Vox Day @voxday Jul 9It's probably small loss to society. One tends to doubt anyone would have been terribly inclined to enwife the guy's little orcs anyhow.
Darwin + Title IX = Idiocracy. The more women are educated, the less intelligent society becomes.
Paul Mikelson @pablo79raider
@voxday my daughters will be educated so they don't have to rely on some asshole for their next meal.
Vox Day @voxday now
@pablo79raider In that case, you should probably buy them their starter cats now.
Friday, July 11, 2014
White knights on Twitter
The worst White Knights are always the feminized gamma fathers:
48 comments:
Guy doesn't have much faith in his daughters, to assume they'll marry assholes who will starve them into submission, does he?
You should see the whiny post from Michael Williamson on Facebook on your "Female Education is dysgenic" post.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10203303477660232&id=1608880891&refid=17
I love when twits like him go straight to claiming that you're advocating that we forcibly prevent women from getting degrees. For an author, I'd expect better reading comprehension from him, unless he's knowingly setting up a strawman.
Cail, apparently Paul thinks his daughters can be educated to understand feminist theory and other such nonsense, but not educated to choose a good husband.
Vox,
As I mentioned recently, being raised by a gamma father can be a real pain in the ass, especially for 1st or 2nd born. I can only imagine what it's like for a girl. Several times, I've actually considered asking if I could write for this blog to add the male perspective of it.
Again, comment above was me. Last time I'll forget to sign my posts. Or I'll get a legit non-aim account.
- The Flyer In Black
And yet he probably expects them to rely on their employer for birth control.
Better yet, get them their starter burkas. Might as well throw in the bones for the 'cute' tramp stamp (or three) as well with the college tuition there Paul.
Thems gonna be some right well-bred, book-learnin', fancy-talkin', wholesome girls you got there!!!!
Because we all know: "education" = jobs. Lol.
One of the tremendous flaws in the "thinking" of people like Paul is the idea that at some point in the history of Western Civilization that women were forbidden from being educated.
Nobody's advocating for keeping women uneducated. The problem is that society has decided that a college education is a requirement for an entry-level life. THAT is the dysgenic part. By the time Paul's precious little flowers get out of college with their PhD in Advanced Basket Weaving, they'll have squandered their most fertile years, and yet still have six decades or more to live.
Cail, apparently Paul thinks his daughters can be educated to understand feminist theory and other such nonsense, but not educated to choose a good husband.
Perhaps even a gamma understands that his daughter is growing up in a system that doesn't hold women responsible or accountable for anything. Given his own lack of parenting skill he knows his daughter is going to be sacrificed to some sort of alpha a-hole, and he is just preparing her to be an alpha widow the best way he knows how.
Fathers like that make my skin crawl. It's the Uncanny Valley of what a dad is supposed to be like versus the disgusting approximation that we have before us. Something's not quite right.
Has he ever farted at a campfire? Doubt it.
Behind every feminist is a bitter beta-boy or seething gamma, who impart to their daughters the anger and resentment they hold towards larger, more masculine, more successful men. Perhaps these geeks were bullied at school, which scars have caused them to warp their daughters' attitudes towards men.
Nobody's advocating for keeping women uneducated.
I am. My position (and that of most of the West over the centuries) is that women should not be allowed at university. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, either. In today's Bizarro World such arguments seem radical, but that's only because they're way ahead of the curve.
Define education? A college degree? Totally. I selected my wife one several data points, one of which was her lack of a college education.
PM - my daughters will be educated so they don't have to rely on some asshole for their next meal.
Why does he automatically assume they would be relying on "some asshole"? Does he consider anyone who provides for his family an "asshole"? Does he think all husbands are "assholes"?
@ Paul Mikelson @pablo79raider @voxday my daughters will be educated so they don't have to rely on some asshole for their next meal.
________
This sounds good to people who don't understand female nature.
The reality is when a woman feels she is liberated from relying on a man's character, she tends to favor men with poor character.
"Guy doesn't have much faith in his daughters, to assume they'll marry assholes who will starve them into submission, does he?"
"Why does he automatically assume they would be relying on 'some asshole'? Does he consider anyone who provides for his family an 'asshole'? Does he think all husbands are 'assholes'?"
What does this say about his grandchildren?
What does this say about his grandchildren?
