Is there no end to their evil? Stop Pinktober now!
Women will never be regarded as equal as long as they continue to insist on invading male spaces, thereby tacitly admitting their intrinsic dissatisfaction with inferior female and mixed-sex spaces. There is nothing that demonstrates the female belief in male superiority more clearly than their inability to stop pestering men engaged in male activities.
The interesting thing is that European men are FAR more masculine than American men in this regard, American illusions about European effeminacy notwithstanding. It would be UNTHINKABLE for a woman to intrude the post-game Friday night dinners, virtually no women even come to watch the games despite the fact that the various soccer fields where most of the athletic men over 30 are to be found.
The interesting thing is that in some European countries, you won't even see women in the restaurants on Friday nights. That's the night for the men to get together with their male friends; Saturday night is when couples go on dates.
60 comments:
And the men in the audience were afraid to even laugh...
Yep. American men are now some of the biggest pussies on the planet. Think an Arab or an African would be afraid to laugh?
In contrast, check out the comments on this article on ESPN's website.
Vox,
"Yep. American men are now some of the biggest pussies on the planet."
At least the kind that would go sit in a Conan audience. Unclear how many of those are left.
illusions about European effeminacy? Thats not an illusion its a reality.
There are very few masculine men waling around Western Europe
What do you think caused American men to turn into such wimps (that didn't affect men in Europe)?
Feminism is different and stronger here. I remember a post several years ago on VP where Vox highlighted an Italian phone commercial and noted that there is no American style war between the sexes in Europe.
What do you think caused American men to turn into such wimps (that didn't affect men in Europe)? Europe is full of wimps to its just not kill or be killed there. So you can get away with minding your own business. Here, if your not conforming to whatever society your in at the moment your screwed. So naturally we have more rats than they do. But it's not like they have a lot of marines.... This from just googling french special forces: http://en.starafrica.com/news/files/2013/01/afp/photo_1358607474282-1-0.jpg
"Think an Arab or an African would be afraid to laugh?" Yeah apparently. Once they actually have to live in American society. Arabs and Africans would be the first to laugh, when was the last time you saw an Arab or an African stand up for something
But yeah Ill be the first to admit it. Society in America is screwed.
Sometimes I wonder if the Dale Carnegie system combined with the ideology of the customer always being right is part of what pussified North America (Canada is remarkably similar). Is it because of greater economic opportunities that N.Americans trained themselves to be as beta bux as possible? Of course I do believe feminism and churchianity play an important role in raising betas, but I can't shake the economic role. I'm just not familiar enough with Europe to know if this theory is significant.
As an European (I lived in America and now I live in Latin America), I want to put my two cents in. Europe is full of beta men among the educated classes (working classes are more alpha). But the main differences with America are:
1) There is no pedestalization. Women are not considered full angels who can do no wrong. Vagina is not worshipped the way it is in America, where every sitcom and every add proclaims the superiority of women. Even before feminism, women in America were treated with an extraordinary deference unknown in Europe (and everywhere else). Maybe this comes from the scarcity of women in the colonies or from the Great Awakening movements, which feminized American religion. I don't know.
2) Women are not that narcissistic. The statement 'I am a goddess' and the goddess religion that appeared in the 70s inside the feminist movement would have not been possible in Europe. Women know that they are human beings, not angels of light. They don't think that every nonsense that gets out of their mouth is supreme wisdom. Blame it on Carl Rogers (the self-esteem movement), Reviving Ofelia and an army of men that are willing to treat her like a princess (see 1).
3) Women have realistic expectations. In America, every woman who is a 6 thinks she is going to marry a hunky millionaire (see 2). Blame it to the American mentality where the sky is the limit. Blame it on Disney and rom-coms. When European women watch American rom-coms, they see them like a fiction (maybe because the environment is so different). American women see them as documentaries.
4) Much fewer white knights and manginas. I think it is the root cause. If everybody is rushing to please a woman, it is not strange that such monsters of narcissism appear.
This is not saying that Europe is well. Feminism and alpha seeking is slowly unraveling the fabric of society. But America is much worse.
