Stolen from Simon Sheppard’s book: All About WomenOver on Black Pill, there’s a new deconstruction of the feminist critique of space exploration. It’s a response to some kooky feminist babbling about how the space race is “patriarchal” and etc.
Black Pill Author writes:
The environment is a red herring. It is not the real issue. The real issue is that on Earth there is nowhere to escape the gynocracy.
What Black Pill misses is the point, which suggests that no one cares less about the environment than wimminz. Look at the most matriarchal cultures in Africa, for example, and you’ll find the most poverty-stricken, famine-ravaged areas on earth. The minute women got their sexual liberation, the population shot up, as wimminz started reproducing with no thought of the future, generally with the trashiest cohort of men available.
It is men who concern themselves with the future, and wimminz who live in the eternal now. In this regard, wimminz are not unlike children, with the important difference that children respond positively to a kind man’s correction, while wimminz hate a good man and will rebel at every turn.
This process is generally visible in microcosm. If we look at relationships, we find men who want relationships with women who respect them, and wimminz who will go through life with a “don’t need no man” attitude, having sex with men who positively do not care about them. Simon Sheppard points out, in his “Introduction to Procedural analysis,” that both men and women have identical sex drives, but that evolution has overlaid the female drive with instinctual aversions which cause neurosis. This is largely due, in his analysis, to the real dangers women faced if they encouraged the men they had sex with to meek (or civilization-inducing behavior). A wimminz will always see decency as weakness, and will instead choose to mate with the most potentially violent man in her vicinity.
As Black Pill points out, wimminz are so insecure that they instinctively realize that space colonization will be led by the best (i.e. most violent, most daring, and most novelty-prone) male specimens. Wimminz desperately need validation from these men. The men who will stay behind will not interest them. Moreover, wimminz know they have neither the skills nor the drive to get into a spacecraft bound for Jupiter’s largest moons.
Wimminz know their own lack of worth, on a subconscious level. This is something that a brother can use to his advantage. If you are comfortable with debasing yourself by putting on a convincing show of your own brutality (I am), and hold out validation as a reward (I do this), while never actually giving it to a wimminz, she will do almost anything for you.
The flaw many young brothers have is a tendency to give these filthy wimminz the validation that they seek. Once that is gifted over, it can not be taken back, and the spell is broken.
He who hath ears, let him hear:
‘She’s not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing specifically right?’
I’d be willing to say she’s either more feminine or actually treats her husband with respect and doesn’t view him as an ATM machine.
The brothers give the wrong validation most of the time. It’s either complimenting a horrible woman or abusing a horrible woman. They validate the wrong type of women.
Environmentalism is a two-pronged agenda of ponies and money grabs.
Mr. Investment Banker seems to have perfected brutal honesty. You, Boxer, are brutal as well. Like a runaway train. As is almost always the case on this issue, I agree with earl: “They validate the wrong type of women.”
I hope that this illogical gibberish was meant as tongue-in-cheek.
Boxer,
Black Pill states it pretty well: “Women aren.t doing anything for the environment except ‘caring’ about it,” i.e., not caring about it.
As for Ramman’s comment, that bit of illogical gibberish [sic] encapsulates the demise of Christendom in a sentence: the surrender of the wealth of the west to its prodigal daughters.
illogical gibberish [sic]
Indeed, it is logically unintelligible (I’m being somewhat tongue-in-cheek) unless viewed as satire. I suppose there is someone to defend every position, even obviously crazy ones.
Single motherhood is strongly associated with poverty: this is statistically undeniable. But so is single fatherhood. What causes mass poverty in modern society is broken and non-nuclear families, not matriarchy. The poorest African nations are not matriarchal and the ones that are matriarchal are not the poorest in Africa. That said, any matriarchal society in Africa is bound to be poor, because it’s Africa.
“The minute women got their sexual liberation, the population shot up” is another factually incorrect statement. Sexual liberation in modern society leads to declines in population as women no longer have sex for the purpose of having children.
“Men concern themselves with the future”, says the man who won’t be marriageable material, marry the right type of women, and have children. I suppose you can take the Darwinian approach that those who don’t reproduce are ultimately doing everyone a favor by removing themselves from the gene pool.
This recently published op-ed declares that falling total woldwide fertility rates is a victory for humanity. This is an absolute celebration of women not having babies. More than wrong, it’s disgraceful.
While I’m not sure how those who oppose feminism got duped, this should have been the first clue that something didn’t smell right with the association of population growth and environmental damage. You’ve been played.
Did nobody notice that while the total population has been climbing in the U.S. the environmental quality has been improving? Pollution is, surprisingly, caused by pollution, and if you stop polluting, you can still have babies. ‘Overpopulation’ is feminist FUD, a proxy to justify various agendas, like abortion, birth control, and vilifying families (especially large ones).