Young Girls: Victims of Feminism

Last night I talked to a friend of mine, a girl in college. I don’t talk to her as often as I should, because it makes me so sad to see what feminism has done to a sweet girl like her.

She’s smart as well as kind and gentle. She is just the sort of girl men wanted to marry back before civilization collapsed, the sort of girl a good man would delight in protecting and sheltering from a world that is much too harsh for her. But feminism has cheated her and some man of this.

Her mother wanted a career in the sciences. I’ve never met her mother, so I have no idea if the woman was one of those few who really do have the temperament as well as the intellect to do a job like that, or if the feminist guff she read just gave her that excuse for her unhappiness, which might well have been the kind of unhappiness we all risk in this imperfect world. Whatever the case, her wish was thwarted, so she burdened her daughter with it instead.

The girl’s now at an Ivy League college, making herself miserable trying to get a degree in some biological science to please a mother who has always withheld affection and who’s saddled the girl with a life that makes her miserable to fulfil her own dream. She’s smart enough to do it, yes. But at least a couple of days a week, she has to stay in bed all day with a migraine. She’s constantly depressed. Last night, she was feeling ill and whining, “I want my mother!” (Why anyone would want that harridan is beyond me, but the instinct towards one’s mother is very powerful. Otherwise everyone would run like hell the instant they could walk.)

She knows my general views on women, but I know that there’s a big difference between a general “Most women would be happier and more useful as full-time homemakers” and “You should switch to a liberal arts major that wouldn’t stress you out so much and find yourself a good husband.” She would feel that was an attack; she’s had a lot of nonsense stuffed into her head. We’ll be having an interesting conversation and she’ll suddenly say that an ad was “misinformed by patriarchy” or start yammering about “the male gaze”. She has far too many defenses keeping her on the feminist plantation for my arguments to reach her. Besides which, pleasing one’s mother and her many feminist professors – the authority figures who surround her – is much more important than listening to the advice of a faraway friend who will basically tell her to turn her back on everything she’s been taught.

She’ll probably spend the best years of her life struggling in a career that’s much too stressful for her. Her unhappiness will probably wreck her first marriage, and by her second she’ll need all kinds of artificial aids to help her conceive. And once she has what she really needs, a husband and children, she won’t be able to properly enjoy them because she’ll be dragging herself back to the lab or the hospital every day for more stressful work that will use up all her energy and make her miserable. Not to mention how her exhaustion and misery will affect her family.

Just one more victim of feminism.

Advertisements

25 Responses to “Young Girls: Victims of Feminism”

  1. Artfldgr Says:

    The reason that feminists squat first on something valid or not is so that they get to have the prime mental real estate.

    If you try to argue with her against such things, it will not work, since her calling up the subject to compare will reinforce it.

    Sad is that if she doesn’t let go, she isn’t going to be a good biologist either as she will have such overwhelming bias.

    The best I can offer you is for you to tease out about her biology work. Science is under attack since its entered and crapping all over the ideology and at some point she is either going to have to accept the biology teachings, or deny them and fail as a biologist.

    Ask her about the crazy ideas of Susan Pinker. That way she gets to deal with cognitive dissonance through someone else.

    She is a hormone specialist and like you she sees us as very different and doesn’t think that’s bad. I can show how feminist family math has a purpose beyond fairness too. So I can show in mathematical terms that their policy is a sham.

    Her site is here. http://www.susanpinker.com/index.html

    Hardwired for different careers
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080310.wlhampson10/BNStory/lifeWork/home

    ‘I thought I was writing a book about developmental psychology. I never considered a book about the gender wars,” Susan Pinker says.

    “about 60 per cent of gifted women turn down promotions or take positions with lower pay so as to weave flexibility or a social purpose into their work lives.”

    So are women being held back by men? Or are men being blamed for the voluntary behaviors of women that don’t match what the sociopath manipulative leaders want out of them (not for them)?

    Unlike some nutty shrinks I recently bloviated on today who were discussion sociopaths, getting it VERY wrong, and then asserting that despite what she learned in biology, she still TEACHES contrary to that because she doesn’t BELIEVE.

    Why are there so many sociopaths in America?
    http://www.lovefraud.com/blog/2008/02/29/why-are-there-so-many-sociopaths-in-america/

    I happened to accidently roll onto that one, and delved into it. she claims to be a teacher, a doctor, and such… but her assertions about sociopaths are wrong… she favors ideology over what she knows… and she does the typical leftist thing asserting that she is answering something, but by the time you get to the end, she never shows anything.

    Worse, is that others who say theya re doctors, go right over it, and never get the contradictions. Amazing.

    Too bad you cant teach her about things within dialectical materialism, and other odd thing like “material equivalence”.

    Being thinking creatures we think that our thoughts are important. So when someone wants us to do something, the normal way we socially do that, is to ask, and be up front. That comes from the changes in social skills that came from civilization and how that favors less brutish tactics, so sociopaths are a throwback ergo they devolve us not uplift us.

    Say I wanted to show someone my followers to get a bit of power and cache. Traditional take would be that I organize and get people to follow me. then when the politician, dean, etc… sees them gathered, and knows I did it, they then consider me to be the power broker for the group.

    Done correctly, the group doesn’t even have to know that this is happening. You hang up a sign, something they like.. and say, free pizza will be provided. You spread that word out.. Then you arrange for the power person to be with you in his office and looking down on the large crowd of people gathered as predicted.

    That is an example of a form of material equivalence.. to the man in the office, the crowd is equivalent to a group that was there for the stated purpose.

