Saturday, 21 January 2012

The Costa Concordia and How White Knights Missed the Point



The Costa Concordia sinking was an informative tragedy. That is, it exposed all that is wrong with contemporary Anglo-American gender-relations. First, let us amuse ourselves with an Anglo White Knight's hysterical response to events. A N Wilson's article appeared in the British right-wing tabloid, the Daily Mail, shortly after the sinking. The Daily Mail has the dubious distinction of having supported Hitler, by the way... but I digress:

Whatever Happened to Women and Children First?

When the Titanic went down in April 1912, the Captain’s orders were: ‘Women and children first!’

Although this legendary edict was never part of maritime law, it was adhered to so strictly on the Titanic that men were actually stopped from boarding lifeboats, many of which went to sea only three-quarters full. There were only a few exceptions to the unvarying tales of heroism: three men in steerage who disobeyed the rule — Italians, coincidentally — were shot.

The chivalry was reflected in survival rates: 74 per cent of the women were saved; 52 per cent of the children; and just 20 per cent of the men. It meant that Titanic’s sinking quickly became the stuff of mythology. The Chairman of the White Star Line, Joseph Bruce Ismay, who was on board the liner and did escape in a lifeboat, was branded a coward by the world’s Press for leaving the Titanic while there were still women and children on board.

Nellie Taft, wife of the U.S. President, mounted a campaign to raise funds for a monument that would be inscribed: ‘To the brave men who gave their lives that women and children might be saved.’

The tragedy of the wrecked cruise liner, the Costa Concordia, with its dreadful loss of life and hideous memories for the terror-stricken crew and passengers, has appalled all of us. It would now seem as though the accident was avoidable, and this makes it all the more horrifying for everyone who lived through what one crew-member called a 36-hour nightmare. One of the features of the disaster that has provoked a great deal of comment is the stream of reports from angry survivors of how, in the chaos, men refused to put women and children first, and instead pushed themselves forward to escape; and how the Italian crew ignored passengers and reportedly shouldered their way past mothers and pregnant women to get into lifeboats...

It seems that the seafaring command about women and children being first to board lifeboats originated with the sinking of HMS Birkenhead off the coast of South Africa in 1852. The ship was carrying 480 British troops and about 26 women and children. When the ship foundered, the soldiers’ commander told his men to ‘stand fast!’ and allow women and children to make use of the few lifeboats on the vessel...

But in our day, with the advent of feminism and the professional woman, chivalry and manners are considered stuffy and old-fashioned. As the father of three daughters, I do not, with a single fibre of my being, wish to go back to a time when women could not have the vote or get a university degree. Nor do I, surrounded by extremely strong-charactered and intelligent women in my family and among my friends, feel tempted to regard women as the frail sex.

But the fact remains that there is a longing among most men to protect women and children, and chivalry is simply a manifestation of that longing. And whatever transpires about the reason for the Costa Concordia disaster, the disappearance of a chivalric code is a sorry reflection on society today.

A. N. Wilson, Daily Mail, 17 January 2012



This farrago of White Knight, Anglofag drivel can educate as well as entertain, however. Among the points arising:

1. The Mainstream Media are woefully out of touch with contemporary society - especially the 'conservative' media. All the highly-ranked comments on Wilson's article are 'anti-chivalry' and could come straight off the Spearhead. Not one of them supports his absurd double-standards. Here are two good examples:

What happened? Feminism happened. It took our jobs, our children, our freedom and our dignity. It denigrated, and lied, until we were little more than dirt in the eyes of society, unpleasant and expendable individually, though useful macroscopically. In an age of guilty till proven innocent, where law is bent subjectively to suit any purpose, a slow realisation and attitude of resentment is sweeping throughout the psyche of the captor, conscious for some, but present for most. Your conviction in this is irrelevant; expect more examples of denial of female privilege, gradually escalating, until something significant changes.

- Adam, N.Ireland, 17/1/2012 2:53

OK, so you are on a sinking ship. There is one lifeboat. Your companions are the Eagle Sisters, Dianne Abbott, Jackie Smith, Harriet Harman, Teresa May (all hideous feminists - RK) and a single other male who is knowledgeable about cricket and fine wines and tells a good joke. You have a pistol. Discuss.

