it will require us to drop the few political start we have; nonsense like Sarah Palin and her “Momma Grizzly” bullshit; of which there are many imitators in the media…not to mention Twitter. There goes a third of the “conservative” media. That, I think, is unacceptable to most who call themselves Christian and think of themselves as conservative.
Another aspect of this fantasy that has been mentioned in comments here made me think about the times I’ve seen actresses talking about their movie roles in interviews. The women in action films wherein the chick is ‘too tough to tame’, often remark to the interviewer about the arduous training they endured getting ready for the picture; and especially how “dangerous” the action sequences were. Always with the “danger”.
By screening time, they have subdued multiple grizzled stunt men, hung from wires in safely controlled environments, made split second life and death decisions right before the director says “cut”; and always had an effective emasculating quip ready for every dicey situation or bad guy.
And it becomes clear from the interview that they’ve come to believe all this. It becomes real to them. They begin to speak and act (no pun) as if they really are this action hero chick in real life. Self hypnosis.
@Scott
damn that’s pretty much a real world example that shows the complexity of the whole “women need to own and use guns to defend themselves” issue. It’s more complicated then just training your wife, showing her maneuvers and stuff and assuming ’cause she knows this stuff know then she’ll actually be able to defend herself; ’cause when bad shit actually happens, its your instincts and disposition that really “compel” you to defend yourself, not the maneuvers, weapons, etc.
Also, what makes this “women need to own and use guns to defend themselves” issue tricky is that it would seem like Cane, and I and others are advocating for the idea that women shouldn’t be able to defend themselves at all with a firearm, but that’s not really the case. Of course, if you’re a woman and you have a loaded weapon in your hand and some guys about to rape you, you should prolly shoot him. But its also important to accept that in reality women in these cases will actually freeze up, feel uncertain, and not know what to do.
Which is why, in my humble opinion lolol, pushing the “women should carry and know how to defend themselves with a firearm” issue is misleading and useful feminist propaganda, manipulative in a way very similar to the “have you told your parents that your gay?” insult mentioned above. What makes it useful feminist propaganda is the tricky part to identify but its obviously there when you have people pushing the “great equalizer” title to the weapon and the keyboard jockey idea that if you have a gun on your person, any attacker can be dispatched with a few shots — the latter implying that all a woman has to do to defend herself is pull out her gun and shoot at the attacker, hence removing “gender differences” from the equation. Neither of these 2 ideas actually hold up in reality, but they seem “sound” in theory because of movies and stuff and the obvious fact that if you get shot in the head your done.
This reminds me, when I was watching the video of those 3 trained female swedish cops dealing with that refugee, I read the twitter comments below and I noticed a lot of them were saying things like “why didn’t they use their guns?” or “why didn’t they use their tasers?”. At first I was agreeing with these comments — it seemed obvious that they should have used their gun. But then I quickly remembered that these 3 cops were women and this refugee was coming at them very aggressively. These women didn’t know what the fuck to do. They choked. Their “great equalizers” didn’t mystically fly into their hands and operate for them. In my opinion, it all stems from the fact that women simply aren’t predisposed to violence and they just didn’t have that “killer instinct” that men have when it comes to these kinds of encounters.
@Lost Patrol – “And it becomes clear from the interview that they’ve come to believe all this. It becomes real to them. They begin to speak and act (no pun) as if they really are this action hero chick in real life. Self hypnosis.”
I’m sure that they do believe this. Yet they all seem to have “safe rooms”, which resemble bank vaults, in their mansions where they can hide if a real world bad guy (who is far less dangerous than the Russian commandos they routinely clobber in their latest flick) breaks into their home.
I glad to see we’re back on the topic. The stats don’t lie, though, guns are used to thwart crimes around 2.5 million times per year in the United States, and a non-trivial percentage of those cases involve armed women. In the vast majority of those cases, no shots are fired. If you’re a criminal and your intended victim pulls a pistol, are you going to bet you life against this armed stranger’s willingness to shoot you?
Probably not. In fact: almost never.
Are women more likely to freeze up than men? Of course they are. Does that mean that a “wolf” – an opportunistic predator – is going to press his attack (for uncertain gain) on the chance that the person who drew a weapon and pointed it at him is not going to use it?
The odds are overwhelming that he will go in search of easier prey.
Of course that presupposes the opportunity to draw (or at least display) the weapon, which is not always possible, but if you refrain from doing anything that is not guaranteed to be 100% effective, you’ll never leave your house.