    The game goes like this. As the leader that manipulatively steers the horse, does the leader who is using the horse care what the horse thinks, or that the horse does what they want? Does it matter what the material thinks as long as the material is in the right place doing the right actions?

    I hope a light is coming on now…

    Ok… now if you apply that to the changes feminism has made. Lets say dating and relationships.

    Harems are bad to feminists (the public image)… a man should not have many women like that. The fact that he takes care of them and has to have the wealth and means and such is irrelevant to them.

    A man with a harem of say 100 women can lay with a different woman each week. Unlike the harridans, they don’t understand that he cant command his harem ladies to be with him at once. They are not their for that, courtesans are for that, they are there to be wives, and mothers, and companions of intimacy, of which sex is not true intimacy (its what happens during sex or can happen during sex that can create intimacy, sex itself does not create such)

    So here you have a man who has 100 women, and every two years he cycles back.
    Operationally he cant do much more. if you want you can say every other day, then he sees them all three times a year.

    Ok… now watch this trick.

    A sociopathic man who is charming, and can play women LOVES our new world more. You see, in the past this man had to have merit to earn the money to be able to be so successful that he could afford to house 100 women.

    A sociopath is not successful that way; they cheat so merit is not a key to success for them other than transitory. So he can’t really assemble a huge force and be successful till the modern era (Hitler and Mussolini being the new breed that before was rare in royalty and other royals saw no reason not to get rid of them. Caligula did not die of old age).

    Ok… in the modern era such a cheater can assemble the money to take care of 100 women, if they are lucky. But what if the sociopathic leaders have sat and thought of the result they wanted, then thought backwards to the spin that would create that result? Rather than the assumption that the idea was good, but it led to unintended consequences? If that was true, then they wouldn’t have won the argument by out arguing the right answer, they win cause they are prepared to address it, so the consequences are not unintended. The fact that they don’t backpeddle shows that its intentional.

    Anyway… so a rich sociopathic man in the past had to woo a lady. He was kept separate from her since sociopaths are impatient and have impule and perversion problems. He may have a bad reputation. If he has none, that’s the samething. The family would be considered. Does he come from a bad family?

    Today, she is on her own. The wolves in sheeps clothing have complete accesss to her. They are more suave than average men, sicne they don’t care, they don’t get nervous and stuttery and so forth. the girls have even been trained to look down with contempt on the good guys and make a beeline to the sociopath. “and she just doesn’t know why she dates such people”

    Anyway… a good player can have a different woman once a week. A really god one can have one every other day or so… wilt chamberlain said that he slept with 10,000 women.

    So if you ignore the thoughts and such and look at them as material, what is this serial monogamy equivalent to?

    Well, its equivalent to a communal harem, rather than a private harem. A lothario now can have the saem 100 women that the harem man could have. He can also share them with 10 or 20 other harem men. Something that the older harem man would never do, other than in story. And unlike the older harem man, these women go out and work and feed and clothe themselves, so all he has to do is select them from the crowd.

    Without the thoughts of the people involved the two are operationally equivalent over time.

    Once the uplifting concept of pushing sex to the backburner so it doesn’t overwhelm all the other selection criteria that are not as strong since they are new. A woman that shows her breasts off should realize by now that she is keeping him from seeing her as a person. but because of feminism, that woman HAS to expose herself or be out of the competition.

    So all those qualities that the feminists complain about men not caring about is the grousing that comes to collect the fruits of the labor that to people is disconnected from the source of that manipulation.

    Like a devil on the shoulder everyone thinks that they decided to do this with their lives on their own. But then again. she has been left to other men, and her father has been kicked out so he cant tell her about different men, and what to look for in good men, and so forth.

    Ever go to the supermarket and see a fruit that you have never seen and so don’t buy it because not only do you not know how to prepare it, treat it, and so forth, but you cant even tell which are ripe, and right, and which are wrong.

    The harem thing and such is material equivalent. The material, man and 100 women, go the same actions, and think they are different because they think they are different.

    So is planned parenthood a social good, or is it soft eugenics? Well the originator said soft eugenics to get people to self exterminate for the good of the rest that don’t.

    If police went into homes and exterminated babies, and sterilized mothers, we would all protest and be up in arms.

    But if you can convince the mothers by creating bad circumstances by changing what we think is right to wrong, and what is wrong to right, then economically trapping them in impossible situations.

    You will get them to walk into an office and exterminate their own child on behalf of the socialist state, fulfilling the population dreams of a elite that wishes to have less cattle to deal with and be safer that way from their rising up and opposing their slavery (note that slaves owned no property, had their medical paid, etc)

    This is the totalitarianism of aldous Huxley, whose brother was a communist that tried to create the precursor to the UN as a communist overlord of the world. The UN has been manipulated into that position (with many defectors saying that it was their main way to get spies into the US)

    Aldous Huxley described a soft totalitarianism in which the people might not realize that they were cattle.

    They don’t care that she becomes a biologist. They care that a smart girl that could be a biologist doesn’t have smart kids that may grow up and oppose this game because they are smart enough to know.

    Heck… here is another one. they say they are for gays and lesbians. Right? so they promote them and create normalization so that they can come out of the closet right?
    What does that do to the demographics?

    Well, the more out of the closet they are, the fewer children they have with heterosexuals, so the fewer they are represented in the genetic legacy. Which the left denies even matters. Which is kind of convenient…

    Eventually what will happen to their numbers? Remember communist/fascist/socialists did what with gays and such? Exterminated them. Sociopaths having same gender sex may not be gay, as they don’t love and are incapable of it; their choice of doing that comes from perversion, not from other reasons. They would have sex with a boy not because they love the boy, but because their pleasure would give the boy such pain for life. This is not the typical person who has interest in the same sexes. However they were the ones that gave them that rep since the non perverted gays were not caught doing things to people.