Forget about his descendents, what does that say about him and his attitude about his wife? Does he provide for her or does she struggle to make money and provide for her family while he dicks around on twitter?
Laguna,
"I am. My position (and that of most of the West over the centuries) is that women should not be allowed at university. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, either. In today's Bizarro World such arguments seem radical, but that's only because they're way ahead of the curve."
Maybe. More likely we'll slouch to a middle ground past the everybody has to go to college bullshit norm, but where exceptional (and exceptionally unattractive) women can still go if they want/need to. The bullshit pre-packaged rationalizations being marketed to midwits (and worse) like Paul need to stop.
You'll have a de facto overturning of suffrage as husbands become more dominant. That combined with a curtailment of unmarried suffrage might be more realistic in the medium term than an outright ban on female suffrage.
"Forget about his descendents, what does that say about him and his attitude about his wife? Does he provide for her or does she struggle to make money and provide for her family while he dicks around on twitter?"
His (store-bought) identity is his difference from other men. He knows no other ground of attraction or worth.
Looks like a choice between death by drowning or death by suffocation. Behind door Number One we have elitist gamma dads who believe uneducated women are too stupid to figure out how to feed themselves. Behind door Number Two we have VD and his ilk who believe we need to keep women uneducated and trapped in marriage so we'll continue to breed with as little inconvenience as possible.
On the bright side, VD has promised, in the event of a zombie apocalypse, to shoot us all first, which may well be preferable to sitting around reading Pride and Prejudice all day.
Does he think all husbands are "assholes"?
Essentially, yes. He wouldn't say so in so many words, of course, but the default mainstream viewpoint these days is that men are assholes. Just look at sitcom dads, if there are any left. People assume that, with few exceptions, a man who isn't kept on a short leash by plenty of laws and restrictions will neglect his family, stick his dick in anything that stands still for it, throw all his money away on strippers and beer, and so on.
Paul may not believe that all men are like that, but he believes that enough of them are that there's a good chance his daughter will end up married to one -- a good enough chance that it's worth her going into massive debt and spending several years of her life getting a credential to offset that risk.
This guy sounds like a bitter feminist. What does it say about a man who has such a low opinion of all men? It also doesn't sound like he thinks much of his daughters ability to make good decisions. "Here little Sally, go to college, they'll teach you to be wise and strong, things you could never be on your own, things I could never pass onto you."
GG - Way to miss the point. How about we just look at a marginal return on investment then? How many women are graduating from university with degrees that are actually marketable and will guarantee a higher income than they could otherwise expect? The number is much smaller than you might think, probably on the order of single-digit percentages.
So from a purely utilitarian argument, sending anyone to college is a losing proposition if all they've got to show for it at the end is a six figure debt and a piece of paper.
And with the current state of legal affairs, women coming out of university with $120,000 in debt and no REAL earning power, if she wanted to get married and start a family she's greatly reduced her prospects -- because in most states once the ring goes on "her" debt becomes "our" debt.
The idea that everyone has to go to college has been the largest inhibitor to family formation, in my opinion.
And if this guy wanted to ensure his daughters didn't have to rely upon "assholes" for their financial futures, maybe he could teach them the benefits of being feminine and pleasant.
I agree with your premise regarding education contributing to the creation of our idiotcracy. But, for now, we are stuck with the hand we have been dealt. I'm less concerned with my daughters marrying assholes than I am with them being able to find a Christian man worth marrying. They are out there, but so many of the young men in the church seem to be stuck in pornalescense while the young women are riding the carousel. My oldest daughter has been educated in game and understands red pill thinking. College for her is about acquiring job skills and that's it. Being homeschooled she already has better life skills than her publicly educated peers, so college is just an exercise in playing by the red pill rules so she can get the skills she wants. And I know most of that can be learned at home too, but a two year associates degree is going to be the quickest way to get her there.
"The idea that everyone has to go to college has been the largest inhibitor to family formation, in my opinion."
Brian, of course it has. I haven't missed the point at all. But what VD seems to have completely missed is the what, where, and why, so many dads might be promoting education for their daughters. Like maybe VD's vision for the future of womankind is about as frightening as Shulamith Firestone's.
@GG: " But what VD seems to have completely missed is the what, where, and why, so many dads might be promoting education for their daughters."
