Sunday, January 4, 2015

It is Women Who are Natural Slaves

"Women will always do what they're told." - a disgruntled feminist.

Some more on natural slavery.

In a sense men are slaves to women because without women there are no babies. It was Carl Jung who commented that biologically women are the indispensable sex - but men, culturally, are the indispensable ones.

And that is why (here I quote them again) P.J. O' Rourke said that without men, civilization would last until the next oil change, and Camille Paglia, far nastier, commented that without men, women would still be living in grass hats.

Just as bad, if women were in charge of things, we would be returned to the grass hut era, because of women's two greatest flaws - hubris and envy. And that is why, mythologically, women are either nurturers are destroyers.

Women are 100% dependent on men for their very lives.

When it comes down to it, the vast majority of women don't know what they want. It's up to men to lead. Which isn't happening so much right now, so women are lost. Feminism only exists because men have allowed it, most probably out of a misguided sense of fairness.

In a workable society, men have in a sense always enslaved women - kept them out of certain jobs and politics, for example. And women, in the long run, have been grateful for this. Why? Because most women don't even know what they want. Then when they get it, then they realize, "This is what I really wanted."

They want to be nurturers and not destroyers. These days, men have let them became destroyers. And that is why so few women are happy and instead are gobbling psychiatric medication like candy.

The cure for this? Men must again "enslave" women - to make them happy.

Years ago I read several of John Norman's "Gor" novels. Many are goofy as hell, but he had some valid points. He wrote of women wearing pants, having careers - and being terribly unhappy.

Yet when some were kidnapped and taken to Gor, they were told, "We will activate your true womanly nature, and if you don't do it, we will kill you." Now of course I'm not recommending that (personally I got the impression Norman is a little bit nuts) but when that nature became manifest, the women, every one of them, gave up their old lives and enthusiastically became slaves.

Because they didn't know what they wanted until men took the lead.

Throughout history men have been the protectors/inventors/discoverers/explorers. Women are been the supporters and nurturers of men. The shortest explanation I've read is "Yang protects Yin and Yin supports Yang."

If men are "slaves" to women, they should do so willingly, because it makes them happy. And if women are slaves to men...unfortunately in their case it has to been forced on them. Because, again, they don't know what they want. Until they get it.

“The slave is wholly lacking the deliberative element; the female has it but it lacks authority; the child has it but it is incomplete” - Aristotle


Alex said...

You don't build a house on lousy foundations and that's all that's out there. It will all have to burn down to some degree, and then men will have to pick and choose from young women (15-19) before they develop into fat, tattooed, loud-mouthed, entitled feminists demanding that men be their personal and institutional donkeys to carry their water. Those women will have to starve in the streets, dig through garbage and die prematurely to serve as an example to the younger women which will be remembered. I imagine the likelyhood of that happening is slim, so the decay increases daily.

Cheech And Chong Found God said...

"then men will have to pick and choose from young women (15-19)"

Ages 15-17 is pedophile territory.

"I imagine the likelyhood of that happening is slim."

Slim? Try never.

"Those women will have to starve in the streets, dig through garbage and die prematurely."

May the Lord save your soul.

A.B. Prosper said...


15-17 is a bit too young for marriage I think though I've seen successful marriages with 16 year old brides . Truthfully I am discomfited by the idea but is not pedophile territory, not even close.

Note also for many civilized nations and many US states in fact 16 is the age of consent and more than a few nations (no US states) have it at 15 or so. Many of the rest have it at 17.

As for Alex's opinion, while I understand it, its cruel and bitter. Even when the feminist women are wicked enough to deserve it.

That said if things keep going the way they are, he might get his wish re: economic implosion

Alex said...

@A.B. Prosper,
I don't wish for an economic implosion, A.B.

I've traveled in much of the world, and 16 - 19 is the marriage norm in much of it, with the exception of the West and the larger cities of the rest of the world. There it's 19-24. You'd be surprised how few places you would find a man willing to marry a mid-thirties woman, like you find in the U.S.A. and Western Europe.

Why would the Lord have to save my soul? I only said what it would take to kill feminism. Personally, I could care less, since I have no intent to marry - the legal contract is no joke and I have no desire to spend a major portion of my life under the hammer of the family court system. If I ever do choose to marry it won't be here.

Mindstorm said...

You might consider proofreading this post again (are -> or; discovers -> discoverers). I'm too often prone to this kind of carelessness as well.

@C&C Found God:

Not where I am living. 15 is the age of consent here, 16 is the age of marriageability (with parental consent). :) Still, I'm not eager to play a substitute for their parents.

Unknown said...

The first thing I was told in a journalism class was to never edit your own copy, because you will never see some mistakes.