    Anyway.. the point here being that coming out of the closet and all this stuff has created an extermination program in which those exterminated make sure to ferret everyone out, and even every maybe out… and so they will disappear…

    If the system changes, then the new system will know them. and tradition of socialists is to remove the others that were the ones that could make a change so that they don’t change it back. So guess who is in the cross hairs too.

    Meanwhile, most feminists are white western women. What makes them think that like women in the past the men will be killed and they will survive? under sharia and dhimmi they will be gangbanged till dead since they are nothings. Meanwhile the men they emasculated wont defend them the way men did in the past.

    So understanding this little trick from the soviets should open your eyes to a lot of things that are said to be one thing, but are actually another. Maybe one of them will be an epiphany for your friend. Or maybe you can ask the right questions that will get her to discover this without having to bring up the subject and reinforce it.

    I am VERY sure that she doesn’t know this stuff… she is intended to be a useful idiot, not a fellow traveler.

  2. Artfldgr Says:

    The reason that feminists squat first on something valid or not is so that they get to have the prime mental real estate.

    If you try to argue with her against such things, it will not work, since her calling up the subject to compare will reinforce it.

    Sad is that if she doesn’t let go, she isn’t going to be a good biologist either as she will have such overwhelming bias.

    The best I can offer you is for you to tease out about her biology work. Science is under attack since its entered and crapping all over the ideology and at some point she is either going to have to accept the biology teachings, or deny them and fail as a biologist.

    Ask her about the crazy ideas of Susan Pinker. That way she gets to deal with cognitive dissonance through someone else.

    She is a hormone specialist and like you she sees us as very different and doesn’t think that’s bad. I can show how feminist family math has a purpose beyond fairness too. So I can show in mathematical terms that their policy is a sham.

    Her site is here. http://www.susanpinker.com/index.html

    Hardwired for different careers
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080310.wlhampson10/BNStory/lifeWork/home

    ‘I thought I was writing a book about developmental psychology. I never considered a book about the gender wars,” Susan Pinker says.

    “about 60 per cent of gifted women turn down promotions or take positions with lower pay so as to weave flexibility or a social purpose into their work lives.”

    So are women being held back by men? Or are men being blamed for the voluntary behaviors of women that don’t match what the sociopath manipulative leaders want out of them (not for them)?

    Unlike some nutty shrinks I recently bloviated on today who were discussion sociopaths, getting it VERY wrong, and then asserting that despite what she learned in biology, she still TEACHES contrary to that because she doesn’t BELIEVE.

    Why are there so many sociopaths in America?
    http://www.lovefraud.com/blog/2008/02/29/why-are-there-so-many-sociopaths-in-america/

    I happened to accidently roll onto that one, and delved into it. she claims to be a teacher, a doctor, and such… but her assertions about sociopaths are wrong… she favors ideology over what she knows… and she does the typical leftist thing asserting that she is answering something, but by the time you get to the end, she never shows anything.

    Worse, is that others who say theya re doctors, go right over it, and never get the contradictions. Amazing.

    Too bad you cant teach her about things within dialectical materialism, and other odd thing like “material equivalence”.

    Being thinking creatures we think that our thoughts are important. So when someone wants us to do something, the normal way we socially do that, is to ask, and be up front. That comes from the changes in social skills that came from civilization and how that favors less brutish tactics, so sociopaths are a throwback ergo they devolve us not uplift us.

    Say I wanted to show someone my followers to get a bit of power and cache. Traditional take would be that I organize and get people to follow me. then when the politician, dean, etc… sees them gathered, and knows I did it, they then consider me to be the power broker for the group.

    Done correctly, the group doesn’t even have to know that this is happening. You hang up a sign, something they like.. and say, free pizza will be provided. You spread that word out.. Then you arrange for the power person to be with you in his office and looking down on the large crowd of people gathered as predicted.

    That is an example of a form of material equivalence.. to the man in the office, the crowd is equivalent to a group that was there for the stated purpose.

    The game goes like this. As the leader that manipulatively steers the horse, does the leader who is using the horse care what the horse thinks, or that the horse does what they want? Does it matter what the material thinks as long as the material is in the right place doing the right actions?

    I hope a light is coming on now…

    Ok… now if you apply that to the changes feminism has made. Lets say dating and relationships.

    Harems are bad to feminists (the public image)… a man should not have many women like that. The fact that he takes care of them and has to have the wealth and means and such is irrelevant to them.

    A man with a harem of say 100 women can lay with a different woman each week. Unlike the harridans, they don’t understand that he cant command his harem ladies to be with him at once. They are not their for that, courtesans are for that, they are there to be wives, and mothers, and companions of intimacy, of which sex is not true intimacy (its what happens during sex or can happen during sex that can create intimacy, sex itself does not create such)

    So here you have a man who has 100 women, and every two years he cycles back.
    Operationally he cant do much more. if you want you can say every other day, then he sees them all three times a year.

    Ok… now watch this trick.

    A sociopathic man who is charming, and can play women LOVES our new world more. You see, in the past this man had to have merit to earn the money to be able to be so successful that he could afford to house 100 women.

    A sociopath is not successful that way; they cheat so merit is not a key to success for them other than transitory. So he can’t really assemble a huge force and be successful till the modern era (Hitler and Mussolini being the new breed that before was rare in royalty and other royals saw no reason not to get rid of them. Caligula did not die of old age).

