The terrible cost of make believe.

Vox has a post up at Alpha Game titled Equality has consequences linking to a breathless Daily Mail piece: Bouncer punches a woman in the FACE after she takes a swing at him in shocking video footage, but was it self-defence or ‘disgusting’ male aggression?

We live in a strange time, as while the Daily Mail is disturbed that a man would strike back when assaulted by a mere woman, we also are told that women must be allowed into all units in the military since they are able to fight just like men.  While the Daily Mail complains about a weak man screwing feminism up by defending himself from a kickass gal, NBC News is reporting that Norway now has an all female special forces unit* where the women are just like the men:

…the female soldiers are just as capable as their male counterparts.

At the same time our entertainment is filled with images of kickass gals single handedly beating up groups of men.  Unfortunately, with even our armed forces getting in on the fantasy, many women don’t understand that this is just make believe.  This leads to tragic outcomes as women attempt to act out the feminist fantasy;  instead of beating up men they wind up dead or seriously injured.  Several years back I wrote about a female Marine in Iraq who died after attacking a Navy Sailor.

…she had been spending downtime with other Marines and a group of U.S. Navy sailors when one sailor snarled, “Marines ain’t shit” at them.

Enraged, Annie rushed the sailor. “I’m going to show you what a Marine is!” she shouted, and proceeded to knock the much larger rival to the ground.

According to the investigator’s account, the sailor then jumped back to his feet, grabbed Annie, and body-slammed her. Her head whip-lashed onto concrete.

The scuffle was broken up by witnesses, and Annie retreated without seeking medical attention. But within a few hours, she complained to commanding officers and fellow Marines of a headache. The next day, she was dead.

More recently Vox wrote about a college age woman who punched a man on Halloween and ended up in a coma after he punched her back.  Nearly six months later, the young woman is still in the hospital.  Her aunt maintains a public facebook page where she posts frequent status updates, including this one from yesterday:

Update. Emily continues to have good days and bad. The neurosurgeon at NYU are looking over her case, and we hope to get ideas from them on what to do next. Right now though she still has the external drain in which they are draining fluid continuously. All the fluid tested from the drain showed no signs of infection. I am currently having discussions with her neurosurgeon on where to put the shunt (pleural space of her lung or abdomen) when we do put it back in. She remains weak on the left side especially her arm, but continues to receive therapy daily to help with strengthening. Her appetite is poor lately and they are feeding her continuously right now via the feeding tube in her nose, but they do continue to try and offer her food throughout the day. The nurses did take her outside yesterday, and she enjoyed getting some sun. Hope you all had a Blessed Easter with your families. Thank you all for your continued support and prayers!

This fantasy comes at a huge price, and that price will only get higher.

*HT Lost Patrol

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Daily Mail, Fantasy vs Reality, Moxie, Ugly Feminists, Vox Day, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

136 Responses to The terrible cost of make believe.

  1. Major Styles says:

    But in Star Wars Rogue One, I learned that women can do ANYTHING! Even Chewbacca preferred riding shotgun through space with a strong, independent woman, as opposed to the bromance he had with Han Solo (who’s like, totally gotten old).

  2. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Well, reality is coming….. Testosterone kills feminism. Always has. What? Do you think this is the first time women have gotten out of hand? Hardly. The Kurdish women who are fighting the jihadhis know the score. They’re raped and finally beheaded if they’re captured.

    Here’s the point…..Islam will behead and enslave American women as they have the opportunity. Fact is, if an American woman has gone to college, she’s a feminist. American men can’t afford such a nightmare.

    So, where does all this end up? Stupid women who believe they can fight men? Right…..That whole beheading thing is straight up factual.

  3. Reede says:

    It’s a sad result of egalitarianism. I should mention Millennial boys are pretty much the same as they have been sheltered from fights since they were kids. Most Millennials have big mouths but turn into jelly when you pop them in the face or pin them by the neck. It’s a generation of cowards, men and women included.. and if you fight anyways, like I did, you’re sent to spec ed or drugged with Ritalin.

  4. Reede says:

    @Easttexasfatboy

    Muslims that are born and raised in the US have become very westernized lately. There’s nothing in Islam that forbids women from work or education so they wind up becoming very similar to us, except its kind of like hypergamy without promiscuity.

  5. Centurion says:

    Being military (retired) I’m occasionally asked by smug crypto-feminists about women in uniform and how I like that. I take quiet pleasure in saying something along this line:

    “I’m fine with it as long as they can do their job competently.

    “Further, with all this drama over equality and the like, I think women should take the same chances we do of losing a foot, an eye and catching a bullet square in the face. It’s time they ‘manned-up’ and shouldered their responsibility to share in defending the nation, and I don’t count supply and admin jobs in that.”

    The reply is usually a retreat: “Oh well, ummmm… Well let’s talk about something else. That’s a bit heavy, dontcha think?”

  6. Anon says:

    Unfortunately, with even our armed forces getting in on the fantasy, many women don’t understand that this is just make believe.

    I have long maintained that women have far less ability to distinguish television from reality.

    Dalrock once had an example of a woman who divorced because ‘her marriage did not match what she was seeing on television’…

    I have no sympathy for women who self-destruct due to this shortcoming.

  7. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Islam is a knife culture. Boys grow up fighting with knives. Fighting produces testosterone. We have a warrior class, true enough…..But the average American young male is a mangina. A true product of feminism.

    When I was a boy, social standing meant you fight….Period. Win or lose. And, yes, there was nothing fair about it. Might actually makes right. The strong persecute the weak. But we learned.

    There’s a fearful reaping headed this way. You didn’t believe abortion doesn’t have civilization ending consequences​, did you? Baal worship? Ring any bells?

    There are a few women who can actually fight a man. How many can fight for their lives with a bayonet?

  8. Pingback: The terrible cost of make believe. | @the_arv

  9. Kirk Forlatt says:

    Three count-em-THREE female Swedish cops tried to arrest a single vibrant asylum seeker, with predictable results. Fantasy is expensive.

  10. Oscar says:

    @ Anon says:
    April 18, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    “I have no sympathy for women who self-destruct due to this shortcoming.”

    Far more men than women will be sacrificed to this fantasy; their careers, their health and their lives.

  11. Easttexasfatboy says:

    How about that antifa woman who used her face to stop a fist? Smiles. Here’s the thing….. Violence doesn’t care. Nope, not a bit. Women want to fight like men? Well, your suffering has just begun. Oh well…..

  12. Anon says:

    Oscar,

    Far more men than women will be sacrificed to this fantasy; their careers, their health and their lives.

    That too.

    That is why it is important for men not the whiteknight for any women other than those who they a) know, and b) deserve help under a high standard of proof.

    This is why democracy is, ultimately, not a viable system in its current form. A democracy always devolves into a feminist police state + goddess cult.

  13. Jim says:

    I have a family member who was loudly bleating about women in the military, and how anything a man can do a woman can do just as well.

    I looked right at her and quietly asked, “If you and I were in a fight right now, is there any doubt in your mind that I could beat you to death with my bare hands and you wouldn’t be able to stop me?”

    She got very quiet and my aunt said we should move on to something more lighthearted.

    I didn’t mean to come across as some chest-thumping asshole. But, come on, that’s a fantasy if you really think a 5’5″ woman is as physically capable as a 6’4″ man.

  14. Anon says:

    Even this fantasy is pathetic. Why should a women even *want* to pretend that she can beat up a man?

    I have no desire to delude myself into thinking I can beat up a Kodiak Bear. Yet these stupid girls are seduced by the equivalent fantasy.

  15. Heidi_storage says:

    When my 3-year-old daughter notes that she is stronger than her 2-year-old brother, I remind her that he is going to be stronger than she is someday, and she had better be nice to him now. It does women no favors to lie to them about men and women’s respective abilities.

  16. SirHamster says:

    Muslims that are born and raised in the US have become very westernized lately. There’s nothing in Islam that forbids women from work or education so they wind up becoming very similar to us, except its kind of like hypergamy without promiscuity.

    Except when they decide that they need to murder their coworkers for celebrating a holiday at work with ham. Or when they get an attack of Sudden Jihadi Syndrome while driving, or on a train, or at a mall …

    Muslim fanboys have to go back.

  17. 8 in the Gate says:

    ” Lisa Flowerchild: Whats with all the fluid? Is it because her brain is still so inflamed?
    I am so sad for her. I actually cry.. Prayers continue. And I want to beat the living hell out of Dan Murray…God forgive me. I want to put a bullet in his head! HOW DARE HE GET AWAY WITH THIS….I hope there’s people looking for him. BIG MEAN GUYS! He needs a huge taste of his own medicine. Ruining this young girls life! KARMA is coming to him. I’m praying for it.”

    This is one of the Facebook responses from today. I wonder if Lisa was really paying attention to why this happened to Emily?

    This sadly didn’t have to be.

  18. feministhater says:

    It was self-defense, she wasn’t allowed by any means to hit him, once she did, he responded with one punch, one punch, and unfortunately, she hit the ground hard and now has a heck of a lot of problems. For which my heart bleeds for her. I would rather her recover and actually teach other women the pitfalls of hitting men and that she made a mistake and is sorry for it. However, even with my sorrow for her, it doesn’t excuse her actions, nor does it excuse Lisa Flowerchild’s comment. She names him, hoping to get other MEN to take action against the innocent in this scenario. Men do not have to take your abuse ladies, get that into your heads. I don’t watch your fantasy, ‘you go gril’ movies, I don’t listen to your rants, I don’t care. You attack a man and this will be your punishment. Men are stronger, fitting, faster and more intelligent. Women were not made for being fighters or providers, they were made to look after and have children.

  19. thedeti says:

    “Norway now has an all female special forces unit* where the women are just like the men:”

    You bet. They’re deployed one week a month, just before that “special, not so fresh feeling” time, during maximum PMS. They’re all stationed and barracked together, so they’re synchronized.

  20. Oscar says:

    @ SirHamster says:
    April 18, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    Two fantasies dovetailed here.

