Post: #51

I get the point of Roosh video. But I would still advice my daughter/niece to get good, real education that will pay them well.

The thing is having no money, depending on others for everything really sucks man.

At least in my family , my grandma studied and became a nurse after having 5 kids. She retired, still married with my grandpa and they have a good elderly life for standards of where I live (in Brazil).

Post: #52

The problem is women are indoctrinated to believe that if they ever rely on a man for anything, he's guaranteed to leave her in a shitty situation. There's nothing saying a woman can't get an education, or some sort of career if she wants. She should simply do it after getting married and having kids, then raising those kids for 10 years.

Putting education and career before marriage, fertility and the energy of youth is moronic if they want kids but that's what they're taught to do.

Post: #53

Quote:The upbringing of an Athenian woman was quite different. Her status in Greek society was just a small step above slaves. At birth an Athenian girl was not expected to learn how to read, write, or even earn an education. Menander commented on the teaching of reading and writing to women, “What a terrible thing to do! Like feeding a vile snake on more poison.”

https://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/55779.html

Like feeding a vile snake on more poison.

Precisely.

Ancient wisdom right there gentlemen.

Post: #54

(02-06-2017 05:59 PM)scotian Wrote:  Female welders, pipefitters and boilermakers are definitely a rough bunch, not the type you'd take home to mom!

I've been waiting years to hear a woman say she's a professional pipefitter. I have a few crass retorts at the ready.

Post: #55

The correct term is "Journeyman". If she calls herself a "Journeywoman" beware of feminist.

Post: #56

Amusing freakouts:

Post: #57

'Roosh'
Amusing freakouts:

Shoe on Head is actually an anti-feminist anti-marxist Youtuber, but I'll give women like her a pass.







Nice tits and body - heh.

And I think her opinions are honest, though of course I don't expect smart women to share Roosh's opinion, which is not surprising. Also WB - I think she is hot - I like those cute little things.

She fits nicely among the few who can get education past the age of 25 in my ideal female educational model - I posted this somewhere else:

------------

Frankly the economy would make do almost without women.

The ideal employment/education system for women should be - my personal proposal:

age 17-25 marriage, children, some additional education at home if she is highly intelligent
age 26-30 studies for the top 10% in intelligence if even that, minor small courses for all other women who insist on working
age 30-60 - the few who want to work full-time will be few. Most women will probably pick a part-time occupation that should be designed to fit their interests and not any real monetary needs.

That kind of system lets women take care of their kids while they are young and gives them time to start studying as the kids reach elementary school. Men would get young hot wives, women would have education, just later and they would be more happy and balanced having fulfilled their reproductive goals at their prime and not long past their peak hotness and feritility in their late 20s or 30s.

A society should encourage every woman to go the family-wife route. If she wants to work, then it should be something she loves to do - fuck career and "becoming a CEO".

I would not want to completely bar women from becoming scientists and the like. Humanity does not need women to be that educated, but we certainly don't become poorer if a few actually want to use their intelligence. Those women will remain an exception anyway. The rest of the "educated ones" are frankly more a nuisance than an advantage and a society should strongly discourage this creating a system where most women are more happy at home and honestly realize that.

Case in point - my own mother with a rare IQ over 140 and a high technical study. She studied structural engineering and calculating structural integrities of skyscrapers for a living. She was better than most of her male colleagues. But was she happy while working in that job? Nope - she does not even admit it, but she wasn't. She is now the happiest in early retirement, making pottery art, playing with the dog, doing some gardening and taking care of her home and her husband. She could have had this at age 30. Sure - she may have wanted some more intellectual activity, but it likely would not be engineering in an ideal world. Even high-IQ highly logical women are more happy as a simple housewife. And what about the rest of the lot who are not so bright and not so logical?

Give me a break....

Roosh is right, though I wouldn't be so strict and my proposed female education system strikes a nice balance between intellectual fulfillment and happy family/motherhood.

Post: #58

So close yet...

   

Post: #59

Why are women being educated?

1)They're convinced this is what they have to do to be "successful women".
2)Universities are purely businesses. More women customers = more money.
3)Journalism is full of dykes, weirdos and man haters who want to set women up in a career "war" vs men.
4)The elite want more women working. It means more income to them, and the ability to force down male wages.
5)Traditional female roles - cooking, cleaning, walking to the shops etc can be done by technology more these days.
6)People are more materialist but also NEED more money (rising house prices, perceptions of weaker welfare+ state healthcare nowadays). So in the past the wife would work a few hrs a week, now its a full 35 hrs.
7)Its not marriage for life. Many people are single so women work for the perception of security.

Whats gone wrong?
Crackpots are discriminating against men in favour of women (and other minorities).
Men can't even FIND breadwinner roles, and accomodation prices etc go thro the roof in many places.
It means men don't feel like men any more. So they won't get married/have kids - and the whole situation fucks up.

