Sign into an existing account

Good insight. The real pressure point that kept everything stable was women being tied to the benefits of a particular man's labor, not the aggregate. Once it became the aggregate, there is a sense in which women gained an actual surrogate husband (the state), and the rest became men she could choose to marry or not.

Yes. This.

You don't know anxiety until you face a woman in court and the judge is a jewish woman.
It's fucking terrifying.

No matter how well you follow and cite the law, this bitch doesnt care and the two are in sync.
You will not pass, breeder. <-- thats them

I'm waving police reports in this judges face that prove the mother abused the child and the child reported it to poilce.
All ignored, all glossed over, judge sees no pattern of abuse. w.t.f

Should cause no man to want to marry. The marriage rate should be 0.00% out of 1000.

I usually get annoyed when people shout "straw man!", but in this case, you could be arguing against one. I didn't say that about men. That said, I know what you're reacting to and why. I'm sympathetic. If anything, I want to resolve the divide between men and women being widened by the cultural conversation today. I think it is deleterious and finger-pointing is the wrong way to go. But, that requires being able to criticize and describe without implying normative force (moral force).

Let's just agree that neither men nor women are faultless. Both have weaknesses and strengths that are unique in context. Both are needed for their unique aspects to make the dream work. Seriously. That isn't just a platitude. The reason our race can't congeal is because white men and women stopped being a team.

But a team doesn't mean the assignment of equal roles or responses to our innate weaknesses/strengths.

My point would be: in our current situation, it will be actions taken by men that are needed to get the ball rolling on fixing this problem. Men and women are not the same psychologically, and sociologically this is no different. Here's what isn't going to happen: men are going to reason women away from this trajectory. That's not happening. In fact, attempts at doing that are throwing fuel on the fire because, at root, this isn't a cerebral problem.


Let the words I'm about to say be as unlaced with morality/normativity as deli ham. Let them just be inert: don't make this about you. You qua Helena are great. I would agree that you're atypical in important ways. You qua female is something else. By responding to a class-level description in a personal way, I would say you're responding in a distinctly feminine way. Resist the urge to be contrarian about that for a second. I will never once find a man on this forum responding to my claims about "all men" by saying: "not this man." Innately, they seem to understand that regardless of whether they're included categorically in the class I'm referring to, they can break the rule. That's just implied. It doesn't need to be said.

Likewise, there are rules you personally can break. This doesn't need to be explicated every go 'round.


I most definitely have a bias, but I think I'm at least somewhat aware of it. I'm fully aware that the female perspective is distinct from the male one. But in order for there to be this difference means there needs to be a real difference, at least something that grounds the difference. You don't get to say "male bias" and then say we're no different. We are morally different, and that's true whether you're a moral realist or antirealist. I'm fine with letting morals be a social function purely. We're still morally different.


Of course. People get into circumstances and they do what needs to be done. But this is fine-graining down to the level of your particular history.


Not at all, but women play a crucial role in war - this doesn't require them to be openly clamoring for war. I would argue that one reason a lot of women today are turning against men intra-racially is that we aren't at war. Going to war is likely going to be one of the mending patches for the problem, so don't explain this either in terms of the feminine preference for peace overall. They very much prefer, whether they are conscious of it or not, to be with something bearing a force capable of warring. And they do become embittered at male weakness in this regard.


I'm not sure what you mean here.


Ah, you mean in the sense that their vocations are increasingly abstracted from the laborious functions of civilization.


Yes, financialization and bureaucracy are serious problems. As far as I can tell, men still form a background competitive hierarchy. In virtue of being men alone, they aren't being elevated to higher roles in that hierarchy, which follows from the fact that they are the background. And this hierarchy needs to function properly. It ceases to function properly when it becomes sexually mixed. It has to be separated from the home, which is where the sexual battle plays out.


I'm saying this honestly. I know you are too smart to construe what I said about women as hatred. That's a bullshit move, and you know it.

I don’t know if its a jew or not. But anyone can cherry pick shitty takes from either men or women. White women are the least likely to have sex outside the race.