Angry with God, envious of men.

One of the ideas feminists have been floating is a curfew for men.  Most recently this made the news as a viral series of tweets.  From This is What Women Would Do if There Were No Men On The Streets Post 9 PM:

Don’t go out late at night. Don’t dress in short clothes. Don’t walk down deserted roads. Don’t go into dark corners…

No, these are not rules for an entry into some prison. If you are a woman, you probably have been taught all of these as a child.

We are told that outside spaces are unsafe. That going out late at night is a risk. That you cannot stroll down at 2 A.M at night without fearing for your life. As much as you choose to, or not choose to believe in these, society conditions you to these factors. It becomes so normalized that you don’t think about why it is a problem.

This feminist idea goes back many years.  Back in 2014 Vice.com ran an article titled Would a Curfew for Men Be Good for Society?  The Vice article referenced a Colombian city that was “experimenting” with the idea:

Bars and clubs are being encouraged to host women-only events, while men who have to be out and about in the evening will need to carry a safe-conduct permit issued by the mayor’s office, explaining why they are out during the curfew.

But according to Vice, the idea itself dates back at least to the early 1970s:

Back in the early 70s, Golda Meir, the then prime minister of Israel, was faced with a government cabinet full of men discussing how best to curb a wave of violent rapes. The idea of banning women from the streets after dark was floated. Meir made a counteroffer.

“Men are attacking women,” she said. “Not the other way around. If there is going to be a curfew, let the men be locked up, not the women.”

One thing to keep in mind is that the idea of a curfew for men is not about stopping crime or protecting women.  This is about feminist envy of men.  In order to protect women, such a scheme would not only have to keep good law abiding men off the streets, it would have to keep murderers, rapists, etc. off the streets as well.  The feminists themselves understand that such a law would only keep the good men off the streets, and they are fine with that.  As the promoter of the Colombian scheme acknowledged in the Vice article, such a rule would depend upon the goodwill of men:

Any fines handed out are likely to be symbolic, however. The success of the scheme will rest on whether men choose to go along with the campaign. As Beltrán conceded, “We can only hope men accept the challenge [to stay at home],” which is far from a certainty.

But why would feminists want a rule to keep good men at home at night in response to crimes committed by bad men?  Not only would this not make women safer, but removing good men would make women even more vulnerable to the small number of bad ones.  The answer is that this isn’t about crime or safety, but envy.  This is about feminists envying good men, and wanting to punish them for having something they covet.

This isn’t about feminists being angry with rapists and murderers, this is about them resenting the good men who unhesitatingly go out of their way to keep women safe.  The proposal is the response to the feminist question:

Why do men get to protect women?  Why isn’t it the other way around?

In a satirical piece in the Sydney Morning Herald this July, Melinda Houston captured this envy perfectly.  After acknowledging that truly bad men would not be deterred by the curfew, she described the real benefit of the law;  good men would be afraid and need to turn to women for protection:

But how about when I want to, say, go out and have dinner or a few drinks with male friends? Well, right now, at the conclusion of an evening’s festivities one or more of my male companions see me safely into a taxi. But under the new regime any men out after dark would have to be accompanied by a responsible female, and escorted in person to appropriate transport. It’s completely do-able. I can attest to it. I’ve been doing it for decades.

Same rules for any chap who works nights.

And if you can’t afford a taxi or an Uber or arrange for a friend to collect you? Well, gentlemen, you’d have to take your chances, just as the ladies currently do.

This is of course the same impulse driving the insistence of forcing women into every unit in the military, no matter the cost.  Rape and murder they can tolerate, but feeling gratitude is absolutely unbearable.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Envy, Gratitude, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

100 Responses to Angry with God, envious of men.

  1. BillyS says:

    [Isa 3:12 NKJV] 12 [As for] My people, children [are] their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause [you] to err, And destroy the way of your paths.”

  2. Pingback: Angry with God, envious of men. | @the_arv

  3. Women only events at bars is remarkably deluded about why they exist.

    Let’s not restrict anybody, let’s free fathers. As opposed to making fornication and adultery safer, let’s make it dangerous again.

    Turns out, this is all a way out there idea that only every society since time immemorial has figured out. Turns out you can’t keep society out of the bedroom, because what happens in the bedroom, never, ever actually stays there.

    The problem does lie with men, only not the way anybody thinks.

  4. dpmonahan says:

    Having public spaces divided into “Men-Only” and “Family” Saudi-style would actually achieve the stated goals of the proposed curfew.

  5. feeriker says:

    Inre Dalrock’s title, women hav more or less openly admitted to the truth of the second part. Let’s see how much time passes before they openly declare how true the first part is.

  6. sipcode says:

    Prophecy
    Women are angry.
    Women have a perpetual hatred.
    Women are envious.
    Women are filthy.
    Women have idols.
    Women boast that they now govern both women and men.
    Women are blasphemous with boasts against men – ‘they are given us to consume.’
    Women boast against God.
    Women keep expanding their boast against God.
    Women kill their own children, the seed of men, at the time of their calamity.
    All these are so obvious to the world that the world rejoices that God’s people have
    become desolate from this.
    God is furious at this, in His jealousy, because this is as shameful as the heathen.

    Women have devoured men.
    Women have bereaved His people of men.
    Women have caused men to bear the shame of the heathen.
    Women have defiled God’s people by doing things their way.
    Women have profaned His holy name.
    Women have slain men.

    But God is for His people.
    He will till us and plant new seed.
    He will rebuild the waste.
    He will make all better than our beginnings.
    He will do this by multiplying men.
    He will cause men to walk on women.
    He will cause men to possess women.
    He will cause men to possess all of His people.

    Then men will stop being ashamed of women acting as the heathen.
    God is not doing this for His people; He is doing this renewal for His sake, for His
    holy name.

    He will sprinkle clean water on women.
    He will take away the heart of stone in women.
    He will give women a heart of flesh.
    He will give women a new spirit.
    He will cause women to walk in His statutes.
    He will cause women to keep His judgments.
    He will cause women to recall their evil ways.
    He will cause women to loathe themselves.
    He will cause women to be ashamed and confounded for their ways.
    God will till the desolate land; He will increase the harvest; He will restore all like the
    Garden of Eden.
    He will restore the waste cities by increasing them with men.
    He will bring flocks of men for His restoration.

    And there is yet a great valley filled with dry bones; many dry bones.
    These bones are those of the devoured men.
    But God will breath upon these bones that have been slain, with His Word, that they
    may live.
    And there will be a noise and a shaking, and the bones will come together, even
    together with the bone of God.
    These bones will stand to their feet as an exceedingly great army.
    And these bones are the whole of the house of God.

    God will then open the graves of all His people.
    Then He will take His people out from the heathen and make them one nation with one
    King, in their own land.
    And they all will know that He has spoken this and that He has performed this.
    And He will make with them a covenant of peace.
    And He will be their God and they will be His people.

  7. Cindy says:

    Last sentence is the kill-quote. Spot on.

  8. Sharkly says:

    The only reason small patches of women are rejecting feminism at all is because they are afraid of something far worse than misogyny – namely a growing indifference among men.

    I have been flipped! By the #MeToo movement. Even though I consider myself the hero type, who would ordinarily want the chance to put my life at risk to save others, I will have to suppress that instinct. The false rape charges are an attack against all men. It is now a declared war on men, by womankind. I now have zero, I repeat ZERO, concern for any woman who is raped, whether falsely or genuinely. I don’t give a shit. Until this war on men is called off, I believe we are at war, and every adult woman deserves to be raped, for her complicity in the destruction of men’s lives. Sorry if you have not reached that point yet, but that is where I’m at. If I see a woman being raped, I’m just going to assume it is consensual, and that she likes it rough. If she cries out for help, I’m just going to assume she is changing her mind and trying to throw her “boyfriend” under the bus. Every man deserves to be believed, in my mind. If he says it ain’t rape, I believe him. If he admits he is raping her, I don’t care, this is war, and shit happens. Collateral damage is going to happen. She can get over it. But I’m not going to risk damaging a man’s reputation for life. I’ll believe the best about him no matter what things look or seem like. Every man deserves to be believed. And I do believe them, and even if they claim to be guilty, I don’t care. Women can reap what they’ve sowed. Thanks to their willingness to believe false charges against men, I no longer care about any adult woman who gets raped. Tough shit! Get over it sweetie! I’m not going to let a rape accusation ruin a man’s life on my watch. I’m now officially indifferent until things change.

