0:27 ''A woman does not need a man to define herself, a woman does not need a man to raise *her* children and a woman does not need a man to be independent.'' [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"The crucial process of civilization is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality. In creating civilization, women transform male lust into love; channel wanderlust into jobs, homes, and families; link men to specific children; rear children into citizens; and change hunters to fathers. The prime fact of life is the sexual superiority of women." [George Gilder, Men and Marriage]
"The crucial process of civilization is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality."
That has become the state of affairs in recent decades. And isn't that book bemoaning the recent decline of western civilization? Up to that point both sexes were restricted in their mating preferences. Long-term horizons of female sexuality... as if the woman who plans ahead long-term had the most children in all this time of tamed nature. Get pregnant and then he has to marry you. That's how you got commitment. That breeds a cunning and smart woman, not necessarily a long-term planning woman.
In a low-artificial environment, pressures which force people to successfully cooperate and develop long term planning, eventually lead up to the creation of a civilization. When nature is tamed and those pressures recede and the culture or later civilization is supposed to continue to thrive, then values and a way of thinking have to be fostered which emulate those pressures.
I think that this bribing and bargaining of men turns them into man-whores. Some men enjoy being man-whores, they are well adapted to it but I'd like to see a different path to be taken.
All those laws in place don't make a man into a better man or a woman into a better woman, they just create a manmade environment to which men and women adapt to, usually taking the path of least resistance.
To create such areas where self-discipline, asceticism is being forged I find it useful to separate the sexes. So no dangling of a carrot - this turns men into boys and women into coy maidens. Part of civilized life should reflect the past where the male hunters were off hunting, away from the village.
A modern woman, once seduced into the modern Nihilistic meme, old on the blind hope, which is hope, that they can be anything, do anything, be anybody, reduce men to the idea(l) they then find despicable. They act as memetic filtering agencies, producing the type of man that gives flesh to the seductive idea, and then are disappointed by the outcome. Like all immature minds, instead of beginning by questioning their own judgments what they do is blame the product of their cunning, for failing to live-up to their expectations. Having become disillusioned, and unable to take an account of the reasons, they lose interest, deciding to manipulate the caricature they’ve supported. The mutation, neither man nor child, a man-child, is turned into a symbol of their contempt for the very men they wanted to be the equal to.
This is how single mothers raise fatherless children, even when the man is present.
The ploy of innocence, the nobility of the savage, is preserved in a self-induced game of hypnotic ignorance. Nobody knows what it means to be masculine, or what it means to be feminine. It's all artificial. The words are ridiculous, making no sense. They've been detached from reality, and now they levitate above the the earth, like other similar words: freedom, equality, justice.
Having made the terms equal, the matter is reduced to that of choice, and who would choose unfair, unjust, hurtful words instead of loving, inclusive, soothing ones?
So women are attracted to men that drive cars that are wasteful, and high maintenance, since they see themselves as wasteful and high maintenance. A man that "wastes" money on a car will waste money on her. I must say, these are some keen observations.
Interesting paper a college student wrote e-mailed to me from a friend.
In Western society, the idea of evolution has been disassociated from its original merit. The emergence of equality and its many counterparts has resulted in a denial of nature and differences in the sexes. Anne Barbeau wrote: “And thanks to transsexuals, they also realize that women cannot be "clearly identified" by their bodies: "There is, in other words, no stable subject, no coherent thing called 'women'--at the heart of either feminism or feminist history.” (Barbeau). If feminist principles uplift the power complex within women, they also instill within them a distorted sense of self. If women reject the very idea of themselves in respect to their nature, they in essence, distort their very existence from reality. In other words, they unwittingly make themselves obsolete.
