Taliban dancing to Drake “In My Feelings.” pic.twitter.com/DNX4M3Qoaw— Countere Magazine (@CountereCulture) August 18, 2021
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, life is quietly returning to normal. The Current Thing is also shifting from Ukraine to Roe v. Wade. Just a reminder of how easy it was to forget about that place.
“(CNN) – Women in Afghanistan must cover their faces in public, according to a decree issued by the Taliban on Saturday.
The new rules say women must cover their faces, ideally wearing the traditional burqa, according to a statement from the General Directorate of Administrative Affairs.
If a woman does not follow the rules, her “male guardian” will be visited and advised, and eventually jailed and sentenced. Women who work in government offices and do not follow the new decree will be fired.
The Taliban has been criticized for restricting women’s rights and freedoms in various areas of public life. …”
Back in March, the Taliban put an end to women’s education while the attention of the West was focused on the war in Ukraine. The Taliban recognized the media had returned to Russia hysteria.
“KABUL, Afghanistan — In a morning of tears and anger, the Taliban on Wednesday reneged on a promise to allow Afghan girls to attend secondary school, as thousands of them turned up at their old school gates in tidy uniforms and carrying their school bags.
The abrupt about-face revived worries that the Taliban might keep teenage girls away from education indefinitely. When the militant religious movement first ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, girls were not allowed to study. …”
NPCs care about what the media tells them to care about. If it wasn’t being covered 24/7, no one would give a shit about the war in Ukraine.
Note: BTW, what happened to COVID? Did it disappear or did “journalists” lose interest?
That’s their culture and we have no right interfering in it. Besides, we always make things worse when we invade foreign countries. We end up pushing our degenerate values on them which causes them to hate us.
It’s not “our” degenerate values, it’s Jewish degenerate values:
Cope. Whites support homosexuality, transsexuals, free love, and giving hormone blockers to children. Whites don’t need Jews to become degenerate. We’re perfectly capable of degenerating ourselves.
Globalists HATE him! This UGLY Haji discovered ONE WEIRD TRICK to fixing the modern fertility crisis!
We need morality police here. So sick of sluts in skin tight yoga pants. Probably dripping stds on public seating. A few gestapo with riding crops would solve this eyesore.
They’re called the muttahwa’in in most of the the Umma. I believe it’s an Arab word for ‘morality police’. I imagine a trip to the pedo-disco clownworld which used to be referred to as “Christendom” would cause them to go into apoplexy. Wonder what they’d do with Grindr Greg?
As for women’s “education” if we stopped subsidizing bullshit departments it would go away. Even with affirmative action very few women study science or engineering. “Educating” women has very poor returns on the $hekel.
“Even with affirmative action very few women study science or engineering. “Educating” women has very poor returns on the $hekel.”
Women are human beings and as such are entitled to an education irrespective of returns on the shekel. That said, if you’d like us to take your tech and engineering jobs like we’re taking your lawyer and doctor jobs, we’re certainly capable of doing that, so you might want to watch your tone.
Thank you for reminding us why the world needs feminism.
And Hunter, shame on you for making light of this.
“Women are human beings and as such are entitled to an education”
This doesn’t follow. Thank you for illustrating the folly in attempting to educate females.
“This doesn’t follow. Thank you for illustrating the folly in attempting to educate females.”
Yes, indeed it does follow. What separates humans from animals is precisely that we are educable. To refuse education to a human being, either because they are female or because they are poor, low-status males, is to dehumanizing them, and is indeed a great injustice, though I wouldn’t expect a half-wit like you to appreciate that.
“To refuse education to a human being, either because they are female or because they are poor, low-status males, is to dehumanizing them”
I wouldn’t say so. Education ought to serve a social function. Education for its own sake is pointless. Educating females serves no real function at all.
“and is indeed a great injustice,”
Again, doesn’t follow.
“Education for its own sake is pointless.”
That tells us every we need to know about you.
“Educating females serves no real function at all.”
This is asinine. Literacy and numeracy are essential to even the most traditional of female roles: taking care of children, the sick, the elderly, helping with their husbands’ businesses, etc. Why would you want an illiterate nurse when you’re in the hospital? Even Muslim men understand this.
Apart from that, many men think of women as companions rather than mere brood sows and domestic servants. That being the case, they prefer cultivated women. This was understood throughout the early modern period, and a girl’s education was seen as indispensable part of her preparation for marriage.
Dodge Dart is correct. Most people, especially women-folk, don’t need no book learnin’. Trying to educate the simple-minded masses always leads to confusion and mischief.
That said, if you’d like us to take your tech and engineering jobs like we’re taking your lawyer and doctor jobs, we’re certainly capable of doing that, so you might want to watch your tone.
Speaking as someone who works in high tech, and from everything I have seen and experienced: I’m not worried — women in general are not only disinclined, they aren’t intelligent enough — fun fact: the higher the IQ score, the fewer women with that score, i.e. if you look at the IQ distribution curve for men vs women, the higher you go the more men outnumber women — and to be fair: it’s also true that the lower you go, the more men outnumber women.
Years ago, when Larry Summer was president of Harvard, he got into trouble for basically saying this was the reason there were so few women on the faculty of the ‘hard sciences’ at prestigious universities (like Harvard) — if you look at IQs around 135/140 and above, men outnumber women by 7:1 — and this is the population you are drawing from when filling faculty positions in the ‘hard sciences’ at schools like Harvard.
>Thank you for reminding us why the world needs feminism.
Since 1970, the proportion of both men and women who say they are ‘very satisfied’ with their lives has fallen dramatically — and it has fallen most dramatically among women — link
I think by many subjective and objective measures, feminism has been a disaster for the West.
>And Hunter, shame on you for making light of this.
I would have some sympathy for any woman who is unhappy, in Afghanistan or anywhere else, no matter the reason, e.g. here being forced to dress in a way she would rather not dress.
But what most concerns me is that measures like this imposed by the Taliban may be considered a reason to grant women from Afghanistan asylum in the West — leaving aside the obvious cultural differences, some of the lowest quality human capital on the planet is found in Afghanistan:
30.000 Afghanen warten auf Asylbescheid
As a result of the US withdrawal, 30k (additional) Afghans are now in Germany, waiting for the Germans to process their applications for asylum.
