All Things the Female Misogynist Said [Merged Topics]

[AtroposHeart]

femalemisogynist.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/marxist-feminist-universities-and-the-decline-of-character/

 

 

Quote

Today I was thinking about one of the women who turned me into a misogynist. She was a platonic friend I was very close to. She was raised very strictly, with a close-knit family; her grandparents and several other relatives lived very nearby and she saw them often, and the whole family were churchgoers, and a very high standard of behavior was expected of her. I had a very high opinion of her moral character.

 

Then she went to college.

 

By the end of the first year, she had fallen in with a bad crowd. Actually, by today’s standards, they weren’t that bad; they weren’t running around shoplifting and using drugs and suchlike. Nonetheless, they were of highly dubious character. One of her friends had to flee to Brazil because she was accessory to a murder. Another drew erotic pictures which she claimed were of adults, but they looked like five-year-olds to those of us familiar with the normal development of the human species. And of course they were all Marxists of some sort. It was actually sort of entertaining to hear them bandy their political opinions around, as they invariably showed an utter lack of basic information, never mind sound judgment, but the entertainment value was offset by the knowledge that they all had the right to vote.

 

By the middle of her second year, she was engaging in all sorts of reprehensible behavior. And of course, she was steadily edging me out of her life, in a needlessly sadistic way. I restrained myself as best I could from criticizing her behavior, as I was her friend and not her mother, but she knew I disapproved anyway. Indeed, I believe that she disapproved herself. She knew that she was behaving badly and she felt guilty about it. But to have remained true to her values would have meant losing all of her college friends.

 

To give just one illustration of her conduct: when she was in her senior year of high school, she got a part-time job. Most of her co-workers used a lot of swearwords, and they all assured her that she would get into the habit too. Still living with her parents, she stuck to her guns, and after a couple of months the other employees had begun toning down their own language in deference to her. By her second year of college, her vocabulary was such that passing sailors routinely fainted from shock.

 

Although seeing her moral collapse and losing her friendship was deeply painful to me, I can’t entirely blame her. I do blame her for the cruel manner in which she drove me away, which was completely unnecessary, although now I do understand that it’s difficult for women to resist hurting people when they have the chance to. But I completely understand why she was willing to jettison all of her morals even though she clearly knew in her heart that she was behaving wrongly. It was the price she paid for companionship, which women desperately need. Her happiness and well-being no longer depended on the approval of her conservative Christian parents, or of me. It depended on the approval of those around her, her fellow students and her professors – and we all know what kind of people become professors.

 

She was demonstrating the female evolutionary strategy for survival. Where men have the “fight or flight†response, women have the “tend or befriend†response. Standing up for principles is masculine behavior. Virtually the only women who can do it are lesbians, like myself, and we are very different in personality from straight women. As I’ve said before, women really shouldn’t be condemned for this – though they also shouldn’t be allowed to wield power for which they are biologically unsuited. For most of human history, not to mention the history of our ape forebears, the survival of the species depended upon females pleasing those who had the local power. A female driven out of the tribe for not going with the flow would die very quickly, and certainly would not pass on her genes. There are millions of years of evolution inducing women to knuckle in to the people who have power over their lives. A few decades of feminist propaganda isn’t going to undo that. This is why women have never been allowed much power in any civilization – and why every civilization that violated this cardinal rule collapsed.

 

Not that men do not also need the approval of their peers. But unlike women, a large percentage of them are able to get along without it for a time, because this could be a successful survival strategy for our ancestors; a man (or male hominid or he-ape) who insisted on going his own way could end up starting his own tribe, or inventing something like a spear that gave him a survival edge, and getting plenty of poontang, hence plenty of descendants. We are all descended from women who gave in and men who did not. It is the way of nature.

 

But there is another aspect to this, and that is part of the difference between male dominance (which is universal among humans) and patriarchy (which is not). I derive my definition of the term “patriarchy†from the brilliant Daniel Amneus, whose works can be found in my sidebar. In patriarchy, not only do men hold most of the positions of real power, which is always going to be the case no matter what, but children are considered to be the father’s and wives are bound to their husbands. In a patriarchy, men in a sense “own†their wives and children – not the way one owns a horse, but the sense of ownership is what compels men to protect their wives and children and steward their morals. Contrast this with today, when children are considered to be the mother’s, husbands are bound to the wives (in the sense of alimony), and the idea that men own their wives and children is considered horribly backward. The result of that last is that men allow their children to behave immorally – indeed, they have little power to stop them – and they also do not or cannot protect them, which is why schools have become so dangerous.

