Every day I see more, and more, and more examples that illustrate beyond the slightest doubt that ... (almost all, the overwhelmingly vast majority, so much so that a a woman who doesn't fit is as rare as a unicorn nowadays) women are simply incapable of rational thought. That the Victorians (and every country and culture going back to pre-history) had it right, that women are flighty, easily led and manipulated, prone to idiocy and never, ever consider consequences beyond what immediate (irrelevant fashion, status or virtue-signalling) 'profit' for them (and you can forget children, women patently see, and use them as 'property' to gain them status, money and power ... or cheerfully kill them without regret if they are 'inconvenient').
Blame the scientists and doctors (I'd suggest you see how many are also women, not to mention those pushing, enabling and funding all this) if you will, but "demand creates supply" and the real blame should lie where it really resides ... with the deviants virtue-signalling for 'attention'.
And ... we let these brain-dead scum vote (western civilisation committed a long, slow, painful suicide when it 'gave' the vote to women).
I think there are too many women in positions of power and authority. And the cause is... Too many weak men. And As far as politicians are concerned, they all crave for the title but run away from the responsibilities the title brings with it. In my view, that's why so many of them would rather all the decision-making and intellectual processes are done by someone else; in the EU, the UN, the WEF and so on. When we were in the EU, it suited them to be able to agree that things need to change while saying out of the other side of their mouths that they were unable to do anything because the bureaucrats in Brussels held all the power. And we still have these weak, cowardly men around, they haven't been flushed out of the system, be it Westminster or Whitehall.
I'll just point out that you could predict which countries would, and did, have the most immediate knee-jerk panic reactions, the most draconian "lock-down" policies, and the most hypocritical politicians (do as we say, not as we do), by ... counting the numbers of women in said countries governments.
Seriously, the figures speak for themselves.
"Weak men" perhaps some, but men are 'programmed' to provide and protect 'their' women, and so will allow (even demand) such 'rights and privileges' for them, forgetting that all the rest will get them too. Then there's the fact that with women 'given' the vote they vote "tribally" in lock-step (determined by fashion, virtue-signalling and emotion). With such a voting bloc, unless men (and specifically white, British, straight, Christian men - as every other demographic votes en-bloc for "people like us" and "for our benefit") start doing the same, this will never end. men 'are' starting to wake-up to this dystopian nightmare, but too little, too late.
Politicians are, almost by definition, corrupt, selfish narcissists. They merely pander to the 'voting blocs', they could care less what the policies are, what damage they do, as long as 'they' get to stay in power (and profit).
Almost everything we knew, and now know categorically, would damage country, culture and society (from welfare to no-fault divorce, gay marriage and trans, etc., etc., etc.) was ... 'only' demanded, voted for and pushed through with "the womens vote" (in almost every case men universally, or at worst overwhelmingly, voted against them).
And ... all those women in positions of power, got there by parachute, unqualified and incapable, only by quotas and affirmative action - without which almost no woman would be hired for ... anything.
Look to the make-up of the "civil service", the bloated catastrophe of the NHS, social services, etc. and what you see is ... "jobs for the girls" (well-paid, high-status, air-conditioned, safe non-jobs whose only real purpose is to buy votes, and let women living as parasites on 'the system' pretend to be independent) [a study in NZ some decades ago showed that 'no' woman, at any point in her life, was even close to a net contributor, whereas only a male who was sick and a pensioner came close to matching the 'average' women as a 'drain'].
It's all gone on so long, is so wide-spread now that the only way it will ever end is to ... burn it all down and start again.
Prior to WW1 "the vote" was only 'given' to those who owned property, and thus paid tax i.e. "had skin in the game", only those who paid got to decide how that money was to be spent (women were not specifically refused it, it was simply that relatively few owned property).
WW1 revealed that, in fact, 'all' men had "skin in the game" since their very lives were at risk, and deserved the right to decide where, when, if 'they' would be expected to risk all. So universal male suffrage was, I think, justifiable as circumstances (pre welfare et al) existed then.
Women then campaigned and demanded suffrage too because ... "Wah, vagina!". Giving in was the biggest mistake ever made, and has resulted (as we experience daily) in the slow-motion, excruciating suicide of 'the West' (and arguably civilisation). The Tytler quotation "... vote themselves largesse from the public treasury" was, unfortunately, only the beginning of the damage that idiotic decision imposed on us.
To be clear, I am not even vaguely a misogynist, I merely recognise the hypocrisy of feminist claims that the one in a million, exceptional women (who were doctors, lawyers, engineers and MP's pre the great upheaval) were "representative of all women" (and the additional assumption that the benefits enjoyed by a tiny minority of 'elite' men represented what all men enjoyed).
I suspect future generations will view feminism in the same light as marxism/fascism (one can, and I do, argue that both, at root, are attempts for 'members' to be ... treated as women were, protected, provided for and given status for 'what they are', not 'what they do'), as a blatant, destructive 'evil' (whilst sitting by the fire, in their furs, chipping flint).
I find this stuff disgusting. Just because it's possible to do these things doesn't mean it has to be done. I think it's an abomination.
ReplyDeleteAnd the constant shoving it in our faces is surely calculated too...
DeleteHave we reached bottom yet, or is there further to go?
