Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Men Civilize Women, Not the Other Way Around

Some years ago I read a famous book by George Gilder called Wealth and Poverty, which had a huge and mostly undeserved influence on the Reagan administration. It was clear, even then, that Gilder had some obvious problems.

He essentially claimed that women civilized men, since they required men to submit to their "long-term views." Gilder kept babbling nonsense (women mostly have short-term views) throughout the years and finally self-destructed, losing almost all his money in the dotcom crash, after writing several books about the wonders of the computer revolution.

He also praised mass immigration...and this from a man who claimed he was a conservative. He also praised Israel. Clearly, there are many things he never thought through.

Women don't civilize men. Men civilize women. Men have created/discovered everything, including civilization and the ideas that support it. Women who have created anything are outliers. It's not due to oppression and "patriarchy," but because men and woman have different brains. Women are the ones who determine the comfort level of the home, which is why I refer to men as Work and Reason and women as the Heart and the Home. It's simple, but not wrong.

When men fail to civilize women, society collapses. There are no matriarchies and never have been. Overwhelmingly (say 90%) of women are natural socialists/fascists and so destroy every field in which there are too many of them. They don't even know they are doing it and instead think they are doing a good thing.

Many men have a misguided sense of justice and fair play, which allows them to let women move into fields which they destroy. Samuel Johnson understood the problem: “Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little.”

While men don't try to enter women's fields, women consistently try to enter men's fields. It's a big problem, and I don't quite understand why women do it. Envy? They think that men have a better life so they want to force themselves into the boy's clubhouse? And when admitted they want to change the rules to benefit them.

Left to their own devices women would end up living in grass huts, as Camille Paglia so famously predicted.

I keep in mind the story of the Garden of Eden. A weak Adam listened to Eve and so got both of them kicked out. And it was Eve who fell for the promises of the serpent, who is a symbol of envy (and therefore also hate). So I have to assume that when women want to change society (and men) it's mostly based on envy.

This is what happens when weak-minded men, who don't understand what justice really means (to give each their due) listen to envious, socialist/fascist women. This of course doesn't mean all women are like this...just a lot.

Most women (and in fact many men) are ruled by their emotions, even though they believe they are rational. I'd say Pareto had it right with his 80/20 Law: 20% of people are rational. The rest aren't. This means democracy will never work (in the long run democracies have always fallen, as our will).

Actually, I consider democracy/leftism to be feminine (to be precise, the Bad Feminine). Mythologically, it's the Destructive, Destroying Mother. Mythologically, woman has also always been Mother Earth, to which there are two aspects: the nurturing and the destroying. One of the main functions of civilization (which is a fragile flower) is to encourage the nurturing and hold the destroying at bay.

Men will have to stop listening to this Seductive, Destroying Mother, the way Adam should not have listened to Eve. Because if we don't, then, over and over, the human race will get kicked out of what it has created.


Quartermain said...


A special offer for Americans threatening to move to Canada over Trump!

I think Glen just may have something to add.

Earl Thomas said...

Men help to create civilization, women help to create new humans. Both equal in value and different in what is actually happening. It's a good system.

Anonymous said...

I have considered this recently. I have wondered why I, who has never been involved with women, keep getting attacked by them. This is such a recurring thing that I no longer work with women. Understand this, the trouble doesn't start with the women I work with. It starts with a woman I don't know but who erroneously thinks to know OF me is to know me. So, unbeknownst to me, they she starts a campaign against me for some imagined, fabricated offence. This gathers momentum over four months or so until a woman I don't really have anything to do with ambushes me and explains why people don't like me. This nonsense will then get legs and contaminate the women I do work with and it's game over.

This backstory is by way of making the point that women, always creating havoc in their personal lives, are now a public threat. Why? I suggest that women, prone to the unfortunate effect of estrogen on their mental stability creating a predilection for depression, paranoia and anxiety, were heretofore contained within the confines of their families by the vigilance of their men and women -folk. They are now loose in the world, unfettered by the calming influence of men.