  9. sipcode says:

    “He must increase, but I must decrease” John 3:30. This is done solely by the church decreasing in every way relative to God. This then releases God to be God. This is how we respect God, how we glorify God, how He is released to further reveal Himself, and how we enter His kingdom —“and ye shall know that I am the Lord.”

    That is substantially initiated by women decreasing in every way relative to men, releasing men to be free to be men. Men must increase for God to increase: ‘he must increase, but she must decrease.’ Women decreasing is how women respect men, how women glorify men [1 Cor 11:7], so men can reveal themselves as God’s authority and representative and image on earth, that she may know that he is her lord [1 Pet 3:6]. Women have been stealing the glory of men, thus modeling the church stealing the glory of God …increasing at the expense of the Lord decreasing.

    Women increasing has been the insidious cancer of the church.

  10. sipcode says:

    Look at EVERYTHING women are saying, are doing, or where they are located …and question if that is their place. The changes required to everyday life to live out His Word would render that everyday life unrecognizable. This is how far we are from God. We have made Him unrecognizable.

    Why is this the HOTTEST TICKET of the day throughout the whole world? It is because the Devil is ramping up for his final battle.

  11. sipcode says:

    Genesis 3:16: Women are the agents of the Devil. Men are the agents of God.

  12. sipcode says:

    International Day of the Girl [today] quote: “The future of the world is with the girl.” …the coming last ditch stranglehold by the Devil.

  13. Paul says:

    And who are going to enforce a curfew on men? Women?

  14. Oscar says:

    @ dpmonahan

    Having public spaces divided into “Men-Only” and “Family” Saudi-style would actually achieve the stated goals of the proposed curfew.

    That explains why feminists are so paradoxically fond of Islam. They just want Trigglypuffs as the religious police.

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Paul

    Exactly the same question I’ve asked other places, to no reply. The people who offer such proposals evidently are unable to think through even a two-step logic chain.

    I agree with Dalrock that envy is a driver, but suggest that the innate female desire for control of men is also a factor.

  16. Novaseeker says:

    @Paul

    Exactly the same question I’ve asked other places, to no reply. The people who offer such proposals evidently are unable to think through even a two-step logic chain.

    I agree with Dalrock that envy is a driver, but suggest that the innate female desire for control of men is also a factor.

    Presumably it would be female police officers with guns and stuff I guess.

    I agree it’s about control. It’s also about the endless, endless desire women have to make men feel the kind of insecurity and fear that they feel due to their physical weaknesses vis-a-vis men. They hate that vulnerability and they love foisting it on men when they can to “turn the tables”. Same reason they don’t mind false prosecutions of men — “men can learn what it’s like to be vulnerable” and so on. It’s about forcing men to partake in women’s physical vulnerability, really, which is the core source of their existential insecurity vis-a-vis men and a primary source of their resentment of us.

  17. Oscar says:

    @ Sharkly

    I have been flipped! By the #MeToo movement. Even though I consider myself the hero type, who would ordinarily want the chance to put my life at risk to save others, I will have to suppress that instinct.

    Dude, I’m responsible for my wife, my kids and my mom. That’s pretty much it. Everyone else is on a case-by-case basis that depends on my relationship with the father of the family.

    That kind of low-trust balkanization, by the way, is one of the goals of feminism, and every other Leftist ideology. When people can’t depend on their neighbors, they have to depend on government.

  18. feeriker says:

    @Sharkly

    Ditto. Reflects ny own attitude exactly. AFAIC, there is no ‘collateral damage” in this war. The only remotely possible exceptions are women who have actively spoken out against and/or actively fought against feminism at a tangible risk to themselves and their families. We all know how tiny that list is. The majority of women are every bit as feminist as the radlib minority but just don’t have the guts to be honest and open about it.

  19. Sharkly says:

    Envy drives Marxism, whereas greed drives Capitalism.
    Feminism is a branch of cultural Marxism.
    Women are just Jealous that they were not created in the image of God, and want to become like God. Thus they ate the forbidden fruit to become like God.
    Feminism is thinly guised penis envy. Thus women’s attempts to emasculate men.
    My wife once told me she wished she had been born a man. Unfortunately she didn’t share that until after I married her. Doh! She is mad at God, and taking it out on me, God’s image. She seems to do everything she can to turn me towards sin. It is like she is in the employ of the devil.
    You’re right sipcode!

  20. Isn’t this like asking Latin American politicians to enforce an anti-bribery law?

    And Dalrock, I think “gullability” is more apt than goodwill.

  21. SnapperTrx says:

    Government agents, controlled by men who are controlled by women and given the power to incarcerate or kill you.

  22. Dan says:

    Nothing to do with this post, just thought you might be interested in this:

    https://wakeupyourmind.net/relationships/to-my-daughter-remember-that-a-nice-guy-is-not-necessarily-a-good-man/

    My take? Just exchange every time you see “nice guy”, the guy she’s following around and allowing to crap on her, with “Alpha guy”, and clarity happens.

  23. Oscar says:

    @ Sharkly

    Envy drives Marxism, whereas greed drives Capitalism.

    Marxism is driven by envy and greed. Coveting other people’s stuff is a form of greed.

  24. Sharkly says:

    Dude, I’m responsible for my wife, my kids and my mom. That’s pretty much it.
    Thankfully I’ve got no daughters, my mom is dead, and my unrepentant whore wife, who is divorcing me, can fend for herself. Rape away! Just stay away from the kiddies, that’s all I ask.

    And yes, the stated intention of Feminism is the destruction of the traditional family, which they consider to be a form of female slavery.

  25. sipcode says:

    “Rape and murder they can tolerate, but feeling gratitude is absolutely unbearable.”

    Powerfully true statement.

    Why the lack of gratitude? “Women are not free from the need to be recognized” [1Cor11:7 God does not show her glorified, as recognized] “A woman at peace with herself does not need to be recognized” “To obey is better” — all from Constanza Miriano, Italian author of ‘Marry Him and Be Submissive.’

    Hence, the bumper sticker: “Women who behave never make history.”

    To submit, we must first be thankful for God and His plan [Phil 4:6].

  26. ChristianCool says:

    @Oscar and @ Sharkly

    I second what you are saying about not getting involved. I repeat DO NOT GET INVOLVED WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S CRIMINAL SITUATIONS.

    When I worked criminal and immigration division, almost every month we had some poor guy “wanting to help some woman being abused” and she turned on the “good Samaritan” and he went to jail, not the actual abuser. Women do this all the time, I SAW this firsthand.

    I had one guy here separate a really ugly and bloody streetfight between a man and a woman (this was in Cincinnati, btw). He got in between the two and split up the fight. Cops showed up, cuffed all 3 because they were all hurt badly until police van arrived to transport all 3 to hospital and then jail. When cop asked the “hero” what did he do, he said he pushed her and him away from each other with his hands, to separate the fight. Hero got charged with simple battery and given a summons (no jailhouse booking at least, but now a criminal record for life). To my great surprise, both “lovers” went to hospital and then central jail booking for incident. Lover-boy got charged with aggravated battery and lover-girl was charged with disorderly conduct (was only arrested because she had drug paraphernalia on her, not for beating the guy with a metal pipe).

    Very often, “hero types” living in apt buildings call cops when there is a “domestic dispute” upstairs and next day, the “victim” comes to say “thank you for helping her out” with a large sharp kitchen knife because you got her “loving boyfriend” arrested for beating her up and now they cannot afford bond. You “ruined her life” and now you are faced with an angry woman with a knife. Defend yourself and YOU got to jail for attacking a defenseless woman.

