[MrLemon]

I recently got a friend drunk...he's a fairly prestigious anthropologist at a top-rated university. Not giving out his name for obvious reasons.

I asked him: "Really, do you think that women have been historically oppressed? That's the feminist claim"

He said "Utter horseshit. People in my field just have to shut our ears and try to block out this kind of shit. Women have had a sweet deal in every society ever studied in every era. Human men are programmed by nature to serve and protect women, and that's what they've always done. Just look at any society after a war...25% of the men killed...what would the women always do? They immediately run out and tried to find new men."

I said "yeah but women can sit there and list all the ways men have oppressed them"

He said "Yeah total bullshit. For every example of men mistreating women, I could list a hundred examples of men helping women, men protecting women. A lot of the so-called oppression of women was actually by their mothers, not men. For example foot binding and other scarification or mutilation rituals all originated with other women, not with men. The other favorite tactic by Feminist dogma is to take the harsh conditions of that time, and ascribe it all to men somehow. Like, there was a famine in the 1650 in England, people were starving to death all over, and women were oppressed because they had to get married to survive. Or they talk about how submissive Japanese women are---give me a break. Japanese women control all the money and the household with an iron fist. They work their men into the grave."

"In terms of historical accuracy, Feminism is about the same level as fanatic religious cults in the middle ages. Rich white chicks complaining about how they are oppressed. Utter crap, from top to bottom."

I said "Why don't you start a class and teach students this?" He got mad at that. "I'd lose my tenure and my income and half the friends I have. Fuck off with your suggestions"

So, we dropped the subject and drank beer. What else can ya do.

[Eskhander]

So our goal is to make these people confident in speaking out?

[philosophical_recovery]

[The Beast1]

(05-20-2015 03:27 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

I recently got a friend drunk...he's a fairly prestigious anthropologist at a top-rated university. Not giving out his name for obvious reasons.

I asked him: "Really, do you think that women have been historically oppressed? That's the feminist claim"

He said "Utter horseshit. People in my field just have to shut our ears and try to block out this kind of shit. Women have had a sweet deal in every society ever studied in every era. Human men are programmed by nature to serve and protect women, and that's what they've always done. Just look at any society after a war...25% of the men killed...what would the women always do? They immediately run out and tried to find new men."

I said "yeah but women can sit there and list all the ways men have oppressed them"

He said "Yeah total bullshit. For every example of men mistreating women, I could list a hundred examples of men helping women, men protecting women. A lot of the so-called oppression of women was actually by their mothers, not men. For example foot binding and other scarification or mutilation rituals all originated with other women, not with men. The other favorite tactic by Feminist dogma is to take the harsh conditions of that time, and ascribe it all to men somehow. Like, there was a famine in the 1650 in England, people were starving to death all over, and women were oppressed because they had to get married to survive. Or they talk about how submissive Japanese women are---give me a break. Japanese women control all the money and the household with an iron fist. They work their men into the grave."

"In terms of historical accuracy, Feminism is about the same level as fanatic religious cults in the middle ages. Rich white chicks complaining about how they are oppressed. Utter crap, from top to bottom."

I said "Why don't you start a class and teach students this?" He got mad at that. "I'd lose my tenure and my income and half the friends I have. Fuck off with your suggestions"

So, we dropped the subject and drank beer. What else can ya do.

How the hell would he lose tenure? You only lose tenure for really egregious fuck ups like sleeping with students)(and then some!). Teaching a class called feminism is a lie would stir the pot nothing else.

Beyond professional contacts, everyone who knows me personally knows i'm a hard right traditionalist and they not only like it they respect it too. It's replies like that that tell me we still have a long way to go before people start calling out this BS.

[samsamsam]

People are flipping out over game of thrones which, from what I understand, is pure fiction. Imagine the heat that professor would catch by using facts in a conversation. He does his risk reward/cost benefit analysis amd decides it isn't worth it.