    1. Women can fight like men, and…
    2. Islam is good for the West.

  21. An Israeli Army study showed nearly half (46%) of women in the Israeli infantry are SERIOUSLY injured during training, i.e., with potentially life-altering injuries. Note how the female members of Israel’s legislature respond with a childish refusal to accept the truth. Everything, literally everything, truth, female health, the security of the State, must be sacrificed on the altar of feminism.

  22. “I’ve been assured that “Nice Guys” are the true villains”

    That’s true. Just think, people who use kindness to get what they want! Monsters!!!

  23. SirHamster says:

    2. Islam is good for the West.

    In hindsight, after we’ve grown a spine, tossed them out, and buried the dead, that may be true … from a certain point of view. /ObiWan

  24. kfg says:

    “She names him, hoping to get other MEN to take action against the innocent in this scenario.”

    The planning to ruin Nathan Damigo’s life is already under way.

  25. Oscar says:

    Re: the Antifa… uh… female.

  26. Gunner Q says:

    The only sadness in these stories is it’s probably my tax money healing the women post-LARPing. Barbie cruises past the warning signs and picks a fight against a man, she deserves every neurotrauma she gets and the bill, too. She could’ve had a safe, comfy, spoiled life for the price of her ego and refused it.

    Not even men who can easily win fights will start one just because they can. Well, excepting natural Alphas. Those guys appear to seek conflict for the sake of conflict. That could explain a lot about female fantasies to be a pit fighter.

  27. greyghost says:

    I don’t feel sorry for any of these women. If more men actually treated women as equals this madness would end over a week end.
    BTW return of Kings did a story on the Berkley thing and that liberal chick got nailed. ironically that punch to the face may have done more to change her life than all of the enabling support she has ever had.

  28. Oscar says:

    Kori Ali Muhammad. Must be a Methodist. Mennonite? Mormon? It’s something that starts with an M…

  29. Pingback: The terrible cost of make believe. | Reaction Times

  30. Otto Lamp says:

    @Easttexasfatboy,

    Turns out antifa girl is really “Wine Bottle Girl”.

    She was trying to strike the guy with a wine bottle when he punched her.

    http://theralphretort.com/nathan-damigo-did-nothing-wrong-antifa-thug-girl-was-using-glass-bottles-as-weapons-before-punch-4017017/

    She got off lucky. A wine bottle is a deadly weapon.

  31. Otto Lamp says:

    Nice guys ARE villains!

    Turns out when you compare “nice guy” characteristics and “passive-aggressive male” characteristics they are the same.

    http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.ca/2014/01/pac-man-passive-aggressive-christian-man.html

  32. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I saw a toddler’s t-shirt with the following message:

    I’M CUTE.
    MOM’S CUTE.
    DAD’S … LUCKY.

    As always, imagine if “mom” and “dad” were reversed on that t-shirt. The howls of outrage.

  33. Fatmanjudo says:

    When they were younger my oldest daughter and son frequented the judo club. I guarantee my daughter has no such illusions.

  34. Just Saying says:

    As I’ve said many times – all of the fiction that women are “strong” or as “capable as men” when it comes to strength, is pure non-sense. The thing I enjoy the most is showing women that simple fact. Take the sweet-young-thing, get the conversation turned to women in combat or some other non-sense, and make a bet with them. Show them reality and enjoy – as just as women seem to share a rape-fantasy, it’s all about being “over-powered” by a man. Nothing gets a woman wet faster than the reality of being overpowered and knowing that she’s actually “safe”… She’ll make up for being over-powered by riding you like a bucking-bronco…

    I don’t make the rules – but I do enjoy them…

  35. Anon says:

    It is almost like ‘feminism’, rather than helping women, has exposed the true extent of female inferiority at a level of visibility that was just not possible before ‘feminism’.

  36. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    johnmcg @ April 18, 2017 at 2:57 pm shared a link to a Slate article about how “nice guys are the real villains.”

    The Real Peterman & Otto Lamp have already replied, but what I am about to say isn’t meant as a contradiction or refutation of their points (there’s an awful lot of criticism that could be directed at the content, and intent, of that article, from many points of view …).

    It seems to me that there are several contradictory streams of thought … um, assertion, flowing through that movie review.

    Two quotes from the review stick out in particular, in my mind.

    First quote: “Men are taught that they should possess women, so they are driven mad when they are confronted with the truth that women do not owe them anything.”

    Huh? “Men are taught that they should possess women, …” — apparently, I didn’t get the memo, or whatever. In fact, this one little sentence fragment alone suggests that the author of the review has little to no awareness of the interior lived life of a heterosexual male.

    But then we also have: “… so they are driven mad when they are confronted with the truth that women do not owe them anything.”

    And, you know, he’s right: the absence of large [non-human] predators pretty much everywhere (because men killed all of those), and the sidewalks and roads paved by men, and the plastics invented by men spun in factories where men work, that were designed by men, that are turned into fabrics in machines invented and made by men, to make the clothes on her back — she doesn’t owe any of that to men.

    And the food grown probably mostly by men, on farms capitalized by futures contracts traded by pretty much only men on mercantile exchanges created by men, that is harvested using machines invented and constructed by men, and loaded on trucks that a man then drives to the food warehouse, where men work midnight shifts to sent it on to the grocery store probably mostly staffed by invisible men (the butcher, the guys who show up at night to load up the shelves), despite the more public face, of women at the cash registers — in a building where men poured the foundation, laid the bricks, put in the wiring, connected it to the grid, hauled in by muscle and sweat all the shelves and refrigeration units — so she could buy nail-polish and canned potatoes and frozen fish there (thanks to male chemists, mechanical engineers, fishermen, etc.) — she doesn’t owe any of that to men, either.

    And so on. So: the attentive man will be well aware that women (and children) depend on them, for their very survival.

    Whether this constitutes “owing”, I don’t know, but it certainly doesn’t constitute the exact opposite of “owing”, which is palinly what the reviewer thinks. (Perhaps the author of this review is “merely” inattentive?)

    You know: a guy who watches movies and muses about them for a living.

    Gosh, I wonder if he depends on men for his sidewalks, cars, clothes, food, electricity, and finger-nail polish? I wonder if any thought remotely like that, has even passed through his mind.

    Second quote: “The only problem with Colossal is that it takes a monster-sized metaphor to show why men should turn inward when a woman is uninterested, instead of calling her a slut.”

    Again, plainly the author of this piece shows no evidence of any personal experience with the inner life of a heterosexual man.

    Leaving that aside, he’s reviewing a movie, as in: fiction.

    Then — from a single fictitious character in one movie, and a handful of equally ficitious male characters in other, similar movies (from — vetted by — the same studios), he magically extrapolates to all (straight) men. This isn’t even the logical fallacy of hasty generalization — he’s generalizing from a few fantasy villains created out of nowhere, by people much like himself, to all real straight men.

    But (and this is the reason for my post — thank you if you’ve read this far): why?

    Why specifically single out “niceguys men? Indeed, note that even calling them “guys” is a covert slur, here.

    Basically, to smear everyone, especially the good. In fact, you could boil this entire steaming cauldron of rhetorical excrement down to just four words: “Good men are bad”. That’s it.

    All the rest of the verbiage — probably he was paid by the word, but that’s not the reason for the logorrhea — is just there to obscure the reviewer’s petty, lying slander against — well, literally, Good men.

    I am reminded of the 1977 book The Women’s Room, by Marilyn French.

    I must have read it thirty years ago, now. I was amazed. So much so, that I did an analysis where I made a sort of database of every character in the book. Every male character in the book was some sort of freak, no exceptions; all were vile bastards, with only one exception, and he was sexually impotent.

    Basically: hate literature against men. If it had been written analogously, except about, say, jews or blacks — instant lawsuit. Instead, I read all sorts of book reviews praising the book as “brave” and “insightful”, and similar horse$h_t.

    In retrospect, that was probably the very, very beginning of me being dimly aware that, somewhere out there, probably there were The Glasses, and I should put them on.

    And this review is exactly the same. Building on a piece of cinematic complete fiction written by some misandrist @$$#0!3 or other, the misandrist reviewer uses it as an excuse to slander — not so much men in general, as Good men in particular.

    At this point, perhaps I am supposed to say something like, I hope a giant robot from Seoul stomps on the reviewer. Nope.

    I hope for something more closely resembling justice: some day, in the not too distant future, he gets in trouble [insert scenario here], and realizes that he needs the assistance of Good men, or very probably he will die — and they say in reply to his request, very politely, “no”.

    Don’t want us around?

    When you finally *****ing realize how very badly you need us for your safety, food, safety, clothing, shelter, and safety, oh Mighty Writer Of Movie Reviews, we’ll make a point of not being around.

  37. @Anon:

    Fantasy Rationalization is a strong, strong drug, though. So it’s still going to be a while.

  38. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Otto…..So that’s what I saw……Green and looked like glass…..Hmmmm……Well, she’s fortunate…..He could have severely beaten her in a few seconds. Well, the next party will feature firearms. That’s the next logical step.

    As for women fighting men…..Please. I’ve seen some bull dykes who looked tough, but that was a long time ago. What would bottle girl have done if he had a bayonet? That’s coming next as well. People flee when folks are being cut up and killed. And the Police will stand by until the rioting is over. If women show up, well, going to be real tough.

  39. Snowy says:

    I really could watch that woman and bouncer video all day long. It’s beautiful. However, I have to say that in that video, and others linked in the comments, the men are definitely holding back on their punches. They would have hit a man much harder. Oh well, they’re still a joy to watch.

  40. feeriker says:

    I would rather her recover and actually teach other women the pitfalls of hitting men and that she made a mistake and is sorry for it.

    Dream on. That requires a grasp of cause and effect, and we all know how women fare where that’s concerned. Moreover, any woman stupid enough to actually do what this one did lacks the common(?) sense necessary to learn from her mistakes. In fact, she’s probably incapable of comprehending the idea that she makes mistakes.

    Turns out antifa girl is really “Wine Bottle Girl”.

    She was trying to strike the guy with a wine bottle when he punched her.

    Rather than hit her, he should’ve wrested the bottle away from her and rammed it, SIDEWAYS, up one of her two lower-body orifices.

