Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Workplace Equality? Not So Much…
-By Caleb Jones
I was in her office the other day, helping her out by rendering some helpful brotherly business advice. One of the business problems she relayed to me was very interesting.
“I can’t hire any men,” she said, “It sucks.”
“What?” I replied, “You can’t hire men? Why not?”
“Every time I try, we get parents who freak out. If they find out we’re even interviewing a man, they scream at us and complain that he’ll be a pedophile. Lots of people don’t want men near their kids. They don’t mind if women they’ve never met take care of their kids, but not men. It’s stupid.”
“You vet your applicants, right? Criminal records and things like that?”
“Of course, we’re required to. We background check the men and the women the exact same way. The parents don’t care. They don’t want any men here.”
My sister wants to hire men, yet her company is 100% female because she has no choice. The reason this conversation started was because she was talking about how she was finally able to hire a male bus driver, but even then, several moms called in to complain, because, oh no, he might be a pedophile. Now, she actually might have to fire the guy, or lose a bunch of business.
Fire him. For being man.
A few days later, I was talking to a friend of mine I’ve known for a long time who has spent several decades in education. I told her about my sister’s problem and how insane I thought it was.
“I mean, Jesus,” I said, “I realize that statistically there are more male pedophiles than female ones, but that’s irrelevant; you can’t discriminate. It’s a proven fact that women take way more sick time than men, but if an employer refused to hire women on that basis, he’d get sued into bankruptcy. Even if he didn’t, the government would crush him.”
“Actually, it’s worse than that,” she said.
“What do you mean?”
“Well, there are more male vs. female pedophiles only if you look at the entire population. If you look at education and daycare specifically, we have more problems with women behaving inappropriately with children than with men.”
“Yeah. Every few months, I see a news story about some super hot female teacher getting it on with a 14 year-old boy or something. But I don't see many stories about male teachers doing this with young girls.”
“Exactly. And you know why that is? Women in positions of authority over children aren’t nearly as careful about that stuff as the men are. Male teachers and daycare providers are constantly walking on eggshells. I mean, let’s say you were a decent-looking man in your 20s or 30s who was a high school teacher. You’d be really, really careful around those cute 15 year-old girls, because you’d know everyone would be watching you like a hawk, and you’d be right. Even if you were a creeper and were secretly attracted to those girls, you’d still make sure not do anything even close to what might be deemed as inappropriate, since you know you’ll instantly lose your job forever and go to prison. It’s a big deal. Men feel this.”
“But,” she continued, “If you’re a cute woman in your 20s and you’re in charge of young kids, including young boys, you don’t feel this kind of pressure. Male teachers are often terrified to lay even a finger on a female student, but often female teachers don’t have any big problem touching, or being touched by, male children in their care, appropriately or not. That’s why sometimes one thing leads to another with these female caregivers. So frankly, if your sister hired all men in her daycare center, she might actually have a slight decrease in the odds of something inappropriate actually happening. Not because women are more likely to be pedophiles or have those kind of desires, but because men in these positions are usually more fearful, so they’re usually more careful.”
This whole thing made me think back to something that happened when I was little. It was no big deal, and I hadn’t thought of it in decades until these conversations came up.
When I was in the fourth grade, which meant I was about eight years old, we had a teacher aide in our classroom who I’ll call Ms. Onion, because she smelled like them. Like most of my teachers and aides in the small Catholic school that my parents forced me to attend, Ms. Onion was a wrinkly, cranky old lady who was always upset about something.
One day, when the class was preparing to go to Mass (that means “going to church” for you non-Catholic heathens), Ms. Onion saw me standing by my desk, and stormed over.
“You need to tuck in your shirt!” she cried.
We wore uniforms back then. Boys had to wear blue corduroy pants with a white button-down shirt that was supposed be tucked in at all times. Girls had to wear the same white shirts with green and grey plaid skirts that were required to be longer than the knee. You know, the usual Sex Is Evil™ right-wing Societal Programming.
I looked down at myself, and saw that my shirt was tucked in.
“It’s already tucked in!” I said.
“Not in the back!” she snapped.
I turned and looked. Sure enough, the back of my shirt was out, clumsily hanging out over my butt. Ms. Onion snarled, grabbed me by the belt, pulled me over with her behind me, and shoved the back of my shirt down my pants, all the way inside my underwear. For several seconds, her hands were actually inside my underwear, the backs of her hands and fingers clearly touching my sweet little eight year-old ass.
