Why Women’s Suffrage Destroys Democracy – Investigating TFH’s Claim

The Fifth Horseman (TFH) is one of the Manosphere’s most prominent and insightful writers. He is the author of the now famous ‘Misandry Bubble‘. One of the claims he has often made is that female suffrage inevitably destroys democracy. Concretely he posits:

Democracy means that politicians gain power by giving feminists what they claim to want. Also, while men vote for what benefits all people, women vote for what benefits women only. This is also what makes religious institutions feminist, when the country they reside in happens to be a democracy.

That is why democracy, over time, means a two-parent family erodes away. Democracy, thus has a life-cycle, after which it is followed by a feminist police state. No other outcome is possible after 3-4 generations of female suffrage.

I share his opinion and as such have decided to look into to the matter and try to dig up some research to back up this claim. And interestingly enough there are a few studies that – taken together – would corroborate his thesis.

Firstly, we need to adress the question of female own group preference. Common sense alone would strongly suggest that is the case. In social settings, in wartime, in work and in emergencies women (and by extension society) look at men for support and sacrifice. Arguably, this expectation of male disposability is so entrenched that people oftentimes aren’t even *aware* of it any more. ‘Women and children first‘ is a rallying cry that was uttered not just on the Titanic in 1912 but also after the ‘Costa Concordia’ sunk in 2012. In fact there was widespread outrage that men dared to look out for themselves first during the Costa Concordia Incident. It was venomously bemoaned in this discussion of whining White Knights. Anyways, if there was any remaining doubt as to the claim of women having an owngroup preference it is settled by this study:

Four experiments confirmed that women’s automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men’s and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.

Secondly, we need to analyze the relationship of women’s suffrage and the expansion of the state sector. Is it just a coincidence that the state sector in *all* countries with female suffrage started to dramatically expand after the 1920s (i.e. the begin of female suffrage)? If we look at the US, the UK, Germany, France and all the other western countries we see a remarkable trend: in all these countries the state sector was ever increasingly expanded and the tax rate dramatically increased over time. There are *no exceptions*. There is no democratic country with female suffrage that has not behaved in this manner. As such it seems highly likely that female suffrage tends to expand the scope of governmental intervention into erstwhile private affairs. Notice also the *fact* that during male only suffrage in these exact same countries the government sector tended to be small and taxes tended to be low while free market competition and individual agency tended to be maximized. Notice also that the *golden era* of economic progress was in the later 19th Century (i.e. *before* female suffrage).

Further corroborating this is a study I have found that unambiguously indicates that female suffrage automatically leads to dramatically more governmental intervention. In its own words:

This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870–1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.

Finally, I have found one more tidbit that is relevant to the issue at hand. It is the fact that women in aggregate have a lower, more superficial grasp of politics than men do. And this is the case regardless of feminist policies, female empowerment or other measures. This study here conclusively proves that women know less about politics than men do in *all the 10 sample countries*. From the Guardian article that discusses foresaid study:

Women know less about politics regardless of gender equality, according to a survey by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

The report focused on ten nations, both developed and developing, where men and women were asked questions about domestic and international news. Despite the diversity of the ten sample countries – Australia, Canada, Colombia, Greece, Italy, Japan, Korea, Norway, the UK, and the US – women answered fewer questions correctly than men in every country.

10,000 participants took part in the study, which tested their knowledge of broadcast, print and web journalism. They were asked a combination of questions based on hard and soft news reports including recent international events. The hard news questions pertained to topics such as national unemployment, while soft news related to sports personalities and celebrity scandals. The level of gender equality in the nations surveyed was based on the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap index ratings.

Professor James Curran, Director of the Goldsmiths Leverhulme Media Research Centre at the University of London, was surprised to find that gaps in political knowledge are wider in countries that have done the most to promote gender equality. These gender gaps in Norway, the UK and the US are as large, or larger than gaps in South Korea and Japan. Women’s scores in the UK, the US, and Canada were more than 30% lower on average than men, whereas in Greece, Italy and Korea, women’s average score was only 20% lower. The UK is positioned at 18/135 in the WEF gender equality rankings, while Korea is placed at 108.

