I cannot comment on the step-daughter phenomenon but it seems plausible to me, desexing yourself is almost always a protective mechanism. Pretty girls are usually not told they are pretty, and I do agree with your analysis there. Glad you liked the article!
I cannot comment on the step-daughter phenomenon but it seems plausible to me, desexing yourself is almost always a protective mechanism. Pretty girls are usually not told they are pretty, and I do agree with your analysis there. Glad you liked the article!
To be loved and found beautiful. Seems like a straightforward request. ItтАЩs so funny how such an innocent desire sounds so foreign to our media-conditioned ears. It reminds me of hearing a zoomer girl say once how sheтАЩd like to be a stay at home wife and avoid college somehow. It was refreshing to hear this goal. Why do we have to follow these scolds/haters who want women to waste their youth and beauty on a corporate rat race to nowhere?
Ideally society should have room for the great natural variation within both sexes. Women should be able to be anything from trad cath to Amazon warriors; men should have similar latitude.
An ideal society from a genetic point of view would be more like that of wolves, with the best and the brightest reproducing abundantly, continuing and improving the species; and the plain, the dysgenic, the unsuccessful, being given honorable and worthwhile roles other than reproduction which contribute to the overall welfare of the species, the People.
"Women should be able to be anything from trad cath to Amazon warriors; men should have similar latitude."
This sounds amazing but completely unrealistic. Women can 'be anything' because society does not actually depend on women to keep the infrastructure, supply chain, power stations running. And men heavily subsidise women's lifestyles (whether married or single). The net flow of resources goes from men to women (men EARN more than women, and women SPEND more than men).
If you want men to have the same freedom as women to 'be anything they want to be' then you will have to invent a third sex to pay the majority of taxes and to take men's place working on oil rigs, trucks, power stations, repairing power lines, laying cables on the ocean floor, mining coal, fighting fires, milling steel etc... because 99.9% of women do not want to do those jobs or give up their status as a heavily subsidised class.
Women should be subsidized: as the original author has capably described, women bear immense burdens, aside from the huge risks and burdens of childbirth and raising. A well-ordered society should be centered on women and children, without which the species ends.
Just as there are trad cath type women, for whom the time-honored roles of mother and home-maker are ideal and natural, there are many men for whom the time-honored roles of father and provider are ideal and natural.
There are also many men and women for whom these roles are oppressive, confining, stultifying etc. A well-ordered society will make use of their abilities and accept their inclinations, while perhaps discouraging them from reproducing, except when their abilities are remarkable and thus genetically valuable.
Fine. Then we must acknowledge that patriarchy is good and not evil. Patriarchy (aka traditional gender roles) is when men's role is to provide resources and protection to women (women and children first).
We either subsidise women or we have 'equality'. The reason why society is short circuiting is that feminism demands BOTH subsidy (he for she) AND equality (women don't need no man).
We have to decide one or the other and make peace with it otherwise we cannot ever end this stupid battle of the sexes.
"aside from the huge risks and burdens of childbirth and raising."
Child birth is a fraction of the risk it used to be. And far more men die in construction jobs (or similar) than women die in child birth. And you forget that most women do not raise children. They hand them over to ideologically deranged strangers all day long from the age of 4 (daycare/ school).
If we are going to value motherhood as a role and an identity, then we have to re-introduce motherhood! Abandoning your children every day is not motherhood. It is not parenting. It is the opposite of that.
If a man abandons his job every day at the local power station or airport control tower we do not say he is doing his job properly. We say he's a failure. And a danger to society!
"There are also many men and women for whom these roles are oppressive, confining, stultifying etc."
Then don't have children. Simples. If you can't face walking a dog at least 3 times a day then don't get a dog. Why should having children be any different?
"A well-ordered society..... "
No idea what this means. Sounds like a euphemism for some terrible Orwellian nightmare.
A well-ordered society, by which I mean a society optimized for the survival and improvement of the species, might be broadly traditional, yet be flexible and adaptable enough that those who don't fit comfortably into this pattern can still lead good lives, beneficial rather than detrimental to the species as a whole.
Let's say me, my friends and my family don't like your 'vision' for society. Are we free to go about our lives, or are you going to start causing trouble?
I recall some academic feminist yapping on about how White Male Medicine (whatever that means) doesn't understand a woman's body.
My response was: "Bull."
100 or so years ago, women in western countries had lower life expectancies than men. Today they have considerably higher life expectancies, not because of goddess spirituality or feminist praxis or whatever happy horseshit they teach in Women's Studies, but because medical science has largely eliminated child-birth related mortality.
Huge risks of childbirth? As opposed to the low risks of being a faller for example? I know of no women hurt in childbirth. I knew five fallers who died.
Work kills men. I know fishermen who died. Loggers, many loggers. And 100x that injured. Almost every hockey player is brain damaged, for example. If you work long enough you will be injured or hurt.
