Thursday, October 22, 2015

Three Kinds of Women

I've read some incredibly stupid things in the Manosphere, such as "Intelligence is a beta trait." The author of this pulled it straight out of his ass.

I pretty much dismiss 80% of the Manosphere as naive nonsense. That 80% doesn't understand men or women.

Let's take the history of women, for the past 100 or so years.

Usually there have been three kinds:

Those who are unwilling or unable to marry, who don't want children or are afraid of childbirth, who devote their lives to career (these are the kind who once became nuns).

The second married and had children, then entered the workforce.

The third chose marriage as a "career" and choose family and children.

These things pretty much evolved organically.

This organic growth was broken by feminists of the '60s - Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem - all of whom called the third category "traitors," "parasites," and "inferiors."

This means "feminism" did no good whatsoever, and in fact short-circuited the natural and organic changes in society.

The unwilling/unable remind me of Shulamith Firestone, who wrote an influential book, The Dialectic of Sex (incidentally, she became schizophrenic and died alone and poverty-stricken). She desperately prayed for science-fiction concepts such as artificial wombs (which, by the way, will be invented by men, not women).

Although I don't understand this horror of childbirth and children, such women do exist. They are, fortunately, a vanishingly small minority. The problem is that they think all women should be as they are and they should forced to be so by political power.

Just think of Friedan and Steinem. What sort of loons think their opinions are fact and that all women should act like them? (By the way, the grotesque Friedan got married and had children, and Steinem went from man to man, finally got married after denigrating it her entire life, and visited a fertility clinic in hopes of getting pregnant. Talk about hypocritical frauds!)

Their opinions would have been completely irrelevant if they hadn't been so dangerous. And they were only dangerous because people took them seriously.

I've met women to want to stay home with the kids, but these days cannot. I was once listening to three women as one told the others how much she enjoyed being a stay-at-home mother but financially couldn't do it anymore.

Most women today are stuck with trying to balance work and family at the same time, which was never the norm in the past. It's not working very well (for one thing, children have to be farmed out to poorly-paid workers), and of course, since so many women blame their problems on men (which makes them children) the problems between men and women have gotten worse.

I've mentioned the "Little House on the Prairie" books before. Laura Ingalls Wilder was a schoolteacher at 15 (without a college degree, just some sort of certificate), got married at 18, then spend much of her life cooking and taking care of home and children, while her husband Almanzo spent much of his time plowing the fields (he almost got killed when trying to get from the barn to the house in a snowstorm and barely found the house).

Who wants that anymore? Certainly not me.

That lifestyle went away because of technological advances by men, which was also what created "feminism," by freeing women from unwanted pregnancies and spending their lives cooking and cleaning and other domestic chores (by the way, men have always had it worse than women).

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if dangerous feminist concepts (which are leftist) hadn't been enshrined in law?

We'd still have the unwilling/unable devoting their lives to career, which is fine with me. We'd still have the family first, followed by a job.

Then we'd have the just-want-to-stay-home-with-the-kids.

But we wouldn't have the unsustainable attempts to mix career with family.

I meet women who tell me the men they get involved with "won't accept my career." They don't realize they can't mix career and family simultaneously, which is why they've never married and have no children.

The men do realize you can't have both, which is why I've met a lot of never-married-without-children middle-aged women. Of course they blame their problems on men.

I think I'll predict the future here. The unwilling/unable will continue to exist, the don't-work-stay-at-home will continue to exist, as will the raise-the-family-then-go-work, but the want-career-and-family-at-the-same-time will evaporate because it's not workable.

Maybe another generation?

I really don't know how long it's going to take, but there is going a lot of heartbreak until this problem is fixed.

18 comments:

dana said...

Shulamith Firestone?

Bob Wallace said...

She was one of the first radical feminists and hoped there would be artificial wombs so women could be freed from having children. She had way too much influence.

Mindstorm said...