Firearms really are the Great Equalizer (a phrase coined well before the beginning of modern feminism, by the way) in the sense that they give anyone at least a fighting chance.
Gents,
Behold the most ridiculous male/female fight scenes ever.
@ Cane Caldo says:
April 9, 2017 at 12:59 pm
“@Rollory (Oscar, I hope you are reading.)”
It took a lot of backtracking, but yes, I read.
@Lyn87
“The stats don’t lie, though, guns are used to thwart crimes around 2.5 million times per year in the United States, and a non-trivial percentage of those cases involve armed women.”
interesting. show us the numbers for armed women. otherwise i don’t really give a shit and you’re just spouting bull lollolol.
“If you’re a criminal and your intended victim pulls a pistol, are you going to bet you life against this armed stranger’s willingness to shoot you?”
yep. keyboard jockey nonsense. it all depends on the criminal, and it also presupposes the victim will pull out the weapon before the assault/attack/mugging/whatever actually happens. Not likely bud. Criminals pretty much always have the first move. And if that criminal has a weapon already drawn yur fucked either way lol.
“Are women more likely to freeze up than men? Of course they are. Does that mean that a “wolf” – an opportunistic predator – is going to press his attack (for uncertain gain) on the chance that the person who drew a weapon and pointed it at him is not going to use it?”
sure will. especially if he knows he’s about to die. once again, lots of theoretical stuff here. Doesn’t really hold up in reality. If i’m a robber and you’re wife pulled out her gun on me, why would I run away knowing that i’ll just get shot in the back? I’ll prolly already have a gun, given that i’m a bad guy doing a criminal activity. Also, why would you’re wife pull out her gun with me in the vicinity and hesitate not to use it right away? If it were me, or any other rational person, you would just shoot the criminal and not think about “well i’ll just flash my gun and hope he runs away”.
“…but if you refrain from doing anything that is not guaranteed to be 100% effective, you’ll never leave your house.”
Lol silly exaggeration. I leave my house every day knowing if some one wanted to assassinate me with a rifle from 300 yards away without me knowing about it there’d be nothing i could do.
The whole point is that just ’cause your woman knows how a gun operates and knows how to shoot it properly, doesn’t mean whatsoever that she’ll actually be able to use it properly when shit hits the fan. In reality she will rely on YOU to defend the home because that’s YOUR responsibility. The whole point is that YOU cannot rely on HER to defend the home or you and the family whatsoever because odds are she will do a shit job at it. The reality is that she, as a woman, doesn’t want to EVER be thrown into that kind of situation, and if she is, she fully hopes and expects YOU to resolve it. Women are not thinking “oh my, i sure hope i get to protect my husband when the bad guys break in!” This is why your whole position is retarded and avoidant of basic red-pill-game-aware understanding of how woman view men. Woman expect their man to bear the full responsibility of protecting them – they want to feel safe knowing you will resolve all the tough shit that comes ya’lls way. If you can’t do something as simple as that lol then she won’t respect you and her vag will go dry in seconds. Having to teach your woman to defend herself is like saying “honey, i can’t really protect you all the time. there will be times when you will have to bear that responsibility.” and she might nod her head in understanding but her hamster is saying “lol this guy expects me to protect him and the children? why did i marry him again lol?”
that’s why on the one hand its fine to show your wife/daughter/whatever what a gun is, how it works, how to shoot it, etc. But its a totally different thing to expect your wife to actually be able to defend herself and the family.
Ray Manta:
“Abstraction leakage is a software term generally used in connection to degraded real-world performance. For example, the convenience offered by TCP’s automatic retransmission features can backfire when stacking connections on top of another. So I really don’t understand what kind of point you’re making in this context.
>Murder requires speed, strength, coordination, and agility
Poison doesn’t.”
Good point on poison.
Note that Sir Hamster isn’t using the definition of “leaky abstraction” that Spolsky is using.
To clarify the parts of the leaky abstractions that I take issue with:
[quote]
Spolsky’s Law of Leaky Abstractions:
All non-trivial abstractions, to some degree, are leaky.
Abstractions fail. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. There’s leakage. Things go wrong. It happens all over the place when you have abstractions.
[end quote]
When Lyn87 tries to generalize about violence, he starts from something halfway factual and defensible and abstracts away the reality, leaving a very bad description of the facts.
>The most important factor is soldiering is not provably known
“I can’t think of a single position in the military where using women has resulted in an improvement. I can think of plenty of situations where it’s been a disaster (such as infantry).”
State-sponsored forces often can’t use women effectively, and women in uniform are often counterproductive to war efforts.
