Friday, March 27, 2015

Irrational discourse

From a conversation on Twitter:
 Vanir ‏@Vanir85
 @voxday the problem (for misogynists) is women CHOOSING instead of being wifebots or sex-slaves. it's almost like they're *people*

Vox Day ‏@voxday
The real objection is to the way so many women are choosing to stuff their faces and evolve into land whales.

Vanir ‏@Vanir85
because looking thin for men is NOT the most important thing in their life, i imagine. and good for them :)
If you want to know how to make an SJW dance like a puppet, just utilize their contrarian instincts. Once you have been identified as a badthinker, they will say literally anything so long it is in opposition to you. And they almost never think beyond reacting to your immediate statement.

One easy way to recognize an SJW white knight is how he will reflexively defend women under any and all circumstances. Think about how objectively silly his response is, it's not even logically coherent.

WK: The problem is X.
VD: No, the problem is Y.
WK: I imagine Z, and Z is good!

I don't know about you, but I certainly find it convincing! SJWs are so haplessly irrational and limited to the rhetorical level that they don't realize an appeal to their own imagination doesn't even rise to the level of logical fallacy. At this point, you already know that there is absolutely no point in even trying to utilize reason or talking to such an individual. Whether you choose to entertain yourself by kicking your interlocutor around or to simply ignore him is totally irrelevant. The point is that you have been informed that any form of rational discourse is not in the cards.

208 comments:

1 – 200 of 208   Newer›   Newest»
Laguna Beach Fogey said...

C'mon, Vox, you and I both know the time for rational debate and discussion with these prog imbeciles is long over. The whole thing is burning and going down. The only matter is, who remains when the smoke clears, and who has the most scalps?

Earl Thomas said...

' the problem (for misogynists) is women CHOOSING instead of being wifebots or sex-slaves. it's almost like they're *people*

Women have always had the ability to choose. What we see is left to their own devices they normally choose destruction.

And once you point that out to SJW man...they go along with applauding women to their own destruction. Protector and provider they are not.

SarahsDaughter said...

Good for the women who stuff their faces and evolve into land whales?

Nothing demonstrates "sticking it to the man" more than high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, breathing problems, gastroesophageal reflux disease, degenerative arthritis, skin infections, infertility, and cancer.

Indeed, Earl, they applaud women to their own destruction.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

This is why I advocate that SJWs, white knights, progs, femcunts, and assorted miscreants be identified and detained. Indeed, I imagine Provisional Government of National Restoration (PGNR) will have a special unit devoted to just this task. The entire American Left needs to be gutted and disappeared. Do you honestly think there's any other solution?

Gunnar Thalweg said...

As Daffy Duck said, "I demand that you shoot me now."

AmyJ said...

So, Vanir thinks it's ok for gluttony to be more important to women than being healthy and looking attractive. This is a form of misogyny; he obviously hates women if this is what he encourages. He needs to apologize and self-flagellate immediately!

D. Lane said...

So, Vanir thinks it's ok for gluttony to be more important to women than being healthy and looking attractive. This is a form of misogyny; he obviously hates women if this is what he encourages.

It is not only good, but desirable:

@vanir
better to be fat than having to be thin to fit a limiting gender role in a chauvinistic hellhole :D

@vanir
and that's WITH the health-issues; better to live free, shorter, than to live longer "in your place"

swiftfoxmark2 said...

Nothing like the SJWs irrational justification for heart disease and the many other health problems that come with obesity.

Earl Thomas said...

Teach men a lesson, by shortening your life span and making the rest of your life riddled with health problems.

Man ladies you really showed me.

Jere said...

Vox, You're missing a vital part of this... the "I imagine X" phrase isn't meant as a literal appeal to their own imagination, it's a sarcastic rhetorical flourish meant to say: "This is so Obviously the case I am going to ironically refer to it coming from my imagination, even though it is matter of fact in order to take advantage of my University level understanding of Irony and to get in some hipster snark street cred"
For example: VD: The nazis moved 12 million people by train in a few years, with no computers and while at war with half the planet.

SJW: OMG, I IMAGINE you think that Mexicans aren't really people, huh? Are you a jew hater too?!

It's a roundabout way of making something seem like a statement of fact when it's usually wild speculation.

ajw308 said...

This is a form of misogyny; he obviously hates women if this is what he encourages. He needs to apologize and self-flagellate immediately!
@Amy, maybe he's being selfish. If he's aware of his position in the SMP, he knows his chances with women are only proportional to the land whale population. He's simply growing the population of women desperate enough to consider him.

hank.jim said...

Irrational discourse can continue for a very long time. He has defined misogynists as women not choosing. As long as women can choose, they will always choose to their best interest, which is the wrong assumption. Choosing to be fat is obviously a bad choice.

Vox said...

You're missing a vital part of this... the "I imagine X" phrase isn't meant as a literal appeal to their own imagination, it's a sarcastic rhetorical flourish meant to say: "This is so Obviously the case I am going to ironically refer to it coming from my imagination, even though it is matter of fact in order to take advantage of my University level understanding of Irony and to get in some hipster snark street cred"

I'm not missing anything, Jere. It is, in fact, an appeal to their own imagination. What they are intending to convey or accomplish is totally irrelevant. The syllogism fails. Badly.

Feather Blade said...

@vanir
better to be fat than having to be thin to fit a limiting gender role in a chauvinistic hellhole :D

@vanir
and that's WITH the health-issues; better to live free, shorter, than to live longer "in your place"


Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven?

Jere said...

"I'm not missing anything, Jere. It is, in fact, an appeal to their own imagination. What they are intending to convey or accomplish is totally irrelevant. The syllogism fails. Badly."

Noted. Let me clarify: "What your POST is missing... etc"
I agree that it fails, and that it's irrelevant in fact, but in their own mind, the appeal to the crowd/ironic snark, IS the relevant factor. I mention it only to sheed further light on what he is 'thinking' when he throws the phrase 'I imagine" out there. I doubt he'd understand what you meant if you told him he was making an appeal to his own imagination.

Patrick Kelly said...

"Whether you choose to entertain yourself by kicking your interlocutor around or to simply ignore him is totally irrelevant. The point is that you have been informed that any form of rational discourse is not in the cards."

Thanks, reminding myself of this will save a lot of otherwise wasted time and words ........

verusconditio said...

in your place

I love this phrase. The only time it is EVER a bad thing is when women are submissive to men. In the work place? Fine. Men being subject to women? Celebrate! A guest in someone's home? Of course. A man on the internet using feel bad? Must be forced down to his place.

A wife? NEVER!

~ Stingray

SarahsDaughter said...

A wife? NEVER!

Only if she's damaged:

Vanir ‏@Vanir85 3h3 hours ago
sorry. anyone who "accepts" a place of servitude someone else decides for them, are simply damaged.


I'm not sure how he handles his own cognitive dissonance when he pays taxes, or obeys simple traffic laws like moving over to let an ambulance pass.

Earl Thomas said...

'sorry. anyone who "accepts" a place of servitude someone else decides for them, are simply damaged.'

Well he got one thing right in that...he's sorry.

AmyJ said...

This sounds like a guy who can't imagine a woman submitting to him. Rather, he most likely embraces willing submission to any woman willing to touch him. Who's the one accepting a place of servitude now?

Jill said...

Twitter is a place for sardonic one-liners, not rational discourse.

vanir85 said...

Ah, so that is how you chose to twist this :)

Since the issue, as usual with the person in question, was "problem with women" - i knew it would boil down to somehow them not being attractive to teh menz, one way or another. My answer was with that in mind. One reason women are fat, is because they're not gonna starve themselves for the approval of men (and that IS healthier than going through life crawling and pining for male attention).

And for the fine crowd of misogynists here;

Men are more frequently obese than women, if being fat shows bad intelligence / judgement / choices - there are more men for whom this is true, than women.

Men, in fact, frequently make choices that get them hurt or killed, more often than women. If men are free to destroy themselves, so should women be - only children should be protected from themselves. Freedom includes the right to make choices that are unhealthy or destructive.

And yes. It is better to be fat and free, than a thin slave to men. Far better to rule in the Heaven that is a modern, progressive society, than to serve in the Hell that is a traditional and/or chauvinist society (meaning pretty much any kind of society the frequent posters here would prefer).

Verusconditio. It is not for men to "put women in their place" - or for men to decide what kind of place women should be in. That is not your right; you do not rule women, nor should you. Women are free, sapient beings, not the mindless wifebots you type want them to be.

... and Laguna Beach Foley - get some help. of the professional kind. seriously. murdering people you disagree with is *bad* - think you got that, sweety?

Will be interesting to see if this is deleted.

grendel said...

Vanir85,

Does freedom include my right to choose a wife who knows her place? Does it include my wife's choice to know her place?

Cataline Sergius said...

because looking thin for men is NOT the most important thing in their life, i imagine. and good for them :)

I adore the smiley face at the end. Nothing says I'm smug about the stupid statement I just made, like a sideways smiley face.

Larry Corriea has a lot of fun with their contrarian rhetoric. He can set them up for just about anything with almost no bait at all. And they ALWAYS fall into the trap.

Larry Correia @monsterhunter45 · Jan 13

Yeah, when working with cartel hitmen I’m always shocked by how regularly they attend bible study.

Hon. Matthew Battle ‏@librab103 Jan 13

How many people are killed each day in the US?