Women are brainwashed into so called "alpha" jobs eg investment banker, engineer, corporate lawyer blah blah.
But they realise by their early 30s that its just "not them". They hate it, give up and become housewives, teachers, clothes shop owners/interior designers etc.

So that means a talented male has lost out on an investment banking/whatever career and has fucked his life away working in a faggy call centre or whatever.


Whats the answer?
We need to start accepting that women are women and men are men again. Stop trying to turn men into women and vice versa. Common sense says that women should on balance be in women's roles, and men in mens. Ofcourse there might be exceptions, but none of this HSBC crap where they laughably boast that 50% of bank managers will be female (who fuck off, have kids, hate the job, and never come back!)

There's lots of roles only women are ideal for, and lots that only men are ideal for. SOME jobs are suitable for both eg waitress/waiter.

____________
Men far more often feel that career is an essential part of their identity, their masculinity. Women just don't feel like that so much. They value rounded stuff - family, hobbies, coffee mornings, charity events, buying shite for the house.
That extra push thats needed throughout your life to succeed in a career. I've seen LOADS of women give up the high powered careers they were sold by the SJW lowlife mob. NEVER saw it with a male giving up a good career!
There are far more male Nobel prize winners, just as there are more male serial killers. Its not about "who's better". Its about what we are in reality.

Post: #60

(02-07-2017 08:18 PM)weambulance Wrote:  The problem is women are indoctrinated to believe that if they ever rely on a man for anything, he's guaranteed to leave her in a shitty situation.
<snip>

I have found women are more willing drop everything and run at the first sign of trouble instead of working to make the situation better. Is this taught or is this biological reaction?

Post: #61

(02-14-2017 08:52 AM)Roosh Wrote:  So close yet...

This woman is the perfect example. This is a society which pushes the same educational model of men onto women. Also it discourages early family building and has succeeded in the propaganda that a husband who takes care of his wife is a sugardaddy.

The paradox is of course that in our system women have more real sugardaddies than ever!

This desire for independence is media and society fabricated and based on propaganda and the distrust fostered between the genders. Also it is based on some real-life facts of men not making enough money due to women competing for the same jobs, of the globalists lowering the real wages of workers by off-shoring, immigration and other measures.

So essentially it is an attack on a sane system on multiple fronts. Women nowadays mostly cannot even afford to stop working - at least the majority. Those that can stop do - 50% of female medical graduates never work longer than a few years. They marry other doctors and stay at home.

Such a girl could easily fit well in my female education model. She could get herself a promising young husband at Wallstreet - he could be 28, she 20, they could have kids. Maybe she can do some home courses and if she is truly bored when the kids reach elementary school, then she can go to college and study something. Who knows - she may even decide to become an analyst at age 34.

But I bet my left ball that she would not do that - she would look at her happy and proud husband, at her growing kids, at her garden and at her dogs and she would say: "Fuck it! I'll stay at home and enjoy life!"

Women would accept such a system, but the globalists have other plans. Their women often stay at home, pop out kids and do "charity work". I don't see them hustling and busting like men.


That's not even globalist class - just NYC rich.

Post: #62

Are you guys meeting girls like this in cities? This type of girl is elusive to me.

   

Post: #63

(02-14-2017 01:57 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Are you guys meeting girls like this in cities? This type of girl is elusive to me.

My first Polish ex-girlfriend that I ended up with was like that. She stopped working as we moved in (I told her so, because I made enough money). Her current man is a Red Pill army vet who lives in Europe and works for a military-affiliated company. She stays at home, takes care of their son and is all happy as a housewife busy with her hobbies and her family.

My current one is not as domesticated, but also would have nothing else but enough time to paint take care of our future kids.

Another Polish guy I know just married an American girl who moved all the way from the States to Poland. She prefers to live in less vibrant Poland and plans to raise her future kids here. I don't see any work in her future either - she left her paper-pushing work in the US quite readily and that Polish guy is not rich at all.

My best buddy here also moved to Poland and got himself a Polish girlfriend. Dito - girl willing to ditch any future work for family and household, so long as she can have some dogs.

Frankly I think that most girls are willing to go that route after having tasted a bit the road of the workforce of empowerment. But all those women are 25+.

When I think back of girls I know 18-25, well.... nah - I hooked up with a 19yo recently and she would have fallen into the same frame - Polish girl.

But when I compare the experiences with Western girls then I can say that there are far less of them in the West than in the East. Most Western girls plan to have a "career" and my take is that many Eastern European women follow suit, though the reality of work here quickly humbles them and if a strong men tells them to sit down and stay at home, then they will gladly do it.