- TerenceH, Rochester, UK, 17/1/2012 7:04


The second comment is particularly revealing. Wilson seems to assumes all women are Edwardian 'ladies' wafting around in a haze of perfume and poetry. Note also how the Costa Concordia women shown in the media are all presentable, feminine and middle class - quite unlike the vast majority of Anglo females. The 'Lady' archetype is always wheeled out for these occasions despite most Anglo-American women being obese, drunken, vicious, ugly and loud. Has Wilson been living in an upper-middle class cocoon for most of his life? I suspect so.

In brief, times haves changed. The old Anglofag nonsense has been steadily eroded by the Internet and the Men's Rights Movement. If there is indeed 'a longing among most men to protect women and children' why did this chivalry not manifest itself on the Costa Concordia? Moreover, why did so few male commentators on Wilson's article support his antiquated ideas? And why did so many readers rank his critics so highly?

This movement is often accused or changing nothing in the real world. Odd, because we now live in a world where masculinist values are omnipresent - a completely different world than even twenty years ago. White Knights and feminists can bleat until they are blue in the face but the era of 'pussy passes' is clearly at an end.

2. Paradoxically, feminism can only work in a patriarchal context. Bizarre but true, this observation cuts right to the heart of feminism. The females on the Costa Concordia were looking for male authority ('an officer') to protect their privileges. Without patriarchy, without men, feminism would not be possible.

The same must be said of post-feminist Anglo-American society in general. When men are fleeced in the Divorce courts and robbed of their children, male judges and police officers typically do the dirty work. When feminists say 'we need to stop international sex trafficking' they really mean, 'male-headed and staffed police agencies need to stop international sex trafficking'.

That doesn't sound quite the same, of course. If large numbers of men defect from society, however, feminism will crumble. And the lesson? The Costa Concordia showed the true power we wield.

3. Being mercenaries (see my previous article), men are not 'playing the game' any more. There is no reason - sexual, economic or social - for men to conform to their traditional 'gender obligations'. Simply put, feminism and female emancipation have eliminated all payoffs for chivalrous behavior. Being a 'nice guy' leads only to sexual disenfranchisement, divorce and poverty, hardly gold-plated incentives. If the grinding tedium of medical school were not rewarded with elevated salaries, would anyone attend? Of course not! But White Knights like Fleming, Wilson and Futrelle (plus the emerging breed of 'feminist conservatives' - that is, women who like rights with privileges) expect men to queue up for chivalry without a single economic, social or sexual reward... fortunately, most men are not as stupid as they are.

4. Feminism and Anglo-American Conservatives are one. Feminism is not a revolutionary movement, at all. In his post on the MRA response to the disaster, David Futrelle assails the (quite valid) MRA observation that conservatives like Wilson and Anglo-American feminists are one and the same. I am flattered that the 'new wave' of post-conservative masculinists are saying this, since I first conceived of it!

Anglo-American conservatives share many attitudes with feminists. A quick list:

1. Hatred of recreational sex, in all its forms (prostitution, hook-ups, sex tourism).
2. Idealization of women (in the teeth of all contrary evidence).
3. Misandry - both groups reflexively demonize men as sexual beings.
4. Racism and classism - both feminism and conservatism are white, middle class, Anglocentric movements dismissive of anyone outside their privileged world. And both movements have a scurrilous history of racism and intolerance.
5. Coercive - both movements detest personal freedom, especially male sexual freedom.
6. Christian - both groups usually commit to a joyless, hypocritical protestantism derived from English Puritanism: anti-sex, anti-pleasure and anti-men. And sick in the extreme.
7. Both groups are imperialistic, obsessed by exporting their warped values around the world. In the case of feminism, this theme has grown much stronger in recent years (partly because men now have no rights in the Anglosphere, obviating the feminists' original mission). They seek new lands to conquer. The 'anti-trafficking' agenda is a central plank in this new feminist imperialism.

Perhaps the best answer is that Anglo-Saxon conservatism and feminism represent different ideological manifestations of the same cultural phenomenon - puritanical repression. One is reminded of the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm: indistinguishable from the tyrannical farmers. The more Anglo feminism preaches 'revolution', the more it stays the same.