In another quote, this idea gains more clarity: “woman as such does not exist.” (Barbeau). We can see the gravity of the turmoil women harbor of their identity in consequence of the idea of feminism. If they wish to rise above their subjugation from patriarchy, they must ultimately destroy the very idea of female, so they may become, essentially, an artifice; a model, so to speak, where they can recreate themselves anew through whatever conduit of superiority they choose to use. “Sexism is built into our societal system and pervades our culture. Society undervalues the role of women, placing higher value on the traditional male role.” (Hamil, Tildall). The idea of sexism is not considered adequately enough by feminists. If sexism implies an acknowledgement of differences between men and women, which it does, than to be a sexist whether from a male or female perspective is to accept that you are a man that is capable of certain abilities, or a woman that is capable of certain abilities. The injection of “hate” is simply a ruse of propaganda and censorship that hinders ones awareness to the reality of differences. It is effective, because it influences the emotions, which can overpower reason.
If male prejudice is exemplified as the intractable problem inhibiting women from attaining freedom within social status, it is contradicted by the fact that men are more prone to the faculties which maintain order of society and civilization. “The physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering persist as male-dominated professions. Women only receive 28% of the computer science bachelor's and 18% of the engineering bachelor's degrees.” (Hamil, Tidall). If this is freely admitted as a fact by a supposed feminist, we can see the ambivalence of their logic.
Evolution theory has been the perennial support of science since Darwin. If we deny nature, we deny what science was historically founded upon. The theory of the “Blank Slate” is the culprit for such misconceptions about differences of gender. If there are no innate differences and propensities of nature, than it is conveniently dismissed as a biased discrimination of bigotry. Pinker says: “…the minds of men and women are not identical…men have a much stronger taste for no-strings sex with multiple or anonymous partners, as we see in…all-male consumer base for prostitution and visual pornography. Men are far more likely to compete violently. The ability to manipulate three-dimensional objects and space in the mind also shows a large difference in favor of men.” (344). If these biological proclivities predispose men to particular pursuits, then they cannot be equal to women. “Women have more intimate social relationships, are more concerned about them, and feel more empathy toward their friends…they maintain more eye contact, and smile and laugh far more often.” (Pinker). If the female nature is more prone to a highly active social energy, then they are more adept to extroverted pursuits, rather than cognitive introverted logical ones that men fall into.
The modern belief that paternalism oppressed women from reaching their full potential of power, both mentally and physically has long been the crutch of emasculation; figuratively speaking. The presence of fear that differences exist permeates modern culture for the nepotism of the liberal attitude. “The brains of men differ visibly from the brains of women in several ways. Men have larger brains with more neurons, though women have a higher percentage of gray matter. The interstitial nuclei in the anterior hypothalamus and the nucleus of the stria terminalis….are larger in men.” (Pinker). Science has proven through genetic conclusively, that the idea of equality is disproven or at the very least subject to vagary.
Indeed, from a universal and historical point of view, the subject of gender equality becomes far more complex in terms of personal identity. If cultural beliefs and institutional biases have nurtured the perspective that gender is simply a “construct” of social man-made imposition, than the connection of oneself to their biology is severed and it becomes a psychological dissonance. “Gender is a material, embodied state and bodies are classified by societies into hierarchical relations. Being gendered is a relational property because gender categorization is dependent upon how bodies are perceived by others rather than upon the possession of any intrinsic biological or psychological property.” (Witt 2006). This internal rupture of a woman’s identify of her respective gender, is further exacerbated by the feminist mindset to correlate gender, which is a strictly biological attribute, with group mentality, or the shared interactions of group mentality. This supposes that the idea of gender may be dismissed by the organic unity of a people. In other words, because gender determines some expectations within social systems, it can be restricted entirely as a cause of them.
The idea of the “self” in feminist theory takes a considerably disturbing turn of pathological proportions. “…the rejection of the metaphysics of substance, the denial that individual, persisting beings exist entails the rejection of subjects in so far as they are characterized as unified individuals that persist through time. Some feminists find the dissolution of stable subjectivities liberating because of the possibilities for innovation, creativity, and performance that this view endorses.” (Witt). What feminist are attempting to do is not simply relegate, but destroy their own identities and supersede them with external influences of purely social elements. Does this not strengthen the innate biological tendencies of females being more prone to socialization? Only, now, it is taken into an archetypal extreme.