ESRC

Conclusion:

If we now take all these findings together and consider that a.) women have an owngroup preference (i.e. vote for their own, exclusive interests), b.) enjoy furthering their exclusive interests by expanding the state sector (thus transferring wealth from men to women via the government as proxy) as well as valuing state expansion intrinsically (because women prefer security over freedom) and c.) have a substantially lesser and more superficial grasp of politics and a tendency to focus on ‘fancy antics and faces rather than facts’ the conclusion is inevitable that women destroy democracy.

Why is this?

1.) Due to their own group preference women vote far more homogenously than men do. Essentially, the party that bribes women the most gets the (majority) female vote (there are always outliers). So politicians have an *incentive* to tailor their politics towards female interests at the expense of men and society at large and long term orientation.

2.) Moreover, it is the very nature of these bribes that continuously expand the state sector which – in turn – increasingly asphyxiates individual freedom and agency. Thus a vicious circle is set in motion that lets from democracy via “pink socialism” ultimately to totalitarianism. Because democracy cannot exist without liberty and liberty cannot exist without individual rights and agency (something increasingly removed by female voting).

3.) Finally, this dynamic – the devolution from democracy to tyranny – is expedited and augmented by women’s limited grasp of politics and essentially short time orientation. If women do not understand the background and details of complex political issues and, more importantly, also don’t care about the content because they are more focused on the superfical ‘razzle dazzle’ (the Obama Effect) they are more easily conned by unscrupulous politicians that have, of course, their own agenda as well.

Any country that thus gives women the vote is *inevitably* doomed to devolve into tyranny ere long. There is no other possibility. This is a sad conclusion but unfortunately I believe it to be God’s honest truth.

Sources:

Rudman L.A., Gudman S.A. (2004) : “Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?“. Department of Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA.

Lott, John R., Kenny, Lawrence W. (1999) : “Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?”. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 107, no. 6, pt. 1

Economic and Social Research Council (2011): “Media System, Political Context and Informed Citizenship: A Comparative Study

What are our aims?

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about where we are going. And that is, I would say, a salient question: what is our end goal? What are we trying to accomplish?

Of course that is also a tricky question to answer. There are as many answers as there are subgroups within the men’s rights movement. That said, however, I will now attempt to outline a few aims that I, personally, view to be important.

