And YES!, I can do many things! One of them pretty things, is:
Putting a list together of one's activities and the (hypothetical) comment on it provided, ain't research. That's an analysis.
Lol, you missed
the research. And you are too dumb to assimilate the significance.
Bitch go back to inserting your tampon. It is was you were made to do.
Only a dumb bitch would insert an off-topic tirade that you did in a thread which has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
You were incorrect then and making trouble without understanding the research that had been done.
And you are still continuing to do what dumb bitches do.
(I am making a copy of this in the Dark Enlightenment thread as poignant example of how dumb bitches only know how to disrupt the workplace and can't actually produce anything technological)
Dalrock complaints that women ruin everything. They want to enter male spaces and make the space feminine, as a power play, not out of any interest in the things of value in that male space, which they inevitably destroy.
This is a key issue in gamergate, where feminists demand that the games should be no fun and no one should play them.
Women want to rule, even though it makes them unhappy – it is a fitness test. They are looking for men that can defeat them, master them, and put them in their proper place.
Natural selection wants men to fight against subordinate status so that they will win. Natural selection wants women to fight against subordinate status so that they will lose only to worthy men and and thus get impregnated by those worthy men.
When women push their way into male spaces and then set about destroying those male spaces, they are looking for worthy men who will uphold the space and put them in their place. It is a fitness test. They hope to find the lord of this space who will not put up with a woman’s nonsense.
What women really want is to be allowed into a male place on subordinate and unequal terms, to be allowed to speak only if spoken to, and any male wishing to speak the them has to get the permission of their owner first. They will fight like hell against this status, but if they win, they are unhappy, and if they lose, are happy. Women are like poorly behaved dogs. The dog will push to be leader of the pack, a job he can never perform, and does not really want. He wants a master to follow while making his master follow him.
A woman is like a badly behaved dog, a dog that will take his master for a walk, rather than the master taking the dog for a walk, but the dog is much happier when walked by his master, rather than walking his master, much happier with a firm master.
Women casually interrupt anyone, including their boss, and talk right over him.
When I say that fertile age women are sex obsessed, I don’t mean that they think about the sexual act itself as much as men do. If you skim through a romance novel, there are nine hundred pages where the male love interest demonstrates how aloof and alpha he is, a hundred pages where he breaks down, gets weepy, and shows his soft inner core of twu luving betaness, and one page where he tears the lady’s clothes off with his teeth and the couple finally at long last get some action. As men understand sex obsession, women are not sex obsessed.
The female equivalent of the male executive groping his secretary’s ass is the female executive shit testing the CEO. And observe. Female executives shit test their superiors all the time, paying very little attention to the menial drudgery of merely running the business. In this sense, women at work are seriously sex obsessed.
In this sense, it is sex all the time, work very little of the time. The company is boyfriend and family.
For girls, shit testing men is like men looking at girls boobs. Women want to go into engineering to shit test men. Men want to go into engineering because as little boys they loved toy trucks and video games. Girls go sex crazy at ten and stay sex crazy till menopause.
When the boss talks to a male executive, it is about how to get production up and costs down. When the boss talks to a female executive, she demands that he inflate her self esteem, or else she is going to charge rape, sexual harassment, and discrimination. If the boss passes the shit test, puncturing her self esteem, he will get laid like a rug, but the company may be put out of business. If he fails the shit test by inflating her self esteem, gets no sex, but the company survives. Men want to become executives so that they can tell other men what to do. Women want to become executives so that they can shit test the hell out of the CEO. If your boss is a woman, she is much more comfortable if you don’t really give her decisions.
Just listen to the conversation between a youngish female executive and her male superior. It is all shit test, all the time. She demands he inflate her self esteem. Work concerns cannot get in sideways. It is a romance novel with the company as boyfriend. In place of the normal transition, puberty swiftly followed by romance and marriage, puberty is instead followed by the job, but they act like the job is romance and marriage, rather than production of value. Used to be that women did not directly enter the male economy except as a producer within a family unit. They still don’t really enter the male economy, just go through the motions, but with the company playing the role of the family unit.
When the boss talks to a male executive, he tells him what he wants to tell him, and asks him what he wants to know. When he talks to a female executive, acts terrified. His words to his supposed subordinate are flattery, appeasement, and endless peace offerings, for which he receives no peace, like a courtier speaking to an oriental despot who might remove his head at any moment for any reason or no reason at all. Which is why, despite hypergamy, you are apt to get more action than your boss does.
Feminizing the workplace usually does not result in turning it into a sultan’s harem, alas, turns it into a soap opera and a romance novel, one thousand pages of drama for one page of ripping her clothes off with your teeth. More work would get done if it did turn into a sultan’s harem.
