From a comment to a New York Beta Times article about “gender equity”.
Otis E Plainfield, Tx The College of The Permian Basin
Peter Drucker, in his famous essay Managing Oneself, advised strongly the need to understand your strengths and weaknesses, and observed that you can never win by improving your weaknesses, only by improving your strengths. In broader socio-economic terms, we have given women the opportunity to build on their weaknesses (ability to compete against men) and discouraged them from capitalizing on their strengths (youth and fertility). They compete through artifices of fairness and inclusion that are borne on the backs of an ever-dwindling pool of male supporters. We have weakened society as a whole by building on women’s weaknesses in attempts to make them the equal of men, rather than encouraging them in their natural strengths. And while this charade is going on, men are encouraged to adopt feminine attitudes and lifestyles at the expense of their own natural strengths, now deemed unnecessary in the new gender-neutral economy.
Fucking hardcore. Otis is awarded a VIP guest pass to the Chateau (if he wasn’t already a secret visitor).
This project to turn women into men and men into women won’t end well. But it will end, either in a pyre of societal disintegration or pinned under the sword of better men (and women). Nature doesn’t tolerate for long social experimentation at odds with Her directives.
> “if he wasn’t already a secret visitor” ——— No kidding. BTW, there actually is a “University” of The Permian Basin, but I suspect that “Otis Plainfield” might be a pseudonym. http://www.utpb.edu
LikeLike
I love to mess with their tiny little minds.
Me: Are men and women equal now?
Her: Yes, of course.
Me: Then there shouldn’t be separate men’s and women’s sports. Everyone competes together for who is best human.
Her: But, but…
Me: And half the time women should open doors for men, pay for dates, be chivalrous and defend men. Correct?
Her: Um…
LikeLike
[…] Freelance Comment Of The Week: The Project To Turn Women Into Poor Facsimiles Of Men […]
LikeLike
When you turn on your television this fall, you’ll be watching more women kick more ass than you can possibly imagine—physically, economically and sexually. Hard-bodied and smart, rich and aggressive, confident and independent, the chicks who populate the prime-time lineup are being cast in roles that once belonged almost exclusively to men. TV season; they rule.
————————————————————————————————
http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo4/4karnick.php
LikeLike
“And yet they can’t find a man! Why not?”
Obvious rape!
LikeLike
Who needs (white) men when you have fish, bicycles, MENSA brains, swimsuit model looks and mad martial arts- and weapons skills ?
LikeLike
Not to be pithy, but who watches network TV these days?
LikeLike
Women. All of my female relatives are glued to it; it is the only thing they do with their lives, apart from working in pointless office jobs that would not exist if women were not in the workforce. Particularly irritating is when they all come out to the farm here on Sunday nights and insist on watching “Madame Secretary.” I used to be flabbergasted at the epic levels of oblivion and denial on display, but now I understand it for what it is: the unfathomable abyss of female narcissism.
I was raised to think that male ego and confidence was vain and narcissistic. It has nothing on this fantasy-world that women inhabit, watching powerful grrrls on tv in between trips to the kitchen for more ice cream and fritos at every commercial break.
LikeLike
The thing that networks never seem to consider is that women don’t really like other women all that much. A bitchy female character on a show is every bit as off putting as a bitchy female coworker. The only female character types that don’t elicit the immediate gag reflex are Mary Sues, and those are an affront to the craft of storytelling.
LikeLike
“The thing that networks never seem to consider is that women don’t really like other women all that much.”
The networks are just as aware that women hate each other as they are that women love to hate.
They know exactly what they are doing
LikeLike
It goes to the point of whom the actual consumers are. I leave the room when this crap gets on the tube. I do tell it like it is tho, “this is a stupid show”
LikeLike
this has electrolytes!
LikeLike
Check out the hoverhand in the first pic
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3501838/Seven-Year-Switch-s-Michelle-says-husband-Jason-hadn-t-intimate-two-years-appearing-spouse-swapping-reality-show.html
LikeLike
LikeLike
Paul Joseph Watson. He’s good. Real good.
LikeLike
Spend 5 minutes watching any nature documentary and it’s plain to see that sexual dimorphism and selective breeding isn’t exclusive to human society.
Then you see hyenas, bonobos, anglerfish, and daddy-long-legs are the types of shit nature is warning us about living in a matriarchy.
LikeLike
The feminists will reply we’ve gone far past that and none of that applies any more. Gotta bring more if you want to win that argument.
LikeLike
Who cares about convincing feminists?
LikeLike
We’ve gone far past what, sweetheart? The hundreds of millions of years of evolution that got DNA to this point? Did we transcend these naturally created bodies last night and nobody told me?
What did we get past, and how did we get past it?
LikeLike
“odds with Her directives.”
True
LikeLike
“Peter Drucker, in his famous essay Managing Oneself, advised strongly the need to understand your strengths and weaknesses, and observed that you can never win by improving your weaknesses, only by improving your strengths.”