  1. A complete rollback of all misandric laws. This is a nobrainer. It is high time we assigned the systematically unjust, contradictory and oftentimes outright insane feminist laws to the dustbin of history. Reproductive rights must be bestowed on *both* men and women and the cruel farce that is the current family law regime ended. This entails granting men the right to unilaterally “abort” their responsibility for any child they might have sired for the *exact* same time period a woman has to abort her child. If a woman has the right to choose so must a man likewise have the right to choose. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
  2. The same applies for all other instances in society and jurisprudence where we still have existing double standards. I want nothing less than the complete removal of sex from the equation regarding laws. By this I mean, that women have to be punished to the same degree as men for the same offenses and the ‘Pussy Pass’ needs to be rescinded. Additionally, I demand that women no longer be excluded from having to register for selective services. Draft has to be unisex. Equality demands it and I for my part am sick to death of feminism’s “equality” that is a lie and insult to any individual with a healthy sense of justice.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
  3. A complete segregation in society with regards to schooling and work. By this I mean girl only and boy only schools combined with appropriate education methods tailored to the respective sex’s natural inclinations. With regards to work I mean creating – as best possible – companies that are male only or female only. If Feminism’s claim that women can do everything men can do holds water women shouldn’t have a problem with this since it gives them an excellent opportunity to demonstrate this claim by *deeds* not words. Likewise, I am convinced that men – undistracted by the actions of women and without the necessity to sugarcoat everything they say and abide to a totalitarian politically correct behavioural code – can achieve far better performance than we have at present.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
  4. The creation of male only and female only healthcare, pension funds and other social benefit schemes. And here again I say to Feminists who might have a problem with this: put your money where your mouth is. If women are naturally superior at basically everything – as claimed by Feminism – they should be delighted to no longer have to “carry the burden of the inferior male”. And men for their part will know that their labour will no longer be abused in order to pay for the entitlement of western “princesses”. I for my part am convinced this would strongly increase the incentive of men to work hard, seeing as they would be sure to actually be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
  5. A systematic reduction in the scope of government. It is my belief that the government has no right to meddle incessantly in the private affairs of the people. As such the governmental duties should be kept to a bare minimum: ensure the safety and lawful security of its citizens and maintain the infrastructure of the country. That is all. If the government can be drastically reduced in scope so can the tax rate. I believe that income tax itself is not necessary and that the governmental duties I have outlined could be easily accomplished with VAT, customs and a few other minor taxes by themselves. Simply put, I would like to see a return to the US constitution, the original constitution.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
  6. A complete reworking of suffrage. I believe universal suffrage is unbecoming to any republic. When the mob rules democracy degenerates into a corporate circus, a cesspit where corrupt individuals bribe criminals to pose as politicians and the plebs is fooled and hoodwinked on every level. As such more democracy is actually *less* democracy, and certainly…less freedom. What I envision is a mechanism by which merit can be determined effectively and suffrage bestowed accordingly. Hence, any individual would have the potential to acquire voting rights but only if he or she manages to demonstrate outstanding merit by, for example, inventing a useful technology, creating a successful business, creating excellent works of art, literature or philosophy (and thus demonstrating above standard wisdom). Naturally, this mechanism would have to be balanced out and its details worked out in a holistic sense.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
  7. A widespread and stringent inquiry into the feasibility of a male contraceptive pill as well as an artificial womb. These two innovations are of pivotal importance as they will finally create absolute equality between the sexes – something women and feminists claim to support. As such I cannot see and will not accept any rejection of this basic human right of man.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
  8. The undisputed right of any man to opt out of traditional male gender roles in very much the same way women have done. If women reject their role as sex objects then men should equally have the right to break their shackles and no longer act as status objects, as disposable instruments for the advancement of the Feminine Imperative. Every man should have the right to live his life the way he choses and *nobody* should have the right to shame him for his individual decisions. If a man doesn’t want to marry or start a family with a western woman (or any woman) that is his *own* prerogative and nobody has the right to judge him for that.
    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
  9. Either the complete abolition of all P.C. suppression instruments with regards to women’s sensitivities and their concomitant mob hysteria every time a man makes a “sexist” joke *or* the expansion of these same strict standards to include men as well. Basically, if it is not acceptable to make sexist jokes about women or portray them in less than flattering fashion in movies etc. the same applies for men as well. So either stop demonizing men or allow men to likewise demonize women. Anything else is gross hypocrisy.

That’s all for now. I’m sure there are other goals that should be accomplished. As such this is a work in progress. I am also very much intereted in what you have to say about this. I am of course aware that a lot of the goals stated above are probably unfeasible in the short-term. That said however, I believe it makes sense to outline clearly what the end goals are. Especially now, at this point, where things are finally starting to move…

The Shrill, the Slutty and the Hamster: What HUS Tells Us About Post-Feminist Gynocentrism

Imagine for a moment that you are part of a herd of female monkeys. Say you’re their queen, their leader. You’ve been naughty monkeys and mooching off of Man’s largesse. You’ve been eating his bananas, drinking his water (while urinating in it), stealing his stuff and at the same time screeching, flinging feces and insults all the while claiming to anyone that might listen that Man is cruel and has harmed you in oh so many ways.

And this has worked admirably well. It has worked because Man’s instinct is to help you and he is gullible, maybe even stupid, certainly naïve. But somehow things have recently changed. Man is no longer smiling, no longer helping you. In fact he’s looking furious and sending you murderous glances. He’s a big man, a lot stronger than you are. After all, you’re just a poor, gentle little monkey and all…you wouldn’t harm a soul. And what’s his problem anyway? He has all those bananas. He’s so privileged. He must have a secret support structure in place somehow; let’s call it ‘Patriarchy’. And let’s downplay and forget the fact that it was Man’s sweat and labor that brought forth the bananas in the first place.