Post: #64

(02-14-2017 10:56 AM)Moreless Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 08:18 PM)weambulance Wrote:  The problem is women are indoctrinated to believe that if they ever rely on a man for anything, he's guaranteed to leave her in a shitty situation.
<snip>

I have found women are more willing drop everything and run at the first sign of trouble instead of working to make the situation better. Is this taught or is this biological reaction?

It is learned when you don't ever have to be responsible.

Post: #65

(02-14-2017 10:56 AM)Moreless Wrote:  

(02-07-2017 08:18 PM)weambulance Wrote:  The problem is women are indoctrinated to believe that if they ever rely on a man for anything, he's guaranteed to leave her in a shitty situation.
<snip>

I have found women are more willing drop everything and run at the first sign of trouble instead of working to make the situation better. Is this taught or is this biological reaction?

I won't say this applies in every situation, but women instinctively recoil from men who show weakness, because they don't want to be the mate of a weak man. Even if that weakness is something like an accidental injury. They have to be taught by their mothers and grandmothers how to control that instinct.

I doubt it's still available but Sunshine Mary had a good piece about that a few years back, how when her husband was badly injured in a skiing accident she felt instinctively repulsed and resentful at having to step up and take care of him. Even though she knew where the reaction was coming from, it was still real, and hard to deal with. That's how I remember the gist of the article, anyway.

I'm well into the weeds of educated speculation now but I think there are several factors that contribute to women being prone to cutting and running instead of sticking it out:

First, they mostly don't get that education from their elder women I mentioned above, even by just being around multiple generations of stable families and observing good behavior.

Second, and worse, they're taught from birth that men can't be relied on, so as soon as things look bad they're likely to bounce. Their natural instinct is just amplified by feminist indoctrination, making it much worse. It's no coincidence that women initiate ~70% of divorces.

Third, and related to the first point, because stable multigenerational families are often spread out even if that support structure would normally be available, if they don't have the support and pressure of the rest of the family to do their duty by their husbands, it's a lot easier for them to just cut and run. For example, I have a very large family with just a single divorce in the last three generations. But we're spread out across three states. My nearest relatives are 30+ miles away and the next nearest are 60 miles away. What I see as the family core gets together a lot but we're not exactly having dinner together three nights a week. That family support and pressure that's desirable is not readily available most of the time.

There's probably more to it but this is off the top of my head, and I haven't thought about this in awhile. It's interesting to think about, though. A lot of women's shitty behavior really is built-in, and they need to be taught to control it. Unfortunately in modern society, they're taught to embrace their idiotic, self destructive impulses, which just leads to their common dyscivic behavior.

Post: #66

< While I agree with your post Weambulance, I had to chuckle at Sunshine Mary:

http://mattforney.com/manosphere-dead-killed/

After that article by Matt Forney she folded her blog. No wonder any accident by her husband would instantly create repulsion.

In case you haven't read this great article by Matt, then enjoy.

Post: #67

Yeah, what a shit show that was. I did read that at the time, but I haven't thought about any of the old drama in years.

All I remember from Sunshine Mary's work is basically the one post I referenced because it was unusually insightful and honest, coming from a woman.

Post: #68

(02-14-2017 01:57 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Are you guys meeting girls like this in cities? This type of girl is elusive to me.

My LTR says stuff just like this all the time to me, although sticking to the rule of watch what women do and not what they say the jury is out on children until we have them. My house is clean and laundry done, etc. however

This is a USA girl, virgin and went to church however.

Post: #69

I've been out of college for about 6 years. Looking at social media pictures of girls I know as Freshman / Sophomores versus today (many now getting engaged / married) it looks like they got hit by a train. And these are normal girls who don't have piercings / tats, etc.

To use an economists term, the negative externalities of female empowerment are mind boggling.

Post: #70

Triggered:

Post: #71

Id say shes fun at parties

What a self important opinionated bore

WB

Post: #72

Ok I gotta stop watching maese's Roosh's vids, following the triggering trail that ensues is threatening to bust my sides

Post: #73

(02-03-2017 09:59 PM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  Indoctrinating, err educating women is the most effective way to cull and control men.

True - he who controls the pussy, controls the culture.

Post: #74

(02-18-2017 02:15 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Triggered:

Don't even listen to her, just watch her on mute... is that the face of a happy person?

That chick needs to lose 15 pounds, hit the gym to do some squats, and stop sneering all the time before she gets permanent wrinkles from it. Maybe she can still save herself; the raw material is there, if education didn't blend her mind too much to come back from.

Also, she spelled feminism wrong on her chalkboard wall. Better luck next time.

Post: #75

(02-18-2017 03:06 PM)Steve McQueen Wrote:  Id say shes fun at parties

What a self important opinionated bore

WB

*whore