    Ok… in the modern era such a cheater can assemble the money to take care of 100 women, if they are lucky. But what if the sociopathic leaders have sat and thought of the result they wanted, then thought backwards to the spin that would create that result? Rather than the assumption that the idea was good, but it led to unintended consequences? If that was true, then they wouldn’t have won the argument by out arguing the right answer, they win cause they are prepared to address it, so the consequences are not unintended. The fact that they don’t backpeddle shows that its intentional.

    Anyway… so a rich sociopathic man in the past had to woo a lady. He was kept separate from her since sociopaths are impatient and have impule and perversion problems. He may have a bad reputation. If he has none, that’s the samething. The family would be considered. Does he come from a bad family?

    Today, she is on her own. The wolves in sheeps clothing have complete accesss to her. They are more suave than average men, sicne they don’t care, they don’t get nervous and stuttery and so forth. the girls have even been trained to look down with contempt on the good guys and make a beeline to the sociopath. “and she just doesn’t know why she dates such people”

    Anyway… a good player can have a different woman once a week. A really god one can have one every other day or so… wilt chamberlain said that he slept with 10,000 women.

    So if you ignore the thoughts and such and look at them as material, what is this serial monogamy equivalent to?

    Well, its equivalent to a communal harem, rather than a private harem. A lothario now can have the saem 100 women that the harem man could have. He can also share them with 10 or 20 other harem men. Something that the older harem man would never do, other than in story. And unlike the older harem man, these women go out and work and feed and clothe themselves, so all he has to do is select them from the crowd.

    Without the thoughts of the people involved the two are operationally equivalent over time.

    Once the uplifting concept of pushing sex to the backburner so it doesn’t overwhelm all the other selection criteria that are not as strong since they are new. A woman that shows her breasts off should realize by now that she is keeping him from seeing her as a person. but because of feminism, that woman HAS to expose herself or be out of the competition.

    So all those qualities that the feminists complain about men not caring about is the grousing that comes to collect the fruits of the labor that to people is disconnected from the source of that manipulation.

    Like a devil on the shoulder everyone thinks that they decided to do this with their lives on their own. But then again. she has been left to other men, and her father has been kicked out so he cant tell her about different men, and what to look for in good men, and so forth.

    Ever go to the supermarket and see a fruit that you have never seen and so don’t buy it because not only do you not know how to prepare it, treat it, and so forth, but you cant even tell which are ripe, and right, and which are wrong.

    The harem thing and such is material equivalent. The material, man and 100 women, go the same actions, and think they are different because they think they are different.

    So is planned parenthood a social good, or is it soft eugenics? Well the originator said soft eugenics to get people to self exterminate for the good of the rest that don’t.

    If police went into homes and exterminated babies, and sterilized mothers, we would all protest and be up in arms.

    But if you can convince the mothers by creating bad circumstances by changing what we think is right to wrong, and what is wrong to right, then economically trapping them in impossible situations.

    You will get them to walk into an office and exterminate their own child on behalf of the socialist state, fulfilling the population dreams of a elite that wishes to have less cattle to deal with and be safer that way from their rising up and opposing their slavery (note that slaves owned no property, had their medical paid, etc)

    This is the totalitarianism of aldous Huxley, whose brother was a communist that tried to create the precursor to the UN as a communist overlord of the world. The UN has been manipulated into that position (with many defectors saying that it was their main way to get spies into the US)

    Aldous Huxley described a soft totalitarianism in which the people might not realize that they were cattle.

    They don’t care that she becomes a biologist. They care that a smart girl that could be a biologist doesn’t have smart kids that may grow up and oppose this game because they are smart enough to know.

    Heck… here is another one. they say they are for gays and lesbians. Right? so they promote them and create normalization so that they can come out of the closet right?
    What does that do to the demographics?

    Well, the more out of the closet they are, the fewer children they have with heterosexuals, so the fewer they are represented in the genetic legacy. Which the left denies even matters. Which is kind of convenient…

    Eventually what will happen to their numbers? Remember communist/fascist/socialists did what with gays and such? Exterminated them. Sociopaths having same gender sex may not be gay, as they don’t love and are incapable of it; their choice of doing that comes from perversion, not from other reasons. They would have sex with a boy not because they love the boy, but because their pleasure would give the boy such pain for life. This is not the typical person who has interest in the same sexes. However they were the ones that gave them that rep since the non perverted gays were not caught doing things to people.

    Anyway.. the point here being that coming out of the closet and all this stuff has created an extermination program in which those exterminated make sure to ferret everyone out, and even every maybe out… and so they will disappear…

    If the system changes, then the new system will know them. and tradition of socialists is to remove the others that were the ones that could make a change so that they don’t change it back. So guess who is in the cross hairs too.

    Meanwhile, most feminists are white western women. What makes them think that like women in the past the men will be killed and they will survive? under sharia and dhimmi they will be gangbanged till dead since they are nothings. Meanwhile the men they emasculated wont defend them the way men did in the past.

    So understanding this little trick from the soviets should open your eyes to a lot of things that are said to be one thing, but are actually another. Maybe one of them will be an epiphany for your friend. Or maybe you can ask the right questions that will get her to discover this without having to bring up the subject and reinforce it.

    I am VERY sure that she doesn’t know this stuff… she is intended to be a useful idiot, not a fellow traveler.

  3. Artfldgr Says:

    The reason that feminists squat first on something valid or not is so that they get to have the prime mental real estate.

    If you try to argue with her against such things, it will not work, since her calling up the subject to compare will reinforce it.