So what do you do? Heh, it’s rather obvious really. You give as little ground as possible for as many bananas as possible. Maybe you sacrifice the cheekiest, naughtiest monkey (Feminism I) and use it as a scapegoat. You fling it over to Man and shift all blame on it while absolving yourself of all sin. You tell Man that ‘not all monkeys are like that’ (NAMALT), that, really, it’s just a few bad monkeys while most are wonderful creatures and had nothing to do with those terrible actions, like *EVER*. You tell Man that you are on his side (just like the Feminists did) and that all you want is to create a just and good world. You pay lipservice to the reconciliation of the sexes while simultaneously crafting a new paradigm, a new yoke to put on the shoulders of that dumb beast Man. Really, it’s difficult to keep from snickering while you use a combination of strawmen, deflection, rhetoric gyrations and shaming language to reframe reality and create a new system, a new kind of leash just like many times before.

This – in a nutshell – is what Susan Walsh is attempting with HUS. She’s ahead of the curve in that she’s realized that men are starting to wake up and thus sooner or later Feminism I is going to fail. So now she’s preparing the next permutation of female supremacism and entitlement. She’s camouflaging it with some traditional, PUA and even manosphere coating but really it is nothing else than a new exploitation mechanism. Mix a bit of traditional patriarchy with some new age Churchianity, reformed slutdom, born again virginhood, entitlement and victim mentality and hey presto there it is:  a new world where everything is “different” while still being the same.

After all “not all scorpions are like that” (NASALT), Susan explains, “because one of them didn’t bite you.”

Classic, overt 1st 2nd and 3rd wave Feminism (T-800)

 

Post-feminist gynocentric Femofascism aka Walshism (T-1000)

 

Reporting back to the front lines…

Here I am. Back from an extended offline time. As to the why…well. I try to not write about my own, personal stuff. In this case, however, I have no choice. See the thing is I have some issues, I guess. Swallowing the ‘Red Pill’ is painful business and there are some things that happened to me in my adolescence that continue to haunt me.

And sometimes things can become too much for me. Sometimes I get overwhelmed by anger, grief and all that. I try to keep an even keel but have to say, unfortunately, I am not always successful in this. I admire cool, rational thinkers like Dalrock, Rollo, Welmer and others who just focus on the matter at hand and don’t let stuff get to them yet personally I have difficulties remaining as detached as they do.

Sometimes I just want to scream. Sometimes I can’t sleep, can’t stop thinking, can’t function, can’t stop remembering and thus can’t maintain my equilibrium. It is in such circumstances that I have to dive deep for while, put my head in the sand. I just stop reading stuff. I force myself to focus on other issues. I take a leave of absence from the front lines of the Gender War in order to regroup and keep my sanity.

I wish it were different. But this is how it is. I hope you all can understand. In any case I’m back now and have some new ideas, strategies and thoughts I shall publish here in the following weeks.

From Dream to Nightmare: Cultural Marxism and the Fall of the West

When discussing complex issues such as Feminism, gender issues, societal collapse etc. it sometimes helps to step back and take a good look at the greater picture.  So. What do you see when observing your country? Do things appear pretty much effed up on all levels? What if I told you feminism – for all its poisonous venom – is but one festering boil of many…that have befouled and infected the West’s rotting body politic? And what if I told you all these issues were interconnected?

Feminism, the collapse of family and marriage, intersex alienation etc. is terribly troubling stuff. Yet in a sense it is only a symptom of something much larger. It is merely one manifestation of the West’s clandestine cultural marxist take over. Eh? Yes indeed. You are right now living in a marxist country. That’s right. Marxist. As in communist. Only it isn’t called that way. It’s still called the US. Or the UK. Or Sweden, France, Germany, whatever. The fact of the matter remains: your country was invaded not by an army but by an idea, a group of people. These people (academics) systematically spread propaganda which in turn – at a vulnerable moment – deeply affected (infected) students’ opinions and from thereon spread to the general population completely coopting your culture and thus changing the nature of your country.

So…what is cultural marxism? In a nutshell: marxism 2.0. First wave marxism (later 19. century) focused on the analysis of economics. It posited the theory of class struggle, the dualism of exploiter and exploited class. According to Marx it was an inevitable outcome that sooner or later the proletariat would rise and “break the shackles of oppression” ushering in the great socialist revolution etc. It was predicted this would occur during the next great conflict. Only when World War 1 started, British workers fought for Britain, French workers for France and German workers for Germany. Evidently, the marxist’ prognosis had proven to be flawed. So. After a lengthy period of reevaluation several marxist thinkers (i.e. Antonio Gramsci, Gyorgy Lucacs etc.) came to the conclusion that it had been these nations’ cultural identity which had prevented the socialist revolution.