Mehrheit der Afghanen in Deutschland geht keiner Erwerbstätigkeit nach
Significantly more than half (‘Deutlich mehr als die Hälfte’) of Afghans already in Germany don’t work at all — they live completely from welfare.
Dezember 2020 lebten mehr als 271.000 afghanische Staatsbürger im Land. … Die Beschäftigungsquote von Afghanen war demnach 2016 auf einen Tiefpunkt von knapp über 15 Prozent gefallen.
As of December 2020, 271k Afghans were living in Germany (now it is well over 300k) — after a new influx of Afghans in 2015/2016, the fraction of Afghans working fell for a time to only about 15%.
“Years ago, when Larry Summer was president of Harvard, he got into trouble for basically saying this was the reason there were so few women on the faculty of the ‘hard sciences’ at prestigious universities (like Harvard) — if you look at IQs around 135/140 and above, men outnumber women by 7:1 — and this is the population you are drawing from when filling faculty positions in the ‘hard sciences’ at schools like Harvard.”
And yet that hasn’t stopped women from kicking your collective asses in law and medicine, contra the predictions of the male chauvinists. Of course, it doesn’t matter what women do, because haters gonna hate. If we pursue high-paying work, we’re taking men’s jobs. If we don’t, we’re parasites who don’t pay enough taxes and sponge off men, etc.
Lexi, this has nothing to do with ‘hate’ — I do not hate women — your comment is mostly a straw man: you put words in my mouth that I never said, or thoughts in my head that I never had — and you should be ashamed of that.
Becoming a doctor or lawyer is not that difficult — except for the most exclusive universities, admission to law school is not very challenging — and it is generally more difficult to get into veterinary medical school than medical school — besides, as you are surely aware (being a smart woman), factors other than raw intelligence are considered when making those decisions, and affirmative action also benefits women — in addition, the most intelligent men do not choose law or medicine, and the fraction of men attending college has been declining for many years now (for a number of reasons).
How many women have won Nobel Prizes? — among top achievers, especially in the ‘hard sciences’, men still dominate — and looking at the IQ distribution curve, they always will.
During many years of working in demanding engineering/R&D environments in more than a dozen companies: 1) I have met and worked with very few female technical professionals; the ones I worked with were average; 2) I have never even seen a black engineer (this includes attendance at a great many technical meetings and shows, literally around the world).
I have also worked with a significant number of males I would label incompetent.
“I do not hate women”
I’m glad. I didn’t say you did. I just said that men who hate women will find a reason to hate women. If you are not one of them, great.
“Becoming a doctor or lawyer is not that difficult — except for the most exclusive universities, admission to law school is not very challenging — and it is generally more difficult to get into veterinary medical school than medical school”
Is that so? Well, have you seen the statistics regarding women in veterinary medicine?
“besides, as you are surely aware (being a smart woman), factors other than raw intelligence are considered when making those decisions, and affirmative action also benefits women — ”
I’m not sure women benefit any more from consideration of “factors other than raw intelligence” than men do. Even if they do, how is that relevant to the point I’m making? If more women decided to go into engineering, those other factors (including studiousness) would help them there, too.
Affirmative action does not benefit women in law school or medical school admissions. We know this to be true because the academic credentials of male and female matriculants are almost identical. Moreover, when they graduate, these women are as likely to pass their respective professional exams as their male peers. Black graduates, by contrast, do are not.
“in addition, the most intelligent men do not choose law or medicine”
This is probably true. The best point you’ve made so far.
“How many women have won Nobel Prizes? — among top achievers, especially in the ‘hard sciences’, men still dominate — and looking at the IQ distribution curve, they always will.”
That’s probably true, too. Of course, it wouldn’t stop women from taking over most of the engineering jobs from men if we decided to do so. Do you think the IQ distribution curve is different in the Muslim world and the West? As I said, Muslim womens’ IQ deficit doesn’t seem to be holding them back.
I assure you, I have no interest in seeing women take over the engineering field. I was simply making the point that haters like KT-88 are foolish to condemn women for not studying engineering. That brings me to my final point: You have spent a great deal of time and energy responding to me, but you had nothing to say to KT-88, who claimed that educating women (for anything at all or just for its own sake) is a waste of time and resources. You might want to reflect on that a little bit.
>Well, have you seen the statistics regarding women in veterinary medicine?
I don’t need to; I will take your word for it — also from personal experience I know there are many female veterinarians (e.g. my own sister) — I would be more interested in data on how many women apply vs how many men, as well as a comparison of their relative personal data (SAT/GRE scores, GPA, etc) — but again here I can say that the most intelligent men do not go into veterinary medicine, and my original comment was about people at the highest end of the IQ curve, and there men do dominate (like it or not).
I also had an early interest in biology, but changed after feeling a little frustrated because it wasn’t quantitative enough (at least at the undergrad level) — so I switched to math and physics (believe me: if you want to learn how to think rigorously and analytically, study mathematics) — would you agree it takes more raw intelligence to become a professor of mathematics or physics than a veterinarian?
Why are you so sensitive about this topic? — it reminds me of the reaction of a woman from Ethiopia when I suggested the under-development of her home country (she didn’t live there anymore; I refrained from asking her why she left) had more to do with the low average IQ and therefore the very small ‘smart fraction’ there — she got angry; it was a totally emotional reaction (I was not surprised).
“I would be more interested in data on how many women apply vs how many men”
You’re still avoiding the fundamental issue. I never said women are precisely equal in cognitive abilities. I said we could take your engineering jobs if we were so inclined, as Muslim Arab women are doing. Apparently, at least in the case of Arab men, their intellectual advantage is insufficient to overcome women’s compensatory character traits, i.e. superior discipline and conscientiousness.
“would you agree it takes more raw intelligence to become a professor of mathematics or physics than a veterinarian?”
All else being equal, yes. Now some rigorous and analytical thinking and stop responding to arguments I never made.
“Why are you so sensitive about this topic?”