What 'xxxx' said (above).
"American men are now some of the biggest pussies on the planet."
Yes, this.
Soccer is for faggots.
I wrote about this phenomenon back in July.
Women just can't stand letting men have fun without them.
Maybe the problem is that in America, the marriage is a child-centered marriage. After the wedding, the wife balloons and nags, the husband retreats emotionally from the wife and makes the daughter their little princess. The wife makes the son, her little hero. The boy has to please Mommy so Mommy fills this emotional void (see more at http://www.amazon.com/Silently-Seduced-Parents-Children-Partners/dp/0757315879)
So you have a lot of men trained to please women and a lot of women trained to be treated like a princess. Only a hypothesis.
@ LibertyPortraits: I think you're onto something about the customer always being right leading to wimpiness. After all, such a belief is a direct refutation of any sort of objective moral or behavioral standard.
From personal experience, I was learning about hierarchies and the like while being in customer service, and I found it difficult to feel like I was ascending the hierarchy when I had to lick disgusting asses all day. I found that in my personal life I could act however I wanted and became more popular, but going to work became intolerable because I was always having to keep from telling people what they deserved to hear.
Regarding male spaces, typically men have no reciprocal desire to invade female spaces. However, when we do, women HATE IT:
http://www.yahoo.com/parenting/my-husband-is-the-perfect-dad-and-it-almost-killed-101677779087.html
~Martel
There are very few masculine men waling around Western Europe
That's true. And yet those not particularly masculine men still have the strength to pursue their own interests and refuse to kowtow to the female imperative, unlike most American men.
I wish they will ban the Superbowl half time shows and the awful commercials. The only time it gotten good was when it was censored (wardrobe malfunction).
They do sissify the Big Game with food and drink demonstrations, decoration tips, clothing, and merchandising.
The breast cancer awareness thing should stop. No one cares. People ignore it. No one talks about it. It seems like this latest charity invaded the NFL for the mere reason that it can. "Pink" is a catchall to attract a female audience that is still not watching the sport and I suppose they still won't after all the abuse allegations from the latest idiotic players. Anyways, we can count on the NFL being the thug organization that they are.
Reminds me of a tweet from Duck Enlightenment a couple months back: "Feminists say that women are not the inferior gender but then tell women to copy everything that men do."
What could be more misogynistic than a movement that measures women's worth by how man-like they are?
A word I'd love to kick out of English if I could is "awareness". All this crap for "breast cancer awareness"? I'm quite "aware" of breast cancer: so the hell what? Does my "awareness" level somehow send healing particles into the breasts of nearby women? Were I utterly "unaware" of breast cancer, would more women have to lose their breasts? Do pink towels at football games actually improve anybody's tangible well-being in the slightest?
Of course not. But, they make people feeeel like they're doing something, that they're a part of something, that the "awareness" is spilling over into all of our souls and uniting us against evil (conveniently in such a way that requires no effort whatsoever).
The only way "awareness" is used that makes any sense any more is within the phrase "situational awareness" as used in the military. Otherwise, it's a nonsensical useless delusion. It's time we cut the crap. I declare myself "unaware" of breast cancer, and if that hurts anybody's feelings I'm glad.
~Martel
I am aware that it exists but I have never seen any open feminism in France,people get on ok,the family is intact,
men can be good friends without some woman trying to break them up.However I don't know how long this will last,religion is going the way of the west with all it's teaching and I suppose,it's only a matter of time.We have here,
though many moslems,not the bearded,hippy type but working men.My next door neighbour converted to Islam
when he married a girl from Morocco and it makes me think that,if the headbangers would stop for 5 minutes we might be able to have a reasonable dialogue with them but I cannot see politicians in favour of that,nor feminists come to that.
There are very few masculine men waling around Western Europe
That's true. And yet those not particularly masculine men still have the strength to pursue their own interests and refuse to kowtow to the female imperative, unlike most American men.
