Um, actually… Yes!
Lol! I had a case of rant-itis the other day over at Dr. Helen’s, not that you care to read my ramblings… oh, wait… why are you here again?
Anyway, the gist of my argument was that academics are stooooopid, and it must be the biggest stimulus package of all time to have thrown away scores of knowledge about humans & the relations of the sexes that was known in the past, under the horrific charge of “misogynist,” only to now pay our modern-day slackademics big bucks to “rediscover it.”
Captain Chivalry showed up with his cape wrapped tightly around his eyes… as well as a professional victim-screecher, er, dissimulator… well, anyway, the link is up there. It was good fun.
It seems the equality-seekers have found another university study revealing some shining light on knowledge “never before known.” I guess we can now talk about it, since the seekers of truth have sanctioned it with a real study! Yippee! It must be real now!
Study Shows Disparities in Criminal Sentencing
“The assessment of fees and fines also appears to be influenced by defendant characteristics: Hispanic defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than white defendants, and male defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than female defendants.” – The Assessment and Consequences of Legal Financial Obligations in Washington State
(dumb dee dumb dumb… moving along…)
“The report urges the state to overhaul the way Superior Court judges assess those penalties.”
Attorney Marc Angelucci writes that this study corroborates others that show, for example, ‘gender differences favoring women are more often found than race differences favoring whites.’ (Crime and Delinquency, 1989, v.35, pp.136-68)”
Ssh! Quiet! Can you hear it?
Yup. That’s the sound of yet another door to the Mysteries of the Universe being unlocked by our modern high priests, the Slackademics.
Yessirree! And the Dean of the Department of Useful Idiotology recommends the following actions:
Step One: Run to the government.
Step Two: Hold onto your crotch like a toddler needing to pee.
Step Three: In the whiniest voice possible, repeat the following phrase: “DOOOooooOOOoooOOOooo something! We’re not EEEEeeeEEEeeekwal!”
Of course, for a lot cheaper, they could have just read this kind of stuff:
Excerpts from The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women
Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state… / …in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury… / …But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt.
Whatchoo talkin’ about, Aristotle?
You mean to tell us that it’s near impossible to bring both sexes equally under the law?
I call BS! Has there been a peer-reviewed study done on this?
Then shut up, you misogynist! Telling us clearly with your words that women belong in the kitchen! The nerve!
Obviously women never get into trouble with the law because they never sin! Don’t you believe in equality?
How else can you explain it?
(Dissimulation = A form of deception similar to pool hustling).
Excerpts from Schopenhauer’s Essay on Women
“… Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength, but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and cuttlefish with its dark inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic for the very stupid as the very clever.
Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to those weapons when attacked; and they feel that in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all…"
Holy crap, Arthur! You Neanderthal! How dare you say that women should be chained to the bed but the chain should be long enough to reach the kitchen?
What’s that? You say it should reach the bathroom too? Cause you ain’t cleanin’ no toilets?
What do you mean Darwinists ought to believe this too? You’re so full of it. One of the basic premises of Darwinism is that animals devolve into creatures that are less suited for tasks and defences… isn’t it?
Well, since I do believe that men and women are equal – but vastly different, and especially since I believe that we are equal in sin… let’s make sure that men don’t get let off the hook completely.
Here’s an excerpt of Otto Weininger’s preface from Sex and Character:
"Where my exposition is anti-feminine, and that is nearly everywhere, men themselves will receive it with little heartiness or conviction; their sexual egoism makes them prefer to see woman as they would like to have her, as they would like her to be.
I need not say that I am prepared for the answer women will have to the judgment I have passed on their sex. My investigation, indeed, turns against man in the end, and although in a deeper sense than the advocates of women's rights could anticipate, assigns to man the heaviest and most real blame."
Okay then, as long as it’s men that are being blamed and not women!
Mutter, mutter… you’re still a cretin… mutter.
The fact is that women have always been able to get away with being treated with kid gloves.
“Lizzie Borden took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks. When she saw what she had done, she gave her father forty-one.”
But, Lizzie Borden was not punished. Scores of people rushed to her defense and she was acquitted. There was no investigation afterwards.
When was the last time a woman was executed in the USA anyway? How many men have been executed since then? And they’re just figuring out that men and women aren’t treated equally before the law?
Why wasn’t Genene Jones fried? She was a mass baby killer. She’s getting out of jail in another 8 years. She should have swung from a rope, and then gotten fried. Better yet, she should have been hung from an electrified rope!
Belfort Bax, writing in1908’s The Legal Subjection of Men and in 1913’s The Fraud of Feminism wrote extensively of the phenomenon of women being treated more leniently than men by the courts… so much that, well, I just don’t even know where to begin. You can find examples of all sorts. From society demanding that innocent fathers also be charged when a woman alone commits infanticide… to 14 year old boys being charged for sex crimes when engaging in the deed with 16 year old girls who were the sexual aggressors… to demands that men who hire prostitutes ought to be charged equally as the prostitute herself…
Kinda makes you think that academics who claim to be “studying” this stuff while putting out their palms and asking to be paid for it… well… their integrity certainly ought to be scrutinized, or at the very least, the integrity of their “superior” degrees.
