More analysis on Feminist myth

Started by Baruch, February 10, 2018, 10:35:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

People do need other people ... but the next time you need help (and you will, we all do) ... it doesn't have to be a man.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 11, 2018, 12:28:43 PM
This statement is in stark contrast to the other bombastic replies you've made about this topic.  I agree with it.  I criticize the society I live in not to tear it down, but to improve it, make it more fair and equitable.  The same for my country--I point out its flaws to improve it, not destroy it. 

My dad was a Southern boy from rural Texas, steeped in 'the man is the head of the family' and 'a man's home is his castle'.  My mother was a feminist in that she did not feel relegated to the traditional role of a wife supporting a husband in all things.  It was not a rebellion.  It was her living her life with the ideal (unspoken) that a marriage was a partnership in that each partner needed to make a 100% commitment to that relationship and that it needed to be fair to all parties.   So, me and my brothers grew up in an environment in which it was evident that my mother was not the inferior to the husband, but a partner who expected to be treated with respect.  She did not live her life rebelling against a husband treating her unfairly; she lived her life expecting and accepting no less that being treated as and regarded as an equal partner.   That example is where I draw my meaning of what a feminist is.

Nice.  When Baruch is challenged, he tends to feel forced to write sensibly.  The problem is that he  doesn't get challenged enough.  I've sort of given up on him.  I think he has potential, but something stops him.  I have a life that demands more attention than solving his problems, though.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Gilgamesh

Quote from: Deidre32 on April 04, 2018, 11:40:38 PM
The media is caught up with pitting men against women, forcing the feminist narrative to mean that women should always be competing with men.

Welcome to frankfurt marxism =]

Baruch

Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 08, 2018, 03:20:17 AM
Welcome to frankfurt marxism =]

Capitalism liked 1970s feminism, because it meant ... pay men less, by having their wives and girlfriends compete with them in the job force.  Empowering women wasn't as troublesome as it could have been, because the public continued to be brainwashed, while believing it was progressive.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Gilgamesh

#64
Quote from: Baruch on April 08, 2018, 08:26:57 AM
Capitalism liked 1970s feminism, because it meant ... pay men less, by having their wives and girlfriends compete with them in the job force.  Empowering women wasn't as troublesome as it could have been, because the public continued to be brainwashed, while believing it was progressive.

Yep.

The work force - the supply of labour - suddenly doubled, almost overnight, but the demand stayed mostly the same. And so wages plummeted. Any woman who was coupled with a man and chose to work didn't bring any more money to the household, because what they made together was what the man used to make by himself. It allowed women to become dependent, if they so chose it, at least.

Thing is, that's not what they chose.

Rather than receiving resources from a man DIRECTLY, and rather than paving their own way through life, women, as a collective, now depend on the state for resources. In the US, and most (if not all) other first world nations, women as a demographic do not pay taxes - since as a demographic they use more dollars worth of social services than they pay in taxes. They're still leeching off the men of the nation even after feminism, only they're not living with them or fucking them, anymore. They're using the state to force the men to pay for their expenses while they remain single. All the while feminists bitch and moan that men are to blame for all their problems, meanwhile men built and maintain everything around them, and pay all the nations taxes and subsequently for all of womens social services.

Most feminists are retarded. The others are capitalising on the stupidity of the former.

Baruch

#65
The deliberate destruction of marriage, and the creation of female dependence on the State, initially focussed on our horrendous Welfare system created in the 1960s, designed to create an indirect destruction of African-American communities (which had scared the White folk with the Civil Rights and Black Power movements).  The front door Democrat suppression of Blacks with firehoses and police batons and police dogs was replaced with the back door Democrat suppression of Blacks with a welfare system that encouraged single motherhood, lots of children out of wedlock, and the disproportionate drafting of young Black men into Vietnam, and the prison system.  The form of oppression in the US has changed from the 1950s, but is still ongoing.  The Left of the 60s were COINTELPRO by the MIC then, and now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HRUEqyZ7p8
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Sal1981

Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 08, 2018, 11:09:44 AM
Yep.

The work force - the supply of labour - suddenly doubled, almost overnight, but the demand stayed mostly the same. And so wages plummeted. Any woman who was coupled with a man and chose to work didn't bring any more money to the household, because what they made together was what the man used to make by himself. It allowed women to become dependent, if they so chose it, at least.

Thing is, that's not what they chose.

Rather than receiving resources from a man DIRECTLY, and rather than paving their own way through life, women, as a collective, now depend on the state for resources. In the US, and most (if not all) other first world nations, women as a demographic do not pay taxes - since as a demographic they use more dollars worth of social services than they pay in taxes. They're still leeching off the men of the nation even after feminism, only they're not living with them or fucking them, anymore. They're using the state to force the men to pay for their expenses while they remain single. All the while feminists bitch and moan that men are to blame for all their problems, meanwhile men built and maintain everything around them, and pay all the nations taxes and subsequently for all of womens social services.

Most feminists are retarded. The others are capitalising on the stupidity of the former.
I'm reminded about the Cathy Newman debate with Jordan Peterson on Channel 4 News; Cathy argued that girls had to pay more for helmets  because pink helmets cost more than blue ones. Most people saw this argument for what it was: ignoring consumer options. If something is cheaper and of the same quality, people will (unless they're some ridiculous aesthetic reason) always choose the cheaper option. Besides, you could just as well just paint the helmet pink.