Larry Correia ‏@monsterhunter45 Jan 13

About 40, but mostly in democrat cities over drug money. Next?

Hon. Matthew Battle ‏@librab103

I wonder how many of those 40 were killed by christians!

Larry Correia‏@monsterhunter45

Yeah, when T-Bone shot Jizzy Dawg over that crack slinging corner, it was straight up for Jesus.

Hon. Matthew Battle ‏ Honor killings, beheadings, suicide bombers have existed in many religions!

Larry Correia ‏@monsterhunter45 Jan 13

Yeah, you know those southern baptists, with all their sharia law and suicide bombs

Hon. Matthew Battle ‏@librab103 Many would argue that the PFLP is a Christian group!

Larry Correia‏@monsterhunter45

Dude, they’re Marxists. And exclamation points are not your friend.




Cataline Sergius said...

And yes. It is better to be fat and free, than a thin slave to men. Far better to rule in the Heaven that is a modern, progressive society, than to serve in the Hell that is a traditional and/or chauvinist society (meaning pretty much any kind of society the frequent posters here would prefer).

And you got the quote backwards too.

Of course.

Here at least
we shall be free; the Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
to reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven

Jeff said...

Vanir, why would you assume that you post will get deleted?

When you use the word "thin", does this translate to 1-anorexic - supermodel shape, or 2- somebody with a BMI of about 20? I'm assuming in the context of this conversation it's 2... And assuming that's the case, why wouldn't a woman strive for this for her own health?

The number of criticisms pointed out by prior posters that you've chosen to ignore are quite curious yet expected. That's a very poor way to debate, but of course there are no rules out here on the internet, nor is proper grammar and/or spelling required.

vanir85 said...

Catalina Sergius,

I know the original quote - but in this situation my turnaround works better; the choice truly IS comparable to Rule in Heaven (progressive society; having freedom and power and not HAVING to look good for men) vs. Serve in Hell (trad/chauvinist society; being a servile wifebot whose status and comfort depends on being attractive and feminine).

With that in mind; there is really no question to what is preferable.

D. Lane said...

the choice truly IS comparable to Rule in Heaven

Heaven, sponsored by Cymbalta: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db76.htm

Cataline Sergius said...

No, it does not work better. Illiteracy in a progressive cause, just makes Progressives look illiterate.

:(

vanir85 said...

Jeff,

Difficult to answer everyone specifically without "taking over" the comment field (which often is seen as bad form, at best, when posting on the fora of "the other side" - at least in my experience).

Thin for health reasons is fine. Problem is in the context of "desiarability" (i doubt the the "land whale" comparison is made out of concern for women's heart disease) - where it is better to be chubby and not care, then to strive for some perfect ideal to please others.

Also, if health is the main concern - you're looking at the wrong gender. Far more men are going "land whale" than women (with all that apparantly entails of poor judgement, self-destructive tendencies, etc).

Cataline Sergius said...

It doesn't matter in the least if a man is fat.

Look at Ron Jeremy.

Cataline Sergius said...

This one is from a few months ago.

I'm not sure he would. I think Fat Guy Game is it's own thing and might not work anywhere near as well on a diet. It is Game based on volume and to a degree intimidation.

Today we view a fat man, as a man with poor personal discipline. That clouds our judgement because it wasn't always the case. Many cultures (and not all that long ago) viewed the man with a weight problem as a man with very high status. Nobody who wasn't rich could afford to eat that much. Call it a variant on Middle-Aged Man's Game.

In the modern world those measures don't' really apply...except when they are backed up by the right kind of roaring, bellowing, self-indulgent, unreasonable child-king mentality.

It still works under those circumstances.


A fat woman on the other hand, is simply a very unattractive woman who feels she has a right to be sexually desirable.

She does not have this right..

S1AL said...

"Thin for health reasons is fine. Problem is in the context of "desiarability" (i doubt the the "land whale" comparison is made out of concern for women's heart disease) - where it is better to be chubby and not care, then to strive for some perfect ideal to please others."


So, being the righteous equalitarian that you are, it is safe to expect that you have *never* insulted a man by calling him a "neckbeard," "man-baby," "basement-dweller," "unemployed loser," or any variation thereon.

Equally, your argument for "choice in all things (tm)" must equally apply to men who choose to seek out only pretty, thin women with submissive attitudes; and, of course, to pretty, thin women who choose to be submissive.

And, therefore, you really have no cause to criticize those chosen preferences.

verusconditio said...

not the mindless wifebots you type want them to be.

I am that wife. How dare you treat women like me with such disdain. Who do you think you are?

~ Stingray

vanir85 said...

Cataline Sergius,

Illiteracy? My spelling is far from perfect, but I'm pretty sure I can read. I suspect I just have a lack of reverence for the source material (cultural or religious) that seems off to you. I simply don't mind making plays on and twisting Bible verses.

When it comes to obesity, I simply disagree. A big, obese women can certainly have a greater presence, if she plays it right - and she certainly has the same "right" to be sexually attractive as an obese man. However, that big women may simply not care enough to prioritize molding their body after normal beauty standards, regardless of what superficial men think - was kinda my point.

If less women base their self worth on being conventionally pretty and thin, on men thinking they are "eye candy" - then more women are simply going to get fatter - and more power to them for not letting superficial chauvinism dictate how they prioritize.

vanir85 said...

verusconditio,

if you want a man to "put you in your place" - that is your choice. but it needs to be a *choice* - not a cultural mandate. not something pushed on women by a male society that prefers half its members subjugated by the other half.

i can respect that you made your decicion, but i will not apologize for stating what i think of it.

S1AL said...

That's not a Bible verse, you culturally illiterate dolt.

grendel said...

Since this post is literally about you, it's not valid to refuse to reply to our criticism because you don't want to take over the thread.

I don't think anyone is saying women don't have the right to make themselves fat and disgusting, just pointing out that it's a self-destructive choice, not one which empowers them socially or sexually.

vanir85 said...

with regards to my previous post to Cataline,
the quote is obviously from Paradise Lost, not the Bible,
wrote a bit fast. sorry

Conscientia Republicae said...

When it comes to money, I simply disagree. A poor, homeless man can have a greater presence, if he plays it right--and certainly has the same "right" to be sexually attractive as a tall, beautiful woman.

vanir85 said...

grendel,

I wasn't exactly INFORMED about this thread; so I imagine Vox just wanted to point and laught at the SJW for all to see. and when it comes to rights; i would disagree -, it seems many who frequent this site (including Vox) VERY MUCH SO would like to actually limit the rights, liberties and freedoms of women (and anyone else who happens to disagree with their ideology).

they, in fact, seem quite agitated by the "problem" of women having legal and social agency and using it "wrong".

Natalie said...

Ah yes, the mindless wifebot who sits at her husband's feet every night after slaving over a hot stove all day and tending a million children by herself with no sympathy from her stern overlord. Stupid strawman.

Got news for people - there is no more self-sacrificial person around than a pro-civilization man caring for his pregnant wife and family. We're building up the kingdom of Heaven together, and if that means him calling the shots...... Well, all I can say is that he got up early this morning and ordered me off to go get a massage because it's been a busy, stressful week, and he said I needed it. I'll do a damn lot of cooking, watching my weight, and taking care of the house to keep a man like that glad we're on the same team. If that's misogyny then I'll take my doubled down and overflowing - even if he tells me have to move to NYC.

verusconditio said...

And yet, I used my own social agency, used it wrong according to your crowd and am rewarded with the likes of wifebot, sex slave, and simply damaged. You don't respect me or my choice and the only way you would is if I became a slave to your progressive beliefs. I ask you again, just who do you think you are trying to "culturally mandate" my own choices?

~ Stingray

vanir85 said...

Natalie.

If that means him calling the shots... then it is not worth it. No matter how golden the cage you're in, is. Nothing is worth giving up your own agency, your own contol of your life.

SarahsDaughter said...

Poor Natalie, she doesn't know how empowered and fat she could be - she is obviously a damaged woman and simply doesn't understand the bliss she could experience with a BMI of 40. Mmmmmm Doritos!!!

SarahsDaughter said...

But I just had the golden cage polished. It's so pretty. Do I really need to give it up to live by your standards?

vanir85 said...

SarahsDaughter

True. She doesn't know how empowering it is to not HAVE to be thin and pretty for a man. But then again, someone who let's themselves be "ordered" to do anything by their partner, even if it's getting a massage, is likely someone who enjoys having someone's boot on their neck. I suspect most of the women frequenting here are women who enjoy being subjugated in some way.

AmyJ said...

Yeah, I definitely feel caged staying at home to cook, clean, and care for the children my husband has forced on me against my will (no, please, stop). It'd be so much more empowering if I had a cubicle that I was chained to 40-60 hours a week making PowerPoints and leaning in. But hey, being fat, unhealthy, and wed to someone I'd never get on my knees for is somehow supposed to make me happier and give me "agency". So sayeth the SJW.

S1AL said...

Odds of a Thoreau/Emerson quote appearing in this thread are looking good.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Vanir would rather women be in the workforce cooking, cleaning and caring for people who don't give a damn about them for a meager paycheck.

Cataline Sergius said...

So a progressive mistook Milton for the bible.

The irony is I am certain, quite lost on you.

D. Lane said...

Vanir would rather women be in the workforce cooking, cleaning and caring for people who don't give a damn about them for a meager paycheck.

