Saturday, September 14, 2013

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.


Anonymous said...

110% correct.

Dissident said...

Very, very, very, un-PC and I love it!

Telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may.

drifter said...

Very true.

Now that women's true nature has been given license thanks to feminism, we all see what women are truly about. Sluthood, frivorce, babymammahood and huge spending to keep all the women "independent".

Basically, feminism (women's true nature) can only exist where there is a huge surplus of resources to transfer from men to women. This creates the illusion of "independent" women (VAWA, title IX, Affirmative Action, etc.) until the women exhaust the resources and civilization has to start all over.

It's sad to say, but this is why women should be given very little power if civilization is to function safely and properly.

Anonymous said...

You appeal to embittered divorced men of all ages. Good luck on getting your alimony payments reduced.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Good luck on getting your alimony payments reduced

Men subsidizing women. Kind of proves his point.

Unknown said...

"Good luck on getting your alimony payments reduced"

I don't pay any alimony. And if I did, it just proves my point.

It's not divorced embittered men I appeal to. It's any man who wonders what went wrong. And that includes 18-year-olds.

Will S. said...

Just so. Women domesticate men, at best, but that's not the same thing. As Camille Paglia said, if civilization had been left to women, we'd all still be living in grass huts, albeit tastefully decorated ones...

Peacemaker said...

The "Everybody Loves Raymond" paradigm insidiously infected America.

I wrote a post on Adam and Eve and our opinions converge. Adam was weak and didn't lead.

Unknown said...

Indeed Adam was weak, in that he listened to a woman who was clearly in the wrong.