Search This Blog

Saturday, July 26, 2014

'White Knighting' for Feminism at UD

Isn't it curious how "strong, independent women" seem to need (ostensibly conservative) men (*) to run interference for them -- to protect them from reality and/or shelter them from the consequences of their own foolish decisions ... including needing them (the men) to shriek like banshees whenever some other man has the temerity to point out that *all* women are sinful human beings: how *dare* a mere man suggest that women are real human beings, just like men are? (B.Prokop ought to love that sentence.)

Anyway, I just happened to notice that Barry Arrington over at Uncommon Descent has shamefully (but, of course) banned one 'Robert Byers' ... and that my internet-friend 'Mung' played a misguided part in getting that done. Now, keep in mind, I do not and never have cared for this 'Robert Byers'.

Here is 'Robert Byers' politically incorrect post
Actually it was a more Protestant, if i may say so, Christian society.
This science guy was a Jew. People were more respectful to women back then in everyway. they were seen as wife objects and not sex objects.
It was a liberal movement to end this.
No excuses for males attacking women back then. Once again the old ones have no defenders now that they are gone.

By the way this stuff about women and science is just showing again a presumption women can compete and achieve like men in smart stuff.
i say all people can but identity interferes and so women have no such ambition to be accomplished and so fail to be interested in the most complicated things.
Women will never compete with men intellectually because of male motivation to be accomplished given by God.
Women are only to help their husbands. its a fraud to push them to be doctors and scientists. Its unnatural.
Serious sciences just show womens real lack of interest.
Identity is everything.
Certainly, he could have expressed himself better. OK, maybe *he* couldn't have expressed himself better (whether because he's not that well educated, or whether because he's a "troll" and the character he's playing is defined as rather parochial and ill-educated). Still, all of the mindless knee-jerk reaction to what he said is nothing but (ostensibly conservative) men performing their leftist-assigned role of throwing a hissy fit when some other less well-trained man dares to state some truths about women and society.

I have no idea what "This science guy was a Jew" is supposed to mean, but the rest of it happens to be essentially true, if poorly expressed, however unwelcome to feminists and other leftists .... and to their puppets, such as the house-broken men who threw a hissy-fit over the post.

Look, if some girl or young woman *is* truly interested in being a "doctor or scientist" -- what? no women plumbers? why does no one ever seem to "encourage" their daughters to go into the manual trades? -- then, by all means encourage her. But, the fact remains that *most* women have no real interest in *any* profession, much less any mere trade. And the further fact remains that pushing girls to be ersatz men does a grave disservice to them ... and to society. For, the ulitmate unwelcome fact remains the case: what any society that intends to be around for the long-haul really needs from its women is that they birth and raise the next generation.

And being wives and mothers just happens to be what *most* women would prefer to be doing, and would be doing if it weren't for all the dip-shit men -- including their fathers -- constantly pushing them to pretend that they want to "work outside the home".

Look, you dip-shits, if women really were "equal to" -- that is, interchangable with -- men, they wouldn't need men to throw hissy fits on their behalf or to engage in public displays of 'white knighting' on their behalf. And the Good Lord knows that women are quite capable of throwing memorable hissy fits without a bit of help from you.

(*) Recall my dictum that most Americans who think themselves "conservatives" are actually "liberals" (as we use that term these days); that is, they reflexively react in the leftist-approved manner, having been marinated in leftist shibboleths almost from birth. Just as the difference between a "liberal" and a leftist is that "liberal" isn't *yet* willing to go to all the (absurd) places that leftism demands, so too, the difference between most "conservatives" and "liberals" is that the "conservative" isn't *yet* willing to go to all the (adsurd) leftist destinations that the "liberal" is.