---

Pretty good article,  so many layers to this. There is quite a bit to add to this, not withstanding the Cucks that help facilitate this behavior 




"It's true that females are not inclined to violence or predatory sexual behavior as men are. But this hardly means that girls and women don't have to learn to control their natures. On the contrary, as I have been telling parents for many years now, they need to teach their daughters to control their natures just as much as they teach their sons to do so.

Specifically, girls have to learn to control their emotions."


"The result is that women are disproportionately active in doing damage to our society.

The most obvious example is education. American schools teach less and indoctrinate more than ever before. Big-city public (and most private) schools are damaging young Americans to an extent and in ways no one imagined just a few years ago. Young children are prematurely sexualized — they are, for example, exposed to "Drag Queen Story Hour" in class and in local libraries from the age of 5. These feature a man dressed as a woman reading and dancing for them."

And who is facilitating all of this? In virtually every case, a woman. Ninety-two percent of kindergarten teachers are women, 75% of all teachers are women and 85% of librarians are women.

And they are teaching young people to despise their country (the creator of the poisonous "1619 Project" is a woman), to feel guilty about their "white privilege" or to think of themselves as victims if they are black.
 Even worse, they are indoctrinating them in "nonbinary" thinking regarding sex and gender.

As City Journal reports, "Los Angeles Unified School District has adopted a radical gender-theory curriculum encouraging teachers to work toward the 'breakdown of the gender binary,' to experiment with gender pronouns such as 'they,' 'ze,' and 'tree,' and to adopt 'trans-affirming' programming to make their classrooms 'queer all school year.'"


"The same is happening in school districts around the country.

These ideas originated in university gender studies and women's studies departments, nearly all of whose professors are female."


https://www.creators.com/read/dennis-pra...ur-country

The founders of BLM are queer women.  Suprise suprise.

That was quick!  Good point!

---

That's funny. I just had this same discussion with my wife about a week ago. She said I was being a misogynist and left to go to work. When she got back, I had pulled up party affiliations by gender, voting activity by gender, and issue voting by gender. She apologized for getting overly emotional about it and agreed with me (which is why I have the best wife). Obviously, women aren't a monolith, despite what the feminist movement tries to project, but they are disproportionately hurting the country in certain areas just as men have hurt it in others. It's categorically unfair to put the blame solely on women, though. I think it needs to be stated emphatically that this isn't exclusive to women, nor is it useful to say that their concerns are not valid.

I think women tend to be motivated by their need for security and nurture, and men are motivated by sex and power. Both are important in healthy societies. It's not a coincidence that most democratic policies offer the promise of security in the form of government intervention and nurture in the form of collective outcomes, even if those promises are unrealistic, while simultaneously offering sex to men through the promise of sexual liberation, which coincidentally, has created the opposite effect. On the other hand, I think conservative policies offer security in the form of order, which creates strong family units and nurture, and men sex and power with their status in the family. Men have abandoned that status, and I think it's created an opportunity for government to fill that role.

Men didn't abandon that role.  We pay women to kick them out of that role.  

As for sexusl liberation, women have killed what, 65 million people as a function of severing sex from responsibility.  Men mat be more motivated by sex, but the idea that women aren't or don't pursue that interest is old order thinking.

---

This might be the worst thread I've ever seen on this board.  If yall want to make misogynistic jokes, they should at least be funny.

Female emotionalism isn't the problem.   Male emotionally is the biggest problem.

---

There's just as much difference between male and female as right and left. One isn't worth less or has a less valuable opinion, but the way their intrinsic motivators are manipulated by left/right ideology is distinct enough to note.

#my guy

---

The founders of BLM are queer women.  Suprise suprise.

That was quick!  Good point!

---

That's funny. I just had this same discussion with my wife about a week ago. She said I was being a misogynist and left to go to work. When she got back, I had pulled up party affiliations by gender, voting activity by gender, and issue voting by gender. She apologized for getting overly emotional about it and agreed with me (which is why I have the best wife). Obviously, women aren't a monolith, despite what the feminist movement tries to project, but they are disproportionately hurting the country in certain areas just as men have hurt it in others. It's categorically unfair to put the blame solely on women, though. I think it needs to be stated emphatically that this isn't exclusive to women, nor is it useful to say that their concerns are not valid.

I think women tend to be motivated by their need for security and nurture, and men are motivated by sex and power. Both are important in healthy societies. It's not a coincidence that most democratic policies offer the promise of security in the form of government intervention and nurture in the form of collective outcomes, even if those promises are unrealistic, while simultaneously offering sex to men through the promise of sexual liberation, which coincidentally, has created the opposite effect. On the other hand, I think conservative policies offer security in the form of order, which creates strong family units and nurture, and men sex and power with their status in the family. Men have abandoned that status, and I think it's created an opportunity for government to fill that role.

Men didn't abandon that role.  We pay women to kick them out of that role.  

As for sexusl liberation, women have killed what, 65 million people as a function of severing sex from responsibility.  Men mat be more motivated by sex, but the idea that women aren't or don't pursue that interest is old order thinking.