Once she was done, she snarled at me again and moved on to go bitch at the next child. (Ah, those were the days. No wonder I couldn’t wait to be an adult.)
I thought nothing of it at the time and still don’t. Yet, as I thought about my sister’s problem, I started to wonder about something. Would any of the male teachers at my school have done that? Even if they were just as Catholic, unhappy, and pissed off as Ms. Onion, would any of them have pulled me over and shoved their hands down my underwear to tuck my shirt in, instead of verbally forcing me to do it myself?
I thought hard about it and came up with the answer: no.
What if I was an eight year old girl? Would any of the male teachers have done that?
Still no. The male teachers at my school (what few there were) would never have done such a thing regardless of my gender. No matter how angry they were, they’d be terrified to even try. But Ms. Onion did it without even thinking, like it was no big deal. Because she intuitively knew that, as a woman, she could get away with it.
As a side note, I know what some of you are thinking. Some of you heard the phrase “Catholic school” and immediately thought of priests. Yeah, plenty of Catholic priests, who of course are men, molested kids and probably still do. Priests molest children for the exact same reason normal monogamous people cheat on their partners; dysfunction always occurs when you stupidly attempt to deny biology for longer than about two or three years, as I’ve explained many times at this blog. My point here is that priests are not teachers nor daycare providers, so they don’t apply to what I’m talking about today. I’m talking about normal men and women whose job it is to hang around kids or underage teenagers all day long.
My sister can’t hire any men, even though she wants to. How many millions of people and/or businesses are running into the same problem?
Next time you hear a woman scream about workplace equality, send ‘em this article.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
everybodyhatesscott 2016-04-07 07:39:38
The pedophile rate among priests is lower than the pedophile rate among teachers. Homosexuals also have a higher rate of pedophilia than the general population and the Catholic Church didn't screen well enough for that. Maybe they should let priests get married. Full disclosure, I was also raised Catholic and went to Catholic school as a teenager.
John 2016-04-07 07:46:00
You've touched upon something else interesting with this article. As men are terrified of being even perceived as acting inappropriately with a young girl, I have to wonder how much of this leaks into our every day lives when we men see a pretty girl and want to ask her out. It never ceases to frustrate me that in my former job that a young, freshly graduated woman with blonde hair and blue eyes got to go travel as part of her job in her first year more than I ever did in my 8 years working for the same company. I just sigh whenever I hear women bitch about inequity. Yes, it's really tough being a woman... Try being a man. We have to actually go get shit or starve.
Antonio 2016-04-07 07:48:10
Your posts are true eye openers. Great article sir.
Troubadour 2016-04-07 09:42:26
That whole thing about not wanting to be seen as behaving inappropriately is really the elephant in the room in my life. My wife is a grown woman, and she agreed to an open marriage. That should be the end of it, but on some level I still fear being seen as some kind of indecent pervert, and this has caused me to develop serious trust issues. I can't flirt with girls overtly or give conversations a sexual flavor until I know them well enough to relax around them, and by the time I know them that well, I am in the friend zone. I have given up on solving this problem, which is why I'm just some weird loser who hangs out on the periphery of your sphere, instead of a winner who is getting laid like Donkey Kong. I just feel like I have too much to lose, and I can't afford to gamble on the chance of getting some strange. It's so bizarre that I'm not the slightest bit afraid of getting divorced over this. I'm just afraid of being seen in the wrong light by third parties.
Blackdragon 2016-04-07 10:11:07
The pedophile rate among priests is lower than the pedophile rate among teachers.Yes but that's likely because of what I said in the article; preists don't hang around children as often as teachers do. That's why it's not a good comparison either way.
Homosexuals also have a higher rate of pedophilia than the general populationYes, I've read that as well.
and the Catholic Church didn’t screen well enough for that.Because the Catholic Church is a dysfunctional, insular, woefully out-of-date throwback from time at least 70 years ago. Sex is the last thing they're going to talk about, with anyone. They need to update to modern realities or close their doors.