More likely Vanir aims a bit higher than this. Why be a food service provider when a woman could be a number in a prestigious HR department's skill inventory?

Spreadsheets > plates

vanir85 said...

AmyJ,

Not being wed to someone who expected you to "get on your knees" WOULD certainly give you more agency, and yes, so would not having to depend on someone elses paycheck... obviously.

Conscientia

I would prefer women in the independent, and to go after the career and life they want. NOT women trudging after a man, letting him lead them through life, following his shots (if that's what you do, what's the POINT of even living - you might as well be an ACTUAL robot, boo-beep-boop following the master's commands).

Conscientia Republicae said...

Vanir hates children. Sad, because I believe that children are the future. Won't you think of them?

cailcorishev said...

A big, obese women can certainly have a greater presence, if she plays it right - and she certainly has the same "right" to be sexually attractive as an obese man.

I suppose she has a "right" to flap her love handles and fly, too, but that doesn't mean it will happen. I have no idea what a "greater presence" means, but no, an obese woman cannot be sexually attractive except to a few men who have a fetish for that. No, it doesn't matter how much power, personality, wealth, or fame she has -- she cannot be attractive to normal men.

The dirty little secret about this is that women love to be eye candy for men they find attractive, and they love being thin for that reason and for intra-herd competition. Those women who can't be (most due to obesity or age) tell themselves otherwise, but shrill self-deception doesn't make it true.

slarrow said...

What a curious little creature, to claim to rule in Heaven instead of serve in Hell. Of course, only God rules in Heaven, and unless this vanir85 is claiming to be God, it must be rather a different kind of Heaven. Perhaps that's the appeal to the seamy arrogance of this person: the idea of a Heaven where you get to be God, where you get to consign your opponents to Hell, where you get to tell women that unless they choose what you approve of, they're not really making choices at all. Pah. What an impotent little godling.

So vanir85, are you a man or a woman? Are you a man telling women that they should listen to you instead of those other "traditional/chauvinist" men? Or are you a woman, telling others that "fat is freedom!" to either try to justify your own issues and/or sabotage the competition for male attention?

SarahsDaughter said...

what's the POINT of even living

Funny the demographics of the women who make up the majority of SSRI consumption. How could that be?

Has anyone done any research on this? Certainly women are happier now with all the empowerment and fat, right?! Oh wait: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

verusconditio said...

vanir,

You're a coward.

The fact is that you are every bit the misogynist you accuse the men here of being. You hate women who would dare to choose a life of serving their husbands. Just because you think your hate is not misplaced does not make it anything less than misogyny.

~ Stingray

LP 999/Eliza said...

Yep, we've seen this at VP's...This example is how or why the rational cannot get along with certain people. It's just never a fit. No matter what I said or did there is no way to communicate total logical avoidance.


My sense of agency is overjoyed at this new level of thinspiration.

Success Gods way is about ones relationship to the Lord, then its being forever 21 or 35 or 45 and haute. Being beautiful and slender is a priority. A woman can dedicate this way of life to God and its peace. God will not only preserve your efforts but bless your aging. Family is part of the deal, it all fits into place.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Women are so happy being fat! It's the only way to go. Struggling to find clothes that fit, huffing and puffing on the way out to the car, baking bread in your shoes! Oh the joy!

S1AL said...

Why are progressives so infatuated with false dichotomies? Total agency or total lack thereof. There's no middle ground.

Also, the implicit designation of the 1950's as a hellhole despite it being the happiest era of American society.

vanir85 said...

Conscientia

If the wannabe-patriarchs are SO concerned with the children, daddy can take over the drudgework and child-rearing while mommy collects the paycheck and calls the shots (or however this works again). I wonder if people here will still think of the "male role" as the role of "true" self-sacrifice, when it's the woman caring for her housebound husband and family - with all the greater freedom and social influence and apparant right to rule in the family. or if swapping genders somehow "magically" changes things...

Conscientia Republicae said...

Even my wife thinks the 50's were a bad time. But she just eats up Mad Men. The rot goes deep.

AmyJ said...

Yeah, I really should get fat, so that not only will he not expect it anymore, he won't even want to anymore. Excellent plan. All in the name of "agency".

Tell me, how many cats come with agency? And I certainly can't wait to get back into the daily grind of office work just to pull in a paycheck and become a real woman. That's definitely not robotic or limiting to my life at all.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Vanir,

Thanks for confirming that you think women shouldn't care about the kids they gave birth to. A father cares about his children by selecting the right woman to have them with.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Vanir hates women. Vanir wants them to be like men. Vanir despises femininity. Vanir is the real misogynist. If women don't fit into Vanir's box, Vanir despises them. Vanir is obviously a homosexual Man.

S1AL said...

@CR - Ha! Too funny. My wife and I like to laugh at the advertising from that era. Both absurd and honest.

vanir85 said...

verusconditio

there is where you are wrong. not hate. women who chose as you do frustrate me to no end, but no, i do not hate women who spend their life in servitude. i pity them.

and i suppose you will think that is worse. maybe it is. but it also, simply the truth.

Cataline Sergius said...

Actually I do remember one place where obese women were attractive. The E-Club at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, January. We were there for a workup exercise for Battle Griffin.

Admittedly it wasn't so much that they were attractive it was just that they were quite literally the only women around for 100 miles. There was also the matter of a few guy trying to prove that Marines will fuck anything.

So one the whole, a fat woman can be attractive if you are nineteen, desperate, drunk and being dared by your friends to, "Do it! Do it! Do it!

Fat woman are irresistible then.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Vanir,

She chooses to live life on her terms. She chooses to honor her husband. When she is old, she will be honored by her husband, children and grandchildren. You on the other hand will be cat food.

vanir85 said...

Conscientia

And in my solution, women would care for their children by selecting the right man to sire them (and then to assume the oh-so-self-sacrificial role of breadwinner and head-of-househild). It is no more immoral, or hateful towards children, for a woman to end her responsibility there, than it is for a man to do the same.

JDC said...

Vanir...your responses are well thought out and reasonable, I'm sure the man or woman or man/woman or woman/man you are with is blessed by your presence. I just wish you would make more use of quotation marks and capitalization in your posts. That way we would know what words are just important, and what words are "SUPER" important.

D. Lane said...

I would prefer women in the independent, and to go after the career and life they want. NOT women trudging after a man, letting him lead them through life, following his shots (if that's what you do, what's the POINT of even living - you might as well be an ACTUAL robot, boo-beep-boop following the master's commands).

This is, in fact, the ideal state of the Empowered Woman. A woman who gives the finger to the Man and, instead submitting to him, spends 30 years of her life working from 9 to 5 following the dictates of an organization, moving where it tells her to move, and doing exactly what it demands her to do, when it demands she do it. Why? Because if she doesn't, she'll be out on the street.

All you achieve by encouraging women to let themselves go and fully invest themselves in the labor force is the substitution of a dominant partner for a master who could not possibly care less.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Vanir,

Do you prefer your cats to start munching your face or maybe your fingers when you die?

LP 999/Eliza said...

Problem term; male refers to an animal. a man is a man, mind, body and soul and should be referenced to as such; men and women.



LP 999/Eliza said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LP 999/Eliza said...

Fasting or a calorie restricted lifestyle not only contributes to better blood sugar, heart function and improved vitamin/nutra-c absorption. the very sense of agency is living sacrifice, a mindful prayer life that reaps attunement and awareness. A womans efforts to remain beautiful will never go unnoticed.

vanir85 said...

Conscientia

When she grows old, she will simply have survived and reproduced. Women who do not accept their traditional role, will often do the same - but they will also have had a chance to make their mark on the world, to somehow MATTER to the roll of history and the human specie; beyond just making it keep rolling from behind the scenes, unheard and unseen to all but her closest.

No one remembers dutiful traditional wife #214808, she made no mark on history, no difference to the world. People WILL remember Jane Austen, Amelia Earhart, Marie Curie.

Conscientia Republicae said...

People also remember Eva Braun, Mata Hari and Ethel Rosenberg.

verusconditio said...

there is where you are wrong

I have been right in every single thing I have said. You do not respect me or my peers. You think us "damaged", "robots", and "slaves". That we are without "greater freedom" and "social influence" and question our "point in even living". There is no pity here. There is hate and fear.

and i suppose you will think that is worse.

No. You are what you came here to call out. A misogynist.

~ Stingray

vanir85 said...

D. Lane

A distant boss who just wants you to do the job he pays you to do, is preferable to a live-in tyrant who has practically complete dominance over you in every way, yes. Working for your survival and then being free is infinitely better than being bound directly to and dependent on some male who controls you even in your personal space.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Vanir,

You aren't tall enough for this ride, child.

SarahsDaughter said...

And in my solution, women would care for their children by selecting the right man to sire them (and then to assume the oh-so-self-sacrificial role of breadwinner and head-of-househild). It is no more immoral, or hateful towards children, for a woman to end her responsibility there, than it is for a man to do the same.

He's reveals a lot with this comment. It isn't just that he hates our choice to submit to our husbands, it's the standard that our husbands set when they are sole heads of the household. When a woman submits to a man and is his help meet (whether or not she works for income), the man is then held responsible for the decisions he makes. Much better to share that task.

Magister Wood said...