 

Patriarchy, and hence civilization, is largely fueled by men’s desire to pass on a legacy. This includes their culture and their sense of values. Even a poor man can know in his old age that he taught his children the difference between right and wrong. This is the chief reason that the world’s great religions command obedience and reverence to one’s parents. They would not have become the world’s great religions otherwise, because they would not have the mechanism of perpetuating themselves.

 

Many men today have become so corrupted by Marxism that they do not want to pass on the culture and code of their fathers to their children. Those who do want to, have an entire society working against them. The popular media, the divorce laws favoring women, and finally the pond scum who will be polluting young minds in college all strive to undercut every father’s effort to teach their children good behavior, ranging from not using drugs to not listening to “music†that sounds like an infinite number of monkeys banging on an infinite number of instruments.

 

Indeed, the concept that it is “normal†for adolescents to “rebelâ€, that indeed this behavior is necessary for healthy development, has become generally accepted, even though there is little evidence of it before the 20th century.

 

The fact is that civilization is one long fight against our ape instincts. It is natural for the young to cleave unto their peers, who will be their mates and hunting partners. It is unnatural to spend years listening to our elders droning on about the wisdom of dead white men and tempering our youthful energy to their expectations, to refrain from sex before marriage even though our hormones are clamoring for it, to restrain our violent impulses when we long to thrash our fellows to prove our dominance, to learn and study and work when we would like to be running around with the pack. These unnatural behaviors are what make civilization possible, and they depend upon patriarchy, upon parental power.

 

As the West has become increasingly matriarchal, we have increasingly yielded to nature, with the result that young people are becoming more irresponsible and delinquent with each year, not to mention more promiscuous and more violent. These are the behaviors that come of wanting status and approval from one’s peer group rather than from one’s elders. A young woman in college can win her father’s approval by remaining chaste, but she can win the approval of many young men her own age by sleeping with them. (As a bonus, she can then win the approval of her feminist professors, which is most of her professors, by later deciding that she was “date raped†and filing charges.) That the behavior which will win the father’s approval is also that which will lead to the most reliable, longest-lasting happiness is hard for an inexperienced girl full of the passion of youth to understand, especially when there are legions assuring her otherwise.

 

Character, like every other human achievement, depends upon patriarchy.

 

Note: There is a book about this phenomenon which parents may find of interest: Hold on to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More than Peers. I mentioned this book on a forum a few months ago and predictably, several Democrats attacked it fiercely. A Democrat is basically someone who has embraced cultural Marxism, while a Republican is someone who is still resisting, though usually without fully understanding the fight

 

[yewchapel]

Is this person really a lesbian, yet she's opposed to feminism? Also the stuff about rape is appalling

[merrily]

I guess if you put BIG words, throw in a rambling story line, you can prove any point.

[ILoveJellybeans]

That is awful :o

How can someone be a woman, and a lesbian, and be a misogynist?????

Also the only difference between my lesbian friends and my straight female friends is what gender they find attractive-sexual orientation does not equal personality, and gay people arent more like the opposite sex.

[debrand]

Okay, I'm still making my way through that article but cursing is not reprehensible. I don't curse often because I just don't. However, I don't view people who do as bad or good; just as I don't view people who don't curse as bad or good. People often apologize to me for cursing but I always assure them that curse words don't bother me. I never apologize when I do curse because chances are, I meant to say whatever word came out of my mouth.

Patriarchy, and hence civilization, is largely fueled by men’s desire to pass on a legacy. This includes their culture and their sense of values. Even a poor man can know in his old age that he taught his children the difference between right and wrong.

Men only pass on their values if they are in charge? If I agreed with her than I would be working to make it possible for women to breed without males. It sounds like men are pretty worthless.

Do liberal or moderate males not pass on their values?

So, let's look at how patriarchy has worked throughout history. We had slavery, marital rape and child labor. The haves controlled the have nots

he popular media, the divorce laws favoring women, and finally the pond scum who will be polluting young minds in college all strive to undercut every father’s effort to teach their children good behavior, ranging from not using drugs to not listening to “music†that sounds like an infinite number of monkeys banging on an infinite number of instruments.

:lol: The writer doesn't like a certain type of music so bring on male control! There are a lot of male musicians in the rock n roll world, by the world.