KT-88 said that educating women is a waste of time and resources. As you might imagine, I value education very highly and found this to be an outrageous statement, so I replied. Although you claim to not hate women, you completely ignored this attack on women’s humanity and rights and proceeded to minimize and diminish women’s abilities when you should have been taking KT-88 to task for his misogyny. Now I’ll ask you, why do you feel the need to persuade me that women can’t compete with men in engineering rather than persuade KT-88 that women are entitled to an education?
You’re still avoiding the fundamental issue.
No Lexi, I have not avoided it.
I said we could take your engineering jobs if we were so inclined, as Muslim Arab women are doing.
I already addressed this — my answer is no, you could not — because these jobs require higher levels of analytical intelligence (mathematics, physics), and this is where women are weaker — recall I told you that the higher you go on the IQ scale, the more men outnumber women.
And by the way, muslim countries are generally at best second world, and not known as engineering powerhouses or technically competent, e.g. they could not get their oil out of the ground without western technology — and who do you imagine designs and builds their skyscrapers? — I’ll give you just one example: perhaps you have heard of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, currently the tallest building in the world — look at the info about its ‘Design and construction’: the architects and structural engineers were American, and the general construction contractor was South Korean.
I think you are a bit naive about some things.
“KT-88 said that educating women is a waste of time and resources”
On that point, he’s FOS.
At the least, Women need to be highly educated to raise the best possible children and there is ffar more beyond that one aspect.
>… rather than persuade KT-88 that women are entitled to an education?
To answer this: I guess because I saw the comment as just an opinion that I likely couldn’t change, and as such not really worth a reply — whereas re women in engineering, I had both facts as well as relevant personal experience I could cite (albeit the latter is anecdotal).
But I want to make clear that I do have concerns about both what women study (mostly the soft the liberal arts), as well as the trade-off of so many of them going to college and forgoing children, vs the effect of their resulting roles/jobs on society; the increasing concentration of women in education and the media is an example of this — I do make fun of ‘women in the workforce’, when their ‘work’ is really nothing productive or even useful (when not outright harmful).
It’s my observation that the desirable natural empathy of women has been hijacked and corrupted via 24/7, always-on media that’s full of emotion-laden propaganda — the significant number of white women, especially young white women, who participated in BLM was one symptom of this.
Sigh. You’re still not getting it. The point is that I’m not sure how much that extra quantitative ability matters. Indian women are almost at parity with men in computer science. Are you going to tell me why that doesn’t matter because India isn’t a first-world country or something?
You may well be correct that those who reach the top of the profession will be men, but that won’t stop women from collecting paychecks for which they have outcompeted numerous less-capable men.
You are starting to be tiresome Lexi.
Listen: I’ve worked many years in state-of-the-art engineering environments for mobile telecommunications, in ‘Silicon Valley’, San Diego, and elsewhere — both SW and HW (mixed signal ASIC) development for 2G/3G/4G/5G modems (chipsets) — I’ve met and worked with many Indians (unfortunately) of both sexes — the vast majority of them are just warm bodies — they can take direction and perform some tasks, e.g. maintenance — I never said they, or women, could not ‘earn a paycheck’ (i.e. meet the minimum requirement to remain employed) — but in my experience, these groups have never been the top performers, the people who do the more difficult design and development work, who innovate and push the company forward technically — I don’t care about how many of them get degrees — looking at the relative populations of the US vs India and China, it would not be a surprise if they produce more female engineers, right? — not to mention any cultural differences in that regard.
Don’t worry. The Taliban’s requirement of traditional roles and traditional dress is analogous to China’s great proletarian cultural revolution. It will purge out the moral corruption of the West and prepare Afghanistan for a revival of prosperity that Central Asia has never seen before – as long as the Empire does not manage to intervene (such as by covertly directing hired (dollar-bribed) elements of the Taliban to sabotage the cultural revolution by overdoing it Wahhabi style) and re-invade and overthrow the Afghan people’s republic.
“I never said they, or women, could not ‘earn a paycheck’ (i.e. meet the minimum requirement to remain employed”
Gosh, all that arguing just to concede my point (that women could take your jobs in engineering if we wanted to) after all.
By definition, the very top-performing innovators are always going to be a small minority, and they may all be men. That may be true in medicine even now that women are the majority of medical students and will sooner or later be the majority of medical practitioners.
“— I don’t care about how many of them get degrees — looking at the relative populations of the US vs India and China, it would not be a surprise if they produce more female engineers, right? — ”
What? Have you been paying any attention at all? The point was never that they produce more female engineers than the U.S. The point is that they are producing almost as many female computer science grads as male ones, and that despite a sex ratio in favor of males due to sex-selective abortion.
(Say that reminds me, does anyone here care about the 200,000,000 females missing from the planet as a result of the extremely sexist culture and policies that are so popular around here? And yes, that’s 8 zeroes – two hundred million.)
“not to mention any cultural differences in that regard.”
Indeed. What is regarded as men’s work and what is regarded as women’s work varies from place to place. But more importantly than that, women in feminist societies don’t feel compelled to emulate men rather than pursue more traditionally feminine occupations. Apart from the fringe freaks you see on TV, most women are just living their lives doing the same things women have always done. To be fair to you, you have never pushed that slander. My comments are directed towards others here.)
The money you make from the lawyer and doctor jobs doesn’t go to your children or your family. (Not that most of you AWFL’s even have children). No, the money goes so that you can buy more jello shots and dance to karokee music at dive bars.
I’m not making that up either.
“Janine, don’t jump off the bridge, we’re going to escape Gilead and go to a dive bar!”
“You missed the party Serena. Jello shots and karokee.”
The highest dream of sluts like Lexi isn’t raising children or being a good, decent person. Its jello shots and dive bars. Its grinding and twerking to shitty music. You *never* wanted the money to take care of yourself or your damn kids. You wanted access to high paying jobs and your own bank accounts so you could fund your degeneracy.
Its coming to an end
Under His Eye!
P.S. Hunter, apologies for some of my recent “incel” posting, but I’m taking it upon myself to strike a balance on the Women Question in this movement. I refuse to let women like Lexi define what the Pro-White stance on women looks like. The choice between Patriarchy and Feminism is false and has always been false.