Vanir85 has amply proven Vox's point. Let the dead bury the dead.

vanir85 said...

Conscientia

Yes, freedom to act also includes freedom to act in a harmful way. That is no more an argument for women not having agency, than it is for men not having agency - your general preference for double standards aside.

And regarding that. No, it is not more (or less) hateful of a woman to end her responsibility for family with choosing a man and having him stay at home while she "sacrifices herself" working and making her mark on the world - than it is for a man to do the same. If it's acceptible for him to do so, the same goes for her.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Yep Magister, I think this horse is good and dead.

CarpeOro said...

Just to clarify, Vanir is a woman correct? After all, it has showed disdain for women on this thread making the novel choice of living a fulfilling life having children, staying home, and (horror of horrors) actually being happy. Coupled with this the assertion that "Men are more frequently obese than women, if being fat shows bad intelligence / judgement / choices - there are more men for whom this is true, than women." Such being the case, obviously a man who is progressive would never deride womyn for any choices they may make. Only a womyn would be worth of doing so.

I plan to pray for her to become more healthy, lose weight, and perhaps learn to smile occasionally. With the new attitude and healthier body maybe she'll attract a man.

CarpeOro said...

-addendum: I think the give away is short time preference and decided "apres moi, Le Deluge" attitude. Not to say there aren't men with it, but not on this scale.

LP 999/Eliza said...

Content like this can go on n' on, make one comment about our figures and its on...forevermore.

It's like the emo thinspiration of soul aslyum's 1990's "keep it up", I can spend the entire weekend promoting.....well, 2nd thought, look VanBro either you go dark knight for us or white knight for well, a dying cause.

Of course, I'd be remiss if we ladies did not pray for continued good health, energy and healthy thyroids to stay haute, trim, etc. And anyone can say whatever they want, once a ambein girl, always a ambien girl, once a non-eater, always a non-eater.

I had to laugh at the foodstamps stateside, we have GMO poisoned beautiful people that became overweight b/c they were poisoned, addicted and over ran by terrible food choices. I eat 7 times per week, if that, and no one sends me money or help for food. VanBro my new bro, will you send me money for food?

Reality is harsh; women deep down know to pump the breast milk and provide for their families b/c one day food and water wont be there. Women know weI need a back up plan of how little we can live on to fight another day.

cailcorishev said...

you might as well be an ACTUAL robot

Funny thing is, many of the jobs held by these empowered modern women can literally be done by robots. Systems like voice mail and easy-to-use word processing software have already eliminated many typist and receptionist jobs, necessitating the growth of HR and other light office make-work jobs to give women somewhere to go take orders like a robot all day.

LP 999/Eliza said...

Vanbro is Van Sis.

VanSis spend a week with me training. You'll never ever be the same.

D. Lane said...

A distant boss who just wants you to do the job he pays you to do, is preferable to a live-in tyrant who has practically complete dominance over you in every way, yes. Working for your survival and then being free is infinitely better than being bound directly to and dependent on some male who controls you even in your personal space.

Once again, you describe the relationship that exists between an organization and its work force, erroneously assigning the differences in role to the trivial characteristics of the dominant parties (live-in versus top floor).

A dominant husband: Provides shelter, emotional support, benefits, and money to a wife in return for her labor (her affections, child rearing abilities, house keeping, and so on). Does not view a loyal wife as an expendable asset.

A business entity: Provides money and benefits in exchange for labor (applicable skills) and unwavering obedience. Values a woman as an asset only insofar as it is financially or economically pragmatic to do so.

Please elaborate how the latter is in any way a superior exchange. And please keep in mind, vanity does not constitute valid compensation.

Conscientia Republicae said...

My wife, the mother of my sons, is irreplaceable. I value her more than any mere sum of money. My sons love her with all their little hearts, including the son she is now carrying inside her for another 2 months.

RC said...

Vanir will be left hapless, bewildered, and hopeless when her feminist Nirvana comes crashing down in the discord wrought by her and her sister’s empowerment. She will aimlessly wander about the streets of dyscivilization ignorant of her role in its creation, with but little time to consider as she will not long survive absent the protection, love, and succor of good men. She will go to her grave not knowing that she committed suicide, having pulled the trigger decades before her death.

Conscientia Republicae said...

RC,

She will provide a tough, stringy meal for her cats.

D. Lane said...

My wife, the mother of my sons, is irreplaceable. I value her more than any mere sum of money. My sons love her with all their little hearts, including the son she is now carrying inside her for another 2 months.

Congrats on the new addition!

vanir85 said...

CarpeOro

Feel free to speculate. I'm actually not going to reveal my gender.

And you are wrong, I care about tomorrow - because I believe in a genuinely feminist future.

If I actually thought the world, society, would devolve into the kind of chauvinst cesspool of subjugation and misogyny many here would prefer. Then I would not care. Then I would simply live for my own pleasure, 'cause as much harm to the rising patriarchy as I could, and happily watch it all burn without concern.

But as things stand, I still care. Very much so.

Conscientia Republicae said...

THANKS we can't wait to pinch his little hiney.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Vanir, a feminist future is one of two things: the brothel or the burkha.

S1AL said...

He's like a bad stereotype... Anyone want to play buzzword bingo?

Conscientia Republicae said...

Fag/She/Trans

LP 999/Eliza said...

Ah! See, the glories of marriage, one baby on the way and sons already here. Congrats! Life and family is beautiful beyond opals and gold!

Conscientia Republicae said...

My sons are the apple of my eye, LP.

LP 999/Eliza said...

Oh no, its worse than burka, brothel.......a comfort woman not in a brothel but having to fend for herself as a comfort woman.

S1AL said...

I'm leaving more towards fat/pajama onesie. The vague armor/helm on the twitter profile is a dead giveaway.

LP 999/Eliza said...

Awesome, see, its not about complete vanity, its all about beauty, family and God

Conscientia Republicae said...

Proggie trash for sure.

vanir85 said...

D. Lane "Please elaborate how the latter is in any way a superior exchange."

It is superior because a wife is dependent on someone else, period.

An employee, someone with a career - could have someone dependent on her.

It is a far superior position in life, a position of strength, of making ones own way - not needing being "taken care of" like someone still a child. It is a position of someone who is the dominant person in their own life, of someone who do not just follow like a blissfull, childish automaton.

Is it this you think of as vanity? I consider it basic self-respect as a grown-ass human being. Being an actual adult, not a dependent half-child - still needing daddy's money, protection and permission.

Cataline Sergius said...

Vanbro is Van Sis.

Yeah, this is now sad.

It's official.

I'm not gonna play kick fat chick. See you tomorrow guys.

vanir85 said...

Conscienta

Nope. A feminist future is one where women will no longer have to chose either of those, no matter what misogynist men wants. A feminist future is where women are free, with as much power over the world at large as men. Where no woman, anywhere, will HAVE to bend her knee to a man - for survival, means, protection, anything. And if I did not think that possible, I wouldn't care enough about our specie's future or survival, to even bother debating here.

Natalie said...

This is so incredible insulting to all the work and care my husband puts into caring for our family and dismisses the sheer amount of tedious, frustrating work he does to provide for us. My husband is a damn good man who doesn't deserve to be shat on by idiots like Vanir.



Booch Paradise said...

I'm surprised no one has brought it up, but what kind of moron believes agency is something that can be given up or taken?

Seems to me that Vanir is accusing us of not believing women have agency, when no one here actually has said that. She on the other hand (and common guys, it's a she, males with the same views would use more abstract arguments with actual examples and things that they thought amounted to proofs, and show more social autism) has repeatedly said that she believes women to be without agency. Specifically women she doesn't like, hates, feels pity for, or however she'd prefer we characterize her contempt.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Vanir,

A feminist future won't exist at all. It won't exist because you did not reproduce. You were too busy to have children. A feminist future is US.

LP 999/Eliza said...

VanSis, I'm free, set free a long time ago.

We need to get the word out; kegels for men! Kegels for Men! Kegels for Men!

Natalie said...

Yeah, so the fact that men everywhere are having to assume the position in order to make a decent wage doesn't bother (or even occur) to Vanir? And all this power men have? I suppose this is why my husband is spending his days smoking cigars and working on his pet projects instead of having to deal with recalcitrant co-workers.

Vanir must be an angry chick - surely no male human would be this clueless.

vanir85 said...

Natalie

No, I'm saying women should not have to depend on someone providing for them. And that women certainly should not be in a position where someone else is the dominant person in their life, calling the shots for them, giving them orders in any way.

I'm sure your husband works hard. But a woman should be able to choose as he does, walk the same path as him, without being stigmated, considered a "bad" wife or mother, being accused of hating children. If the role is acceptable for him, it should be so for her. And both men and women should be their own "head" - a grown person should not subjugate themselves to anyone elses personal rulership.

Rabbi B said...

" . . . not needing being "taken care of" like someone still a child . . . still needing daddy's money, protection and permission."

There is tremendous freedom in submission, freedom of which you seem to know very little. Ironically, your position only demonstrates just how much of a slave you really are. We can only hope that an encounter with the truth will set you free someday.

Conscientia Republicae said...

Vanir, are men and women the same in every way?

vanir85 said...

Rabbi B

Sure, freedom is slavery, submission is dominance, servitude is mastery... then all the alpha-male-wannabees can freely sign their life over to women and choose "real" freedom and power - in being provided for, made decicisons for, and generally be treated as a legal minor. I'm sure none will want to return to the "fake" power of earning their own means and being their own boss...

slarrow said...

