Friday, June 06, 2008

Inductivist, the true feminist: I just watched the movie Broken English and thought it depicted very well one of the major reasons why I hate contemporary dating.

Parker Posey is great as a neurotic 30-something, desperate to find a man. Like with so many women, numerous men have come and gone over the years. Just following cultural expectations, men feel they get to enjoy a dozen years worth of oat sewing before they think about settling down. I suspect that most women cope with this by becoming hard and cynical, which makes them less attractive and thus even less likely to find a lasting relationship. Parker, by contrast, has become more vulnerable and neurotic, and is constantly at the wine bottle--this is not attractive and not helping her either.

Culturally with-it people seem to imply that women need this 10-20 years of dating before getting married--you know, in order to mature, work on one's career, find the right person, blah, blah, blah--but I think it's bullshit. Now, maybe men can hop from one woman to the next for many years and love it, and perhaps some manly women too, but in my experience, a woman wants a permanent relationship, period.

You see, I'm the true feminist. The current norm looks to me like a conspiracy cooked up by a bunch of horny men. I can see them in the smoke-filled room right now: "Yeah, we'll use articulate women as fronts, and have them convince other women to put marriage off as long as possible but to freely give themselves to men. We'll tell them it's equality and liberation; meanwhile, we'll be screwing 'em left and right, and moving on to the next. It's genius because they'll think they're doing it to show us men that they're not going to take our oppression anymore!"


Christopher said...

"Just following cultural expactations, [sic] men feel they get to enjoy a dozen years worth of oat sowing before they think about settling down."

BS. To quote my immigrant grandmother on my mother's side who died at 98, "you women have it better now. You can have some fun before you settle down." Did you catch that? Women. The Pill. Abortion. College. Careers. Men don't feel they're entitled to a dozen years of fucking around. WOMEN feel they're entitled to a dozen years of (non-but-reproductively and resultingly essentially identical) fucking around. Nice. Just what the boys dreamed of when they were 13; used women.

Oh, but men fuck around. Look, men have to fuck around just to keep pace with the arm's race. Have you spoken to 27-year-old women lately? (Where do you live by the way? 'Cause I'm writing from NYC, the epicenter and outlier (and scene of the movie, btw) for this phenemena.)

Where was I? Oh, yeah, men have to fuck around just to keep pace. Women like men who have fucked around. Reassures them that a) his dick works b) he's not gay c) he's socially acceptable to other women. Should I go on? There's as much "need" as "get" to the male fucking around.

More later.

Christopher said...

Ok, read the rest of the post. Aside from that one line, yes, we are in vehement agreement. Great movie, I thought. "And someday maybe, who knows baby, I'll come and be crying to you." --Dylan, "To Romona."

Anonymous said...


Feminism was literally started by "useful idiots" in the USA and popularized by Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinhem, Jane Fonda, Ms. Magazine, Cosmopolitan Magazine, and that woman whose name is escaping me at the moment whom in the fifties wrote the average suburban home "is a comfortable concentration camp" for women-----

The reason it was started you ask? To kill our birthrates in America by Soviet agents (Soviets always thought bigger was better, and wanted desperately to have the largest numerical advantage possible over the USA--their very military style was predicated on large ships, tanks and planes and it devalued steath and quickness).

It worked.............women putting off childbearing puts larger spaces between generations (women having kids in their thirties will only have about three generations per century, while women having them in their twenties have close to five), but also they end up having less children period. No European nation is having kids at above the replacement birthrate of 2.1 children per female. The white birhtrate in America was 1.87 last I looked, and it only counts white mothers...................and many of those have half-black and half-whatever kids who consider themselves culturally non-white.

It sure bit Russia in the ass though post-sovietism, and one of their biggest problems is an old demographic. Putin is literally offering free housing to women who have three or more kids over there.

Feminism was REALLY COOKED UP AT THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL IN GERMANY. Look it up Randall, you will learn "whom" all this bullshit stems from. From the Institue of Social Research where people like Herbert Marcuse dreamed up ways to destroy Western Civilization, delivering a social bomb to us. Remember Marx called for "a legalized community of women" where marriage was disavowed and we all shared women and the state raised the kids....................sounds wonderful right? Think those kids would be well-adjusted and happy? Marx was a beast of a human being and this was the crucial evidence of this fact.

Ive said it before, and I'll repeat it again....Feminism's real legacy is hordes of childless women in their forties, alone, barren, and resentful. There are excellent articles on the true origins of feminism if you spend some time with Google and care to look them up. It was cooked up by wicked people out to destroy the west with a "social bomb". Its definitely done some damage.......however, ironically religious people amongst us (without immigration) would have been increasing their share of the populace dramatically if things were left just so-------a man named Edward Cellar had alot to do with opening us up for the 1965 "Immigration-end-America-as-we-knew-it-act" to fix just this problem. These people plot, plan, and scheme----and if its planned, its war. A social war on the West.

