It's also the argument against women in science fiction. It should be no surprise whatsoever that the science fiction world has devolved into award-winning dinosaur revenge fantasies, gay Asian angst, genderless pronouns, and necrobestial emoporn nominally representing the best of the genre ever since the strength of SFWA failed like Isildur before the fires of Mount Doom. (The men of what was once an association of science fiction writers did not tell Ann McCaffery she was welcome to depart when she threatened to leave the organization if fantasy writers were not permitted to join.) In fact, it is the essential argument against unrestricted female involvement in anything.
Women habitually, perhaps even instinctively, seek to degrade standards. They are motivated to do so in part because they are more herd-oriented and they enjoy being around their own kind, but also because they are, on average, smaller, weaker, slower, less intelligent, less sturdy, and more self-absorbed. That's why women are constantly yammering on about inclusion, outreach, and the evils of standards, which is nothing more than rhetoric used to justify lowering natural barriers to female involvement, influence, and control.
Which, in the end, eventually leads to the equivalent of a naked woman menstruating on an empty canvas and calling it art. Never forget that the ultimate aim of all female involvement in every human activity is to eventually reduce it to a group of women talking about themselves, ideally while being admired for their looks, wit, and superior sense of style by attractive heterosexual men.
47 comments:
That picture on the right is nothing short of disgusting.
An argument for patriarchy? That's like plants arguing for the need of the sun.
Beside being a mechanical method of inducing socialism through the less fortunate, feminism is an answer to the realization that, in a modern, absolutely lawful, shuttered, secular world, there is no place for a large segment of the female population. Men only want certain types of women, many won't make first cut and there is no second cut these days, or more. Nunneries are mostly gone. Academia, roughly, replaced that. Quite failingly.
Never mind, just thinking out loud.
So civilized, urbane, and beautiful. Take that, patriarchy and biblical fear-mongering of menstrual blood and your silly requirements for mikvah after isolation.
I wonder if she's besties with the chick who stuffs balls of wool up her vagina and knits it back out again, even while menstruating, to protest her womb as a place "only for babies."
I never really understood just how deep daddy issues go. It's not enough to be slutty anymore, is it?
I see the phrase "I just can't, with these people, anymore" on some boards and blogs. Sounds like the equivalent of an 80s valley girl "like, ummm" verbal tic, but it fits, as I just can't, with these people.
Well, that's nasty. What is it with feminism and wanting to drag feminine nature through the mud?
Read an article the other day by a pregnant feminist (yeah, I was shocked she hadn't scraped the child from her womb with giggling glee, too) complaining that people are referring to her unborn child as a baby; it's a FETUS. Calling it anything else is unscientific and offensive. Joyless hag.
I'd heard about the Anne McCaffrey Rule in passing but I didn't know what it was.
Now I do.
It was the start of a dynasty entering terminal decline.
It opened the door for SCA crowd. This hyper accurate, period-nazi organization, now features same sex couples on the thrones.
These people are barely functional at their absolute best. Their real lives are nothing but a support system for their personas. They are poor as hell and live off each other's garbage. It's largely run by fat, ugly, resentful, middle aged women. All of them feminists of the liberal white trash school. They are all aspiring fantasy writers, except for Katherine Kurtz who actually is a fantasy writer.
The men are all Gammas trying to pretend that they are Betas.
There is however one Alpha (really a Sigma) male per SCA kingdom, he is the only one there who views the SCA as a hobby and nothing else. Everyone in that entire organization will leach off him for years. Sucking the poor bastard dry, until he has just had fucking enough and quits wanting nothing to do with them ever again in his life.
Calling it anything else is unscientific and offensive. Joyless hag.
I actually somewhat agree with her. Pro-choice women who go around calling their un-born child babies tick me off more. If you're pro choice, it's a fetus till birth. Pro-life mothers can call their baby a baby
I think MIchelangelo's Pieta would make for a better contrast, and a stronger point, since it shows the esteem in which women were held by the so-called Patriarchy.
"Women habitually, perhaps even instinctively, seek to degrade standards."
