Post: #1

Thomas Jefferson's (he knew how to raise a daughter) outlined busy program for his 11-year-old daughter (quotes from The Spearhead):

Quote:With respect to the distribution of your time, the following is what I should approve:
From 8. to 10. o’clock practise music.
From 10. to 1. dance one day and draw another.
From 1. to 2. draw on the day you dance, and write a letter next day.
From 3. to 4. read French.
From 4. to 5. exercise yourself in music.
From 5. till bedtime, read English, write, &c

The guy also demanded updates:

Quote:I expect you will write me by every post. Inform me what books you read, what tunes you learn, and inclose me your best copy of every lesson in drawing. Write also one letter a week either to your Aunt Eppes, your Aunt Skipworth, your Aunt Carr, or the little lady from whom I now enclose a letter. . . . Take care that you never spell a word wrong. Always before you write a word, consider how it is spelt, and, if you do not remember it, turn to a dictionary. It produces great praise to a lady to spell well…

Can you believe that people have actually taken these documents and have actually accussed TJ of misogyny?!


More wisdom from TJ:

Quote:A lady who has been seen as a sloven or slut in the morning will never efface the impression she has made, with all dress and pageantry she can afterwards involve herself in…

I do not wish you to be gayly clothed at this time of your life, but that what you wear should be fine of its kind; but above all things, and all times let your clothes be clean, whole, and properly put on…Nothing is so disgusting to our sex as a want of cleanliness and delicacy in yours.

Upon browsing through the comments section of The Spearhead in its article "Stop Looking for a Wife: You Won't Find One," I came upon an excellent and insightful post by commenter sorin:

Quote:When I read of accounts of women of olden days, I’m often struck by the well-rounded education many of them received; they could read, write, and speak with eloquence (and in other languages as well), studied history, literature, and the Bible, could play an instrument and dance, they knew the culinary arts and could keep house, raise children, entertain guests, and on top of that, had virtue and modesty. Of course, not all women did these things, but these traits were considered laudable. The way feminists talk, you’d think women did nothing but sweep floors and suffer to be raped by their brute of husband they were forced to marry.

For all their degrees, today’s women are dumb as bricks. They have rejected ‘weak’ feminine virtues in favor of masculine vices, imagining themselves to be empowered by them. Modern western woman considers herself liberated- but from what? Family, marriage, motherhood, chastity, beauty, modesty; those horror of horrors! There has never been a more miserable generation of women, yet it seems they would rather have their misery a hundred times over than trade it for their natural, submissive role as wives and mothers under a patriarchal system.

Post: #2

The women's liberation movement actually (indirectly and not entirely consciously) cost women a great deal of status.

For all of the talk of the misogyny of men during this era, Victorian women were probably among the most pedestalized on Earth, far more so than today. While it is true that men of that time period generally enforced more rigid gender roles upon women than they do today and largely limited their direct influence outside of domestic(household) affairs, the fact is that female moral and spiritual supremacy was widely accepted in society at that time.

The majority of people, from government officials to local religious leaders to average Joes, were told and in many cases generally believed that women were morally better than men, inherently "right" and just in a way men could never be. The 19th amendment was largely a direct result of these thought patterns, and women were also some of the leading voices behind prohibition.

What could an American woman in the late 19th/early 20th century expect?

-A Provider: She would not be required to embark upon a full time career. Men considered it their duty to care for their women and their families. Women were therefore free to spend time with their children (without worrying about how such time could impact their livelihood) and later indulge in whatever interests they had (political activism, early feminism, writing, etc) at their own whims.

-A Family: She was almost guaranteed to have children in whom she could invest, who would be provided for by her provider husband.

-Respect: Females in this era were considered to be more virtuous than men, and were treated accordingly as more than just sex toys.

Fast forward to the present day. What about the modern American woman?

-A Provider: She's not guaranteed this anymore. The institution of marriage that ensured her one of these guys in the past (men were shamed back then for prolonging bachelorhood) is slowly crumbling, and a lot of men are becoming increasingly suspicious of an unwilling to marry their female peers. Many decent looking women are finding quality, commitment-minded men harder to come by, and are finding themselves single for much longer than they planned or wished to be.

-A Family: This is getting harder for them to find as well as providers are becoming less common. Women have found that, for all of the liberation they have, they would still like to be mothers and maintain families the way their mothers and grandmothers did. The problem is that men are no longer "manning up" to help them out with this, and they're increasingly having to work harder, wait longer, and pay much more (in-vitro fertilization is very, very expensive) to satisfy their natural desire to bear children.

-Respect: We're equal now. The Victorian era meme of female supremacy in moral and spiritual contexts is dead (except among some remaining religious conservatives in our nations redder states, and even some of them are getting quite suspicious as they grow older). Women no longer receive the inherent privileges (moral supremacy, chivalry, etc) they once did. Many of them still expect it, but they are increasingly being disappointed as men provide it in lower and lower quantities going forward. You can't really blame them, either-women insisted on total equality, so why would their old privileges remain?

-Female virtue carries no weight anymore. Women demanded sexual liberation and the right to create a more "free market" approach to their own sexuality, killing off all of the old restrictions they once held. The result is more fun for them to an extent(they're free now to spend their 20's chasing the alpha males they really want rather than being shackled to the dutiful, but boring beta male and raising 2-3 kids).

The hidden consequence, however, is investment, or lack thereof. Men no longer invest in women anymore. Sex is free and cheap, so why bother? The providers who made most of the investment in women historically are slowly disappearing(changing their habits or just going ghost) because there simply is no remaining incentive to play that role anymore (and the few men who still try are just getting screwed royally). A quality guy is way better off prolonging bachelorhood and playing the field, investing relatively little and still getting plenty of sex, than he is going all in and playing the more committed role his grandfather likely did.

Men treat women like sex toys now and get away with it. In fact, many men are finding that this attitude (dismissive, disrespectful, aloof) gets them even MORE women-females are increasingly accepting these attitudes and tolerating the low investment (that's why this forum exists, after all). Like the quoted Spearhead poster stated, women have traded a more dignified older status (more moral, virtuous, generally superior in spirit and conduct) for a new status as mere sex toys. Their bodies seem to be all they have left to bargain with.

Bottomline: Its ironic. Women today are probably valued less for the content of their character than they were in the past.

Naturally, women aren't very happy with the state of things. How they deal with it remains to be seen-I expect a bit of a rebellion within the next couple of decades. Something is going to give eventually.

Until then, enjoy the ride.

Post: #3

I think the majority of posters on this board know that the whole logic of feminism is flawed and its practitioners pretty contradictory. However, I have to say I can't really bitch about it overly. As it's created an environment for me to get laid at will with unique women, and all I have to bring to the table is game.

As Athlone commented about guys in the past "men were shamed back then for prolonging bachelorhood." Due to this environment, I am quite confident in the fact that I don't ever want to get married, it doesn't reward me in any shape or form. And now I have game, I don't want to spend years with the same woman.

Ultimately, marriage was a safety net for both man and woman, for the man so he had a pussy he could beat up on the regular, without having to worry about going to find something new. For the woman the security of commitment means she gets looked after.

After reading this thread I had a quick search on youtube and came up with this:






A few select gem quotes:

"the Dalai Lama believes it will be Western women who will save the world." - oooooook

"I want to discuss why we don't have an equal rights amendment" - If it ain't broke..

"Or what it was like for women before the pill" - Er got pregnant?

"my interests are far and wide" - kinda like the distance to her nearest gym and her waistline.