I work as a ‘strategy consultant’ and I totally agree with Drucker’s overall assessment. If I ever told a client to pursue a strategy of ‘improving your weaknesses’ (except as an ancillary aspect of a broader ‘improve your strengths’ strategy), I’d never get another client to listen to me again. Yet, here we have a whole social movement based on the exact opposite strategy. It can ONLY be some hostile group’s misdirection (or an example of “Whom the gods would destroy, first they make crazy”).
Men instinctively understand this, which is why there is no male equivalent of the shibboleth “Anything boys can do, girls can do better.” A boy/man doesn’t give a shit what a girl/woman can do well, in general, and he certainly isn’t going to try being better at it than she is. Let ’em fucking have it. A boy/man has better shit to do.
For the average guy, cooking may be the one exception, and even there Nietzsche had it pegged 130 years ago (“Beyond Good and Evil”, #234):
“Stupidity in the kitchen; woman as cook; the spine-chilling thoughtlessness in the feeding of the family and the head of the house! Women do
not understand what food means and yet want to cook! If woman were a
thoughtful creature, then the fact that she has been the cook for thousands
of years would surely have led her to discover the greatest physiological
facts, and at the same time make the art of medicine her own! Bad cooking and the complete absence of reason in the kitchen have caused the longest
delays and the worst damage to the development of humanity: even today,
things are hardly any better. A speech for young ladies.”
LikeLike
Most women I’ve known are best kept away from kitchens, for their own as well as everyone else’s health and safety.
LikeLike
Matriarchies seem to always be absorbed by Patriarchies in the long run. Except Africa, because no one wants to absorb them.
LikeLike
@Hugo
Spot on
LikeLike
[…] Source: Heartiste […]
LikeLike
Bitches be crazy. Always have, always will be. The problem is all the nutless wonders who dont keep bitches in line and a propagandising elite who want it that way. A lot of theorizing here, but how many actually back it up with the women in their day to day life?
LikeLike
When the SF Giants were in a hot pennant race back in the 50s, and Willie Mays was closing in on Ruth’s home run record. a sport journalist saw him working on his fielding during warm-ups for a big game.
The sports writer asked Mays why he wasn’t in the batting box working on his batting.
Mays came back with “You lose games due to your weaknesses.”
But Mays was a team player and the team needed to win the game more than Mays needed to beat Ruth.
Drucker is probably right for an individual, but a lot of life is team play.
LikeLike
On Trump …
LikeLike
So fucking sick of the female triumphing in single combat against alleged “military veteran” male. Jesus, I’m so over Hollywood and it’s SJW agenda! Would someone just start some kind of “don’t pay to watch this shit” platform already.
But it will end, either in a pyre of societal disintegration or pinned under the sword of better men (and women).
We may all end up pinned under the Muslim scimitar (or their exploding chests) – but they aren’t better than us. More fanatical, yes.
LikeLike
Election Day today in the US. Who will AIPAC select?
LikeLike
“Women who try to become men end up being second rate women and third rate men. Men who try to become women end up being second rate men and third rate women.” theasdgamer
LikeLike
Once again I pull in the COTW award under the nom-de-plume “Otis Plainfield” as the name Elmer strikes fear in the hearts of the intelligentsia and drives them to ban me in all forms. This will look great on my executive credenza next to the Futrelle “We Hunted the Mammoth” awards.
My “SJW Hitler” has yet to gain traction. He’s a kinder, gentler, and more inclusive Hitler :
LikeLike
This is from the book The Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Study, by Robert Barro,
“More surprisingly, female education at various levels is not significantly related to subsequent growth. For example, if years of schooling at the secondary and higher levels for females aged 25 and over is added to the system shown in column 1 of Table 1, then the estimated coefficient of this variable is +.0023 (0.0046), whereas that for males remains significantly positive, 0.0132 (0.0036). For primary schooling of women aged 25
and over, the estimated coefficient is -0.0001 (0.0012), whereas that for men (25 and over for secondary and higher schools) is 0.0118 (0.0025). Thus, these findings do not support the hypothesis that education of women is a key to economic growth.”
How often do you hear about this???
ps. Anyway, you can look up the book on-line
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ndrogynous, $exually revolting morlocks that live to $l@ve and consume is the goal.
Drop f3rtility rates so dangerously low that the elite is given the moral authority to control r3pr0duction.
LikeLike
The problem begins in schools, where the goal is to turn boys into facsimiles of girls. And male teachers (mostly beta males) are a part of it.
LikeLike
It’s 2016 and you’re not a Nat Socialist?
Get uncucked.
LikeLike
“It’s 2016 and you’re not a Nationalist?”
Corrected it for you. Two planks of the Nat Socialist are congruent with everything else socialist and fed into the current malaise:
1) right to vote for women
2) gun control (registration, but you should know where that leads by now)
Get everything else right and those would still doom you.
LikeLike
Drucker’s works are among the Great Books for Men. Read Peter Drucker.
LikeLike
Everything said about women on this post also applies to blacks. The economic and societal ramifications of pretending blacks have the same intellectual capacity as Whites are incalculable.
LikeLike
Wow, excellent comment. I hope more people read (and understand) this!
LikeLike
[…] Freelance Comment Of The Week: The Project To Turn Women Into Poor Facsimiles Of Men […]
LikeLike