Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Why Women Damage and Destroy Everything in Which They Meddle

Education...voting...single mothers...ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

When there are too many women in a field, they always damage or destroy it. Why? There are only a few reasons.

One, many women are natural socialists/fascists. Two, they are ruled by their feelings first, reason second. Three, they think they are always right. Four, they place security above freedom. All four of them, when together, are very bad things. And in a woman, they are always together.

Being natural socialists, they think everyone should be equal. That is one of the basic tenets of leftism, which is why leftism is feminine even if a man believes in it. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who everyone should read, defined leftism as "the murder of the Father."

When you apply leftism to society, you always get a collapsed society.

When you apply leftism to education, you get female teachers (and their mangina supporters) trying to turn little boys into little girls, usually through the use of extremely dangerous psychiatric drugs such as Ritalin. That way, everyone will be "equal," although the female teachers define equal as "everyone acting like a girl."

Having a few female teachers is fine, but having too many female teachers is not only not fine, it is dangerous, mostly because they have no idea how to handle little boys. Which, sweethearts, ain't that hard.

Second, women are ruled by their feelings first, then by reason. It's a brain thing. An illustration of that is the classic line in As Good as It Gets, when Melvin Udall (Jack Nicholson) says he understands women so well because he thinks of a man and "takes away reason and accountability."

Any woman who is honest with herself knows she is ruled by her feelings, so if she has any sense she will wait a few hours and try to reason out whether or not she is right. Or, she can just ask one of those Awful Things known as a man.

As for women always thinking they are right, Carl Jung that was women's greatest flaw. Which is is. The other side of that coin is "It's somebody else's fault." If you think you are always right, then somebody else must be always wrong, so they have to be the cause of every problem.

This is why women always blame their problems on men, even when it's clearly the woman's fault.

The late humorist Stephen Leacock wrote this about a hostile woman who thought she was always right and blamed all problems on men: "She went on to explain instead that when women have the vote there will be no more poverty, no disease, no germs, no cigarette smoking and nothing to drink but water. It seemed a gloomy world." You betcha. Does that female world sound familiar today, with male females like the former mayor of New York banning too-big bottles of soda pop?

There is a famous comedy performance called "Defending the Caveman." Rob Becker, who created it, said that in one performance, when he commented that while men find women mysterious, women think men are always wrong, a woman stood up in the audience and shrieked, "They ARE wrong."

Four, women place security above liberty. This also is dangerous. Men created civilization, society and science and technology. They did it by being innovative, by exploring and doing dangerous things. You will never see a woman jump out of a balloon 23 miles up, as Felix Baumgartner did.

Women created none of these things because they don't have the ability. This is not due to thousands of years of oppression. It's because men and women have different brains.

There has never been a matriarchy, contrary to the hallucinations of those who think one has existed. There has always been patriarchy. Because, whenever any society gets close to being a matriarchy, it collapses before it gets there. That's why our society is close to collapse.

I'll close with something else Leacock wrote: "Let the reader remain agonized over that till I write something else."


Anonymous said...

Does the recent leftist attempt at matriarchy by the leftist Kurds at Rojava qualify?

Glen Filthie said...

No chit.

What scares and infuriates me is the way they can so casually and self assuredly invert morality and reality to suit their feelings. I am supposed to sit by quietly while women push for inclusion in the Army Rangers and Marines and pretend that a 115 lb. girl can do anything the 180~210 lb. young Marine buck can! I'm supposed to believe the turd polished reports that support women flying jet fighter planes and look the other way when they write off a perfectly good 25 billion dollar aircraft. One of those female naval aviators got promoted after crashing three planes, all resulting from pilot error. Saying so cost her CO his job, and she was promoted to replace him - probably cheaper than writing off airplanes or incurring the wrath of the social justice warriors, I guess.

It's not that women destroy things, it's a case of men that should know better letting them. And - in our case - actively helping them. The only way a woman is going to be a Marine or a Ranger or a fighter pilot is if we lower the bars that allow them to qualify. Successful civilizations don't lower standards - they raise them and praise those that can meet them.

When I turn my formidable intellect on it, I see it thusly: the intelligent and successful man always questions himself - "Is this how things actually are, or is this just how I see them...?" He has to, he knows that any real success requires that he make good decisions borne of solid critical thought and that he will answer for any mistakes he makes. That is why any man with an ounce of courage and honesty is hopping mad about women in combat roles. He isn't doing that because he hates women, he does it because he loves them and wants to protect them. He knows what will happen to them if they ever face a motivated opponent. They will be lucky if they don't die screaming.

But this is where I break with you Bob - this? This is something new. Laura Ingalls was not a fascist or a socialist or an idiot. She was an intensely practical woman and had an enviable strength of character. Most of the women of her time did. The truth is that the men that built America leaned heavily on their women and neither gender thought nothing of it because they were a team playing to their strengths. Today? To even suggest women have weaknesses is cause for a witch hunt. And diseased men will scurry to gather the wood to burn the heretics with too.

Our women used to be made of better stuff. It's time to let them know that and if they can't handle it...dispense with them and look for ones that meet higher standards.

Bob Wallace said...

I just noticed Alpha Game wrote a very short article about Laura Ingalls Wilder. That's Vox Day, I believe. And where did he get that observation from? I wonder.

Unfortunately I don't know anything about the Kurds. Trying to establish some sort
of matriarchy? Wow!

Mindstorm said...

@Glen, does that "anything" include carrying a M240 around?

Glen Filthie said...

Yup. I am not the only one plagiarizing your work, Bob! Look at your mother, grandmother and great grandmother...and one will see a deteriorating quality of women...and men for that matter...easy times produce weak, stupid people.

Anonymous said...

It's not even that complicated. Women are easily motivated by envy and envy always destroys. It's that simple.

JK Brown said...

"All mankind’s progress has been achieved as a result of the initiative of a small minority that began to deviate from the ideas and customs of the majority until their example finally moved the others to accept the innovation themselves. To give the majority the right to dictate to the minority what it is to think, to read, and to do is to put a stop to progress once and for all."

Mises, Ludwig von (2010-12-10). Liberalism (p. 54). Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition.

Women, as a group, favor conformity and seek to ostracize those who deviate in ideas and customs of the majority of the group. See the above quote for the consequences of this trait.

Anonymous said...

UB: "One, many women are natural socialist/fascism."

Where does this 'natural' inclination to collectivisation come from?

Take The Red Pill said...

"That is why any man with an ounce of courage and honesty is hopping mad about women in combat roles. He isn't doing that because he hates women, he does it because he loves them and wants to protect them. He knows what will happen to them if they ever face a motivated opponent. They will be lucky if they don't die screaming."

Sorry, but I am one man who no longer cares about women or about trying to protect them from the consequences of following their feminist "men and women are the same" religion which they absolutely insist upon following. Fine. They want to believe their own BS propaganda so much, then let them take the consequences.
I do not hate women either, but I just don't care about them anymore. If they die screaming as a result of facing a 'motivated opponent', then so much the better.
We men have protected hateful, thankless, egocentric, misandric Western women from the consequences of their actions for too long now, all without any appreciation whatsoever.
Let them take the consequences of their actions. It's high time that they did.