Why Did Women Go Nuts?

Posted on by

About a dozen years ago, I heard a Brit remark that you can get charged with rape in Sweden if you brush against a woman in an elevator. It did not quite register with me at the time. I just thought it was an exaggeration about Swedish prudishness. Then a few years later Assange was charged with rape and it made sense. He was accused of having sex with two women and then not calling them the next day, thus hurting the feelings of the girls. In Sweden, hurt feelings and regret are enough to support a rape charge.

What no one knew at the time is that the estrogen fueled lunacy that was raging in Sweden was headed our way. The #metoo stuff is pretty much what happened in Sweden, except it is playing out on social media. Of course, it was the gals in Sweden who demanded the nation import millions of swarthy males from over the horizon, so the Swedes could have a real rape problem, rather than an imaginary one. That most likely means the girls of the #metoo movement will be demanding the same for us.

A popular topic in our thing is the fact that our women have gone insane. Some say the mistake was giving them the vote a century ago. Others say it was multiculturalism and the resulting break down in society. Both are probably true to some degree, but that does not explain what happened in Sweden. It does not explain why mentally unstable coeds are making up bizarre rape fantasies, like the one at UVA. It does not explain why European women are trying create a land of Amazons in the Baltic Sea.

We’ve all had those moments, whether you’re drowning in work in a cramped cubicle or just tired of the daily grind. In those moments, a thought might cross your mind, like “I wish I could escape to a private island.”

Well, entrepreneur Kristina Roth actually made that happen. She’s not just escaping to an island, she owns it. And she’s opening it up to women worldwide. But men? They’re not allowed.

SuperShe Island is tucked away in the Baltic Sea off the coast of Finland. The 8.4-acre (literal) no man’s land features four newly renovated cabins and can accommodate 10 people. Its amenities give five-star resorts a run for their money, with Finnish saunas, spa-like facilities and beautifully decorated rooms. Daily wellness activities on the island include yoga, meditation, farm-to-table dining, cooking classes, fitness classes, nature activities and more.

Now, women have always liked being with other women, which is why beauty shops and day spas exist all over. The thing is though, these activities are not about hating men or hating themselves. Women head off to the day spa so they can get the some of the dents knocked out and look good for their man. That’s not the only reason and hanging out with their female friends plays a role, but the point of the activity fits in with the traditional male-female relationship. This man-haters island is about man-hating and self-abnegation.

Of course, this is just one wacky example, but all over the West, women have gone bonkers, making crazy demands and fighting against their nature. The star of the linked story is a German women who came to New York to make a nuisance of herself, then went to Finland to create Sappho-by-the-sea. It’s tempting to think this stuff is local, but the fact is the West has had a girl problem for a long time. It started in the early 20th century and then took off in the post-WW2 years. The girls have gone mad.

The question thought, is why has this suddenly happened. In the US, women were mostly normal until the early 20th century. The war years seem to have either accelerated their descent into lunacy or magnified some trends causing it. Modernity is a good scapegoat here, but how much of modernity is caused by the derangement of women? If the girls had held up their end of the sexual relationship, how different would the social mores of modernity be now? Could there even be modernity with normal women?

It sounds like I’m blaming the women, but the last century in America is often called the Jewish Century, but it could just as easily be called the Female Century. We went from a world where Western societies were run by men to one where many of them are run by women. Others have ceded much of the high ground to the girls, suggesting it is a matter of time before the girls run the West. A world run by the blue-haired rage heads of gamergate is probably not a world that anyone wants to live in for long.

Back in the financial crisis, I read some stories about how tiny Iceland had turned itself into a massively leveraged hedge fund with a small fishing society attached to it. One explanation was that the male culture of Iceland had always been about pointless risk taking this led to the financial mess. The result was a shift in the culture where women were taking a prominent role and Icelandic women had always been known for their prudence and caution. Iceland is now a tourist island as a result.

Perhaps that’s a clue. The wars of the 19th and 20 century, particular the industrial wars in Europe, discredited Western man generally and particularly. As Spengler would put it, the culture died with the men who died on the battlefields. The society was left, but the animating spirit of it, the passion that built it, was gone. What has filled the void is the raging anguish of Western women. Put another way, the rise of feminism is the spread of women in mourning raging against their loss. Maybe feminism is the long black veil.

177 thoughts on “Why Did Women Go Nuts?”

  3. If you’re a fat, unattractive woman (big demographic these days) you can go to Gyrll Island and not be concerned that men are avoiding you. There aren’t any men to repulse. That must be nice for unattractive women. Wealthy, unattractive homos have been doing this kind of thing for years (so I hear) and now women can afford to do it.

  5. What if it’s some kind of instinct that knows it’s between Big Daddy Government and the private men it steals from?

  6. Damn !

    Robin Trower ! Haven’t heard that name in years. Had that album years ago. Honestly never listened to the words. Just like his guitar playing

    Finally got a chance to see him at the paradise years ago. Found out why his picture was never on the album cover.

    Awesome guitarist , but he was one ugly dude 🙂

  7. Late boomer female here. Not a pussy hat, single cat woman or man hater.

    Women don’t like weak men. I don’t like the hard alphas because they’re usually unyielding jackasses. My husband, to whom I’m been married for 40 years, is somewhere in-between; not a wimp but not a dick.

    We’re not all man-haters. But I don’t want to see women forced back into financial dependency upon men. I know way too many women (my mom’s age) who were screwed when their old man took off with some hotter younger version and they got a lousy divorce settlement because they had no money of their own. And back then, there were lots of things women couldn’t have alone – like their own credit card and more often than not if a house was bought, it was in HIS name and if he took off with Barbie ten years down the road, so sad, too bad wifey.