    Sad is that if she doesn’t let go, she isn’t going to be a good biologist either as she will have such overwhelming bias.

    The best I can offer you is for you to tease out about her biology work. Science is under attack since its entered and crapping all over the ideology and at some point she is either going to have to accept the biology teachings, or deny them and fail as a biologist.

    Ask her about the crazy ideas of Susan Pinker. That way she gets to deal with cognitive dissonance through someone else.

    She is a hormone specialist and like you she sees us as very different and doesn’t think that’s bad. I can show how feminist family math has a purpose beyond fairness too. So I can show in mathematical terms that their policy is a sham.

    Her site is here. http://www.susanpinker.com/index.html

    Hardwired for different careers
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080310.wlhampson10/BNStory/lifeWork/home

    ‘I thought I was writing a book about developmental psychology. I never considered a book about the gender wars,” Susan Pinker says.

    “about 60 per cent of gifted women turn down promotions or take positions with lower pay so as to weave flexibility or a social purpose into their work lives.”

    So are women being held back by men? Or are men being blamed for the voluntary behaviors of women that don’t match what the sociopath manipulative leaders want out of them (not for them)?

    Unlike some nutty shrinks I recently bloviated on today who were discussion sociopaths, getting it VERY wrong, and then asserting that despite what she learned in biology, she still TEACHES contrary to that because she doesn’t BELIEVE.

    Why are there so many sociopaths in America?
    http://www.lovefraud.com/blog/2008/02/29/why-are-there-so-many-sociopaths-in-america/

    I happened to accidently roll onto that one, and delved into it. she claims to be a teacher, a doctor, and such… but her assertions about sociopaths are wrong… she favors ideology over what she knows… and she does the typical leftist thing asserting that she is answering something, but by the time you get to the end, she never shows anything.

    Worse, is that others who say theya re doctors, go right over it, and never get the contradictions. Amazing.

    Too bad you cant teach her about things within dialectical materialism, and other odd thing like “material equivalence”.

    Being thinking creatures we think that our thoughts are important. So when someone wants us to do something, the normal way we socially do that, is to ask, and be up front. That comes from the changes in social skills that came from civilization and how that favors less brutish tactics, so sociopaths are a throwback ergo they devolve us not uplift us.

    Say I wanted to show someone my followers to get a bit of power and cache. Traditional take would be that I organize and get people to follow me. then when the politician, dean, etc… sees them gathered, and knows I did it, they then consider me to be the power broker for the group.

    Done correctly, the group doesn’t even have to know that this is happening. You hang up a sign, something they like.. and say, free pizza will be provided. You spread that word out.. Then you arrange for the power person to be with you in his office and looking down on the large crowd of people gathered as predicted.

    That is an example of a form of material equivalence.. to the man in the office, the crowd is equivalent to a group that was there for the stated purpose.

    The game goes like this. As the leader that manipulatively steers the horse, does the leader who is using the horse care what the horse thinks, or that the horse does what they want? Does it matter what the material thinks as long as the material is in the right place doing the right actions?

    I hope a light is coming on now…

    Ok… now if you apply that to the changes feminism has made. Lets say dating and relationships.

    Harems are bad to feminists (the public image)… a man should not have many women like that. The fact that he takes care of them and has to have the wealth and means and such is irrelevant to them.

    A man with a harem of say 100 women can lay with a different woman each week. Unlike the harridans, they don’t understand that he cant command his harem ladies to be with him at once. They are not their for that, courtesans are for that, they are there to be wives, and mothers, and companions of intimacy, of which sex is not true intimacy (its what happens during sex or can happen during sex that can create intimacy, sex itself does not create such)

    So here you have a man who has 100 women, and every two years he cycles back.
    Operationally he cant do much more. if you want you can say every other day, then he sees them all three times a year.

    Ok… now watch this trick.

    A sociopathic man who is charming, and can play women LOVES our new world more. You see, in the past this man had to have merit to earn the money to be able to be so successful that he could afford to house 100 women.

    A sociopath is not successful that way; they cheat so merit is not a key to success for them other than transitory. So he can’t really assemble a huge force and be successful till the modern era (Hitler and Mussolini being the new breed that before was rare in royalty and other royals saw no reason not to get rid of them. Caligula did not die of old age).

    Ok… in the modern era such a cheater can assemble the money to take care of 100 women, if they are lucky. But what if the sociopathic leaders have sat and thought of the result they wanted, then thought backwards to the spin that would create that result? Rather than the assumption that the idea was good, but it led to unintended consequences? If that was true, then they wouldn’t have won the argument by out arguing the right answer, they win cause they are prepared to address it, so the consequences are not unintended. The fact that they don’t backpeddle shows that its intentional.

    Anyway… so a rich sociopathic man in the past had to woo a lady. He was kept separate from her since sociopaths are impatient and have impule and perversion problems. He may have a bad reputation. If he has none, that’s the samething. The family would be considered. Does he come from a bad family?

    Today, she is on her own. The wolves in sheeps clothing have complete accesss to her. They are more suave than average men, sicne they don’t care, they don’t get nervous and stuttery and so forth. the girls have even been trained to look down with contempt on the good guys and make a beeline to the sociopath. “and she just doesn’t know why she dates such people”

    Anyway… a good player can have a different woman once a week. A really god one can have one every other day or so… wilt chamberlain said that he slept with 10,000 women.

    So if you ignore the thoughts and such and look at them as material, what is this serial monogamy equivalent to?

    Well, its equivalent to a communal harem, rather than a private harem. A lothario now can have the saem 100 women that the harem man could have. He can also share them with 10 or 20 other harem men. Something that the older harem man would never do, other than in story. And unlike the older harem man, these women go out and work and feed and clothe themselves, so all he has to do is select them from the crowd.