And men have thought: "If that is what you want, then you will get it, hard." The ideas of Shulamith Firestone will lead to female obsolescence.

dana said...

oh im sorry, when i read this the 1st time the paragraph looked like this:


The unwilling/unable remind me of __________, who wrote an influential book, ______________ (incidentally, she became schizophrenic and died alone and poverty-stricken). She desperately prayed for science-fiction concepts such as artificial wombs (which, by the way, will be invented by men, not women).


disregard my comment

Bob Wallace said...

I saw that and fixed it. At first I couldn't remember Firestone's name and put that blank without realizing what I did.

michael savell said...

In the UK,where I was born,the government of the day in the year 1948,bought out a sitting tenants act which gave people the right to buy their rented houses at a
reduced rate.This meat having a mortgage and had the effect of having women looking for work in order to pay that same mortgage.The pay of the working man was rising
but there were bitter fights by the employer and union.The unions were winning in 1948 but the women undercut union rates and many men lost their jobs.The employers were therefore highly delighted and the demise of the unions followed andjust about terminated when another woman,Margaret Thatcher turned the police force into a military attack on miners.After the end of mining these pout of work men were offered training on typewriters.Can you imagine?

Rusty Shackleford said...

Steinem, Freidan, Firestone, Abzug, Weisstein, Germaine Greer, Andrea Dworkin, Eve Ensler , Rosa Luxemburg.. What do all these women have in common? They are all high strung, neurotic jewish women who made a living sublimating their ethnic and interethnic rages and obsessions on to dumb blonde shiksas and goyim culture in general. It's an amazing thing that the entirety of American public discourse is set and dominated by the manias and greivances of American Jews. Thanks to the wonders of near universal college indoctrination, Cindy Kelly gets to learn from her hirsute and swarthy 300lb women's studies professor about all the ways she has been persecuted by the men in her life and society in general that she never even knew about.

Rusty Shackleford said...

"I've mentioned the "Little House on the Prairie" books before. Laura Ingalls Wilder was a schoolteacher at 15 (without a college degree, just some sort of certificate), got married at 18, then spend much of her life cooking and taking care of home and children, while her husband Almanzo spent much of his time plowing the fields.

Who wants that anymore? Certainly not me. "

Why not? Laura and Almonzo lived into their 90s and probably did just about everything worth doing on this planet. You think you're so much better, Bob, because you've got the internet or an Ipad or something? Supposing even that your life is that great, I'm going to take a guess that an ever increasing % of the American population is living a very truncated version of the human experience compared to the Wilders. I also doubt that we're any happier and are likely a lot more miserable. Of course Mary Ingalls' life on the other hand really did probably suck, but it's not like we don't still have blind kids.

Bob Wallace said...

"Why not? Laura and Almonzo lived into their 90s and probably did just about everything worth doing on this planet"


All of their children except Rose all died, the brother after Rose not lasting probably a month when he died of seizures. And Rose nearly died from malaria and diphtheria.

Laura told the story of their neighbors, who could not have children, telling her she and Almanzo if they gave them Rose then Almanzo and Laura could have their best horse.

Personally I prefer having had the diphtheria vaccine and having advanced science being able to make sure parents can have children who don't die two weeks later.

And people think those books are for girls.

Bob Wallace said...

"It's an amazing thing that the entirety of American public discourse is set and dominated by the manias and greivances of American Jews. Thanks to the wonders of near universal college indoctrination"

Shulamith Firestone was abused by her father and her boyfriend once loosened one of her teeth. And one of her brothers killed himself by shooting himself in the heart.

Communism's original name was Jewish Bolshevism, and worst mass murderers of the 20th century were Jewish. No wonder their still-denied messiah abused them so. They certainly deserved it. Still do.

Anonymous said...

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were Jewish? Who knew?

Dusty Meckelford said...

"Steinem, Freidan, Firestone, Abzug, Weisstein, Germaine Greer, Andrea Dworkin, Eve Ensler , Rosa Luxemburg.. What do all these women have in common? They are all high strung, neurotic jewish women..."