  41. David says:

    Funny how feminists claim women can fight as well as men but then complain about women being victims of male domestic violence. Well if they can fight as well as men, why don’t they just fight back. Seems that would solve the problem.

  42. Spike end this happens, feminism will collapse. says:

    The common thread in the media’s responses to men hitting back after women’s provocation is that men shouldn’t, because men are good at hitting back.
    As for the Norwegian Special Forces, well, they will be good for peace time.
    It is no surprise that this push for “gender equality” comes at a point in history when there are no enemies capable of hitting back on the scale that the US can project.
    The next war to be fought will be civil in nature, with the Left aligned with anti- Western religious forces, while the Right polarises around nationalist sentiments.

  43. Spike says:

    The common thread in the media’s responses to men hitting back after women’s provocation is that men shouldn’t, because men are good at hitting back.
    As for the Norwegian Special Forces, well, they will be good for peace time.
    It is no surprise that this push for “gender equality” comes at a point in history when there are no enemiesi capable of hitting back on the scale that the US can project.
    The next war to be fought will be civil in nature, with the Left aligned with anti- Western religious forces, while the Right polarises around nationalist sentiments.
    When this happens, feminism will collapse because the Left will find little use for feminists beyond comfort some and cannon fodder, while the Right will reject such women entirely.

  44. feeriker says:

    It is no surprise that this push for “gender equality” comes at a point in history when there are no enemiesi capable of hitting back on the scale that the US can project.

    For the U.S. that is true as long as they continue to pick on Third World Shit hole countries. But if the delusional morons in Trumps cabinet are serious about picking a fight with North Korea, China, or Russia and are actually stupid enough to start a war with one or more of those three, the whole “gender equality” BS is going to go right out the window, fast. The U.S. will learn, in very painful ways, why those three countries don’t put women in combat roles.

  45. Pingback: The terrible cost of make believe. - Top

  46. Isa says:

    OT Relative (SAHM) just blew up her marriage for no good reason she can give to anyone. Multiple kids, over 40, and not enough alimony to live on wo a ft job, to the extent the EX has made her a detailed budget. Any advice? Gave a few church resources to the ex, but relative who planned and executed the whole caper seems to think she doesn’t need to repent.

    Ex will be fine, as he is a very attractive good earner who could easily pull a 20 something AND has a large social group for sports, night’s out etc. The relative… her future looks grim. Unless she repents and he takes her back.

  47. Matamoros says:

    Easttexasfatboy Baal worship? Ring any bells?

    Exactly. Baal worship demands the sacrifice of babies – witness abortion and feminism.

    This is the reason why feminists and moslems mesh – both are baal worshipers. Moslems worship baal-ah

  48. Dalrock says:

    @Isa

    OT Relative (SAHM) just blew up her marriage for no good reason she can give to anyone. Multiple kids, over 40, and not enough alimony to live on wo a ft job, to the extent the EX has made her a detailed budget. Any advice?

    Women in this situation are all but impervious to attempts to get them to turn back, as you already know. The best shot I’m aware of would be if her son(s) were to give her a warning about what they see happening to their friend’s (pathetic) moms who already did the same thing. The friend’s mom ends up alone, while the friend’s dad remarried a younger, hotter woman that the friend really likes. Real examples work best here. This can work very well before the woman actually pulls the trigger. In this case the trigger is already pulled so I think it would be much harder. But if anyone can talk her back, this would be it.

  49. Dave says:

    I am no psychologist, but I think an appropriate definition of madness should be the practice of making decisions that fly in the face of clear evidence.

    When a 100-pound woman thoughtlessly challenges a 240-pound burly bouncer to a fight, going so far as to attempt the first hit, the woman’s action should qualify as a definition of madness.

  50. Anon says:

    Dalrock,

    Women in this situation are all but impervious to attempts to get them to turn back, as you already know.

    I have long wondered why this is.

    Is it because they are so brainwashed by some post-divorce fantasy that they refuse to see how low the odds are?

    Or are they just utterly disgusted by the husband not being a criminal/sociopath who gives her tingles?

    Or do they imagine that there is pressure from their female peers, to meet their approval (in reality, these women are sabotaging her)?

  51. Anon says:

    I would rather her recover and actually teach other women the pitfalls of hitting men and that she made a mistake and is sorry for it.

    As feeriker pointed out, there is no chance of this whatsoever.

    If women were capable of this, there would at least be a *small* group of paternal grandmas fighting against default mother custody, since default daughter-in-law custody means that grandma loses contact with the grandkids as well. But women, as a group, can’t seem to figure this out, as evidenced by the fact that there is not even a *small* group of grandmas fighting against what I described above.

  52. Gunner Q says:

    Isa @ 6:51 am:
    “Multiple kids, over 40, and not enough alimony to live on wo a ft job, to the extent the EX has made her a detailed budget. Any advice?”

    Find out who the other man is and tell everybody? It won’t stop her if she’s already filed paperwork but could turn the no-fault divorce into an at-fault divorce, helping the husband.

  53. Tarl says:

    As for women fighting men…..Please. I’ve seen some bull dykes who looked tough, but that was a long time ago.

    They look tough. But they are easily bitch-slapped into submission.

    https://trendingviews.com/video/lena-dunham-wannabe-punches-black-guy-and-he-slaps-her-into-next-tuesday-1130.html

  54. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    I have long wondered why this is.

    Is it because they are so brainwashed by some post-divorce fantasy that they refuse to see how low the odds are?

    Or are they just utterly disgusted by the husband not being a criminal/sociopath who gives her tingles?

    Or do they imagine that there is pressure from their female peers, to meet their approval (in reality, these women are sabotaging her)?

    It is the post divorce fantasy. This is why bursting that bubble produces a dramatic turnaround. But the fantasy is so cherished that it is extremely difficult to burst the bubble.

  55. Anon says:

    Dalrock,

    It is the post divorce fantasy. This is why bursting that bubble produces a dramatic turnaround. But the fantasy is so cherished that it is extremely difficult to burst the bubble.

    Yes, but there are so many real-world examples for her to see, that this fantasy does not come to fruition.

    I mean, can’t she look around? Of all divorced women she can point to, if 95% are ones that are faring badly, that should compute for her. This goes beyond an inability to connect cause and effect – this is just the most basic self-preservation instinct that even a sea-cucumber has…

    I suspect another component is the ‘five minutes of alpha beats five years of beta’ angle, and she is so desperate to get some alpha cock, however briefly, that she is willing to take on all sorts of other permanent hardship for it.

  56. “Huh? ‘Men are taught that they should possess women, …’ — apparently, I didn’t get the memo”

    The author of that review would probably respond with something about how there’s a billboard with a woman pictured on it in his town, so clearly that woman is being viewed as a commodity to buy or sell, by all men, everywhere, as are all other women by extension, and he is not a crank, dammit.

  57. Otto Lamp says:

    @Anon,

    A church friend of my wife did this. Other than my wife, all her female friends were urging her to divorce.

    Her husband wasn’t perfect (overweight, a ltitle depressed), but he wasn’t bad either (good job, didn’t drink or cheat, good dad).

    Two years later he has moved on and found another woman. She is depressed, because her post divorce life sucks. Worse, she’s bitter and mad at her ex, because the divorce didn’t screw up his life the way it did hers (or as she puts it: he’s out living it up while I’m at home alone–it’s not fair).

    She should be mad at her girlfriends that urged her to divorce, but she’s not. She is mad at my wife for not supporting her decision to divorce.

  58. Chris says:

    Otto, other eyewitness accounts have suggested that she was also throwing M80s in glass encasings as well. She could’ve hurt or killed somebody.

  59. Anon says:

    Otto Lamp,

    She should be mad at her girlfriends that urged her to divorce, but she’s not. She is mad at my wife for not supporting her decision to divorce.

    What a ridiculous waste of resources such a woman is. She is angry that the ex-husband didn’t suffer, even though SHE divorced HIM!

    What does this twat say when it is pointed out to her that her life sucks, so ‘not supporting her decision to divorce’ was the wise choice?

    Women having the right to vote is an unmitigated disaster..

  60. Otto Lamp says:

    Posses women?

    When you hear a woman talk like that, you can be certain she is projecting her own fantasies onto men.

  61. Dammit! Our human sexual dimorphism keeps screwing feminism up!

  62. For some reason we consistently fail to apply the same level of criticism and accountability to the modern day “empowered” feminist women as we do to foolish, weak males:

    “We have no sympathy for small men who attack bigger, stronger men and experience the natural consequences. We should not have any sympathy for women who do so either.

    Not out of any belief in a nonexistent equality, but out of respect for the eucivic principle of providing negative incentive for violent aggression.”

  63. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    Yes, but there are so many real-world examples for her to see, that this fantasy does not come to fruition.

    I mean, can’t she look around? Of all divorced women she can point to, if 95% are ones that are faring badly, that should compute for her. This goes beyond an inability to connect cause and effect – this is just the most basic self-preservation instinct that even a sea-cucumber has…

    This is the power of the rationalization hamster. There are two sets of hamsters at play here. There is the hamster of the woman considering divorce, and there are the hamsters of the women who divorced and are busy selling the image of themselves as the empowered divorcée. These women will spin the most ridiculous yarns to make it look like they didn’t really crash and burn. The level of denial is truly breathtaking.

    For an example, see the women who commented on my 2010 post about what really happened after Elizabeth Gilbert divorced. These were regular readers, but even they just couldn’t admit that Eat Pray Love was a farce.

    J wrote:

    Her choice of Felipe isn’t all that surprising. I think hypergamy is often exaggerated. For both men and women, spouse #2 usually is a horizontal move as opposed to a move up. In this cae, Felipe has exotic panache; Cooper has hair. It evens out. I would bet that in many respects they are similar men. Most people have a type that they constantly return to.

    OTOH, both Gilbert and Cooper seem to have gotten what they wanted out of life.

    Lilly wrote:

    Honestly, who cares. She’s happy, he’s happy, we all make mistakes they moved on.