Guerrilla resistance, such as Somalians who killed USA warfighters, made surprisingly effective use of female killers (one can’t call them “soldiers” because they had no training, no rules of engagement, nothing but the desire to kill USA warfighters and weapons).
>However, physical prowess is not the determining factor if the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army are representative
“Does it follow that women should be used in battle?”
Not necessarily. The USA has no skill at using women at soldiers. The USA also has no skill at fighting wars within reasonable budgets, and no skill at ending wars promptly. The USA should definitely not try to make soldiers out of women. However, if it can be factually proven that another country (e.g. the USSR) can use women as soldiers, then the USA’s much-vaunted military is evidently not the best military in the world at every aspect of warfare.
Behold the most ridiculous male/female fight scenes ever.
Wow. Why didn’t she just reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart? Too cliche’ I guess.
@ LP
They’re saving that move for Season 2.
“What bothers me is the repeated comments in this thread that women should not fight men. No qualifications. If that’s not advocating helplessness, it’s as close as makes no difference.”
You might be interested in looking at the history of the USA invasion of Somalia. Various female Somalians with no military training and only crude weapons attacked and killed some highly trained male USA warfighters.
The race is not always to the swift, and sometimes a Somalian woman kills a USA warfighter.
However, regardless of the facts about non-USA irregulars killing highly trained USA warfighters, those who idolize the USA military above all else will find a way to spin-doctor the bad publicity. I do not recommend idolatry.
One need only look at the numbers of the movies market and we see interesting things:
http://www.the-numbers.com/market/
1. Global movie revenues are flattening out. Given the amount spent to make these films, there’s still a lot of competition, and a lot of failure to make money.
2. Average ticket prices are declining.
3. Global movie ticket sales in units have been steadily declining since 2002. Movies have to compete for other entertainment options – video games, netflix, porn (?).
4. PG-13 has massively crushed R-rated films as the top box office earners since 1999.
In this Transformers: The Last Knight trailier, adults will notice the “girl power” and lame, eye-rolling overt feminism right off the bat.
But it is easy to see and surmise what modern day movie producers are doing.
They don’t much give a shit anymore about the adult fans who were children reading comic books still fans of the Avengers, Wolverine and Star Wars canon.
They are using the Legos approach to gain gender market share. Selling story lines with girl power, equalism, combating female inadequacy and other feminist ideals are addressed to younger audiences now, including within the Transformers films, Disney Star Wars films, and Comic Superhero films.
In the case of transformers, it was a childhood cartoon tv show first. The challenge for the producers and distributors is still trying to appeal to and please the base adult-age fans and also attract a younger, next generation of fans who all pretty much have attention deficit and impulse control disorders, and don’t freaking read comics anymore. The former is easy. The latter much, much more challenging to gain, obtain and keep.
What I find interesting is that this little girl in Transformers: The Last Knight is pretty mch the same girl in brass statue facing the Wall Street Bull.
safespace,
Look, I get it that you don’t know much about how weapons are used in the real world. Like a lot of guys here, I’ve carried for years. As I’ve also described recently, I’ve only “drawn down” once, and that was in Kabul and I didn’t have to shoot… I didn’t even get my sights aligned before it was over. I’ve also read a lot of the literature, which is blindingly easy to acquire. In fact, if you’d looked at the link in my post you would have seen some stats that at least shed some light on women’s defensive uses of firearms. It happens, on average, several times a day, every day of the year.
Those are the facts, and they don’t care about the narrative you want to believe. You keep concocting hypothetical scenarios in which a handgun would not be useful in defense. Fine… as I’ve said twice already – a pistol is not a magic wand, so I’m not sure who you’re arguing against, but it’s not anything I wrote. But… they are used ALL THE TIME, and a non-trivial number of those uses are by women.
It is precisely because women can’t match men strength-for-strength that they are most useful. Up-thread you wrote about pepper spray, which is ALSO a good idea, but the failure rate of that isn’t all that good, either… and it is an inferior choice to a pistol. (Why not carry both?)
Here’s something you ought to consider, and I’ll use an example that doesn’t involve guns, or even women. It may help to illustrate my point.
As a major, I was in charge of an event at a state-side military base. The nature of the event is irrelevant to the story, but it’s important that my unit was in a different location about 1500 miles away. I realized that I needed some troop support from my unit, so I called and asked for a couple of NCOs by name. They unit said they couldn’t spare the people I asked for, but they could send me two different NCOs. The two they offered were well-known as “problem children,” but it was them or nothing.