It never ceases to frustrate me that in my former job that a young, freshly graduated woman with blonde hair and blue eyes got to go travel as part of her job in her first year more than I ever did in my 8 years working for the same company.Yep. I experienced the exact same then when I worked for the corporate world. The corporate world is inherently unfair. Solution: Start your own Alpha Male 2.0 business and leave the corporate world. You'll never have that problem again.
on some level I still fear being seen as some kind of indecent pervert, and this has caused me to develop serious trust issues. I can’t flirt with girls overtly or give conversations a sexual flavor until I know them well enough to relax around them, and by the time I know them that well, I am in the friend zone.I don't understand your problem at all, but I can tell you I've never heard another man with an open marriage say that. Your problem is something else; something internal to you.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-07 10:41:55
Oh man! If I were that bus driver, I would sue your sister into oblivion if she fired me. Then again, I'm a lawyer, not a bus driver, so I have knowledge, resources, and confidence that he lacks. Shit! I wish I could fly out there and represent the dude if your sister tries something funny. Seriously though, you should probably tell her that lifting even one finger against him is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and there is no "bigoted parents" exception clause in the law. In other news, the airline company "British Airways" has an official policy stating that boys and girls 17 or under may never be seated next to an adult male on a flight, but may be seated next to an adult female. A 17 year old guy is "protected" under this policy, and then discriminated against under it a year later when he turns 18. This "all men are pedophiles" trope began in the 1970s with the feminist "National Organization for Women" which announced at the time that all fathers rights groups are run by pedophiles, forcing Betty Friedan to resign from the organization, claiming in her memoirs that she was sick of constantly having to defend men. So while feminists are whining about an imaginary "gender wage gap" men are being excluded from whole professions and, of course, get paid less as porn stars just because they're men! Perfect feminazi hypocrisy! As usual.
joelsuf 2016-04-07 11:59:30
This “all men are pedophiles” trope began in the 1970s with the feminist “National Organization for Women” which announced at the time that all fathers rights groups are run by pedophiles, forcing Betty Friedan to resign from the organization, claiming in her memoirs that she was sick of constantly having to defend men.My mom was a NOW member, and she told me this story. She fled right after Friedan did for the same reasons. She despises how perverted feminism has become. A lot of women my mom's age are the same. Even Judith Butler despises it, how feminism continues to prey upon traditional gender roles manufactured by tradcons. Its almost like they both have the same agenda. Hmm.....
Jezbat 2016-04-07 13:03:40
All true, but not strange. I understand completely that parents don´t like other men around their children. I wouldn´t. It´s only irrational if you look at it through the eyes of (social) justice. A man who wants to work in childcare is strange. Did you have a boy classmate who always wanted to work in a kindergarten? me neither, but I´ve had several girl classmates who had potential for much "more" but wanted to take care of children and there they are, teaching six years old to write and they´re happy about it. (Also reaction check: try to imagine you go out for a beer, you´ve had two, so you´re not PC anymore and someone introduces you this guy who babysits for a living. What´s your first thought?) Of course the parents are reluctant to accept that their kid be taken care of by a man. First of all, it´s statistically improbable to find a man like that (I know they exist) - so if you meet one, the red light with WEIRD written on it glares. You might enjoy weird as an interesting oddity but you don´t let them take care of your kids. Second, the job doesn´t pay well, so you know the man who does a job like that isn´t able to provide for a family. So he is probably single and probably doesn´t plan for a family. What does that mean? You don´t know for sure but you have ideas. Or he does have a family but for some reason he chose to take care of other children rather than earn enough money to take care of his own. So that means he wants to be around other kids more than he wants his own kids to be well off. The WEIRD light goes on again. Of course there may be another reason - he might be a philantropist from a rich family who lives on inherited wealth and spends his time taking care of other people´s kids (that would definitely be WEIRDest of all, because if you had enough money not to work, you definitely wouldn´t take care of other people´s kids but of their girlfriends). So however you look at it, the chances that a guy who applies for a job in childcare is completely what you would call normal are slim. Of course that 99,99% of people whom you would not call normal are not psychopats or paedophiles. But why risk it? There is absolutely nothing to gain from that risk: if the guy is normal or at least harmless (which he ALMOST certainly is) , he will be just as good as any woman. But "just as good" means that your kid doesn´t gain anything and still runs a statistically very improbable risk. Also, there is a whole dimension of risk that you did not take into account. While the risk is low in the meaning that the probability is almost insignificant, the gravity of the eventuality that the things do go wrong is extreme. The female pedophilia might be more frequent among teachers but I doubt it is equally or more violent than male pedophilia. And what is important for the parents´ perception is the picture of a dangerous paedophile. Even if it was, we would not know from the media. When you hear about women sexually abusing boys, it´s mostly just that they sleep with a teenager. That might be deemed anything from amusing to disgusting or causing psychological trauma but it comes nowhere near Dutroux. And what the parents are most afraid of is the violence, not fingers in the underpants. And the sexual violence in the media is virtually exclusively male, even though this is not completely true. Anyway the big medialised cases (which I am aware of) of torturing murdering paedophiles were males (or if there was a female implicated in the case, she was depicted as having been coerced to do it by the man).