  64. Broski says:

    I recall back in my military days, I deployed under the command of a female Lt Col whom I respected. I know, I know: women in the military, manly profession, I agree. But for who she was, she was a great individual and commander. Anyway, one reason I respected her was for her firm grasp on reality. At one point during the deployment, she gave a talk where she basically said this while addressing the females (paraphrasing my memory of it for directness’ sake):

    “Females, you need to keep yourselves clean and take care of your injuries. The men can go get super dirty and wounded while still being effective, but women can’t do the same thing. When we get sick or injuried, we’re totally broken. We’re fragile, get sick more easily, and can’t deal with injuries the same way they do.”

    I respected the fact that she was so open about this. Makes me wonder if she’d get in trouble for such words today. Her frankness was interesting because she was the type of woman who you might not expect that from – she was a hardcore triathlete type who did pretty well for a female at PT.

  65. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anon
    I mean, can’t she look around? Of all divorced women she can point to, if 95% are ones that are faring badly, that should compute for her. This goes beyond an inability to connect cause and effect – this is just the most basic self-preservation instinct that even a sea-cucumber has…

    As someone named TFH used to post here, women aren’t very good at cause and effect.

  66. Lost Patrol says:

    Government looks to double number of women serving in SDF units

    Japan raises the stakes. Will increase numbers of women in combat positions, but also protect them from really dangerous jobs – because they are women. It’s the law.

    At the core of the measures disclosed by the ministry is its decision to lift a ban on placing females in combat roles traditionally considered too physically challenging for women, such as those in front-line infantry and armored units.

    Aoki, however, added female personnel will continue to be denied access to certain positions, such as those involving exposure to radiation, as per laws protecting the well-being of women.

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/18/national/government-looks-double-number-women-serving-sdf-units/?

  67. BillyS says:

    Dalrock,

    The pastor’s wife failed to mention to my wife that her filing for divorce was wrong and instead focused on my wife’s need to stay away from a dangerous home. (It was not dangerous, but my wife had generated that story in her head and had communicated it to others.)

    The pastor stood fully behind his wife’s advice, even when it was proven to be very wrong. His fear of a woman being abused completely overrode the church’s preaching that “Divorce is not an Option.”

    Neither they nor my wife could ever see that the end result was horrible, nor could they admit that anything they did was wrong.

    My wife is making it for the moment, but I can see her easily getting very bitter in the future, especially if I end up doing well as it looks.

    I saw the end results of this situation in my own mother. She held my dad accountable for not doing more for her in life even though she kicked him and initiated the divorce. She never realized that her actions caused her situation. She did better than many others, but had to work very hard to reach that. She would have done much better staying with my dad, in spite of the flaws both of them had at the time. (They were serious, but he turned his life around a few years later when he started following Christ.)

    Considering cause and effect is not a strong skill today, especially among women.

  68. American says:

    We need to remove all protections and favoritisms that benefit women over men everywhere both in and out of the military. Period. I want true equality.

    This means no more taxing nuclear families and single men who are not the fathers of the children of promiscuous women to provide welfare benefits to these single promiscuous women.

    This means no more favoritism for women in the military. One set of benchmarks for both men and women with women in real combat at a per capita rate per their enlistment and all who can’t handle it get dealt with under the UCMJ exactly the same. End the “sitting in the rear with the gear” safely politicking for promotions over men out in the field who don’t have the time for that then sending those same men out to do their dying for them. This also means an end to all the special protections and policies designed to protect women in combat roles which men have no access to.

    This means a great many changes need to be made in our rule of law and policy so that women no longer have competitive advantages of any kind over men in our society, workplaces, government, military, etc…

    I want true equality, not this double standard that favors women over men we have at present. And, that means if a women walks up and takes a swing at me then I have a God-given right to punch her to stop her attack in defense of myself.

  69. @American “I want true equality, not this double standard that favors women over men we have at present.”

    Sounds great.
    Except for the inconvenient truth that men and women are simply not equal in all things.
    And we never will be.
    Eventually people will need to correct their understanding on this subject because too many people are being dishonest, intentionally hiding behind both confusing and contradictory claims.

    We already know that the majority of human males tend to be bigger, stronger, faster and physically and mentally more resilient that females.
    We also know that males and females do not learn, process information, communicate or solve problems in the same ways either.
    We have different strengths and weaknesses that evolved over 250,000 years.
    From an intelligence perspective, there are more male geniuses and more male idiots.
    More females than males reside within the tall curve of “average intelligence”.
    There are fewer female idiots and far fewer female geniuses.

    These truths are unfair and unjust. They are not a function of misogyny or male ego triumphalism.
    Nor are they some feel-good, happy, feminist fantasy story trumped up to salve female sensibilities and feelings of inadequacy.

    We must deny these truths, or be called “misogynists”?

    At some point, probably during a major national societal crisis, we will finally get over ourselves and accept the fact that humans are nothing more than sexually dimorphic primates.

    Feminists know the truth. They just can’t admit it for fear of losing more influence, political power, sense of superiority, victim status, and ego preservation.

    So the lie must live on.

    Personally I think asking for equality with women is absurd. We are not equal.
    I don’t care about gender. I don’t care about feelings.
    What I care about is that human beings, male or female, who are granted any level of authority and/or power, are simultaneously accept commensurate responsibility and accountability.

    This is the root cause of our dysfunctional gender war. Women are current bestowed with immense power, privilege, preference, set asides and deference, against essentially no accountability and no responsibility. Conversely it is compulsory for men to carry the water regardless (held accountable and responsible), but have witnessed their level of authority and power eroded to nothing by the state and by feminist activism.

    If a woman is to be bestowed with the honor of being a front line combat marine soldier, then she is accountable and responsible to meet the US Marine standard. Period. End of story.
    We know 99% of women will never meet this same standard. So OK. They can be “in the Marines” and do other tasks, if they choose. But they are not Marine combat soldiers.

    If a woman wants the same right to vote, wants to avoid the same years of imprisonment, and possess the same privilege of receiving the same government benefits, then she too must register for selective service at age 18, just as all men must.

    If a woman wants the power to unilaterally file for divorce, then she does so of her own volition and is accountable and responsible for the consequences, including child care expenses, her own living arrangements and her own future financial support, retirement, etc..

    If a woman wants to be hired, then she is responsible and accountable to garner comparative education levels, work skills, work experience and years of consecutive career service to earn that position and be hired on merit, not vagina.

    Anything else is just more lies that we keep telling ourselves.
    I feel continuing to do so undermines the integrity of women, young and old, and the stability of our society.

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    Right about now is a good time to post a link to Harrison Bergeron. It is on topic. It is much shorter than anything Orwell wrote. Did I mention it is on topic?

    http://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt

    Don’t let the fact that it’s by Kurt Vonnegut put you off. Notice that he wrote this story in 1961.
    Long, long before the craziness around us was really getting started.

  71. Jim says:

    I want true equality

    You’re chasing a fantasy.

  72. Bart says:

    This talk about the strength disparity between men and women reminds me of a conversation I had regarding weightlifting a few months ago. My lesbian cousin, and her partner were at our house for a couple days due to a family emergency. We had a very nice visit. Even though I am a Christian of a strongly Reformed, and Patriarchal persuasion, I actually get along quite well with my “New Age” cousin and her partner. We have a lot of common interests (such as diet, gardening, raising backyard poultry, and believing that both the political right and left are pretty corrupt).

    Anyway, my cousin’s partner is a fairly masculine woman (is dyke politically correct?). She is kind of tough, and does a lot of woodworking. I figured she might like weightlifting, so I brought up the subject.

    Keep in mind, that I am a sedentary, office working, church going, “nice-guy” beta in his early 40’s. I’ve always been bookish/intellectual, and have never been athletic at all. I’ve never done any lifting until the last few years. I decided to quit being a total wimp (who could not do pushups, chin-ups, pull-ups etc.) I’m still not all that serious with my weightlifting, but have made decent progress (hit a set of 20 chin-ups the other day, and weigh 225lbs).

    Anyway, I mentioned that I set up a barbell in my basement, and had started lifting. My cousin’s partner popped up the classic weightlifting question: “How much do you bench-press?”

    I replied that I did sets at 200 pounds. They were totally taken aback. She said that she had never benched more than 60 pounds.

    Maybe they were surprised that a man in our family could lift that much (we’re all pretty bookish). Still, I think she was mainly just surprised that I was that much stronger than her.

    I was kind of startled too. Benching 200 pounds (now 215) IS BY NO MEANS “STRONG”. It just means that I’m not a total weakling like I use to be.

    Still, it is probably 3-4 times what the average woman can bench.

    I told the women (my cousin, her partner, and my own wife) that testosterone makes a big difference in lifting.

    Also, it was kind of nice to get weightlifting kudos from my cousin and her partner in front of my wife. She didn’t realize just how “strong” her husband was.

  73. mad_kalak says:

    Highly trained women who can defeat a normal man physically are very, very few, and they defeat a trained man virtually never. So why all the caterwauling last thread from some folks about why it’s a problem for your wife or daughter to carry a gun for self defense. Yes, guns pervert the natural order of things. They are supposed too, your woman would be helpless without it. God made man, but Colonel Colt made them equal.

  74. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bart:
    Also, it was kind of nice to get weightlifting kudos from my cousin and her partner in front of my wife. She didn’t realize just how “strong” her husband was.

    Some time when it is just the two of you, with no children or other distractions, pick her up. No warning, no warmup. Just pick her up and spin her around a bit, carry her to another room such as the bedroom. Laugh while you do, be careful to not hit anything. See what effect that action has on her mindset, and her perception of your strength.

  75. Gunner Q says:

    “I want true equality”

    “You’re chasing a fantasy.”

    Not a fantasy. I’m watching true equality on YouTube right now. *eats popcorn watching slo-mo replays of Antifa Girl*

  76. Jim says:

    Not a fantasy. I’m watching true equality on YouTube right now. *eats popcorn watching slo-mo replays of Antifa Girl*

    lol

  77. anonymous_ng says:

    @Anonymous Reader, I make reference to Harrison Bergeron all the time, that it’s a warning, not an instruction manual.

  78. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Folks, reality is coming. No one believes the Barbarians will actually kill them, much less a feminist. Then take a look at Sweden. Can you believe just how badly those feminists have messed things up?