They asked if I wanted them anyway, and I said to send them. Although they weren’t the ones I asked for or wanted, I realized that they were capable of being useful if I used them in the right ways. I tailored the tasks I gave them to their capabilities, made sure they would get noticed, and lo-and-behold, they got things done. In fact, it would have been very difficult for me to have completed my mission without them. It just was not a one-man job, and the hosting unit was full of praise for the work they did.
The Sergeant Major of my unit came down for the closing ceremony and told me that he was surprised at all the praise those two got from the hosting unit, and wanted to know how I got the two knuckleheads to, not only not screw thing up, but be significant contributors. I explained that it was all about recognizing that everybody brings something to the table, and the key is to use whatever that is rather than fret over the fact that’s it’s not necessarily what you want them to bring.
That brings me back around to the topic.
So… if I knew there was a good chance that I was going into harm’s way, I would not choose my wife (or any woman) to accompany me, but I tend to avoid places where that’s likely, anyway. However, if I find myself unexpectedly in harm’s way with her, I’d rather she be able to do something useful rather than stand there and scream. That’s true no matter who I was with. You never know how someone (even yourself) will react in, what Massad Ayoob calls, “The Gravest Extreme,” until it happens for real, but given that most people will never encounter that, I’ll use what’s available, and if she can aim and squeeze, I’ll take it. That doesn’t mean that the “bulk” of the defense doesn’t fall to me… of course it does, but if I can have a second shooter – even if she’s only 25% as effective as I am – that’s 25% I wouldn’t otherwise have, as well as two muzzles instead of one.
@constrainedlocus: – “Global movie ticket sales in units have been steadily declining since 2002. ”
Which I believe is behind the new trend of tearing out conventional cinema seats and replacing them with bulky barcalounger type seats, effectively reducing a cinema’s capacity. The local multiplex now has a bar inside. I guess that with declining attendance they have to make it up somewhere,
The Infogalactic article I linked used the exact same definition you are.
I am correctly pointing out that leaky abstraction is a concept developed for software engineering. Spolsky is a software engineer. His post on leaky abstractions is a software engineering article, and every single example of a leaky abstraction is a software model where the implementation bleeds into the abstraction, making it no longer an abstraction.
There’s a perfectly good word to use here: Generalization. If you are making a serious argument, don’t call a rabbit a smeerp.
This is what you quoted from Lyn87 when you started talking about leaky abstractions.
“Think about that… a nation that contains 4% of the world’s population produces enough high-school age boys to beat the best adult women in the entire world at anything that requires speed, strength, coordination, or agility.”
This is how you tried to “fix” the “leaky abstraction”.
Emphasis added. Sophistry.
@Lyn87
don’t really know where you posted a link, so I don’t really give a shit. Frankly, the numbers of how many women protect themselves per day doesn’t really matter AT ALL. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe its NOT a good thing that women have to rely on the “great equalizer” to protect themselves every day? Just because it so happens that women DO use firearms to protect themselves is not an argument for why women SHOULD know how to use a firearm lol.
Plenty of woman per day also contribute to the economy via working in cubicles and throwing their kids into day care. Does this mean that women SHOULD be doing this lol?
Plenty of woman abort their kid per day. Does this women SHOULD be doing this lol?
Plenty of people get raped every day. Does mean people SHOULD get raped lol?
Jesus christ your dense and Cane Caldo was right about you touting your military badassery as a form of alpha signaling lol.
From reading what you just wrote it seems your missing the larger point of the whole issue – that teaching women how to use firearms because they’re (without any evidence lol) the great “equalizer” comes at the larger price of pushing the feminist propaganda message of equalism, we-don’t-need-the-menz, and other retarded faggotry that poisons our culture and ruins our women and men. It’s pretty clear you’ve fully bought into the “Great equalizer” myth seeing that you keep defending it with really shitty arguments lol. It’s also pretty obvious that you’re suffering from a severe case of conservative feminism, and its really annoying because you don’t even realize it. Everyone makes mistakes bro. Everyone has a little bit of feminist-culture inside of them because we’ve all grown up in it. I fully understand. But you keep dodging the larger point of the “women should use firearms” issue, which is that there are societal consequences for pushing a certain traditionally male role onto women.
“…However, if I find myself unexpectedly in harm’s way with her, I’d rather she be able to do something useful rather than stand there and scream.”
bro. That’s the thing. No matter whether she has a gun or not, she’s still going to stand there and scream.