Feminism is driven by sex. They are always talking about rape and sexual harassment because they are always thinking about sex. They are not thinking about careers in engineering because they like the C language, but because the boys in engineering have a status hierarchy in which girls are at the bottom, so they want to shit test those boys by demanding equal, indeed superior, status.
The false life plan
Men and women are happiest if successfully performing their traditional roles. This is to be expected, since whites and east asians, the descendents of civilizations, are descended from those that did perform their traditional roles.
The Cathedral, however, presents girls, in school and on television, with a false life plan: That they will follow the same path as males, and marriage and family will just spontaneously happen while they are fucking Jeremy Meeks.
So girls followed that plan. With the result that the male plan (get a career and what you need to support a family, and a good wife will show up) stopped working. So males stopped working. And here we are.
Girls should be taught the female life plan, in domestic science classes, and in the stories they see on television.
Women have a natural tendency to hypergamy, resulting in the mating patterns of chimps, the ghetto, and some primitive tribes. Successful civilizations come down hard against this mating pattern, which necessarily requires that they come down hard on females, the uncontrollably lustful sex, systematically treating them as in substantially greater need than men of control, protection, and protection from their own selves, treating them all as Medeas, Pandoras, and Eves. The very least we can do it tell girls that the life plan that leads to this outcome, leads to the outcomes that it does.
Of course a civilization that could tell the truth on this question, would be capable of denying the vote to inferior groups, categories, races, and individuals, so would probably be capable of applying greater control to those groups in need of greater control.
I was talking to a mother about her highly “successful” lawyerette daughter, remarking that this child had reached an age where marriage had long been unlikely, and children were now becoming unlikely. The mother was outraged at such horribly reactionary crime think. I never got around to discussing the fact her very high IQ lawyerette daughter had spent her youth, her beauty, and her fertile years fucking stony broke losers, many of them low IQ, many of them loser criminals. (Successful criminals know that politeness is cheaper than violence and you need to be particularly pleasant and respectful to police, even if violence is sometimes necessary, so successful criminals don’t clean up with girls the way dumb loser criminals on their way to jail do.) Her mother attempted to introduce her daughter to more suitable males, but her daughter complained that these males of her own economic class simply did not turn her on.
Our culture lacks the eighteenth century role model of the gentleman, the man who is polite, respectful, conventional, but still capable of deadly violence, which contributes to females despising high status as high status is measured among civilized males, for a perception of high status more appropriate among chimps or in the ghetto. They need to be taught to respect and admire the kind of male that is likely to be able and willing to marry them. Males are socially controlled to behave in a manner perceived by females as low status and feminine, so the extent that males comply with socialization, females don’t want to have sex with them. We need to adjust socialization of males to make socialized behavior more attractive, which is to say, more masculine and less feminine, and adjust socialization of females to encourage them to associate with socialized males. A broader role for private violence by the affluent and respectable in upholding order, and a lesser role for police violence in upholding order would help considerably. Hard to change the nature of females, easier to change the organization of prosocial violence for the maintenance of order, so that females come to perceive the males that they ought to be interested in as the males who will win a violent conflict.
As I remarked earlier, the female’s pussy perceives status in ways appropriate to our ancestral environment, rather than our more recent environment, and there is not a lot that can be done about this other than reduce those differences between the ancestral environment and our more recent environment that tend to mislead females. Just as we need to avoid foods that are simultaneously sweet and fatty, so we need to avoid making civilized men into eunuchs. High socioeconomic status males need to be scarier, if women are going to breed with high socioeconomic status males. Excessive repression of private violence has led to dysgenic sexual choices by women. Partly we should solve this by preventing female sexual choice, but another part of the solution is more selective and less repressive repression of violence by high socioeconomic status males. High socioeconomic status males need to be able to get away with more manly behavior, including more of the primitive behavior that females understand as manliness. In addition to stronger guidance and restraint on female sexual choice, we need less feminization of high socioeconomic status males to reduce dysgenesis driven by female choice.
Not only are females educated to follow the false life plan, males are educated to be unattractive to females. Education becomes a genetic sink, reducing the reproduction of the most highly educated males and females, not only by wasting their time during their most important reproductive years, but by teaching them behaviors that make them less likely to reproduce and more likely to fail in their attempts to reproduce. We should teach, particularly in sex education, behaviors that make them more likely to succeed in reproduction. We need manlier men and more feminine women, but especially, we need manlier men. What is needed for women is primarily to deny them their most strongly preferred sexual choices to prevent them from rewarding unproductive and anti social behavior.