I don't necessarily think that's true. Women seek consensus above all, which means that if they gain entry to an organization, be it University, Club or Professional Association they seek to eliminate all arguments and sources of disagreement. Thus the organization comes to resemble a herd of cattle - all moving in the same direction, thinking the same thoughts and spouting the same nonsense, with the troublesome 'Bulls' excluded and neutralized.
@everybodyhatesscott
Guess calling it a fetus ensures no emotional connection, just in case they want to kill their child in utero later
It is a baby no matter where it is. Calling something it isn't doesn't make it that. That is also true with calling things marriage that are not marriage. Perspective is irrelevant.
They are hypocrites, but that is their problem.
I don't necessarily think that's true.
Can you think of an example where women gained access and subsequently RAISED standards?
Strip Clubs? MADD? Peta? Oh wait a minute, you said gained access.
Vox - I think Monkey might be on to something, actually.
Rather than actively seeking to undermine the standards of a group, they are seeking to allow all their hen-friends in.
That this requires the lowering of standards is a side-effect.
That this requires the lowering of standards is a side-effect.
Read what I actually wrote: "Women habitually, perhaps even instinctively, seek to degrade standards."
I'm talking about what. You're talking about why. There is no contradiction.
A noted unpaid feminist sex writer reclaims the benefits of the patriarchy :
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/18/i_asked_my_husband_to_take_away_my_credit_card/
It's high time someone rips the lid off the hidden epidemic of unpaid journalists being exploited by sweatshop feminist webzines.
Acting? I haven't ever seen prepubescent boys playing the part of Juliet, so I don't have any basis for comparison, but I tend to think the introduction of women to the acting profession probably made it better.
When a woman wants a baby, she begins referring to "the baby" from the first act of unprotected intercourse or one minute past the time of her regular period. When she doesn't want the baby, it's a fetus. Under today's abortion laws, women confer personhood.
"Can you think of an example where women gained access and subsequently RAISED standards?"
No. What I'm saying is that lowered standards are a by-product of womens natural behavior rather than their deliberate policy.
A noted unpaid feminist sex writer reclaims the benefits of the patriarchy :
The amusing thing about that article is women control most household finances, so she is actually defying gender roles. Where she demonstrates she is a complete and total woman is turning it into a moment of high drama.
The way I see it, women's greatest sins are Pride and Envy (it's right there in the story of the Garden of Eden). That pride makes her think she's always right and the envy makes her into a leveler. So let's invade male spaces (because we're right and they're wrong) and change them to suit ourselves...so they can't hurt our feelings.
Talk about reduced standards...
Free Bleeding - I won't link to it but Google it if you're inclined, it's disturbing.
It's supposed to be liberating, to bleed all over seats on public transportation vehicles, office chairs, waiting rooms, seats at Starbucks...
I tend to think the introduction of women to the acting profession probably made it better.
Maybe? IIRC most of the restrictions on women acting were to curb them from prostitution to support their habit of being actresses.
...which didn't really get rid of the prostitution, it just transferred to the boys.
HAR HAR HAR! HAR HAR HAR!!!!!
Jeez, Vox. AWESOME. Boys, that is Pulitzer Prize material right there! But wait - are you on the chit list with those boys too?
Ya know fellas, we need a literary award that celebrates common sense, intelligence, and all the other virtues of a hatey, bigoted men...
Glen, if the ridicule is so apparent why didn't you just list a few dozen organizations/clubs/professions, etc. that have been made better by the addition of women?
"It opened the door for SCA crowd. This hyper accurate, period-nazi organization, now features same sex couples on the thrones."
What the hell. Do they have any documentation of ANY thrones... AT ANY time (let alone in the overwhelmingly Christian middle ages) of thrones occupied by same-sex couples?
These people need to be beaten with sticks until they decide that hiding behind the furnace in the basement is even safer than being in the closet.
Like most feminists, she's probably ignorant ..... of the fact that fetus is just the Latin word for...
(wait for it)
Unborn Baby.
"Can you think of an example where women gained access and subsequently RAISED standards?"
No. What I'm saying is that lowered standards are a by-product of womens natural behavior rather than their deliberate policy.
That's a sistinction without a difference.
Vox is talking about the effect. You're talking about cause. You are talking about the exact same coin as he is...you're just looking at the opposite side of the same coin that he's talking about.
Talk about reduced standards...