    Without the thoughts of the people involved the two are operationally equivalent over time.

    Once the uplifting concept of pushing sex to the backburner so it doesn’t overwhelm all the other selection criteria that are not as strong since they are new. A woman that shows her breasts off should realize by now that she is keeping him from seeing her as a person. but because of feminism, that woman HAS to expose herself or be out of the competition.

    So all those qualities that the feminists complain about men not caring about is the grousing that comes to collect the fruits of the labor that to people is disconnected from the source of that manipulation.

    Like a devil on the shoulder everyone thinks that they decided to do this with their lives on their own. But then again. she has been left to other men, and her father has been kicked out so he cant tell her about different men, and what to look for in good men, and so forth.

    Ever go to the supermarket and see a fruit that you have never seen and so don’t buy it because not only do you not know how to prepare it, treat it, and so forth, but you cant even tell which are ripe, and right, and which are wrong.

    The harem thing and such is material equivalent. The material, man and 100 women, go the same actions, and think they are different because they think they are different.

    So is planned parenthood a social good, or is it soft eugenics? Well the originator said soft eugenics to get people to self exterminate for the good of the rest that don’t.

    If police went into homes and exterminated babies, and sterilized mothers, we would all protest and be up in arms.

    But if you can convince the mothers by creating bad circumstances by changing what we think is right to wrong, and what is wrong to right, then economically trapping them in impossible situations.

    You will get them to walk into an office and exterminate their own child on behalf of the socialist state, fulfilling the population dreams of a elite that wishes to have less cattle to deal with and be safer that way from their rising up and opposing their slavery (note that slaves owned no property, had their medical paid, etc)

    This is the totalitarianism of aldous Huxley, whose brother was a communist that tried to create the precursor to the UN as a communist overlord of the world. The UN has been manipulated into that position (with many defectors saying that it was their main way to get spies into the US)

    Aldous Huxley described a soft totalitarianism in which the people might not realize that they were cattle.

    They don’t care that she becomes a biologist. They care that a smart girl that could be a biologist doesn’t have smart kids that may grow up and oppose this game because they are smart enough to know.

    Heck… here is another one. they say they are for gays and lesbians. Right? so they promote them and create normalization so that they can come out of the closet right?
    What does that do to the demographics?

    Well, the more out of the closet they are, the fewer children they have with heterosexuals, so the fewer they are represented in the genetic legacy. Which the left denies even matters. Which is kind of convenient…

    Eventually what will happen to their numbers? Remember communist/fascist/socialists did what with gays and such? Exterminated them. Sociopaths having same gender sex may not be gay, as they don’t love and are incapable of it; their choice of doing that comes from perversion, not from other reasons. They would have sex with a boy not because they love the boy, but because their pleasure would give the boy such pain for life. This is not the typical person who has interest in the same sexes. However they were the ones that gave them that rep since the non perverted gays were not caught doing things to people.

    Anyway.. the point here being that coming out of the closet and all this stuff has created an extermination program in which those exterminated make sure to ferret everyone out, and even every maybe out… and so they will disappear…

    If the system changes, then the new system will know them. and tradition of socialists is to remove the others that were the ones that could make a change so that they don’t change it back. So guess who is in the cross hairs too.

    Meanwhile, most feminists are white western women. What makes them think that like women in the past the men will be killed and they will survive? under sharia and dhimmi they will be gangbanged till dead since they are nothings. Meanwhile the men they emasculated wont defend them the way men did in the past.

    So understanding this little trick from the soviets should open your eyes to a lot of things that are said to be one thing, but are actually another. Maybe one of them will be an epiphany for your friend. Or maybe you can ask the right questions that will get her to discover this without having to bring up the subject and reinforce it.

    I am VERY sure that she doesn’t know this stuff… she is intended to be a useful idiot, not a fellow traveler.

  4. Finsals Says:

    Well, I usually agree with you. I am against feminism and I appreciate the amazing work you are doing with this blog.

    However, this post has made me uncomfortable. I am not sure I quite agree with your point of view about this. Specifically, I think I don’t quite understand your concept that “she is a weak woman so she should be protected from the world by a man”.

    There are weak man and woman out there and they should learn to face the world. Of course, they may need help. But renouncing to grow up and living in a state of prolonged childhood by allowing you to isolate from the world and forcing your husband to be your daddy seems very immature for me. And a very heavy burden for the husband.

    I was the boyfriend of a weak woman like the one you are describing for six years. We were about to marry and I was madly in love with her. But she found a wealthier daddy so she dumped me with no remorse and empathy for my feelings. I was devastated and now, one year after, I haven’t recovered from the experience.

    Anyway, with this girl, I made the mistake of protecting her from the world. She degenerated into a selfish monster who always wanted things their way and, when this was not possible, it was always my fault. She became more and more unable of doing things, less and less tolerant with frustration and more and more unhappy with me, with her and with the world.

    Feminism is a lie. But women of the past were strong women (not in the feminist meaning of the word) who fought together with their husbands. They were not weak parasites of a man.

  5. Finsals Says:

    Well, I usually agree with you. I am against feminism and I appreciate the amazing work you are doing with this blog.

    However, this post has made me uncomfortable. I am not sure I quite agree with your point of view about this. Specifically, I think I don’t quite understand your concept that “she is a weak woman so she should be protected from the world by a man”.