He might be tenured but women will pull the ultimate weapon and accuse him of rape or something like that. Then protests follow and weak willed administration folds. I am sure there are certain things that can force a tenured professor out.

[The Beast1]

(05-20-2015 03:48 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

People are flipping out over game of thrones which, from what I understand, is pure fiction. Imagine the heat that professor would catch by using facts in a conversation. He does his risk reward/cost benefit analysis amd decides it isn't worth it.

He might be tenured but women will pull the ultimate weapon and accuse him of rape or something like that. Then protests follow and weak willed administration folds. I am sure there are certain things that can force a tenured professor out.

Safe to say there isn't much point to getting tenure anymore if it means you can't do risky and avant guarde research.

[Tytalus]

(05-20-2015 03:27 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

I recently got a friend drunk...he's a fairly prestigious anthropologist at a top-rated university. Not giving out his name for obvious reasons.

I asked him: "Really, do you think that women have been historically oppressed? That's the feminist claim"

He said "Utter horseshit. People in my field just have to shut our ears and try to block out this kind of shit. Women have had a sweet deal in every society ever studied in every era. Human men are programmed by nature to serve and protect women, and that's what they've always done. Just look at any society after a war...25% of the men killed...what would the women always do? They immediately run out and tried to find new men."

I said "yeah but women can sit there and list all the ways men have oppressed them"

He said "Yeah total bullshit. For every example of men mistreating women, I could list a hundred examples of men helping women, men protecting women. A lot of the so-called oppression of women was actually by their mothers, not men. For example foot binding and other scarification or mutilation rituals all originated with other women, not with men. The other favorite tactic by Feminist dogma is to take the harsh conditions of that time, and ascribe it all to men somehow. Like, there was a famine in the 1650 in England, people were starving to death all over, and women were oppressed because they had to get married to survive. Or they talk about how submissive Japanese women are---give me a break. Japanese women control all the money and the household with an iron fist. They work their men into the grave."

"In terms of historical accuracy, Feminism is about the same level as fanatic religious cults in the middle ages. Rich white chicks complaining about how they are oppressed. Utter crap, from top to bottom."

I said "Why don't you start a class and teach students this?" He got mad at that. "I'd lose my tenure and my income and half the friends I have. Fuck off with your suggestions"

So, we dropped the subject and drank beer. What else can ya do.

It's actually a fairly big deal in Academia - surveys have been done and found out the most conservatives in Academia are in the closet because of how they fear being treated if found out.

[RawGod]

Makes you wonder how many academics like this are "in the closet". The more there are, the more likely a cultural "flip" could be. That is, when a tipping point or crisis of the current order occurs, and suddenly all these people come out of the closet. Similar to the fall of communism.

[Duke Castile]

Can you put a source to those studies?

[ordinaryleastsquared]

(05-20-2015 10:31 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

Makes you wonder how many academics like this are "in the closet". The more there are, the more likely a cultural "flip" could be. That is, when a tipping point or crisis of the current order occurs, and suddenly all these people come out of the closet. Similar to the fall of communism.

Yeah, I think there are a lot of guys in academia who are aware of a lot of red pill thinking and deep down aren't really supportive of the censured, castrated environment that American uni's have adopted.

That said, the older tenured faculity have too much to loose by openly advocated such positions, even if their jobs are secure. Plus the ones I know have families, kids, etc. and don't really have skin in the game, so to speak, as we do.

[Tuthmosis]

(05-20-2015 10:17 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  

It's actually a fairly big deal in Academia - surveys have been done and found out the most conservatives in Academia are in the closet because of how they fear being treated if found out.

Don't dilute this statement by affixing a political label to it ("conservative"). It's just called truth.

[player]

Even Nobel Prize winner James Watson, who discovered the structure of DNA, was ostracized for his politically incorrect views (that parts of Neoreaction like Heartiste would agree with).