I wonder if Anglo men being naturally more confident and attractive to women has led to their being more willing to go along with feminism, because it damages them less than it would other men (like East Asians, for example). It's similar to the phenomenon I've noticed of tall, good-looking men being able to get away with far more BETA behavior than shorter, less attractive men yet still get an attractive girlfriend or wife.
What could be more misogynistic than a movement that measures women's worth by how man-like they are?
Exactly.
What they forget to emulate or simply cannot are the qualities of men that make them so desirable to be around: low drama, sense of humor, consistent moods, non-judgmental, easy going, loyal etc. I'm all for women becoming more man-like with regards to these traits.
Also, pink washing is stupid and deceitful in the first place. Very little of the money goes to breast cancer research, and very little of what does go to research goes to prevention. We pretty well know that screwing with women's fertility (ahem, birth control and abortions) increases their risk of developing breast cancer, but no one is allowed to talk about it because RIGHTS.
Men who really want to help women avoid breast cancer will find a girl young and keep her pregnant for a few years and strongly encourage her to breastfeed them all for at least a year - preferably two. That's how men can help reduce breast cancer rates. Of course I can understand why most smart men aren't exactly jumping on that with both feet, but that's the evidence. Money from a pink water bottle goes......somewhere? However, breastfeedingng measurably reduces cancer rates.
There are very few masculine men waling around Western Europe
That's true. And yet those not particularly masculine men still have the strength to pursue their own interests and refuse to kowtow to the female imperative, unlike most American men.
I think it boils down to English Protestantism. Read Albion's seed. Their religion didn't value celibacy so everybody should get married and follow the female imperative. The society was designed to pander to this imperative. In addition, the rejection of Virgin Mary as a way of pedestalization made that men pedestalized mortal women instead.
In Catholic Europe, celibacy (priests, monks, nuns) was considered superior and more godly than getting married. Women were considered more sinners than men at the same time that English Victorians spoke about "the angel in the house".
I am willing to bet (but of course not pay up), the extreme deference that is granted women in the US and presumably Canada, this pedestalization, is an urban phenomenon that started in the 1950s (which is to say that period of time extending from 1947 to 1967). You still don't find it that much in rural areas.
If you look at the history of Scotts-Irish in America you will not see much in the way of a traditional deference towards women. However, you will see a strong streak of independence among among the women.
Not the silly-shit Lena Dunham kind of independence. More like the plow the field in the morning have a baby at lunch and then go back to the field in the afternoon kind of independence. Women worked constantly for eighteen hours a day until they were too worn out work. If a woman wanted help she got pregnant yet again and prayed for a daughter. The lazy ones died.
And suddenly that world was completely gone.
And replaced with Fifties America. Almost overnight, a nation of independent rural landowners was suddenly turned into a nation of hicks from the country trying to make it in the city. And who want's to be seen as a hick? The culture was something that was being made up as they went along. Urban sophisticates were supposed to have grand deferential manners when dealing with women so these were adopted. Big mistake.
It was also a world where a woman's eighteen hour work day had in the space of generation been reduced to maybe three hours. These women had literally been bred to be hard workers and suddenly had no work to do.
At first these energies were directed into domestic life. However, once the kids start going to school there was simply put too much free time and too much leftover energy.
Hence the rise of the Feminine Mystique. These women knew they were dissatisfied with their lives but lacked the capacity for self examination to determine the reason why. Consequently Betty Friedan and her ilk had free reign to come up with some very silly shit.
Men went along with it because they thought they were supposed to.
Taking my 8 y/o up to deer camp for the first time this year. My 11 y/o daughter began mildly complaining about it not being fair, that she wanted to go too (she likes hunting, but in small doses). My wife wisely jumped in and told her it wasn't for girls. No more discussion. The smell alone is enough to drive women away.
@Cataline
Great explanation, But this sentence still deserves explanation.
Urban sophisticates were supposed to have grand deferential manners when dealing with women so these were adopted.
Where this urban deferential treatment came from? Carl Jung detected the pedestalization of women at the beginning of XX century so it is previous to urbanization (Welmer had a post about that that I don't find now).