I disagree. Men were firmly entrenched as the patriarchy of the family, and, admittedly, were too heavy handed. They were sent off to war, which allowed women to enter the workforce at a clip they had never experienced. They enjoyed being able to provide for their family without necessarily having to do the extremely dangerous jobs that were previously held exclusively by men (war/hard labor). Due to industrialization, businesses realized that they could double their workforce since women were just as effective as men in many roles. However, when the men returned to their old roles, so did the women, for the most part. It wasn't until the free love movement in the 60's that we saw families start to disintegrate. That generation of men, imo, opted to leave their families in the 70's and 80's at a clip we hadn't seen before. I believe this was initiated by men, and I believe the labor available to women precipitated it. 

Imo, this falls on the men. I think we were too greedy. I mean, it's easy to say this in hindsight. 

As to the hyper-sexualization of women, I just don't believe that is a movement led by women. I think it's sort of become a caricature of itself, but it's not rooted in natural biology. It's more a movement rooted in social standing. Men started that movement on the left, not women. It is for men's benefit, not for the women. Abortion absolves men of their responsibility, and, truly, the main attraction for women (at least originally), was driven by security, not sexualism.

---

That was quick!  Good point!

---

Men didn't abandon that role.  We pay women to kick them out of that role.  

As for sexusl liberation, women have killed what, 65 million people as a function of severing sex from responsibility.  Men mat be more motivated by sex, but the idea that women aren't or don't pursue that interest is old order thinking.

I disagree. Men were firmly entrenched as the patriarchy of the family, and, admittedly, were too heavy handed. They were sent off to war, which allowed women to enter the workforce at a clip they had never experienced. They enjoyed being able to provide for their family without necessarily having to do the extremely dangerous jobs that were previously held exclusively by men (war/hard labor). Due to industrialization, businesses realized that they could double their workforce since women were just as effective as men in many roles. However, when the men returned to their old roles, so did the women, for the most part. It wasn't until the free love movement in the 60's that we saw families start to disintegrate. That generation of men, imo, opted to leave their families in the 70's and 80's at a clip we hadn't seen before. I believe this was initiated by men, and I believe the labor available to women precipitated it. 

Imo, this falls on the men. I think we were too greedy. I mean, it's easy to say this in hindsight. 

As to the hyper-sexualization of women, I just don't believe that is a movement led by women. I think it's sort of become a caricature of itself, but it's not rooted in natural biology. It's more a movement rooted in social standing. Men started that movement on the left, not women. It is for men's benefit, not for the women. Abortion absolves men of their responsibility, and, truly, the main attraction for women (at least originally), was driven by security, not sexualism.

Prior to the great depression, women were more frequently employed outside the home, than during. The depression is where you see it become normal for male employees to insist that their employer should not hire women because men provide and women nurture.  Before the scarcity of the great depression people were more likely to mind their own business about who provided for what family.

And businesses don't go and double their workforces just because they can.  They employ the people they need to meet the demand they forecast, no more and no less.  Yes, the captains of industry did try to continue to normalize employing women in factories after WWII was over.  This was mostly because women's wages were lower, though.  The idea that a person could sue in court for wage discrimination on the basis of gender wouldn't become law until 1964.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I direct everyone's attention here to post #21 at the top of the page..

I don't know about ya'll, but to me, dat B the international/galactic sign of "Tread Lightly" lololol

---

I disagree. Men were firmly entrenched as the patriarchy of the family, and, admittedly, were too heavy handed. They were sent off to war, which allowed women to enter the workforce at a clip they had never experienced. They enjoyed being able to provide for their family without necessarily having to do the extremely dangerous jobs that were previously held exclusively by men (war/hard labor). Due to industrialization, businesses realized that they could double their workforce since women were just as effective as men in many roles. However, when the men returned to their old roles, so did the women, for the most part. It wasn't until the free love movement in the 60's that we saw families start to disintegrate. That generation of men, imo, opted to leave their families in the 70's and 80's at a clip we hadn't seen before. I believe this was initiated by men, and I believe the labor available to women precipitated it. 

Imo, this falls on the men. I think we were too greedy. I mean, it's easy to say this in hindsight. 

As to the hyper-sexualization of women, I just don't believe that is a movement led by women. I think it's sort of become a caricature of itself, but it's not rooted in natural biology. It's more a movement rooted in social standing. Men started that movement on the left, not women. It is for men's benefit, not for the women. Abortion absolves men of their responsibility, and, truly, the main attraction for women (at least originally), was driven by security, not sexualism.

Prior to the great depression, women were more frequently employed outside the home, than during. The depression is where you see it become normal for male employees to insist that their employer should not hire women because men provide and women nurture.  Before the scarcity of the great depression people were more likely to mind their own business about who provided for what family.

And businesses don't go and double their workforces just because they can.  They employ the people they need to meet the demand they forecast, no more and no less.  Yes, the captains of industry did try to continue to normalize employing women in factories after WWII was over.  This was mostly because women's wages were lower, though.  The idea that a person could sue in court for wage discrimination on the basis of gender wouldn't become law until 1964.

