Have you ever been in a situation in which people were expected to make small talk, and you were asked in which historic epoch you would have liked to live in? I think it's an absurd question, but it's one that enjoys some popularity. Especially women seem fond of that kind of daydreaming. However, as soon as people explore this topic, they make one serious mistake: they refer to the elites, the aristocracy.
Don't get me wrong, this kind of comparison is of course perfectly legitimate if you happen to be the Queen of England and ask yourself whether any of your ancestors might have been a happier parasite than you are. However, the vast majority of people aren't quite so lucky. So, the next time a girl asks you a question like that, before blabbering about how fabulous it must have been to have lived in the baroque era, tell her to think about the fate of the common man. Suddenly, this comparison isn't quite so sexy anymore.
Yes, Virginia, of course you would have lived in Versailles! |
But where am I going with this? Well, in my last post I discussed the topic of alleged female power, in short, the hypothesis that women hold all sexual power, and can have sex with whom they want, when they want. As I thought more about this, it struck me that the feminists who came up with this must have made the same mistake as your typical ditzy teenage airhead who wonders what being a courtesan of Louis XIV was like. Likewise, instead of wondering how the average woman might fare in a typical club or bar, feminists, seem to have pictured supermodels and actresses instead --- but in a regular club, so that they'd really stand out. As Fifth Season pointed out in the comment section of my last article, Leonardo DiCaprio got tired of Bar Refaeli, a woman surely plenty of men fantasize about. But if you're Leonardo DiCaprio, you can have plenty of other hot women, which again renders the concept of female sexual power invalid.
Feminist ideology is full of absurd comparisons, ignoring the fate of the average man or woman in typical situations, and instead focusing on extreme outliers, and possibly even in unrealistic situations. Just think of all this talk about the alleged subjugation of women. Men always had it so much better in history and all that.. You know, men were kings, generals, authors, scientists, tycoons and whatnot. But what was the fate of the common man? I once asked a feminist how many women she believed have lost their lives fighting in World War II. She threw a fit and accused me of not taking the plight of women seriously. I don't care what your bullshit feminist theory textbook says. Compared to the risk of dying on the battle field or returning home with a missing limb, it's not so bad to be subjugated. If it isn't a privilege not to have to fight in a war, then I wouldn't know what is. But why bother with those pesky little details when you can focus on the "big picture" instead?
What's your opinion? Let me know in the comment section below!
"Just think of all this talk about the alleged subjugation of women. Men always had it so much better in history and all that.. You know, men were kings, generals, authors, scientists, tycoons and whatnot. But what was the fate of the common man? I once asked a feminist how many women she believed have lost their lives fighting in World War II. She threw a fit and accused me of not taking the plight of women seriously. I don't care what your bullshit feminist theory textbook says. Compared to the risk of dying on the battle field or returning home with a missing limb, it's not so bad to be subjugated"
ReplyDeleteI had this exact same argument with a feminist not to long ago. What a lot of feminist do is they tend to take extreme outliers and base there whole arguments on that extreme without looking at the whole data set. It's hard to take most of them seriously in academia with those kind of conclusions.
It's my impression that Gender studies are seen as the lowest of the academic totem pole. Richard Feynman once said that the department of home economics was a disgrace for an institution like Cornell, and I wonder how he would have reacted to feminism gaining a foothold in academia. But that's just an aside. Plenty of people in the humanities have no idea what they are talking about and draw absurd conclusions. I guess gender studies is just par for the course.
DeleteSleazy , man I´m the guy who did some roissy research for you and I have to add one thing. Lately roissy released a new article that is so full of shit it is impossible to close your eyes.
ReplyDeleteRead it. It is so fucking hilarious.
Basically it´s an pathetic attept to defend pua bullfuckery.
Fucking read it:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/tiresome-hater-schooled-to-discourage-the-others-a-series/
Here is my favourite.
the smart guy says:
``You can fake it till you make it until the cows come home but if you’re a big fat Nothing at the end of the day, then your life will stay the same.``
Answer:
``Au contraire. In at least one respect your life will be different: You’ll have had sex with cute girls instead of no sex with cute girls.``
An alpha fatsno gettig cute puss , Sleazy that something new!
Quick here with the cutie-seduction-blueprint FOR fatsos.LOL.
I've had quite a dose of Roissy when I went through your notes. I'll add this link and will have a look in due time.
DeleteThis reminds me of this video from French TV about the genocide in Darfur/Soudan a couple of years back. Christine Ockrent is a leading journalist in France:
ReplyDelete"Obviously, women are far more victims than men. They are raped, men are killed."