As an amusing conclusion, just look at who Daily Mail bigot Peter Hitchens (brother of the deceased Christopher) links to:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

Yes, it's our cross-eyed friend, Tommy Fleming! The link between Anglo feminism and Anglo conservatism could not be clearer.

48 comments:

  1. Quite a few of those items - 1 through 7...

    Can't they also describe the liberals as well?

    The case in point - Our local leader here in Nevada (Harry Reid) wants to outlaw prostitution - his reason being, "it scares businesses away" - he claims that the majority of Nevadans feel the same way.

    The fact, 80% of Nevadans (if my memory serves), want to keep prostitution legal in Nevada...

    Doesn't that cover items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7?

    I see the ties between the conservatives and what is going on today - but is it really limited to just conservatives?

    Is it even conservative ideals? Or societal ideals in general that are the culprit?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, conservatives ARE the people under discussion, here. However, I certainly agree that Anglo-American politicians of all stripes now support feminist agendas. This is fairly inevitable, given that culture transcends politics and that Anglo culture has a unique anti-male agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not all conservatives are pro-feminists. I am a conservative and I hate feminism with a passion. I am very conservative actually but I believe prostitution should be legal.

    I also think the divorce laws in anglo countries should be changed so the man doesn't automatically have to give his ex-wife half of his assets. I also believe women should not be granted custody of the kids 85% of the time like they do now.

    Also, if a woman is found filing a false rape claim, she should have to spend some time in jail. Sexual harassment laws need to be changed in these anglo-countries. If a man so much as asks a woman for a date in the workplace, he could be charged with sexual harassment! WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Feminism and Anglo-American Conservatives are one."

    A comment, left at Alternative Right*, is especially piercing on this point.

    The reader "Allerious" writes:

    "It needs to be pointed out loudly and often that Christian theocons see eye-to-eye with radical feminists (nearly all of whom are militant atheists) on issues of sexual conduct and morality. Namely, they both love to blame men for everything that goes wrong between the sexes and to vilify healthy and natural male instincts wherever and whenever possible.

    If that doesn't give you pause to think about the Christ Cult, then your brain may need new batteries.

    The Xtian fundies say, "All sex is sin and man is inherently corrupt" while the feminazi's say, "All sex is rape and all men are inherently rapists." Is there any difference between them on this issue? Not really.

    Christianity spawned White Knights and WK's destroyed Western civ."

    *http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/men-masturbation-and-monogamy/

    ReplyDelete
  5. James Bond

    You sound more libertarian than conservative. They are really quite distinct things.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your right Rookh, I guess I am more libertarian than conservative. Feminists are liberals and they are the most dangerous political group out there.

    Feminism and liberalism go hand in hand. They both hate men, they both want big government and higher taxes. It's liberals who are passing these crazy anti-male laws here in the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I am woman hear me roar, watch me drown" This is what a feminist looks like:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Women-and-Children.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love the following quote from the Spearhead:

      *The fundamental lack of empathy that most women have for men is never more naked than at moments like these. Men are disposable objects whose utility encompasses marching willingly into gaping maws of oblivion so that Team Vagina may continue its hypergamous adventure.*

      Absolutely right. As I argued in my previous post, men cannot be expected to sacrifice without sexual/economic/political reward. Yet feminists and White Knights reflexively expect such altruism. The link between feminism and puritanical Christianity is obvious: 'give until it hurts' - but only if you're male, of course.

      Delete
  8. Oops, here's the link to the article:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/01/17/will-women-and-children-have-to-wait-in-line-now/

    The previous post has a link only to the image, my mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  9. JamesBond:
    I'd argue that most of American conservatism is simply feminism/liberalism repackaged. The Republicans were the ones here who enacted IMBRA and VAWA, for example; and Bush Jr. not only continued Clinton's policies of feminizing the military, he expanded on it.

    I think pretty much most of America's purported 'popular rule' is a sham; and both our politics and cultural norms are directed by a handful of financial oligarchs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey!

    I am watching this awesome video called: "Feminism and the Disposable Male"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA&feature=related

    At the 13:42 mark of the video, the speaker says:

    "feminism has been on the down and low with old school chivalry right from the start..."