Don’t see too many women in the mining industry. You know, an industry that actually produces wealth and the materials necessary to keep modern civilization going. I wonder why that is.
“The money you make from the lawyer and doctor jobs doesn’t go to your children or your family. (Not that most of you AWFL’s even have children). No, the money goes so that you can buy more jello shots and dance to karokee music at dive bars.”
I would have gotten back to you sooner but I was spending Mother’s Day with my kids.
I don’t know what you mean by AWFL, but FYI the most highly-educated women are the most likely to get married, and the majority of us have at least two children.
“I refuse to let women like Lexi define what the Pro-White stance on women looks like.”
You’re not pro-White. Your a misogynist attempting to subvert the pro-White cause for your own petty hatred.
1. I’m thankful you aren’t my mother. She quit her high paying job as a career women with Saturn in the 1980s to become a stay at home mom when I was born. And she did it voluntarily. She *wanted* to be a mother. Life wasn’t all about her. Your life is all about *you*. Selfish sows should never become mothers.
2. AWFL stands for “Affluent White Female Liberal.” They voted Democrat by something like 30 percentage points in 2020. I’m sure that’ll be up to a 40 point gap by 2024 (as in, 70% of college educated white women will probably vote Democrat by 2024).
3. No, most educated women don’t go on to have 2 or more kids. Look at the birthrates by education. Its barely above 1 in some countries. College educated white women drink wine and own dogs. The ones that have kids just dump them in day care to be raised by trannies and pansexuals.
4. I don’t hate White women as a group. I went to bat for them during the gender wars of 2020. Specifically, I defended two French feminists who I thought were the undeserving victims of actual hate. I flipped sides when I was exposed to a group of Pro-White feminists on twitter – Grace, RadFemHitler, JaLadarc, and LaGriffe, among others – who were:
A. As hateful towards White men as Andrew Anglin is towards White women
B. Embodied literally everything wrong about modernism, feminism, and liberalism. Muh career, muh birth control, muh autonomy. In that light, Anglin’s commentary started to read like “using absurdity to point out the absurd,” even though I’m sure he’s sincere about most of what he writes.
Here’s the deal Lexi: White men and White women alike don’t exist to serve themselves alone. Your language of “human rights” and “decency” is that of Jews and Negroes. It has no currency in the White Nationalist movement.
We are born with duties and obligations. A man who refuses to defend his family and provide for them is a coward worthy of death. A women who spends her life chasing hedonism and career has abandoned her duties as wife and mother, and deserves to be reduced to peasant status or a brothel.
This isn’t Nam. There are rules.
>I don’t know what you mean by AWFL
AWFL = affluent white female liberal — you also see AWF.
> You’re not pro-White. Your a misogynist attempting to subvert the pro-White cause for your own petty hatred.
No – they are not driven by misogyny. That is just incidental.
At least half of the regular commenters here are posting from an SPLC call center.
There is no “Pro-White Movement” that any of these people are a part of, because there is no “movement” and there never has been a “movement.” It’s fake.
Does anyone actually believe, for a single second, the bullshit posted by half of these commenters?
What happened to the Mexican Jailbait Chick that everyone was fawning over six months ago? What happened to her male persona, Foghorn Leghorn, the half Jewish Carolina Gentleman?
Two full time trolls pretending they are Ian Paisley fighting the Catholic menace, one regular (used to troll my blog too) telling us that it’s all the Protestant’s fault, and on a site supposedly dedicated to Southern Nationalism, the most prolific commenters are “1488 Hiel Hitler” Hogan’s Heroes extras.
The only use is to read these comments to see how the SPLC sees their opposition and what sort of conflicts they think they can use to stir up trouble.
Please – really – step out of the Internet haze here.
In your real, actual life – do you know a SINGLE person who talks – or thinks – like any of the 50% of trolls that comment here everyday?
Catholic vs. Protestant? Pagan vs. Christian? White Sharia? Hitler?
This crap barely rises to the level of “LARPing” – it’s just SPLC/FBI trolling.
Real white Americans don’t talk like that – and certainly not Southerners.
Does James Edwards of Political Cesspool ever say this shit? What about Musonius Rufus of Identity Dixie? Do any actual Southern conservative pro-white men say anything even in the same galaxy as the 50% of regular OccidentalDissent trolls?
No – of course not.
So, the obvious conclusion … well, it is really quite obvious isn’t it?
“She quit her high paying job as a career women …to become a stay at home mom when I was born.”
So did I. You shouldn’t shoot your mouth off about people you don’t know.
“No, most educated women don’t go on to have 2 or more kids. Look at the birthrates by education.”
I know your feelings don’t care about my facts, but here are the data:
In 2015, 20% of women with a doctorate were childless, and 23% had 1 child. The rest had two or more children. Therefore, most highly educated women have 2 or more children. Capiche?
“A. As hateful towards White men as Andrew Anglin is towards White women”
I am about 99.9% sure you are lying. Did these women ever
(1) State that men shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Or
(2) State that men shouldn’t be educated because they exist only to serve women sexually and domestically? Or
(3) Shouldn’t be employed in any role but prostitute?
Anglin has said all these things about women, and I have never, ever heard any feminist say anything remotely comparable.
“We are born with duties and obligations. A man who refuses to defend his family and provide for them is a coward worthy of death. A women who spends her life chasing hedonism and career has abandoned her duties as wife and mother, and deserves to be reduced to peasant status or a brothel.”
Do what I want or to the brothel! You really are piece of shit, aren’t you? You do not deserve any wife at all, let alone a wife who gives up everything to raise your children, because you entitled, disrespectful, and untrustworthy.
Anyway, yes we are born with rights as well as duties and obligations, not instead of duties and obligations. Your denial of this fact is a reflection of your obsessive and controlling nature.
1. You quit your job and became a feminist who defends abortion. I shutter to think of the values you’re raising your kids with. My mother quit her job and became a social conservative. She was strongly pro-life, she would make jokes about repealing the 19th, and one time back in 2007, before I was Pro-White and was in my libertarian phase, her and I got into an argument over whether women should serve in political office (I thought they should). She made an exception for Sarah Palin, but in general, she believed in traditional roles. You two aren’t the same.