Free Bleeding - I won't link to it but Google it if you're inclined, it's disturbing.
It's supposed to be liberating, to bleed all over seats on public transportation vehicles, office chairs, waiting rooms, seats at Starbucks...
In other words, taking compulsive territorial marking to a new level (above even the level of what male cats and dogs do).
Glen, if the ridicule is so apparent why didn't you just list a few dozen organizations/clubs/professions, etc. that have been made better by the addition of women?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not ridiculing Vox, I am ridiculing the idiots and 'performance artists' being lampooned herein. I agree with our host completely. And - I stand by my words too! Articles like this SHOULD be appearing in the mainstream media and it SHOULD be recognized by awards.
If my nightmare came true and I found myself running some leftist rag sheet like the New York Slimes, the Glob & Snail, or the Tranna Red Star - the first thing I would do is put Vox on the payroll and lock him into some kind of exclusivity contract. Then I would play the classic internet newspaper game: if one of his posts was extremely offensive and bound to have the lefties spitting and gobbing in the comments - I would turn them off! The comments on the rest of his stuff would be carefully censored and edited to enrage as many leftists as possible.
Unfortunately I would still have to retain the feminists and flunkies that can't tell the difference between rubber bullets and ear plugs - but their role would be to feed the evil and hatey writers only. Once the food fight was well underway I would open up the comments as much as possible and maximize advertising and sales.
I disagree with our host on many things - but I sure value his writing. And most of his readers too. He should be making far more money than he does and have a much higher profile...
Vox,
Seriously man? That is so fucking disgusting that I'm actually disturbed. It is actually therapeutic to realize we can sink just a little further. I thought we were at the bottom.
Faith in humanity restored.
That picture is disgusting. It's even more disgusting that grown human beings can pretend that it is anything but.
Women habitually, perhaps even instinctively, seek to degrade standards.
This is indisputable. My take on the 'why' is that they innately seek to control and dominate, in spites of craving the opposite from attractive bad boys.
The goal has been achieved, all that’s left now is female oversight of this male space.
And to watch Rome burn.
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/thumbnails/blog_2140/pt_2140_420_o.jpg?t=1350481022
No standards lowered here. No sir!
Talk about reduced standards...
Free Bleeding - I won't link to it but Google it if you're inclined, it's disturbing.
It's supposed to be liberating, to bleed all over seats on public transportation vehicles, office chairs, waiting rooms, seats at Starbucks...
URGH. I hope someone follows those women and takes a massive shit on their doorstep or car or anything else of theirs. Fucking disgusting
OT - Cuckolded boyfriend of self described social justice warrior game designer posts breakup blog. Says she slept with game reviewer to get positive review. She created the game Depression Quest. Also he posted a loooong video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5-51PfwI3M
http://thezoepost.wordpress.com/
I tend to think the introduction of women to the acting profession probably made it better.
Meh. In my lifetime alone I have noted a significant decline in the quality of movies and TV. (Yes the technical quality and the special effects are better, but all this is but lipstick on the pig of crappy plot, dialogue, and acting.) It is hard to believe this has nothing to do with the fact that movies and shows increasingly cater to women (and thus increasingly include female actors).
Come now... was The Hobbit better because they included the totally gratuitous Tauriel and her asinine, lacking in all credibility crush on a dwarf? That's the kind of horrible nonsense that women in acting leads to.
I guess this is dialectic art vs rhetorical art
I guess this is dialectic art vs rhetorical art
No. There's a difference between the art of Rhetoric and being fucking disgusting.
I guess this is dialectic art vs rhetorical art
Hoc seo
Dao tao seo
Marketing online
Dang ky ten mien
Dien dan seo
Huong dan seo
For women, it's all about Style over Substance.
Come now... was The Hobbit better because they included the totally gratuitous Tauriel and her asinine, lacking in all credibility crush on a dwarf? That's the kind of horrible nonsense that women in acting leads to.
That wasn't having a woman acting, that was having two women and Peter Jackson trying to create 9 hours of movies from 2 hours of book. Blame women writers if you must (in fact I encourage it) but it isn't the actress's fault, she's just doing a job.
Bard said...
Seriously man? That is so fucking disgusting that I'm actually disturbed. It is actually therapeutic to realize we can sink just a little further. I thought we were at the bottom.