    I stayed at home as much as possible (I did work before kids with a degree) and once the youngest was in school, worked a while before health negated that. Everyone in the family agreed it was better when I was back home and I am the rare modern woman who likes being home.

    There are bad men, and there are bad women. Both men and women get hurt by these bad, usually selfish jerks. Many become bitter.

    As for women running the world, can we do any worse than the men? WWI, WWII, etc.

    • You are correct, Mopsy. A traditional arrangement is very risky for women. So much depends on the man and all your eggs are in one basket.

    • It’s the economic interpendence that’s the glue that holds civilized societies together. Eliminate it and things start to come apart! as they are in the West at increasing speed.

      • MBlanc – I agree with you but Bunny and Mopsy are equally correct. In the past so many women were left without resources when their husbands left them for some 20 year old. These women were left destitute. Now I see way too often the flip side where utterly insane women who divorce what appear to be nice hard working reasonable men and then spend years bankrupting these men, dragging them through court and making their lives hell. Now in many cases I must say that a sober assessment of these women prior to marrying them or getting them pregnant would have saved these men a world of heartache. But that is water under the bridge and these men are forever tied to raging harpies. That is just as dreadful as when men left wives penniless to chase after whatever fancied them.

        All I can say is that I’m grateful for a husband who loves me and because he loves me, I respect him and the life he gives us. That interdependence works for us. I wish it worked for others too.

        • Very few men are able to divorce a middle-aged wife in order to marry a 20-year-old. 20-year-olds have better options. And abandoned wives get alimony (that’s what it was for). To the extent that such things did happen, the way to stop it is to allow divorce only in cases of extreme breeches of faith.

  8. I must have really gotten lucky. On New Year’s Eve my wife and I have been together for 50 years. I’m glad I was of wife-finding age before this craziness infected society. I would hate to be a young man looking for the lady with whom to spend the rest of his life today, or for that matter getting started in life in general.

  10. As a woman, I’ll tell you what happened. Industrialization happened. When men are taken out of their sphere in the home, women lose the sense of their sphere and feel useless, taken advantage of, left behind. When both are working on a farmstead they have a mutual goal, a team they are all on. Look at the Amish. It’s not just a religious thing, it’s a physical thing. They both work, in their own spheres, for the goal.

    • Susan –
      I think you are onto something.

      I snicker when I read the comments on here about how women had “no work” left to do after the advent of the appliances in the home. One can easily be busy all day taking care of a family and home if you are the right kind of wife/mother.

      I’m in my 40s. Four degrees but very traditional. And I’m crazy about my husband. We very much prefer a traditional life – both of us work in healthcare but the moment we are home, we live a life that my great grandparents would have recognized. And that is when we are at our happiest. I make sure our home is clean and neat. My husband rarely eats anything I did not cook myself. We garden and take care of our chickens and dogs. And we help each other – sometimes he likes to cook; I’m frequently outside helping him do outside chores. I can’t describe how much we enjoy it – both of us alternately working independently and together but always for the same goal. I don’t think most professional women get to experience that feeling, that joint satisfaction often.

      A lot of men here justifiably think women in general are crazy. I get it – no matter where you look there are endless examples of brash, demanding, obnoxious women. They are loud, overwhelming, and seemingly everywhere. But the reality is that there still are some sane women who understand that men and women are different, that difference is a GOOD thing, and life is so much more enjoyable and easy when women don’t try to do the job of both women and men.

      • I am not suggesting that you don’t live a very traditional life and that it is important, but the staggering immensity of the changes modern technology wrought upon home life cannot be overstated. When we first moved to our farm, we lived for two years in a house heated only by wood stove. That one small change was incredible. The regular getting up in the middle of the night to add wood, the cutting hauling and splitting (even aided by chainsaw and hydraulic splitter). I am daunted even thinking about doing it with axe, handsaw and horse/ox cart. It would take half my time all year. I’ve butchered chickens, turkies, rabbits and deer. I have my goats and cattle done by a slaughter house, because that’s a lot of f*cking work. I’ve made cheese, I have canned. It’s all fun and games when you have a Kroger’s grocery fifteen minutes away, but it’s a whole different thing when it’s life and death. And that’s the way most people lived before the turn of the century. I’ve used an outhouse in the dead of winter. Most modern people have no idea how good they have it.

  11. The real question is why did men go nuts and turn the reins over to those without the fiscal stake or mental capacity to make wise decisions.

    • It was all that good (((learning))) from our schools, media, institutions government. Decades of Leftist propaganda cultivation after killing millions of white men in World Wars 1 and 2. This madness never would have had a chance at succeeding in the West without too many of our best men being killed off who otherwise would have stopped it. It’s a real heartbreak and we must take the lesson about whites killing whites for bankers. No more.

  13. Real equality is a beautiful thing, but in the democratic equality it is an hallucinogenic poison. You didn’t see this before democracy. The mainland Chinese don’t have a wiff of it. Once planted in the West, they do. Russians don’t appear to be afflicted.

    • Modern western Men destroyed the clans.
      I am old of the Stag, the wife of forty years is little fawn.

      You are using machines against an older animal thing, and it is to weep.

  15. The industrial revolution made feminism possible while simultaneously rendering slavery largely obsolete.

    It’s an quite the coincidence that the slavery and female emancipation movements coincided almost perfectly with the rise of industrialized society. All the major rights-based moralistic arguments against slavery and female subjugation appear to be largely post-hoc.

    As far as women themselves go, they were always like this – it seems apparent if you read old books. But setting them free into a liberalized society against the long standing traditional (and natural) order was simply an organic process following various political and economic incentives.