    There are weak man and woman out there and they should learn to face the world. Of course, they may need help. But renouncing to grow up and living in a state of prolonged childhood by allowing you to isolate from the world and forcing your husband to be your daddy seems very immature for me. And a very heavy burden for the husband.

    I was the boyfriend of a weak woman like the one you are describing for six years. We were about to marry and I was madly in love with her. But she found a wealthier daddy so she dumped me with no remorse and empathy for my feelings. I was devastated and now, one year after, I haven’t recovered from the experience.

    Anyway, with this girl, I made the mistake of protecting her from the world. She degenerated into a selfish monster who always wanted things their way and, when this was not possible, it was always my fault. She became more and more unable of doing things, less and less tolerant with frustration and more and more unhappy with me, with her and with the world.

    Feminism is a lie. But women of the past were strong women (not in the feminist meaning of the word) who fought together with their husbands. They were not weak parasites of a man.

  6. Finsals Says:

    Well, I usually agree with you. I am against feminism and I appreciate the amazing work you are doing with this blog.

    However, this post has made me uncomfortable. I am not sure I quite agree with your point of view about this. Specifically, I think I don’t quite understand your concept that “she is a weak woman so she should be protected from the world by a man”.

    There are weak man and woman out there and they should learn to face the world. Of course, they may need help. But renouncing to grow up and living in a state of prolonged childhood by allowing you to isolate from the world and forcing your husband to be your daddy seems very immature for me. And a very heavy burden for the husband.

    I was the boyfriend of a weak woman like the one you are describing for six years. We were about to marry and I was madly in love with her. But she found a wealthier daddy so she dumped me with no remorse and empathy for my feelings. I was devastated and now, one year after, I haven’t recovered from the experience.

    Anyway, with this girl, I made the mistake of protecting her from the world. She degenerated into a selfish monster who always wanted things their way and, when this was not possible, it was always my fault. She became more and more unable of doing things, less and less tolerant with frustration and more and more unhappy with me, with her and with the world.

    Feminism is a lie. But women of the past were strong women (not in the feminist meaning of the word) who fought together with their husbands. They were not weak parasites of a man.

  7. Artfldgr Says:

    Anyway, with this girl, I made the mistake of protecting her from the world.

    I dont want to offend, but perhaps your definition of protection is wrong… shielding is not protection, its isolation from the world.

    to make a simpler analogy.. .

    when you take a kid to the playground, the kid goes off and plays. the kid can fall, get hurt, have fights, and all the altercations that make up life. but if a big person came to hurt the child, you would stop them.

    this is protection.

    when you take a kid to the playground, and you dont let them fall, and get hurt, have fights and never have real world altercations. then yes they are protected from the same bad imaginary person.

    however they are also protected from the norms of life. and so they cant deal with them, and have to rely on their protector.

    this is the difference between the state as protector, and the state as controller too.

    like the sone says.

    “there is a fine line between pleasure and pain”

    the difference between i am god, and i see god is the thickness of a chain link fence.

    the difference between protection and isolation…

  8. Artfldgr Says:

    Anyway, with this girl, I made the mistake of protecting her from the world.

    I dont want to offend, but perhaps your definition of protection is wrong… shielding is not protection, its isolation from the world.

    to make a simpler analogy.. .

    when you take a kid to the playground, the kid goes off and plays. the kid can fall, get hurt, have fights, and all the altercations that make up life. but if a big person came to hurt the child, you would stop them.

    this is protection.

    when you take a kid to the playground, and you dont let them fall, and get hurt, have fights and never have real world altercations. then yes they are protected from the same bad imaginary person.

    however they are also protected from the norms of life. and so they cant deal with them, and have to rely on their protector.

    this is the difference between the state as protector, and the state as controller too.

    like the sone says.

    “there is a fine line between pleasure and pain”

    the difference between i am god, and i see god is the thickness of a chain link fence.

    the difference between protection and isolation…

  9. Artfldgr Says:

    Anyway, with this girl, I made the mistake of protecting her from the world.

    I dont want to offend, but perhaps your definition of protection is wrong… shielding is not protection, its isolation from the world.

    to make a simpler analogy.. .

    when you take a kid to the playground, the kid goes off and plays. the kid can fall, get hurt, have fights, and all the altercations that make up life. but if a big person came to hurt the child, you would stop them.

    this is protection.

    when you take a kid to the playground, and you dont let them fall, and get hurt, have fights and never have real world altercations. then yes they are protected from the same bad imaginary person.

    however they are also protected from the norms of life. and so they cant deal with them, and have to rely on their protector.

    this is the difference between the state as protector, and the state as controller too.

    like the sone says.

    “there is a fine line between pleasure and pain”

    the difference between i am god, and i see god is the thickness of a chain link fence.

    the difference between protection and isolation…

  10. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Artful Dodger is right about what I mean about protection. Throwing a girl like this to the wolves isn’t ever going to make her strong, it’s just going to make her so high-strung and stressed that she’ll be useless in all ways, and will end up like that bimbo who swooned because Larry Summers said something she didn’t like and then ruined his career.

  11. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Artful Dodger is right about what I mean about protection. Throwing a girl like this to the wolves isn’t ever going to make her strong, it’s just going to make her so high-strung and stressed that she’ll be useless in all ways, and will end up like that bimbo who swooned because Larry Summers said something she didn’t like and then ruined his career.

  12. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Artful Dodger is right about what I mean about protection. Throwing a girl like this to the wolves isn’t ever going to make her strong, it’s just going to make her so high-strung and stressed that she’ll be useless in all ways, and will end up like that bimbo who swooned because Larry Summers said something she didn’t like and then ruined his career.