“The idea of the subject as relationally constituted and historically embedded is more adequate to feminist projects than the traditional idea of subjectivity. However, it is also problematic in relation to the idea of autonomy…” (Witt). This captures again, the confused conflict of feminist thinking. “Pragmatist feminism” is another strain of this self-destruction. “Pragmatist feminist theorists also emphasize the pragmatist commitment to undermine or dissolve traditional dualisms between self and world, mind and body, and theory and practice.” (Heldke). If women are encouraged if not forced into choices that suppress their nature, for one that is more characteristically male, then a stark pathology develops which attempts to create a mystical worldview of themselves as transcendental beings that are destined to rise above their natures and become some ambiguous source of dominance that is mysterious and unfathomable. It is naïve superstition at best.
When a culture reverses the traditional roles of men and women, the inevitable effect is a combative hostility of an ever continuous pattern of competition. The woman’s right for individual authority, which traditionally belonged to the husband, subjugates the man from his ability to guide the family with principles and order. An ever embittered battle between husband and wife will ensue, which perpetuates the depressing trend of staggering divorce rates. The sexual revolution of the 60’s would become the catalyst to introduce this phenomenon into American culture. “The Demystification of womanhood goes hand in hand with the desublimation of sexuality.” (Lasch). So what we have is, with the liberation of female behavior from patriarchy, that women become empty and mundane primal objects of exploitation because their choices are unrestrained and without consequences. Men must compete with this lascivious conduct, because it is untamed and therefore, they must adapt to it, making them just as primitive. Only superficial exchanges of gratification, rather than long lasting relationships of commitment can be had here.
Monogamy was an institution that kept intact the value of the union of man and woman. Liberalism promoted the value of “open-mindedness” and subverted the relationships between the sexes. “Feminist consciousness-raising, moreover, has had irreversible effects. Once women begin to question the inevitability of their subordination and to reject the conventions formerly associated with it, they can no longer retreat to the safety of those conventions.” (Lasch). Women find themselves in another conundrum. They must now come face to face with the reality of being solely responsible. The basic sexual attraction to the male is damaged from this, or suppressed.
The idea of “individualism” has severe consequences to the psychological development of children in families. “The shallowness and unpredictability of his mother’s responses, according to Heinz Kohut, produced in one of his patients the pattern of narcissistic dependence…in which the subject attempts to re-create in his unconscious fantasies of the omniscience early on in “strong, admired figures.”(Lasch). Because the traditional custom of husband and wife has been dissolved by feminism, the institution steps in to take full power of child rearing through popular educational methodology. The mother and father then take on passive roles, which produce disappointment and even hatred in the children, and thus, they seek alternate surrogate parents that have the veneer of something “ideal” or superior.
Modern society in light of this gender anomaly, corrupts the psychologies of men and women and how they relate to one another. Women still desire to impress with sexual appearance but are bound to view it as a weakness by feminist doctrine. Men desire to pursue women, but are insecure and intimidated by their aggressive demands and stubbornly militant or uncouth attitudes brought on by feminism. “Although many people remain untroubled by traditional gender roles and see no need to question their origins, others argue that accepted gender roles must be reexamined, and that to do so requires an understanding of how gender identity is formed.” (Ojeda). It all returns to the nature of gender itself.
Last edited by stargazer on Mon May 12, 2014 4:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
The actual outbreak of the sexual revolution occurred when significant numbers of young women began acting on the new utopian plan. This seems to have occurred on many college campuses in the 1960s. Women who took birth-control pills and committed fornication with any man who caught their fancy claimed they were liberating themselves from the slavery of marriage. The men, urged by their youthful hormones, frequently went along with this, but were not as happy about it as they are sometimes represented. Columnist Paul Craig Roberts recalls:
I was a young professor when it all started and watched a campus turn into a brothel. The male students were perplexed, even the left-wing ones who had been taught to regard female chastity as oppression. I still remember the resident Marxist who, high on peyote, came to me to complain that “nice girls are ruining themselves.”