Employed how, Mikey? That's an important thing for you to know. In what fields? They weren't working industrialized jobs. 

The value of doubling your workforce isn't in more workers, dummy. It's in increasing the supply of available workers which drives down wages. They were able to get cheaper labor because the demand for work became higher because the pool of available workers was larger.

---

Prior to the great depression, women were more frequently employed outside the home, than during. The depression is where you see it become normal for male employees to insist that their employer should not hire women because men provide and women nurture.  Before the scarcity of the great depression people were more likely to mind their own business about who provided for what family.

And businesses don't go and double their workforces just because they can.  They employ the people they need to meet the demand they forecast, no more and no less.  Yes, the captains of industry did try to continue to normalize employing women in factories after WWII was over.  This was mostly because women's wages were lower, though.  The idea that a person could sue in court for wage discrimination on the basis of gender wouldn't become law until 1964.

Employed how, Mikey? That's an important thing for you to know. In what fields? They weren't working industrialized jobs. 

The value of doubling your workforce isn't in more workers, dummy. It's in increasing the supply of available workers which drives down wages. They were able to get cheaper labor because the demand for work became higher because the pool of available workers was larger.

I guess textile mills don't count as industrial to you? Or bakeries?

As for doubling the workforce, I guess we agree, sort of, we're just using the word differently.  They were trying to double their supply of workers, yes.  The way you said it made it sound like they were actually doubling the number of people they would hire.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Employed how, Mikey? That's an important thing for you to know. In what fields? They weren't working industrialized jobs. 

The value of doubling your workforce isn't in more workers, dummy. It's in increasing the supply of available workers which drives down wages. They were able to get cheaper labor because the demand for work became higher because the pool of available workers was larger.

I guess textile mills don't count as industrial to you? Or bakeries?

As for doubling the workforce, I guess we agree, sort of, we're just using the word differently.  They were trying to double their supply of workers, yes.  The way you said it made it sound like they were actually doubling the number of people they would hire.

No. 

Fair enough.

---

Employed how, Mikey? That's an important thing for you to know. In what fields? They weren't working industrialized jobs. 

The value of doubling your workforce isn't in more workers, dummy. It's in increasing the supply of available workers which drives down wages. They were able to get cheaper labor because the demand for work became higher because the pool of available workers was larger.

I guess textile mills don't count as industrial to you? Or bakeries?

As for doubling the workforce, I guess we agree, sort of, we're just using the word differently.  They were trying to double their supply of workers, yes.  The way you said it made it sound like they were actually doubling the number of people they would hire.

Even in the post you're replying to the term used is "demand for work" when demand for employment or demand for jobs would be clearer. Demand for work can easily be confused as referring to industry demand for labor (a demand for work to be performed).

---

I direct everyone's attention here to post #21 at the top of the page..

I don't know about ya'll, but to me, dat B the international/galactic sign of "Tread Lightly" lololol

As Ronster puts it, she’s just emotional.

---

I guess textile mills don't count as industrial to you? Or bakeries?

As for doubling the workforce, I guess we agree, sort of, we're just using the word differently.  They were trying to double their supply of workers, yes.  The way you said it made it sound like they were actually doubling the number of people they would hire.

Even in the post you're replying to the term used is "demand for work" when demand for employment or demand for jobs would be clearer. Demand for work can easily be confused as referring to industry demand for labor (a demand for work to be performed).

You got me. That could have been stated differently. Great work. 

Good thing that doesn't change my point.

---

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Women claim they don't need men until a jar needs opening or a spider dispatched.

I can open my own damn jars…thank you very much. But that spider thing?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Women claim they don't need men until a jar needs opening or a spider dispatched.

I can open my own damn jars…thank you very much. But that spider thing?

---

It's being done by design. Ex KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov warned of this roughly 37 years ago. The war has been here on our own soil for roughly four decades now. Possibly longer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

---

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years......It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”

― David Rockefeller

[font=Merriweather, Georgia, serif]“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

― [b]David Rockefeller, [font=Lato, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif]Memoirs[/font][/b][/font]

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

The founders of BLM are queer women.  Suprise suprise.

That's what I'm saying man!

Once we get rid of the left and the women in this country, it'll be smooth sailing forever!

Wow ... surprised you are ok with blacks and other male minorities living in this country.

---

That's what I'm saying man!

Once we get rid of the left and the women in this country, it'll be smooth sailing forever!

Wow ... surprised you are ok with blacks and other male minorities living in this country.

I think he's joking or being sarcastic. LOL.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

That's what I'm saying man!

Once we get rid of the left and the women in this country, it'll be smooth sailing forever!

Wow ... surprised you are ok with blacks and other male minorities living in this country.

Dude, it's Cletus. Sarcasm is his middle name. Lol

---

That's what I'm saying man!

Once we get rid of the left and the women in this country, it'll be smooth sailing forever!

Wow ... surprised you are ok with blacks and other male minorities living in this country.

Wait…What???

 Guess it’s time to move to another country.   I can deal with the taxes, I can deal with the fuel prices, I can deal with an incompetent government. But this is going too far.

---