As for the gender pay gap, the gap exists because the output of the female work force is simply less than that of men. All the statistics point to this inescapable fact. Even if feminists wanted to close the gap, they would only be able to do so by either/or reducing men's work output and/or increasing women's output, because the same amount of work NETS THE SAME AMOUNT OF PAY. Again, men simply work more than women on average.

I don't understand why they even want to eliminate this pay gap anyways, other than achieving some nefarious ideology (coughrafidicalfeminismcough). So what if a difference exists? You want to strive for a higher pay? That means there's a ladder to climb, and if there was no ladder to climb you wouldn't want to improve, now would you? Instead of trying to eliminate the differences, instead recognize them for what they are: a multitude of differences, from biological to technological to cultural and social and find your place in the world of work and salary.

Gilgamesh

#67
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 09, 2018, 01:08:15 PM


I don't understand why they even want to eliminate this pay gap anyways, other than achieving some nefarious ideology (coughrafidicalfeminismcough). So what if a difference exists? You want to strive for a higher pay? That means there's a ladder to climb, and if there was no ladder to climb you wouldn't want to improve, now would you? Instead of trying to eliminate the differences, instead recognize them for what they are: a multitude of differences, from biological to technological to cultural and social and find your place in the world of work and salary.

In their mind inequality (that is; simply not equal in proportion) = inequity. They're not the same thing. They don't stop to think as far as you. They don't question what it actually means to make the total net income between sexes the exact same, nor do they question why it not being the same is even bad.

The only way I could see a nation making its net income for its citizens equal between the sexes is for government to force every corporation to pay exactly the same for every single job, and to also take CEO's income until it equals that of everyone elses pay, and to also not let any more men earn income than there are women earning income.

^ That's what it means to close the gender wage gap.

But feminists don't think that far. They don't know what it is they are advocating for. They're so fucking stupid that when they hear 'pay gap' (which is a false characterisation; it'd be more accurately described as a 'wage gap') they think that they're hearing about an omnipresent custom of paying individuals differently for doing the same job.

Gilgamesh

And then feminists are dogmatic as all fuck, too. As bad as any cult are 'progressives.' As soon as you challenge their narrative, they just resort to ad hominems and group-ostracisation. You see, they posit that believing in their narrative is necessary to being a good person, and so if you question it, you are a bad person. Leftists are really good at demonising their opponents - to the point where don't even consider their detractors human; rather they are monsters. And you don't argue with monsters.


Baruch

#69
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 09, 2018, 02:16:54 PM
And then feminists are dogmatic as all fuck, too. As bad as any cult are 'progressives.' As soon as you challenge their narrative, they just resort to ad hominems and group-ostracisation. You see, they posit that believing in their narrative is necessary to being a good person, and so if you question it, you are a bad person. Leftists are really good at demonising their opponents - to the point where don't even consider their detractors human; rather they are monsters. And you don't argue with monsters.

Girl apes have always controlled boy apes that way (in civilized ape town).  You either tow the line, or no possibility of dates or marriage or children.  The preferences of women are what control male genetics (bigger and stronger and less feminine).  The preferences of men are also controlled by women, we are programmed to desire the more feminine women ... of course this pisses off the Plain Janes to no end.  Men are controlled, coming and going ... and this wasn't apparent until most modern times ... before it was done indirectly, now it can be done by consumer choice and voting.  In patriarchal society, women aren't allowed to shop BTW.  Things are the way they should be, as of 200 years ago.  Pre-industrial and un-liberated women.  This won't last.  Post-industrial women won't need men at all ... robots do all the work, and medicine makes artificial pregnancy, and a really liberated woman doesn't need to give birth or breast feed or raise children ... Brave New World is the Feminist agenda.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Gilgamesh

#70
Quote from: Baruch on April 09, 2018, 10:41:56 PM
Girl apes have always controlled boy apes that way (in civilized ape town).  You either tow the line, or no possibility of dates or marriage or children.

Bingo. You now have the reason as to why feminism has been allowed to exist as long as it has. Without any men, it would've died. Sadly, there's a lot of cowardly weakling out there who will to anything for pussy, even sacrifice their own political convictions, and subsequently their whole damn nation.

Baruch

Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 09, 2018, 10:56:01 PM
Bingo. You now have the reason as to why feminism has been allowed to exist as long as it has. Without any men, it would've died. Sadly, there's a lot of cowardly weakling out there who will to anything for pussy, even sacrifice their own political convictions, and subsequently their whole damn nation.

Have you ever had a pretty girl bat her eyes at you?  Why are you hanging out with bats anyway? ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 09, 2018, 10:56:01 PM
Bingo. You now have the reason as to why feminism has been allowed to exist as long as it has. Without any men, it would've died. Sadly, there's a lot of cowardly weakling out there who will to anything for pussy, even sacrifice their own political convictions, and subsequently their whole damn nation.

That is interesting.  Feminism would have died without women too...  Or been irrelevant.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Mermaid

Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 09, 2018, 10:56:01 PM
Bingo. You now have the reason as to why feminism has been allowed to exist as long as it has. Without any men, it would've died. Sadly, there's a lot of cowardly weakling out there who will to anything for pussy, even sacrifice their own political convictions, and subsequently their whole damn nation.
This. This is GENIUS! Genius, I tell you!
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities â€" all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR

Gilgamesh


imagine being so dumbfucking stupid that you're an identitarian about your sex.