    I am still watching the video but it seems pretty good and the speaker is a lady!

    ReplyDelete
  11. All you need to know about the Costa Concordia disaster: it was caused by a MAN (who abandoned ship shortly afterwards). Oh dear, yet another bad day for men!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it just so happens that most captains of ships happen to be men. How do we know that a woman wouldn't have done the exact same thing?

      Then again, only an Anglo feminist would refer to ALL men like some sort of collective.

      Delete
    2. "only an Anglo feminist would refer to ALL men like some sort of collective". Uh... right back atcha! It's not a good feeling, is it? That was kind of my point, really, and it's aimed at all of these woman-fearing blogs that claim to know how ALL women should be and how ALL women actually are.

      Delete
    3. Anon:

      Yeah, there are a minority of MRA's who think that ALL women are indeed bad, but you'll find that most SPECIFICALLY target women from the Anglosphere and for good reason. Tales of female psychosis abound in the Anglosphere much more than in Continental Europe, while their conduct during marriage and divorce often speaks for itself.

      Making your sort of point on a blog which criticises certain types of women who are found in numbers within the Anglosphere and not as much elsewhere (hence the term 'Anglobitch') is rather pointless.

      Delete
  12. Everything that you claim to know about feminism is the polar opposite of what feminism actually is. Feminism does NOT argue for the privileging of women over men. At a very basic level it states that women should NOT be persecuted for the manifestations of their humanity (e.g. the enjoyment of sex outside of marriage and/ or 'promiscuity') which make them as fallible and impulsive as men (who are congratulated on the same behaviour). Feminists generally loathe chivalry because it is a waste of time - old-fashioned, abitrary, unneccessary and superficial. The Daily Mail is a misogynstic, anti-feminist, puritanical rag which you would realise if you had bothered to do some proper reading on feminism. I would recommend 'A Vindication Of The Rights Of Woman' by Mary Wollstonecraft and 'The Second Sex' by Simone De Beauvoir, but I know it's a waste of time because you enjoy your victimhood. Apparently what anti-feminist men really loathe is the idea of competing with women on a level playing field.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *Feminism does NOT argue for the privileging of women over men. At a very basic level it states that women should NOT be persecuted for the manifestations of their humanity (e.g. the enjoyment of sex outside of marriage and/ or 'promiscuity') which make them as fallible and impulsive as men (who are congratulated on the same behaviour).*

      Are you serious? Feminism clearly has a rabid hatred of prostitution, foreign marriage sites, sex tourism and other legitimate forms of sexual freedom, which it mis-labels as 'trafficking'. Most men would LIKE Anglo-American women to be liberated; women, however, prefer to use sex as a weapon in their hypergamous games.

      *Feminists generally loathe chivalry because it is a waste of time - old-fashioned, abitrary, unneccessary and superficial.*

      But they do rather like those places on the lifeboats...

      *The Daily Mail is a misogynstic, anti-feminist, puritanical rag which you would realise if you had bothered to do some proper reading on feminism.*

      So misogynistic, in fact, that it lavishes half of Norway's trees on every missing middle class white girl in the northern hemisphere. Can't have anything hurting a princess, can we?

      Besides, feminism is fanatically puritanical - just consider how arch-feminist Harriet Harman quashed all newspaper adverts for brothels and massage parlors in the UK. Both feminists and Christian conservatives loathe sexual freedom of any kind. Feminists hate male sexual choice because prostitutes and foreign brides neutralize their own (limited) powers of sexual manipulation.

      *Apparently what anti-feminist men really loathe is the idea of competing with women on a level playing field.*

      That level playing field in schools, courts and everywhere else women are shown massive advantage, right?

      Delete
  13. Anon0954:

    "What anti-feminist men really loathe is the idea of competing with women on a level playing field."

    Speaking for myself, what I loathe is the feminist idea that the genders should be 'competing' at all. If it weren't for this Amazonian attitude---shared universally by feminized Anglobitches---this entrenched psychological need to 'prove' your supposed superiority and alleged lack of any need for men; there would be no need for men to defend themselves like this. Other, more enlightened and healthy cultures, recognize a polarity between the genders. That's why they can co-operate in a relationship; and Anglo-American relationships are typically nothing more than power-struggles.