    Policing world under Duluth model is hell. 😡

    I had one poor sap, a hopeful young Brazilian who attended the very nice Valencia college here, get a “medical assistance” AS degree want to be a hero and pulled a guy from a wrecked car and guy lost his arm because of this “rescue”. The guy sued the “hero” for loss of his arm and the Brazilian had to flee back to Brazil as his civil defense attorneys fees caused him to have $36,000 in debt, from credit cards to pay lawyers (and that was still in Discovery, his case was probably gonna go another $50 grand minimum).

    To get a “Free lawyer” (Public Pretender) is only in criminal cases and if you do not have Personal Liability Insurance (like homeowners or Umbrella policies), YOU will have to pay lawyers yourself to defend you in civil litigation cases. Failure to show up in court = default judgment against you which means the Plaintiff’s lawyers will garnish your wages, put liens on anything you own, etc. This guy’s life was ruined trying to be a hero. Do NOT do it.

    BTW, laws protecting you from legal liability (called Good Samaritan Laws) get overturned by courts all the time, because the trial lawyers who want to sue and ruin your life for their gain will do anything to get to you. I deal with lawyers all day at work and in class; Lawyers will do, say, destroy, lie, hurt, ruin and even sell their souls to Beelzebub for 30 pieces of silver. If you work with lawyers enough, you will see what I am saying.

    You are responsible for your own folks, maybe some of the neighbors you know well for years and trust (close friends). Do NOT try to be a hero on the street, you are not a freelance cop or cheesy romance novel hero. last thing you need is to punch some “minority” who is trying to attack some victim and you yourself be arrested for “racial attack” or have an Antifa or Black Lives Matter-type mob show up at your house. At the very minimum, you will be sued civilly and lose a lot of what you worked hard for 9and future earnings if you cannot cover the multi-million Dollar judgments juries just love to give).

    The most you should do today is be a good Samaritan and call 911 and report it. America is a highly litigious society. The story of the Good Samaritan in America would end up “the man woke up at the Inn, called some shyster, falsely accused you of some crap in court, and took your donkey and your house from you at the end”.

    This is America, land of lawsuits, unfair criminal laws to men, and abusive lawyers. Heed my warning, those who are wise.

  27. Anon says:

    Once again :

    ‘Feminism’, far from helping women, has instead exposed the full extent of female inferiority (moral, intellectual, physical, civic, parental, spousal, economic, spiritual) far more visibly than was ever possible before ‘feminism’.

  28. Isn’t this like asking Latin American politicians to enforce an anti-bribery law?

    On second thought, it isn’t like that at all, because while Latin American elites might pass an anti-corruption law they would never enforce it. The cucked men of the Anglosphere and Scandinavia, however, would pass (and have passed) laws that could be used against them.

    Western law-abidingness is a weakness that leaves men prey to feminism.

  29. thedeti says:

    Envy of men? Envious of what? The fact that your average man can be out by himself at night, or mostly anytime, anywhere, and not really worry about being accosted, assaulted or raped?

    I guess I don’t see it, seeing as how I’m one of those eeevil men and all.

    I always thought women wanted male curfews because, as you said, the only men who would observe it are the vast majority of good, law abiding men, and only alpha rule breakers would not. That leaves women sexual access to all the alpha rule breakers. She knows if she runs into one of these men post curfew, he’s an attractive alpha and not an icky beta or omega. She can be more assured he’s an attractive man she might want to hook up with, if there’s a male curfew.

  30. Prompt Critical says:

    On the plus side, the modern view of “there are sixteen thousand genders, and yours is whatever you feel like it is in this current moment” is a pretty effective antidote to this sort of nonsense, even if not an optimal one.

  31. 7817 says:

    “The feminists themselves understand that such a law would only keep the good men off the streets, and they are fine with that.”

    There’s a dark truth about female arousal triggers right there. Any man who would follow a law like that would reveal himself to be an undesirable man.

    Man and Woman’s sinful natures are not precisely the same when it comes to sexual sin.

  32. thedeti says:

    7817

    Yes, but Dalrock’s post asserts women are envious of men because men are the ones who “get” to do the protecting, and why is that, and why can’t women be the ones doing the protecting? And women resent it that men protect them, and women can’t protect men.

    I’m saying I didn’t see that. That might be the case. I always thought Male curfews were about helping women separate out attractive, manly man alphas from goody two shoes, rule following, slide rule in the pocket protector betas. Much like affirmative consent codes are about seeing what men have the stones to go ahead and proceed and escalate, and which men will be the supplicant little nebbishes saying “can I kiss you? Can I remove your shirt? Can I remove your bra? Can I touch your right breast? Can I touch your left breast? Can I kiss the areola on the right breast? Can I touch the areola on your left breast?” Etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseam.

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Presumably it would be female police officers with guns and stuff I guess.

    Oh, yeah, absolutely. No need for male backup to deal with the upper body strength issue, or male EMT’s to cart off the men that will get shot in a moment of feminine panic, either…

    I agree it’s about control. It’s also about the endless, endless desire women have to make men feel the kind of insecurity and fear that they feel due to their physical weaknesses vis-a-vis men.

    That might not be uniform across all woman, it might be more common in bigger cities. But I could be wrong.

  34. Jean says:

    The only time in my life that I was physically harmed on the street, the perpetrators were two other girls. Strange, isn’t it?

  35. Novaseeker says:

    Envy of men? Envious of what? The fact that your average man can be out by himself at night, or mostly anytime, anywhere, and not really worry about being accosted, assaulted or raped?

    They envy that we don’t feel physical vulnerability like they more or less constantly do — that they are very resentful of, and they both envy us for that *and* blame us for it (because we are the ones they fear, not other women).

  36. thedeti says:

    They envy that we don’t feel physical vulnerability like they more or less constantly do — that they are very resentful of, and they both envy us for that *and* blame us for it (because we are the ones they fear, not other women).

    OK. And that’s the only “male privilege” thing I have, something I have just because I am a big human with a penis.

    Apparently this is an all consuming, pervasive thing with women, being physically vulnerable. This, despite the fact that male aggression, violence and deployment of brute physical strength are both (1) virtually obsolete, and (2) strongly discouraged before and punished severely after. The use of brute force has been all but neutralized in Western society. And I understand it’s a hardwiring thing, it’s innate in women, and all the social programming and conditioning won’t erase it. And that’s why the male curfew trial balloons are being floated.

    I see it now.

  37. Novaseeker says:

    Yes, but Dalrock’s post asserts women are envious of men because men are the ones who “get” to do the protecting, and why is that, and why can’t women be the ones doing the protecting? And women resent it that men protect them, and women can’t protect men.

    I think the basis for what she was saying there wasn’t that women relished being the protectors (she wasn’t talking about physical protection, she was talking about being a required chaperone to avoid being arrested). What she was interested in was placing men in a place of vulnerability where they would need protection in order to avoid losing their freedom — that is the driver. It’s the fantasy of transferring to men the vulnerability that women feel by making men arbitrarily vulnerable unless they have a female chaperone. The female chaperone bit is a little bit of feminist pique and vengeance thrown in, but the underlying driver is the interest in having men experience the kind of vulnerability that women do (and that they blame us for feeling).

  38. thedeti says:

    I take it back re aggression and violence. Male aggression, violence, and brute physical strength are OK and sanctioned, if they are being deployed in the service of women and/or children.

  39. texinole says:

    Envy of men? Envious of what? The fact that your average man can be out by himself at night, or mostly anytime, anywhere, and not really worry about being accosted, assaulted or raped?

    Men are more likely to be physically assaulted than women. Raped? No, especially considering under the law it is literally impossible to charge a woman with rape. These daffy bints need to just buy a damned gun and shut the hell up.

  40. Feeling vulnerable in public must be prerational, because attacking a woman in public is like attacking someone with an army at their beck and command. The only places it can be done without immediate reprisal are the black ghettos where bitch smackings are routine.

  41. Novaseeker says:

    I take it back re aggression and violence. Male aggression, violence, and brute physical strength are OK and sanctioned, if they are being deployed in the service of women and/or children.

    Yes, or, in olden days, just kicking the other tribe’s ass and taking their stuff. That works, too.