Blackdragon 2016-04-07 13:22:23
Jezbat, I can not wait until Jack in the Box responds to your comment...
Fraser Orr 2016-04-07 17:33:49
You know the best advice you give here is "start your own business and quit your job." I have worked around american corporations for years (and even worse, British corporations) and they are cesspools of stupidity and incompetence. And all that stupidity and incompetence is multiplied by all the workplace laws. I did some consulting work for NCR corporation once. Downstairs they had the coffee machine, so I'd go down there a couple of times a day. In the cubicle next to it was this guy whose job it was to sell that electrostatic fax paper. Everyday I'd hear him on the phone trying desperately to sell five rolls of the stuff, which probably profited the company a couple of dollars a day. And he can just hide away in a big corporation. In modern corporations it is absolutely a pareto split. 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people, and the payscales do not reflect that at all, in fact people who get paid more are generally the people who are better at the non productive "play politics" kind of a thing. When I work in American corporations I sometimes wonder why the American economy hasn't long ago collapsed under the overwhelming weight of all this stupidity. Here is another true story of this person I know who was the CTO of a software company in the UK who I occasionally advise. He had one guy who just stopped turning up for work. He tried to fire him, but the legal department wouldn't let him. Well six months later it became apparent why he didn't turn up for work -- he was in jail for assault and battery. Yet despite the fact HE WAS IN JAIL, it still took his company three months to terminate him, and he got a not insignificant severance package. Oh and one more for good measure -- same guy started his own small business working out his house. Things got busy so he had to hire some help. He wanted the guy to just work out of his house, which guy was willing to do, in fact really wanted to do, but the workplace laws require that he , the employer, would then be responsible for all health and safety issues IN THE GUYS FREAKING HOUSE. Yup. So he had to rent an office, which I am sure you know is a really big burden for small businesses. As I say, it is way worse in the UK than in the US, but in both places it is crazy insane and a miracle that anything ever gets done.
Kryptokate 2016-04-07 17:35:31
Well, all those hysterical mothers are really dumb. If guys are willing and able to be caretakers of children, I'd say that's a great thing. America's pedophile hysteria is really quite strange. I'm sure that actual pedophilia must be exceedingly rare...when we're talking about attraction to adolescents though, that's different. The British Airways thing is tough. A teenager traveling alone has to be seated next to *someone*. And I'm guessing the policy grew out of complaints. When I was 14 I was flying alone to visit my grandparents and was seated next to a redneckish 40-something year old man. After the plane took off, he proceeded to take out a hardcore porn magazine and literally look through it right next to me, stealing little glances at me with a smirk now and then, with the obvious intent of trying to intimidate, embarrass, and/or titillate me. I'm still indignant just remembering this. And at 14, I was extremely shy, insecure, and certainly did not have the confidence to say anything to him or to anyone else for that matter. I just sat there in my seat, fuming internally with rage that he would pull such a dick power move and wishing I could kick him in the balls. But I didn't do anything or tell anyone. I'm guessing British Airways is trying to avoid that kind of thing happening. That's the problem. While I don't like sexism and the vast majority of men would never do something like that, there *IS* a not insignificant contingent of men who know that young adolescent girls are shy, inexperienced, and not used to talking back to adults, who absolutely do use their power advantage to harass girls and get a kick out of intimidating them. It happened to me quite a lot between the ages of about 13 and 16, I'd say at least on a weekly basis. That isn't uncommon for pubescent girls. I never said a thing back to any of the adult men who would say obscene things to me, etc, because I was too intimidated, I would just avert my eyes and pretend I hadn't heard them. By the time I was 18 I had developed WAY more confidence and a major mouth and attitude, and that kind of behavior completely stopped and never came back. The problem is that those kind of predatory guys target the least confident. Does that kind of predatory female exist? Seems doubtful. In most of the hot teacher cases, the boys were probably flirting or initiating just as much. I actually don't really care about teenagers and adults having sex, and I had a short fling with an adult man when I was a teenager, but my problem is more with truly harassing behavior that is meant to intimidate, not mutual attraction. I mean, I'm sorry, but when I was 13 I had stranger men yelling things like "what does your cunt smell like?" out of cars or across the street to me. I'm pretty sure the reverse doesn't happen that often. Which is all totally unrelated to the daycare thing. Your sister should open a separate center with all male caregivers...it might be a smaller niche market but I bet there are parents who would PREFER that.