@xxxx
I am rather curious as to what Carl Jung's sampling looked like.
I suspect but of course can't prove that pedestalization started with the urban middle class.
Whatever they pay Burr it aint enough.
@xxxx
Its not english protestantism its:
■ H.J. Chaytor, The Troubadours: “In the eleventh century the worship of the Virgin Mary became widely popular; the reverence bestowed upon the Virgin was extended to the female sex in general, and as a vassal owed obedience to his feudal overlord, so did he owe service and devotion to his lady… Thus there was a service of love as there was a service of vassalage, and the lover stood to his lady in a position analogous to that of the vassal to his overlord. He attained this position only by stages; “there are four stages in love: the first is that of aspirant (fegnedor), the second that of suppliant (precador), the third that of recognised suitor (entendedor) and the fourth that of accepted lover (drut).” The lover was formally installed as such by the lady, took an oath of fidelity to her and received a kiss to seal it, a ring or some other personal possession.”
C.G. Crump, Legacy of the Middle Ages: “The Aristocracy and Church developed the doctrine of the superiority of women, that adoration which gathered round both the persons both of the Virgin in heaven and the lady upon earth, and which handed down to the modern world the ideal of chivalry. The cult of the Virgin and the cult of chivalry grew together, and continually reacted upon one another… The cult of the lady was the mundane counterpart of the cult of the Virgin and it was the invention of the medieval aristocracy. In chivalry the romantic worship of a woman was as necessary a quality of the perfect knight as was the worship of God… It is obvious that the theory which regarded the worship of a lady as next to that of God and conceived of her as the mainspring of brave deeds, a creature half romantic, half divine, must have done something to counterbalance the dogma of subjection. The process of placing women upon a pedestal had begun, and whatever we may think of the ultimate value of such an elevation (for few human beings are suited to the part of Stylites, whether ascetic or romantic) it was at least better than placing them, as the Fathers of the Church had inclined to do, in the bottomless pit.”
''http://gynocentrism.com/2013/11/15/the-sexual-relations-contract/''
And the worship of women also resulted from women as being brides of Christ that resulted in them being morally superior to men:
http://societyofphineas.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/defining-tradcon-feminism-part-1-theory/
@cataline
Carl Jung said it in 1912:
the women [in America] are the mothers of their husbands as well as of their children, yet at the same time there is in them the old, old primitive desire to be possessed, to yield, to surrender. And there is nothing in the man for her to surrender to except his kindness, his courtesy, his generosity, his chivalry.
And see also
I noticed that whenever the American husband spoke to his wife there was always a little melancholy note in his voice, as though he were not quite free: as though he were a boy talking to an older woman. he was always very polite and very kind, and paid her every respect. You could see that in her eyes he was not at all dangerous, and that she was not afraid of being mastered by him.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090819151305/http://www.welmer.org/2009/08/13/carl-jung-founding-father-of-game/
@standingagainsttheworld
I knew that pedestalization started with the troubadours although your quotes are outstanding and I will use them.
But I was trying to explain why pedestalization is so strong in the Anglosphere. In my country, it has disappeared
@cataline
I suspect but of course can't prove that pedestalization started with the urban middle class.
It would make a lot of sense. The Victorians were middle class that got wealthy and wanted to distinguish themselves from the aristocracy by having morals
It goes in generational cycles -> see Strauss and Howe. The aftermath of WWII was peak masculinity. Jung was writing in a previous trough. We've actually been on an upswing for awhile, but the Boomer-dominated culture (schools/media/etc...) gone to great lengths to suppress it.
My guess is that the cycle is driven by female mate preference.
And the men in the audience were afraid to even laugh...
And the one guy that speaks up is called a jackass by Burr. Conan was cringing in fear of the FI. We live in a country full of emasculated wussies.
I don't understand. Sure, what this guy said is exactly right. And? This is not new, it isn't news, it's been happening since Lilith, then Eve. Nothing has changed since then.