It's these same naive, Judeo-Christian, Secular Humanist, liberal, Marxist, types that now call themselves MRA.
Being disillusioned by their own doings, their own ideals, they blame not themselves, for being idiots, but females for being what they've been for thousands upon thousands of years. Stupidity is so funny.
It's the same shit that results in the Jewish Paradox, or Christian contradictions. When the feeble attain the power of numbers, in a Behavioral Sink environment, then they come into conflict with their own ideals. Like a liberal female, convinced that appearances do not matter, and discrimination based on therm is backwards, but refuses to give love to a bum on the streets...or a fat chick, declaring how beauty is not skin-deep, and love is eternal, losing weight and suddenly becoming a superficial slut....or a weak male who talks about justice and morality and then inherits wealth and becomes the biggest bastard alive.
The biological reality of a woman's need for a male counterpart is becoming more noticeable beneath this veneer of "independence". Their beloved institution with all its self-sufficient promises of wealth, social status and personal security, only goes so far before the genes begin to come in conflict with the memes.
Nature can be suppressed but it can't be eliminated. Woman begins to realize, at least intuitively, that she is of this world, and her divine alpha male can only provide a superficial validation for her natural dissatisfaction.
I like how they all appear clueless as to why this is happening. It's fun but also a bit sad to watch the common mind; the masses try to think for themselves. After gathering more facts of course, How long before they find a "solution"?
This is also a byproduct of the same processes that produces obesity, or disease, or mental disorders like schizophrenia. The human environment changes at a rate that the genes cannot adapt to fast enough. This produces a disparity, a distance, between ideal and real.
This disparity can be bridged, in time, through social selection.
But the above video concerning female unhappiness is this effect of feminism, as a memetic environment, stressing the genetic predisposition.
I can almost see the vagina of one of them; and yet they care about what they wear, how they sexually expose themselves, without wanting any attention - from the average man.
As i said elsewhere, women are guided by their natures. Modern women rail against the same tired cliche gender stereotypes, only to reinforce them through their simplistic words, such as the lead speaker saying "to wear whatever i want without being called a slut." That statement alone encapsulates the moronic and contradictory psychology of feminist claptrap.
This isn't poetry, this is an obnoxious petulant protest that would be suited in the form of picket signs on a street corner. I can picture them squatting in public and urinating in order to degrade their own feminine nature which they truly abhor.
Notice how they rely on their unified shouting for emotional effect so as to compensate for a complete lack of substance or artistry.
''Notice how they rely on their unified shouting for emotional effect so as to compensate for a complete lack of substance or artistry.''
As do the masses in general; the organisation Youth Speaks ''poetry'' by a dieverse bunch of fags, negroids, guilty White males and feminists do the same as well. They actually only rely upon the unified screaming.
More mindless, obligatory cheers of encouragement for anyone "brave" enough to "stand up" for the eternal victims(imagine how many "men" in there were actually applauding this)... Anger is only cheered when it accompanies some sort of victim rhetoric... Yet, women in relationships sometimes intentionally stay angry only to make the men around them feel guilty (i.e. "I, the female(the center of your attention, obviously), am upset, you must do something to alleviate my anger (of course, my anger is always there and can never be fully alleviated) but you should be focused, nevertheless on this impossible task, and i need to see the stress this causes for you... but at this point, I lose all respect for you because you haven't properly contested my anger(you've only been trying to anticipate my needs to avoid further anger like a dog or ever so gently tried to calm me down or worse, tried to justify my anger,"I know how hard it must be for you")"
Stupidity is given further credence when feminism intersects with MRAism. Both disgruntled genders feeding off and filling one anther's victimhood where both rely on each other to reinstate the same message their respective ideology advocates (men are pigs)<>(women are heartless sluts) and etc etc.
This is why Douchbag, AKA LaughingMan, promoted public unprovoked displays of self-degrading retaliation toward women, because, being the idiot he is, he unwittingly contributes to this same passive aggressive mentality that reciprocates these projected self-hating rivalries.