Since you assume a lot of retarded shit about my “world view”, let me summarize this entire problem for you: show your women how a gun works for like 20 minutes or so or whatever makes you feel good about yourself for being a good conservative feminist, but don’t expect her to actually be able to use it properly or to be able actually defend you and your family because (a) she won’t want that responsibility, (b) she will suck at fulfilling that responsibility and (c) she will lose attraction and respect in you for expecting her to fulfill it.
The Cinepolis approach with 4D seats is pretty cool for action flicks, but in general I prefer watching films at home with stereo sound, comfortable seats, a beer (I miss you, German movie theaters!) and more affordable snacks.
The fundamental problem is the product, not the accessories.
I don’t go to movie theaters often, but I cannot remember watching a film in cinema that a I didn’t regret the waste of time and money afterward. Things are pretty bad in the movie world. Just my opinion.
gaikokumaniakku says:
You might be interested in looking at the history of the USA invasion of Somalia. Various female Somalians with no military training and only crude weapons attacked and killed some highly trained male USA warfighters.
I just did a search on “US Soldiers killed in Somalia” and came up with a whopping 31 casualties. Why do you insist on continuing to beat this dead horse? The Somalis kill count was many times higher in the Battle of Mogadishu.
The race is not always to the swift, and sometimes a Somalian woman kills a USA warfighter
Yeah, we get it. .A soldier may well die because he hot shot in the back by a woman hiding behind a doorway. Or he could meet a hundred other fates, including dying in training or being shot by his own troops.
@constrainedlocus – “The fundamental problem is the product, not the accessories.”
Yup. Hence why you can now get a beer, wine or a cocktail at the local multiplex. They know the patrons won’t be coming back, so they’re trying to get those who still show up to spend more.
“I just did a search on “US Soldiers killed in Somalia” and came up with a whopping 31 casualties. Why do you insist on continuing to beat this dead horse? The Somalis kill count was many times higher in the Battle of Mogadishu.”
53 killed for UNTAF
https://infogalactic.com/info/Unified_Task_Force
22 killed for UNSOM II (incl. Blackhawk Down)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operation_in_Somalia_II
Always pull the thread. Ask him to name one of those various female Somalians, and which specific soldier she killed.
Considering the events of Blackhawk Down, I suspect he is de-crediting thousands of men for an imaginary woman fighter.
I’m done arguing with you, safespace. You asked me to show you numbers for women using firearms defensively, then when I did you said you didn’t care and it didn’t matter. It’s clear that you haven’t read the studies (of which there are many), and that you have little real-world experience with or knowledge of weapons, even less with women, and even less than that with the art and science of violence, and none with how the military works.
And you write like a child when you get angry.
May your rage keep you warm. Good night.
“May your rage keep you warm. Good night.” And with that, Captain Lyn87 of the 1st LARPing Guard raised his foam sword in salute, turned, and swished out into dark.
gaikokumaniakku says:
Good point on poison.
Thank you.
Note that Sir Hamster isn’t using the definition of “leaky abstraction” that Spolsky is using.
He’s not? The Infogalactic link he had pointed right to Spolsky’s definition.
Spolsky’s Law of Leaky Abstractions:
Abstractions fail. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.
I find Spolsky to be a know-it-all blowhard myself, although he may get a few things right. The success of scripting languages such as Python and awk tends to argue against abstraction leakage being an overriding principle.
When Lyn87 tries to generalize about violence, he starts from something halfway factual and defensible and abstracts away the reality, leaving a very bad description of the facts
Looks like he was trying to generalize principles of games played by a set of rules to the battlefield. It’s hard to argue with his conclusions. World class women’s teams in sports like soccer regularly get trounced by boys in the 14-15 age range. And putting women on the battlefield has consistently caused so many problems that even a manpower-short country like Israel doesn’t do it.
Guerrilla resistance, such as Somalians who killed USA warfighters
Guerrilla resistance is a whole different ballgame from nation-state soldiering.
made surprisingly effective use of female killers
I’d appreciate a link with specifics about these women and which soldiers were killed by them. It’s possible to use women, children, and the elderly in guerrilla warfare. Once you go there,
you’ve essentially stopped caring about casualties.
However, if it can be factually proven that another country (e.g. the USSR) can use women as soldiers, then the USA’s much-vaunted military is evidently not the best military in the world at every aspect of warfare.
In other words, you’re speculating. Given all the other evidence, it’s hard for me to believe that effective usage of women is going to ever be a deciding factor in military prowess.
Whatever your beef with Lyn is and whether you are a Christian or not, don’t blaspheme on this blog.