2. I stopped sharing charts and graphs years ago because anyone can find whatever they want to suit their narrative. Here’s mine:
Scroll down to page 4 and you’ll find a chart for “total fertility for non-hispanic white women, by educational attainment of mother.” The stats are from 2019.
As you can see, the chart shows a TFR of 2.5 for white women without a highschool diploma, 1.8 for highschool grads, 1.5 for masters degrees and PHDs, and 1.3 for bachelors degrees. Replacement rate TFR is 2.0.
College Educated White Women like their dogs and wine. Kids? Not so much.
3. The “Pro-White” feminists I referenced are clever with their verbal arrows. They say that technology and economic conditions rendered traditional masculine roles obsolete, that “low caste” men got affirmative action from “high caste” men in the form of traditional marriage, and of course, non-stop use of the word “incel.” As far as legal stuff goes, they insist there’s nothing wrong with no fault divorce, abortion, and birth control, all of which has served to destroy the nuclear family for the sake of “empowering women.” Pro-White feminists tear men down, and ironically, they don’t bother to tear the White men down who actually deserve it, which is to say, the “High Caste” men that sold us out.
4. Your so called “rights” invariably come at the expense of obligations and duties. The whole point of the “rights” of second wave feminism is to free yourself of those obligations and duties. Feminism and Motherhood are incompatible.
5. It is sick how women like you and the “Pro-White” feminists unironically believe you’re entitled to “equal partnership” with a man. What you’re chasing isn’t love or romance, like what Queen Victoria had. Its a high. You’re chasing a drug. I dont remember the Virginia Woolf quote, but you want to “burn like a candle,” with the flame never going out. Thats what you really want from a man. We are vessels for your fantasies and fleeting feelings, and you dare judge us for treating you as sexual objects?
Marriage was better when it was more transactional and wasn’t based on being “best friends,” which is what you ladies wanted. Admit it: You liked us better when we were more assertive and violent. White men decided to become emasculated eunuchs, and you are lying to yourself if you think White men becoming meek and domesticated was an upgrade. Everyone was better off when White men were more like Amleth and Conan the Barbarian, or, in any case, when we had that general demeanor. Maybe Sean Connery or Rhett Butler from “Gone With The Wind” is a better comparison.
In general, the more like June Osborn a White woman is, the more I want to implement everything Anglin advocates. You’re a deeply selfish woman, Lexi. You don’t belong in the Pro-White Movement.
“You quit your job and became a feminist who defends abortion.”
I don’t really care that much about abortion. I care about the right to privacy, which is much, much bigger than that. You’re probably too dumb to understand that, though. Bottom line: If the government has the power to ban abortion, they have the power to ban lots of other things that I don’t want banned.
“she would make jokes about repealing the 19th,”
Shame on her for failing to teach you proper respect for women!
“I stopped sharing charts and graphs years ago because anyone can find whatever they want to suit their narrative.”
No, you can’t. The data are what they are. There is no way for you to make the data say anything other than that most highly-educated women have two or more children. There is no woman on the face of the Earth who has had 1.3 or 1.5 children. You can have one child or you can have two children, but you can’t have one and a half children. A minority of childless women bring down the average.
Highly-educated women are more likely to be childless than less-educated women because we make it a point to have a husband who is willing and able to be a father before we have a child. If we didn’t go to college, we would still make it a point to not have a child without a partner who is willing and able to be a father. All of the excess births among less-educated women are out of wedlock. Now, why do you suppose that highly-educated women have more children than women with a bachelor’s degree only? Because we like children and have more because we can afford them.
I should have read the rest of your post before I bothered replying to you. You are a sick, disturbed individual who is bitter that you can’t go buy yourself a helpless dependent for a girlfriend. You are a disgrace.
I’ll leave you with this:
When Titanic stormed the theaters in 1997 and 1998, my Mom gave me and my brothers a lesson. She paused the film after the scene when Cal walks up to Rose and slaps her across the face for cheating on him. In my mind, Cal was a monster for doing that, since he treated her like shit, and it was only natural for her to fall into Jack’s arms.
But that wasn’t the lesson. What she told me and my brothers was this:
“Never, ever, EVER, hit a woman!”
It was a direct order, and it was spoken in a tone more reminiscent of my Dad. I knew how serious she was, and I took it to heart. To this day, I make it a priority never to get physical with a woman unless she strikes first, which, since I’m a good man and don’t push women to the brink, I’ve thankfully never been faced with. Worst I’ve been in was a few intense arguments.
Respect for women means something way different for me then it does for you, Lexi. Jokes are jokes, and a 19th amendment joke is no more disrespectful to women then a Polack joke is to Poles or a Mick joke is to the Irish.
I don’t know what class you were raised in. Maybe the standards were different, or maybe you grew up around a lot of trashy men. I don’t know. But I know this: In my own way, I respect women. I just don’t respect all women. Least of all, June Osborne types like you.
Doctors that poison patients with “vaccines” and “lawyers”? Yeah, that contributes loads to society. The (((medical))) and (((legal))) systems are hopelessly corrupt which is why you find so many women there. 50 years after women were shoehorned into the workplace US manufacturing is effectively gone.
Women had nothing to do with the outsourcing of our manufacturing base, as you well know, greedy corporations run by men did that.
Your claims about doctors and lawyers being useless is too stupid to merit a reply.
>Your claims about doctors and lawyers being useless is too stupid to merit a reply.
Of course they aren’t ‘useless’ — but they are wealth consuming professions, not wealth creating — doctors and lawyers do not create wealth.
>Women had nothing to do with the outsourcing of our manufacturing base, …
There were of course some women involved, including as lawmakers who voted to pass ‘free trade’ legislation — but yes, it was predominantly men.
Bringing wymmin into the workforce to compete with men has driven down wages, created countless millions of latchkey kids and caused a great deal of friction between the sexes. Qui bono?
I get the impression that you are going to split hairs here and then accuse me of being argumentative.
“Of course they aren’t ‘useless’ — but they are wealth consuming professions, not wealth creating — doctors and lawyers do not create wealth.”