  13. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    By the way, finsals, I didn’t mean to sound dismissive of your story. You do have my sympathy; I’ve tried to protect weak women too and gotten similar results. The problem is that we now have a legal and social structure that allows that kind of parasitism. I am sorry about what your girlfriend did to you. That was very ungrateful.

  14. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    By the way, finsals, I didn’t mean to sound dismissive of your story. You do have my sympathy; I’ve tried to protect weak women too and gotten similar results. The problem is that we now have a legal and social structure that allows that kind of parasitism. I am sorry about what your girlfriend did to you. That was very ungrateful.

  15. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    By the way, finsals, I didn’t mean to sound dismissive of your story. You do have my sympathy; I’ve tried to protect weak women too and gotten similar results. The problem is that we now have a legal and social structure that allows that kind of parasitism. I am sorry about what your girlfriend did to you. That was very ungrateful.

  16. Finsals Says:

    Well, in fact, I sound kind of silly telling these things as if I am justifying myself and rationalizing my behaviour. But I was never keen on the protection thing. It was her entire attitude towards life. She wanted to be protected from the world. I guess she conceived love as a shining-armor-knight-rescuing-helpless- princess situation. I tried to make her grow up but she didn’t want to. This was one of the causes of our breakup (she found a wealthier knight who didn’t ask her to grow up).

    For example, she was very dependent on her family. When I tried to make her aware of that, she used to cry while saying me “You don’t like my family” (which was not true, since, after six years, I really loved their parents). I used to feel kind of guilty. She wanted me or her family to solve every problem she had, but she was a fully grown-up. When I tried to make her change, she used to tell me “You don’t love me” with sad eyes. Now I see this clearly but then I was unable to see it because I was so in love.

    Anyway, I know that this post is not about this relationship of mine. I apologize for hijacking the post, which I didn’t meant to. I was only explaining an example to make my point. I guess I overreacted because it is already extremely hurtful for me.

    Anyway, I love your blog and please keep up with the good work.

  17. Finsals Says:

    Well, in fact, I sound kind of silly telling these things as if I am justifying myself and rationalizing my behaviour. But I was never keen on the protection thing. It was her entire attitude towards life. She wanted to be protected from the world. I guess she conceived love as a shining-armor-knight-rescuing-helpless- princess situation. I tried to make her grow up but she didn’t want to. This was one of the causes of our breakup (she found a wealthier knight who didn’t ask her to grow up).

    For example, she was very dependent on her family. When I tried to make her aware of that, she used to cry while saying me “You don’t like my family” (which was not true, since, after six years, I really loved their parents). I used to feel kind of guilty. She wanted me or her family to solve every problem she had, but she was a fully grown-up. When I tried to make her change, she used to tell me “You don’t love me” with sad eyes. Now I see this clearly but then I was unable to see it because I was so in love.

    Anyway, I know that this post is not about this relationship of mine. I apologize for hijacking the post, which I didn’t meant to. I was only explaining an example to make my point. I guess I overreacted because it is already extremely hurtful for me.

    Anyway, I love your blog and please keep up with the good work.

  18. Finsals Says:

    Well, in fact, I sound kind of silly telling these things as if I am justifying myself and rationalizing my behaviour. But I was never keen on the protection thing. It was her entire attitude towards life. She wanted to be protected from the world. I guess she conceived love as a shining-armor-knight-rescuing-helpless- princess situation. I tried to make her grow up but she didn’t want to. This was one of the causes of our breakup (she found a wealthier knight who didn’t ask her to grow up).

    For example, she was very dependent on her family. When I tried to make her aware of that, she used to cry while saying me “You don’t like my family” (which was not true, since, after six years, I really loved their parents). I used to feel kind of guilty. She wanted me or her family to solve every problem she had, but she was a fully grown-up. When I tried to make her change, she used to tell me “You don’t love me” with sad eyes. Now I see this clearly but then I was unable to see it because I was so in love.

    Anyway, I know that this post is not about this relationship of mine. I apologize for hijacking the post, which I didn’t meant to. I was only explaining an example to make my point. I guess I overreacted because it is already extremely hurtful for me.

    Anyway, I love your blog and please keep up with the good work.

  19. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Finsals,

    You do make a good point. The chivalrous urge to protect women (I feel it too; I tend to “play the man” in my romances) is important to civilization, but it can be exploited badly, and that’s what you unfortunately experienced.

    I’m very glad you’re enjoying my blog! I probably won’t post quite as often from now on – I’ve been posting things that I’ve been thinking for a long time – but I will keep posting!

  20. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Finsals,

    You do make a good point. The chivalrous urge to protect women (I feel it too; I tend to “play the man” in my romances) is important to civilization, but it can be exploited badly, and that’s what you unfortunately experienced.

    I’m very glad you’re enjoying my blog! I probably won’t post quite as often from now on – I’ve been posting things that I’ve been thinking for a long time – but I will keep posting!

  21. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    Finsals,

    You do make a good point. The chivalrous urge to protect women (I feel it too; I tend to “play the man” in my romances) is important to civilization, but it can be exploited badly, and that’s what you unfortunately experienced.

    I’m very glad you’re enjoying my blog! I probably won’t post quite as often from now on – I’ve been posting things that I’ve been thinking for a long time – but I will keep posting!

  22. Dan Says:

    Great posts, one and all. You’ve given me much food for thought today.

  23. Dan Says:

    Great posts, one and all. You’ve given me much food for thought today.

  24. Dan Says:

    Great posts, one and all. You’ve given me much food for thought today.

  25. Phoenix Says:

    So true Male Chauvinist Woman, so true.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: