In a society where women are fully empowered to follow their own whims and priorities the fundamental incongruence between liberal democracy and feminization is simply in how women tend to behave together when they gain control. That is, they tend to rule by exclusion based upon whom they agree with. Group consensus is enforced; open debate isn't well tolerated. Opposition to outside challenges are a forgone conclusion because "the truth" will have been a forgone conclusion. Censorship then easily follows. A state of illiberalism; backed by the threat of state violence, is a wholly realistic outcome.
> Can women manufacture the products, or service the machines to do so?
So, this is only a vague pointer, and certainly not a deep dive into the history involved, but... women built a *lot* of the aircraft that the US and the Allies flew in WWII.
So, they're certainly capable of *building* things. I don't know if it would be accurate to say that they can both *design* and build things (statistical outliers notwithstanding) or build the *systems* necessary to design and build things.
I don't disagree with your thesis. I *do* wonder how much of what we've seen is still the inertia of history.
And perhaps it’s telling that your example is drawn from a very unusual period of sex imbalance, when young men were in short supply and demand for manufacturing was raging. OF COURSE women are capable of building things. At the margins they’re capable of doing nearly everything men can do. But would they ever in a normal society… while competing with men? Keep in mind: men ran those factories. Men built and maintained them. Men shipped the arms and equipment. Let’s have a manufacturing concern that’s exclusively female: built, staffed, run, and operated by women. Such a thing is technically possible, but I doubt it’s ever happened. Because women don’t want to do those things. They’d rather devote their time and energy to other things.
I highly recommend John Carter’s Substack essay ‘Academia is Women’s Work.’
> But would they ever in a normal society… while competing with men?
I don't know. And I mean that extremely literally, I *don't* *know*.
> Keep in mind: men ran those factories. Men built and maintained them. Men shipped the arms and equipment.
Well, that's sort of what I meant about the "inertia of history". Those men owned the factories before the war, they just needed workers, and the women were all that was available.
It may be that simply *by nature*, women will never have an interest in doing those things. It seems *likely* that by nature, it's best if women don't *develop* an interest in doing those things, at least in large numbers, simply because they have better and higher purposes in life. As much as the modern world objects to the idea that "having and raising children" is a higher and better purpose than going and working a 9 to 5.
But I do wonder, if we could survive long enough, and have an actual level playing field, whether women might develop such interests and capabilities. But then, I wonder about a *lot* of different "blank slate" experiments that will never and likely *can* never be performed.
Wn did those things because they stole those opportunities from women by using marriage as a trap to enslave them and creating laws and purposely blocking women from participating. That's not because men are talented or superior at anything , it's because they have zero morals, and hoarded all wealth and resources for themselves to enslave women. It's called “being horrible human beings”.
En hoarded all wealth and resources away from women a few thousand years ago and forced them to be a prostitute class. Are you new here? How do you think this happened? Also yes men are hoarding and gatekeeping those VERY WELL PAID dangerous jobs away from women when I woman enters those fields the men attack. They attack. Funny thing about women is we, more often than not, have kids to support and feed and house. We need the most pay we can find no matter what the job is. Men push us out of those jobs. We would do anything to feed our children...duh.
If you think being a truck driver is "very well paid", I can only encourage you to go get your CDL and become one. When I was doing it, I made half as much as I make now, for twice as much work. It is a job on the "most dangerous" list that women could easily do, because there's no particular strength requirement most of the time. Unlike, say, "logging" or "roofing".
The lead instructor for the CDL program I went through was a woman. My only competition for the #1 slot in the class was a woman. She was also the only woman in the class at all. Not because anyone is preventing women from getting their CDLs, but apparently because most women just don't want to do that job.
If you want to go spend three months at a time on the road, living in a 400 cubic foot box, and working 70 hours a week, nobody is going to gatekeep you away from that. They'll probably be delighted to have you, because it'll make their "diversity" numbers look good. But I strongly suspect you're not going to do that. Or suggest to your friends that they go do that.
Another interesting point (more related to my claims here):
“…women built a *lot* of the aircraft that the US and the Allies flew in WWII.
So, they're certainly capable of *building* things. I don't know if it would be accurate to say that they can both *design* and build things (statistical outliers notwithstanding) or build the *systems* necessary to design and build things.”
Would you feel comfortable saying any of that in a modern staff meeting or corporate training or university seminar? They’re your own opinions, backed up by all of your knowledge. So surely expressing them would be no issue… right?
If it would make you uncomfortable stating your honest and moderate opinions, don’t you think that’s a bit of a problem?
> Would you feel comfortable saying any of that in a modern staff meeting or corporate training or university seminar?
Fuck no. I'm not an *idiot*, and I actually *like* my job. 🤣
No, I absolutely understand the point you have been making (just finished reading "The Longhouse" a few minutes ago) and have understood it for quite a while, though it took me probably somewhat longer to pick up on it than other people, owing to the way my brain works. Fortunately, before it had become *too* much of an issue, and the sort of thing that would permanently destroy someone's career options, I had spent a significant amount of effort on learning how to learn to act like I'm *not* autistic. My emulation of a normal human being is pretty good these days. So I managed to notice the new rules before I got completely fucked, and have only on very rare occasions and in *very* safe places actually expressed opinions like the one I gave above about how women only lament their lack of representation in high-status, high-pay, low-death-risk fields and never, ever, *ever* make the same complaints about their lack of representation in low-status, high-death-risk fields irrespective of pay or even physical requirements, even if the "lack of representation" is at a vastly higher factor in them.
And even in those relatively safe spaces, I got lots of nasty looks and vitriol, and not just from women. And these were places that even generally held some measure of regard for strong men still.
The story: I was at a party in Alameda (yeah, I know, the Bay Area) thrown by some friends who do generally tend left -- though possibly not *as* left as they might, given their environment -- and some of the lasses ended up going off on the usual tangent about how "we need more women in IT, we need more women CEOs, we need more women whatever", and since this was *right* after I had finished going to school for my midlife crisis CDL, I stuck my oar in the conversation.
"Y'know, I have heard this general set of complaints over and over again, and yet I have never once heard women of your social class complain about how, for instance, women only make up 9% of truck drivers. And that's despite my knowing quite well, from experience, that women are perfectly capable of driving a truck every bit as well as men.
"The only person who was any competition for me whatsoever for the position of top in class for my commercial driver's license was a woman, and she was as driven as I was -- excuse the inadvertent pun -- to become an *expert* in the field of maneuvering a tractor trailer, at least insofar as the time allowed. She showed up, the same as I did, to every extra practice session, she traded seats with me, over and over again while the other students just stood around smoking and watching or doing remedial training on other things, to practice the art of *perfectly* making a backing ninety, or to parallel park.
"And unlike a lot of other working class jobs, it doesn't require the statistically superior upper body strength men have to perform. The truck does the work. When loading, it's all forklifts or cranes. Load securement, I'll grant, does require some strength, but even I'm using additive leverage devices, and they can be stacked such that someone half my mass would still do the job. So why is it always white collar stuff that holds a lot of community respect, and never low-status blue collar work that's kinda dangerous?"
There was, as you might expect, much bluster and huffing, but no actual response. And everyone there *knew* that I had just finished truck driving school, and knew that I had previously gone through school to learn how to be a welder, a machinist, and an EMT, so it's not like they could accuse me of hypocrisy. I even actually had a job as a truck driver at that point.
> If it would make you uncomfortable stating your honest and moderate opinions, don’t you think that’s a bit of a problem?
No argument whatsoever. I think it's a *huge* problem. Anything that is *forbidden* from being discussed is something which -- if it is a problem (and I think this is) -- is a problem that cannot be solved. Because you aren't even allowed to think of it as a problem.
> EEOC enforcement and corporate DEI programs have focused primarily on female representation in high-status roles, not male-dominated dangerous jobs.
As someone in IT, who knows a lot of high status seeking leftist women who have lamented the lack of women "in STEM fields", and who has also gone to the local community college for three blue collar and one (technically) white collar field (if only because EMS often wear white shirts) I can *absolutely* attest to the truth of this.
Ten out of ten of the fields with the highest rates of worker deaths per 100k are *retardedly* male dominated. The same women who bitch about STEM penetration being only 25% have *nothing* to say about the *7%* of women who work in the field of garbage collection or the 9% in trucking or the 2% in logging. Oddly enough.
This is not in question of course we can. We can and we do and that's with you people in our way. We outperform you academically and functionally. Imagine you enslaved a people and they escaped and still won….stop insulting us. You are not and never have been superior and you absolutely are not more intelligent or capable. You're more aggressive and destructive and that's all there is to it.
Keep dreaming, cutie. Women are just more average than men are. Which means we get more morons, but also more geniuses. Y'all might even manage to have a slightly higher *average*, but it's simple reality that y'all don't have a higher peak.
Male human top specimen are simply *literally* superior.
And furthermore, nothing in any of what either of us said in this thread was an insult. It was an objective observation of reality, and an attempt to explore it. The simple fact that you *took* it as an insult means that as an individual, *you* are weak and inferior. Yes, *that* was an insult.
> You're more aggressive and destructive and that's all there is to it.
Ironic that we were both trying to be clean and constructive, and you come in trying to act all aggressive and destructive. Which, admittedly, yes, in a one on one scenario, you would utterly fail at. Though, shit, you're such a parody, I'm not at all certain you aren't just AI slop faking being an angry woman.
The idea we live in a Patriarchy is utter nonsense.
Women are represented by a political party. Feminism is the core North Star ideology for the modern left. Men are permitted in these parties if, and only if, they support all feminist orthodoxy 100%. The Administrative State, corporate HR and PR departments, Madison Avenue, Hollywood, K-12 education, social media moderators, all support the ideology. Men have no comparable entity.
Men may be titular leaders in the democrat party, but ideologically there is no difference between a Kamala Harris or a Gavin Newsom, and legislatively they would be identical.
I would argue Barack Obama was the first woman president.
Women have gained more agency, freedom, opportunity, legal protection, educational attainment, and institutional influence than at any point in history, yet the demand for protection keeps expanding. At some point we have to stop assuming agency resolves the problem and start looking at the conditions that make protection seem endlessly necessary.
I'm probably the only woman who will comment here and say I agree with everything you wrote. It is an extreme imbalance. Men are going to have to start suing when they see any set asides. You all have to fight back. I was thinking about this last week - I wish men (and it has to be all - the effeminate men don't have to do it) would sit down for 30 days. Just stop. Don't work on diesel engines. Don't unload in 100 degree heat. Don't build. Don't dig ditches or mow lawns or pay for any of it. Women have gone too far. And as for feeling badly for them? Don't. Other women know the truth-women are mean, manipulative, conniving, and basically mean girls. They are not straight with anyone, especially men. Why do you think no one has spoken up in those places? Because women know women. We know that if they have power, they will take you down for the fun of it. It helps that I care about the future of men, as I have only men as children.
I didn’t hide your reply. I apologize. Substack created an ‘auto-moderate’ feature which was activated by default. I’m trying to figure out how to inside your reply right now. I found it interesting and important.
Thank you for this article. This needs to be listened to and seriously considered throughout the West, and the world .. wherever the insane has been forced on the society to be accepted, such as the legal horror of mothers hiring witched to torture our unborn silently screaming children to death, ripping off arms, legs, cutting into the belly, ripping away their heads, all with as little reason as the whimsy of the mother.
I went to a co-ed Quaker boarding High School where all or mostly all students came from well-to-do two parent secure homes that cared about their children enough to provide them the opportunity to benefit from such a social, educational, athletic, and other excellent aspects. None of the women had been indoctrinated in the poisons of communism and feminism (yet) and we all did better than only just got along. Competency and leadership were not attacked and intelligent and-or creative ideas came from anyone that had some, and no one resented those that showed exceptional skills or abilities.
When I started my professional career 1/2 through my university degree I didn't realize the mostly meritless Affirmative Action women staff were barely human - in the terms that was once standard male upbringing, and the workplace became a toxic nightmare that I couldn't understand, but most were male-hating vicious lying two-faced gaslighting delusional psychos and the few that weren't were not even human enough to help a man being covertly mobbed for being excellent around women that could barely finger their own poo, but did it together - and destroy anyone that didn't finger the poo exactly like the top witch did!
When I worked in industry all the other engineers were men and I had a great few years until one of the secretaries was asked to take some of my paper-pushing work so I could do a rush project for an important client, and she pissed and bitched and I simply refused to waste any more time and told her to talk the co-owner that told me to give her that work (which I made clear earlier on - that I wasn't telling her to do it, the co-owner was) Two weeks later a friend, an older woman that worked on other side of company in production warned me that the secretary was spreading ugly rumors about me, but wouldn't say what it was. The interactions with some people changed to weirdness - not my engineering co-working friends, of course - they knew me and trusted me and likely already knew the putrid evil and many women vomit all the time.
I haven't worked or seen a work environment with many women that wasn't a toxic hellhole and death to productivity. I've known some good women workers, an engineer for example I worked with that worked hard and well and was basically like a man - but with a sweet ass - and we never had problems. It's possible to find one or two in 10,000, but the rest are a nightmare.
I'll put a small part of a study I recently came across that compared men and women on their values, and frankly if any one of them showed up in a job interview that that person (man or women) shouldn't be hired.
Most don't have honor, they are untrustworthy because true and justice and good-order are not as important as feelings and any other reason that benefits them or harms some man they disagree with, or that said something they don't want to believe or they know is true but don't want it spread around, .. at the moment.
The false-rape accusers that are not punished, even if the victim has been in prison for years as a sexual-criminal and raped and beaten by guards and inmates .. OPSEE! Oh dear - that okay.
Because women are a 'vulnerable group' and so research funding is carefully limited, and results could harm them or extremists (like you and I) might 'weaponize' results (read it as: Publish and require changes that might require women to be treated like men, without the testicle to stand on) Of course Feelies are more important than truth for most. See a small sample of the paper here;
-----------
Article with the Real Information that we were never to know;
.
“From Worriers to Warriors: The Cultural Rise of Women”
Author: Cory Jane Clark, Social Sciences Division, New College of Florida, Sarasota, FL 34243, USA, Controversial_Ideas , 5(2), 6; doi:10.63466/jci05020006 Corresponding author: coclark@ncf.edu Archived: https://archive.is/XXsGD
.
Academic priorities (Clark et al. 2024, psychology professors);
When truth and social equity conflict, 66.4% of men vs. 43.0% of women prioritize truth. 48.3% of men vs. 30.5% of women say science should never be suppressed for harm concerns. .. Women more supportive of retracting papers when conclusions could harm vulnerable groups (37.9% vs. 24.1%) or when extremists might weaponize results (26.7% vs. 19.4%). Women more want to discourage research into evolved sexually coercive behavior, evolved psychological sex differences, genetic contribution to IQ race differences, socially influenced transgender identity, racial bias not explaining crime disparities, and discrimination against conservatives in academia. Women more supportive of socially ostracizing scholars who report biological group differences (21.3% vs. 11.3%), ...
Oh fuck the fuck off. Fuck all the way the fuck off. How about we discuss the terror campaign against women instead. Fuck off. Let's decide if you're worth if having human and Leah rights,? Do you deserve them? Let's change the conversation. Be so fucking for real.
In a society where women are fully empowered to follow their own whims and priorities the fundamental incongruence between liberal democracy and feminization is simply in how women tend to behave together when they gain control. That is, they tend to rule by exclusion based upon whom they agree with. Group consensus is enforced; open debate isn't well tolerated. Opposition to outside challenges are a forgone conclusion because "the truth" will have been a forgone conclusion. Censorship then easily follows. A state of illiberalism; backed by the threat of state violence, is a wholly realistic outcome.
> Can women manufacture the products, or service the machines to do so?
So, this is only a vague pointer, and certainly not a deep dive into the history involved, but... women built a *lot* of the aircraft that the US and the Allies flew in WWII.
So, they're certainly capable of *building* things. I don't know if it would be accurate to say that they can both *design* and build things (statistical outliers notwithstanding) or build the *systems* necessary to design and build things.
I don't disagree with your thesis. I *do* wonder how much of what we've seen is still the inertia of history.
And perhaps it’s telling that your example is drawn from a very unusual period of sex imbalance, when young men were in short supply and demand for manufacturing was raging. OF COURSE women are capable of building things. At the margins they’re capable of doing nearly everything men can do. But would they ever in a normal society… while competing with men? Keep in mind: men ran those factories. Men built and maintained them. Men shipped the arms and equipment. Let’s have a manufacturing concern that’s exclusively female: built, staffed, run, and operated by women. Such a thing is technically possible, but I doubt it’s ever happened. Because women don’t want to do those things. They’d rather devote their time and energy to other things.
I highly recommend John Carter’s Substack essay ‘Academia is Women’s Work.’
> But would they ever in a normal society… while competing with men?
I don't know. And I mean that extremely literally, I *don't* *know*.
> Keep in mind: men ran those factories. Men built and maintained them. Men shipped the arms and equipment.
Well, that's sort of what I meant about the "inertia of history". Those men owned the factories before the war, they just needed workers, and the women were all that was available.
It may be that simply *by nature*, women will never have an interest in doing those things. It seems *likely* that by nature, it's best if women don't *develop* an interest in doing those things, at least in large numbers, simply because they have better and higher purposes in life. As much as the modern world objects to the idea that "having and raising children" is a higher and better purpose than going and working a 9 to 5.
But I do wonder, if we could survive long enough, and have an actual level playing field, whether women might develop such interests and capabilities. But then, I wonder about a *lot* of different "blank slate" experiments that will never and likely *can* never be performed.
Wn did those things because they stole those opportunities from women by using marriage as a trap to enslave them and creating laws and purposely blocking women from participating. That's not because men are talented or superior at anything , it's because they have zero morals, and hoarded all wealth and resources for themselves to enslave women. It's called “being horrible human beings”.
OK, what the fuck ever. Yeah, we "hoarded" all the opportunities to take the most lethal jobs. Bravo, well reasoned.
En hoarded all wealth and resources away from women a few thousand years ago and forced them to be a prostitute class. Are you new here? How do you think this happened? Also yes men are hoarding and gatekeeping those VERY WELL PAID dangerous jobs away from women when I woman enters those fields the men attack. They attack. Funny thing about women is we, more often than not, have kids to support and feed and house. We need the most pay we can find no matter what the job is. Men push us out of those jobs. We would do anything to feed our children...duh.
If you think being a truck driver is "very well paid", I can only encourage you to go get your CDL and become one. When I was doing it, I made half as much as I make now, for twice as much work. It is a job on the "most dangerous" list that women could easily do, because there's no particular strength requirement most of the time. Unlike, say, "logging" or "roofing".
The lead instructor for the CDL program I went through was a woman. My only competition for the #1 slot in the class was a woman. She was also the only woman in the class at all. Not because anyone is preventing women from getting their CDLs, but apparently because most women just don't want to do that job.
If you want to go spend three months at a time on the road, living in a 400 cubic foot box, and working 70 hours a week, nobody is going to gatekeep you away from that. They'll probably be delighted to have you, because it'll make their "diversity" numbers look good. But I strongly suspect you're not going to do that. Or suggest to your friends that they go do that.
Another interesting point (more related to my claims here):
“…women built a *lot* of the aircraft that the US and the Allies flew in WWII.
So, they're certainly capable of *building* things. I don't know if it would be accurate to say that they can both *design* and build things (statistical outliers notwithstanding) or build the *systems* necessary to design and build things.”
Would you feel comfortable saying any of that in a modern staff meeting or corporate training or university seminar? They’re your own opinions, backed up by all of your knowledge. So surely expressing them would be no issue… right?
If it would make you uncomfortable stating your honest and moderate opinions, don’t you think that’s a bit of a problem?
> Would you feel comfortable saying any of that in a modern staff meeting or corporate training or university seminar?
Fuck no. I'm not an *idiot*, and I actually *like* my job. 🤣
No, I absolutely understand the point you have been making (just finished reading "The Longhouse" a few minutes ago) and have understood it for quite a while, though it took me probably somewhat longer to pick up on it than other people, owing to the way my brain works. Fortunately, before it had become *too* much of an issue, and the sort of thing that would permanently destroy someone's career options, I had spent a significant amount of effort on learning how to learn to act like I'm *not* autistic. My emulation of a normal human being is pretty good these days. So I managed to notice the new rules before I got completely fucked, and have only on very rare occasions and in *very* safe places actually expressed opinions like the one I gave above about how women only lament their lack of representation in high-status, high-pay, low-death-risk fields and never, ever, *ever* make the same complaints about their lack of representation in low-status, high-death-risk fields irrespective of pay or even physical requirements, even if the "lack of representation" is at a vastly higher factor in them.
And even in those relatively safe spaces, I got lots of nasty looks and vitriol, and not just from women. And these were places that even generally held some measure of regard for strong men still.
The story: I was at a party in Alameda (yeah, I know, the Bay Area) thrown by some friends who do generally tend left -- though possibly not *as* left as they might, given their environment -- and some of the lasses ended up going off on the usual tangent about how "we need more women in IT, we need more women CEOs, we need more women whatever", and since this was *right* after I had finished going to school for my midlife crisis CDL, I stuck my oar in the conversation.
"Y'know, I have heard this general set of complaints over and over again, and yet I have never once heard women of your social class complain about how, for instance, women only make up 9% of truck drivers. And that's despite my knowing quite well, from experience, that women are perfectly capable of driving a truck every bit as well as men.
"The only person who was any competition for me whatsoever for the position of top in class for my commercial driver's license was a woman, and she was as driven as I was -- excuse the inadvertent pun -- to become an *expert* in the field of maneuvering a tractor trailer, at least insofar as the time allowed. She showed up, the same as I did, to every extra practice session, she traded seats with me, over and over again while the other students just stood around smoking and watching or doing remedial training on other things, to practice the art of *perfectly* making a backing ninety, or to parallel park.
"And unlike a lot of other working class jobs, it doesn't require the statistically superior upper body strength men have to perform. The truck does the work. When loading, it's all forklifts or cranes. Load securement, I'll grant, does require some strength, but even I'm using additive leverage devices, and they can be stacked such that someone half my mass would still do the job. So why is it always white collar stuff that holds a lot of community respect, and never low-status blue collar work that's kinda dangerous?"
There was, as you might expect, much bluster and huffing, but no actual response. And everyone there *knew* that I had just finished truck driving school, and knew that I had previously gone through school to learn how to be a welder, a machinist, and an EMT, so it's not like they could accuse me of hypocrisy. I even actually had a job as a truck driver at that point.
> If it would make you uncomfortable stating your honest and moderate opinions, don’t you think that’s a bit of a problem?
No argument whatsoever. I think it's a *huge* problem. Anything that is *forbidden* from being discussed is something which -- if it is a problem (and I think this is) -- is a problem that cannot be solved. Because you aren't even allowed to think of it as a problem.
> EEOC enforcement and corporate DEI programs have focused primarily on female representation in high-status roles, not male-dominated dangerous jobs.