Consider the reality show star Kate Gosselin, woman has eight children by a decent, reasonably attractive husband, who loves her and loves his children. Acts like a complete shrew towards the only man who will ever love her and her children. Ditches him. Is shocked to discover that no other male wants a woman past her prime and encumbered with eight children.
Kate Gosselin was videotaped continually treating her husband like dirt, as the man she reluctantly settled for seeing as all her preferred choices would not return her phone calls.
She then divorced him, depriving him of his much loved children, depriving her eight children of a much needed father, and herself of a much needed and entirely irreplaceable husband.
And I have seen a similar dynamic in every divorce that I have observed, though of course with considerably fewer children. In every divorce that I have observed the wife was utterly and spectacularly out of contact with marriage market realities. The result of the divorce is that the man, who very much did not want the divorce, was much better off, free of a hateful and unfaithful shrew, and the wife was very much worse off. As the wife goggles fell from his eyes, he usually found a considerably younger replacement.
At the age of thirty eight, with eight children and a notorious shrew, Kate Gosselin’s chances of marrying even a homeless obese seventy year old alcoholic are about equal to her chances of being kidnapped by terrorists and becoming the wife of the sultan, but she specifically requires her new husband to be rich, six foot tall, physically fit, and childless. (Her previous husband was not rich, not six foot tall, and only ordinarily fit, which is presumably why she divorced him.)
Meanwhile her husband, Jon Gosselin, the father of her children, having lost the wife goggles, promptly got a hot twenty two year old girlfriend to replace his aging thirty eight year old wife, and if the girlfriend is lucky, might marry her. But then, having been burned once, maybe not.
The typical marriage is Kate Gosselin and Jon Gosselin: The wife has a hugely inflated idea of her marriage market value (based on her F-buddy market value when she was considerably younger) and this poisons the marriage.
Now theoretically, if a woman is chaste, men will only approach her that are appropriate to her marriage market value, and she will avoid getting an inflated perception of her value, but no man believes that a chaste women is likely to remain chaste, because, they are not likely to remain chaste. So a woman faces a storm of approaches that would never happen if the boys had to ask her dad before approaching her, and if her dad said yes, they would get not a date with the opportunity of physical contact, but merely the opportunity to court her for marriage. These approaches lead Kate Gosselin to believe that she is entitled to marry a six foot tall physically fit millionaire, and that life, her husband, and the male dominated society is being terribly unfair to her in not giving her what she is entitled to have.
And another of my proposed sex education videos, this one for females only, since it depicts male polygyny.
Scene: An office. A young handsome man in a business suit strides through the office, and everyone’s reaction shows that he is the boss, or very important. He guestures at an attractive thirtyish woman to follow him, and strides on without bothering to check that she is following him. Because of his long swift strides, while she is wearing a tight dress and high heeled shoes, hard for her to keep up. He arrives at the executive toilet, and furtively looks around. Then goes into the toilet. She arrives at the toilet, hesitates a moment, furtively looks around, and follows him into the executive toilet. The camera follows her into the toilet. She goes into one of the stalls, closes the door behind, and we immediately hear the sound of panties being pulled down, followed by her gasp. The camera circles around and we see above the stall door the head of the woman, and the head and shoulders of the boss, still fully dressed on the upper parts of their bodies, obviously having sex. After a bit the woman says:
“Grunt. My husband. Grunt. Is going to. Grunt. Divorce me.”
Boss bursts through the stall door fleeing her, without bothering to open the door first. The image freezes, with flying shattered parts of the stall door obscuring the view of the most vital parts of the boss and the employee. His pants are a few inches down, her skirt is up, her panties are around her thighs.
Freeze image fades, replaced by a patriarchal father figure who directly addresses the camera, explaining that men are polygynous, and will therefore have sex with women well below their sexual market value, but when they do so, one of the factors important to them is how easily they can get rid of the woman once they have finished using her. When a high value man has sex with a low value woman, he fears that she will cling.
Patriarchal father figure fades, and once again we see the toilet. Woman, now fully dressed, walks to the door, opens it, revealing the toilet symbol and an audience of office workers, presumably non executives. End video.
The purpose of the video is to inform Kate Gosselin that replacing her husband is likely to be less easy than she imagines, something that no woman is likely to learn from our present schools, movies, books and television shows.
Because male attractiveness and fertility fades far more slowly than female attractiveness and fertility, most divorces advantage the male and disadvantage the female, but most divorces are female initiated, and most females initiating divorce have expectations as unrealistic as those of Kate Gosselin. This is part of the false life plan – that females supposedly remain fertile and attractive for as long as men do, so concentrate on your career, girl, the way men do.
Tags: Jeremy Meeks