As the West has become increasingly matriarchal, we have increasingly yielded to nature, with the result that young people are becoming more irresponsible and delinquent with each year, not to mention more promiscuous and more violent

Studies seem to indicate that we are less violent. I will look it up but I believe that there is less youth crime now. I'm one of those dirty liberals who don't see any moral component to having sex. There are issues around sex-such as honesty and keeping one's word-that are moral but having sex is not either moral or immoral

[E Street Fan]

My humble opinions from a quick once-through:

Not that men do not also need the approval of their peers. But unlike women, a large percentage of them are able to get along without it for a time, because this could be a successful survival strategy for our ancestors

Oh, I get it. Women are just sheep?

By her second year of college, her vocabulary was such that passing sailors routinely fainted from shock.

Hyperbole to illustrate a point just turns me off the point completely.

And of course they were all Marxists

Of course. :roll:

Many men today have become so corrupted by Marxism that they do not want to pass on the culture and code of their fathers to their children.

Those darn Marxists again.

[merrily]

Ah well at least the writer didn't invoke the Nazis. I guess Marx (ie bloody communists!) is the new Poe's Law?

[lilith]

Note she didn't actually mention anything her poor ex friend did that was so immoral except swear and (the cardinal sin), cease her friendship with this strange girl.

And primitive men who left the tribe generally invented breathtaking new technology, like a spear (wtf?), giving them a survival edge and lots of sex? I would think that many of them would have been malnourished without the fruits and vegetables that the foraging of women brought to the group and would be run off by the perhaps inferior spears of group members if they went anywhere near the women of a group.

[AtroposHeart]

Mr. Zopo asked what I think of the theory that women are naturally amoral. I would put it that women are naturally more inclined towards amorality, but basically, I do think that it’s true.

The fact is that morality – the ability to stand by principles when doing so makes one’s life more difficult, or even puts that life in peril – is adaptive for men, and maladaptive for women.

Incidentally, most people’s “lizard brains†– their subconscious minds, where all the real decisions are made – are far more sexist than my frontal lobes. When I was a child, I was downright priggish. I was always pointing out to the adults around me the immorality of their behavior or theories. (As you might expect, I had a very unpleasant childhood as a result.) Also, I often refused to do things people wanted me to or that other children were doing, on moral grounds. This made other people, both children and adults, angry at me, but even more than that, they were astonished. It wasn’t until well into adulthood that I realized that they were astonished to see a female standing on principle! They would never have articulated such a thought, but they knew which sex was supposed to make a moral stand and which wasn’t.

But let’s get back to the survival value of morality. For a minute, pretend you are a cave man. You decide to kill a woolly mammoth in order to feed your tribe. But woolly mammoths are big honkin’ critters. You can’t just go up to one with your little handmade spear and kill it all by yourself. Bringing down one of these requires teamwork. So you ask two other healthy young men of the tribe, your pals Og and Ug, to help you. After they’re done switching to Geico, they agree. (Okay, it probably takes more than three guys, but that’s not important right now. Three guys or ten guys, the principle is the same.)

Now, when the three of you pick out your woolly mammoth, it’s entirely possible that one or more of you will get killed in the process of hunting it. So on the face of it, it would seem that running away and abandoning your comrades at the first sign of trouble would be adaptive, would have survival value. But let’s say the mammoth gets feisty. You and Ug run away, leaving Og behind to be trampled by the mammoth. You and Ug live through that day, but you and your tribe are less likely to survive because you don’t have mammoth steaks. Plus, if you’d killed the mammoth, the chicks in your tribe would have dug you. They might not have bartered a straightforward exchange – their sexual favors in return for a chunk of mammoth meat – but killing it would have given you and your pals status, which is excellent currency for getting laid. So you’ve just lost several opportunities for passing on your genes.

Since you, Og and Ug are most likely to succeed in killing the mammoth, staying alive throughout the hunt, and going home to a feast and sex with grateful cave women, if all three of you stick together even when the hunt is dangerous. In other words, loyalty and courage are adaptive for males, even when it imperils them. Loyalty to an ideal and courage against inquisitors who are trying to stamp your ideals out come from the exact same personality qualities. Hunting, or defending your tribe against the tribe across the river, also requires aggression, and that aggression can also be channeled into, for example, crusading against evils such as slavery or communism.

Understand, a lot of cave men are going to die trying to stick together while they attack woolly mammoths. The fact remains that the cave men who survive and reproduce will be the ones who stick together in the face of danger and succeed, not the ones who run away when the mammoth gets tetchy.

Another personality quality that morality requires is independence. This, too, is adaptive for males. Let’s say there’s a hominid tribe living in a valley. They’ve been there for generations, but lately pickings have been slim, and consequently so are the hominids.

Driven by their testosterone, a couple of young males propose leaving the valley in search of territory richer in food. The elders warn them not to. Everybody knows that outside the valley are dragons, ogres, and who knows what other monsters, ready to gobble up hominids who wander out of the valley.

But teenage boys never listen to anyone. Our two young males insist on leaving anyway. That is, they take a risk on their own independent judgment. Two things could happen. One, they could die, of starvation or of being eaten by a cave bear or any number of other things. In this case, their genes vanish and they matter not. The other possibility, however, is that they discover that a mere half a day’s walk away is a much nicer valley, with lots more fruit-bearing trees and plenty of animals just waiting to be killed and eaten. They claim it for themselves, then invite other hominids who are willing to accept their dominance to join them. As the ruling males, they get first call on poontang. Thanks to their independence, their genes are passed on.

A few thousand years later, their descendant refuses to renounce his faith even on pain of death. Let’s say this descendant is a Christian living in Rome before Constantine. He is showing his independence by following what his own heart and mind tell him is right even when everyone else he knows thinks he is wrong, just as his ancestors did when they went in search of a new valley to live in. Our Roman martyr might die himself, fed to lions in the arena, but his brave sacrifice is part of what founds the largest and most powerful force for morality in human history: Christianity.

But these ingredients of morality – loyalty, courage, aggression, and independence – are as maladaptive for females as they are adaptive for males. Any of them could cost a woman her life and her chance to reproduce.

Think about it. What constitutes reproductive success for a woman? She has to invest nine months in gestating the child without miscarrying, then take care of it for at least a decade. Carrying it, nursing it, watching it to make sure it doesn’t eat toadstools or walk right up to a cobra or simply wander off, providing it with food and basic training in human behavior. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, a man can ejaculate and die 30 seconds later and still be a reproductive success, but for a female, the investment is far larger. A female cannot afford personality qualities, such as courage, aggression, curiosity, and innovation, that might get her killed before her children reach puberty. Females who had those qualities generally didn’t live to be our ancestresses, so we didn’t get their genes. We got the genes of the meek women who pleased the men of their tribe and stayed far away from the woolly mammoths.

(I would hypothesize that these traits are sex-linked, but not perfectly so. This would explain why most women inherit the genes of their submissive ancestresses, but occasionally manifest those of their independent, aggressive ancestors. Similarly, while men will usually inherit the genes that made their fathers viable, like courage and loyalty, sometimes instead they will show the qualities of their mothers, of manipulating and befriending.)

What does a woman need in order to raise her offspring, the carriers of her genes, to adulthood? Other people to help her watch the sprog so he doesn’t run into the nearest pride of lions would be good. Other people with spears and torches to chase off hungry predators who come around hoping to snack on some juvenile Cro-Magnons. Other people to bring her some food when she’s eight months pregnant and can barely move, or when she’s got a baby in her arms and a toddler following her everywhere and she just can’t gather enough for herself because she and the baby have both come down with something. Other people to kill antelopes – she’d do it herself, but her three-year-old follows her everywhere and keeps crying and alerting the antelopes – so that she and her kids can get some of that essential protein. Other people to hold the baby for a little while so that she can climb a tree to get some fruit off the high limbs.

In short, other people. Hillary was, in a sense, correct: it does take a village. But not in the way she meant.

This means that women cannot, evolutionarily speaking, afford to be independent. An independent female would be drummed out of the tribe, and with no one to help her protect and care for her small children, she would be dead very quickly. Even if she did manage to survive, her children would have no one to mate with, being without a tribe, and her genes would die out. A woman’s survival depends upon her keeping enough of the favor of the tribe, or at least of a powerful member or two of the tribe, that they will let her stay and enjoy the protection and support of the tribe. She can’t stand up to the chief because she thinks his decisions are immoral. He would either beat her into submission or exile her, and unless she found other protectors, she would soon be dead.

A woman also cannot afford the aggression that allows men to promote moral ideals. Aggression often leads to fights, and anyone can get killed in a fight, and women are smaller and weaker than men, so their chances aren’t as good. A woman can’t afford courage. Survival rewards her for avoiding danger, and placating fellow humans who might be dangerous, including by having sex with them. If she bravely defied the males from the next tribe when they came in and took over, they would kill her, then no reproduction. The males’ courage and aggression in invading has enabled them to pass on their genes; her courage and aggression in resisting them has destroyed her chance of doing the same.

Loyalty is the same. Again, imagine you are a young cave man and you and your friends Og and Ug see a gang of cave men from a rival tribe on your territory. The three of you walk up to confront them. As you get close, Og notices that one of the other lads is much bigger and more muscular than any of you. Og might decide on the spot that casting his lot with this large stranger is his best course. He does, and you and Ug are killed by him and the other guys. Now maybe Og will get a chance to pass on his genes with the females of the rival tribe, but more likely they’ll never really trust him and he’ll never have enough status to get laid. He lives out a cave man lifespan, but his turncoat genes are unlikely to be passed on.