This just boils back down to my original point. Any nation, country or army that makes general use of women on the front line in numbers and in actual combat will eventually get trounced by a more Patriarchal one. That is reality, women cause drama, they cause headaches, they cause otherwise sane people to make terrible decisions. They are not fit for combat service. The few that are do not justify the massive amount of training and expense needed to get them to perform at the general level of a lowly trained Private.
Women in the army or as bad ass super heroes, just a bad idea.
As support for her husband and nation in non combat roles? Yes, they actually have a use then. They should stick to that role and stop putting themselves and their loved ones in danger trying to live up to a fantasy of the ’empowered women’.
And no, a small amount of soldiers in the mists of an entire nation of enemy combatants who are not restricted by the ‘rules of engagement’ don’t count. Not in any way, shape or form.
Gake, you’re using terrible examples with no real world backing to even suggest that women accurately accounted for any real numbers of combatants. It’s easy to shoot a gun, children can and are used constantly in Africa. Boys are used far more than women though, girls not at all. Boys are stronger and faster than fully aged women. Let that sink in.
Let’s bring them into the military, shall we? They can kill fully grown men who are fully trained just as well as any women.
Why, oh why, would any nation choose women? Well, they only do so when they are so poor the men don’t want to fight or because they are in their death throes, no real nation uses women in numbers to fight. Women are not equipped to handle the fighting itself, nor the trauma of death of comrades or injury and lost of limb to self. Imagine the gnashing of teeth when beauty queens come home with half their faces missing and legs blown off. They will care then…
Go look at the pictures for facial injuries during World War One. Then come back here and suggest women would be able to handle it. Go on, do it. I dare ya!
@Lyn87
“I’m done arguing with you, safespace”
“It’s clear that you haven’t read the studies…”
lol and its clear you’re not understanding the problem at hand: advocating that women should know how to protect themselves with firearms (the so called “great equalizer” lol) comes at the larger price of undermining the roles of men and women in society. It undermines the authority of men over women, it gives women a false sense of security by deluding women into thinking they’re any where near “equivalent” in defending themselves against a man who actually wants to harm them.
the same can be said of female comic book heroes. Sure, its all just “fun” entertainment after all, which seems like a good thing, but it comes at the larger price of undermining the roles of men and women.
“And you write like a child when you get angry.”
true. I’m not a LARPing military badass and I haven’t fucked tons of girls like yourself lol. I’m sure your wife’s fine with you sleeping around with tough girls like this
since that’s what you’re into and all lmao. i truly wish i were you lol
…
All this writing of comic book heroes and “great equalizers” reminds me of that scene in Gone With The Wind, where Scarlet gets lucky and kills a Union soldier with a pistol. This experience then gives her the false notion that she can “defend herself without a man” which ruins her attitude later on in the tale when she actually has a man in her life and treats him like shit because of her poor “i can do anything” spirit. Of course, she doesn’t realize the full extent of her stupidity until the very very end when Rhett says he’s had enough and leaves.
Scarlet is a fine example of female delusion when it comes to protecting themselves
Its pretty clear that even during that time period when the book was written women had it in their head that they could “equalize” themselves with men if they simply had a “strong independent will” and a gun in their pocket. It’s also pretty clear that, at least in that time, women knew men found such a delusional attitude very unattractive. I wish more women knew this now lol
@Safespaceplaypen:
Sorry to interfere, when you are addressing Lyn87, just wanted to make a general point: your arguments look nice in (red pill) theory, on some macro, say ‘platonic’, level, but in a real life possibly violent confrontation anything counts, even a little thing = anything that even to a small degree can lower a chance of a harm to happen, is good.
You are usually not dealing with professional thugs in those encounters, but some regular bastards, and in my experience pulling even a knife or straight razor (not mentioning gun), makes a huge difference – even quite dumb people realize that when blades are out, it’s wiser to be rather somewhere else, and fast, in another town ideally.
I realize that the probability of armed women to effectively respond and react in a moment of acute danger is lower, maybe much lower, but as I said, anything that can, even a little bit, help to increase the chance to survive or to get out of the harm’s way I consider good, per se.
(Saying this from a perspective of a man who in his early twenties once got stabbed, and on other occassion got three teeth kicked out.)
@Ofelas
“anything that even to a small degree can lower a chance of a harm to happen, is good”
well man, not necessarily. it really depends. this is where the collision between different ethical values come into play. I’m looking at it from a more “greater good” point of view; you may be looking at it from a more individualistic point of view. Frankly, i’d say my ethical view point is much more reasonable simply due to the fact that what’s good for the individual can be detrimental when applied to everyone. But i’m sure there’s some room for debate there, but that’s a different subject lol.