Of course Van-I-T isn't going to reveal gender because of the trap I described earlier. (Damn, shouldn't have laid it out for Van-I-T like that.)

But what a horrific "feminist future": one in which men and woman are the same, interchangeable, all striving for the chimeras of Achievement and Lasting Fame. What an enormous denial of reality coupled with the totalitarian desire to not rest until everyone is dragged into such a future, deriding those who wish otherwise as "wifebots" or "sex slaves". What a deluded, self-righteous, shallow little picture of evil...

Oh, and probably a fat chick, too.

vanir85 said...

Conscientia

In every way, no, but there are more similarities and differences - and I find people who focus on those differences usually are just looking to excuse discrimination and sexism.

Beyond actually carrying and birthing the baby, daddy can easily take the role of mommy, and vice versa. And neither him, or her, should be stigmated for this. If his responsibility can end with finding the right woman and then just bringing in the bacon, then so can hers - without any more condemnation than the man would face.

And regardless of any gender differences - even if women were born with "made for housework, signed Gawd" stamped on their rear end - EVERY human should be the dominant person in their own life, not accepting someone else calling the shots for them.

Mr.MantraMan said...

There ought to be a gif file for "bring out your dead" for this dumbass type who show up. Honestly folks her rambles about agency without responsibility is pathetic, like grow up already.

Another clown who should become more like the muslims he/she aligns with politically.

S1AL said...

I don't remember anyone saying that a father's responsibility ends with choosing a wife and working... That's certainly not a Biblical view.

And no, men and women cannot fulfill each other's roles adequately. If that were the case, the children raised by homosexuals wouldn't feel the need for the other gender parent in their lives.

And he's right about freedom in submission, in any arena (not just marriage). Responsibility can be a tremendous burden.

Conscientia Republicae said...

What a fascinating life, Vanir. Why isn't everyone lining up to live as you wish?

D. Lane said...

It is superior because a wife is dependent on someone else, period.

An employee, someone with a career - could have someone dependent on her.


An employee is a dependent in the exact same way a stay at home wife is dependent. The relationships governing the exchange of labor are exactly the same. Also, being a wife does not preclude having dependents.

On the subject of dependents... I stated to that vanity isn't a valid form of compensation. X can have a dependent while Y may not is a subjective appeal to emotions. I am asking you specifically how a woman puts herself in an objectively better position by choosing a career over a mate.

It is a far superior position in life, a position of strength, of making ones own way - not needing being "taken care of" like someone still a child.

This is absurd.

Career wife (A): Provides a set of skills in exchange for economic resources, dependent on a superior economic entity.

Career worker (B): Provides a set of skills in exchange for economic resources, dependent on a superior economic entity.

Child (C): Automatically conveyed economic resources for no exchange of labor, dependent on a superior economic entity.

In economic terms, A = B while C ≠ A or B. Yet, you put forward that A = C and B > A. This is retarded.

Conscientia Republicae said...

D. Lane,

Vanir isn't interested in your facts, only her feels.

verusconditio said...

And that women certainly should not be in a position where someone else is the dominant person in their life, calling the shots for them, giving them orders in any way.

Military - Out
Any job that requires a boss - out

to somehow MATTER to the roll of history and the human specie; beyond just making it keep rolling from behind the scenes, unheard and unseen to all but her closest.

Aaaand, it's all about attention. Keeping history actually rolling, without being noticed, bad, bad, bad.

Where no woman, anywhere, will HAVE to bend her knee to a man - for survival, means, protection, anything.

Yes, because women will be lining up to dig the coal needed for the power plants, to keep the turbines running, to fix the roads, take care of the sewers, tend the cows, pigs, chickens needed for food, do the fishing for tuna, shrimp, and all the other seafood we consume, drive the trucks across country, design and build the bridges, infrastructure, design our computers, phones, bury or raise the power lines. Sounds like a dream to me. Camilia Paglia and grass huts comes immediately to mind.

~ Stingray

vanir85 said...

Dr. Lane

Career OVER mate is your speculation. I would find it more advantageus for a woman to have both.

And the point is; women should not have to depend solely on a superior economic entity. They should aim for a position where they could be a superior economic entity (to a partner, and/or her own employees).

That is the best option; the superior one, like you say - and it's an option that shouldn't fall to men by default - while women are expected to always only remain dependent on someone else's superior economy.

PS: And a stay-at-home-wife has no working contract. No employee rights. She has no salary, just what her hubby deigns to give her (patronizing pat on the head and a "have fun, dear" optional).

vanir85 said...

verusconditio

Attention? That what you think leaving your mark is? What mattering boils down to? I guess if anonymity is irrelevant as long as you keep things going, and that being remembered is just vanity, then you'll have no problem with erasing the names of men who made a difference from the history books? Tear down their statues? Burn their portraits? Scratch them from memory. They kept things going, after all that's what matters, no need to give them "attention" for the details.

I'm suspecting you're deliberately misinterpreting about the military and having a boss, so won't go into that.

And keeping society running certainly sounds preferable to being adult-half-children subjugated to and dependent on those who DO run society.

D. Lane said...

I would find it more advantageus for a woman to have both.

This woman took that approach. She sounds so happy. http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a31760/balancing-mother-and-wife/?src=spr_FBPAGE&spr_id=1443_159985742

S1AL said...

Ah yes, the atheist anti-nihilist, who proclaims that "meaning" in life is determined by how many people remember you after you die, and for how long. The most meaningful members of the 20th century therefore being mass-murderers and vicious tyrants.

Noah B said...

Note than vanir85 already has the freedom she's demanding. What she actually wants is validation and approval from other people, and that means that other people's freedom to criticize or disagree with her must be eliminated. Further, society must be forced to recognize that her life choices are implicitly correct and that women who choose traditional family roles are backward-thinking historical relics.

Krul said...

vanir85 - But a woman should be able to choose as he does, walk the same path as him, without being stigmated, considered a "bad" wife or mother, being accused of hating children.

1) "Stigmated" is not a word. The word you're searching for is "stigmatized".

2) You are stigmatizing women and men who choose traditional roles.

You may say that you have the right to stigmatize whatever you choose, but the same applies to those who stigmatize neglectful mothers.

vanir85 said...

Noah B

Or, you know, I'm debating against the kind of people who would like to take AWAY my freedoms. I certainly don't expect validation from anyone here. Maybe to understand. Or simply to engage.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, after all; and women's freedoms and rights is no exception.

Krul said...

vanir85 - PS: And a stay-at-home-wife has no working contract. No employee rights. She has no salary, just what her hubby deigns to give her

"Hubby" has to live with her. A boss doesn't.

Also, a boss can and will fire her when it's profitable to do so. "Hubby" won't (divorce conventions being what they are...).

Conscientia Republicae said...

Patrick Henry would take a dim view of your use of his words, Vanir.

vanir85 said...

Krul

*sigh* a woman who choses the same path as a man, is no more neglegtful a mother than he is a father. i realize most here revel in double standards and would just love to push it back down women's throats, but that makes it no less wrong.

Conscientia Republicae said...

So many women are finding high levels of happiness trying to be men.

verusconditio said...

No, I don't think that, but women don't want to work in middle management for glory and honor. Neither do women want to wage war to expand their empire, or build bridges to cross the largest river in the States, or build a Colosseum strong enough span thousands of years, or cross a completely unknown ocean to find a passage to another country. Nor do I think your Jane Austen, Amelia Earhart, or Marie Curie did what they did for glory and honor. Nor do I think any of them did anything remotely close to most of the men whom we raise statues to.

I'm not deliberately misinterpreting anything. You said you don't believe women should be in a position of having a dominant person in their life. Calling the shots. That is exactly what the military and having a boss involve.

Who are these women that are going to keep society running as there are so many just clamoring for those glamorous jobs now? At least you are willing to admit that men do run society.

She has no salary, just what her hubby deigns to give her (patronizing pat on the head and a "have fun, dear" optional).

Your disdain for our husbands is so incredibly telling as is your disdain and hate for us women here.

I will just continue to point and laugh at all of those feminists who keep saying, you don't know what feminism actually means! You have a choice to do what you want and you have feminists to thank for that! Right . . . I'll remember this thread next time I hear that.

~ Stingray

slarrow said...

Or, you know, I'm debating against the kind of people who would like to take AWAY my freedoms.

What, the freedom to be fat and unattractive to men? Don't worry, honey child, no one wants to do that. You've made it clear that you're not the kind that we need more of. We just have to keep you from being a parasite on the children of others. (And for all your "I'm not going to reveal my gender", you kind of gave the game away just now.)

But thanks for utterly proving the point of Vox's original post. Other, less fun duties call, so everyone else: have fun with the pinata.

vanir85 said...

Krul

and she has to live with "hubby". she wouldn't have to live with her boss.
and living with someone who has some kind of genuine power over you, having to share your privacy and bed with someone who can make decicions for you like you're a child - who you depend on for "pocket money" even while a grown-ass woman. is way worse, a nightmare to any normal human

so what's your point, here?

verusconditio said...

To be clear, those men who I'm speaking of above, received glory and honor and maybe did those things partly for that reason. But to argue in anyway that they did these things for the simple reason that that they saw something they needed to have and decided to take it, is absurd.