    "Feminism does not argue for the privileging of women over men."

    It does EXACTLY that. Feminists believe that all sexual and reproductive 'rights' are the exclusive property of women. And the reason they loathe chivalry is because Chivalry, as it was traditionally practiced in past eras, demanded reciprocity and responsibility from women. The 'liberated' woman wants nothing to do with reciprocal social duties to men.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know, I hate the idea of men trying to compete with women, too.

      Delete
  14. This went from informative to atrouscious. How can you generalize women like this? Fat, ugly, loud? They had a special on doctor Phil about men like this who order brides and prostitutes just so they can be alpha-male and more often than not, beat these women.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then why are divorce rates lower among so-called 'mail order brides' and their husbands in America, if such men are so abusive? It must also be known that Dr Phil is pro-feminist. Why? Well, higher TV ratings of course (plus he doesn't risk being drummed off the air).

      Delete
    2. DaRick:
      In fact, marriages between foreign women and American men is the only positive marriage demographic in the US right now. The divorce rate, is significantly lower.

      As for the men being 'abusive'; just how nicely do American women treat men? LOL. Dragging them through divorce courts; depriving them of their kids, aborting babies over their objections; false accusations, rejecting men for sport---LOL a real bunch of Cindrellas!

      Delete
  15. chivalry is dead....feminism killed it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So sad to hear that - I've still not figured out how to put my own coat on or how to pull out a chair and I'm still too weak to open doors for myself!

      Delete
  16. you small, bitter little man...

    how dare you talk so badly of your superiors...

    why don't you go back to where you came from....

    and why, oh, why do American Feminist's never complain about Female Infanticide in countries like India and China....

    no, I don't think it is because they are worried all the quality men will want to import submissive, lean brides from other countries, cause y'know Feminism is a siterhood™-and they care soooo much about womyn™. That's why they were sooooo outraged at the murder of little Caylee Anthony....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All the gender problems of the Anglosphere come from within the Anglosphere itself. If Incel fucktards like you hadn't turned Anglocunts into blameless goddesses with your lame-brained, limp-dicked puritanism, it would still be a viable cultural bloc.

      Delete
  17. I am not incel™-takes one to know one rookiepoops...

    Feminism is NOT the problem-maybe if you were a big white guy™ like me you'd know that you dunce...

    Yugo Schwanz-Herts-Herr is a Male Feminist™ and he gets plenty of meow,meow...

    talking 'bout meow,meow-I gotta look up some kittie porn for my site cuz donch'ya know ladies love kittens....

    So is Roosh V your illigitimate son?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Futrelle Wannabee:

    I've always been astounded at the lack of any intelligent criticism mustered by the enemies of the Men's Movement; but comments like these are almost in a class by themselves!

    Judging by the pomposity, illiteracy, and lack of depth to your piece, I doubt seriously that you do, in fact, have quite a track-record with the 'ladies'. At least here in America, female attraction to boorishness and stupidity is well-known worldwide.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am David H. Fucktrelle-Male Feminist Extraordinaire™, don't call me otherwise, you misogynist™.

    Don'chya know that because of Feminism™, any decent guy who wants sex can easily get it. It's only Nice Guys™ who can't get it because they are really bad guys™ and womyn's intuition spots them a mile away and they can't get sex or relationships so they complain online.

    Don'chya know it is womyn who are the oppressed class™ and therefore there is NO NEED for men's rights....

    All those statements like the apex fallacy™, misandry™, higher suicide rates for men™, higher homeless rates for men™, misandry™-etc are all lies created to remove the importance from womyn's issues....

    Take that you misogynist™ dirtbag....

    I'm reporting you to Yugo Schwanz-Hertz-Herr and the League of Extraordinairy Male Feminists™

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OMG!HOW DUMB!
      "Nice guys" who arent really nice guys cant get sex because the wimmin can tell that they arent really nice?is that what you are saying?O but the thug "playa playas can?everybody knows they do.lemme see richard ramerez,snoop dawg, umm charles manson.
      stop taking female hormones and then come back when your head is clear

      Delete
    2. It always amuses me that you guys hate women so much that you actually cannot bring yourselves to spell the word properly. Alternatively, I guess you could be helping your fellow meatheads to discern the pronunciation of the word, so well done, you!