Also, there’s nothing really theoretical or “platonic” about what i’m saying. It’s a simple fact that relying on your woman to protect you or herself or your family is stupid, just like relying on a woman to provide for the family is stupid, just like relying on women to serve well in combat is stupid. These are male roles — things that men enjoy and are naturally better at.
When people talk about the “women in combat” issue, what they’re really talking about is “on the whole, does adding women making this country safer or less safer?” which is the similar perspective that i’m having on the issue of “should women know how to use firearms”. It’s the same frame of mind. Does expecting women to know how to use firearms to protect themselves make this country better or worse? If it makes this country better, then we should be advocating it; if it makes it worse – which it does by pushing the feminist equalist agenda, undermining male responsibilities, giving unfulfillable responsibilities to women, etc. – then it should not be advocated.
“I realize that the probability of armed women to effectively respond and react in a moment of acute danger is lower, maybe much lower, but as I said, anything that can, even a little bit, help to increase the chance to survive or to get out of the harm’s way I consider good, per se”
that’s why i’m saying: give your wife/girlfriend a weapon to put in her purse or whatever, but don’t actually expect her to use it properly or at all when shit hits the fan in real life
For most of human history, women’s #1 defensive move was submissiveness.
“If you don’t kill me you can have sex with me.”
The tendency for women to freeze when faced by an attacker is rooted in thousands of years of history. Those women who fought when their village was attacked died. Those who did nothing survived and went on to have children.
@Safespaceplaypen
I meant a situation of a violent attack, or any encounter that could potentially escalate into health or life threatening dimensions. There I am fully for the ‘smaller’ good of the individual to be the first priority.
I don’t rely on my woman to protect me, that is my job, to protect us, but in my opinion she should have basic skills and means for that unfortunate case if anything happens while I’m not around.
So it’s not her responsibility, but rather back-up option, that hopefully will never be needed.
I’m fully aware that the probability of her to succeed in that is not very high, but again I support anything that can increase that probability, even a little.
The equalist mentality ‘I can do anything men can do, and better’ and the danger of her turning into strong independent woman getting an ego boost from feeling she can protect herself with firearm or whatever and therefore doesn’t need men can be actually prevented and neutralized, when the one teaching her how to use the weapon and for example introducing her into a martial art is you. That can only solidify your status with her.
@safespaceplaypen 10:40 pm
Your first five paragraphs end with “lol” but the rest do not.
Is there a way to correct this?
And with that, Captain Lyn87 of the 1st LARPing Guard raised his foam sword in salute, turned, and swished out into dark.
OK, I laughed.
Pingback: An Open Letter to Lyn87 – v5k2c2
safespaceplaypen; I worked with a man whose elderly granny was the victim of a home invasion by an illegal alien wearing women’s underwear. She shot him. The case was even featured in the NRA’s “Armed Citizen” column years ago.
Saying women shouldn’t learn how to use guns is stupid and obscene. Self-defense is a human right. Feminist are usually opposed to women learning how to shoot guns because they think guns are male and therefor evil. How sad you agree with them.
The entire media industry bending women and Blacks into that which they are not is laughable. From Nationwide commercials with women complaining their rate went up because they totaled their car (sympathy plea) to the commercial where they dub the Negroid voice over a woman’s face while she abuses her man over the deal she got for her car insurance (girl power via Negro baritone), all are channel switchers. Nationwide, Hyundai, Chevy, the entire universe does this now. Translation? White man idiot, weak, soft, Blacks brilliant, middle class, married, with law-abiding children (rarely happens) and of course, the towering intellect of the White feminist, all-powerful, all-knowing. One wonders why Super-White Feminist dirties her existence with White men at all. Actually, they don’t because more and more, mudsharking.
That’s commercials. I won’t even touch these movies, but for yet another stellar example, simply check out Martian. Matt Damon, sole White guy with a half-brain, all the rest, Blacks and a White chick with red hair that is no brighter than a stripper at the Bing, all portrayed as the Brilliant Ones.
They can show us lies all they want, but really, only a pussy of a man and of course, women and Blacks would buy it. All lies.
@LS
“Your first five paragraphs end with “lol” but the rest do not.