    History shows plainly how this plays out. Massacres on a huge scale. Huge piles of heads. Literally.

    This is feminism in action. Testosterone in the form of smelly Barbaric hordes kills feminism and all who think that way. Effete manginas have been slaughtered before, you know. Ancient Rome, history is replete with examples.

    Ever wonder why Islam insists on beheading? The same reason why the Assyrians skinned prisoners alive. As some have noted….Islam is the scourge of God. You didn’t think Abortion had a blood price, did you?

  79. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Women in this situation are all but impervious to attempts to get them to turn back, as you already know.

    I have long wondered why this is.

    Pride, the root of all evil. Pride instills a sense of entitlement, and a sense of injury when the entitlement does not materialize.

    It’s not fair that I can’t eat the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. It’s not fair that I’m not married to Alpha Rockdrummer. I was cheated by life. I deserve to change my life to get what I’m entitled to. Any good and loving God would want me to have those things.”

  80. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anon: there are so many real-world examples for her to see, that this fantasy does not come to fruition. I mean, can’t she look around? Of all divorced women she can point to, if 95% are ones that are faring badly, that should compute for her.

    There are umpteen examples, in films and TV movies, of worthless husbands who dump smart, strong, beautiful, faithful wives. The ex-husbands marry a young hottie, who soon dumps him and ruins his life.

    The ex-wives are forced to find a jobs — and soon everyone realizes how smart, strong, and capable they are. These ex-wives rapidly rise through the corporate ranks. They meet a TALL, HANDSOME, and RICH Alpha male, who practically BEGS her to marry him.

    She’ll often waver, citing her previous bad marriage. She makes the Alpha jump through all sorts of hoops, which he happily obliges, so eager is he to prove his worth to her.

    Meanwhile, the ex-husband’s life is a disaster. He comes crawling back to his ex-wife, begging to be taken back. She magnanimously wishes him the best, but stresses that’s she’s moved on. That the divorce was his choice. The ex-husband might even cry. She sympathizes, but leaves him no choice but to crawl away.

    She lives happily ever after, becoming a competent CEO (or some other great job), a great mother, and married to a slavishly devoted Alpha.

    I suppose many romance and chick lit novels promote the same theme. Women base their lives on these fantasies, rather than on the real world around them.

  81. safespaceplaypen says:

    @mad_kalak

    still butthurt i see and still pushing your gay conservative feminism. You still don’t want women to be fully subjected to men. You still want best of both worlds – i.e. “men and women are “equal” and “not equal” at the same time.” You still can’t accept the fact that women being “completely helpless” if not for their men is in fact a good thing, something a nation should strive for. This “complete helplessness” is how things were in the past – with a few exceptions – and this “complete helplessness” was why men in the past didn’t go around beating the shit out of women in the way that we beat the shit out of each other on a daily basis, because it was considered unfair, just like beating the shit out of a 10 year old boy is unfair. You don’t realize that “complete helplessness” is in fact good for women because that is the very thing that forces them to be submissive. This is why Muslims, as much as I hate their retarded religion, don’t have the feminist problem that we do — because they understand the importance of controlling females.

    This video gets into depth the consequences of feminism in Isreal, but checkout at 24:06 where one of the people interviewed describes the utter confidence of the Arabs as opposed to the Jews. That confidence exists because of their control over their women, a control that you obviously don’t want men to have, which is fine.

    Lastly, you still think like a woman, caring more for your individual “but i gotta defend muhself” and less for the greater good of a country.

    All of the above problems you have likely stems, of course, from the fact that you still view a weapon as an “equalizer”, being bold enough to say this piece of total faggotry – “God made man, but Colonel Colt made them equal.”

  82. safespaceplaypen says:

    In regards to the OP

    the three incentives that cause guys to cower away from their women when she bitches and strikes at him is:
    (a) law enforcement’s female pandering
    (b) laws allowing for female pandering, and
    (c) other guys in the vicinity prone to female pandering

    I cannot think of a single reasonable way to demolish the above three incentives, other than maybe more awareness, perhaps more shaming of guys who are pussy whipped female panderers.

  83. Mad_Kalak says:

    @safespaces

    What is your obsession with buttsex metaphors? You stack straw men so high in that post, a spark would start a fire. Are you capable of commenting on what people say rather than what you *think* they say. You act like your psychic and can read my mind. Take a hint for your next approach, your cold reading sucks. Let me be explicit, so maybe you could figure things out if you actually engaged. I won’t hold my breath.

    1) Women are physically weak.
    2) Guns compensate for this, for women as well as the elderly and disabled, etc.
    3) Guns let women protect themselves from those who are capable of easily defeating them.
    4) If you care about a woman in your life, say a daughter or a wife, since you can’t be there all the time, a gun can.

    Sounds to me like your butthurt about the possibility that a woman having more physical powerful than you, even if it is through a gun. Being an alpha is far more than physical power. It starts with a mindset that overlaps with one that isn’t afraid of girls with guns. But, alas, I doubt you will EVER understand.

  84. Mad_kalak says:

    @safespaces

    What is your obsession with buttsex metaphors? You stack straw men so high in that post, a spark would start a fire. Are you capable of commenting on what people say rather than what you *think* they say. You act like your psychic and can read my mind. Take a hint for your next approach, your cold reading sucks. Let me be explicit, so maybe you could figure things out if you actually engaged. I won’t hold my breath.

    1) Women are physically weak.
    2) Guns compensate for this, for women as well as the elderly and disabled, etc.
    3) Guns let women protect themselves from those who are capable of easily defeating them.
    4) If you care about a woman in your life, say a daughter or a wife, since you can’t be there all the time, a gun can.

    Sounds to me like your butthurt about the possibility that a woman having more physical power than you, even if it is through a gun. Being an alpha is far more than physical power. It starts with a mindset that overlaps with one that isn’t afraid of girls with guns. But, alas, I doubt you will EVER understand.

  85. @anonymous_ng:

    The thing that gets me, sadly, is how so much of the well-regarded “warning for the future” sci-fi has seemed less Prophetic and far more “Instruction Manual for Tyrants”. Obviously, most of that sci-fi was written by Progressives reflecting upon their own dark instincts, but it’s still an amazing sight to behold.

    If it didn’t mean so much destruction.

  86. Smultronstället says:

    A significant difference between feminism and antifeminism is that while feminism maintains that women need to be protected from men (the only difference is that that they can’t quite agree on which specific group of men they need to be protected from the most), antifeminism maintains that women need to be protected from themselves.

    I often had the impression that for women everything is like a game. Female professors at college for instance always reminded me of children when they play adults. They aren’t really professors who care about the topics they teach, they are just enjoying this role they play and do everything they think a real professor would do. (Which might also be why they never develop critical thoughts, never come to conclusions that are in opposition to the current ruling class.)

    Likewise, women aren’t really soldiers, they are more like people enjoying to play this role of a soldier and doing everything they think a real soldier would do – and then things turn sour, of course…

  87. Anon says:

    I think the answers from Dalrock and RPL have led to the following analysis about female divorce fantasy and hamsterization:

    In real life, a woman may know 40 divorced women. Of those, 2 are doing well, and 38 are much worse off (5% vs. 95%).

    But in the entertainment media, the woman may know another 100 women, all of whom are portrayed as benefiting greatly from divorce. So 100 out of 100.

    Now here is the key : Women lack the mental capacity to distinguish between TV/films and reality.

    Hence, they just add the two figures above. They know of (100 + 2) = 102 women who did well after divorce, and just 38 who are doing badly. So she things that 102/140 = 73% are doing well, and that creates a perception that the has a 3 out of 4 chance of benefiting from divorce.

    Hey, the real world only has 5% of women improving their lives after divorce, but once you add a flood of fictitious divorce-fantasy examples from the entertainment media, the perception of 73% comes in.

    That is why woman after woman destroys her life (and that of others) despite there being so many women before her who failed – she lets the TV examples cloud her assessment of real-world probabilities. That is how the female hamster takes a 5% chance and turns it into a ~75% chance.

  88. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    There’s a sitcom called Happily Divorced.

    The premise is that the husband discovers he’s gay. He and the wife divorce, whereupon they remain best friends.

    A Beta ex-husband turns Gay Best Friend. I suppose he now helps her with dating advice, so she can find her Dream Alpha. And many women take this (like all TV shows (for reality).

    I’ve never seen this show. I just search for “happy divorce” shows in YouTube.

  89. feministhater says:

    The gun has been around for longer than the feminist movement. It did not make men and women equal. There is so much more to defending a nation, house or property than a gun. Sure, it’s great to shoot one attacker by surprise but that just opens you up to being shot by another. You have to be aware of your surroundings, all the gun has done is provide overconfidence in women, it hasn’t made them equal. Their supposed equality has laid ruin to your nation. Their so called ability to handle a gun as made their lack of skill in all other areas apparent. They still cry for special treatment, it has not made them independent. Instead, by giving them this ideal that they can defend themselves without men, they have taken that further and tried to disarm men, harm them in family court, and destroy male freedom and male only spaces because they ‘don’t need no man’.

    Sounds to me like your butthurt about the possibility that a woman having more physical power than you, even if it is through a gun. Being an alpha is far more than physical power. It starts with a mindset that overlaps with one that isn’t afraid of girls with guns. But, alas, I doubt you will EVER understand.

    Women have never had more physical power than men, the gun has not provided this. They still cannot carry their weight in the army or elsewhere. You continue to waste of air with your sanctimonious belief that the gun makes women equal. The state is women’s power, not the gun. The gun is but a tool.

    God made man, but Colonel Colt made them equal.

    More tradcon cuckery. Your nation is dying and you cannot see that you’re the cause..

  90. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anon
    But in the entertainment media, the woman may know another 100 women, all of whom are portrayed as benefiting greatly from divorce. So 100 out of 100.

    Dalrock’s been on the “divorce porn” issue for a while, it’s in books, magazines and ebooks also.
    The “hunky handyman” who turns out to be a secret millionaire just looking for a mature woman.

    Be sure to include social media. Facebook, Tumblr, etc. all provide women with a virtual herd.

  91. Anon says:

    all provide women with a virtual herd.