Of course, one could always just do a head count of how many men are imprisoned in the country and then do the same for women… of course, there are not equal numbers – mainly because women sin less. Isn’t that right Mr. & Ms. Equality, Ph D.? You could probably just google it.
Women have been performing the same types of crimes for a long, long, looooong time already as well.
Genesis 39 is the story about how Joseph was falsely accused of rape by Potiphar’s wife for malicious purposes.
Judges 4:21 describes the “Mary Winkler’s” of old – killing men in their sleep:
“But Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and seized a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was sound asleep and exhausted. So he died.”
There is nothing new under the sun – we have only wilfully thrown away all of the old knowledge about the sexes – and we did it all to make the ladies happy.
It’s time to stop listening to these charlatans and toss slackademia into the sea where it belongs. The Social Sciences in particular ought to get an extra ass-kicking.
It’s time to start telling people who demand a “peer-reviewed study” to “prove” something, to shove it up their ass. Is that where the Absolute Truth originates? From a panel of idiots giving another idiot the thumbs up?
Sure, there are some uses for slackademia. Toilet paper has some uses too.
But, it’s time to tell the Ph D’s and other slackademics to shut up and sit at the back of the bus – they’ve done more than enough damage already.
It’s not something that has spun out of control in women, but moreover, it’s that society has thrown away the previous knowledge of how the sexes worked and somehow, idiotically, now believes that men and women can be treated equally under the law.
It is impossible to treat men and women equally under the law.
That’s why society used to treat men and women differently. Men respond more to being controlled by the law, but women respond to socialization and shaming – to fashion, as it were.
The Marxists who were behind the Women’s Movement from the beginning knew this too. See what one of the most esteemed forerunners of Marxism thought of the subject?
“…Women may have happy ideas, taste and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated – who knows how? – G.F. Hegel
In other words, women form their ideas and opinions from fashion and socialization, rather than by universal principles and logic.
While men are controlled by the law, women are controlled by socialization and shaming. And since women don’t much care what we men think, such socialized and shaming control must come from other women. And that’s usually how it was done – the older ladies clucked and shamed the younger ones, and shunned the women who behaved outrageously. (They do just the opposite today, and their socialization encourages bad behaviour).
This does not mean that women are only good for cooking and birthing babies… although, given our below replacement level birthrates, a few babies might not be a bad idea. And yes, a good meal once in a while would be nice too.
But no matter how much that is given to lobby groups to “change the law,” it still won’t matter.
There are fundamental differences in how we operate. Trying to control women by the same factors that are used to control men is completely fruitless. One might as well try to keep a flock of geese in a field by use of a cattle fence. It ain’t gonna work. Men and women must be treated differently.
Far more effective than funding lobby groups to bully the government to pass more laws would be for men to start brainstorming on how to motivate women to start “shaming the sense into eachother.”
As Karl Marx himself noted, women are society – they lead, since men are the sexual servants of the female. Too bad they lead by a sense of fashion and sisterhood, rather than by the logic of universality and the rule of law.
“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” – Karl Marx
(Keep in mind that Marx’s idea of “social progress” is the destruction of Western Civilization)
Aristotle explains this in the The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women as well.
“But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.” – Aristotle
Don’t expect any help from the ladies though. For as Aristotle further points out:
“…the influence of the Lacedaemonion women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy.” – Aristotle
Is this not what we see all around us as well? There are obvious things wrong, and every time a man tries to point out the obvious, the women all gather around him and throw every damn monkey wrench at him as possible. Making sense does not matter to the ladies… but throwing monkey wrenches at the men does matter.
That our children inherit a safe, stable and prosperous society is truly the utmost “best interests of the child” that there is… but, point out the factors that are destroying us… nope, here come the ladies and their senseless monkey wrenches.
They obviously feel that bitching at men and confusing everything what men say is the main purpose of their lives. Otherwise they would smarten the hell up and recognize that they are also part of society and thus, are also part of the problem – and the solution. They refuse to do that. The ladies love to dissimulate.
“SPARTA!” Fedrz cries.
The professional victim/dissimulator, that showed up to argue about senseless crap over at Dr. Helen’s is a good example of the type of “help” we can expect from the ladies as our civilization begins to crumble about us.
There was a reason why things were the way they were in the past.
No, women don’t necessarily need to be in the kitchen. Who ever said that, except for the monkey-wrench-throwing women themselves?
Women would obviously rather have 100% of nothing than 50% of something.
If society refuses to acknowledge these things about the way the sexes interact with eachother, then no amount of laws being changed, or studies being done, will ever help – not one single bit!
These academics “discovering” such things while accepting payment for it are discovering jack-shit. It has all already been discovered and socially censored into oblivion under the politically incorrect charge of “misogyny.”
“Why were things in the past so misogynist?” That is the question that our ill-esteemed academics ought to be studying. The blanket reason for “why” has been “the evil patriarchy,” when it is obvious all around us that the old guys were right, while the “new intellectuals” of slackademia are spineless idiots.
Remember the first reason God gave when he cursed Adam and kicked him out of Paradise:
(17) To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘you must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”
Previous Index Next