    The use of brute force has been all but neutralized in Western society. And I understand it’s a hardwiring thing, it’s innate in women, and all the social programming and conditioning won’t erase it. And that’s why the male curfew trial balloons are being floated.

    It’s been neutralized in the sense that it is punished when caught and evidenced, but the issue is that even with these punishments, some small percentage of men will still act out with their physical strength. This is what women fear — they know 99% of men won’t, but if they come across the other 1/100 guy when they’re walking to their car in the parking garage at work at 9pm, well … That’s the thing. It really doesn’t cross a guy’s mind that if he’s walking to his car in a lonely parking garage after work that he may be attacked or raped, but women feel that risk because they know that they generally can’t stop that kind of attack if they get unlucky and come across guy 1/100. They also resent the fact that men don’t have to feel that way in as many situations as women do. A man may feel vulnerable walking down the street in a crime-ridden minority ghetto at night, and so avoid that behavior, but women resent having to avoid behaviors, or feeling like they have to avoid behaviors, that men don’t have to avoid because they are less physically vulnerable — like the garage scenario, or walking home from a bar or what have you, which are normal things and not isolated areas like a dangerous ghetto — and they resent the hell out of that. They resent that they should have someone accompany them, or they should just take a cab, or they should not be out so late, or they should make other arrangements and so on when men don’t have to — that is the source of the resentment and the source of the desire to make men feel that vulnerability while doing otherwise normal things that men rarely feel.

    I’m not saying it’s rational for women to feel this way — it’s like arguing with gravity, in a way. Things are the way that they are, and women will always be more physically vulnerable in a wider array of situations than men are — no matter what the laws are. That can’t really be helped. But I think we can understand why that is annoying for women, and why they both envy the fact that we don’t have these kinds of worries in anything close the same number and type of situations AND resent us for not having that AND are angry at us, as a sex, for being the reason why they have something to fear. It’s not like there’s any solution, and being angry and resentful and so on is always unhelpful for men or women alike, but I think we can at least understand what drives that, what fuels it — it can be hard fr us, I think, because it is so alien to us in most circumstances to feel that way, that it seems ridiculous that women do generally feel so physically vulnerable in a larger number of situations than we would consider normal or appropriate, precisely because, well … they’re much smaller and weaker and slower than we generally are — and they’re keenly aware of that.

    (I do agree with AR, by the way, that the degree of anxiety here almost certainly varies by locale, time of day, and so on. But it’s still a much wider array of scenarios where women begin to feel threatened or vulnerable than scenarios where we, as men, begin to feel that way.)

  42. BillyS says:

    “He must increase, but I must decrease” John 3:30. This is done solely by the church decreasing in every way relative to God. This then releases God to be God. This is how we respect God, how we glorify God, how He is released to further reveal Himself, and how we enter His kingdom —“and ye shall know that I am the Lord.”

    Completely taking that out of context.

    That was John the Baptist, the greatest under the OT per Jesus, saying he needed to decrease so the NT could come through Jesus.

    Applying that to Christians is idiotic. If God wanted less of you He wouldn’t have saved you. He had none of you prior to that.

  43. Pingback: Angry with God, envious of men. | Reaction Times

  44. Guess what else this Y-Chromosome Curfew would increase: crimes (violent and otherwise) i>by women! And only the wokest apologists for feminism and the Courtly-Love cultists with the biggest cucks-combs would be even slightly surprised.

  45. Dalrock says:

    @TheDeti

    OK. And that’s the only “male privilege” thing I have, something I have just because I am a big human with a penis.

    Apparently this is an all consuming, pervasive thing with women, being physically vulnerable. This, despite the fact that male aggression, violence and deployment of brute physical strength are both (1) virtually obsolete, and (2) strongly discouraged before and punished severely after. The use of brute force has been all but neutralized in Western society. And I understand it’s a hardwiring thing, it’s innate in women, and all the social programming and conditioning won’t erase it. And that’s why the male curfew trial balloons are being floated.

    I see it now.

    I’ve just edited the post to include a quote from a news story about the viral tweets. I had originally only linked to the story, but the way it is set up really frames the feminist angst.

  46. Anon says:

    In other news, there are naysayers here who don’t understand Artificial Intelligence, but what has been long predicted by myself, Ray Manta, IBB, and PM/AFT, has begun :

    Amazon uses AI to hire people. It reveals that men are more productive.

    Amazon has to pretend to scrap the tool, but in reality, they will probably use it secretly. If they don’t some other company will not let feminism cost them a vast sum of money.

    AI will only ever come to this conclusion. It cannot be programmed to ‘deliberately show women are more productive’, as such an AI will implode and not maintain self-improvement inherent to AI.

  47. Anonymous Reader says:

    Of course, the other aspect of “Let’s have a 9 PM curfew on men” is pure fitness testing at the societal level. “”Um, sometimes I am nervous walking to my car after dark, so, um, what if all 1 million men in the city were greatly inconvenienced and hassled by having to stay home after 9 PM, do you think that would make me, like, less nervous in the parking lot? Hmmm?”.

    One answer is obvious: “Get a different job. Try being a SAHM for example”…

    Just like the trial balloons for limits on alcohol – I saw an essay the other day connecting up “male violence” and “excessive alcohol” based off of the Kavanaugh clown-car Kabuki, then reaching back to the 1870’s Temperance movement to, um, suggest, um, if maybe…

    (Of course the last time around, the Methodist denomination was heavily involved in pushing Prohibition. That surely led to the serious decline in the number of Methodists by 1930. Who wants to sign up for the job of obeying women’s whims this century, I wonder? Maybe the Southern Baptists?)

    Anyway, Western men as a group have been failing such society-wide fitness tests for well over a century…

  48. Oscar says:

    @ J. J. Griffing

    Guess what else this Y-Chromosome Curfew would increase: crimes…

    Pardon me, but chromosomes have nothing to do with gender, and “man” is a gender. So say our Leftist betters.

  49. Anonymous Reader says:

    J.J. Griffing
    Guess what else this Y-Chromosome Curfew would increase: crimes (violent and otherwise) i>by women!

    You are confused. Women are inherently good and only commit crimes under the influence of some evil man. You need some re-education!

  50. Anonymous Reader says:

    Amazon has to pretend to scrap the tool, but in reality, they will probably use it secretly.

    Probably not.

    If they don’t some other company will not let feminism cost them a vast sum of money.

    Any pattern of discrimination on the basis of sex will eventually lead to trouble at the state and Federal level for any company of any size. Amazon is not immune to a charge of sex discrimination, no matter how big it gets.

    AI will only ever come to this conclusion.

    That depends on the data used to train. Even deep learning is guided. Control the training set, control the range of possible outcomes.

    It cannot be programmed to ‘deliberately show women are more productive’,

    It doesn’t have to show that, it just has to be nondiscriminatory.

    as such an AI will implode and not maintain self-improvement inherent to AI.

    Software does not implode. Self-modifying code is unpredictable, which is why pattern recognizers, deep learning systems, etc. are always constrained in terms of the state space they are allowed to traverse. A system such as Amazon built that was constrained in training and state space to find women to be “equally valuable” hires to men would be less efficient, perhaps so much so as to be not very useful. But it wouldn’t be discriminatory, and that’s what matters in a lot of larger companies.

    A company large enough to have the resources to hire a company of lawyers to defend against sex-discrimination cases is also large enough to tolerate the inefficiencies of hiring less than qualified employees. One option makes for bad publicity, the other does not.

  51. 7817 says:

    Deti:
    “Dalrock’s post asserts women are envious of men because men are the ones who “get” to do the protecting, and why is that, and why can’t women be the ones doing the protecting? And women resent it that men protect them, and women can’t protect men.”

    Makes sense, would this would be the sin of envy then? This goes both ways. Women resent their weakness and envy men’s strength, and the corresponding masculine thing would be to resent having to be strong, and envy women because they get to be taken care of.

  52. 7817 says:

    Masculine in my previous post should be “male.”