    Of course, that sounds rather cold, so painting over it with these moralistic afterthoughts is a good way to justify it.

  16. It’s more about what makes the news. For example after the last election the headline was not “10 million women who own their own business go back to work.” Or lately, “Tens of millions of women raising healthy well-adjusted kids.”

    Instead it’s about one woman who didn’t get the job she was salivating for, or the one woman who is giving hormone therapy to make Johnny into Jane.

    The two World Wars did have a profound effect on gender roles though. Women were required to provide a more active role in national defense, and with the advent of strategic bombing and nuclear weapons everywhere became the front line.

    • A minority of squeaky wheels are getting the grease. Of all the women I have ever known, only one could be accurately described as a third wave feminist. Oh, I believe they exist-just in relatively small numbers.
      “Only one-fifth of Americans identify as feminists, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. But the vast majority fit the basic definition of the word. According to the survey, just 20 percent of Americans — including 23 percent of women and 16 percent of men — consider themselves feminists.”
      https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html
      Yes, most people believe women are equal to men in the eyes of God, in human dignity, should be equal before the law, paid the same for the same work, blah blah. Does that qualify them for the feminist label?

  18. It all went south when “Penis Envy” was morphed over into “(White) Male Privilege.”

    The girls decided that as much as they still want to be like us, they really hate us. Which makes no sense at all, but who said it had to.

  19. I’ve been arguing for quite some time that you can’t look at the current condition of things in the West – without going back and looking at what happened during both of the World Wars.

    It’s a known thing that male/female birth rates are roughly equal. If you take a bunch of males out of the equation – then the balance tips pretty substantially towards females. If you factor into the equation that the males who typically end up as soldiers are going to be the most physically and mentally fit of the male population (at least that’s how the most Western countries do it) – then the balance shifts even more than just the numbers would indicate.

    I did a quick lookup – and the Germans had over 5 million military dead during WW2. I don’t think whatever biological mechanism adjusts human births can makeup for that one.

    Re: Women’s “loss”. I remember there was a book or two out a few years back – that dealt with the topic of British society after the carnage of WW1. What it basically said was that they ended up with a society full of women who were destined to never have a man. That changed everything. Women became more accepting of “lesbian” relationships. Women pushed for more access to be able to work. Etc.

    There’s also a principle I’ve heard of before – that a society with a surplus of men – will become more war-like. Well if that is true – then a society with a deficit of men – becomes more female-like.

    I’m of the opinion that these things must be taken into account. And a TRUE conservative – would do so. That whole ” we must destroy the village to save it” attitude – is leftist bullshit at it’s finest.

    People also forget that the Western world lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation until the early 1990’s. The threat is still there – but nobody seems to really pay attention any more. That MAD game – was pretty much an entirely male run affair. As were the world wars. I don’t think you go thru 80 years of so of madness – without feeling some after-effects.

    It could be that what is going on here – is actually a MALE problem – and not a female problem. In that – men can’t seem to get their shit together and stop killing each other and blowing up each other’s shit. Included in that “each other’s shit” classification – is a whole lot of women’s sons. If men can’t figure this out – can we really expect women to figure it out? If men are the natural leaders of society – and women intrinsically know this – but men are screwing the pooch – then wouldn’t female insanity be a natural expected result?

    • Calsdad hits a very large portion of the bullseye. I grew up in the forties and fifties. My father fought in WW I; a brother in WW II. Those conflicts never ended; we still are fighting them today. I’m re-reading a lot of Twentieth Century History, which means war history. The numbers of dead still astound me. Nations cannot lose that many productive young men, suffer that much pain, and function emotionally in a rational manner. We have regressed morally and intellectually, while becoming more technologically capable.
      This sounds counter intuitive, but look at us. We have become quite adept at destroying the next generation, or just not allowing it’s conception in the first place. We call this freedom. Meanwhile, we devote large chunks of our scientific knowledge to methods of killing an ever larger percentage of our existing populations. We have gone mad. Women aren’t the problem; they are the result of male Insanity. I’ve never been a churchgoer, but I believe that discarding,
      or diluting, Christianity has led to our current state of distress. Do we have the ability, and the strength, to return to our roots? I don’t believe so. I believe we are doomed: I believe the Grand Experiment
      is in its final phase. God has other plans.
      Man has thrown away his opportunity.
      Contemplate the sky on a clear night.
      We can disappear and never be missed.

    • @ calsdad The world wars, with a deep depression in between, gutted Western civilization. For a decade and a half or so after the second war it looked as if we were going to recover. But we’d lost confidence in ourselves and have been self-immolating ever sonce.

  20. On this all-female island, I wonder who fixes the plumbing when the pipes get stuffed up with tampons?

    • Who will manufacture the tampons? Not to mention the means of transportation to even get there?

  21. like everyone , women are looking for boundaries. In the west, men have failed utterly to provide any boundaries . They desperately need for us to stand up and stop this madness . If we won’t , they will find(and import) some men who will.
    I really felt sorry for the girls whose parents let them major in international studies and go to outer absurdistan to save the world.

  22. Not that women aren’t naturally nuts. But their pre-1960’s lives WERE pretty boring. And they saw us having all the fun. Boredom and envy and little kids will drive you insane.

    • I don’t think most were bored. When their children were young, they were extremely busy. When their children grew older,they had a social network of other women in the same situation, creative outlets and opportunities for personal development. The grass is always greener…

        • I grew up in the 50’s and saw it first hand with my stay-at-home mother and the mothers of my friends. They did not seem especially discontented, not nearly as stressed and whiny as women today. I lived it myself for eleven years with my own children and loved it. I only went back to work when my husband experienced a long bout of unemployment. Your comment sounds like you haven’t tried it or maybe you’re not a woman. The pull of family and home is very strong for women and seeing that area thrive can be very fulfilling. Plus, there was more honor and prestige in that vocation when I was growing up. A woman who worked was generally pitied. It was assumed her husband could not provide for the family.

          • Bunny, your comments are meaningful to me because my Mom defends feminism by saying that housewives in the 1950s were oppressed. She was a teenager in the 1950s. I suspect that she has been influenced by the media’s demonization of 1950s traditional America.

          • Sorry about that. Life then wasn’t perfect, but I think it was better. That’s just me. As I said, the grass is always greener.

          • I grew up in the ’60s and ’70s, when that life was dying, but I saw the bones of it — the neighborhood get-togethers, the bridge groups, Sunday church, the social network. It was a better time.

          • @ Bunny I grew up in the 50s also. Life was better for most people. We weren’t as wealthy as we are now, but people were more fulfilled.

      • Just to bench mark my perspective–we had four kids under eight and live in a highly affluent suburb. My theory has always been that Helen Gurley Brown and her gang sold women a load of horseshit. And the result is that many are angry as hell about it. Would draw the analogy that Amy Wax drew out last week in her talk about affirmative action. Admit way underqualified minorities to a top law school and they will become angry and hypersensitive from the stress of always being on the knife edge of failure. Cosmo sold women on the “you can be a three-degreed, beautiful CEO, raise perfect children and have hot sex every night” myth. Instead we all found out it’s often a grind where it is more likely you will struggle in your career, feel guilty about not spending time with your kids and smell bad on weekends because you don’t have time to shower. Or don’t marry, pursue a career and wake up in your mid 40s when you don’t get the golden ring and become angry and bitter. Real relationships are symbiotic. My spouse quit work after three kids, I worked. For the time I spent traveling (often overseas), took the weekend shifts at home. It’s hard work, but the reward for being “traditional” is the kids came out right and in a place where many substitute money for attention, have plenty of adverse outcomes.

    • The massive use of anti-depressants by women in Western societies leads me to believe that things weren’t as exciting as they had hoped.

  23. Maybe it was technology that did it. Obviously they are movies – but seeing movies like “wet hot american summer” and what not – makes me think that women were more normal back then.

  24. Two hundred thousand years of evolution has made men and women characteristically different, and a few thousand years of civilization cannot change that reality. Nature dictates that men’s primary role is to provide and protect, and women’s primary role is to birth and raise offspring. When either gender attempts to do both of these roles, the end result is that two things get done badly rather than one thing getting done well.

  25. “Women head off to the day spa so they can get the some of the dents knocked out and look good for their man.”

    Except that women don’t try to look good for their man. They try to look good for their own self-esteem and for other women.

    Talking about women being “in charge” now is rubbish. Women respond very quickly to a man that slaps them. Women are useful idiots. They are used by the MEN behind the curtain to shape contemporary slavery according to their needs. Anywhere you see women or minorities, other than (((those-who-must-not-be-named))), in charge, you are seeing a false front.

  26. The major problem with modernity is that we’ve become so successful we don’t face consequences anymore. In the past, failure and incompetence tended to result in death or bondage. In modern society, our leaders can be as incompetent as they want and nothing bad happens to them.

    I don’t think women are any more stupid or insane than they were before. There just aren’t any consequences anymore, and people don’t know any better anymore.

  27. Z- the reaction to this article should be interesting. I wonder if you’ll get an avalanche of angry women in here. I’m already seeing comment votes swing all over the place.

  28. I’d say that it’s more a matter of female nature put in a situation where it could assert itself. In pre-industrial society, women were economically dependent on men. Rebellion would have meant starvation. But mechanization, bureaucratization, and corporatization, in an intellectual context of equalism, made women economically dependent of (Western) men, at least in the medium term. Once the gate was open, they poured out, baying as they went. As many are wont to say, this won’t end well.

  29. Too many men have been drawing the queen of diamonds and she sure has demonstrated that she has been able to beat them.

    Good, grounded, decent, and strong men should understand that the queen of hearts is always their best bet.

  30. What happens when things break on girrlll island? Big storm knocks out power? Clogged toilet? etc…

  31. I think, much as I dislike Boomers and all their ways, the revolution of the 60s was an effect, not a cause. Z-man is right that the Beat generation was well ahead of the rest of the culture.

    If you look at an old-photo site like Shorpy or something, it’s instructive to look at the change in phots of women that happens, more or less, one afternoon in the 1920s. in 1918, women all look one way; in 1922, they all look another. I suspect the cultural shift in that decade was at least as significant as the 60s.

    The roots of this thing go further back than we think

    • Agreed. I will pinpoint it to 1916 when we (Britain) should have sued for peace with Germany. At that point all European leaders knew what a meat grinder WW1 was – but they continued anyway.
      We lost 750,000 men. We lost our nation’s fathers, philosophers, teachers, artists, politicians, and writers. Which is why our country was so poorly led after WWII. The 20 year olds who died in the trenches in The Somme, Ypres et al, would have ‘come of age’ to run our nation during and just after WW2 when they would be in their 50s.
      And, yes I do think we should have made peace with Germany in 1940 and let them fight it out with Russia whilst we rearmed (sorry Poland) – but that’s a story for another time.

  32. Mass media allowed a giant femind to come into existence. They are all crazy because they are getting too much social input. Media is like an override switch on the female brain; it will supersede local control.

    • The objective of a good, grounded, and strong male should be to destroy the override switch of which you write.

      That’s the way it works in my house.

  33. What screwed up both men and women is the sexual revolution. Behavior like that is against our nature so when we live like that it throws everything to hell.

    The reason women are running everything is because men have abdicated their headship role in society and the family. Men have abdicated their role – really their responsibilities – because of recreational sex and consumption. As the ancients knew, wealth, comfort and pleasure destroy virtue, destroy manliness, and we can see in our own time that wherever men are addicted to comfort and sensuality, they drop all their responsibilities to other people completely. As we can clearly see, the most decadent and selfish male subcultures, like the gay culture or SJW male culture are the ones most committed to selfish and narcissistic pleasure.

    When men shirk their responsibilities, women end up taking over. But running everything, making decisions that have to be justified by logic and taking personal responsibility are not something most women can handle so when institutions become run by women, the women running them either get super stressed and exist in a manic-depressive frenzy or they revert to what their nature is: they use their position to mother somebody (dangerous since so many of the childless women who run institutions are so desperate for a child that they are easily manipulated) or they spend the whole time engaging in intra-female competition games.

    The sex revolution also makes men and women enemies because sex becomes about getting what I want, and after I get that I don’t have any responsibility at all. This perverts men by making them slaves to self-focused pleasure. Meanwhile women throw themselves emotionally into every love affair they have and being treated as an object of pleasure damages them emotionally and often physically. The saddest of these creatures become jaded, like prostitutes, and become proud of throwing themselves into ever more meaningless and degrading situations while having contempt for the men who use them and at themselves for being used (look at SJW female life stories and they all sound like this).

    Since women can’t trust men to protect them and the children that might be born from their union, they understandably have to protect themselves financially, get jobs and so forth. This leads to careerist feminism which is often just women complaining that their jobs are empty and pointless (true) and they should get paid more money.

    We shouldn’t blame women too much, they are simply reacting to a crisis of masculinity, to a vacuum created by weak men. Society, civilization can not survive the sex revolution, which is why it isn’t.

    • Yes!!! “5-star comment.” When men abdicated their responsibilities, became weak, and plunged into self-absorbtion, the whole thing began to wobble, and women went mad.

      They were pressing hard against the barriers — most publically beginning in the mid-1800s in the US (temperance, suffrage etc). For most of western history, the men held firm, but then they let go

      As men further (and willingly) loosened their own grip, the women swelled to fill the void …. and the men willingly stepped aside and placed the female hands on the controls.

      It’s madness.

      • I keep thinking about Isaiah 3:12: “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”

        It seems to sum up Western society.

    • So women shit-test men for a hundred years for control (if not more, suffragette probably started in the late 1800s), men finally say “screw you, take control and see if you can do any better.” The inevitable failure ensues, and somehow it’s men’s fault?

      No venta, amigo.

    • I’ve gained a lot of wisdom since puberty. I now know that a visit to catty island would not be enjoyable.

      • Imagine what it would be like for the maintenance and serving staff on that island, who I assume will be women. I’ll bet there’ll be an extremely high turnover!

        I’ve had one good women boss, so they’re not all bad. But once I worked for a woman whose supervisor was her younger sister. That is -not- a winning combination.

        The sibling rivalry, and the extreme bitchiness, were indescribable. Their women underlings copped it from both of them, since each sister would blame the other sister for any problems, and neither would take responsibility; which meant the scapegoat had to be some other woman.

        The only reason I could stay as long as I did was that I was on the road, and only experienced a little bit of that stuff. If I’d been stuck in the office, I wouldn’t have lasted a month there. As it was, I lasted a little over a year before I found a better job. What a relief to leave that place!

    • That’s an ingredient. Not as if condoms didn’t already exist. But being labelled a tramp was far more serious at one point and would seriously damage a girl’s marriage prospects.

      • I think blaming the pill has two aspects to it. There’s freedom from pregnancy, but there’s also the possibility of lying. For example, before the pill one cannot say, “Don’t worry, I’m on the pill.”

      • Aha. Mom told me about teens running off to go spooning in the 30s.

        (She married her first husband at 17 because he had a nice car, and that she might get out of her mom’s house in 1933.)

  36. This has got to have something to to with the anti-Trump madness as well.

    I call it ‘the female mind’.
    I note that true anti-Trumpers exhibit the same bowel-shaking rage that women in New York wrote about Sarah Palin.

    I also see it in non-white peoples, with their tribal antipathies. A black woman called it ‘the black mind’.

    A percentage of Semitics and Africans seem to have it in spades, that sense of entitlement, victimization, and grudges against just about anyone. Like a Chicago billboard said, “Angry all the time?”

    Of biting the hand that feeds them, while kissing the hand that holds the whip.
    That one believes whatever one is saying at the moment, that one wants whatever one wants at the moment, with little thought for the future or for anyone else.

    Could it be as simple as “almonds activated”?
    That culture and genetics trigger a hindbrain-dominant outlook?

    I think Kentucky and Bunny are on to something, this really took off with the bizarre 60s.

    Feminine grief and fury that their best boys were being taken from them, again?

    These social reform crusades seem to happen after useless wars- note the Social Gospel’s rise after the Civil War.

    This may be a wide response to the pointless warring that gets someone’s enemies to kill each other.
    My best guess is cultural parasitism combined with modern affluence, an unexpected, emergent combination.

    (And you betcha I think the flames are being fanned.)

    • You are being too subtle in your point. Women think with the hind part of their brain, the emotional part. Now our culture is teaching the boys to think emotionally as well.

      Yesterday’s Southwest engine malfunction. Is a classic case of the alternative. The (woman) pilot was put in a fluid, dangerous, and uncertain situation. From her own constitution, and her military training, she isolated her responses and decision making strictly to her front-brain logical side. She walked through what needed to be done and how, by strictly denying any emotional input. You can hear it in the recordings of her radio communications. Just the facts, just what needs to be done. The air traffic controllers make mistakes in their landing instructions and she calmly and confidently corrects them. Awesome, really. That is discipline that people don’t have any more.

      Athletes often do this. They go into automaton mode to perform. They come out if it only when the performance is done. It is a sort of discipline everyone should have, and most don’t.

      • And to reinforce your point, we not only gave women jobs in the 70s, we put them in management- but without the logic-side training or experience.

        • You’re right – and make an excellent point – that thanks to feminism, since the 1970s women have not had to prove their worth in companies – a great many just get promoted or hired into leadership because they are likeable or know somebody or to fill a quota. But just to be accurate, it is a feminist myth that women “didn’t have jobs” before the mid-century. American women have always worked, and held *earned* positions of responsibility. We always had to make a living, even when married, women had to help assure the financial success of the “family corporation” (which is a forgotten concept of marriage today).

          In 1910, the USDA found that 25% of American women “held jobs outside their homes”. And a far greater number of people back then – men and women – had their own businesses which were operated from their homes. Women owned/operated many of the then-essential local printing offices. It was farm wives who dominated the poultry breeding industry at the turn of the 20th century. Telegraph operators were as likely to be female as male, and female postmasters have been around since before the Revolution, etc.

          Where the facts show up several other of feminism’s false claims is the interesting way in which women today choose simpler jobs (retail, food service, teaching) over committed professions in nearly the same ratio as they did 100 years ago.

          • Nice to see someone else exploding feminist myths. Only the most privileged people in society have ever had the opportunity to be idle. In the real world everyone works, but working wasn’t always seen as the be-all-end-all of existence. Societies that don’t value mothering above busybody work and Starbucks don’t survive.

          • @ pecancorner You are quite right about many women engaging in paid labor. I clearly remember my mother’s view of such women. “So and so *has* to work” (i.e., her husband didn’t earn enough for her to not work). My mother was in that category and she never let my step-father forget it.

          • It was something of a class issue, but women in “feminine” professions, i.e., teaching and nursing, were generally respected. 25% in 1910 is not so many, at any rate. I believe the “idle” housewife directing servants is pretty much a middle class and above invention popularized in the Victorian age.
            “. . The concept of a ‘housewife’ (a married woman who simply looked after her house and family) did not exist until the eighteenth century, until with greater urbanisation the burgeoning of the middle classes occurred and female leisure became an indication of the husband’s social status.”

            http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/spencer2.html

  37. Out of curiosity, was the story about Iceland from Michael Lewis’ “Boomerang”? I finished it recently and the chapter about Iceland turned over in my stomach like a bad egg; it had a whiff of trendy 2010’s Progressive PC-revisionism. Maybe my hair trigger is set a little too fine these days. But I suspect that Icelandic women enjoyed getting something for nothing as much as the men did. They just happen to enjoy saying “I told you so” even more.

    • Possibly. I no longer remember where I heard/read it. Everything about Iceland is weird, so people often read into it what they want.

  38. The star of the linked story is a German women who came to New York to make a nuisance of herself

    I get the impression a lot of foreign women go to New York to do that.

    • Yes, sadly the West is now a beacon to harpies everywhere. We’re declining into barbarism…

  40. My guess is as societies get wealthy enough, and civilised enough, and *seemingly* less dependent on openly male traits, women begin to think they don’t need men like they used to. Free from traditional restraints, women start attacking men, and here we are. They’ll realise eventually they’ll need men around, but society might look very different by then.

    • Yup. Like the current saying going around:

      “Hard times create strong men,
      Strong men create good times,
      Good times create weak men,
      Weak men create hard times.”

      And women have been a factor long before the pill etc.

      To quote Sir John Glubb:

      “An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women
      ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men.”

      http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

      Cheers

    • Too much is invisible.
      Sewer pipes in the ground, power lines in the ground. Wireless and 4G is invisible, even the routers, WAPs, and switches are kept hidden away, out of sight. Even when power lines are above ground the power running in them is invisible. You can’t hear the din of the coal miners in them, only the buzz of transformers and even then only if you stand close by.
      Like all of the marvels men have produced, the men who maintain these things too have become invisible to women. Chad Thundercock doesn’t climb telephone poles in a blizzard to restore power to people, but invisible boring regular guys do.
      Women think that millions of illiterate foreigners will both be able and willing to maintain our high tech infrastructure. We’ll see I guess.

  41. In the 50’s electric appliances put an end to women’s work. They literally had nothing to do. They slowly went stir-crazy which is entirely understandable. Back then, if women were stupid enough to think they could do anything a man could do, men would disabuse them of that notion. Today they put on pussy hats, and nod and clap for their powerful women and hope they can get laid.

    It is in our nature to defer to our women. We love them, we protect them and care for them. We naturally want to make them happy. As a result we stopped correcting them when they went wrong, and they’ve been running amok ever since. Most of this is our fault.

    You have to put your foot down and grow some balls. Once the women in your life go feral, you’re done. There is no redeeming them, they have had it and so have you. They will drive you nuts with their bullshit too. Don’t screw around – either they have to go or you do.

    When women invented free love in the 60’s, and frivolous no-fault divorce in the 70’s, they voided the sexual contract that is hardwired into our genetic make up. They literally became cheap cum dumpsters fit only for the so-called ‘pick up artists’ like Assange. All this stuff like Vagina Island, pussy hats, Metoo, etc – that is women trying to restore a more favourable sexual contract. Its working about as well as you would expect.

    I recommend old defenses to modern female predation and parasitism: Long, extended courtships, preferably chaperoned. Keep sex off the table as long as possible. Avoid liberals, feminists and tramps. Look for a warm, loving classical conservative lady and when you find her, treat her like a million bucks.

    Maybe we need to import some decent pussy? Hope ya guys like dark meat…

      • None for me either even though more than a few Filipino girls are pretty damn good wife material .

        • Filipinas CAN be excellent partners, just be sure to deeply screen/vet that prospective LBFM. And be sure NOT to bring them to the US, they will be co-opted by the skanks already here mos skoshi. PH is hot, cheap, and a turd world thrill ride. Also, no single moms, ever. Spend your money on you8r own genes.

    • I’m not sure that the sex contract is hard-wired. I believe that it’s an artifact of the emergence of agriculture. The Industrial Revolution and its accompanying philosophical revolution allowed our pre-agricultural tournament mating system to re-emerge.

      • MGTOW gets a bad rap from the obese cellar dwellers and fanbois of the Manosphere movement. I advocate the philosophy for men that have been deeply hurt by feral women as a temporary approach to life. Fire up the motorcycle, fill the truck with your camping gear – see where the road goes and avoid women like the plague while you get your head on straight.

        • MGTOW gets exactly the rap it deserves, because they ARE the obese cellar dwellars and fanbois of the movement.

          MGTOW’s are not ‘deeply hurt men getting their head on straight’. That’s normal. No. MGTOW’s are the guys that have given up the fight. Who have chosen to run away like cowards.

          Temporary retreat is something entirely different, and you do them a disservice by referring to them as MGTOW.

          If you want to MGTOW, join a monastery. Otherwise, pick up your rifle and get back on that damned wall with the rest of us.

      • There is nothing wrong with MGTOW and in fact its a natural byproduct of the current feminist social order. The early feminists, the ones who weren’t anti man even mentioned feminism as also liberating men. MGTOW Is that liberation.

        And no men do not have any obligation to preserve western civ as configured at least Its does little or nothing for them and much to harm them and as such can go.

        If they want an older model back, actual patriarchy they’ll have to take it probably with force.

        L:DR pay more for civilization and control your women or die

        This means basically imposing values, a ban on promulgating Leftism especially intersectionalism , forced lower status for women and levels of economic control that would cause the money cuck Republians to shit a brick

        all that after mass deportation

        That won’t be easy if its possible but as technology and a global population surplus has reduced the value of men in nearly every way , its going to have to be managed somehow since unless a man willing to work can be certain of stable employment at a decent wage, he can’t be a patriarch

        And you can’t educate you way out of it and nor will you be encouraging more men to cut back on the standard of living so your multinational can have a bigger bottom line.

        No is the only correct answer to that

        As a example, while no one likes unions much but union scale employees at say a supermarket made roughly 3x in wages as to what they do now . That is where we need to go, wages up, jobs stable, less status for women

        If we aren’t willing to do that, the natural complexity of society will result in an eventual well deserved implosion and the barbarians, be they us, foreigners or some mixed to will deserve to rule

        T

  42. Too much peace and prosperity. Places like Kurdistan which is under a constant state of war has superficial feminism, but nobody takes it seriously be cause men won’t die for MS. Muhammad’s career choices.

  43. “Could there even be modernity with normal women?” Depends on what you mean by “modernity. ” Do the 1950’s count? The vast majority of men and women were fulfilling traditional roles until the advent of the sexual revolution in the sixties. That seemed to be a turning point for both sexes. The ideas had been out there prior, but never really gained any traction until that point.

    • The cultural marxists were just starting to hammer away at the fiber of western civilization.

    • True, but that was only because the ruling class habits had yet to trickle down to the rest of us. The Beats of the 1950’s were a thing with cosmopolitans and cultural elites. Helen Gurly Brown wrote her book “Sex and the Single Girl” in 1962. That could not have happened without the decent of girl well on its way.

      • Don’t underestimate the impact of technology. Without penicillin and the birth control pill, there would have been no Sexual Revolution.

      • The ruling class … blah blah blah

        I grew up poor … blah blah blah

        I am a self made working class intellectual … blah blah blah

    • The introduction of the birth control pill is widely credited with being the decisive factor in igniting the sexual revolution in real time. That, and legalized abortion, were the one, two knockout punch for normal sexual roles in our society.
      Quick and easy divorce was the icing on the cake.
      Those three factors sealed our fate, and I’m not sure you can put Pandora back in her box until you deal with those three factors.

      • My mantra: Solzhenitsyn’s “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” What did the Church have to say about birth control, abortion and divorce? Many men were in favor of the sexual revolution and it’s perceived benefits to them in the beginning. See Playboy philosophy. Feminism -women’s liberation – touted men’s liberation, as well.

        • Guilty as charged. Of course, if women had kept their legs closed until a permanent relationship was in view, men would have fallen in line as they always had.

          • Women thought y’all wanted sexy hoes. The hoes were getting all the men. Women were just trying to please you, virtue couldn’t compete. And remember, Christianity required chastity of both sexes, back when it was a contender.

          • women ‘imagined’ men wanted sexy hoes, because you saw it in the movies and on television.

            You ignored the fact that we tended to shoot leisure suit larry in the ass.

            I blame Hollywood.

      • You also need to ladle a thick sauce of readily accessible (and largely socially accepted) pornography for both sexes over those three ingredients you cite.

        Pandora has her box spread wide.

      • A necessary precursor to these was extending the franchise to women. Once they could vote, all sorts of foolishness was unleashed.

      • I remember some speaker I watched suggesting that the clothes washing machine and other household labor savers of the early 20th century were a major turning point. Women didn’t have time to be whining about their role when keeping a house was actually work.

        • I’ve thought about that one. I’ve known plenty of single women that have every household convenience under the sun and live like pigs. I think keeping house was keeping the husband, and keeping the husband equaled not starving. It’s also possible that a higher class of woman just doesn’t want to live in filth whether or not she’s married, and we are out of those.
          If women have no desire to keep a home, the labor-saving appliances just make it easier for men to do without women.
          Feminism is a government program. Without men with guns forcing other men to pay taxes to give to women, female independence is impossible for most women. Women are a net-negative tax draw after all. And no this isn’t a libertardian anti-tax rant, this is an anti-welfare rant.

        • They started having the time to watch Television, and started believing what they saw on the tube was REAL.

      • Women married for 5+ years with at least 1 child vote like a ‘conservative’ male.

        I believe that answers every question voiced by Z, and implies the solution.

      • I’ll add welfare to your deadly cocktail. That way resources are funneled from the responsible, causing them to have fewer children, to the irresponsible, bribing and/or enabling them to have more. Then those children grow up more damaged than their “liberated” mothers and accelerate the cycle both by means of being even worse offenders and by means of their greater numbers.

      • There was also the huge upswing in privately-owned automobiles, that gave mobility to young men & women.

        Back before WWII, a lot of courting was done with the suitor having to seek the girl’s parents permission; usually that meant there was a parent or other adult serving as chaperone, and the young people would sit in the front room, or on the porch. They weren’t really alone, and “racy” was holding hands or sneaking a kiss.

        After WWII, it was a lot more likely that the suitor would drive up, honk the horn, the girl would come out to join him & off they’d go. No chaperones, and far less parental authority; now it was how fast the guy could run the bases, and a lot of girls found that they didn’t have much “no” power.

        Couple that freedom with the pill & abortion, and you’ve got societal breakdown. Add LBJ’s “Great Society” and the countdown to disaster is accelerated.

        A lot of this was made far worse for Western civilization because so very many fine young men died in WWI. The “men” who were left weren’t the pick of the litter, to say the least, and their children weren’t much better.

    • The rot was well established in the 1950s. If you want to see it memorialized on film, watch those Feisty Girl Making It in a Man’s World movies from the 30s and 40s with female leads like Katherine Hepburn, Jean Arthur (my favorite actress of all time) and Rosalind Russell.

    • A big turning point came right at the end of the ’50s and early ’60s. Just coincidentally I was watching a couple old clips of The Avengers today — Emma Peel’s (Diana Rigg) first scene and her last.

      She clearly was in the vanguard of the “women can kick men’s butts” grrl power movement. But at the same time, she was expected to take a slap on the ass with equanimity and make a man a cup of tea the way he liked it as a matter of course.

      It wasn’t long before the butt-kicking was all that remained and any semblance of the submissive role was gone.

      My oldest daughter has said that she really longs for the patriarchy. She sees what women today are like, and what women have given up, and she knows it was a mistake.

  44. “hanging out with their female fiends plays a role”

    I sure hope that isn’t a typo… 🙂

  45. I’ve come to view feminism as a civilization level shit test that much of the West has already failed. Males in Sweden and the UK have failed completely, turned over the keys to the state and retired to the pub (when they are allowed to go out).

    Women instinctively despise submissive men. So as they raise more “betas” they grow ever more unhappy and nuts. And yes, I think that is part of the reason our crazy women want to import Third World men. For all their faults – low IQ, laziness, lack of education or any useful skills, violent cultism, criminal tendencies… – they sure don’t take any shit from women.

  46. The easiest explanation is that they always were nuts. The difference is that now we indulge it rather than punishing it.

    • With that brilliant and concise comment, this thread can be closed.

      Well done sir!

    • Who is this “we”? Yes, women were always crazy, but it didn’t matter as long as men held the reigns. Women’s rise to power had to allowed or encouraged by the then current power-wielders who sought to harness the crazy for their own benefit.

      • You can’t hat slap em and they damn well know it. Soo… How do you stop a run away train, or something larger that normal, without laying hands on it?

    • Civilization is logical. Girls aren’t. Now they’re in charge and they’re mad, in both senses of the term.

        • So true. Seen from a longer view than we have – say, God’s – civilization itself produced the crisis that is now going through its final convulsions. Our species stumbled about for tens of thousands of years, without math or science, a brutal, ugly anomaly of nature; and yet here we are – the progeny of feral and ruthless ancestors – with our purple-haired lesbians, our peanut-allergies, our natural competition extinct, or in zoos.

          Natural logic – the logic of adaptation – was violated by the agricultural revolution. It’s all been downhill since.

    • Sure – let us ‘men’ punish ‘women’ for getting out of line;

      examples from history?

    • Wow, +64 for a comment that sweeps the whole issue of life between the sexes into axioms of pure power.

      We are Jacobins,..

      • So what you’re saying is women are crazy and bad and must be controlled. And men are rational and good and should be free. To control women. Actually, that IS what they’re saying, heh. Z has previously cited the branks, or scold’s bridle, as one means of control. Starvation, disenfranchisement and slapping are mentioned downthread.

    • I was going to say the same thing. I’ve said it here numerous times, you guys should’ve never given women voting rights or control over financial decisions, not to mention the absurdity of allowing women to serve in the military & elected office.
      I would’ve NEVER done any of that.
      BTW, women don’t really like other women like men think we do. This is a myth. Most women are downright nasty to other women they know behind their back.

      • every ‘women taking care of women’ is really just “I want this for ME, but to get it I have to make it about all women.”

        Frankly, we never should even taught them to talk.

Comments are closed.