      I've seen your comrade Richard Littlejohn spelling it the same way, and I'm not sure quite why it irritates him so much. By the way, the word pre-dates AD900 in its origin, so you can rest assured it is not a feminist derived nomenclature.

      Delete
    3. @Anonymous 24 August 2012 05:42
      When you start criticizing commentators for irrelevant nonsense such as spelling errors, you really are grasping at straws (in a manner of speaking).
      If you have anything at all to add to this forum, try saying something that is relative to the discussion, or even relative to anything that matters, because you and your childish comments don't interest anybody here... LOL!

      And BTW, nobody here hates women, we don't even hate imbecile feminist trolls.
      What we do hate though is people who do not open their ears or their minds and listen to the views of others outside their little circle of hatred; especially considering that we have not only listened to their views now for at least 3 decades, we have even complied with them and obeyed their misandrist and Draconian laws.

      Delete
  20. Futrelle Wannabee:

    Ummm...somehow the thought of being reported to some Mangina League headed by someone with a suspiciously Nazi-sounding name doesn't exactly strike terror into my bosom...

    That said; you are one incredibly delusional male if you believe any of what you say. I don't see what your obsession with 'getting sex' (as though women exclusively own it) is all about. I don't think it's especially dignifying for men to have to degrade themselves to the level of subhumans to appeal to today's 'liberated' women--- only to receive sex like some kind of welfare handout. So much for 'complaining online about not getting laid.' Even sex can come at too high a price for any male who has any self-respect at all.

    Really, you should think about that. Behind all your pomposity and bombast; you're basically cringing under the illusion of the omnipotent Anglobitch 'Vagina-Power.' And it's only the type of males who don't threaten that feminine Superiority Complex (i.e., the weaklings) who can relate to 'womyn'.

    Figure it out, Davy. The feminists aren't prattling about 'male pigs' and 'girl power' because they have some kind of lofty and benign intentions for the male gender. And they certainly aren't impressed by 'decent guys'. They hate men, and don't disguise their contempt for us. To think otherwise is to live in deep denial.

    ReplyDelete
  21. so, there was some "humor" that might not make sense...

    http://tigerbeatdown.com/2012/01/12/hugo-schwyzer-wants-to-jizz-on-the-face-of-feminism-but-not-why-you%E2%80%99d-think/

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/12/17/sex-drugs-theology-men-feminism-interview-with-hugo-schwyzer/

    parody at the expense of bigots, yes I'm an asshole, so what...

    ReplyDelete
  22. I was thinking that that 'Fucktrelle' guy is parodying Futrelle (at least I hope he is).

    ReplyDelete
  23. I would like to marry a cute and sweet little girl child. Can I? Is it ok? Where? How?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How would I know? This blog isn't for that, friend.

      Delete
    2. Because young girls can be nice non-feminist wives that grow up with you and are bonded to you. It is good for men.

      Delete
  24. You misogynist dirtbags™

    don'chya know, it's kyriarchail, patriarchial oppression that womyn must pee sitting down....

    If you have any empathy, you too will pee sitting down...

    http://depantsing-queens.greatnow.com/should-males-be-required-to-pee-sitting-down.html

    Anything a man can do that a womyn can't do better is oppression and needs to be corrected by more quotas from the state...

    ReplyDelete
  25. The reason that women, traditionally, were prioritised over men for places in lifeboats is the simple inescapable biological fact that men cannot carry and give birth to children.

    In an emergency situation where the loss of life would be significant and where there is a need to consider the continuance of the human race, one man can (though not morally or ethically) do the job of many.

    Moreover, women were (and still are, on the whole) the primary caregivers in most cultures. This is something we have no choice over in societies where increasing numbers of men abandon their children, thus further undermining their roles in society and reducing themselves to mere units of biological matter. Those flakey males left women with no other choice but to prove that men are quite possibly - and very regrettably -unnecessary. It was not their faults that they needed to be pragmatic, it is simply just a matter of keeping things going.