Ah, yes, da Jooish conspiracy nuts are in full throat.

"It's an amazing thing that the entirety of American public discourse is set and dominated by the manias and greivances of American Jews."

Corrected for accuracy --> The manias and grievances of women, some of whom were Jewish.

Rusty Shackleford said...

"Ah, yes, da Jooish conspiracy nuts are in full throat."

Ah, yes, argumentation by way of point and splutter. These women are Jewish and they are the most important leaders and intellectuals in modern feminism, no? So what do you even object to here, pattern recognition? Can you come up with a list of shiksa feminists anywhere close to the length or significance of the one above? Seriously, unless you want to go back to Susan B. Anthony, the only lady gentile that I can think of in the modern era who has had any comparable impact or influence on women's issues is Phyllis Schlafly or maybe Camille Paglia.


"Corrected for accuracy --> The manias and grievances of women, some of whom were Jewish."

Just stop it. Jews have been at the forefront of every left wing American intellectual movement and a lot of right wing ones also. They've been very successful at projecting jewish interests, rivalries and inter ethnic rivalries onto the consciousness of non-jewish Americans. You can argue whether this is a good or bad thing, but you can't be a sane person if you're arguing that it isn't so. What reason on earth would the US have to give a fuck about Israel if it weren't for Jewish Americans? It's not even your accusation here about Jew hating that bothers me but just the goofiness of it. This is not a place where anyone gives a fuck about your shibboleths.

Rusty Shackleford said...


"All of their children except Rose all died, the brother after Rose not lasting probably a month when he died of seizures. And Rose nearly died from malaria and diphtheria."

I don't remember that on the TV show. Fair enough, though, you got me on this one. All the same, it seems a possibility that as the economy needs fewer and fewer people, there will be large parts of the population living in a de facto state of welfare and having their real lives buried in an artificial, soul deadening technological blur of games, apps and media. As this technology will inevitably improve, the real world prospects and happiness of many of its users will not. To go back to what I was getting at in my other post, the life of an Amish seems rich, happy and full compared to that of a hikikomori. And of course modern Amish have the benefit of modern medical technology that the Wilders didn't have. I think that to most people now, though, the hikikomori seems more normal. Probably most people if given a choice would rather slap on an oculus rift helmet and voluntarily live out an artificial life as a part of the matrix.


Bob Wallace said...

I suspect we're looking at some sort of religious revival in the next ten years. Materialism doesn't fill souls. It never has.

Mindstorm said...

"...fills souls."

IOW: doesn't satisfy our need for self-importance. It doesn't assure us that someone out there cares for us, loves us and has an important role to fulfill for each of us. What a pity. :)

Mindstorm said...

Apologies for inexact quoting.

Dusty Meckelford said...

"Ah, yes, argumentation by way of point and splutter. These women are Jewish and they are the most important leaders and intellectuals in modern feminism, no? So what do you even object to here, pattern recognition? Can you come up with a list of shiksa feminists anywhere close to the length or significance of the one above? Seriously, unless you want to go back to Susan B. Anthony, the only lady gentile that I can think of in the modern era who has had any comparable impact or influence on women's issues is Phyllis Schlafly or maybe Camille Paglia."

Certainly those women, who were Jewish, were at the forefront. But their ideas decidedly came from non-Jewish women--Mary Astell, Abigail Adams, Olympe de Gouges, Sarah Grimke, for starters. Are you that historically illiterate?

"Just stop it. Jews have been at the forefront of every left wing American intellectual movement and a lot of right wing ones also."

Just like non-Jewish people have been heavily involved. Yet, somehow, blaming da Joos is convenient.

"They've been very successful at projecting jewish interests, rivalries and inter ethnic rivalries onto the consciousness of non-jewish Americans."

Corrected for accuracy --> Jews and non-Jews alike have been successful at protecting their own interests; in some cases, the interests of Jews and non-Jews are shared.