Vanir will likely now point out a handful of women she claims did the same. If these women accomplished anything as civilization changing as these men, I will eat my hat.

~ Stingray

vanir85 said...

verusconditio

and for whatever reasons these men did what they did, women should have the same right to act as them, without stigma or any other traditionalist bs holding them back - and NOT be bound to a role where they likely will make no individual difference to history - but are assigned to act as breeders and servants and stay out of the way while men control and change the world and it's course

Rabbi B said...

"That what you think leaving your mark is?"

From our Sages we learn the following:

That the woman receives her purpose in life and accepts it and that it is the male who chooses a vocation, creates, and carves out a position for himself. The woman, however, receives her vocation and position in life by fully identifying with the vocation he has chosen and the position he has created for himself. A woman only becomes a mature human being and a full-fledged adult once she has a husband.

It is only through her union with her husband that she receives her own uniqueness, while at the same time entering into a more narrowly defined sphere in which she, too, united with her husband, will inexorably fulfill her own purpose as a human being through the vocation and position she has received only as the result of her marriage.

And PRECISELY because she is not required to choose a vocation and attain a position on her own can the woman function as the nurturer of all that is truly human in mankind.

If only more woman were determined to leave THAT kind of mark on humanity, we would be all the better for it. A big "Keep it up and keep fighting the good fight!" to all those women who are.

Krul said...

so what's your point, here?

That marriage is a close personal relationship, in which official documentation would be redundant. Employers don't care about employees at all beyond their profitability, which is why the employees insist upon contracts that assure them a certain compensation and basic protection of their rights. Spouses, on the other hand, do care about each others' well being and do not need to be compelled by contract to do what's best for one another.

Also, a husband must live daily with the consequences of his decisions that affect his wife, whereas a distant employer doesn't need to concern himself as much with her as an individual. In a practical sense, an employer has a great deal more arbitrary power over her than does a husband.

vanir85 said...

verusconditio

and to be clear, whatever contempt i hold for women who chose subjugation - it pales compared to how little you apparantly think of the female gender as a whole.

vanir85 said...

Rabbi B

Yeah. The freedom of not even being considered her own person, but someone defined by what someone else, her husband does... Not a true individual, but her uniqueness defined by her union with hubby dearest, This is not freedom, this is not a worthy existence... this is an insult to women as human beings - a goddamn JOKE!

verusconditio said...

women should have the same right to act as them

In the West, they do. Let's not pretend in any way women don't. You say free from stigma and yet feel quite free to stigmatize those of us who choose to live our lives as women. Not as by proxy men. You wish to make us into slaves (that you so fear) to your progressivism. I freely and with full agency that no one can take from me, choose to live under my husband's love, care, and headship and willingly submit to his authority as head of our home. This is a love and a freedom that you will never, ever be able to comprehend and for that, I pity you.

~ Stingray

Noah B said...

Or, you know, I'm debating against the kind of people who would like to take AWAY my freedoms. I certainly don't expect validation from anyone here. Maybe to understand. Or simply to engage.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, after all; and women's freedoms and rights is no exception.


In other words, you're a lunatic who is attacking people over the theoretical possibility that they might some day attempt to infringe on your right to be unattractive, alone, and ill-tempered. If you don't understand the difference between vigilance and picking fights with people over things they never said, then you understand very little.

verusconditio said...

it pales compared to how little you apparantly think of the female gender as a whole.

Right, because I recognize the truth of the matter that historically it has been men that have overtly shaped Western Civilization. I also recognize the beauty of the women as wives and mothers that covertly shaped that same civilization. They didn't need recognition or to behave like men to achieve the amazing things they did. I recognize them for what they actually did. I don't pity them because they didn't try to behave like men. I stand in awe of their strength and courage in their femininity.

~ Stingray

Rabbi B said...

"This is not freedom, this is not a worthy existence... this is an insult to women as human beings ...."

This is where you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Women are exempt from the task of working 'by the sweat of their brow' and from the hard labor of 'subduing the earth' so that she may be truly free to devote herself to the nobler aspects of life. In other words, to all of those endeavors which are most closely related to the true purposes of humanity.

It is the woman who makes the fruits of the man's labors and achievements usable for their true purposes, seeing to it that they are used to advance human welfare. Your worldview, which is informed by nihilism, only serves to tear down and destroy these nobler aspects of humanity. Man's purposes can never be adequately fulfilled by individuals acting alone. Men and women were fashioned for each other, and both were created for one and the same purpose.

It is your nihilistic position that is an insult to women as human beings. Why do you hate humanity so much?

SarahsDaughter said...

Keep it up and keep fighting the good fight!" to all those women who are.

Thank you Rabbi B.

I am so thankful for the women here who are fighting the good fight, who bring encouragement to one another. Cheers ladies!

“Many daughters have done well,
But you excel them all.”

vanir85 said...

Rabbi B

I do not hate humanity, only the parts that want women to be subjugated to men. Who uses excuses like women being "exempt from work" to keep them dependent on men. Who thinks only men should overtly make their mark on the world, while women remain shadows. Who thinks men should lead and women follow. Who thinks that the world should remain controlled and shaped by men while women just serve.

Yes. Those parts of humanity should be hated; no - loathed... *despised*. But thankfully that is far from all of humanity, and monsters such as these are growing less common as time marches.


There is nothing noble in being a slave, in being defined by someone else's accomplishments, in having to live for someone elses doings, in not even being considered a full human unless bound to someone elses. That is not worthy, or dignified. That is reducing someone to less than human, to someone elses shadow.

If that is noble, nobility should be torn down - and forgotten - and the world will be better for it.

Women are to make their own mark, as they wish, and be defined by what THEY choose to do - not by what their men do and what they were born as.

Rabbi B said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rabbi B said...

"If that is noble, nobility should be torn down - and forgotten - and the world will be better for it."

Tell me, then, what is more noble than nurturing and educating offspring you have helped produce so that they can grow up in your image, while being afforded every opportunity to replicate the very best within your own selves? Without the proper care and attention of a father and a mother united together in the highest purpose, they will become morally stunted, useless to themselves and to this world. How well does that work when you're out making you 'mark' on this world, a mark which will inevitably amount to nothing more than a shit-stain on the underwear of humanity.

A one time act of pushing out a child is not enough. Humanity requires a continuing process of creation on the part of both parents, a united effort of father and mother in the care, nurturing, raising and education of our children. (Something which your worldview has convinced you is anathema).

THIS concerted effort is nothing less than the continuous transfer of the NOBLEST and BEST qualities of parents to their children. There is nothing more noble and no higher or greater mark that can be made on the world. If you haven't already discovered this, you soon will, and regrettably so to be sure.

So, I ask you again, why do hate humanity so much?

vanir85 said...

Rabbi B

If this continuing process of creating depends on women being subjugated, on women being defined as less than human unless bound to a man - then it's not worth it. Just "pushing out" a few "useless" children, and then things going as well as they will, are preferable to a system that depends on women being held down in a limited role and considered lesser than men by default.

I have not made the mark I wish to make yet. But even doing nothing would still be preferable over contributing to the evil system of female degradation you laughably think of as "nobel" - at least then one caused no further HARM to this pitiful world.

If you think this system is so great, then men can take the nameless, unrecognized, drudge part, being considered less unless they marry, and be defined by what the women (whom they have to marry to be considered fully human), chose to do with their lives. I somehow doubt they will keep calling the role "noble" - in any way. Neither would you, I guess, if you had to suffer what you consider a proper role and place for a woman.

And again, I do not hate humanity. Just the parts that want women stuck as breeders and feeders while men own the world at large, the parts that want women chained into such inhuman system... who may even dare to call such a dehumanizing travesty "noble".

Jill said...

Vanir, there really is no correlation between trying to be attractive and being servile. In fact, it is a method of control that the woman has. A woman who eats well and exercises is in control of herself. And there's nothing wrong with being pleasing to another human being. Husbands try to please their wives all the time; why shouldn't wives conversely try to please them? It is awful and soul-sucking to be stingy to people you love. Most husbands I know don't believe that their wives have no unique identity, personage, or life purpose apart from them. I would suspect that a husband who wants that is abnormal or even a narcissist--and quite possibly in a co-dependent relationship, in which the wife gets her ego fed by the arrangement. So if you don't want that, don't seek out a relationship with a narcissist. But as far as leading, well... I don't know what to say about that. With some men, you aren't going to change their drive to lead. I married someone who's always in charge; that's the way it is. It's his personality, and I have no desire to change him, in the same way that I have no desire for him to change me.

D. Lane said...

Women are to make their own mark [...]

This is a photograph of a Boeing 777. Doubtless many here will agree that is an important piece of technology, as they are used across the globe to transport people and cargo from one place to another.

To construct that aircraft and the many like it, hundreds of engineers and techs, male and female alike, needed to manufacture, transport, and assemble the various components that compose the aircraft. Hundreds of hours went into that jet alone. Many of the workers responsible for its design and construction spent years in technical schools and universities learning the skills necessary to bring the idea to life. That aircraft represents their mark on the world. Those people, especially the female engineers who went against the grain to succeed in a "man's field," literally made the linked photograph possible.

The name on the fuselage is Boeing.

Noah B said...

"There is nothing noble in being a slave, in being defined by someone else's accomplishments, in having to live for someone elses doings, in not even being considered a full human unless bound to someone elses."