As someone in IT, who knows a lot of high status seeking leftist women who have lamented the lack of women "in STEM fields", and who has also gone to the local community college for three blue collar and one (technically) white collar field (if only because EMS often wear white shirts) I can *absolutely* attest to the truth of this.
Ten out of ten of the fields with the highest rates of worker deaths per 100k are *retardedly* male dominated. The same women who bitch about STEM penetration being only 25% have *nothing* to say about the *7%* of women who work in the field of garbage collection or the 9% in trucking or the 2% in logging. Oddly enough.
This is not in question of course we can. We can and we do and that's with you people in our way. We outperform you academically and functionally. Imagine you enslaved a people and they escaped and still won….stop insulting us. You are not and never have been superior and you absolutely are not more intelligent or capable. You're more aggressive and destructive and that's all there is to it.
Keep dreaming, cutie. Women are just more average than men are. Which means we get more morons, but also more geniuses. Y'all might even manage to have a slightly higher *average*, but it's simple reality that y'all don't have a higher peak.
Male human top specimen are simply *literally* superior.
And furthermore, nothing in any of what either of us said in this thread was an insult. It was an objective observation of reality, and an attempt to explore it. The simple fact that you *took* it as an insult means that as an individual, *you* are weak and inferior. Yes, *that* was an insult.
> You're more aggressive and destructive and that's all there is to it.
Ironic that we were both trying to be clean and constructive, and you come in trying to act all aggressive and destructive. Which, admittedly, yes, in a one on one scenario, you would utterly fail at. Though, shit, you're such a parody, I'm not at all certain you aren't just AI slop faking being an angry woman.
The idea we live in a Patriarchy is utter nonsense.
Women are represented by a political party. Feminism is the core North Star ideology for the modern left. Men are permitted in these parties if, and only if, they support all feminist orthodoxy 100%. The Administrative State, corporate HR and PR departments, Madison Avenue, Hollywood, K-12 education, social media moderators, all support the ideology. Men have no comparable entity.
Men may be titular leaders in the democrat party, but ideologically there is no difference between a Kamala Harris or a Gavin Newsom, and legislatively they would be identical.
I would argue Barack Obama was the first woman president.
Women have gained more agency, freedom, opportunity, legal protection, educational attainment, and institutional influence than at any point in history, yet the demand for protection keeps expanding. At some point we have to stop assuming agency resolves the problem and start looking at the conditions that make protection seem endlessly necessary.
I'm probably the only woman who will comment here and say I agree with everything you wrote. It is an extreme imbalance. Men are going to have to start suing when they see any set asides. You all have to fight back. I was thinking about this last week - I wish men (and it has to be all - the effeminate men don't have to do it) would sit down for 30 days. Just stop. Don't work on diesel engines. Don't unload in 100 degree heat. Don't build. Don't dig ditches or mow lawns or pay for any of it. Women have gone too far. And as for feeling badly for them? Don't. Other women know the truth-women are mean, manipulative, conniving, and basically mean girls. They are not straight with anyone, especially men. Why do you think no one has spoken up in those places? Because women know women. We know that if they have power, they will take you down for the fun of it. It helps that I care about the future of men, as I have only men as children.
Which part of my comment didn't you want others to hear?
Was it the exposure of what legalized Abortion really is?
I didn’t hide your reply. I apologize. Substack created an ‘auto-moderate’ feature which was activated by default. I’m trying to figure out how to inside your reply right now. I found it interesting and important.
Thank you for this article. This needs to be listened to and seriously considered throughout the West, and the world .. wherever the insane has been forced on the society to be accepted, such as the legal horror of mothers hiring witched to torture our unborn silently screaming children to death, ripping off arms, legs, cutting into the belly, ripping away their heads, all with as little reason as the whimsy of the mother.
