Post: #1

The relevant portion:

Quote:"Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza."

Apparently traditional roles & obligations are just fine when shots are fired.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3...-symposium

Post: #2

I don't really have a problem with that. Wouldn't you rather go down fighting than be executed while sobbing in the corner, begging for your life?

Post: #3

(12-19-2012 08:28 PM)LooTa Wrote:  I don't really have a problem with that. Wouldn't you rather go down fighting than be executed while sobbing in the corner, begging for your life?

I would, but first I'd want to send in a company of snarky short haired fat feminists. At least then there would be some cover on the ground, and the enemy troops would surely be demoralized at the sight of what they would have to look forward to should they conquer us.

Post: #4

I think Angela Dworkin would have made a good human shield due to her size.


I feel kinda bad for joking about this.

Post: #5

(12-19-2012 10:33 PM)Ramon Zarate Wrote:  I think Angela Dworkin would have made a good human shield due to her size.

Women that size are also useful for taking grenades

Post: #6

Yeah, I've said it before that girls now a days want to walk around and be "one of the guys" and talk shit like they have bowling ball sized nuts because nothing usually happens to them. They'll be the first ones to start crying and looking at you when something really pops off though.

Post: #7

(12-20-2012 12:32 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 10:33 PM)Ramon Zarate Wrote:  I think Angela Dworkin would have made a good human shield due to her size.

Women that size are also useful for taking grenades

I thought that women that size were grenades.

Post: #8

The author has a Ph.D in "Medieval Studies" from Rutgers.

She looks old, and her writing has a touch of red pill in it. Indeed, other feminists call her out for this.

The whole article reads like the nostalgia of a former carousal rider under the tender ministrations of her nice boy.

Post: #9

National Review is a conservative magazine/website. The woman is lamenting the fact that male aggression has been pushed out of schools, and probably to a larger extent, it's been forced out of society.

I think her belief is that if male aggression weren't so frowned upon, shots wouldn't have been fired at all.

Post: #10

(12-19-2012 08:28 PM)LooTa Wrote:  I don't really have a problem with that. Wouldn't you rather go down fighting than be executed while sobbing in the corner, begging for your life?

These are not the only two options when it comes to conflict resolution.

Post: #11

(12-19-2012 08:28 PM)LooTa Wrote:  I don't really have a problem with that. Wouldn't you rather go down fighting than be executed while sobbing in the corner, begging for your life?

Yes, but this isn't what she's saying. She's saying it's a shame more real men weren't around to act as absorbers/dispensers of violence on behalf of the women and children there. To her, the lives of men are only important so long as they are useful to others--anyone else isn't really a man to her. The breezy air of entitlement and her flippant and reflexive willingness to sacrifice the sons/husbands/uncles of other people is also a large part of what's instructive here.

To be protectors and human shock absorbers has been the traditional obligation of men since time immemorial, but it came at a cost to women: they were subject to masculine authority. This was a core civilizational pact that has been broken with the full-throated support of left-leaning feminists and the more tacit, but still strong support of traditional conservative women as well.

Never forget that traditional conservative women are often just as feminist as hardcore leftists. The only difference is that they want a man's resources---and his life & limb---largely slaved to one woman, whereas leftist women want the very same to be the communal property of all women. What the man wants is immaterial to them as men don't exist for themselves, but for the benefit of women. However in exchange for these obligations, neither tradcon feminists or left-leaning feminists want to yield to masculine authority. For both groups of women, men are disposable, interchangeable, and simply a means to an end (there obviously a number of exceptions, and to varying degrees). Both groups of women are gynocentric and woman-first to the core, but want men to receive no compensation for the enormous social cost this places upon them.