However, if Og sticks by you and Ug even when he sees how big and strong one of the enemies is, the three of you have a chance to prevail against the big stranger and his buddies. If you do, you’ve defended the territory and you live and you get nookie. Your loyalty to each other has survival value.

But what does loyalty mean to a female? Imagine for a moment that you are a primitive woman. You have recently been married to a nice young man from a friendly neighboring tribe. While the two of you are traveling back to your new husband’s tribe, a tough guy from yet another tribe happens along. He looks you over, likes what he sees, and kills your husband without preamble. You’re all primitive, so that’s how it’s done. He grabs you and takes you away on his horse. As you ride back to his camp, you weep for your dead husband.

But once you get to your new man’s camp, you have a choice. You could be loyal to your dead husband and reject this new man. Most likely he’ll rape you if you resist, but after that if he’s not pleased with you he might kill you, or he might just not make your offspring his heirs, minimizing their chances of reproductive success. Or you could dry your tears, make the best of a bad job, and set about making your new man happy with you so that he will make the son you will give him his heir. (Heirs get more nookie.)

This is not hypothetical. More than 800 years ago a woman named Hoelun was faced with that choice. She made the latter decision. Today, the world hosts roughly 16 million of her descendants, because the son she bore her abductor grew up to be Genghis Khan, who got a lot of nookie. Disloyalty to her first husband – ingratiating herself with his murderer – meant tremendous reproductive success for Hoelun.

I think it’s pretty clear that people who are designed by nature to be this opportunistic should not be allowed a great deal of power in a civilization.

Now, it isn’t that women are incapable of being moral. It’s just that they require massive societal (male) support for their morals. It requires a man to invent systems of morality. Whether you believe that the Torah and the Gospels and other holy books were the work of man or of God using a man as His instrument, we know for sure that they were not the work of woman. Ayn Rand was a woman and a brilliant philosopher, but she was drawing on centuries of patriarchy and grew up in a patriarchal culture – and, by the way, she was a self-described male chauvinist.

Women are not going to invent morality. When barbarians first came up with the notion of ethics, thus launching civilization, it was male barbarians who did this, not female ones. Women can practice morality, but they need to be supported by men in this: fathers, husbands, clergyMEN, policemen, the MEN who run the government of the society in question, and God the Father.

When Margaret Mitchell was a teenager, she wrote a short novel which was published in the 90′s. In it, an innocent, virtuous young girl is captured by an evil man who intends to rape her. She kills herself rather than endure the proverbial fate worse than death. She chooses death out of loyalty to her fiance rather than be unfaithful to him, because of the patriarchal ideal of chastity, and because of her strong Christian faith. In other words, she gave up the reproductive success which nature would have made her choose, because the men in her life had provided her with the artificial moral values of religion, loyalty, chastity, independence and courage. I approve of the choice – for one thing, it would discourage other evil men from kidnapping and raping women, if they know the women are likely to choose death over sex with them – but it’s one that is only possible to a woman with religion and patriarchy to back her up.

This is why I keep pointing out that secular, “liberated†feminists see no problem with encouraging terrorism and tolerating Islam. They know, at some level, that when the time comes, the Mohammedans will spare their lives, because women are more useful as living sex partners than dead. Western men will have to be killed, but feminists are okay with that; they know they’ll live. Some Western women will of course refuse to yield to the invaders. These will be chiefly the conservative Christian women, who have learned the artificial values of loyalty to their husbands, of chastity until proper (not forced or polygamous) marriage, of religion which forbids them from becoming the whores of infidels. In other words, without moral Western men to protect these moral women, the moral women will die and their genes disappear while the amoral women – feminists – will not be killed and will bear children for the terrorists.

So yes, one could say that women are naturally amoral. Women can be moral, but it is not natural to them. It requires the support of moral men.

[rward]

Has any jingerite met an actual Marxist?

[ILoveJellybeans]

No. Everyone is naturally moral (except for young children, who are amoral as they dont know the difference between right and wrong), as its a benefit for people to be able to live together in communities and work as a team, so people pick up on right and wrong and adopt the morals of their culture.

If there were no men, women wouldnt suddenly devolve into random sex and violence, as they have morals. Also, make your mind up, one minute fundies say that every man is one sight of a bare knee away from raping, next minute theyre saying that they are the moral ones who have to control women.