You make a good point. I feel like a slave because I have to pay taxes. Let's get rid of taxes so we don't have to be slaves.

vanir85 said...

Noah B

That you compare paying taxes to being stuck in a gender role where your own humanity and individuality - how you are defined as a human being - depends on marrying and who you marry... it is so bloody retarded I shouldn't even bother with this reply.

Taxes vs. utter dehumanization and being reduced to someone else's accessory in life... these are the hard questions for male misogynists... as long as it never applies to THEM.

vanir85 said...

D. Lane

I... fail to see your point. That the plane is not signed with the name of the engineers? Well, at least women not stuck as little wifey has a chance of having her own company. And hey, those female engineers still had MORE effect on the world at large than any women who just carries out her traditional duties as wifey and servant.

Eric Wilson said...

And hey, those female engineers still had MORE effect on the world at large than any women who just carries out her traditional duties as wifey and servant.

I hate to pile on at this point, but more effect than, say Newton's mother? Or Einstein's? Or Michaelangelo's?

SirThermite said...

"Women are to make their own mark, as they wish, and be defined by what THEY choose to do - not by what their men do and what they were born as.

Taken out of context, this sounds like a feminist Freudian slip. Women should be free to define their own success = it's unfair to compare a woman's workplace productivity and sacrifices to those made by men. A cosmetologist's job is just as important to society as a coal miner's, amirite?

mmaier2112 said...

vanir's a broad? Really?

Noah B said...

That you compare paying taxes to being stuck in a gender role where your own humanity and individuality - how you are defined as a human being - depends on marrying and who you marry... it is so bloody retarded I shouldn't even bother with this reply.

Not only are you completely dismissing my feelings, but you are now making fun of the profoundly handicapped in order to score a few cheap points. Why should I care about your feelings if you don't care about mine?

mmaier2112 said...

And what kind of moron cites EARHEART as anything but a Janey-come-lately-fucking-failure?

Conscientia Republicae said...

Hultgreen-Curie Syndrome for the win.

D. Lane said...

I... fail to see your point. That the plane is not signed with the name of the engineers? Well, at least women not stuck as little wifey has a chance of having her own company. And hey, those female engineers still had MORE effect on the world at large than any women who just carries out her traditional duties as wifey and servant.

Perhaps the following explanation won't soar quite so far above your head.

You have insisted that women make their mark on society. This is what we should respect. A societal mark is a distinct and lasting impression made upon the fabric of society (or a subset of it). This is different from a societal contribution, which is all but invisible as far as society is concerned, but important to its maintenance.

Whether you are male or female, following a career path is virtually guaranteed to make a contribution. You can't find private sector employment if you can't contribute something. By contrast, making a family, both for men and women, leaves a profound mark on society. Not only does it have important cultural and social consequences, the very act supplies the labor necessary to support civilization for future generations.

The percentage of people, male or female, capable of leaving a mark on society through their professional endeavors is less than the percentage of people genetically fit and conditioned to participate in professional sports. For every Bill Gates or Henry Ford or Mozart that comes into this world, there are several million who will never even amount to a blip on the radar. Most people will contribute to these marks (computer engineers, assembly workers, Mozart's assistant); they will not make them or be remembered for them.

Every parent, on the other hand, leaves a mark. They instill a sense of culture and values in the subsequent generation which in turn impacts the development and direction of the next. When little Johnny sets out to become an engineer, or little Susan attends a rally for some cause, their actions are attributed by society to their parents' success (or failure) in raising them. What's more, their parenting decisions influence the generational trajectory of their family. Economically, genetically as a species, it is the most important job that exists in this world. They are also never forgotten.

Yet, you come on here expressing your disdain for the women who have chosen family over career. Women who have chosen to dedicate themselves to nurturing future generations and the men who aid in that process. Why? Because instead of trying to be the next Marissa Mayer and likely winding up just another Boeing engineer, they chose to do something that matters a whole hell of a lot more than screwing a bolt onto a bulkhead for the gratification of their own egos.

Furthermore, you have the audacity to suggest that men who value these women above career girls are somehow misogynistic for advising women not to waste their youthful years and genetic endowments jockeying a desk and gorging themselves. That somehow suggesting women make decisions and adopt behaviors that put them in the best possible position to contribute maximally to society and leave a distinct, lasting mark is against their interests.

The point, incase you still miss it, is that your philosophy is vain. You say that women who are submissive to their husbands, keep themselves attractive, and prioritize family above career are invisible and without identity. Yet, your virtuous solution is for them to become faceless and expendable entries on someone's corporate books. Because they are going to make a lasting impact on society? No. Because it will bring into existence another generation of valued souls? No. Because it will carry forward the values and principles that built society? No. Because it'll get you a fucking pay check.

You're so enamored with what you think is empowerment that you don't even realize the only thing anyone cares about or respects is the name on the fuselage.

maniacprovost said...

vanir85, the inevitable progression of society is toward more equality. Instead of having giant corporations with one man in charge, and level after level of subordinates down to the men drudging in the ditches at the bottom, and their wives humbly serving them and raising children, ideally people will learn to organize themselves and be free people with their own businesses, like you said. Instead of taking orders like a slave, and dying anonymously in debt, they will freely exchange their labor for the goods produced by others.

Now it really won't ever happen that everyone is a free agent, sharing in the wealth produced by society, because most people are lazy, ignorant, and lack the initiative of a salmon migrating upstream, but we can always strive to approach that ideal on a small scale. So let's say that that's the case.

You have a woman who is a freelance writer, contributing to Kotaku and The New Yorker on a routine basis, and a man who is some kind of industrial designer. He works on a Macbook at Starbucks and makes money from kickstarter campaigns. They decide to copulate, and so they sign a contract wherein they must both provide for the well being of their future offspring. This contract isn't a "marriage," because marriage is something homosexuals can do, whereas reproduction is not.

So now, they are both perfectly free agents, not dominated by anyone, but each of them is perfectly empowered. The man can work several hours a day on a computer in his home office (saving money for the baby by drinking k-cups now). Meanwhile the woman continues writing while she gestates the fetus. Obviously it would be unfair for her to work the same hours as her mate, AND deal with pregnancy, doctor's appointments, etc., so she cuts back her hours and thus her income a bit.

Once the baby is born this escalates. She can't have her mandated 5 week vacation any more, because there is no vacationing from an infant. She chooses to breastfeed to improve the immune response of her child, because the immunity of an infant to airborne disease is EXTREMELY important to everyone. Of course the couple makes sure they get their child its monthly vaccinations for the first 5 years of its life as well, but who would give a baby shots of bioengineered goop to boost its immune system, and then refuse to breastfeed? Well, so that takes a lot of time. it;s hard to type while feeding, and it tends to wake her up in the middle of the night and make her doze off in the daytime. Since she's literally holding the baby, she changes the diapers at that time. It's a lot of work! So she cuts back her hours further and drops her advice column at Slate.

Now the sperm donor changes diapers for much of the day as well, because the woman is not a baby-tending wife-bot slave, along with doing many physically demanding tasks, like tending their organic garden. But he must 'specialize' primarily on his industrial design work. Specialization is an economic concept you may have heard of. By observing pack animals and insects, we can see that specialization by members of a group is a law of nature.

After a while, the pair may even resume having sex with each other. But what's this? Their contributions to the contractually mandated baby trust fund are not the same! While the man is primarily providing money, the woman is providing labor directly. It's almost like they are a small nation that has both domestic industry and exports.

Now, the woman is a whore with no free agency. It's called patriarchy.

Retrenched said...

Feminists say that women are not inferior to men, but then they tell women that they must do everything that men do in order to be fully human, and they will belittle and even vilify women who refuse to do so.

Natalie said...

Women have had to fight tooth and nail in some parts of the country to get maternity and postpartum care that facilitates maternal/infant and family bonding, and this person comes along and says that women will never be fully autonomous free agents until we can push out our brats and get back to work because motherhood is a ridiculous and demeaning social convention anyway.

I've seen a few mean and ignorant mother-haters, but this person takes the prize.

Conscientia Republicae said...

What Vanir is doing is parroting William Z. Foster. See if this sounds familiar:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan4.htm

mraismra said...

vanir85: "Will be interesting to see if this is deleted."
My observation as a long-time lurker: Why do the rabbits that bound unbidden into the wolves' den think that they will be asked to leave? This just never gets old.

"grown-ass woman/human being/person" ==> classic female 3rd gen feminist "tell"

Markku said...

Vanir is someone who would never be cherished by a man, so of course she sees only subjugation in the dynamic. My opinion is, let these women earn their bread if they can.

cailcorishev said...

And what kind of moron cites EARHEART as anything but a Janey-come-lately-fucking-failure?

The kind who normally talks to people who are ignorant and easily cowed, so she's used to being able to toss off a couple of disqualifications and some shaming, and watch them jump into line. She's not used to dealing with people who don't mind holding opinions outside the mainstream, or whose knowledge of history goes deeper than the Sesame Street level.

You'll notice that she has no plan B; when the shaming and disqualification don't work, she....moves the goalposts a bit and tries more shaming and disqualification. It's all she's got, because it's all she's ever needed.

Markku said...

And of course fat women are attractive. Just hang two from the ceiling and do the Cavendish experiment.

Conscientia Republicae said...