    It is amazing that women keep driving themselves off cliffs, despite there being so many other women who made the same mistake before them, and whose mistakes ought to be learned from.

    But the virtual herd creates the illusion of a high chance of success. The fact that women cannot distinguish TV from reality, and cause so much destruction due to this blindness, proves that giving them this much power is perhaps the worst decision a society has ever made..

  92. Isa says:

    To all who commented, thank you. She does have a son old enough to make an impact (teenage), but the younger ones are very chilled out and have adapted “well” already. She has refused going to church and counseling, as she is “already going through the healing process”. The other man theory was already investigated by all concerned, and nothing. The only divorcee in her life is her own mother who pulled the same stunt a few years back. At the time, said relative highly condemned and cut ties with mum, but the fantasy may have taken hold like a virus.

    The odd bit? She saw FIRSTHAND what this type of stunt did to her father. If that isn’t enough, don’t know what is. Even odder? Her husband IS the leading man in the divorce romcoms. Over 6ft, double 6 figure job, athletic, good sense of humor, and involved with his kids. Literally, rich, tall, dark, and handsome with a heart of gold. He is the fantasy.

    I talked with my Grandmother and she said something interesting, namely that when women turn 40ish, they generally begin to feel unhappy, dissatisfied, unneeded etc. A combo she says of children no longer being dependent (and frankly being assholes), husbands who are more busy with their work, and hormonal changes of pre-menopause. My mum agreed. Both their advice was the same, women at that time must fill their time with something useful, volunteering, part time job, anything to fill the time so they cannot find people to blame for their own unhappiness. They also said the phase tends to end in the 50’s. The data seems to bear that out, but not been able to find good studies on it yet. Interesting if widely applicable, and certainly useful.

  93. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The theme of many Divorce Porn TV movies is: A woman is empowered by discovering her true self-worth. As with any genre, the plot points are simple and predictable:

    1. A faithful wife is married to a selfish lout. He suppresses her self-esteem. (He mistreats her, takes her for granted, cheats on her, etc.)

    2. Marriage ends. It’s his fault. (Maybe he runs off with a young hottie, or she leaves him after he cheats.)

    3. She enters the workforce, timid and insecure. She confronts some initial sexism, but overcomes all obstacles through her sheer brilliance. Soon everyone sees her amazing awesomeness –her beauty, brains, class, competence, and even her strong moral character.

    4. She conquers the workforce, and heart of an amazingly rich and handsome Alpha male — who loves her children by another man. (Which is her priority, because she’s such an amazing mother.)

    5. She finally realizes her amazing awesomeness. As does the entire world. She would have seen her amazingness sooner, but her loutish ex-husband had suppressed her self-esteem because of his own sense of inferiority. He just couldn’t deal with being married to such a smart, strong, amazingly awesome, independent woman.

    Ladies, once you dump that lout, amazing things will happen as the world sees your true awesomeness.

  94. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I just realized. The Alphas in Divorce Porn TV movies aren’t the classical Alphas of romance novels.

    Romance novel Alphas (as I understand the genre) initially reject the woman, then subdue and rape her, then fall in love with her as she tames him.

    In TV movies, the heroes are Alpha Orbiters. They’re tall, handsome, rich, etc. But they’re usually smitten by the heroine from the start. They’re assertive toward everyone else, but they’re slavishly devoted to the heroine from the start, orbiting her until she finally obliges to let them in for a kiss. From start to finish, she calls the shots (as befits a Strong, independent Woman).

    I wonder what this means? That many modern women seem to prefer Alpha Orbiters to Classical Alpha Bad Boys.

  95. Casey says:

    I was on a routine flight on Sunday.

    Prior to take-off, the steward (male flight attendant) gave the standard spiel to the passengers in the emergency exit row.

    The passengers in the emergency exit row were asked if they are comfortable sitting there knowing that they are expected to release the emergency exit hatches in the case of an emergency evacuation of the aircraft.

    The emergency exit row just happened to be populated by 4 middle-aged women.

    They all nod in agreement, whilst one 50-something flaps her feathers and says ‘Strong Woman!’

    She is slim, maybe 110 or 120 pounds and an outlier on the ‘bell curve’ of North American’ fatties.

    She has little chance of removing the 65 lb emergency exit door and chucking it clear of the aircraft in the event of an emergency. Or at a minimum, she will delay the process versus the strength of a man tasked with the same responsibility.

    The chances of them being called upon to perform the task is remote at best, and if they were called upon to perform that task in an emergency situation – there would be no accountability laid on them for screwing it up.

    I suppose that’s how society gets to ‘extend the pretend’ of feminism.

  96. Novaseeker says:

    Women base their lives on these fantasies, rather than on the real world around them.

    No doubt, definitely very influential on women as a whole. Individual women, however, are more influenced by their specific herd directly. If other women in her peer group start divorcing, watch out — that often leads to more divorces in the peer group unless it is clear from the behavior of the rest of the peer group over time that divorce is a rare thing and not to be emulated, Currently we see that still to some degree in many upper-middle class peer groups of married women — a few here and there get divorced, and those who do may have been influenced by the others who do, but it does not spread that much throughout the group because the experience of that group over time is not a lot of divorces — so it creates a kind of self-reinforcing expectation where the divorced women are seen as outliers in that peer group, if not directly shunned (as they often are — upper middle class women who are divorced typically shift peer groups to be in peer groups of other UMC divrocees, because, among other reasons, the UMC married women peer group purges them). In most other demographics, however, a divorce or two spreads like wildfire through the peer group, because it creates dissatisfaction among the other women that is not counterbalanced by the divorce (“what are you doing to your kids, you asshole!?!”) stigma that still exists to some degree in the UMC peer group.

    In any case, you have to be very careful if your wife’s peer group starts to experience divorce. Even in a UMC peer group, this can spread to a few women in the group here and there (it just doesn’t spread as widely), and that may end up being your wife. Discontentment among women spreads like a cold virus – easily and quickly. Keep that in mind.

  97. Mad_Kalak says:

    @feministhater

    A gun gives an individual woman a reasonable chance to defend herself against an ordinary man. Why are you putting words in my mouth, that I somehow think that because I want my wife to be able to shoot a bad guy breaking into my house when I am gone on business, that I am all ready for the first all female brigade marching into Afghanistan? You STILL have yet to provide anything other than a ephemeral slippery slope arguments that somehow a woman defending herself personally leads to national and cultural ruin.

    And once again, you don’t know you’re history. The gun radically changed warfare because it makes it so a person with little training could defeat someone who was better trained and equipped. The longbow and pike didn’t end heavy calvary, as the longbow required years of training and the latter training in tactics. The era of the knight ended when any peasant farmer could kill a fully armored knight with a matchlock that was more effective than a crossbow. But hey, once again, 20 seconds of Internet research would have helped you make a more effective argument.

    LONG before feminism was anything other than a few crackpots, women carried small pistols. Derringers were used by women, because they are easily concealable in a purse or as a stocking gun. Such weapons designed specifically for women were called “muff pistols” (a muff being a handwarmer). A 18th and 19th century woman with a derringer didn’t suddenly up and head to Seneca Falls, now did she? I’m afraid to inform you, as it will likely just make you dig your heels in more, but the social forces that caused feminism had nothing to do with guns because women were using them for centuries for individual self defense before they even started to agitate for the vote.

    Let me put things back on you, then, what changed to make you believe (without evidence at this point) that a woman with a derringer was more likely to be a suffragette than not? Please address this inconsistency with your theory that women with guns is tied into feminism. You will also need to address the glaring inconsistency that liberals and feminists are proponents of gun control. Don’t bother to respond unless you can, as you’d be wasting both of our time.

    It’s sad when people whom I consider on “our side” debate from such a position of ignorance.

  98. PokeSalad says:

    she was a hardcore triathlete type who did pretty well for a female at PT.

    In other words, a unicorn…..that could be overpowered/outrucked by any average Marine recruit after basic.

  99. Emperor Constantine says:

    Off Topic but Important

    @dalrock you challenged people to find Church’s where a true, patriarchal view of Christian marriage is presented and taught, with absolutely no compromise on the Bible’s clear views on male headship on marriage. In this case, it is a Catholic Church, and it also follows traditional Catholic doctrine on marriage. It compares and contrasts Jezebel to Mary, and it is very, very good: starts off with Ephesian’s chapter 5 and never gives an inch, you have to love that old time religion. Lots of views on youtube. Maybe, just maybe, we are starting to see a few cracks in the feminist, satanic wall:

  100. @Casey,
    Chances are some or all of those middle aged women in the exit row required male assistance to hoist their own overweight carry-on luggage into the overhead compartment.

    I normally don’t mind helping a girl or older woman lift her heavy carry-on into the overhead for her. But what surprises me is how readily men will jump upto be of service, and how infrequently the words “thank you” are ever uttered.

    All of the sudden you become some strange woman’s thankless butler.

    I am one of the men you will see helping her.
    But I do it out purely out of self interest – so that I won’t witness her fail to lift it herself and cause other passengers or myself to receive a head contusion.

  101. feministhater says:

    A gun gives an individual woman a reasonable chance to defend herself against an ordinary man.

    As does a stick, or a knife or any other blunt object… what’s your point? That women can defend themselves easier with a weapon? Lol. A man is stronger, faster, more powerful, quicker and more intelligent. A women usually kills when she has surprise on her side or other men helping her. Once again, it’s not the gun that makes her equal, it’s the state.

    Please address this inconsistency with your theory that women with guns is tied into feminism.

    That wasn’t my point. My point was the guns came before feminism. To me, the point of women using weapons to defend themselves is moot. However, the point you made about guns being the equalizer are the reason for the point I was making. It is you, not me or feminists or anyone else, who believe that guns make women equal to men.

    It’s the ‘you go girl’ crowd, of which your statement is a reflection of, that have brought ruin to nations. Guns, as with all technology, tend to make obsolete that which came before. No quibble there, however, once again you take a position of guns making swords and armour irrelevant and turn it into a statement over how male strength is irrelevant and thus play right into the hands of feminists.