The only reason men came up with the first laws is because back then women were treated no better than cows.

Feminists dont encourage terrorism, we see it as wrong. Fundies are the ones who are most like terrorists, as theyre generally both religious extremists. Also, not all Muslims are evil people who want to kill all western men. Actually, fundie Muslims and fundie Christians actually have similar values.

[Minerva]

Ok, let's assume for a minute that this traditionally gendered "caveman" society was fact and not pseudoscientific wishful thinking. And let's assume that morality is static and innate and not socially dependant. And let's assume that humans only have two chromosomes as people who put forward hypotheses like these must believe. And let's assume that morality is linked only to traditionally male characteristics like independence and aggressivity and not to any traditionally female characteristics like compassion, empathy, nurturing, and devotion.

Even then, there's no way women never had to be aggressive or independent. Who guarded the cave when the males were away? Who stopped the males from eating each other's young? Furthermore, you can't argue that males relied on others to do their manly tasks and yet somehow evolved to be more independent than females. There's also no basis to assume that independent females would have been "drummed out of the tribe". Just because you don't like independent women doesn't mean cave people didn't like independent females. That's the worst logic ever.

In short, people who know absolutely nothing about a subject shouldn't try to write about it. Kids should be taught from a young age that you can't write fiction and try to pass it off as a scientific argument. That's how utter tripe like this gets made.

[Dysfundamental]

Who wrote this complete nonsense? It's like they haven't read a book published since 1930.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Where men have the “fight or flight†response, women have the “tend or befriend†response. Standing up for principles is masculine behavior. Virtually the only women who can do it are lesbians, like myself, and we are very different in personality from straight women. As I’ve said before, women really shouldn’t be condemned for this – though they also shouldn’t be allowed to wield power for which they are biologically unsuited.

She can just fuck right off.

Meanwhile, I'm sorry her friend was a failure at college. But don't blame the system, plenty of the rest of us did fine (in STEM fields even), got good marks, never murdered anyone, avoided the drunken party scene, and went on to have good careers.

[August]

Yeah, cause raising children and gathering is such a solo undertaking!

[Mama Mia]

As soon as she said that those college kids who shoplift are worse than the college kid who was an accessory to murder -- I kind of figured she was just a nut job and stopped reading.

[Shirley MacLaine]

A woman also cannot afford the aggression that allows men to promote moral ideals. Aggression often leads to fights, and anyone can get killed in a fight, and women are smaller and weaker than men, so their chances aren’t as good.

Of course! Women have to be amoral to survive because they aren't as naturally talented at fighting/killing/murder.

???????????????????????????????

?????????????

?????????

?????

???

?

[Mama Mia]

Wow, that part about tolerating terrorists because they know that when the takeover comes they will be useful as willing sex partners is ....um... far fetched ? crazy ? convoluted ? bizarre ? all of the above

I have a lot of worries , and my mind tends to wander into strange places ... but I'm pretty sure the concern that Islamic terrorists are going to come and kill all the men and take all the women as sex slaves has never made the list.

[Diana]

:o so long text talking about a nonsense, who spend his time writting that? i bet he (because if is a she the person who wrote that is even worse) didnt know anything about antropology or psycology

[AtroposHeart]

femalemisogynist.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/for-their-own-good-women-shouldnt-be-liberated/

So last night, I kept being distracted from the movie I was trying to watch by thinking over what the poor little feminist dimbo who denounced my post on rape said. The movie was set centuries ago, when people still chaperoned their daughters, so the story kept making me think about that.

You see, that feminist who was insisting that it is in no way confusing to a man – at the height of the Sexual Revolution, no less – to take off your panties and get into bed with him, while telling him, “No intercourse,†is, like the woman I gave as an example, a perfect illustration of why daughters need to be chaperoned.

Before Women’s Lib, things like that didn’t happen, because women had more sense. Unless they were either hookers or total sluts, they didn’t put themselves into that kind of position. And all those dreary old rules, like don’t let your gentlemen caller into your apartment after 6 pm, were intended to protect women who didn’t have any sense.

The woman who spent the night in her boyfriend’s bed wearing nothing but a shortie nightgown is a victim of the lies of feminism. Feminists told the world that women wanted to screw around too, that it was fun, that women enjoy sex just as much and with the same nonchalance as men. Without all that propaganda, neither she nor her boyfriend would have been in that situation. IIRC, she was in college when this happened. She should have been either living with her parents, living in an all-girls dorm with a curfew and a matron to keep the boys out, or married. Instead, feminism deprived her of all these protections and left her on her own to try to figure out if spending the night in a man’s bed put her virginity at risk.