It is pretty funny to see her keep digging and repeating and revealing more of her hollow soul in the process.

Derrick Bonsell said...

I don't think as humans that we were made to serve as cogs in a machine, it is just the role that we have found ourselves in with first the rise of agriculture and then the industrial revolution.

Ideally the place for men and women is in the home and community but that will simply not be the case. Feminists have mostly got what they wanted: Women are now told they need a career just like they once imagined men have and that's the best thing that can happen for the 1% types. Better worker bees.

A man's worth is still defined by what he can bring to his household. Despite the ongoing decline in the success of men this is still the expectation. For their part women aren't any happier than when they strove to be mothers and housewives.

No one in this thread as far as I've seen has said that women should be barred from working. In fact women have worked from the beginning. Many women had no choice. What people here question is the wisdom of telling women that they have no worth as mother but only as another cog in the corporate machine. This is not the only message women receive but it is the one that we see here.

LP 999/Eliza said...

Derrick, nah, I was going to jump that point but I choose to elevate beauty above all else. I mean, place 5 women in a room and toss them 'their figure' topic and watch us spin for hours.

Man. Cla. said...

I couldn't help but notice when she said "i wonder", that she did not capitalize the letter referring to herself.

I've read somewhere how that can be indicative of very low self esteem.

Though it won't show up with auto correct. My guess is she has issues.

vanir85 said...

D. Lane

Your romanticising of a life lived in submission is hopeless.

That paycheck? That means women don't have to keep themselves attractive to and submit to a man. Despite you being into it; submission, to most, equals the death of the human spirit - that spirit that is supposed to take life by the throat and challenge it - to make what one can of it oneself.

You might be happy living on your knees, most of us would rather risk die standing.

And guess what? What your children do, is their accomplishment. If little Susie becomes an engineer and invents some new gadget, that is her accomplishment - not her parents. And in your case it would be an accomplishment done despite her parents trying to brainwash her to be a submissive, dreamless serf to her oh-so-great head of household, instead of a skilled and independent human being, making her own way.

Just keeping the generations going, and nothing else - not even being the dominant person in your own life - makes you more a faceless cog in a machine than even the lowest anonymous engineer.

vanir85 said...

cailcorishev

Earhart still lived more, did more, than if she had just silently accepted her crap traditional female role.

Daring and failing, is still better than daring nothing. She is worth remembering, the average dutybound and subjugated wifey of her time, is not.

vanir85 said...

maniacprovost

And as the baby grows to a small child, they start switching roles - she focuses more on her job, he does more of the unpaid work in the house. In the end, they practically switch roles.

Is the man now a whore? Is it now matriarchy? Is this for some bs chauvinist reason a worse solution than the original end?

vanir85 said...

Noah B

Are you trying to mimick some strawman you have created of SJWs?

vanir85 said...

Retrenched

Women are not inferior to men. They are not for a role where they end up dependent on men - or where they may even be subjugated to men on a personal level. Women should not do "what men do" - women should do what free and proud people do - earn their own means, make their own way, make what mark they can through skill and mind.

dw said...

"that spirit that is supposed to take life by the throat and challenge it"

The only thing women want to do less than this is sleep with a Gamma. You honestly think it was just male oppression that kept women from building rockets or serving in war and not just their own invincible disinterest? No, you don't honestly think that. Ive met your type before: you hate being a woman, you think you got the raw deal out of life, and this comes from the fact that the Alphas just aren't attracted to you. Like most women in your position, you take a "i don't need them anyway!" attitude only after they reject you. And now it's your life's work to try and convince other women that not only are you happy in your position, but they can be too. The whole thing is a lie, and you know that of course, but hey, misery loves company right? Gotta justify your lot in life somehow!

vanir85 said...

dw

Yes. It was certainly male oppression that kept women away from partaking in larger society. When we started getting rid of that oppression, women started partaking in ways they never had before. Women fought their way out of subjugation and their limited traditional role, they were not forced from it at gunpoint.

As for the rest of your rant. Thinking you know better what a person really thinks, than that person does himself or herself - is often a sign of serious mental disorder - often delusions or massive control issues, You might want to contact a professional.

dw said...

"Yes. It was certainly male oppression that kept women away from partaking in larger society."

And women could be oppressed because they're totally our equals, right?

"When we started getting rid of that oppression, women started partaking in ways they never had before."

Like pornography, BDSM, slut walks, and frat parties, for instance.

"Women fought their way out of subjugation and their limited traditional role, they were not forced from it at gunpoint. "

No, they were forced out of their preferred roles as housewives by bitter feminist hags like Gloria Steinem in the 1960s. Women wanted to be housewives, they enjoyed it, its what they were made for, but some harpies decided that they shouldn't be allowed to make that choice because most of them would pick it in preference to a job. So women joined the workforce, and they have fucking hated it ever since.

"As for the rest of your rant. Thinking you know better what a person really thinks, than that person does himself or herself - is often a sign of serious mental disorder - often delusions or massive control issues, You might want to contact a professional."

Interesting. So in that circus in your head observing and recognizing patterns of behavior and drawing conclusions from that is a sign of insanity? Dear God no wonder women suck at science.

vanir85 said...

Men could oppress women due to physical advantage, that's it - and being stronger than someone does not make it right to take dominion over them.

Certainly, women got the freedom to control their own bodies. A very good thing - despite your apparant issues with female sexuality. They could also live more free in general, instead of being subjugated by men and being pushed into the limited trad gender role. You think people being subjugated is preferable to women having independence and liberty? Because what? The big surprise that free people no longer choose the role and place they before were forced into? Well, that is kinda the point with freedom and not living as someone elses doormats,

(and why are you opposed to BDSM? it's just the sexual expression of the dominant-submissive stick you types seem so enamored with - just with all the bullshit justifications removed. it's master and slave, dom and sub. with no pretence of there being nobility or "something greater" about it all)

And I'm pretty certain Gloria Steinhem held a gun to no-ones head. In fact; guns would have been needed to keep women still subjugated, once the lies of patriarchy started falling and actual, genuine, liberty and lives of self-determination was within reach for women.

And guns, force, are the only thing that will ever get women back in the chauvinist hell you people oh-so-dearly want them trapped in. That is the truth. That it what it takes to get free people back into subjugation and servitude.

Cluttermonkey said...

Vanir, stop trolling and get back to the kitchen.

D. Lane said...

That paycheck? That means women don't have to keep themselves attractive to and submit to a man. Despite you being into it; submission, to most, equals the death of the human spirit - that spirit that is supposed to take life by the throat and challenge it - to make what one can of it oneself.

You might be happy living on your knees, most of us would rather risk die standing.

And guess what? What your children do, is their accomplishment. If little Susie becomes an engineer and invents some new gadget, that is her accomplishment - not her parents. And in your case it would be an accomplishment done despite her parents trying to brainwash her to be a submissive, dreamless serf to her oh-so-great head of household, instead of a skilled and independent human being, making her own way.


Evidently the 777 was a poor example. The concepts being discussed here are not above your head. They aren't even in orbit.

Vanir, stop trolling and get back to the kitchen.

I guarantee you she can't cook.

vanir85 said...

Cluttermonkey

"Vanir, stop trolling and get back to the kitchen."

Nah. Got a tamed male for such drudgework.

D. Lane said...

Called it --> Nah. Got a tamed male for such drudge work.

vanir85 said...

D, Lane

I got the point you were making about the 777, after the explanation. I simply think you are wrong.

Any path of freedom is preferable to one of submission. And little Susie (becoming an engineer or not) is better off with a single mom, than a dad whom she is brainwashed to think is her mother's rightftul "head" - just because he was born a man and her mother a woman.

vanir85 said...

D, Lane

"Called it --> Nah. Got a tamed male for such drudge work."

Jealous, I see. Shouldn't you get off the net, and crawl over to ask your most-high-lord-and-master permission to make him a sandwich, or serve his needs, or something?

D. Lane said...

Jealous, I see.

I'm a dude, lady. Or, as you would see it, a Patriarchal Motherfucker.

vanir85 said...

D. Lane

,,, Or as I would see it; a man who seems to hate the idea of women treating and using men, like he thinks men should treat and use women.

D. Lane said...

Or as I would see it; a man who seems to hate the idea of women treating and using men, like he thinks men should treat and use women.

Hate? Not at all. I couldn't possibly care less what some random chick does with her life or relationships. But my personal feelings do not change the objective reality. Your philosophy is demonstrably nonsensical and misogynistic. That's all we've established here.

You see, I don't hate you. I don't hate the idea that you do whatever it is that you do.

I'm guilty of a far worse thing: I think you're an idiot.

Cluttermonkey said...

Vanir, there's nothing to hate about the natural state of things. Those that rail against it shall receive their comeuppance.

I want to thank you for the laughs we've all had at your expense, before you leave. A heartfelt thank you, because you deserve it, running like an idiot against a brick wall, falling on your ass, then standing up and running in again.

And just one more thing, we really are the your worst nightmares. We'll come in the night and snatch all your freedom to abuse yourself. The way you and your lot act, speak and empty their mental bowels on the internet is creating more of us by the minute. We literally want to see you in chains. Seeing you squirm is just encouraging us.

vanir85 said...

Cluttermonkey

"We literally want to see you in chains."

I'm already quite aware of that, despite many here trying to deny it. Thx for verifying.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 208   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.