From a woman's point of view, it is putting your children and husband ahead of yourself. Do women have to feel ashamed in believing and enjoying this, all those traditional customs contained far more wisdom than anyone gave them credit for.
At the end of the day, Feminism has not helped women at all, instead it has shown the female's inferiority by comparison to the male and
Has it really come down to this? In the words of the Norwegian feminist journalist Marie Simonsen, "Real women do not bake cupcakes.
Every night, before you go to bed, I want you to pour yourself a glass of wine - any wine will do. Light the fireplace or a candle. Take off your clothes except for a nice warm, fluffy robe, and your panties; sit on something soft, relaxing. Then, I want you to close your eyes, and run your fingertips right next your labia. Soft, easy caresses... When you are ready, I want you to brush one of your fingers over your clitoris, imagining me doing it for you.
You must really think me a romantic fool. My ex-wife was a modern, as expected. I know what I was getting into and why. It was all by design, dear.
Know what's funny...when I refused to get married, beforehand, because I knew what was out there and I knew I would not be able to tolerate it for long, I used to be accused of sour-graping marriage. Many, like you, thought I was making excuses because I couldn't get married, and not because I didn't want to. Like when the stupid cow, and bovines, in general, think I cannot "succeed," in her conventional sense of the word, and that's why I'm bitter at Modernity. See, for imbeciles, AAAAAAALLL want, or should want, the same things, and they only make excuses when they say they don't. Yet, all claim to be individuals, and unique, who just happen to all want the same things, and evaluate things in exactly the same ways. Aaaaalll are ambitions in the same way, and aaaaaalll want to live the same typically average life, and if someone does not he is a loser, or lying about not wanting it. This is the state of "individuality" today. Expose the bullshit and you are immediately labeled in the most negative ways, to silence to dissuade imitators and to comfort self that you've made the "right" decisions in your life, and that you were "fully aware" and willful when making them. And when exposed, say shit like "it isn't THAT bad" to make yourself feel better, and to pretend a more "balanced" judgment.
You know what a cancer patient says, right? "It could be worse"
Anywho... Here's an intimate secret about me, dear. I had to lose my father, when i was forty, before I decided that I should sacrifice to have a child. I decided, for my mother's sake; for my family's, my bloodline's sake, for the sake of my dead father (to honor him and his life)...and for my sake. His friends came to the wake and told me his only regret was never seeing a grandchild...and that bothered me. That's when I made a willful decision to become more Dionysian, for a few years. I am Apollonian by nature. I would do whatever it took to get the job done. I'll tell you it was excruciating to behave contrary to my nature, for so long, but I had to do it, in this world, populated by women like you, dear. Women raising daughters, and sons, like themselves.
I knew what women have become. I knew that after 30 all the crap was leftover. I saw she and I were not compatible. I knew what I had to endure, and for how long. It was all planned, as all things are with me; with contingency plans A and B also in place. There was no "happily ever after" crap, at least not on my part. I'm a realist, sweetie, not a buffoon like these bovines. I know what love is, what sex is what women are and why they are like that...why they are this way in this particular meme... I've written about it. I'm analytical.
But I had a plan, dear...a mission, a motive. Originally I wanted to have 2-3 kids, and then get the fuck out - or stay, if things were surprisingly different than I expected. I am rarely surprised, dear. I see too much. Being surprised by life means you have poor eyesight or poor judgment, because reality is right in front of you, if you dare to see. I could not last that long. I was fortunate...I did not lose much time or money in the process, and I got what I wanted. I left...and she wanted me back. But what's more precious than freedom, dear? What's more valuable than living your life on your terms, as much as possible?
Ya think I am like the typical pussy-whipped idiots, out there, who would endure nagging, tantrums, the constant yammering on about nothing, the mind-games, the modern female with the psychology of an adolescent, to get a back rub and sex? As if that stage lasts for long. HA!!!
Cooking? She could not boil an egg.
And don't tell me you are not like that, dear....because I see, even through the text.
But if you want to imagine me as some love-striken, romantic idealist, who was hurt by a woman, please....do.