    Admittedly traditional women are to blame for much of this, in insisting that only they can properly look after their offspring. The rest of us know that men can be as good at caring for children as we are, but we just don't know if they want to be...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In an emergency situation where the loss of life would be significant and where there is a need to consider the continuance of the human race, one man can (though not morally or ethically) do the job of many."

      Such a situation has not existed for millennia. The problem today is over-population, not a shortage of people. Neanderthals practised female infanticide, reflecting an alternative approach to demographic self-regulation. In a world of scarce resources, the more dead women the better.

      "Moreover, women were (and still are, on the whole) the primary caregivers in most cultures. This is something we have no choice over in societies where increasing numbers of men abandon their children, thus further undermining their roles in society and reducing themselves to mere units of biological matter."

      Funny, I thought most of those men were victims of female-initiated divorces. As to the loser males who desert their children, they only became fathers as a result of post-feminist female mate-selection - you know, that ubiquitous female preference for illiterate thugs and losers. And Anglo feminism has reduced men to mere biological units - that was always its aim.

      "It was not their faults that they needed to be pragmatic, it is simply just a matter of keeping things going."

      I'm glad you think underclass ghettos full of feral psychopaths are 'keeping things going' - but you're on your own in thinking that.

      I'm glad that female flatheads are coming here to pass comment. They provide a rich source of intellectual amusement.

      Delete
  26. Well, the Neanderthals died out, didn't they (just saying)?!

    The point is, those are the origins of 'women and children first' policies, which many now, weirdly, mistake for acts of chivalry! It certainly requires a real critical debate rather than a hysterical conspiracy theory which claims the lives of men are deliberately sacrificed to a boatful of thankless, cackling man-hating hags.

    The nurturing father role is grossly undervalued in most societies, but it would be worth considering the reasons for that. If only MRAs could take a deep breath and accept a little responsibility by openly condemning those illiterate thugs who abandon their children, for example. Yes sometimes in order to distinguish yourselves from something which seems to represent you, you will need to condemn it. Ask any group which has been unfairly demonised because of the actions of a minority.

    It is exceptionally childish and simplistic to continue this men vs women shit. Both men and women (as most feminist theory posits) suffer greatly from the over-simplification of gender roles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It is exceptionally childish and simplistic to continue this men vs women shit."

      You are right, it is exceptionally childish and simplistic to continue this men vs women shit.

      But, try telling that to the people who are doing that shit (they're called "feminists"), and see how far it gets you.

      Sigh! It is discouraging, I know.... :(

      Delete
  27. Racism and intolerance?

    And what are you doing here, subhuman non-white?

    The White race is the superior race, fucking nigger.

    Now, cry "racism", non-white bitch!!!
    I killed Travyon Martin and shitted in his skull.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I, for example, i am not Anglo. I am of Spanish heritage living in a southamerican country and proud of my race.

    I am a descend of conquistadores, killers of fucking indians. We killed their men, fuck their women, and enslave them.

    I live in Uruguay. The only Southamerican country without Indians. We killed them in 1830 Horay!!!

    Viva Uruguay y la Raza Blanca, carajo!!! Negro de mierda!!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. And what are you going to do now, bitch? Attack Spanish-Men? (true Spanish, not fuckings mestizos)

    Are you going to attack every single variety of caucasian men, bitch?

    Caucasians can crush your minuscule skull with a finger, bitch.

    Now, cry "racism". I like your tears.

    ReplyDelete
  30. In India, Indoeuropean Caucasians conquisted the land 3000 years ago.

    Even now, his sons are the superior caste. Look at them. Some have fair eyes and fair sky even 3000 years of breding.

    Come on. Accept the reality, inferior untouchable.

    ReplyDelete
  31. To the Uruguayan racist:

    Most of the commentators here would probably be white; a good chunk of the white commentators would be WASP's (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). You can't get much more 'white' than that. I am very much white myself.

    Just because Rookh is Nepalese doesn't mean the rest of us are.

    Oh, I've spoken to a couple of Uruguayan girls online. They didn't strike me as being remotely like Anglo girls (who are typically bigoted and racist themselves).

    ReplyDelete