ThomasNordic 2016-04-07 19:53:36
This doesnt seem quite as bad where I live - Denmark - but still bad enough for male workers in kindergartens and similar sometimes banned from being alone with children, which despite being illegal, is tolerated as the men want it like that for their own protection. But men are actually wanted there as far as I know. Parents want someone to play football with their sons. Its often young men assisting temporarily and its not a bad gig for an 18-year old to get 20 dollars an hour kicking a ball around with boys happy to escape the too many middle-aged women. The hysteria seems to be receding slightly. A few years ago a prominent politician had drunken sex with a 15 year old girl. His party were quick to make moves to get rid of him but then it emerged that the sex had happened at a political event with the girl being active in politics, thus likely reasonably mature. This was enough to shift public opinion with his party basically apologizing for their initial reaction.
Alejandro 2016-04-08 03:15:19
I would not want my children to be taken care of by a man either. Maybe it sounds unfair but that is just the way most people think.
A man who wants to work in childcare is strangeThis, exactly.
It never ceases to frustrate me that in my former job that a young, freshly graduated woman with blonde hair and blue eyes got to go travel as part of her job in her first year more than I ever did in my 8 years working for the same company.Her beauty makes her more fit for tasks like that (travel around and be "the face" of the company). Men need to understand that good looks, specially on a woman, is an asset by itself. In that case, she was probably more useful to the company traveling around and you were more useful staying there doing whatever you were doing.
Nathan 2016-04-08 03:29:42
I hire men exclusively, how do I get away with it? I hire on a contract basis that is renewed every 6months - if they are good they stay, if not I don't renew the contract. Sometimes I find a female they fits the hysterical feminazi type (who'd rather rile people up and gossip that do any work) via personality testing (or her refrees warn me off the record), sometimes I see her work record of changing jobs every 6months. I make sure she is of average looks as I do not want her causing any more trouble than I need. Now after 6 weeks of this shrill bitch around the work place, my male employees stop complaining about wanting some female co workers. I only keep them on for 6 weeks, and it only needs to be done every 9 months or so, to keep the men appreciating the special straight forward efficient work place I have created. I also hire them to proove that I do "hire females" 😉 I've another small business (6 or so staff) that I'm considering opening, this will be exclusively female for branding reasons, it will be on 6 month contract also. However I'm dreading it, I'll have to get a female manager, and I may have to pretend to be a real nasty fucker - so they fear me more than each other (just to keep them well in line). Hope this info helps business operators.
johnnybegood 2016-04-08 09:10:46
I was also raised Catholic, until, as George Carlin says, I reached the age of reason. I think organized religion is a joke, and religion in general is simply a delusional drug to forget your woes and hold onto the dream that we'll live forever and be reunited with loved ones (I don't believe we will), so by all means inhale religion, just don't govern by it. That said, I've also heard that the pedophile rate among priests is about equal to the pedophile rate in the general population. If true that means Catholic priests are not more likely than any other male to be a pedophile. I think the big story was that the Church itself tried to cover up the weirdos that did abuse children. I was an altar boy in the 90s (there were plenty of altar girls during this time period too, by the way) -- every time I mention that (not very often, it doesn't come up too much) --- there's always the hacky Preist-rape joke. Nah, they were your typical old geezers (or 30/ 40 something). In fact we barely spoke or interacted at all before/ during/ after mass. You were basically 'the janitor' or a toll booth operator. You brought this wine out, you brought over this book, you looked pious, etc ... and everyone ignored your existence. Except during funerals/ weddings, you might get a nice tip unexpectedly. Cash tip, you sickos. But to BlackDragon's point, at Catholic school --- we had an old female principal who was famous for grabbing you by your throat/ scruff while talking to you if you were a troublemaker. Happened to me once as well. She was famous for it. It's not just gender though, it's the time period. Early 90s, we were still far away from the modern PC society, or even the modern litigious society really. This day and age, that principal would probably have been fired and Grievance Counselors would be called in to talk to every student and change their diapers, and then someone would write an article about how race/ gender/ sexual orientation was somehow involved and rah rah rah rant.