  53. Sharkly says:

    They envy that we don’t feel physical vulnerability like they more or less constantly do
    I don’t think that is it. They’re feeble minded. They believe stupid shit. They believe they are “victims” and males have great privilege. They’ve been taught to believe that religiously, and so many of them do. Why take responsibility for the setbacks in your life, when you can blame them all on others, especially on “privileged” men? As a perpetual victim their is no wrong that they can do. Whatever wrong thing they do to a man, he “deserved it” for Patriarchy, and thousands of years of imagined female oppression they have had hammered into their brains.

    I on the other hand could be shot dead just as easy as the next person. The reason I don’t fear is not because I’m a badass, strong as F***, trained to kill, and can still outrun most everybody. The reason I don’t fear, is because I’m not afraid to die. Perhaps one day I’ll be much older and feebler than most women, but I still won’t be afraid, because it is not in head to fear being killed. Sure I don’t want to die from foolishness like extreme sports or venturing into extreme neighborhoods, but I am not at all afraid to die from some unprovoked attack.

    I think they either envy the image of God we men bear, or else the imagined privilege they are taught to believe we have. The thing they envy is not something that can actually be removed from the man, or taken on by the woman, or they would have done it by now. Their envy can never be satisfied, they just have to be taught that envy will destroy them, and it is best just to look up to men and be happy with them.

  54. earl says:

    I think I’ve told this story before…but back in the day when I went to work early in the morning it would be around the time the bars would let out. Very often during the weekends I would see women not sober walking around alone in the ‘vibrant’ parts. I even had one drunkenly walk up to me, a complete stranger, asking for cab fare (I didn’t have money). If I was one of those ‘vibrants’ it could have turned out differently for her.

    Now your envious woman might think I can just stroll through the dark recessess of the ‘vibrant’ parts of the city without a care in the world because I am much larger physically than most of them (morbidly obese exempt)…but the truth is I know that fists and bullets hurt me just as much too. Perhaps I didn’t have the fear of rape…but I certainly could have been mugged and stabbed.

    Rape and murder they can tolerate, but feeling gratitude is absolutely unbearable.

    Feminism comes from Satan…I wouldn’t expect these witches to feel anything other than envy.

  55. Oscar says:

    I’m a veteran of three combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and I stay out of the “vibrant” areas of town, even when I’m armed. To do otherwise would be stupid.

  56. earl says:

    Our society (especially the music industry) is making it very blatant what feminism is all about…witchcraft and the occult in order to submit men to women.

    https://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusiness/taylor-swift-queen-of-the-2018-american-music-awards/

  57. Dalrock says:

    @earl

    Now your envious woman might think I can just stroll through the dark recessess of the ‘vibrant’ parts of the city without a care in the world because I am much larger physically than most of them (morbidly obese exempt)…but the truth is I know that fists and bullets hurt me just as much too. Perhaps I didn’t have the fear of rape…but I certainly could have been mugged and stabbed.

    Right. Someone upthread suggested that men go to their cars in isolated parking garages and don’t even consider that there might be a risk. I think this is backwards, but it involves a paradox. Men see risk as a gradient, while women tend to see risk as binary (100% danger or 100% safe). One thing that baffled me as a younger man was how often women I was with were totally clueless when our risk of crime had increased. You’re walking through a dark deserted street to the car, and she’s absent mindedly slow walking and loudly chattering the whole way. You might be registering say a 30% on the risk/danger meter, and she is at 100% safe. Mentioning the risk either gets you laughed at for being absurd, or brings her to 100% on the danger (and therefore fear) side. You can overcome this over time, but in the moment it is very difficult.

    This explains both why women have to have the perfectly obvious drilled into them at a young age, and (part of) why they resent it so much. They see a man taking a calculated risk (and taking responsibility for their own safety and that of a group), and they assume he must be blissfully unaware that anything bad could happen. For if he wasn’t blissfully unaware, he would surely be paralyzed with fear.

  58. earl says:

    You might be registering say a 30% on the risk/danger meter, and she is at 100% safe.

    Well she is with a man after all…amazing how safe they can feel when they have protection over them (and still not feel gratitude for it).

  59. earl says:

    So perhaps the ‘I don’t need a man because I hate them’ types are always in perpetual fear because they have no man to protect them even in hypothetical situations…and their ‘brilllant’ solution is to continue to remove all the men.

    Perhaps they enjoy fear rather than security.

  60. Opus says:

    Before the War of Northern Aggression there was a night-time curfew on the Negroes. Apparently this kept them out of harms way. Would a proposed curfew be targeted at that ‘unhappy race’. I have to say I have never gained the impression that women are scared of anything let alone being attacked by men for they certainly act as if they are impregnable to harm frequently provoking men beyond anything a man would consider wise as against another man. Most outdoor violence is man-on-man (indoor, woman on man).

    Anon was right about Artificial Intelligence. I trust his prediction as to the demise of Feminism also proves accurate in his time-frame for the female-sex and its mangina supporters appears to me to be more out-of-control by the week.

  61. Burner Prime says:

    Lots to unpack here, but it confirms the tenet that feminism seeks to restrict males 100% while liberating females 100%. But that’s only a means to precipitate some violent crisis among competing men. One tweeter said she’d go to a club and listen to music. Who would be playing that music, all female band? Who enforces it, all-female cop patrol? Vibrants gonna listen to a flabby female cop? As usual it would be desperate male cops and judges seeking access to limited poon who would enforce such a plan. This absurd plan assumes the world runs itself and food, water, power, housing are a given. Even if implemented, women would quickly become sick of the all-female environment and find some convoluted way to lash out at men for their situation. “Where’s the real men? Can’t a lady even get properly raped anymore? Man up and break that curfew you mama’s boyz..”

  62. Burner Prime says:

    Another look at this idea is it is one more in a long line of sh*t tests forwarded by feminism. Beta bait. Only weak Betas would follow the rule, eliminating them as possible suitors. The “real men” the bad boys willing to break the rulez, ZFG, cow to no-one – those guys will boldly and sometimes forcibly access the poon. This is Nature’s goal and supports gene propagation. The strongest will carry into the future, the complaint and weak will not. Women implement the goal though seemingly absurd means, but if you think about it, it makes sense.

  63. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    they’re much smaller and weaker and slower than we generally are — and they’re keenly aware of that.

    Perhaps middle aged women are, but I see more and more YouGoGRRL 20-somethings who apparently believe that they are just as ruff ‘n tuff as any guy. Videos of this abound, from the girl Marines and soldiers getting clocked to events in places with too much alcohol.

    (I do agree with AR, by the way, that the degree of anxiety here almost certainly varies by locale, time of day, and so on.

    Not quite what I was saying. You’re in the Acela corridor of power where women are used to having their way no matter what, and if that means they have to walk to the law firm parking at 11:00 PM then someone should do something (stamp foot!). This attitude of entitlement is common in the coastal regions among upper middle class and upper class women, I do believe.

    In flyover country, it is more common for women to arrange their day so that they do not wind up alone in a parking lot at midnight.

    But it’s still a much wider array of scenarios where women begin to feel threatened or vulnerable than scenarios where we, as men, begin to feel that way.)

    Gee, that’s a shame. It’s almost as though evolution or God or the flying spaghetti monster or [insert cause of universe here] actually caused women to be different than men, and no amount of hot air noise from someone’s mouth changes that. Arguing with the differences between men and women is indeed a lot like arguing with gravity. Maybe a few thousand reshowings of movies like “Wonder Woman” and “Thelma & Louise” should be mandatory as part of sensitivity / struggle sessions for all men in the country? That’s gotta work out well…

    Women in the US are the most coddled entities since Ancien Regime France, and it’s not enough (stamp foot!), is it? Nothing will ever be enough for the entitled, spoiled brats known as “American women”, it seems.

    Thanks for sharing, Nova. If the women up there in the Imperial Capitol actually succeed in inducing fear in men to the degree they think they want, they will not like the results. I guarantee they won’t like the results.

    Maybe they shouldn’t be in charge? This new fad of “rule by Mean Girls clique” seems to have some flaws.