To put this in perspective, pretend for a moment that your thirteen-year-old daughter heads for the door with an overnight bag. “See you tomorrow, Mom and Dad!†she says.

“Whoa, wait a minute, where do you think you’re going?â€

“I’m going to spend the night at my boyfriend’s house.â€

“…I assume you’re going to sleep in his sister’s room.â€

“No, I’m going to sleep with him, in his bed. I’m taking my new shortie nightgown!â€

“Put that bag down, young lady. You are too young for sex.â€

“Oh, we’re not going to have sex. I told him so. We’re just going to sleep in the same bed. It’ll be fine!â€

“…Are you out of your mind? Go to your room. You’re not going anywhere near that boy.â€

But the poor young woman who this happened to back in the 70′s, and the silly feminist who denounced me at her friend’s blog, both don’t have judgment any better than that of this hypothetical 13-year-old. It’s obvious that these women need the same kind of protection.

Now, I do think the 70′s rape I discussed needs to be put in the context of the times. Her boyfriend was probably just old enough to remember the old rules: nice girls don’t spend the night with boys, nice girls don’t take off their panties around boys, etc. His generation had a firm set of rules about what nice girls did and didn’t do. If a girl followed those rules, he knew she was “nice†and the only way to get her into bed was to marry her. Usually young men didn’t even try to score with such girls. If a girl didn’t, that meant she was a tramp, and he could press her for sex and hope to get it.

Then the feminists of the Sexual Revolution swept all that hidebound stuff about “nice girls†away. Now all girls, whether they were tramps or not, were behaving like tramps. Of course boys were confused.

If a girl takes off her panties and gets into bed with you, that is a pretty good sign that she wants to have sex with you. Behavioral cues carry more weight than what people say; this is how the human brain works.

If I were in that guy’s position, if a girl did that with me and then refused to give it up, I wouldn’t let her go to sleep, I’d throw her out of my home in disgust.

By now, of course, men have had decades to get used to the fact that women don’t take responsibility for their actions anymore, that they consider themselves completely entitled to give men every reason to think they’re going to sleep with them and then refuse at the last minute. Every young man has also read plenty of articles about women who had sex with men, never in any way indicating that they didn’t want to, and then the following day had them arrested for “rapeâ€. The young man in my example didn’t have that advantage, if you can call it that. He acted according to how the silly girl he was dating behaved, not according to horror stories in newspapers.

F. Roger Devlin illustrated just how young men find themselves falsely accused of rape – by women who never even said “no†while they were taking off their clothes – and pointed out that many co-eds are now discovering that their male classmates don’t ask them out. These young MGTOWs know that their lives could be wrecked if a female feels like being irrational, which most females usually do, so they ignore the nubile young women all around them.

Reasoning with young women about taking responsibility for their own behavior and not giving men the wrong idea is useless, because of the first four words of this sentence. Except in very rare cases, most of whom are either 1) Ayn Rand or 2) lesbians, women do not respond to reason. The silly feminist who blogged attacking me described only how bad my blog made her feel. She described her shock and horror and anger in detail. The only attempt to reason was her assertion that taking off your panties and getting into bed while saying “no†does not constitute mixed signals. Women think that all that matters is their feelings. That’s why when they’re wet, they jump into bed with you, and the next day when they’ve cooled off, they decide you raped them: their feelings, not your actions, are the sole determinant of what happened, as far as they’re concerned. Anyone who’s ever had an argument with a wife or girlfriend has experienced this.

Women need to have mean old oppressive societal rules telling them not to take off their panties and get into bed with a man if they don’t intend to have sex with him. They need to be chaperoned and supervised by their parents until they get married. This is for their own protection.

Yet again, feminist attempts to present their case only proves that women are too silly to handle “liberationâ€.

[roamincatholic]

Well I regret losing five minutes reading that essay. But I thought I might at least get some new historical knowledge out of it by googling about this woman Hoelun.

Let's see what Wikipedia says:

After Yesügei's death, Yesügei's (Hoelun's husband) Khiyad tribe abandoned Hoelun and her sons, including Genghis Khan. She raised Temujin and others in the harsh environment of the Mongolian steppes by herself with little support from others. She and her children managed to survive due to her skill at gathering food, hunting at Khentii Mountains and fishing in Onon River. Hoelun is considered to have had a very strong personality derived from her experience of raising her children independently, with little or no support in the harsh Mongolian steppes.

I love it when people don't read.