______
Because people confuse the men women prefer with types of men that are available.
Let's say 99% of men magically shaped up overnight. Unless women's socio-sexual rewards system changed, nothing would change for them except the proportion. Instead of 80% of women chasing 20% of men, 80% of women would chase 1%.
Paul does understand that he's actually setting his daughter up to "look to [an even bigger] asshole for her next meal", yes?
Said "asshole" would be her employer, who in all likely hood, will not know her as anything other than a small, easily replaced cog in a vast, multinational machine.
As opposed to a husband which, odds are [even to the most cynical], will love her or, at the very least, have a lot to lose should he mistreat her.
Paul does understand that he's actually setting his daughter up to "look to [an even bigger] asshole for her next meal", yes?
Said "asshole" would be her employer, who in all likely hood, will not know her as anything other than a small, easily replaced cog in a vast, multinational machine.
As opposed to a husband which, odds are [even to the most cynical], will love her or, at the very least, have a lot to lose should he mistreat her.
"Cail, apparently Paul thinks his daughters can be educated to understand feminist theory and other such nonsense, but not educated to choose a good husband."
Nah, he just believes philosophically that all men are assholes. It's a dogma.
Gotta love it....
'I forgive you for putting a bullet in my back': Jailed ex-girlfriend of meth addict sentenced to life for shooting dead a police officer reveals she still LOVES him despite years of abuse
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2688995/I-forgive-putting-bullet-Jailed-ex-girlfriend-meth-addict-sentenced-life-shooting-dead-police-officer-reveals-LOVES-despite-years-abuse.html
@ Dexter
Heh, I'm sure he has lots of that "inner beauty" stuff that women care so much about...
"Heh, I'm sure he has lots of that "inner beauty" stuff that women care so much about....."
Does that sarcasm hide a sense of regret, a frustration that this woman threw her life away for a meth head? If I were in your shoes, I'd be angry because some woman was willing to forgive a useless crack head for assorted atrocities, but I can't catch a break. I'd feel frustrated because I couldn't protect her and envious because a pathetic loser managed to captivate her attention.
Broken women, which I'm going to assume she is since she was 12 when she met Mr. Right, tend to seek out what is familiar. They're trying to rewrite a childhood script, to change the ending, to repair what was broken in their childhood. Like it or not, that brokenness often originated with a man. Instinctually and in a bit of a distortion, she believes if she can fix him, she can retroactively fix herself.
Even in that train wreck of atrocities and horror, there is an inner beauty. No matter what men do to us as children, even as adults, we're compelled to return to them, trapped in this kind of symbiosis. It's hard wired into our biology. If I were a man, I'd feel a huge sense of responsibility and perhaps even an irrational bit of guilt about it.
I am sure college debt plays a role, but I think the breakdown of Marriage 1.0 is what is causing the downfall, including the "shop around before you settle" attitude of a great many, including otherwise "conservative" people.
Delaying marriage a while makes it easier to delay it longer, yet it doesn't remove the sexual drive. Having sex outside of marriage once makes it easier to have it more times, even among those who claim to follow a more moral path.
Dexter said...
Cail, apparently Paul thinks his daughters can be educated to understand feminist theory and other such nonsense, but not educated to choose a good husband.
He'd be right. They can be educated to believe feminist theory, but then they will be unable to choose a good husband.
GG, you talk about inner beauty as if it was as vitally important as a base level of outward attractiveness. Your posts on it imply that it is more important than anything else, which is simply not true.
The bar is not as high as you and others imply or claim, but a woman needs to meet a basic level of attractiveness before a guy will want to pursue her. The location of that bar varies, but it will always be present. I would never have pursued my wife if she had been as large as many today, regardless of any inner beauty idea. Her figure attracted me, even though she was unlikely to ever make a magazine cover.
She has thankfully kept her figure (relatively at least and most would not notice any age-related changes), so I am very happy in that area.
She will ironically make the same claims you do at times, but I have pointed out the flaws in that thinking enough (with the examples we come across) that she is slowly giving up some of her internal hamster on that issue.
You never did answer in the other thread (that I know) what exactly inner beauty was. I think it is and will remain a very vague term that you will use to whack men for not pursuing.