The left likes evolution when it disproves the Creationists on the right - but they shun evolution when it destroys their politically correct sacred cows (men and women are equal, etc).

Short of a painful reset of society, I think a lot of progress will come from married women with skin in the game. If her income is superfluous because of a successful husband and she wants to make a better world for her sons, then in rare cases she will endure the ostracism of the herd to promote the truth. Women are afforded a credibility that men do not get. Helen Smith, JudgyBitch, GirlWritesWhat, Suzanne Venker, Phyllis Schlafly, Camille Paglia & Christina Hoff Summers cannot be accused of being sexless bitter virgins, and they can speak truths that could utterly destroy a man's life if he uttered them in public.

[sixsix]

(05-21-2015 03:40 AM)player Wrote:  

Short of a painful reset of society, I think a lot of progress will come from married women with skin in the game.

A strategy that relies on women to selflessly guide us to evidence-based discourse, is not much of a strategy at all.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. You still accept their frame of identity politics. Your view is dismissed because of who you are, so you have to hope someone else makes it for you? Dismissed by whom? They are not the judge. They are the opposition and we should not play by their bullshit rules in the first place. Speak to the silent but vast majority with conviction and clarity.

Unapologetic confidence will win the war.

Don't accept their slurs and don't defend yourself against them. It is the same fucking game as when banging girls. Crush their frame with a better frame.

She calls you weird? "No, you are weird."
They call you sexist? "No, you are sexist."

It doesn't even need to make sense, in fact, sometimes that's even better.
Respond to their disingenuous questions with disingenuous answers. Don't take their bait.
You can't win by reasoning, because they don't hold these opinions because of logical consideration of the facts. They hold their opinions because it gives them power.

They have been abusing our weaknesses. We value strength, personal responsibility, honesty and honor. We don't play dirty and treat them fairly. That strategy only works against like-minded opponents. That's why they've been winning.

Abuse their weaknesses. They are group animals because they are weak, insecure and defective. And they know it. Single them out. Expose them. Why do they hate normal people? Why are they so jealous? Why are they so insecure?

Rules of honor are only virtuous when both sides agree to them. Sticking to them when the other doesn't is not honorable, it's foolish. Similarly, chivalry was nice when both sides fulfilled their social contracts. Staying chivalrous when the women changed does not make you a better gentleman, it makes you a easily-manipulated chump.

[WestIndianArchie]

I'd like to hear more of what he said

WIA

[Engineer]

(05-20-2015 03:48 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

People are flipping out over game of thrones which, from what I understand, is pure fiction.

snip

Why are people flipping out? Haven't watched it, don't understand your reference here, but would like to know.

[MrLemon]

(05-21-2015 06:54 AM)sixsix Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 03:40 AM)player Wrote:  

Short of a painful reset of society, I think a lot of progress will come from married women with skin in the game.

A strategy that relies on women to selflessly guide us to evidence-based discourse, is not much of a strategy at all.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. You still accept their frame of identity politics. Your view is dismissed because of who you are, so you have to hope someone else makes it for you? Dismissed by whom? They are not the judge. They are the opposition and we should not play by their bullshit rules in the first place. Speak to the silent but vast majority with conviction and clarity.

Unapologetic confidence will win the war.

Don't accept their slurs and don't defend yourself against them. It is the same fucking game as when banging girls. Crush their frame with a better frame.

She calls you weird? "No, you are weird."
They call you sexist? "No, you are sexist."

It doesn't even need to make sense, in fact, sometimes that's even better.
Respond to their disingenuous questions with disingenuous answers. Don't take their bait.
You can't win by reasoning, because they don't hold these opinions because of logical consideration of the facts. They hold their opinions because it gives them power.

They have been abusing our weaknesses. We value strength, personal responsibility, honesty and honor. We don't play dirty and treat them fairly. That strategy only works against like-minded opponents. That's why they've been winning.