[AtroposHeart]

femalemisogynist.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/celibacy-freedom-from-women/

I’m not Catholic, but I’m very much in favor of the existence of Catholicism. The world would be a poorer place if it had never existed.

I’m always amazed, incidentally, that many non-Catholics, particularly atheist feminists, are so furious that women can’t be priests. I certainly won’t presume to tell Catholics how to run their religion. Since the days when one could be burned at the stake for not being Catholic are long past, why should anyone care how Catholics go about being Catholic? I don’t crash the local Wiccan gathering to tell them they’re drawing down the moon the wrong way. Of course, they just hate the idea that there is anywhere they can’t get, even if they don’t want to get there; this is an immature refusal to accept limits. Also, of course, they hate that there are men out there who are free of them.

I happened to be thinking about the celibate Catholic clergy last night and realized abruptly how important that is. No, I don’t think that the clergy of all faiths should have to be celibate, but I hope and pray the Vatican can stand its ground on this matter as well as on the ordination of women.

Marriage (that is, monogamous patriarchal marriage that can’t be abandoned at whim) is a good thing. It has a good effect on people and society. However, a married man, even in a patriarchal society, will inevitably be influenced by his wife, who in the majority of cases is going to be his moral and intellectual inferior. (One of the benefits of proper marriage is that it binds almost every woman to a man who can influence her morals for the better and stop her from making too many bad decisions.) Even a man who has been encouraged all his life to stand his ground as a man should can be worn down by having the one who cooks his meals and sleeps beside him constantly nagging him against his better judgment. In addition, men who are pursuing women for affairs or romance are all too often led into folly by their wish to impress the object of their desire. Sometimes this is good; this urge has led men to make fortunes, improve themselves, and so on, but it has also led them to do foolish, destructive things.

The Vatican, therefore, provides us with a powerful group of men who are completely free of such motivations. (We will here ignore the decadent phases where many priests openly kept mistresses and so on, as well as the few who will always fall and sin. For the majority of its history, the Catholic priesthood has been celibate, despite the efforts of Hollywood to convince us that Catholic priests are real ladies’ men. Of course Hollywood people can’t believe anyone could really give up sex!) Priests should remain celibate because celibacy renders them free from women, their mental and moral inferiors.

Indeed, I have read that the eunuchs who guarded Arabian harems considered themselves fortunate to be unencumbered by the need for women. I am certainly not suggesting we revive the custom, merely pointing out that it has its good points!

I am not, by the way, a big fan of female ordination. I can’t say I’m militantly against it, but I’m glad that some denominations are standing firm against it. Also, the particular house of worship I attend is presided over by a man, and I know I would never choose one that was shepherded by a shepherdess. A few of them might be good at it, but really, if a woman has so defied tradition as to take that position, she is probably already unsuited for it. Part of the point of religion is that it’s supposed to preserve tradition and time-tested truth against ideological fads, such as feminism, so a religion that promotes feminism is not doing its job. I’m not surprised that even in those Judeo-Christian faiths that have allowed women’s ordination, male clergy invariably far outnumbers female. Judeo-Christian religion is basically masculine; it tells its followers to resist their nature and emotions, something few women can do without massive social support, and instead do what is right. Doing what is right when this is not popular is masculine behavior; women evolved to survive to reproduce, and female survival has always depended on keeping the favor of other members of the tribe. In short, the cloth is not a profession for which women are really suited.

Notice also that, despite the enormous political power of feminism, the trendy feminist religions, the various forms of Goddess-worshipping pseudopaganism, haven’t managed to get organized, or powerful in the sense that many Judeo-Christian organizations are. It’s run by women, and unlike the female vote, men have no motivation to help it along; what do you expect?

Judeo-Christian religion – and, for that matter, all civilized religions – sees God as masculine. That’s “masculineâ€, not “maleâ€, because He is not literally male. He does not have a body. But we cannot help anthropomorphizing Him, and because of this, it is vital that we see Him as a Father, not a Mother. Even the Catholic Virgin Mary is the Mother who loves unconditionally and forgives us even when we do not deserve it, and who will intercede with God when we have sinned. God, being a Father, is less quick to forgive; He expects us to behave properly. The parallels with the normal family should be obvious. Children who grow up without a human father are amply demonstrated to be more delinquent, neurotic, shiftless, etc. A society without a Father God shows every sign of being the same.

[Wolfie]

It sounds like somebody who can't find a partner and is pissed, so they are trying to justify it.

[doggie]

Kind if forgot those celibate clergy likens the boys.

[NurseNell]

What is the original source of this very long quote? Shouldn't the source be listed for anything we quote?