Your focus on that is why you can't find a break on it, you keep pushing the flawed idea. Yes women need to have solid inner qualities, but those will have a hard time showing through if she doesn't also spend some time on the outward packaging. She also needs to bat in her league, not aim several levels above it where she will fail and then complain about the results.
Though how many women don't get really bitchy at times? Where did the inner beauty go in that case?
Said "asshole" would be her employer, who in all likely hood, will not know her as anything other than a small, easily replaced cog in a vast, multinational machine.
Yes, daddy will be so proud of his "independent" daughter who punches a clock working for the man instead of her man. Where her time is dictated to her; when she must wake up, when she can eat, call home, and go home. What fabulous independence!
As my children and I were out on the river shore fishing today for the second time this week, it crossed my mind how horrible it is that I rely on my husband and have no independence...
"GG, you talk about inner beauty as if it was as vitally important as a base level of outward attractiveness. Your posts on it imply that it is more important than anything else.."
Well it is, Brad, vitally important, which is not the same thing as claiming that there is something wrong with men when they seek the physical.
What is inner beauty, in the broader sense, the higher selves of men, truth, love, romance, everything beyond the superficial. You guys are so stuck in biology, in what you perceive as objective reality, as if marriage were just a corporate merger or something and love were just a set of biological impulses. That's why I was curious if anyone believed in inner beauty, in love, because it seems as if men have a much harder time seeing it than women do.
GG... women with inner beauty don't choose to hide it with the outward trappings of a train wreck. Likewise, neither do men. You may CLAIM to find "inner beauty" in some guy who deals meth and coke to pay for his own habit, but that's just your hamster shifted into overdrive.
There are women who have been disfigured through accidents beyond their control, and yes, they might find it difficult to find a guy... But I will ALWAYS spend time with such a woman who apparently thinks that as long as her makeup is put on that she can freely pack on the pounds.
Show me an overweight woman, and I will show you someone with either severe emotional issues, or who just plain old hates men.
No amount of borw-beating, shame-language, or "inner beauty" lies are going to convince me to spend even a second of my time pursuing such a woman.
Starter cats? Best tweet ever
"Starter cats". Har!
So men would be so much better off if they completely ignored what they can see for something that is impossible to see and quantify. You still never answered how you measure that, just a lot of platitudes about how nice inner beauty is.
I guarantee that your inner beauty will vanish at least at times, since all humans go through up and down times. Then nothing is left since the inner beauty is gone.
You also did not address my note that men aren't requiring perfection. I wanted a thin figure. A huge chest or stunning face was not as nearly high on my list. Most men have a very reasonable floor, yet women like you refuse to even allow for that floor.
I was going to say that many women would refuse certain kinds of men, even if they had "inner beauty," but that probably points to the problem. Many women won't put any solid filter up and continually get burned for it. They expect men to do the same. Not happening.
"You also did not address my note that men aren't requiring perfection. I wanted a thin figure. A huge chest or stunning face was not as nearly high on my list. Most men have a very reasonable floor, yet women like you refuse to even allow for that floor."
"Women like me?" You don't even know me, but that certainly has not stopped anyone from projecting all their stereotypes onto me. I have never said that men require perfection, in fact, men are far more accepting of women's physical flaws than other women are, even then our own selves are. I'd rather be judged by a man any day of the week.
Nor have I said anywhere that men should be ashamed of physical desires. Again, that seems to be a projection. I don't apologize for women having a preference for tall men, why would I shame men for having physical attractions of their own?
I think I've been quite clear. I think your own biases and your own wounding has rendered you unable to see beyond your own solipsism. I have an answer to my question, do men believe in love and inner beauty? No, they want to, they're just too terrified of the repercussions and what they stand to lose, to take the risk. Thanks for the answer. Got it.
Note to self: Baiting trolls is bad, mmm'kay?
Every Internet argument, ever...
1. *build strawman*
2. *burn strawman*
3. "Yay, I win and you suck!!!"
Retrenched, the common denominator, the lowest common denominator in that equation is you. I've learned a great deal from arguing with people on the internet. The fact that you are an idiot doesn't detract from that at all.
Unless they are excellent gardeners, they probably will be relying on some man somewhere for their next meal one way or another.
I also thought Vox was going to say something about the father who was currently providing the daughters their next meals being the current "asshole," but he went cat instead.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.