  64. Red Pill Lit says:

    Some Solutions by Martin Van Crevald

    As I am writing these lines the outcome of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings remains in doubt. What is not in doubt is that they have been a national disgrace. Not since Potiphar’s wife has an important decision on such a matter been made on the strength of what a woman claims to remember she thought might happen to her (but did not) thirty-five years ago when she and the accused were in high school. With absolutely no proof except her word, needless to say.

    As “me too” has shown all too clearly, women are either too weak to resist men or else too stupid to understand what has been done to them until decades and decades after the event. Or both. To help these miserable creatures to cope, I propose the following measures:

    1. Lest they be harassed, which might result in deep psychological trauma and disable them for life, women should be prohibited from leaving the home.* This system was often used in Islamic and Hindu societies; today the Taliban provide a good example of how to do it. If walls are not enough, how about chains? And, to prevent them from doing what Ms. Ford did, perhaps muzzles—of the kind already worn by some Arab women—as well.

    * If women are to bear the brunt of this and the following prohibitions, then that is because, if men were made to do so instead, women would starve.

    https://www.martin-van-creveld.com/some-solutions/

  65. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Nova

    Actually in one aspect, women have had amazing success at inducing fear in men. I’m referring, of course, to the curiously one-sided business arrangement that is still called “marriage”. I know men who have walked on eggshells for years in order to stay in the same house as their children. I know men who have been frivorced who now only interact with “escorts”, because it’s cheaper than another wife. I know men who are MGTOW in the quiet, Huck Finn mode. In view of the article from Reason I think I posted earlier about a Title IX case at UC Davis, we can expect more men to regard marriage or even an LTR as dangerous, too risky. Not worth the trouble.

    Good thing there’s no shortage of “good men”, especially for women over 35, isn’t it?

    That whole “cause and effect” concept just flies right over women’s heads, even those with MBA’s from Wharton or degrees from an Ivy.

  66. c matt says:

    If it came to pass, men would just stay home and play video games, watch sports, etc. All in all, may not be so bad come to think of it. Of course, all professional sportsball leagues (and the bars that broadcast their events) would have to re-arrange their schedules to meet the curfews.

    Not gonna happen.

    The ladies’ night only thing would last about 2 weeks. After spending the “night out on the town” with nothing to show but staring at fellow harpies, it would get old real quick.

  67. thedeti says:

    @ Anon Reader:

    Perhaps middle aged women are, but I see more and more YouGoGRRL 20-somethings who apparently believe that they are just as ruff ‘n tuff as any guy. Videos of this abound, from the girl Marines and soldiers getting clocked to events in places with too much alcohol.

    So it’s all about women getting to be kick-ass gals.

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    They envy that we don’t feel physical vulnerability like they more or less constantly do — that they are very resentful of, and they both envy us for that *and* blame us for it (because we are the ones they fear, not other women).

    Well, all right, so in addition to not understanding cause and effect, not being able to tell the difference between “is” and “ought”, very educated Upper Middle Class women in the Acela corridor don’t know the difference between some and all.

    Good thing we have geniuses like that in our government and other leading institutions. It explains a lot…

  69. Rebekah says:

    Envy is one of the seven deadly sins, and it is a sin women are prone to, I believe. I don’t suppose I can speak for all women, but in a nutshell, women envy men because men’s lives seem easier than theirs in many ways. When you read about the deadly sins, the corresponding virtue tied to Envy (evil) is Kindness (good). Kindness, in its true and pure form, is so much more than just being “nice”. Kindness is happiness and joy over another’s good fortune (as opposed to forgoing gratitude for your own good fortune and zeroing in on the ways his life is easier than yours) and closely related with tenderness, compassion, and admiration. Interesting stuff to ponder.

  70. Anonymous Reader says:

    By the way, this “curfew for men” is just another example of female solipsism and ignorance regarding who actually builds and maintains the civilization they take for granted.

    I have had friends who were EMT’s. They worked graveyard / night. Women generally don’t want to be EMT’s. So I guess we just cut waaaay back on ambulance service and let some people die, in order to have this curfew on men.

    I have known men who were linemen for the local utility. When the local switchyard breakers trip during a lighting storm or a tree branch drops onto a 4,000 volt power line, “someone should do something” that involves going out into a wet environment with a lot of electricity real close. Almost no women work line crew. So when the power grid drops after 9:00 PM, we just all will have to wait until after sunrise, because the curfew is so important.

    Another friend works 12 on, 12 off in a local Emergency Room. When he’s done with his shift he’s ready to go home to his wife and kids, and a 9:00 PM curfew might prevent that. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the jobs in the ER are done by men because of upper body strength. Oh, well, let some more people die.

    I know farmers. Some parts of the year require work to go on after dark, sometimes long after dark. In areas where crops are irrigated from canals, irrigation happens around the clock; if the ditch is switched to Farmer Jones field at 2:00 AM, he’ll be out there for as long as it takes to get his crops irrigated. That could be a few hours or it could be until long after sunrise. But hey, what’s a failed crop compared to the wonderful 9:00 PM curfew?

    I know a man who is a long haul trucker. He has run heavy wideloads through urban areas that require him to only drive certain roadways after 10:00PM. A lot of stuff is delivered in cities via trucks to stores between midnight and 6:00 to avoid traffic. Very few women are willing to run long haul trucks. In most urban areas road construction often begins at 9:00 PM and runs until about 6:00 AM, in order to keep traffic disruption to a minimum. Women on road crews are usually waving a flag, not running a jackhammer, a backhoe, a front end loader, a paving machine, pouring cement, etc. So all construction happens in daylight, causing larger traffic jams, because the curfew is more important.

    Etc. and Etc.

    tl;dr
    There’s an army of men doing work at night just about every night from coast to coast. It’s necessary work that keeps roads maintained, electricity in the wires, water in the pipes, infotainment on the air and in the cables, sick people cared for, hurt people airlifted…all these jobs are almost entirely done by men, and the petulant, self-absorbed women who write such articles literally can’t see them.

    This is not quite at the “let them eat cake” level but it is in that direction. A whole lot.

    I bet those entitled, spoiled princesses who want this curfew would be pretty upset if they went to their fave little bakery on the way to work at 8:15 for a latte’ and pastry, only to find that the pastries are a day old because the pastry chef has to get up at 4:00 AM to make them and, well, curfew.

    The blind, entitled solipsism of American women is apparently bottomless. No matter how deep one plunges into the murk, there’s always more below.

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ok, one more. Does the 9 PM curfew apply to firemen? Are all firetrucks going to be operated by women after 9:00 PM? Even in rural areas that have volunteer fire departments?

    “Sorry your house and the neighbors burned down, Ms. Feminista, but the curfew comes first”.

    Morons.

  72. FFY says:

    Saw this on Drudge and had to forward it here:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7469330/inside-americas-evangelical-purity-movement-girls-pledge-virginity-to-fathers/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    Example 4,352 that Beta churchian dads have some weird sublimated desire/attraction to their daughters.

  73. earl says:

    @AR…

    Your things that will go wrong if men have to stay in after 9 PM clearly illustrate what women are really envious about.

    Male authority…the authority they will NEVER have because despite their thinking so…they aren’t men.

    These cut off their nose to spite their face harpies must really think lights, food, and first responders come about from their witchcraft sessions.

  74. Spike says:

    ”But why would feminists want a rule to keep good men at home at night in response to crimes committed by bad men? Not only would this not make women safer, but removing good men would make women even more vulnerable to the small number of bad ones…”

    When Melinda Houston’s article came out in the Sydney Morning Herald ( a sort of Wash Po for Australians), the Australian city of Melbourne had suffered a wave of riots by African and Muslim gangs. Commentators immediately sprung onto the idea Dalrock has articulated above, only they far were less kind:

    ”No problem. We can stay at home and obey the law. So Africans and Muslims can and will roam the streets without good men there. Go to it, girls.”

    Dalrock’s assertion that rape and violence can be accommodated, but gratitude to men can’t be seems borne out by this schizophrenic feminist approach to controlling men’s behaviour. It also extends to the military, where advocates for women in combat flip off rape of women POWs as ”It’s not the worst thing that can happen to you..” or, ”It’s the least of your worries if you’re captured…”

    I’m confused. Do feminists think rape is flippant, or traumatic? Or is it contextual, a horror when white men do it but no problem when others do it? Which one is it?