    When you say that God made men stronger than women but guns made them equal, you are indeed saying that male strength is irrelevant and are thus a cause of the problem we have today with entitled women believing they can take on men and often being severely injured or killed. In fact, your belief system makes women believe they can perform just as well as men on the battlefield.

    I’ve outlined my point now and my disagreements with you.

    Now onto your strawmen.

    I’m afraid to inform you, as it will likely just make you dig your heels in more, but the social forces that caused feminism had nothing to do with guns because women were using them for centuries for individual self defense before they even started to agitate for the vote.

    I don’t see where I’ve ever stated that I believe guns brought about feminism. The lie of equality between the sexes are what brought about feminism,. I actually agree with you on this point though.

    You STILL have yet to provide anything other than a ephemeral slippery slope arguments that somehow a woman defending herself personally leads to national and cultural ruin.

    Actually everyone on this thread has been providing these to you, no one is as blind as those who refuse to see. Cannot help you here.

    It’s sad when people whom I consider on “our side” debate from such a position of ignorance.

    I’m not on your side, I’ve stated this before. Your current ‘Conservative’ belief systems, your inability to tackle feminism, your inability to defend Christianity, the West, your countries and your communities from the destructive forces of liberalism all provide ample proof to me that you cannot stand for anything. Hell man, what on God’s Earth have you idiots conserved? Nothing, you’re only interested in conserving that which was ‘progressive’ 20 years ago. You’re nothing.

  102. @PokeSalad

    Oh man that article is full of delicious irony.
    Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to present the abject failure to comprehend cause and effect:

    “To Claire, it sounded like a different world; a sweet shop filled with thrills and excitement, all available at her fingertips. Just the pick-me-up she needed.
    Sadly, six months later, Claire would do anything to be back in the marital home, listening for the sound of her husband’s key in the door.
    For she, like countless other middle-aged divorcees, has found the world of internet dating — of which Tinder leads the field — to be a tawdry, loveless, moral abyss.
    In fact, she’d be the first to warn any married woman secretly thinking the grass might be greener on the other side to stay firmly where she is.
    Claire says: ‘I’d hoped to meet some decent men in their 50s, someone with whom I could enjoy a conversation or a meal out.
    ‘But it was horrendous and I’ve found that it’s zapped my confidence and made me feel a lot more anxious about the future.
    ‘I’ve been shocked by the number of men who think it’s acceptable to send you pictures of their private parts.”
    ‘One man started sending me lewd messages, asking me what I’d like sexually. When I refused to interact with him, he sent more messages until I had to report him to the app and delete my profile.
    ‘What I find particularly depressing is that these men think that’s what women today have been reduced to — that it’s a normal way to speak to a woman in 2017.
    ‘If this is the way forward in dating, the world is going to be left full of single, lonely hearts.’

    OH NO! She says “THIS WORLD IS GOING TO BE FULL OF SINGLE, LONELY HEARTS!”

    Ya think?

  103. Lost Patrol says:

    Just one more, since we’re talking about the “cost” (in this case $) of make believe.

    “Every submarine in the U.S. fleet was designed with the height, reach and strength of men in mind, from the way valves are placed to how display screens are angled.”

    That’s going to change.

    “Electric Boat is designing what will be the first Navy subs built specifically to accommodate female crew members.”

    https://www.navytimes.com/articles/women-in-the-military-us-navy-redesigning-its-submarines?

  104. BillyS says:

    I am late to the party, but I would never argue guns equalize the difference between men and women, even though I find merit in having a wife learn to use a gun to defend herself.

    The two points are not inherently tied together.

  105. Dalrock says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    I just realized. The Alphas in Divorce Porn TV movies aren’t the classical Alphas of romance novels.

    Romance novel Alphas (as I understand the genre) initially reject the woman, then subdue and rape her, then fall in love with her as she tames him.

    In TV movies, the heroes are Alpha Orbiters. They’re tall, handsome, rich, etc. But they’re usually smitten by the heroine from the start. They’re assertive toward everyone else, but they’re slavishly devoted to the heroine from the start, orbiting her until she finally obliges to let them in for a kiss. From start to finish, she calls the shots (as befits a Strong, independent Woman).

    I wonder what this means? That many modern women seem to prefer Alpha Orbiters to Classical Alpha Bad Boys.

    Excellent observation. Roissy explained why this is the case some time back:

    Older women on the downslope of their sexual desirability need less game and more signals of commitment to get them in bed than younger women in their sexual primes. Or, to put it more succinctly, younger, hotter, tighter women love assholes while older, uglier, looser women gravitate to beta providers.

    The reason for this age difference in women’s reactions to game is clear: Older women have less sexual marketability and are thus more likely to be pumped and dumped by a high value man. Ensuring that the man sticks around is priority number one, so older women look for signs of herbly romantic interest of the kind that you might see a humanities department professor wallow in while stroking his weak-chin-hiding white beard.

  106. Dalrock says:

    @PokeSalad

    aaaaand…..right on cue……

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4426784/The-uncomfortable-truth-Tinder.html

    Ha. My wife told me about this last night. I didn’t see your link to it or Vox’s post on it until after I did my own post on it.

  107. safespaceplaypen says:

    @Mad_kalak

    Look man/woman/whatever lol, you seem like a nice guy/girl/whatever but you really need to think things through.

    You’re putting so much emphasis on guns, how useful they are for self defense (which no one is doubting), all while missing the larger point that they simply aren’t that important for women to know about or use. That doesn’t mean they SHOULDN’T use them at all or ever, but it simply means that its really not important for them to know about or care about or spend their time thinking about. And it doesn’t really make them “equal” to use at all in terms of self defense, intellect, contributions to society, and so on.

    However, this statement below that you made does, tbh, get me a little bit butthurt:

    “Sounds to me like your butthurt about the possibility that a woman having more physical power than you, even if it is through a gun. Being an alpha is far more than physical power. It starts with a mindset that overlaps with one that isn’t afraid of girls with guns. But, alas, I doubt you will EVER understand.”

    Uh, yeah. of course i’m butthurt about the possibility of a woman having more phsyical power than me, ESPECIALLY if its through a gun. Why wouldn’t i be butt hurt? You should be a little butt hurt to. The fact that you aren’t butthurt or even worried about this is a solid sign that you have a lot of thinking to do in regards to feminism and equality and mystical “equalizers”.

    Women do all sorts of fucked up things when they have control and power, which is why i’m advocating that they have absolutely none.

    I’ve seen too many guys get burned down in the divorce courts, known too many guys who’ve wasted their early twenties stuck with a controlling women, and heard of too many guys who’ve been burned down cause they “said the wrong thing at work”, and many more bad things. Women being in control and having power IS a big fucking problem.

    But you don’t seem to think its a problem for women having control and power over men, which is a big hint that a lot of conservative feminism is hiding within you. This isn’t a cold read but an obvious conclusion after analyzing the things you’ve repeatedly stated.

    Do some thinking man

  108. Mad_Kalak says:

    @feministhater

    You’re moving the goalposts. Person with gun vs. person without gun: person with gun usually wins. Man or woman, doesn’t matter. Denying that is idiocy. If you’re denying that, please, put down in writing here that you think guns are irrelevant in self-defense.

    I never said woman are equal to men. You are AGAIN putting words in my mouth. Simmer down compadre. I said from the beginning that a woman can physically defend herself with a gun against a man. That’s it. Do you really think that the Old West adage about Colonel Colt is meant to apply to anything other than the ability to defend/attack? It’s from the mid 19th century, from an era when feminism was practically unheard of. A gun perverts the natural order, but that’s what it is designed to do, for men and women. I first thought you had anger issues, not now I just think you have reading comprehension problems. Men are stronger, faster, quicker, tend to be a bit smarter, more driven….blah blah, you know it already. A gun doesn’t change that, and only a person itching for a debate would willingly read into what I said in order to think I was saying guns made women equal to men.

    Somehow in your mind you get this idea that a woman using a tool to defend herself = feminist ruin. When asked for a causal mechanism of how this happens, you pettifog. But there is still a glimmer of hope for you yet. You admit that women used guns for centuries for self defense without becoming feminists, and that feminists are anti-gun. Thus you must be somewhat capable of logical inference. If women used guns for centuries and it didn’t lead to feminism, than other social forces must have, so perhaps we shouldn’t blame men who train their women to shoot as being in league with feminists and responsible for feminist ruin?

    Now take a deep breath, and relax before you respond, should you choose to.

  109. Mad_Kalak says:

    @safespaceplaypen

    My response to feministhater, less the comments about his lack of reading comprehension, apply equally well to your post.

  110. feministhater says:

    I never said woman are equal to men. You are AGAIN putting words in my mouth.

    God made man, but Colonel Colt made them equal.

    Or are you now going to say you were entirely engrossed by your own bullshit as to not believe the statement your own conservative ‘tards use all the time?

  111. feministhater says:

    My point Mad, is that the continued use of promoting women and guns to achieve the idea that it brings equality with men. If a gun makes a weak man and strong man equal…. then a woman and a gun must do the same thing, right?

  112. feministhater says:

    Should be… ” is the continued use of promoting women and guns is to achieve the idea that it creates equality.”

  113. feministhater says:

    You’re moving the goalposts. Person with gun vs. person without gun: person with gun usually wins. Man or woman, doesn’t matter. Denying that is idiocy. If you’re denying that, please, put down in writing here that you think guns are irrelevant in self-defense.

    I think you’re reading stuff that isn’t there. I didn’t say a gun doesn’t give a person an advantage in combat. Of course it does, if you take one person with a gun and another without and place them at either side of a room and tell them to fight it out, the person with the gun wins. However, reality is seldom like that… more often than not, it’s the element of surprise that determines the outcome of home invasions, hi-jacking and robberies and so on.

    My continued dislike of your points isn’t guns and it isn’t self-defense for women. It’s the pandering to women you make so obvious in your comments. You’re so fixated on seeing women and guns, that you miss the wood for the trees. Your freedoms are under attack because you pander to women. You now have to make them happy, empowered and all that other bull because, if not, you lose your rights.

    You and I won’t see eye to eye on this.

    I’ll leave my response to Anon Reader on the “Sporty spice defends Springfiel….” post, where I laid out how giving women the vote and trying to empower them with tools against men, leads to the destruction of your nation.