Kryptokate 2016-04-08 11:56:00
I don't think the Catholic priest thing is representative of rates of pedophilia. Catholics (were) pressured to get married and have lots of babies and going into the priesthood was the only way a gay guy could avoid marriage without shaming himself...in fact it would elevate his family's status. So you have a bunch of gay guys in the clergy, and they're not supposed to have sex their entire lives. Also, a huge percentage of clergy don't even believe in God because they get educated out of that after getting their degrees. It shouldn't be a surprise that in this situation, some of them acted out with the adolescent boys they were around. Lesson here is that imposing celibacy on a man just based on morals isn't likely to end up working very well. At least, not unless you castrate him too. The equivalent would be putting a man who is a virgin and supposed to be celibate his entire life in charge of 14 year old girls in a situation where he is alone with them and in a very powerful position of influence. How do you think that would work out? But people need to understand that there is an enormous difference between actual children and adolescents, and the vast majority of men are NOT attracted to children. Adolescents, totally different story.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-08 12:21:40
All true, but not strange. I understand completely that parents don´t like other men around their children. I wouldn´t. It´s only irrational if you look at it through the eyes of (social) justice.Social justice???? Really? Social fucking justice? Dude, the social justice warriors are precisely the ones pushing this bigotry!!!!! If you actually believe that social justice retards think men should be protected from any type of discrimination, then you have clearly never spoken to a social justice warrior and obviously have no clue what social justice even is! Recently, during a Black Lives Matter event at Berkley, it was suggested that white men have a moral duty to commit suicide in order to end white privilege! More recently in Massachusetts, a white college professor told his white male students DURING CLASS "you don't deserve to live" and practically ordered them to commit suicide if they have any shred of decency or care about ending privilege and racism. Don't believe me? Here's the link: https://diversitychronicle.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/progressive-professor-urges-white-male-students-to-commit-suicide-during-class/ Let's put this in perspective: You have powerful and influential social justice warriors saying that straight white men have a moral duty to physically and literally kill themselves in order to make the world a better place for women, children, and racial minorities...............and................you're calling me a social justice warrior because..........I want to protect men???? Dude - Social Justice Warrior! LOOK IT UP!!!!!
A man who wants to work in childcare is strange.This is bigotry! He could be a feminine man who sleeps with dominant women. He could be gay. He could be an asexual (those tend to love children the most because children are asexual themselves, and therefore, kindred spirits). Or he could just love kids. The idea that he could be a pedophile is probably the least likely option, even though it's still possible. But you have no right to deny men employment over accusations that stem exclusively from how these men were born!
Did you have a boy classmate who always wanted to work in a kindergarten? me neither, but I´ve had several girl classmates who had potential for much “more” but wanted to take care of children and there they are, teaching six years old to write and they´re happy about it.Sure, it's more rare for men to be interested in these types of professions, but it's not unprecedented! And your argument does not even apply to the goddamn bus driver who doesn't even deal with the kids as much as the actual childcare workers do, but BD's sister wants to fire his ass just for having a Y chromosome! This is Nazi level hate that you're defending, making you a much more appropriate candidate for social justice warrior-ism! SJWs make the same arguments you're making here on this issue!
(Also reaction check: try to imagine you go out for a beer, you´ve had two, so you´re not PC anymoreLOL! There you go again! It's the PC people who are precisely on your side!!!!!!! It is very anti-PC to stick up for men, or whites, or heterosexuals in any capacity!
and someone introduces you this guy who babysits for a living. What´s your first thought?)He probably fucks dominant women within the BDSM community who strap him in chains, whip him, and dominate him!
Of course the parents are reluctant to accept that their kid be taken care of by a man.LOL, of course! The National Organization for Women was saying the same thing about biological fathers as well. Radical feminists still are! About two months ago, a feminist admitted to me that, at the urging of her feminist sisters, she did not allow her husband to change their daughter's diapers, because she didn't want him to be tempted by any "latent pedophilia" that, in her words, "all men potentially have!" She claims to love her husband and want to protect him from "unhealthy temptations" as any good wife would do! Um, yeah, I'm predicting a divorce soon, unless he's Super Beta!