  75. earl says:

    ‘At the ceremony, fathers are given a key, representing their daughter’s chastity, to eventually pass on to their daughter’s future husband.’

    Notice the subtle play here…perhaps I can make things clearer:

    It should represent the father’s authority over his daughter. A daughter is supposed to be chaste until she gets married. The father passes on his authority to his son in law.

    ‘The formal occasion entails the girls dressing up in long white gowns and the fathers wearing smart suits, attending a dinner and dance in scenes that resemble a wedding.’

    Seems the pomp and circumstance with the creepy wedding vibe is to make themselves feel better….when it should be about pleasing God and pursuing virtue.

  76. don't tread on me says:

    I really don’t understand the thought that I am not concerned about being assaulted. Not true. Even though I have enough stuff on me to be incarcerated in any English commonwealth country I’m still concerned about safety. The threat level is never zero and one cannot keep up good situational awareness at an adequate level all the time.

    After a hidden fence saved me from a charging dog while the owner ineffectively yelled at it, I now carry some type of defense stick (cane, good umbrella, camera monopod, or similar). If you look intimidating to a dog, bad guys will also look for easier prey. To good people I act like a scared bunny staying to the far side of the walking trail and nodding politely. A good stick in the hand can gain seconds to bring out more serious stuff. You may need those seconds to recognize and evaluate a threat.

    I cannot think of anything more embarrassing than to be injured, maimed, incarcerated, or forced to pay tens of thousands for legal defense for coming to the aid of some thot. Save a damsel in distress and gain a distressed damsel as a reward. One who likes “bad boys” not you.

  77. Omnipitron says:

    Long time reader; haven’t commented in a long time. You posted something which really had me thinking and please forgive me if this has already been posted upstream or on another post.

    “After acknowledging that truly bad men would not be deterred by the curfew, she described the real benefit of the law; good men would be afraid and need to turn to women for protection”

    This really has me thinking; yes, Modern Women do have an issue with gratitude…but is this issue due to something deeper? I offer a ‘what If’ scenario for people to mull over. What if the reason why Modern Women are so envious of men, is simply due to dependence? At the end of the day, whether they want to admit it or not, in their hindbrains they know they are completely dependant on men. Their works, contributions, and sacrifices are done on a much more selfless level then that of women. Men on the other hand aren’t dependant on women. We like and want them in our lives, but to be honest we don’t need them.

    Just a suggestion; we know that women absolutely are against any suggestion that they need men. Look at “The End of Men”, we have a Feminist who was so happy to state to men that they would have to kowtow to women or else get left behind that she was crowing it on stage. Question, what if this lack of gratitude is simply an attempt to ignore what they know is true (that they are indeed dependant on men even now) and try to usurp this situation so that men in even the smallest manner is somehow dependant on women? “Why do women need protection from men?”

    Seriously? To me is sounds like someone is upset that a woman may need a man’s protection from another man where as a man isn’t going to scream bloody murder about getting a woman’s protection from another woman.
    Keep in mind the mostly positive attitude men have while trying to protect women in dire straits and if one considers this situation as a negative, it may possibly shed light on the motivations of these bigots.

  78. It seems rather silly to expect gratitude from anyone who complains, whines, nags, nitpicks and bewails to the extent and frequency that modern western women do.

    Never mind that they are all enjoying the safest, most convenient, medically advanced, abundant, automated and free society that has ever existed on the surface of the planet.

    And yet women still find 1st world problems to complain about, and are the first to tell you, with their iPhones in one hand and Starbucks skinny latte in the other, how oppressed they are by the very same chaps who spray off their streets, light their walkways and parking garages, clear rubbish bins, manage their communication networks and power grids, and mass transit equipment (trains, planes, trucks), and pump out and treat metric tons of their raw sewage.

    It’s beyond fucking belief that any men continue tolerate this two year old-like insolence.

    How about “No.”?

  79. Jay Fink says:

    A better solution would be to harshly punish the minority of men who attack women.

  80. Fyooz says:

    Feminists: “Why do men get to protect women? Why isn’t it the other way around?”
    Also feminists: women who are protecting their men because of what they saw in attacks on Brett Kavanaugh are traitors to their sisters, thralls to white privilege.

  81. Days of Broken Arrows says:

    So men won’t be allowed to walk the very streets they designed, built, and paved? Sounds like black men in the early 20th century. More and more I’m thinking the 19th Amendment was where the U.S. went wrong.

  82. feeriker says:

    Never mind that they are all enjoying the safest, most convenient, medically advanced, abundant, automated and free society that has ever existed on the surface of the planet.

    The days of which are numbered, whether or not anyone wants to admit it. Western women are about to undergo the fitness test from Hell (literally – as in “survival of the fittest”) under circumstances that will make the first Dark Ages seem like an enlightened paradise.

    “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” ~ Isaiah 4:1 KJV

  83. earl says:

    When things are going good women think they don’t need male authority and will shout it from the social media roof tops

    When SHTF…watch them quickly change their mind about that.

  84. patriarchal landmine says:

    gee I wonder if murderers and rapists would be willing to obey the law so they aren’t out on the streets with women.

    of course the real question is: would women be more willing to be out after dark if it was illegal for men to be out?

  85. info says:

    @Rebekah
    ”Envy is one of the seven deadly sins, and it is a sin women are prone to, I believe. I don’t suppose I can speak for all women, but in a nutshell, women envy men because men’s lives seem easier than theirs in many ways.”

    I think they miss out the inherent greater responsibility that comes with being a man at least for now. Whilst paying attention to the easier lives of higher status men as they see it.

    And ignoring the activities of men in the background like plumbers,builders and sewage workers who seems invisible to them comparatively. As well as dominating the military casualties.

    Authority and Responsibility go together. And men in an actual functioning civilization is Atlas as a result.

  86. FatR says:

    I think that feminists’ relentless attempts to facilitate rape, whether by putting women into armed forces, indirectly and sometimes even directly facilitating Islamic immigration, and this particular idea are derived more from the fact that the idea gives them tingles more than from envy.

  87. Lost Patrol says:

    It’s about forcing men to partake in women’s physical vulnerability, really, which is the core source of their existential insecurity vis-a-vis men and a primary source of their resentment of us.

    From a mental image to a physical image –

  88. Gunner Q says:

    c matt @ October 11, 2018 at 5:35 pm:
    “If it came to pass, men would just stay home and play video games, watch sports, etc.”

    That’s all I do after 9pm on a worknight anyway. What are women doing after 9pm on worknights? “It’s Tuesday and I want to get hammered at the nightclub but I’m afraid a CREEEEP might try to rescue me from getting raped by a noble savage!”

    Feral women have the strangest problems.

  89. Anonymous Reader says:

    Here is an instructional video that sums up my remarks.

  90. Oscar says:

    @ Spike

    advocates for women in combat flip off rape of women POWs as ”It’s not the worst thing that can happen to you..” or, ”It’s the least of your worries if you’re captured…”

    To be fair, a man captured by Muslims is in similar danger.

  91. Vektor says:

    Women’s fear and envy will lead to a world of total surveillance, police military robots on every corner, and police drones overhead….and it still won’t be enough.

  92. Anon says:

    Vektor said :

    Women’s fear and envy will lead to a world of total surveillance, police military robots on every corner, and police drones overhead…

    Will?

    Democracy always devolves into a feminist police state + goddess cult. No other outcome is possible from Democracy.

  93. ChristianCool says:

    @Anon and Vektor say: “Democracy always devolves into a feminist police state + goddess cult. No other outcome is possible from Democracy.”

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.” – Ben Franklin.
    A true Democracy = mob rule.
    Good news: America is NOT a Democracy.

    We are a representative Republic. Elections does NOT = a Democracy. A Democracy requires direct voting by citizens on every issue and decision. The Left is trying to include more of that with “voter initiatives” that pop by every other day in California (and more and more in CO too).