    Women stop relying on their men to protect them and go get self-defense classes and firearms training, as they are taught they are just as capable and strong as men, this leads to the ‘go girl’ power trip culture we are seeing in both society in general (bikini chicks holding guns) and in fantasy movies in particular (Star Wars, Marvel comics, Trans-formers). Inevitably, it doesn’t go to plan, women get killed, they get injured and crime goes up, government steps in as women demand more safety. More gun laws, more restrictions, more regulations and more red-tape. Cause A is the idea that Woman + Gun = Kicking men’s asses. Cause B is the realisation that fantasy doesn’t equal reality but unwilling to face reality, other solutions are sought, namely, the removal of your freedoms

    This leads to serious ramifications for your personal freedom to own a gun, use it and defend your family. Your very reason for training your wife leads to a harder time for you to defend her.

    The above has already happened, your freedoms have been perversely restricted since women got the vote. It’s a done deal. All that matters now is if you continue to pander to the vanity of women or if you can tell them ‘no’.

  114. Mad_Kalak says:

    @feministhater: Watched this several times since it came out, generally agree with it. Not seeing how guns play a part. Why Women DESTROY NATIONS * / CIVILIZATIONS – and other UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS – Black Pigeon Speaks

  115. Mad_Kalak says:

    @feministhater

    But when it comes to firearms skill alone, women can be as good as men. Usually aren’t, because they don’t care to be, as with most things. Everyone has a natural right to self defense, and because women are weaker, if you care for a woman you should at least show her the basics.
    Training a loved one in firearms is not like sending them to Berkley to major in women’s studies. w

    While I admire the skill of Jerry Miculek, I can admire the skill of his daughter in a prettier package. Still, she would never make a good soldier, regardless of how well she shoots. Based on your reiteration of your main point, do you want me to admit that a woman shooting well makes her less marriageable, or makes her hypergamy flare, just like a woman who has a high paying job? Yea, I’ll agree to that, but it’s a continuum. Women don’t learn to shoot and then turn into feminists because they can kill a man singlehandedly. Hell, they could do that easily by driving their car into a crowd.

  116. Mad_Kalak says:

    p.s. Again, the women who want gun control aren’t feminists with equalist fantasies, so everything else you say doesn’t follow.

  117. Mad_Kalak says:

    I mean to the the women who want gun control ARE feminists with equalist fantasies. Whoops.

  118. Anonymous Reader says:

    feministhater
    I’ll leave my response to Anon Reader on the “Sporty spice defends Springfiel….” post, where I laid out how giving women the vote and trying to empower them with tools against men, leads to the destruction of your nation.

    About that response – it’s a pile of strawman arguments, post-hoc ergo propter-hoc, and other logical fallacies mixed in with inaccurate junk (in the US crime has declined as firearms ownership among both men and women increased, see John Lott’s book “More Guns Less Crime” ), a misunderstanding of US history. Since this is not a gun blog, there’s no value in going over your blob of text point by point; it’s simple enough to state that you do not have a clue what you are writing about. But it clearly stokes up your emotions a lot. That would be your personal problem to work on, not mine or anyone else’s.

  119. feministhater says:

    Yeah sure so nothing to worry about then. You guys are fine. Keep doing what you’re doing. Hey, ain’t going to stop you. You’ve got it sorted!

  120. feministhater says:

    Someone’s got your panties in a bunch Anon Reader. You’ve turned into a right blue pillar lately. Damn son, get that checked out.

    Crime will increase, it has in places where law and order have broken down. What do you think your betters have in store for you? Continued societal bliss? They have been wearing you down for ages. Your culture is cracking at its seams.

    I’m admit that crime has gone down, attribute that to what you want, more guns, more laws, more jails, there’s a whole bunch of arguments to be made. All that entails that you have a running government that people will obey.

    It hasn’t gone down in my country though, only up and women scream over here for safety, not for more guns. In fact they will shout you down if you even suggest it.

    Attack me though, if it makes you feel better. I tell it as I see it, don’t like it. Don’t care.

  121. feministhater says:

    Just to clarify Anon Reader. You disagree with the idea that crimes will eventually start to trend upwards at your country’s current pace of financial, social and cultural collapse. Do you also believe that women’s empowerment hasn’t led to ‘you go girl’ attitude that places them in problematic situations that eventually requires the government to step in a try to solve?

    To you also believe that the constant positive reinforcement that women receive, whether it is at movies where they kick the asses of men on screen, or the gun stores selling women the empowerment fantasy of the strong, kickass women in a bikini, firing bullets at a target, that tells them they can take on any man doesn’t lead to the problems/costs that Dalrock has suggested up thread.

    Do you disagree that you have lost freedoms since women got the vote?
    Do you disagree that you now have to pander to women to keep the freedoms you still have?
    Do you disagree that this pandering inflates the egos of women?

    Nothing happens in a vacuum, I simply laid out a timeline to what I see happening, whether in your country, my country or any country that tries to pander to women.

  122. Anonymous Reader says:

    Just to clarify Anon Reader. You disagree with the idea that crimes will eventually start to trend upwards at your country’s current pace of financial, social and cultural collapse.

    Where did I say that? You really should stop making stuff up in your head and pretending other people wrote it.

    What I wrote was that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and crime and I should have made it clear that was true in the United States as documented by John Lott. So the argument that teaching women basic shooting skills leads to societal collapse is just stupid. It is demonstrably stupid, because the last 20 years of firearms law changes in the US demonstrate that.

    You appear to be emotinally wrapped up in blaming all of the ills of feminism on girls learning how to shoot a Ruger 10/22, which is really, really dumb. Why this is such a hot button issue for you is not my problem. The 19th Amendment didn’t pass because of Annie Oakley and girls shooting tin cans, it came about as part of a larger social movement that would take a lot of words to explain, and that frankly you are not up to understanding.

    Giving women the right to vote had a huge effect socially that we are still undergoing. Teaching them to shoot a revolver? Not even close. Imagine an alternate universe where the US did not grant women the right to vote until the 1970’s as some Swiss cantons did, but where marksmanship was a required course in every high school for both sexes. Would that place be better or worse?

    Your argument is even stupider than the usual “guns cause crime” garbage that has been debunked over and over for 25 years, you are arguing “guns cause social collapse”. Which is clearlly false, because the same problems can be found in the UK where guns are effectively banned.
    Got that? The UK has very strict gun control. Most women don’t know one end from the other. But most women vote. Ditto for France. Ditto for Netherlands. Ditto for Germany. See a pattern, yet?

    Now, why it is so important to you that married women be unable to defend themselves against intruders? Some sort of personal problem you have?

  123. Anonymous Reader says:

    feministhater
    Yeah sure so nothing to worry about then. You guys are fine. Keep doing what you’re doing. Hey, ain’t going to stop you. You’ve got it sorted!

    LOL! Good grief, that’s the kind of tantrum I expect from a child. Take a break. Go for a walk. Lift some weights. Do something else. You’re all emotional, and not thinking at all.

  124. Gunner Q says:

    Isa @ 3:28 am:
    ” Both their advice was the same, women at that time must fill their time with something useful, volunteering, part time job, anything to fill the time so they cannot find people to blame for their own unhappiness. They also said the phase tends to end in the 50’s. ”

    Sounds right. That’s the age at which women must come to grips with the fact they’re committed to her husband. How shameful that some women would rather desperately hold out for more branches at the exact moment she should be settling in as a matriarch. Like a Christian renouncing God on his deathbed.

  125. Carlotta says:

    Everyone seems to either be reluctant to admit or not aware that the other option is to have a male relative, if not their Husbands, with women in any situation they may need protection.

  126. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Well, that’s the time tested way…..But in the coming Violence, feminists will be sifted out. Most will die due to a lack of common sense.

  127. Tarl says:

    I was kind of startled too. Benching 200 pounds (now 215) IS BY NO MEANS “STRONG”. It just means that I’m not a total weakling like I use to be.

    Still, it is probably 3-4 times what the average woman can bench.

    If you’re at the gym it is rare to see women benching at all, and if they do, it is almost never as much as 135, which even fairly weak men call “the warm up set”.

  128. melmoth says:

    Here’s Alan Zilberman (the guy who warns against ‘nice guy villains’ in Colossal;

    https://www.google.com/search?q=alan+zilberman&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwia9sefmLvTAhVG22MKHZo0CLUQ_AUIBygC&biw=1778&bih=861#imgrc=z6PmdMVthtRrbM:&spf=191

    So maybe some self-loathing going on? Or he’s just cleverly evolving more quickly in the mangina olympics hierarchy; A ‘cutting edge mangina’ is already calling out men for outdated ‘good-guy mangina’ behavior, like how hipsters are always trying to be the first to take irony to eleven.

    But his message is clear;

    Bad men = bad
    Good men = bad,
    Therefore, all men are bad and feminism wins again. Not sure what the reward is though.

  129. melmoth says:

    @Constrained Locus,

    This is quite well-written;

    “This is the root cause of our dysfunctional gender war. Women are current bestowed with immense power, privilege, preference, set asides and deference, against essentially no accountability and no responsibility. Conversely it is compulsory for men to carry the water regardless (held accountable and responsible), but have witnessed their level of authority and power eroded to nothing by the state and by feminist activism.”

    Says it all.

    ……and passport.

  130. Shark says:

    “I’m the equal of any bull!” I bellow.
    The bull snorts.
    “How dare you, foul creature!” I roar, then charge to deliver a felling blow to the bull’s skull.

    Uh, yeah, that wouldn’t end well…and I don’t do it, because I’m not stupid. But if I were raised on fairy tales of gender/species equalism, I might try…and earn a Darwin Award ™

  131. N says:

    Are you kidding me!!?

    Where did gender come into the picture here, “Don’t mess with someone bigger and stronger than you” would have sufficed but you had to make it about male and female?

    I can give you more examples of men getting beaten up or dying as a result of a fight that they picked up with bigger men. Gender is a forced angle here by a petty mind.

    Also, what are your suggestion for men who get bullied by a bigger man? I am qurious.

    Gisgust,
    N

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s