“Évidemment, les femmes sont beaucoup plus victimes que les hommes. Elles sont violées, les hommes sont tués.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydyRlaruwA
Their obsession with their personal situation makes them blind for the situation of others. Their obsession with their personal wishes makes them blind for reality. That is their nature. It's not just feminists, all women are hopelessly self-centered to the point of seriously lacking empathy and a sense of reality. Their view of the world is hopelessly distorted by their narcissism. The only known antidote is the presence of strong male influence in their lives, that's the recalibration mechanism.
Yeah I remmeber reading a woman celebrity here in France saying she could not be a judge because she was too kind, so she would forgive evrything...Except rape.
DeleteI mean, rape is horrible allright, but do these gals really defend the idea that it's better to be tortured and killed than to be raped? That's delirium.
What does it say of a society that gives people like Christine Ockrent a podium to spread such nonsense? It's a sacrilege to mention Hitler, yet a woman is allowed to ridicule half of humankind.
DeleteIt tells us that we are living under matriarchal rule. Women are seen as more valuable and important than men and are being treated accordingly at all levels. There is no equality between the sexes in the West, women are clearly priviledged.
DeleteI think it's a sign of a society that is in decay. I have developed a stronger interest in history in recent years, and it does seem that there is a pattern that once hubris of the elites sets in, society gradually starts to fall apart because the support of the common people, on which everything is built, vanishes. Throughout history, people seem to have been very accepting of some monarchs, namely those that gave them the impression that they were doing what was best for them or their nation (what's best for the nation may have had negative consequences for the individual, though). It may even be possible to draw a parallel between military superiority of a nation and support of their leader. Napoleon Bonaparte may be a prime example for that or, in contemporary times, the devastatingly poor track record of the US army that is bankrupting the US empire an example of the exact opposite.
DeleteWell, it's not difficult to agree that the West is decaying and in decline. As for naming the sources of the decay, good luck! Historians have come up with so many different theories for the decline of past civilisations and nonetheless there are so few convincing arguments in that type of literature. We should be happy if someone can accurately describe the situation; I do not believe it is within human reach to understand such phenomenons.
Deleteare there guys who have sexual fantasies about being hacked to death with a machete? I've never heard of that.
Delete(I've certainly heard of the other one, tho)
Well we pretty much can agree that feminism fucked everything over.
ReplyDeleteStarting with everday-arrogant and entitled , man-despising beahaviour and ending with THE FUCKING DEPOPULATION OF EUROPE (fuck familiy and duty gurls lets have ''funnnnnn ''family is opressuuuvv!)
In 100 years there will be no europe folks.
European couples have 1.3-1.8 kids per family , and that if they have a family at all (an that at a median age of 30 ,taken out countries like slovakia ,short : eastblock)!
For a population to insure its survival a minimum of 2.3 is needed.
In 2050 50% of europe will be muslim.
The only one in europe minding reproduction are minorities of muslim countries.
The german goverment already confessed that their people are dying out.
I think its the first time in history that a whole group of countries are dying out not because of famine , war , epidemics but of STUPIDITY!
^No, I think it's just a natural limit on human development. Statistics shows that westernized Arabs begin to adopt the European way of life over the generations, marrying later, and having fewer children. This happens to immigrant communities in America as well. Only primitive societies place a large emphasis on producing offspring early and often. As societies become more technologically advanced, they die out.
ReplyDeleteThe Isaac Asimov short story "Breeds There a Man…?" deals with this topic, albeit in a more literal (and creepy) way.
In Europe, social policies certainly play an important role. Otherwise, I wouldn't know how to explain the relatively high birthrate of France, and the abysmally low of Germany. Well, France has a very good welfare system that supports families, while Germany has done everything it could to make life miserable for the bottom 95%, so it's really no surprise.
DeleteHave you been to Germany yourself? If Germany is making life miserable for the non-upper classes, then how is it able to fund the bailouts of so many European banks? The non-upper classes are the ones paying the majority of the taxes, right?
DeleteI'm German, but I emigrated.
DeleteWhat you witness in politics is what cynics call "kicking the can forward". There is no clear plan how the massive amounts of debt are ever to be repaid, and the burden does indeed lie on the common man. As evidence you can use measures of standard of living, or "real" income (= nominal income accounted for inflation). The rich indeed get richer and richer, and the vast majority of the people have it much worse than, say, fifteen years ago.
I see, without an inside view it's hard to believe that Germans are in difficult financial straits. Where I am, I lose count of the BMWs, the Volkswagens, and the Mercedes-Benz cars I see many days. Companies like Heckler und Koch look like they're still making a killing, and everyone loves German bier. Neighbouring Austria has Steyr Mannlicher and Glock too, both of which are quite successful companies.