Kristen Davis is the best example of this. A beautiful woman, the brunette on "Sex and the City" is 43 and childless. Those lovely, intelligent, pretty genes----lost.......while hoochie-mamma-stupid-80 IQ'ed lard-ass hispanic and black women manage to have 3 and 4 kids. Think we are bettering our populace and making it more intelligent and more likely to thrive in the second half of the twenty-first-century? Think again.

Yup, yup......I know....Im cruel, mean, wicked, and evil-----M

Anonymous said...

Betty Friedan......another communist (like Abzug) in her youth........was the author whose name was escaping me. Hannah Arendt was also a radical lefty as well as Abzug (involved with the CPUSA back in the day). Feminism and Political Correctness (both dreamed up at the Frankfurt School) are Marxism's revenge on the west.......................the ugly ideas linger even if the bellcow state didn't make it.

MensaRefugee said...

Though Ive posted before...and before. Almost embarrassing...

Its not so much the men, but the women.. Or click here

SFG said...

Communist plot? Can you provide some citations for this? Wouldn't surprise me completely...

I always thought it was the result of high-testosterone women who desired to marry late as a result of their biology (recall that sex hormone levels vary within both genders), serving as the 'useful idiots' for businessmen who wanted more cheap labor (twice the workers means you can pay lower wages).

Anonymous said...

Women are naturally submissive to men, ergo, the philosophers and intellectuals were/are men and women acquiesce. The most fervent and true believers are the ugly women. It is silly to believe women have this kind of power some are attributing to them; men do the choosing in mating. In the same vein, black pathology is the result of liberalism that sprang forth from the minds of white men.

SFG said...

Women are naturally submissive to men, ergo, the philosophers and intellectuals were/are men and women acquiesce. The most fervent and true believers are the ugly women. It is silly to believe women have this kind of power some are attributing to them; men do the choosing in mating.
This is the same fallacious argument people make against HBD, arguing that an average tendency extends to every member of the group. Of course women tend to be more submissive, but there are enough dominant women to start a movement and use tools such as Marxism created by men (for use against other men) against us. Women might tend to be less violent, but that doesn't mean the psycho lady pointing a gun at you won't pull the trigger.

James A. Donald said...

This issue is debated continually on the comments section of Roissy's blog

The consensus view on that blog is that ancestral feminine instincts that produced optimal behavior in the male dominated ancestral environment produce self destructive behavior in the modern environment - no communist conspiracy required.

Anonymous said...

Here is a little more on the Communist roots of feminism from another blog.....

‘Feminism’ Has Communist Roots
February 1, 2007

Betty Friedan

Betty Friedan, the “founder of modern feminism” pretended to be a typical 1950’s American mother who had a “revelation” that women like her were exploited and should seek independence and self-fulfillment in career.

What Friedan (nee: Betty Naomi Goldstein) didn’t say is that she had been a Communist propagandist since her student days at Smith College (1938-1942) and that the destruction of the family has always been central to the Communist plan for world government. See “The Communist Manifesto” (1848).

Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946 -1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) “the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States.” In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline.

Daniel Horowitz, a History Professor at Smith with impeccable Liberal and Feminist credentials documents all this in his book, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War and Modern Feminism (University of Massachusetts Press 1999). Horowitz cites a union member who described how a Communist minority “seized control of the UE national office, the executive board, the paid-staff, the union newspaper and some district councils and locals.”

Betty Frieden doesn’t want anyone to know her radical antecedents. Throughout her career, she said she had no interest in the condition of women before her “revelation.” She refused to cooperate with Professor Horowitz and accused him of “Red-baiting.”

Why? Because her book “The Feminist Mystique” (1963) would not have sold over five million copies if her subversive background were known. Communists operate by subterfuge — pretending to be just like us. This is the “Popular Front” strategy that consisted of starting idealistic movements in order to ensnare well-meaning people, usually students, workers, women, artists or intellectuals. The membership was ignorant that their organization was funded and controlled by people with a totally different agenda. This is also the principle behind freemasonry, Zionism and Communism itself. Essentially the adherents are dupes.

Willi Munzenberg, an early confidante of Lenin, organized the Popular Fronts in the 1920’s and 1930’s and referred to them as “my innocents clubs”. He pioneered the protest march, the demonstration, the radical bookstore and publication, the arts festival, and the recruitment of celebrities (”fellow travellers.”)