Yep, you did. This is silly. A job either creates value or it does not. You engineer types do this all the time. Rather than just recognizing that the world needs all kinds, you attempt to set yourselves up as more than.
“There were of course some women involved, including as lawmakers who voted to pass ‘free trade’ legislation — but yes, it was predominantly men.”
Well, it’s decent of you to admit that.
Lexi, as I said in another comment, you (and your straw man, putting words in mouth and thoughts in my head way of arguing) are getting tiresome.
I did not say the world doesn’t need ‘all kinds’, I said that medicine and the law are wealth consuming professions, not wealth producing; and no, that is not ‘silly’, it is the truth.
Obviously, the world needs doctors and lawyers (the former far more than the latter, IMO), and one could reasonably say that doctors contribute to wealth creation by helping to keep people healthy
I did not say anything other than that, i.e. I did not make any comparison, I did not ‘set myself up’ as ‘more than’ (? — whatever) — but yes, I am a technical person, and R&D/engineering is, fundamentally, a wealth producing profession — my feelings about that are neutral; I see it as a simple statement of fact.
But part of the problem in America today is the shift from a manufacturing to a FIRE-based economy, which began some decades ago — this has dumped many people into lower-paying service jobs.
The golden days of Afghanistan, and especially for Afghan women, were the 1970s and 1980s when Afghanistan was a socialist republic allied with Russia, before the U.S. stirred up weaponized “radical Islam”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0
However I think most of the women don’t mind being sensible and modest. The traditional public dress code must be comforting to many, making life simpler, putting all on an equal footing.
Western women’s fashions appear very strange, foolish, even ridiculous to people in a traditional agrarian society.
Westerners accuse the Mohammedans of treating their women like slaves, forcing them to wear those black bedsheet costumes and not allowing them to go to school or work outside the home. But the Mohammedans accuse us of forcing our women to dress and act like prostitutes, shaming them if they want to be traditional, stay-at-home mothers instead of competing with men in the workplace. Who has the better argument?
It’s Jew vs. Muslim values. We need our values back. 1930’s Germany needs to be examined more closely.
That’s exactly why you aren’t supposed to examine it.
Just a National Beautification campaign from the Taliban.
Democracy / Mob Rule / Rule by Twitter Mobs
is producing disastrous results.
Face covering and masks are bad again now., I see.
I can confirm that the Afghan women’s soccer team is thriving……….in Australia. I’m guessing they’ll never go home.
All I can say is this:- if Americas interventions can’t make a nation better than how they found it, then just stay the fuck out! By design, the West always ends up with the refugees of these useless deployments.
As for the women being forced to cover up………. that’s an issue for them, not me. I’m a European.
Women in the West are suffering under an UN-dress (near as possible to nakedness) dress code with constant fashion changes requiring frequent expensive clothes purchases, and rules for hair cutting, styling and dyeing, painting the lips, nails and face, wearing harmful non-sensible shoes, getting plastic surgeries, implants, piercings and tattoos. Afghan women have it good by comparison, even though the Wahhabi burqa promoted by the U.S. (covertly) through its proxy force Al Qaeda is a bit extreme.
In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul says Christian women must wear modest apparel, long hair, and veils or head coverings in public (in respect to the authority of the male) – and that if they refuse to be covered, let their heads be shorn (to have the appearance of prostitutes).
Funny how the “feminists” (who ironically are not feminine at all) want wymmin to pursue professional white collar occupations that are “overrepresented” by men but never want them to consider blue collar jobs like welding or plumbing, which are also good paying and male dominated. WHY IS THAT?????
The Talibros have turned out to be the ones who are civilized by rejecting decadent Western “values”. Why can’t the multicultural shitlibs at NPR accept that not everyone in the world wants to live in places like Berkeley, Austin, Cambridge or the West Village?
Hey goys, aren’t you so glad you spent billions of your taxes to replace the Taliban with the Taliban?
I’m looking for an IRS refund.
I have a mother, sisters and daughters. I’ll never come onto this sight pushing for them to have less rights than men. The West is not the Middle East.
It’s one thing to oppose the way some of our women dress, but quite another to want them treated and dressed like women in Afghanistan. Going back hundreds of years, we’ve never been like that.
Our women are wonderful beings. Let’s love and support them.
Even if you take liberalism seriously, the single most important right is your right to your own life. That’s #1. and the basis for rights to liberty and property. Nature is also unequal. The reproductive process isn’t fair. Only women get pregnant and carry babies to term. Men and women are complementary, not the same.
“Going back hundreds of years, we’ve never been like that”
Women were expected to cover their heads throughout most of Western history up until the 19th century. And they had fewer rights than men throughout all of Western history until the 20th century.
We once got around by horse and cart, then Ford model T’s. Now it’s SUV’s with loads of power, comfort and safety features. Some progress is good progress.
Women prior to the 19th century likely covered up to a point, but never their entire faces, and they weren’t stoned to death if they didn’t. It was the fashion of the day, but their was no compulsion to follow it, to my knowledge.
Women are different, and physically less capable, yes, different roles suit them. Different roles shouldn’t mean fewer rights.
If we never processed at all, nothing would distinguish us from Africa.
‘progressed’ at all.
Conflating technological development with unwarranted social change (incorrectly called “progress” by liberals such as yourself) is the reason why your civilization is dead and why your grandchildren/great-grandchildren will most likely be brown and gay.
Know what? The venom towards Lexi exposes the outright hatred of White women on even the most sensible blogs and websites.
She may be a feminist. And now, I understand why she exists.
Feminism is already on its death bed due to trannies. When the official line is that there is no definition of “woman,” then all of the special privileges given to females during feminism are meaningless.
And Artificial wombs will put the final nail in the coffin of feminism forever, since females will become pointless after that. In the end, feminism is a dead-end ideology that contains the seeds of its own destruction. By becoming “liberated” and refusing to ever have children, females have necessitated the development of technology that will ultimately replace them.
Who are these females refusing to have children, Dart? You do understand that women need a willing partner to have children?
As I mentioned above, the most highly-educated women are the ones who are most likely to get married. Not only that, but they’re having bigger families than in the past.