As for major sports? They are trying to surrender to women. If men don't like something, don't participate. Pink ribbons? Don't watch the games. I guarantee if they get a 20%, 50%, or better, 70-90% dip in viewers, when they pull the queer feminist shit, they WILL stop. Your choice. Don't bitch about it, do something.
Men have to decide how far to let that women go. Women literally can't control themselves. None of them. "Just a little?" Fuck no! I, personally, leave the home to her. If I claim a room. I also demand private time. I also take time with man friends. She isn't welcome unless it's a split night, and I ditch guys who think bringing their woman is okay. It's not negotiable. Don't negotiate. Yes, she will try to break that. Make her efforts expensive. If you are so lame as to have no controls, no carrots, no sticks, it's a personal problem. Cats, women, children, pets, all the same. If they rule you, you let them. Fix it. She wants to be pwned, she knows she is awful, she married you, in part, to get better. Do your part and make her better. Limits. Gah!
How in any sense of the word is feminism not stronger in Europe then the usa? or any other branch of marxism? women are some what less toxic in Europe but by mild degrees and that's about the best case I think one can made
Bill Solomon: "What do you think caused American men to turn into such wimps "
Not withstanding any other opinion on the topic, but I believe it's the advertising industry. When they realised that women have the spending power, that's who they started taking seriously.
How in any sense of the word is feminism not stronger in Europe then the usa? or any other branch of marxism? women are some what less toxic in Europe but by mild degrees and that's about the best case I think one can made
Feminism in Europe is weaker than in America (for example, South Europe and especially, East Europe) and stronger than in America (Sweden, for example).
What Europe doesn't have (with exception of England) is pedestalization, that is, the deference with which men treat women. The fact that women think themselves princesses that deserve the best of the best and that every inconvenience in life must be spared for them, enacting laws like YesMeansYes, campaigns like "Ban bossy" and making illegal for men to tell a joke in the workplace, because it's "hostile environment".
I noticed this when I lived in America. Every woman is treated like a princess and they have a huge ego. Pedestalization goes way before than feminism. In theory, feminism is opposed to pedestalization (Gloria Steinem said: "“A pedestal is as much a prison as any small, confined space.”). In practice they go hand by hand.
In America feminism+pedestalization = perfect storm.
Many people have offered theories for why women are worse in America, but most don't explain why American men have caved to feminism so easily, which is a separate question. And theories based on devotion to the Virgin Mary don't explain how the Catholic concept of the family remained very traditional for centuries, even at times when Marianism was so strong and widespread that it had to be denounced as a heresy, and only fell apart after Vatican II when Marian devotion drastically declined. There's no question that Catholic families who say a daily rosary together tend to be much more patriarchal than those who don't, for instance.
I might throw Puritanism into the mix. I know that term gets overused to mean anyone who opposes any kind of fun. But it does seem like Europeans have retained a more honest, earthier understanding of human sexuality than Americans have. That has its downsides, like the greater acceptance of infidelity in the case of public figures having mistresses. But it could also mean that they're less likely to be swayed by ideologies that are based on the idea that women are sinless angels unless corrupted by men. Without that notion, you don't get the pedestal, and probably not as much of a Special Snowflake problem with men and their daughters.
"why American men have caved to feminism so easily"
It's not that easy. Many lawsuits later showed that complaints of female accommodations cannot be easily dismissed. That's why women must be allowed except for clearly private clubs. At work, businesses, schools and public places, women must be accommodated.
We have taken non-discrimination to its logical conclusion and it can go even further. Just you wait. Gay non-discrimination passed its barrier, next gender accommodation has already made its mark, then its polygamous relationships, then who knows what(?).
It's not that easy. Many lawsuits later showed that complaints of female accommodations cannot be easily dismissed.
Fine, but that just shifts the question, because those lawsuits were decided by overwhelmingly male judges, and most of the work in litigating them was probably done by male lawyers. So why did American men in suits and robes cave in to those pressures while European men in suits and robes did not?
There is a recent Halls commercial. A woman appears, face in distress from sinuses. She takes a Halls and is revitalized, bends over and starts changing a tire again. The view shifts from the large/chunky woman to the small bespectacled husband and two male children with the smallest saying something like "Big Marge is back.". I will go out of my way to find a product other than Halls now since I get their message - their product is for large dyke women with emasculated husbands.