In the words of historian Stephen Koch, Munzenberg “was amazingly successful at mobilizing the intelligentsia of the West on behalf of a moralistic set of political attitudes responsive to Soviet needs. In the process, he organized and defined the ‘enlightened’ moral agenda of his era.” (Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas Against the West, New York, 1994, p.14.)

In a 1989 interview, Babette Gross, the wife of Willy Munstenberg, described the Popular Front modus operandi:

“You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a Communist. You do not call upon people to support the Soviets. Never. You claim to be an independent minded idealist. You don’t really understand politics but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break.” (Koch, p. 220)

Friedan observed this principle when she helped start second-wave Feminism, which is a classic “Popular Front.” The very name, “the woman’s movement” and claim to be for “equality” are but a smoke screen for a diabolical crusade to destroy the institution of the family. For example, feminist professor Alison Jagger calls the nuclear family “a cornerstone of women’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation.” (”Feminist Politics and Human Nature,” 198

The “Congress of American Women,” a Popular Front organization founded in 1946 reached a membership of 250,000. It was disbanded in 1950 after being required to register as a “foreign agent” by the U.S. Government. Feminist historian Ruth Rosen writes that the “CAW’s agenda prefigured much of the modern women’s movement that emerged in the sixties.” (Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America, New York, 2000, p.28.)

The FBI kept tabs on the “Women’s movement” but found no direct connection with Soviet subversion. Ruth Rosen, herself a veteran, finds this ironic.

“Ironically, the FBI searched for signs of subversion in the Women’s movement but couldn’t recognize what was truly dangerous. While they looked for Communists and bombs, the women’s movement was shattering traditional ideas about work, customs, education, sexuality, and the family. Ultimately the movement would prove far more revolutionary than the FBI could ever imagine. Feminism would leave a legacy of disorientation, debate and disagreement, create cultural chaos and social change for millions of men and women, and, in the process, help ignite the culture wars that would polarize American society. But at the time these ideas were not what the FBI considered subversive.” (260)

By attacking the social fabric, feminists inflicted more damage to Western society than Communists ever dreamed. Domestic violence hysteria has driven a wedge between men and women. Women have been psychologically neutered. They are encouraged to pursue sex and career not family. The US birth rate has plummeted from 3.9 children per woman in 1960 to 2 today, the lowest level in history. [Replacement is 2.1] The marriage rate has declined by 1/3 while the divorce rate has doubled since 1960. More than half of all first-born US children are conceived or born out of wedlock. (William Bennett, “The Broken Hearth” p.13)

The feminist Trojan Horse has proven extremely effective. The question is why? How could a sick subversive philosophy that openly pits women against men have been able to succeed?

mensarefugee said...

Just take away their vote.

Anonymous said...

It's called pump and dump. Roissy in DC (check out his blog) discusses the social dynamics -- and how to score -- at length. Yet the new sexual ethic is bad for most women and most men. So-called "alpha males" get a lot more pussy than they used to, before effective contraception and abortion (and antibiotics) made sleping around a low-cost/high-reward proposition. Marriage makes less and less sense for many men -- and due to feminist propoganda and the ability to earn their own living, many women no longer are interested in settling down with a decent, humble "beta male." The result is an increasingly single population, with a small group of very promiscuous people and large numbers of lonely people. Surely, a more widespread decriminalization of prositution is inevitable -- as is the use of sexbots. What a disgusting world we are creating.

testing99 said...

Communist theory anon --

The problem with your theory is that Algeria, Tunisia, and Iran, none of them Feminist or Communist hot spots have TFR around 1.7. So much for that theory.

Roissy is right, and I've put this forward on Steve Sailer's blog. Women with economic independence and control over their own fertility want to have lots of sex pursuing the Alpha male. Or what they perceive as the Alpha. Rather the "Big Man" in any social setting. True Alphas make everyone at ease, have lots of charisma, don't have sex with other people's girlfriends or wives (a rare breed these days).

Women want the Big Man (think Sex and the City) but unlike the women in that series/movie, end up generally alone. Even a beta guy in his thirties is not very interested (after a long stretch of rejection) in a woman his age, with low fertility, and many, many sexual partners which lower her attractiveness as a mate. Enhance risk of STDs, lower fertility from same, and essentially "sharing" with other men which men hate.

Women generally do not understand this. You can see the growth of the beauty arms race with cosmetics and fashion and plastic surgery booming businesses for women who want to be prettier than the next girl.

Even in Tehran, under the Burquas women wear risque clothes and engage in illicit and clandestine affairs with various men, put off marriage as long as possible.

It is the consumerist fantasy of women, that they can have the pursuit of the Big Man with no more consequences of choice than switching detergent brands at the supermarket.