As for artificial wombs, I can’t imagine that will ever be a very attractive option. Anyone who is so hateful, fearful, defensive, and petty that they won’t give their child a real mother is hardly going to be the type to want to take on the challenges of parenting.
And if I’m wrong, so be it. If you hate us so much that you would rather replace us with machines than live with us as equals, fine. Go reproduce with robots, then.
“Who are these females refusing to have children, Dart?”
All of them. It’s a global phenomenon. Every society that has given females rights has seen a proportional fertility collapse. If females are given the ability to make their own decisions, then they use that ability to decide to never have children and go extinct. There is no stronger trend in human behavior, that carries across all cultures.
“As for artificial wombs, I can’t imagine that will ever be a very attractive option.”
It will be the only option. Maintaining a civilization with below replacement fertility forever is not possible. The only two solutions to the problem are taking rights away from females or just replacing them through technology. The former will remain politically unfeasible, so the latter is inevitable.
“they won’t give their child a real mother”
I believe they would be better off. Millennial and gen Z females especially are unfit for motherhood, and even allowing them near children is borderline child abuse IMO. Personally, I wouldn’t want to force an innocent child to endure having a White millennial/zoomer female as a mother. If I had to decide between having you as a mother or having no mother at all, for example, the motherless option would be obvious choice.
“All of them. It’s a global phenomenon.”
You haven’t addressed the central point: Men and women decide when to have children together, as a couple. Ate you suggesting that women sabotage their birth control without the involvement of their husbands? That wouldn’t be very “traditional,” would it?
There is literally no evidence whatsoever that women are the factor limiting fertility. Even if there was such evidence, your assumption that “taking rights away from females” is the appropriate remedy is totally unwarranted. A fairer and more direct approach would be to ban birth control. But you’re not interested in any solution that doesn’t involve repressing women, because you don’t care about birth rates. You care about controlling women while leaving men free to do as they please, nothing more.
“The former will remain politically unfeasible, so the latter is inevitable.”
No it isn’t. Men don’t want sole responsibility for raising children. Most of them can barely stand to “babysit” their own little ones for a couple of hours while Mom goes to the grocery store. But you go right ahead and keep thinking all these men are going to sign up for single fatherhood if it makes you feel better.
“If I had to decide between having you as a mother or having no mother at all, for example, the motherless option would be obvious choice.”
Dart: The only women fit for motherhood are the ones who don’t talk back because they hate themselves as much as I hate them.
“You haven’t addressed the central point: Men and women decide when to have children together, as a couple. Ate you suggesting that women sabotage their birth control without the involvement of their husbands?”
Most females today don’t have husbands because they are not interested in marriage.
“There is literally no evidence whatsoever that women are the factor limiting fertility.”
Of course they are the limiting factor. Females are the limiting factor on both marriage rates and fertility. They are the limiting factor on marriage rates because all females insist on marrying up. An 80th percentile female insists on a 90th percentile male. A 50th percentile female won’t settle for less than 70th percentile male. And so on, all the way down. And most females make the mistake of equating their economic situation with their marriageability, making this problem even worse (a female in the 25th percentile of marriageability who is economically 90th percentile will mistakenly believe her marriageability is closer to 90th percentile). They are also the main driver of divorce (iirc ~75% of divorces are initiated by the female for no reason). And the near perfect correlation between female rights and population collapse across the world makes it clear that they are the issue in fertility as well. Japan is a good case study because they had feminism artificially and suddenly imposed upon them, when the USA sent a Jewess to write feminism into their constitution after the war. Their fertility immediately dropped like a rock and never recovered.
“your assumption that “taking rights away from females” is the appropriate remedy is totally unwarranted. A fairer and more direct approach would be to ban birth control. ”
Lol, 100% of women would consider banning birth control to be “taking rights away from females.” This is actually exactly the sort of thing I meant by that, and what is politically unfeasible. Females (including yourself) are already having a major chimpout over the possibility that their “right” to commit infanticide may become limited in certain states. Taking away birth control would lead to the greatest chimpout of all times. It would be world war ape.
I wouldn’t be opposed to any of those kinds of solutions, and I am not even really opposed to female “education” or careers under certain conditions. They just can’t be allowed to become an impediment to the continuation of civilization. It is clear that allowing females full choice and autonomy simply does not work and leads to extinction. One possibility could be allowing females to pursue schooling only on the condition that they are already married and have kids, for example. It could even be subsidized, like a GI bill for mothers. This would also assuage the “marrying up” problem by ensuring that females remain economically “behind” men prior to marriage, thus widening the range of mates she would find acceptable. Have kids, then she can feel free to cosplay as a doctor or scientist or whatever.
But these options will remain hypothetical because females are not interested in solutions that limit their choices or autonomy in any way (nor is anyone seriously proposing these politically). And regardless, as I already said, millennial and gen Z females are completely unsuitable for motherhood and really shouldn’t even be allowed anywhere near innocent children. The damage is already done. That is why they will be replaced with artificial wombs. Artificial wombs already have the political and financial momentum because they are backed by the gay and tranny movement (which is, ironically, backed by the feminist movement). It is pretty much an inevitability at this point. The natural endgame of feminism will be the total replacement of females.
……… you’re being antagonized for sport.
“Most females today don’t have husbands because they are not interested in marriage.”
Nonsense. Half of women are married or cohabiting at age 24. By age 29, 60% are married, with an additional ~15% cohabiting.
“They are the limiting factor on marriage rates because all females insist on marrying up.”
Roger Devlin said so, therefore it must be true, even though there is no evidence for it and never has been.
“They are also the main driver of divorce (iirc ~75% of divorces are initiated by the female for no reason). ”
No, they file for divorce for very good reasons, usually involving the old bait and switch. Many men are loving and attentive until you marry them, at which point they become cold and indifferent. This is as unacceptable to women as a sexless marriage would be to a man.
Women do not dump perfectly good husbands because they decide they can do better now that they’re 10 years older.
“And the near perfect correlation between female rights and population collapse across the world makes it clear that they are the issue in fertility as well.”
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You are ignoring the impact of secularization, urbanization, and lower infant mortality. You could chain us to the stove naked and it wouldn’t make a damned bit of difference, because the majority of men don’t want more than two kids. Given the option to have child-free sex, they will take it.