Abuse their weaknesses. They are group animals because they are weak, insecure and defective. And they know it. Single them out. Expose them. Why do they hate normal people? Why are they so jealous? Why are they so insecure?

Rules of honor are only virtuous when both sides agree to them. Sticking to them when the other doesn't is not honorable, it's foolish. Similarly, chivalry was nice when both sides fulfilled their social contracts. Staying chivalrous when the women changed does not make you a better gentleman, it makes you a easily-manipulated chump.

Yes. Fight back with anger and confrontation! Attack. No bullshit "being polite". Be angry (without landing in jail).

This is war. The Feminists will not stop until they've got every man wearing tracking bracelets and pacified by ADD drugs. If you think that's an exaggeration, just look at the rates of drugging of teenage boys by schools. It's already happening.

[Phoenix]

Maybe you should refer him to here or ROK. Tell him to set up a fake email and use Tor and then he can go nuts.

[Glaucon]

(05-21-2015 03:40 AM)player Wrote:  

Short of a painful reset of society, I think a lot of progress will come from married women with skin in the game.

Women not going to do shit. As always it is up to men to fix everything.

Or, you can choose to watch it burn if you can be self-sufficient...

[Bacchus]

I was expecting a video of this sort:

[Grange]

http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
This Roy Baumeister piece from a few years ago is always relevant to red pill talk and especially in this thread:

Quote:

When I say I am researching how culture exploits men, the first reaction is usually “How can you say culture exploits men, when men are in charge of everything?” This is a fair objection and needs to be taken seriously. It invokes the feminist critique of society. This critique started when some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.

Seeing all this, the feminists thought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. It must be great to be a man.

The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.

One can imagine an ancient battle in which the enemy was driven off and the city saved, and the returning soldiers are showered with gold coins. An early feminist might protest that hey, all those men are getting gold coins, half of those coins should go to women. In principle, I agree. But remember, while the men you see are getting gold coins, there are other men you don’t see, who are still bleeding to death on the battlefield from spear wounds.

That’s an important first clue to how culture uses men. Culture has plenty of tradeoffs, in which it needs people to do dangerous or risky things, and so it offers big rewards to motivate people to take those risks. Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also don’t give them the big rewards. I’m not saying this is what cultures ought to do, morally, but cultures aren’t moral beings. They do what they do for pragmatic reasons driven by competition against other systems and other groups.

[samsamsam]

(05-21-2015 12:32 PM)Engineer Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 03:48 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

People are flipping out over game of thrones which, from what I understand, is pure fiction.

snip

Why are people flipping out? Haven't watched it, don't understand your reference here, but would like to know.

Something about a rape scene. And a lot of it was sounds offscreen. And it wasn't like the show hasn't had rapes before. Or hard to imagine during a setting like that there would be such events. People flipping out about it.

But as I am learning people just want to flip out and seek a reason. Much like going to Iraq. They just cobbled whatever they could to justify the war.

[DickDastardly]

delete

[samsamsam]

^^ That sounds like what those senators are doing. Avoiding any opportunity to get pinched by a vengeful woman.

[WestIndianArchie]

Sounds like these women have created a hostile working environment.

WIA

[MrLemon]

(05-21-2015 02:45 PM)Grange Wrote:  

http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
This Roy Baumeister piece from a few years ago is always relevant to red pill talk and especially in this thread:

Quote:

One can imagine an ancient battle in which the enemy was driven off and the city saved, and the returning soldiers are showered with gold coins. An early feminist might protest that hey, all those men are getting gold coins, half of those coins should go to women. In principle, I agree.

This is flawed thinking.

All of the gold coins went to women. Because all those soldiers went home and gave their gold coins to their wives. Always, throughout history, men gave their winnings to their wives.

In the US women have 30% more assets then men. This has always been true. The only change in the past 40 years is that women no longer have to give anything to men in return (by getting married). They have the government and corporations to take money from men by force.