    It is easy to manipulate the masses of uniformed voters; that is why the Progressives managed to get direct voting of Senators enacted, when the Founders wanted them to represent the States directly (state legislatures), not the people of the State. So now you have Senators from energy-producing States like CO, for instance, voting for polices (i.e. Global Warming hysteria) that hurt the State they represent. In CO, Senator Bennett (D-CO) regularly votes to end oil drilling or to set-up impossible emergency standards that would kill tens of thousands of jobs across CO.

    In CO these days, there are so many “voter ballot initiatives” the voting ballot is like 6 pages long. How many people will make informed decisions about these complex issues? Maybe 10% in a good day? These days, almost all national and local TV ads are almost all about these stupid “voter initiatives” and special interest groups are pouring in cash to deceive voters. This is why Representatives elected by people make the decisions on our Constitutional Republic (guaranteed form of govt is Republican, not a “democracy” system).

    There is no doubt direct voting on issues is a terrible idea. The Founders set-up a system where we elect representatives to make the complex decisions. This is the system we still have in the USA. Otherwise, why could not we have elections (vote) on Kavanaugh? Our national representative (President) picked him and our Statewide representatives (Senators) decided he should be confirmed or not. No one voted directly.

    Bottom line:

    1) FemiNazism and the police states of the world only exist together because Feminism and Marxism are both totalitarian systems. Contrary to what our pal GunnerQ said, humanity is not “naturally inclined to Leftism”. If that was the case, humans would “naturally” have embraced Communism and a violent, totalitarian police state would not be needed. Our nature may be evil, but it is also seeking of individual freedom, which is opposite to totalitarianism. That is why brutal force is necessary to impose leftism of any kind, be it FemiNazism or Marxism (in whatever form you choose).

    2) The surveillance state was created by an elite class of people who fear The People. Gun registrations and confiscations are necessary for a police state to operate, thus why Hillary and Obummer were desperately trying to register and confiscate. Thomas Jefferson said “when the people fear the govt, there is tyranny; when the govt fears the people there is freedom”.

    3) Sadly, it is men, not women, who need a surveillance system, to protect himself from a woman’s lies. I myself have an Arlo 1.0 camera system (no audio), inside my bedroom, garage, living room, kitchen, etc. It is offline all the time, unless a woman is coming over or I COULD bring one over that evening. She will be monitored every step of the way, with date, and timestamp on video, including nightvision system. I also have a dashcam system in my car, and hidden audio system in my pocket and in car center console to record anything we talk about in car. All of this will be stored and saved FOREVER because women today can accuse you decades later and I need evidence. A break-up on phone or e-mail will be recorded and kept forever as well. All text messages, e-mails, etc have to be saved and properly stored on side and offsite.

    When I am around alone, all of that is turned off. I love freedom and privacy. When a woman is around, everything is monitored and recorded. *Do not trust a woman anywhere, at anytime, unless her name is “Mom” or “Grandma”. Have evidence to try to disprove any of her false claims later on, if they are made against you.*

    4) Feminist women love totalitarianism, not because it protects them, but because it represses men. Women get abused and live as miserably as men do in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, of the former Soviet Union as men do. Because they are miserable, they want everyone else miserable around them. Totalitarianism, be it FemiNazism or Communism makes everyone live miserably.

    I noticed as time goes by, women become less happy and men become happier. I like myself much better today at 36 than I did at 26. I am the man I want to be now, free from all “societal norms”, I have wide latitude of personal freedom, my income is way up, I feel better and look better too.

    The women I knew when I was 26 and still know today are now 36 and they are miserable and angry. They lose their beauty over time and thus their power over men. Because they lived so long with this “beauty privilege” they had naturally from teenage years forward, and the benefits it gives a woman, once a woman loses that, her life is hell. In Italian we say “aging is a woman’s hell”. This is one major reason why women become bitter and angry early on in life, after they hit the Wall, no matter how soft the crash may be.

    Final thought: In a sane culture, older women would teach younger women to “use their beauty wisely” to secure the best man they can early on, as beauty is fading and fleeting (as Bible instructed). But in our narcissistic culture, women are encouraged to waste their beauty being pumped ‘n dumped and then freak out and try to destroy some beta’s life later in life with marriage divorce rape.

    Simply put: trust in women is over in America until we have drastic legislative changes; marriage is for idiot men and/or Betas and Gamma males who can “afford to get divorce raped” or are blissfully ignorant of the threat; surveillance is to protect men, not women from false accusations.

    Take this for what its worth.

  94. ChristianCool says:

    Ps. Men are voluntarily staying home more and more because:

    1) Home is cheap and it saves money. Going to restaurants, bars, clubs, etc is expensive and you may not have adequate surveillance of woman to monitor what she does/says in case of false accusation.
    2) Men have all comforts now from home. I know a guy with a home office, he works from home and only goes out to store and errands once a week. The rest of the time he goes out for fun only.
    3) With video games, electronic entertainment, easy communications, online gaming, thousands of TV channels, delivery of food, online purchases, even local groceries and dry cleaners, you can stay inside chilling all the time if you want.
    4) Home is climate controlled, clean, comfortable, and safe. Going out needs you to get showeed, dressed, get into transportation, go somewhere etc, in the rain, cold, heat, etc.
    5) Women can be invited over via Tinder to “hang out” free, with zero effort by the guy. 😀

    The economy could not survive if men just stayed home. Businesses would close by the millions if men just chilled at home with cable TV and online gaming, his costs would be very low. A Premium Membership to play online xBox games is like $15/mo… compare that to a date, with gasoline, food, tickets to activities, clothing to go out, etc (over $100/bucks).

    Roosh did an analysis of this before: http://www.returnofkings.com/67389/women-have-reduced-themselves-to-sexual-commodities

    Minimalism has had a huge negative impact on businesses already; men spending less on clothing, less of frivolous items (i.e. expensive clothing, gifts for women, flashy cars, jewelry, flowers, etc). Men opting out of marriage has ruined shopping malls, where stay-at-home suburban moms would go out shopping during the day in the past, making the mall their shopping and hang out place. This man-works, woman-shops system being largely over, we see the collapse of retail businesses, especially the female-centered ones; even Payless shoes and Sears are having huge trouble. Women are now working long hours like men used to (their “dream life”) and cannot go out shopping while hubby slaves away at the office. She now has to work long hours and cannot be hanging out with other “soccer moms”: at the local mall. That is why malls are dying, not because of the Internet. Women want to try oj clothes, to touch clothes, to feel the leather of the shoes, to meet friends there. They just cannot be at the mall having a good time anymore because they are now pulling 60h a week for her ungrateful boss. 😆

    Women totally do not get it. Just like with Feminism, they totally misplayed their hand. lol Giving men an easy bang by accepting the invitation of a man she has never met before via Tinder to “coming over to watch Netflix” is making this too easy!!! 🙂 Then they bitch to thier friends how “men never want to do anything” or “dating is over”. 😆 Gotta laugh.

  95. Anonymous Reader says:

    Take this for what its worth.

    too long; didn’t read (tl;dr)

  96. Fyooz says:

    ChristianCool: “We are a representative Republic. Elections does NOT = a Democracy”

    We are a Republic only as long as we can keep it. Where do you think we are on that?

  97. Fyooz says:

    “Envy drives Marxism, whereas greed drives Capitalism.” Sharkly, I think you’re on to something here. Capitalism is the greatest triumph of men over their own urges. It sublimates greed into a positive force. Marxism attempts to deny envy rather than redirect it as a motivator of men toward prosperity. Or perhaps Marxism uses envy as a motivator not toward prosperity but toward leveling means among men.

  98. Sharkly says:

    Envy is far more destructive than Greed. The Greedy man wants to become as rich as his boss, and will be happy working for it, as long as he is making reasonable progress, While the envious man wants his boss and everybody else to be poorer than himself, and he will never be happy even if he gets what he wanted, he will just envy others for something else then, like the fact that others seem happier than him. He’ll want their happiness taken away too.

  99. Testi says:

    You can’t logic these women. Sorry. Ya just can’t.

  100. Pingback: Do what she asks, but know in advance that she will take great care to protect herself from feeling gratitude. | Dalrock

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.