I quoteth the Great Sage Heywood Banks: "There is no bottom to The Well of Bad Taste".
I think I must agree...eth.
>>Can you think of an example where women gained access and subsequently RAISED standards?
>No. What I'm saying is that lowered standards are a by-product of womens natural behavior rather than their deliberate policy.
I.e, you're trying to lower the standards *for the male responsibility to prevent the lowering of standards regardless of source* by creating a functionally meaningless distinction between the two where women are concerned.
But women only get away with lowering standards because below-average males make it possible. . .and those below-average males do it for exactly the same reasons cited above.
Below-average males too are motivated to do so in part because they are likewise more herd-oriented and enjoy being around their own kind hierarchically, but also because they are, on average, smaller, weaker, slower, less intelligent, less sturdy, and more self-absorbed than above-average men. That's why certain men's advocates are also constantly yammering on about inclusion, outreach, and the evils of standards, which is nothing more than rhetoric used to justify lowering natural barriers to below-average male involvement, influence, and control.
And that goes for most victim-politicking groups otherwise as well, and the more so the higher their "cause" is on the Maslow Hierarchy.
That's why certain men's advocates are also constantly yammering on about inclusion, outreach, and the evils of standards,
I've seen some of this behavior on a certain MRA site (which is heavily influenced by females), but much of what I read from men's advocates in other places is yammering about the the problems of inclusion and the lowering of standards.
Sometimes a less intelligent guy or a smaller guy is very strong. Sometimes the very intelligent guy is the 90lb weakling.
What you are describing as a below average male seems to me an emasculated man. I've seen the term mangina used to describe some males like this.
That wasn't having a woman acting, that was having two women and Peter Jackson trying to create 9 hours of movies from 2 hours of book. Blame women writers if you must (in fact I encourage it) but it isn't the actress's fault, she's just doing a job.
It was, if not shitty acting, at least inferior acting. But the director and the writer created her stupid part (and gave her stupid lines to say and things to do) precisely because they thought they needed to have a woman actor in the movie. The increased presence of women in TV and movies means that those behind the scenes think they must give women actors something to do -- and the result of this process is usually awful. Case in point.... Tauriel.
Bạn có thể nghĩ ra một ví dụ mà phụ nữ được tiếp cận và sau đó đưa ra các tiêu chuẩn? > Không. Những gì tôi đang nói là tiêu chuẩn giảm là một sản phẩm phụ của womens hành vi tự nhiên chứ không phải là chính sách có chủ ý của họ. Tức là, bạn đang cố gắng để hạ thấp các tiêu chuẩn * cho trách nhiệm nam để ngăn chặn việc hạ thấp tiêu chuẩn bất kể từ nguồn bởi * tạo ra một sự phân biệt chức năng vô nghĩa giữa hai nơi mà phụ nữ có liên quan. Nhưng phụ nữ chỉ nhận được ngay với việc giảm tiêu chuẩn vì nam giới dưới mức trung bình làm cho nó có thể. . .và những nam giới dưới mức trung bình làm điều đó cho chính xác cùng một lý do nêu trên. nam giới Dưới đây trung bình cũng có động lực để làm như vậy một phần vì họ là tương tự như vậy nhiều hơn đàn định hướng và thích được xung quanh loại riêng của họ theo thứ bậc, mà còn vì họ được, trung bình, nhỏ hơn, yếu hơn, chậm hơn, kém thông minh hơn, ít mạnh mẽ, và nhiều hơn nữa tự hấp thu hơn so với những người đàn ông trên mức trung bình. Đó là lý do tại sao những người ủng hộ nhất định của người đàn ông cũng không ngừng yammering trên về hòa nhập, tiếp cận cộng đồng, và các tệ nạn tiêu chuẩn, đó là không có gì hơn hùng biện được sử dụng để biện minh cho việc giảm các rào cản tự nhiên để tham gia dưới mức trung bình nam giới, ảnh hưởng, và kiểm soát. Và đó cũng đúng với hầu hết nhóm nạn nhân động chính trị khác là tốt, và nhiều hơn như vậy cao hơn "nguyên nhân" của họ là trên cấp bậc của Maslow.
game vui vui
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.