First of all, it´s statistically improbable to find a man like that (I know they exist) – so if you meet one, the red light with WEIRD written on it glares. You might enjoy weird as an interesting oddity but you don´t let them take care of your kids.I would need more information before I'd allow his Y chromosome to be the cause of professional or legal second class citizenship.
Second, the job doesn´t pay well, so you know the man who does a job like that isn´t able to provide for a family.So he's not a beta provider to a gold digger and doesn't have kids of his own (maybe he's infertile). Um, okay.
So he is probably single and probably doesn´t plan for a family. What does that mean?He's..............taken the red pill? Maybe?
You don´t know for sure but you have ideas.Oh, I have ideas alright. But none you'd agree with.
Or he does have a family but for some reason he chose to take care of other children rather than earn enough money to take care of his own. So that means he wants to be around other kids more than he wants his own kids to be well off.Or maybe, he desperately wants to be with his own children but can't, because his cunt of an ex-wife stole them in a divorce and he is prohibited from seeing them via court order due to failure to pay child support as a result of "insufficient funds," so he's desperate for a job - any job - so the court will at least reinstate his driver's license upon full payment of his arrearages! But bigoted parents refuse to let him work at the day care, even as a janitor or bus driver, so it's back to the homeless shelter because his entire bank account has been confiscated by family court! Just throwing it out there!
The WEIRD light goes on again.Indeed it does!
Of course there may be another reason – he might be a philantropist from a rich family who lives on inherited wealth and spends his time taking care of other people´s kids (that would definitely be WEIRDest of all, because if you had enough money not to work, you definitely wouldn´t take care of other people´s kids but of their girlfriends).Ahuh.
So however you look at it, the chances that a guy who applies for a job in childcare is completely what you would call normal are slim.But I don't need him to be normal (read: blue pill). Who wants normal, except betas? I just need him to NOT be a child molester. And such men are extremely rare! Of course background checks should be done (even though, in my perfect world, those wouldn't be necessary because pedophiles would be executed), but unless you catch him linking to a NAMBLA site on Facebook, or discover any direct circumstantial evidence, you can't professionally discriminate like this just on the basis of biological sex!
Of course that 99,99% of people whom you would not call normal are not psychopats or paedophiles. But why risk it?Because the alternative is prejudice based solely on genetic characteristics, which violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Further, firing a bus driver because he might be a child molester is also slander, because when the new job asks why he was fired from his old one..........you get the picture. Even in a libertarian utopia, this would still violate civil law!
There is absolutely nothing to gain from that risk:Dignity for half the human population is definitely.........something!
if the guy is normal or at least harmless (which he ALMOST certainly is) , he will be just as good as any woman. But “just as good” means that your kid doesn´t gain anything and still runs a statistically very improbable risk.Actually, if a woman working at the daycare turns out to be sticking thorny rose stems up your 2 year old daughter's vagina, she would have definitely gained something better if the man was allowed to watch over her instead (even if he does get punched and whipped by his girlfriend on his own time).
Also, there is a whole dimension of risk that you did not take into account. While the risk is low in the meaning that the probability is almost insignificant, the gravity of the eventuality that the things do go wrong is extreme.I think black men SHOULD be allowed to be hired at car dealerships because I don't think we should assume they'll steal them just because they're black. Rebuttal?
The female pedophilia might be more frequent among teachers but I doubt it is equally or more violent than male pedophilia.I'm preparing a response for Kryptokate that will address this false belief!
And what the parents are most afraid of is the violence, not fingers in the underpants.What about thorny rose stems shoved inside a 2 year old's vagina by a woman? (See my eventual response to Kate).
And the sexual violence in the media is virtually exclusively male,That's because the blue pill media is misandric! And my spell checker won't even acknowledge that word!
even though this is not completely true. Anyway the big medialised cases (which I am aware of) of torturing murdering paedophiles were males (or if there was a female implicated in the case, she was depicted as having been coerced to do it by the man).Of course, it's always the man's fault, right? Just because people may be ignorant bigots due to media brainwashing doesn't give them the legal right to violate laws against slander, libel, or the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The bigotry is strong in you.