Of course, it doesn’t help your theory that the women most likely to remain unmarried are lower-class women, probably because their marriage market is extremely unfavorable given that so many of their male peers are criminals and/or drug addicts and/or alcoholics and therefore unsuitable for marriage and fatherhood.
The most highly-educated women are the ones who are most likely to get married, exactly the opposite of hypergamy hoax predictions. Indeed, women with a doctorate have more children than women with just an Associates Degree. Dropouts have more, but those are out-of-wedlock births.
“That is why they will be replaced with artificial wombs.”
You are assuming that the whole world hates women so much they would prefer some sort of Rube Goldberg contraption to nature’s ready-made baby incubator. They do not. It is a personal problem limited to deranged psychopaths like you.
Scientist (male): when I drop this apple, it falls perpendicular to the ground. I believe matter attracts matter, and that this attraction is proportional to the amount of matter.
Educated female: cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Scientist (male): These two charged balls repel each other. Seems inversely proportional to the square of the distance
Educated female: cum hoc ergo propter hoc
Scientist (male): looks like a lot of smokers end up getting lung cancer. Maybe smoking causes lung cancer.
Educated female: post hoc ergo propter hoc
“You are assuming that the whole world hates women so much”
There is no assumption. People who reproduce (people who use artificial wombs) will continue existing. People who instead choose to use unreliable and outdated technology (females) and fail to reproduce will not continue existing. Societies that use artificial wombs will defeat those that don’t as certainly as societies that used firearms defeated those that didn’t.
I agree that some inappropriate comments (‘venom’) have been directed at Lexi — personally, I do not understand or sympathize with that (at all) — I appreciate Lexi’s comments here.
But feminism and the current role of white women in society are both important topics for the white identity movement — these can and should be discussed responsibly.
I enjoy watching the debates here
” inappropriate comments (‘venom’) have been directed at Lexi”
I married JB after obtaining my degree. Once we had our first 2, I made the decision to stop working, with his full support both emotionally and financially.
Not all men are capable or willing to make these sacrifices for the family.
A woman’s keen observation, via education is how we discern between the two. Dumb & Pregnant in the kitchen isn’t going to work for the vast majority of White women.
We’ve seen the outcomes, and our children deserve much better than that.
If you’re educated with a degree, if your husband has a good paying job, and if you are capable of getting a high paying job yourself, then how the hell is it that your mother needs to vote Democrat so she can get her subsidized drug prescriptions? Who the hell is failing to take care of her?? It sure aint the GOP. Or conservatives.
LOL – I read all these same “debates” ten years ago. As someone who loves, loves, loves getting into verbal sparring matches with women, I participated myself plenty of times.
But what we have here are men who are NOT even close to 130, 140 IQ, who are not competing against the tiny percentage of ultra-high IQ men, talking to women who do probably have a few IQ points on them about how women aren’t as smart as men.
You also have intelligent, established middle aged women who – for some reason (cough) – are totally drawn to masculine young men spewing venom against “whores” – not that these men personally know any whores, but they have watched a lot of whores on TV and especially in porn.
They are sexually disenfranchised.
So, young angry men and older women are having an “argument” with each other about sex. Yeah you should have heard my wife and I get into it when we were young – it was our foreplay too. Just reverse the sexes – younger women verbally sparring with older men – and the dynamics would be more obvious.
So you know, get a room.
There is no “movement” here – you’re randos posting comments on a blog, not leaders of some “movement” whose fate is decided by what combination of truism and talking points you post in a comment box.
Thank you for calling out Hunter’s hypocrisy regarding prostitution in a previous thread, bannedhipster.
You are correct that the degeneracy has always been there. It was just concentrated to specific areas and demographics. In Hunter’s Utopian Victorian era, men hired child prositutes hoping to avoid venereal disease.
Men want 2 things: a prostitute to have sex with whenever they like and a 19-year-old virgin to marry whenever they decide to get around to it. They want to keep these two things strictly separate. You’re a virgin or an abominable slut, no in between.
There are societies nowadays that have very strict attitudes about sex, and no welfare system. They are world-famous international sex tourism destinations.
“Men are gold, women are cloth.”
Men are gold, because if a metal gets dirty, you just wipe it off. With cloth, the stain never completely goes away.
Cambodia is a veritable hellhole of the most appalling debauchery.
I wish I had more time to respond. I won’t be as busy on Thursday
Unfortunately, Cambodia has returned to barbarism, as a result of following American dictates in enacting Western liberalism and feminism.
Its sad because Cambodia was previously heralded by many as a world leader in the extermination of genetic libtards, almost completely solving their libtard class problem by turning libtards into environmentally friendly and aesthetically pleasing piles of skulls in fields. An elegant solution to a complex problem. The return to barbarism just shows that genetic libtards are a global problem that must be eradicated everywhere, or they will only arise again newly reinvigorated.
” and a 19-year-old virgin to marry whenever they decide to get around to it.”
19……. That old ?
>So, young angry men and older women are having an “argument” with each other about sex.
I am not ‘angry’, and the ‘argument’ here, if there is one, isn’t about sex — differences between the sexes maybe, but not sex.
I assure you, I’ve been working with and ‘competing’ against high IQ men my entire adult life (link), and I don’t believe there’s a woman posting here who has ‘a few IQ points on me’ (from what I can surmise, probably none of the men do either).
But thanks for stopping by … moron.
> I assure you, I’ve been working with and ‘competing’ against high IQ men my entire adult life (link), and I don’t believe there’s a woman posting here who has ‘a few IQ points on me’ (from what I can surmise, probably none of the men do either).
We’ll have to take your word for it because it is certainly not apparent.
>… because it is certainly not apparent.
Honestly, considering you thought the discussion here was about sex rather than sex differences (which do exist of course), I wouldn’t be at all surprised when something is ‘not apparent’ to you, whatever the context.
And BTW, you don’t need the ‘@eah’ since your comment is indented under mine, so I know you’re replying to me — see how that works?
There’s a reason I called you a moron.
“It’s my observation that the desirable natural empathy of women has been hijacked and corrupted via 24/7, always-on media ”
YOU NAILED IT !