Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Women are not weak


But female strength is very different than male strength.


Read Little House on the Prairie sometime. Those were not weak women. They were considerably hardier than the average man today. But their strengths, and their stories, are very different than Conan the Barbarian or Gaius Julius Caesar.

29 comments:

Hammerli280 said...

And this is where the feminists make their fundamental error. Women and men are not equal...nor unequal. They are complementary. Nuts and bolts, bowls and spoons. Cultures that forget this don't last long.

DSeidel said...

Women are inherently weaker, in more ways than one. It's hilarious to see the gymnastics in logic one has to go through to argue otherwise. However, that does not make them unequal to men as individuals or to a society.

Aeoli Pera said...

Nor are they stupid. What men often take for stupidity is really just a lack of curiosity. They would all be straight-A STEM students iff there were high-SMV men to be found on the other side of those degrees.

paworldandtimes said...

A woman's complementary strength comes from her devotion to her man, who in turn is devoted to his ideals.

A woman's innate strength is her psychological endurance. The pussy is built to take a pounding. If misdirected, a woman's endurance will wear away at her man like water on rock. If properly channeled, she supports him even toward greatness.

PA

MidKnight (#138) said...

Most "strong, independent" women these days seem to say that in an effort to cover up their insecurity, and that few of them could hold a candle to supposedly "oppressed" late 1800's women who helped manage family businesses, ran households, who could shoot, had useful life skills like gardening and cooking, and could kill food without being squeamish.

dh said...

MidKnight--

Yeah, I think somewhere we all have a grandma or great grand ma that is borderline legendary. You have your own kids and do what you can to raise them to be 25% of the person their ancestors were and feel lucky if you hit 10%.

Jack Amok said...

Most "strong, independent" women these days seem to say that in an effort to cover up their insecurity, and that few of them could hold a candle to supposedly "oppressed" late 1800's women...

Very true. I think the main two dysfunctional types we deal with today - Gammas for the men and 'strong, feminist women' for the women - are really people who are too emotionally weak to live up to the standards of their sex. So they instead try to be what they other sex is supposed to be, where they have a built-in excuse for falling short. It's sadly amusing that both (explicitly in the Gamma's case, implicitly by her actions in the feminist's case) argue that the other sex is the better sex.

Daniel said...

Strong and independent are antonyms. Leave it to wonen to think they go together.

Strength is a network, a muscle grouping, a body, not singular and isolated.

This also explains why women avoid free weights like the plague.

michael savell said...

They are no so much strong as controlling.All women like to control their man's strengths and harangue their weaknesses.It has been so for at least 100 years.

totenhenchen said...

Yeah, I think somewhere we all have a grandma or great grand ma that is borderline legendary.

My grandma (dad's side) chopped her own firewood right up until the day before she passed away at age 95.

totenhenchen said...

Yeah, I think somewhere we all have a grandma or great grand ma that is borderline legendary.

My grandma (dad's side) chopped her own firewood right up until the day before she passed away at age 95.

justaguy said...

Are we talking weakness as a genetic trait or weakness as a cultural trait?

Culturally: Today's western culture teaches women to be nothing but weak and helpless, relying on the state to enforce their whims. Older western culture did not do such a disservice to its women.

DNA: DNA gives a female less muscle mass, muscle strength and endurance, but we don't know the hormonal effects on the brain to assess strength of character. We know that men and women are different emotionally but how to assess value to those different characteristics is harder. Some characteristics have better applications in different situations-- assessing the value, and is that value transitory or leading to future generations is the hard point.

rycamor said...

Example of a strong woman from history: Irena Sendler, who saved 2500 babies from the Holocaust. And she's actually rather attractive and feminine.

And contrast her attitude to the strutting, braying, loudmouth feminists of today who think they're being "brave" by having a cushy career, or perhaps because they engage in some disgusting aberration.

rycamor said...

Sorry, second link was meant to be http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/15/secondworldwar.poland

Eric Medvich said...

WHO BITCH THIS IS?!?!?

APL said...

Aeoli Pera: "They would all be straight-A STEM students iff there were high-SMV men to be found on the other side of those degrees."

Intelligence above a certain threshold in a woman isn't important to a man looking for a mate. He certainly doesn't look at a woman and say, 'Cor! what a pair of STEM degrees on her!'.

Hammerli280 said...

"They would all be straight-A STEM students iff there were high-SMV men to be found on the other side of those degrees."

There often are. The computer people may fit the stereotype, but engineers? High quality.

Timmy3 said...

Let's be clear, a strong woman sticks it to her man. She doesn't use her strength to defend herself. She's a phony.

AmyJ said...

@rycamor

I wish I could unsee that second link. Vomit.

Vogon X said...

'“You don’t say it to men”: Why Carey Mulligan hates the phrase "strong woman"'

Yet another confirmation, as if it were needed, that no matter how much society bends over backwards to pander to feminists, the complaining will never stop. The lesson: just ignore it.

Sokrates said...

http://freedompowerandwealth.com

Many women try to be more masculine than their husbands and boyfriends.

tonsplace said...

Little house on the prairie was written by a woman so I assume it it mostly bullshit attention whoring

Arthur Isaac said...

"Ingalls-Wilder", need we say more?

Cail Corishev said...

She was a bit of a feminist for her time. But that "for her time" makes a big difference. Also, she wrote about what happened, not whatever fantasy she might have had. The books (and even the TV show) portray quite traditional, wholesome roles.

Unknown said...

All the copies I've seen of the Little House series show her name as "Laura Ingalls Wilder". Not hyphenated, but keeping her maiden name as a middle name.

tz said...

http://www.salon.com/2008/09/10/palin_10/ - see the section on Abigail Becker
Also for the irony
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/nov/26/spike-lee-female-students-should-go-on-sex-strike-to-combat-campus

Desiderius said...

My Antonia is another good source.

Rabbi B said...

"Little house on the prairie was written by a woman so I assume it it mostly bullshit attention whoring"

Yes . . . and by a woman who refused to say "obey" as part of her vows when she got married. In "These Happy Golden Years" Laura told Manley that she will love him, but she will never obey him, and wanted to make sure the wedding vows did not include the word obey.

Rabbi B said...

"Little house on the prairie was written by a woman so I assume it it mostly bullshit attention whoring"

Yes . . . and by a woman who refused to say "obey" as part of her vows when she got married. In "These Happy Golden Years" Laura told Manley that she will love him, but she will never obey him, and wanted to make sure the wedding vows did not include the word obey.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.