I cannot comment on the step-daughter phenomenon but it seems plausible to me, desexing yourself is almost always a protective mechanism. Pretty girls are usually not told they are pretty, and I do agree with your analysis there. Glad you liked the article!
To be loved and found beautiful. Seems like a straightforward request. ItтАЩs so funny how such an innocent desire sounds so foreign to our media-conditioned ears. It reminds me of hearing a zoomer girl say once how sheтАЩd like to be a stay at home wife and avoid college somehow. It was refreshing to hear this goal. Why do we have to follow these scolds/haters who want women to waste their youth and beauty on a corporate rat race to nowhere?
Ideally society should have room for the great natural variation within both sexes. Women should be able to be anything from trad cath to Amazon warriors; men should have similar latitude.
An ideal society from a genetic point of view would be more like that of wolves, with the best and the brightest reproducing abundantly, continuing and improving the species; and the plain, the dysgenic, the unsuccessful, being given honorable and worthwhile roles other than reproduction which contribute to the overall welfare of the species, the People.
"Women should be able to be anything from trad cath to Amazon warriors; men should have similar latitude."
This sounds amazing but completely unrealistic. Women can 'be anything' because society does not actually depend on women to keep the infrastructure, supply chain, power stations running. And men heavily subsidise women's lifestyles (whether married or single). The net flow of resources goes from men to women (men EARN more than women, and women SPEND more than men).
If you want men to have the same freedom as women to 'be anything they want to be' then you will have to invent a third sex to pay the majority of taxes and to take men's place working on oil rigs, trucks, power stations, repairing power lines, laying cables on the ocean floor, mining coal, fighting fires, milling steel etc... because 99.9% of women do not want to do those jobs or give up their status as a heavily subsidised class.
Women should be subsidized: as the original author has capably described, women bear immense burdens, aside from the huge risks and burdens of childbirth and raising. A well-ordered society should be centered on women and children, without which the species ends.
Just as there are trad cath type women, for whom the time-honored roles of mother and home-maker are ideal and natural, there are many men for whom the time-honored roles of father and provider are ideal and natural.
There are also many men and women for whom these roles are oppressive, confining, stultifying etc. A well-ordered society will make use of their abilities and accept their inclinations, while perhaps discouraging them from reproducing, except when their abilities are remarkable and thus genetically valuable.
"Women should be subsidized"
Fine. Then we must acknowledge that patriarchy is good and not evil. Patriarchy (aka traditional gender roles) is when men's role is to provide resources and protection to women (women and children first).
We either subsidise women or we have 'equality'. The reason why society is short circuiting is that feminism demands BOTH subsidy (he for she) AND equality (women don't need no man).
We have to decide one or the other and make peace with it otherwise we cannot ever end this stupid battle of the sexes.
"aside from the huge risks and burdens of childbirth and raising."
Child birth is a fraction of the risk it used to be. And far more men die in construction jobs (or similar) than women die in child birth. And you forget that most women do not raise children. They hand them over to ideologically deranged strangers all day long from the age of 4 (daycare/ school).
If we are going to value motherhood as a role and an identity, then we have to re-introduce motherhood! Abandoning your children every day is not motherhood. It is not parenting. It is the opposite of that.
If a man abandons his job every day at the local power station or airport control tower we do not say he is doing his job properly. We say he's a failure. And a danger to society!
"There are also many men and women for whom these roles are oppressive, confining, stultifying etc."
Then don't have children. Simples. If you can't face walking a dog at least 3 times a day then don't get a dog. Why should having children be any different?
"A well-ordered society..... "
No idea what this means. Sounds like a euphemism for some terrible Orwellian nightmare.
A well-ordered society, by which I mean a society optimized for the survival and improvement of the species, might be broadly traditional, yet be flexible and adaptable enough that those who don't fit comfortably into this pattern can still lead good lives, beneficial rather than detrimental to the species as a whole.
'Optimised' by who?
Let's say me, my friends and my family don't like your 'vision' for society. Are we free to go about our lives, or are you going to start causing trouble?
The latter, for sure. Jim's asking for fried ice here.
I don't gaf about you or your friends and family. I do gaf about the species.
I recall some academic feminist yapping on about how White Male Medicine (whatever that means) doesn't understand a woman's body.
My response was: "Bull."
100 or so years ago, women in western countries had lower life expectancies than men. Today they have considerably higher life expectancies, not because of goddess spirituality or feminist praxis or whatever happy horseshit they teach in Women's Studies, but because medical science has largely eliminated child-birth related mortality.
Huge risks of childbirth? As opposed to the low risks of being a faller for example? I know of no women hurt in childbirth. I knew five fallers who died.
Work kills men. I know fishermen who died. Loggers, many loggers. And 100x that injured. Almost every hockey player is brain damaged, for example. If you work long enough you will be injured or hurt.