Is there a way to correct this?”
i wish lol
“Saying women shouldn’t learn how to use guns is stupid and obscene. Self-defense is a human right. Feminist are usually opposed to women learning how to shoot guns because they think guns are male and therefor evil. How sad you agree with them.”
you are arguing like a woman lol. gtfo bitch. Self-defense is a human right? Says who? the mystical almighty constitution? Your gay feelings? Human rights don’t exist you dumb bimbo. Show me proof to the contrary or gtfo with your shrieking autism.
Feminists aren’t necessarily pro gun or anti-gun lol. Don’t know why you believe this. Possible straw man or female hystericism on your part lol. idk. clearly retarded though.
It’s really simple: does pushing for women to know how to use firearms have a net benefit or a net loss to the greater good of this country? A few cases of women defending themselves isn’t an argument for a net benefit lol especially when considering the fact that it pushes the feminist propaganda equilist “i I can defend myself just like a man” message lol.
If women want to be protected then they can find a husband or rely on their father, brothers and neighbors. You can’t expect a patriarchy to actually occur again if men don’t have authority and power over women, and you can’t get rid of feminism unless you have a fully implemented patriarchy. And men can’t have authority over women unless women’s survival and existence is dependent on men. Pretty simple stuff lol. Don’t see what there is to debate about
The Godfather resonates with primal patriarchy. I love this scene where the Alpha Godfather bitch slaps a sensitive mangina:
Scott @April 9, 2017 at 7:18 pm:
“She was flagged down once and blocked in by a road raging asshole who then got out of his car and was standing at her window screaming at her while all my kid were in the car.
“Her gun was useless. She was paralyzed with fear.
I’ve never known a woman who is not basically made of this same material, regardless of training or whatever.”
Sounds right. In the heat of the moment, people default to their instincts. Men are aggressive, women fearful. Barbie shoots a .38 at the range and does well but when a rapist corners her in a parking garage? She’ll close her eyes and turn away in fear while shooting.
Good emergency responses are built upon one’s natural instincts, not in opposition to them. This guarantees that they will not be the theoretical ideal but it’s better to succeed at a bad plan than fail at a perfect plan. Better to teach a wife to run & hide than stand her ground.
Pingback: Kickass conservative gals. | Dalrock
I like the trailers. They alleviate the need for me seeing movies that are total crap; poison to the mind and soul. This one has been duly noted.
The next movie will be a remake of The Magnificent Seven with an all female cast…..
audiences will accept a huge amount of feminist propaganda in movies
I see this as a problem, not in what audiences accept but in what young women “learn” from these movies. Not that long ago I saw a movie where two women controlled a man physically, and killed him. Now this was not a sneak up and smack him in the head with a bat, but in the movie, the two of them – much smaller, teenagers, were portrayed as physically overpowering a man who was bigger and in his 30;s. I laughed and said something like, “Yeah, right. I would spank them both, then since they were keen on violence in sex, show them what they were missing.” Now the two women with me, decided they would show me I was mistaken. I had both of them held with one hand apiece, threw one on the couch, and kissed the other, than when the one I tossed on the couch came back I did the same to the other. Basically, playing with them. Eventually spanked them till they plead for mercy.
I was floored that neither of them had a clue as to the vast difference in the strength of men and women. They were telling me how “in the movies” women can do this or that, and my response was simple – the movies are BS. When was the last time you saw a man become a Hulk? When did you see Superman? Guess what? The portrayal of women beating up men, is just as much BS as the Hulk. It’s as simple as that. But you believed it – and it could get you killed. Remember this – “Two women cannot over-power a man who isn’t somehow disabled either with alcohol, or drugs.. PERIOD. And I wasn’t trying to hurt either of you, I was purposely “playing” with you, but someone who doesn’t care will just knock one of you out – breaking your jaw in the process in all likelihood, then deal with the other. I could have broken your arm, just as easily as I threw you on the couch – and I was doing things with a minimum of force so as NOT TO HURT you, because you’re both cute and I didn’t want my chances of bedding one of both of you to be out the window… :).That is reality. Remember it. I could save your life.”
They seem to have taken it to heart – but I’m amazed at how movies get away with spouting such non-sense, showing men and woman as equal is strength and aggression – guess what? That’s fantasy.. If someone wants to kidnap you, that’s reality… And you better carry something that gives you an advantage and not be afraid to use it, and even that’s iffy..
Pingback: How much girlpower is too much? - Top
Pingback: Unthinkable | Dalrock
After seeing that trailer with with the irritating girl in it, all I can say is, I hope the bad guys win and I hope the movie flunks.
And you get Girl Power, and You get Girl power, everyone gets girl power!