*Because* of national solidarity (the big family), cultural values and a sense of familial duty (protection of the small family) men had fought in the trenches and laid down their lifes. Having realized this, Gramsci postulated that individual nation’s cultural values, societal mores and traditions would have to be deconstructed…as a prerequisite of socialist take over. And this is what cultural marxists by and large attempted from thereonwards. A first experiment was implemented by Georgy Lukacs in the chaos of post World War 1 Hungary. Not yet perfect in implementation it nonetheless serves as a chilling anecdote, especially when observed from our contemporary perspective:

In 1919, Georgy Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary.  He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary.  Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools.  Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority.”

This attempt was short lived and failed ere long (due to catastrophic societal consequences and subsequent reactionary rollback). The time was simply not yet ripe. Thus, the cultural marxists regrouped and consolidated their movement by infiltrating German academia via the University of Frankfurt. There, they founded the Frankfurt School of Social Sciences, or simply: the Frankfurt School. As can be imagined, success remained elusive…for the time being. By and large their ideology didn’t really gain traction. Not even in the troubled interwar German Weimar Republic, which was constantly whacked by political strife, radicalism etc. Certainly not in the US that remained strongly religious, patriarchal and traditional.

However, this all changed in 1933. Hitler assumed power in Germany and the cultural marxists fled. Where did they flee to? Well, heh, to the US of course! They simply relocated and started infiltrating the US academia and infecting American intellectuals with their “progressive” ideas. And, seemingly, it all made sense. Especially after 1941. Because if the US was fighting that greatest of all Satans, Adolf Hitler, then surely Hitler’s enemies were good people, right? Right. Suuure thing, pal. Well, Germany was crushed, the war was won and everything was fine and dandy. Afterwards, having accepted these cult-marxists and implicitly having fought for their ideas it became difficult to argue against them, to seriously oppose them. This is how *they* were able to market themselves as “progressive”. Conversely, gender roles, traditionalism, conservatism etc. started to be seen as problematic, as outdated, as “wrong”.

Nonetheless, superficially the US and its vassals in Europe were able to briefly recreate the old order (in the 1950s). But even then it was nothing but a weak facsimile of the past. A shortlived interlude from the encroaching torrent of post-modernism. Already cracks were forming. Cracks on several levels. For one, women had seemingly proven they could do all the things men could, by working in the factories during WWII. Their return to classical roles did not brook well with their perceptions. Another problem was what I call historical contamination or more simply phrased: guilt. After millions had died, after all the carnage and madness of two world wars, there was a cynical feeling of cultural nihilism and depression. After Auschwitz how could a German still be proud of his country, his culture? And how could a British or French guy be proud of his? After all hadn’t he enslaved half the world, conquering and exploiting untold other peoples? For now at least this was not a crisis, only a fissure. Why? Because the generation of WWII had been *socialized before* WWII. So the generation of the 40s and 50s was operating under the paradigms and values of the 20s and 30s.

But the writing was already pretty clearly on the wall. In 1955 Herbert Marcuse (another cultural marxist) wrote “Eros and civilization; a philosophical inquiry into Freud“. In it, he proclaimed all ills of society were due to repression. And if only all repression and restraints were fully removed society would organize itself for the common good. He advocated a general unleashing of Eros. Sexual liberation, experimentation and all that. He also wrote about the difference of “classic tolerance” (tolerance of both right and leftist thought) which he labelled “repressive tolerance” and compared it to “liberating tolerance” (tolerance of leftist thought, intolerance of the right) which he recommended as “progress”. He claimed following his advice would usher in a new dawn, an era of harmony and utopia. Shangri La. Other influential figures were Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin and others. All of these shmucks were cultural marxists. They wrote books, essentially all the material the boomers would use for “their” revolution. The cultural marxist Frankfurt School thus primed and programmed the boomers. Like a remote-controlled cultural timebomb…ready to blow.