ReplyDeleteAnd the father... what of him?
He was the Turkey Baster.
DeleteEvery day I see more, and more, and more examples that illustrate beyond the slightest doubt that ... (almost all, the overwhelmingly vast majority, so much so that a a woman who doesn't fit is as rare as a unicorn nowadays) women are simply incapable of rational thought. That the Victorians (and every country and culture going back to pre-history) had it right, that women are flighty, easily led and manipulated, prone to idiocy and never, ever consider consequences beyond what immediate (irrelevant fashion, status or virtue-signalling) 'profit' for them (and you can forget children, women patently see, and use them as 'property' to gain them status, money and power ... or cheerfully kill them without regret if they are 'inconvenient').
ReplyDeleteBlame the scientists and doctors (I'd suggest you see how many are also women, not to mention those pushing, enabling and funding all this) if you will, but "demand creates supply" and the real blame should lie where it really resides ... with the deviants virtue-signalling for 'attention'.
And ... we let these brain-dead scum vote (western civilisation committed a long, slow, painful suicide when it 'gave' the vote to women).
I think there are too many women in positions of power and authority. And the cause is...
DeleteToo many weak men.
And
As far as politicians are concerned, they all crave for the title but run away from the responsibilities the title brings with it. In my view, that's why so many of them would rather all the decision-making and intellectual processes are done by someone else; in the EU, the UN, the WEF and so on.
When we were in the EU, it suited them to be able to agree that things need to change while saying out of the other side of their mouths that they were unable to do anything because the bureaucrats in Brussels held all the power.
And we still have these weak, cowardly men around, they haven't been flushed out of the system, be it Westminster or Whitehall.
I'll just point out that you could predict which countries would, and did, have the most immediate knee-jerk panic reactions, the most draconian "lock-down" policies, and the most hypocritical politicians (do as we say, not as we do), by ... counting the numbers of women in said countries governments.
DeleteSeriously, the figures speak for themselves.
"Weak men" perhaps some, but men are 'programmed' to provide and protect 'their' women, and so will allow (even demand) such 'rights and privileges' for them, forgetting that all the rest will get them too. Then there's the fact that with women 'given' the vote they vote "tribally" in lock-step (determined by fashion, virtue-signalling and emotion). With such a voting bloc, unless men (and specifically white, British, straight, Christian men - as every other demographic votes en-bloc for "people like us" and "for our benefit") start doing the same, this will never end. men 'are' starting to wake-up to this dystopian nightmare, but too little, too late.
Politicians are, almost by definition, corrupt, selfish narcissists. They merely pander to the 'voting blocs', they could care less what the policies are, what damage they do, as long as 'they' get to stay in power (and profit).
Almost everything we knew, and now know categorically, would damage country, culture and society (from welfare to no-fault divorce, gay marriage and trans, etc., etc., etc.) was ... 'only' demanded, voted for and pushed through with "the womens vote" (in almost every case men universally, or at worst overwhelmingly, voted against them).
And ... all those women in positions of power, got there by parachute, unqualified and incapable, only by quotas and affirmative action - without which almost no woman would be hired for ... anything.
Look to the make-up of the "civil service", the bloated catastrophe of the NHS, social services, etc. and what you see is ... "jobs for the girls" (well-paid, high-status, air-conditioned, safe non-jobs whose only real purpose is to buy votes, and let women living as parasites on 'the system' pretend to be independent) [a study in NZ some decades ago showed that 'no' woman, at any point in her life, was even close to a net contributor, whereas only a male who was sick and a pensioner came close to matching the 'average' women as a 'drain'].
It's all gone on so long, is so wide-spread now that the only way it will ever end is to ... burn it all down and start again.
While I agree with the view of "No taxation without representation", I also hold to the view of "No representation without taxation".
DeleteI'm a little more Heinlein myself.
DeletePrior to WW1 "the vote" was only 'given' to those who owned property, and thus paid tax i.e. "had skin in the game", only those who paid got to decide how that money was to be spent (women were not specifically refused it, it was simply that relatively few owned property).
WW1 revealed that, in fact, 'all' men had "skin in the game" since their very lives were at risk, and deserved the right to decide where, when, if 'they' would be expected to risk all. So universal male suffrage was, I think, justifiable as circumstances (pre welfare et al) existed then.
Women then campaigned and demanded suffrage too because ... "Wah, vagina!". Giving in was the biggest mistake ever made, and has resulted (as we experience daily) in the slow-motion, excruciating suicide of 'the West' (and arguably civilisation). The Tytler quotation "... vote themselves largesse from the public treasury" was, unfortunately, only the beginning of the damage that idiotic decision imposed on us.
To be clear, I am not even vaguely a misogynist, I merely recognise the hypocrisy of feminist claims that the one in a million, exceptional women (who were doctors, lawyers, engineers and MP's pre the great upheaval) were "representative of all women" (and the additional assumption that the benefits enjoyed by a tiny minority of 'elite' men represented what all men enjoyed).
I suspect future generations will view feminism in the same light as marxism/fascism (one can, and I do, argue that both, at root, are attempts for 'members' to be ... treated as women were, protected, provided for and given status for 'what they are', not 'what they do'), as a blatant, destructive 'evil' (whilst sitting by the fire, in their furs, chipping flint).