I went to a co-ed Quaker boarding High School where all or mostly all students came from well-to-do two parent secure homes that cared about their children enough to provide them the opportunity to benefit from such a social, educational, athletic, and other excellent aspects. None of the women had been indoctrinated in the poisons of communism and feminism (yet) and we all did better than only just got along. Competency and leadership were not attacked and intelligent and-or creative ideas came from anyone that had some, and no one resented those that showed exceptional skills or abilities.
When I started my professional career 1/2 through my university degree I didn't realize the mostly meritless Affirmative Action women staff were barely human - in the terms that was once standard male upbringing, and the workplace became a toxic nightmare that I couldn't understand, but most were male-hating vicious lying two-faced gaslighting delusional psychos and the few that weren't were not even human enough to help a man being covertly mobbed for being excellent around women that could barely finger their own poo, but did it together - and destroy anyone that didn't finger the poo exactly like the top witch did!
When I worked in industry all the other engineers were men and I had a great few years until one of the secretaries was asked to take some of my paper-pushing work so I could do a rush project for an important client, and she pissed and bitched and I simply refused to waste any more time and told her to talk the co-owner that told me to give her that work (which I made clear earlier on - that I wasn't telling her to do it, the co-owner was) Two weeks later a friend, an older woman that worked on other side of company in production warned me that the secretary was spreading ugly rumors about me, but wouldn't say what it was. The interactions with some people changed to weirdness - not my engineering co-working friends, of course - they knew me and trusted me and likely already knew the putrid evil and many women vomit all the time.
I haven't worked or seen a work environment with many women that wasn't a toxic hellhole and death to productivity. I've known some good women workers, an engineer for example I worked with that worked hard and well and was basically like a man - but with a sweet ass - and we never had problems. It's possible to find one or two in 10,000, but the rest are a nightmare.
I'll put a small part of a study I recently came across that compared men and women on their values, and frankly if any one of them showed up in a job interview that that person (man or women) shouldn't be hired.
Most don't have honor, they are untrustworthy because true and justice and good-order are not as important as feelings and any other reason that benefits them or harms some man they disagree with, or that said something they don't want to believe or they know is true but don't want it spread around, .. at the moment.
The false-rape accusers that are not punished, even if the victim has been in prison for years as a sexual-criminal and raped and beaten by guards and inmates .. OPSEE! Oh dear - that okay.
Because women are a 'vulnerable group' and so research funding is carefully limited, and results could harm them or extremists (like you and I) might 'weaponize' results (read it as: Publish and require changes that might require women to be treated like men, without the testicle to stand on) Of course Feelies are more important than truth for most. See a small sample of the paper here;
-----------
Article with the Real Information that we were never to know;
.
“From Worriers to Warriors: The Cultural Rise of Women”
https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/5/2/294/htm
Author: Cory Jane Clark, Social Sciences Division, New College of Florida, Sarasota, FL 34243, USA, Controversial_Ideas , 5(2), 6; doi:10.63466/jci05020006 Corresponding author: coclark@ncf.edu Archived: https://archive.is/XXsGD
.
Academic priorities (Clark et al. 2024, psychology professors);
When truth and social equity conflict, 66.4% of men vs. 43.0% of women prioritize truth. 48.3% of men vs. 30.5% of women say science should never be suppressed for harm concerns. .. Women more supportive of retracting papers when conclusions could harm vulnerable groups (37.9% vs. 24.1%) or when extremists might weaponize results (26.7% vs. 19.4%). Women more want to discourage research into evolved sexually coercive behavior, evolved psychological sex differences, genetic contribution to IQ race differences, socially influenced transgender identity, racial bias not explaining crime disparities, and discrimination against conservatives in academia. Women more supportive of socially ostracizing scholars who report biological group differences (21.3% vs. 11.3%), ...
------------
I'm reading From Warriors to Worriers right now. I'd heard of it already. Thanks for the link!
Oh fuck the fuck off. Fuck all the way the fuck off. How about we discuss the terror campaign against women instead. Fuck off. Let's decide if you're worth if having human and Leah rights,? Do you deserve them? Let's change the conversation. Be so fucking for real.