Because it was the law. We had no Constitutional Equal Rights Amendment, but every state had a non-discrimination law that included women for non-discrimination. It didn't take long for women to be demanded to be included in everything culturally even at home or church. It is American to not want to discriminate. We recoil at the thought. The error is non-discrimination doesn't make sense in all cases, and in many cases, men are discrminated to be kept out of female places. This is where we are now.
Men should reclaim their spaces and seek out ways that doesn't run afoul of the law.
@cail
I might throw Puritanism into the mix.
Yes, Puritanism was the first American utopia (PC is the last one). Puritans wanted to build the God's paradise on Earth and dismissed the English tradition, the Anglican Church traditions, the class system, the monarchy, etc. This made America more likely to be swayed by utopian ideologies. European people are more prone to do things "the way they have been done" (even with cosmetic changes) and less prone to base their life on what a so-called "expert" tells them (Opprah, Dr. Phil, NOW)
@jimmy-jimbo
The law was made by men. And non-discrimination against women is not an American trait. American women were always pedestalized. That is, discriminated in a positive manner.
Feminism started the day that women said that they were unhappy with this positive discrimination. So American men gave them equality because they wanted to please them. Then, they were not happy with equality and American men rushed to give them all kinds of special treatment (such as having the power to define if a sexual act is rape or not). American men are trained to please American women (see male judges in family court).
We're going in circles. How did it become the law here, and not there?
I haven't been to Europe or spent a lot of time with Europeans, and yet it seems obvious even to me that there's an attitudinal difference between American men and European men in the way they view and deal with women, and I think that was true even before feminism. The European attitude seems much more realistic about women's flaws.
Leon Podles has done some interesting work on the feminization of the church, going pretty far back to Bernard of Clairvaux. (I would be very hesitant to try to pin the problem on either Protestants or Catholics.)
Perhaps the reason Americans are more deferential to feminism is simply because Americans are more religious, and religion is generally a more feminine than masculine pursuit.
It gotten here. A long slog. You can read up on history, but why bother?
Women were discriminated regardless of any law. To enable non-discrimination against women requires discrimination against men. That's why men can't have their spaces. This is the America of today.
I was only trying to show that the law was against men having their own spaces, at least in the public realm. This transferred into the wider culture so we had to include women in most everything. It is ripe for some pushback, but this needed to be done within the confines of the law.
Sure, men can have their men's night out, just like women do. This can be done informally, not with any bylaws of an organization except for private clubs (whatever this means lawfully like the super-rich and private golf clubs) or religion.
To say "non-discrimination against women is not an American trait" is ridiculous. There is tremendous political pressure applied to any organization that discriminates.
Cail,
"I haven't been to Europe or spent a lot of time with Europeans, and yet it seems obvious even to me that there's an attitudinal difference between American men and European men in the way they view and deal with women, and I think that was true even before feminism. The European attitude seems much more realistic about women's flaws."
The alphas stayed in Europe, the betas (and worse) fled to America. Same reason (100,000 years prior) Africans are more alpha than Euros.
To say "non-discrimination against women is not an American trait" is ridiculous.
I see I haven't expressed myself correctly. Take into account that English is a foreign language for me. I meant that:
Non-discrimination against women HAS NOT TRADITIONALLY BEEN an American trait. The traditional understanding is that women and men had different gender roles and that you can't treat the same way to different people. In practice, this meant women were treated better.
Feminism hides itself under the banner of non-discrimination but it's about advancing women's interests. If the problem was that American do not like discrimination at all, then:
- Why are men discriminated in family court? Why 95% of times custody goes to the mother? This is discrimination
- Why are men depicted in the media as chumps and women as intelligent?
- Why does 90% of deaths in the workplace correspond to men?
- Why are men still paying the tabs in dates?
- Why are female teacher treated better than male teacher when abusing of young male students?
If American people are so repugnant to discrimination against women, why do these examples of discrimination happen?
When women said they wanted to end discrimination, men rushed to please them. When men (father's organizations) want to end discrimination, nobody gives a damn. So it is ridiculous to say that this is about discrimination.
@Desiderius
The alphas stayed in Europe, the betas (and worse) fled to America. Same reason (100,000 years prior) Africans are more alpha than Euros.
I am an European but I don't think so. It takes a lot of alphadom to leave your country and go to a wild land.
The pedestalization of women does not happen in Latin America, where I live. So it is something specific to the States.
The Puritan rejected the old traditions (that were developed through millennia as a dam against the female imperative) and treated to do something new, with the help of the Bible. Being the female imperative so strong (eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap), it is not strange that the new customs were created to favor the female imperative.
Same reason (100,000 years prior) Africans are more alpha than Euros.
Africans are more alpha because African traditional societies are hoe societies where women can harvest food for themselves, their children and their lovers. Betas are not needed and only alphas can reproduce because women only look for men with good genes, since the investment is not needed. This has produced a society of alphas. I don't say this: there are scientific studies about that (although with another terminology).
By the way, this is the way we are headed. A society of alphas since women don't need men to survive.
I was only trying to show that the law was against men having their own spaces, at least in the public realm.
Of course that's true; no one's disagreeing with that fact. We're talking about WHY that's so much more true in America than in Europe. Why are men of German descent in Iowa so much more deferential to women than men of German descent in Germany? Why were they ALREADY so much more deferential by the time feminism started pushing that they enacted the laws you're talking about?
religion is generally a more feminine than masculine pursuit.
Modern churchianity is feminine (or better effeminate); but historically, Christianity has been a pretty muscular faith. Devout Christian societies reflected that at the family level with the husband as the undisputed head of the family, girls given away or dowried by their fathers, boys being educated (including religious education) more than girls, etc. If the American man's pedestalization of women had started in the 1970s, we could blame it on churchianity, but my impression is that it goes back further than that.
Maybe someone could track down the first time someone said, "If women were in charge, there wouldn't be any wars." That'd be a good place to start.
The breast cancer awareness thing should stop. No one cares. People ignore it. No one talks about it. It seems like this latest charity invaded the NFL for the mere reason that it can. "Pink" is a catchall to attract a female audience that is still not watching the sport and I suppose they still won't after all the abuse allegations from the latest idiotic players. Anyways, we can count on the NFL being the thug organization that they are.
Pinktober was spearheaded by a Jewish woman. Because men dying earllier than women, and prostate cancer being more lethal than breast cancer means that.... "we needs more $$$$ for breast cancer"
This is nothing less than the NFL giving all men the finger.
xxxx,
"It takes a lot of alphadom to leave your country and go to a wild land."
Roissy definition of Alpha. Paris, not Achilles.
Cail,
"Maybe someone could track down the first time someone said, "If women were in charge, there wouldn't be any wars." That'd be a good place to start"
It goes in and out fashion on a roughly 88-year cycle. Read Generations, it's well documented.
Elizabeth I, Boudicca, etc... Likely a Celtic thing.
xxxx,
"Africans are more alpha because African traditional societies are hoe societies where women can harvest food for themselves, their children and their lovers. Betas are not needed"
Yep. That's why we migrated north, stealing some women/taking the leftovers as we went. eventually we got so far north we needed more brains and less melanin to survive.
Jacob and Esau.
@Cail Corshev
''Modern churchianity is feminine (or better effeminate); but historically, Christianity has been a pretty muscular faith''
No. Christianity was a muscular faith until bridal mysticism came along then Christianity took a hit in the balance of the sexes with women always outnumbering men to this very day. Church from then on is always for women.
I recommend you read this:
http://podles.org/church-impotent.htm
No. Christianity was a muscular faith until bridal mysticism came along then Christianity took a hit in the balance of the sexes with women always outnumbering men to this very day. Church from then on is always for women.
Maybe not.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/1999/10/the-church-impotent-the-feminization-of-christianity
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.