DeleteThere is a big difference between the fortune of the private sector and the fate of the common man. Unemployment is very high in Germany, too, if you know how to read official statistics. Millions of people are not counted. Also, of the entire workforce, about a quarter works for the minimum wage, which is the highest with the UK within Europe. The gap between rich and poor has widened dramatically in the recent decade or so, and while Germany has quite a way to go to reach US levels, things aren't going well at all. Just to mention anecdotal evidence: I've seen more people in Berlin trying to fish for food from trash cans than I could count. For a first-world country, and one of the richest on earth, this is an absolute disgrace.
DeleteYeah, it reminds me of how Walloonia (the French-speaking part of Belgium, bordering Germany) is in dire financial straits despite being home to Fabrique Nationale, one of the premiere arms manufacturers in the world.
DeleteIf the big companies in Germany can't or won't pay enough taxes to fund social welfare programs for locals, maybe the German government could start labour programs sponsored by those companies. Those crates and pallets of bier, car parts, and ammunition won't move themselves, and there are times when you can't use forklifts.
Germany reduced taxes for corporations drastically, and gutted the welfare system. Someone's got to pay, right? What you propose is already in effect. If you live off welfare, you can be ordered to work for free or for one Euro per hour, and often those are jobs that used to be, well, regular jobs.
DeleteI didn't know about Walloonia, but I read an article about Sindelfingen, home of the main Mercedes-Benz manufacturing plant. Ever since tax income dried up, it's been going downhill. Apparently, public baths had to be closed, among others. This is even more startling when you consider that this used to be one of the most prosperous communities. For instance, in that town there are crosswalks made from marble.
Makes me wonder when the head honchos in Germany will realize that this is unsustainable. Bier and bullets need to help at home too rather than make money that goes entirely into someone's pocket.
DeleteNow when you are discussing problematic female beliefs, I get reminded by this one post by Roosh. In it he made a valid point about the unrealistic and stupid "divorce-porn" that books like eat, pray, love, or sex and the city represent. (they paint a picture of aging and not very hot women that still end up with some powerful and rich man). He is right, but at the same time he is advocating the opposite male example in his "freedom porn" (travel to third world country you aren't interested in and somehow magically make money doing some internet business as an afterthought).
ReplyDeleteJan
I have been working on a post detailing what I perceive to be a solution for the problem. Personally, I think the Western world is pretty much doomed, and the short-sightedness of women does play a role in that. give me a few days and you can read about my position in detail on the blog.
DeleteOne think to say about women is they are very good at being told what to do, which is why they do so well at school and excel at being PAs, secretaries etc.
ReplyDeleteOnce they enter the big wide world by themselves though...Feminism happens.
When ever a woman attempts to attack me whether it be via my gender or whatever I simply smile in a "that was cute way" (assuming I found them attractive other-wise I would simply ignore what they said).
Feminists can do what they like, I, for one, will NEVER take them seriously...I don't take women as a whole seriously.
Let's not forget that schools have been reformed to fit girls more than boys, focussing on mindless regurgitating of facts and simple "recipes" instead of really thinking things through. Just think of multiple choice tests in mathematics that allow you to use the solution and work backwards. Tests like that are a disgrace. Yet, they seem to be the norm, at least in the US.
DeleteI would think that Queen Elizabeth the First would be a popular answer for "Which female ruler would girls most like to be?". QE1 was certainly a competent ruler and was widely known as the "Virgin Queen."
ReplyDeleteA.S.: If it isn't a privilege not to have to fight in a war, then I wouldn't know what is.
A common retort might be "The men who were killed didn't have to suffer further; the women who became sex/torture slaves or breeding stock at the whims of a conquering army suffered more." War rape is an undeniable fact of armed conflict, and, according to a certain Robin Baker who wrote a book titled Sperm Wars, may even leave those who commit such crimes with more descendants than those who don't. And then you get into a shouting match about whether being killed for a pointless cause is better or worse than being raped . . .
All this talk about "war rape" seems quite overblown. I don't want to downplay the issue. Still, it is a fact that many historic accounts have later on been revealed to be nothing but propaganda. The same is true today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_rape_allegations
DeleteIt seems that in some recent wars, "war rape" is the equivalent of weapons of mass destructions --- the ones that were supposed to be in Iraq but that were later found to have been nothing but a fabrication.
You'd also have to factor in the fact that women will naturally want to sleep with the victors, their sexual instinct is very opportunistic. So she sleeps with the one of victors and then if necessary that is later conveniently turned in a "rape" to cover her behaviour.
DeleteThis tendency of women to be able to switch their affections over, under duress or not, has been covered by the following MRA blogger:
Deletetherationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/
I can't say how valid this actually is, but there were plenty of war brides to go around in historical conflicts. No less a figure than Moses of the Old Testament positively recommended taking virgin women as slaves after the male and non-virgin female population of a conquered people was exterminated, in Numbers 31:18.