This was possible because of aforementioned guilt neurosis. The boomer generation grew up at a lowpoint of western civilization. Out of their perspective, it seemed, traditions were evil. Evil because of the holocaust. Evil because of Imperialism etc. So because the cultural marxists were publishing “progressive” stuff that sounded good and was confirming beliefs they already (subconsciously) held, they lapped it all up eagerly. In this highly volatile setting all they needed was some simple trigger, an ocasion of sorts. And the Vietnam War dropped by just at the nick of time. Perfect timing. The dominos fell, fighting errupted in Indochina and the S*it hit the fan.

The boomers – already suspicious due to their educational priming – now had all the “evidence” they needed to demonstrate the essentially barbaric nature of the old, patriarchal order and the requirement of something new, radical and “wonderful”. Sexual revolution. Hippies. Peace, love and understanding. Heh. They were pawns, primed and controlled by external forces. Did they know it? Probably not. If they had known they still wouldn’t have cared. They had their “mission”. In any case, these boomers – for the most part students and academics – did their thing. The great march through the institutions of the West: they systematically took over politics, media, education, culture etc. They changed the paradigms, the values, the consciousness, the face of the West. And they molded a new West (which I call “the Hegemony of Plastic“) along cultural marxist values:

  • feminism as an instrument to estrange the sexes and destroy family
  • largescale immigration to dilute and change the culture of the US (and other western countries) and create new victim groups
  • multiculturalism as a form of subconscious selfdenigration & selfhatred
  • political correctness as a totalitarian instrument to enforce above values and clamp down on dissent

And they were highly successful. We’re still experiencing the consequences even today. We’re in our present quandary because of them and their brainhogwashed delusions. It’s a form of madness on a societywide level. A form of self-loathing, self-hatred. Psychosis. The works. So to recap: The West in general *lost* WWII…and the US lost its “mind” during the Vietnam War. Ever since it (and in consequence the West in general) has become ever less democratic and evermore marxist and suicidal. As of 2012 we are up S*it Creek without a paddle, not far away from a totalitarian 1984 kind of dystopia. Orwellian. Either we break out of this paradigm or we are doomed. And we can only break out and fix our issues if we first understand them.

Communication Breakdown: Man, Woman, Facebook / Facepalm & Fail

Heh.

As if on cue, to make the fundamental differences between male and female communication even more abundantly clear, I just now stumbled on this truly fantastic piece of intergender communication breakdown. Absolutely mindboggling. Unbelievable. It makes me laugh hysterically and at the same time cringe and gibber in exasperated flabbergastration. It is just plain out weird to the max:

Furor Feministae – Female Discourse Culture & How to Survive It

Heh. In recent past the tranquility of this here obscure sphere of the Inter-Webz has been disturbed by numerous imbroglios. Online differences of opinion, concomitant ruckus, faeces flinging monkey antics and the dissonant, emotio-menstrual outpourings of the shrill, shrewish shreek brigade. So. What is new you might ask? Nothing, really. The world is a lobotomized kindergarten of sorts and most of us are little more than crayon eating, barely conscious bipeds shuffling around arbitrarily. So in answer: all crazed on the western front, just as always.

But what I do find interesting is a discourse pattern that has become evermore obvious in recent months: *he* says something less than flattering yet explains the reasons for said calmly, logically, rationally.  *She* interprets *his* statement out of *her own* warped and biased perception, made all the worse due to her emotional reality. *She* gets upset. *Her* emotions take over. In response *she* warps the issues, reframes, goes personal, flings faeces ad hominems, plays the victim. In consequence the original debate is derailed and the discourse degenerates into vicious name calling, freak outs, flaming, trolling and all the other good stuff. This is if it’s taking place on a male moderated blog.

What happens on a female blog is arguably a lot worse. You could call it vicious, authoritarian…even crypto-fascistic. The buildup is usually the same (as per this article’s prior paragraph). But once serious dissent is experienced, all too often female egos seem to shatter, the stress becomes too much for the “dearies” and in consequence they do what they always do when cornered: suppress the debate. How do they do this? Simples. By banning all dissenters, censoring / deleting all dissenting comments. Problem solved. And afterwards they can just carry on with their lovely, superficial flufftalk wuvving each other, cuddling and basking in the warm, comforting security and radiance of harmony. Never mind the futility of such “debates”. That’s an evil thought. Just something those bad, baaad penis wielders say. What are you, anyways, a woman hater?

Recent examples abound. One of the most prominent examples was the S*it Storm unleashed after Dalrock analyzed Susan Walsh’s misguided and polemic sentiment that “…frivolous divorces were overstated in the Manosphere echo chamber.” He went on to write an excellent followup of her hyperbolic and emotional response to his op. Witness also the massive, thermonuclear freakout of some rather hypocritical and shallow christian wiminz after their postings (on a public forum) were scrutinized in detail. The best example, imo, is what happened to Rollo Tomasi on HUS. He is well known for his excellent and calmly detached analyses of female nature and the dynamics of intersex relations. His writings even prompted the article in question (on HUS). Yet when he tried to rationally explain his position via comments he was soon suppressed by Susan Walsh who was foaming out of the mouth. His comments were censored and he evicted. He subsequently wrote an article about this episode on his own blog. Finally, just like Doug1 and Rmaxd, I myself have also been recently banned at HUS for disagreeing with the Fuhrer and Reichskanzler beloved leader Susan Walsh too markedly. Heh.

So what’s going on here? I’d say: an old, ooold truth. Women may be good at manipulation and pulling strings but they are – for the most part – rather bad at debate. This is partly because of biology (i.e. the female brain is more affected by emotions than the male brain and less able to separate emotional and rational discourse) but mostly because they are, quite literally, the weaker sex. They are only seldomly able to deal effectively with flak. As soon as things get less than pleasant (as they often do in a heated debate) and people (men) start to speak their minds in a blunt, unpolished, unperfumed fashion, women get upset. There is of course the rare exception. *Some* women *do* manage to keep calm and carry on. Just like *some* men behave just like your average woman (we call them ‘manginas’). But that is beside the point. Most women *don’t* manage. And when their emotions assume command you can rest assured that their irrational reaction will do the original discourse – whatever it was – griveous harm. They will try to derail and once they start playing the victim (as they always do) you can also be sure that some ‘White Knight’ / mangina will come rushing to their aid. This compulsion to rescue a “damsel in distress” might just be the worst instinct we men have at present.

M’kaaaay…what can be done?

1.) Know your foe. Education is your friend. Using logic and rational, argument-based appeals with women is pointless, counterproductive & doomed to failure. So don’t use logic. Logic is misogynist. Try to instill helpful emotions onto the woman. Know that women are like oversized emotional overhead projectors. Describing emotions leads the woman to *experience* these emotions (thank you Ross Jeffries). Use their emotional menstruation to your advantage rather than banging your head against the brick wall of their ‘blind spot’ blinders.

2.) Conserve your energy. Know which battles to fight, when to stand firm, when to evade, retreat and flee…to live another day, to fight another battle. We live in problematic times. I’ve christened this present era…the ‘Age of Rage’. I find this tag rather fitting. And things will just get worse from now on. Intersex alienation *will* get more severe. Count on it. So, imo, I would try to avoid discussions with women most of the time. Try to turn things around playfully, your sanity will thank you. Fight only in the rarest of circumstances and only when it is direly neccessary. When you fight apply overwhelming force to a clearly outlined area to maximize effect. Know that discussion, debate, arguments, logic…all of that…will be increasingly outlawed. These are male concepts. In our world male = bad. They will go, count on it. The plastic-fake, hypocritical, self-deluding “discourse” culture of Susan Walsh is the West’s zeitgeist. Her reality is the only reality that counts in our sick, demented societies.

3.) GYOW / try to create male only spheres. A no brainer. Obviously, men will remain men whatever comes. Discuss things with them. Broaden your horizon and learn from men. This is as it always has been and always will be. Men are the drivers of society, the creators of civilization, the builders of wealth, the protagonists of progress, the innovators of industry. As long as we as men can talk amongst ourselves in our own groups we will advance. We will learn new things. Ultimately, we will find a solution to this nightmarish cesspit the West has degenerated into. Remember, however, to keep women out. They have their own spheres, ever more of them. They cannot and will not comprehend the male experience. For obvious reasons (explained above) they will change the paradigms of our discourse as soon as they participate. As such they are a corrupting force.

Above all, remember that women are not men. Some men may eventually mature. Most women never will.