Blackdragon 2016-04-08 13:57:28
Several of you aren't understanding that it's not an issue of whether or not you're personally comfortable with a man watching your kids. The issue is in a free society, men and women should be allowed to work in whatever fields they want, and goverment should either completely stay out of it (my choice) or at least treat both genders 100% equally at all times (a less bad option). If you blatantly stated that you don't hire women because your customers might not like it, you'd be sued and/or the goverment would come crashing down you like a ton of bricks. Yet you can blatantly say this about men and nothing happens. That's the problem.
Fraser Orr 2016-04-09 06:43:41
The issue is in a free society, men and women should be allowed to work in whatever fields they want, and goverment should either completely stay out of it (my choice) or at least treat both genders 100% equally at all times (a less bad option).Honestly, I don't really agree. I think the government enforcing 100% equality between the sexes isn't much different than the government enforcing any other arbitrary standard of "fairness". You perhaps think of this as a moral Schelling point (as would I probably) but I think that is based on a lot of assumptions that you and I might share that a lot of others don't share. The only system that works is if the government stays the hell out of private arrangements, like employment. Actually I found another example besides the great example of your sister's daycare. It is an Uber replacement called "Chariot For Women" that is an Uber like system but only hires female drivers and picks up female passengers to alleviate women's concerns about assault from being picked up by male drivers. Kind of unfair in a a sense to treat all men as if they are all the worst kind of men, but it is business, and business is not about enforcing fairness, but about trading useful and valuable goods and services for money. It is a good business idea in my opinion. http://time.com/money/3305393/new-taxi-service-is-like-uber-but-for-women-only/ However, given that violence among black people is quite considerably higher than among white people, I wonder how long a replacement Uber service that only hired and picked up white people would last. Not long I suspect before the EEOC drummed them out of business. We see this in the recent legislation passed in Mississippi which allows businesses to choose not to do business with gay people. I think it is a good law, even though I think it is foolish and horrible for anyone to choose to not do business with someone on their sexual preferences. However, it is equally outrageous that some small baker, caught in the self righteous pomposity of the SJWs, can be driven into bankruptcy just because their religious convictions would not let them bake a cake for a gay wedding. People get confused about freedom. They seem to thing that freedom is the right to do what they personally approve of. The truth is that freedom is an agreement that I won't interfere with you doing things I strongly disapprove of if you will extend me the same courtesy.
Alejandro 2016-04-09 06:44:55
I think anything that gives you a competitive disadvantage as a company should be considered fair reason for not hiring somebody. If enough people worry about men taking care of their children so that your sister is losing plenty of potential or even real customers over it, the smart thing to do is not to hire men. Suppose there was a man there and many parents didn't like it. The moment a women-only daycare opens next to hers, she could lose a lot customers maybe even to the point of going out of business.
wolfofgeorgestreet 2016-04-09 08:51:20
@Jack Outside the Box
More recently in Massachusetts, a white college professor told his white male students DURING CLASS “you don’t deserve to live” and practically ordered them to commit suicide if they have any shred of decency or care about ending privilege and racism. Don’t believe me? Here’s the link: https://diversitychronicle.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/progressive-professor-urges-white-male-students-to-commit-suicide-during-class/Dude, that's a satirical blog, the article is satire, it even has a disclaimer on the site: https://diversitychronicle.wordpress.com/disclaimer/ you're doing the same thing the SJW's do when they write stuff like this: http://www.buzzfeed.com/robstott/whats-the-roosh#.rhnoYDj9Ee
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-09 09:54:16
Several of you aren’t understanding that it’s not an issue of whether or not you’re personally comfortable with a man watching your kids. The issue is in a free society, men and women should be allowed to work in whatever fields they want, and goverment should either completely stay out of it (my choice) or at least treat both genders 100% equally at all times (a less bad option). If you blatantly stated that you don’t hire women because your customers might not like it, you’d be sued and/or the goverment would come crashing down you like a ton of bricks. Yet you can blatantly say this about men and nothing happens. That’s the problem.In addition to this hateful double standard, there is also the issue of slander and stigma that I mentioned. Even in a perfect libertarian utopia, it would still violate civil law to slander an innocent man as a child molester. It is wrongful (false) and hurtful (concretely injurious to reputation if the new boss asks why he was fired from his old bus driving job). I'm not contradicting libertarian principles here; just pointing out that slander/libel would still be a legal issue in an absolute free market!
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-09 10:16:37
I would not want my children to be taken care of by a man either.You should probably look into that.
that is just the way most people think.And that should be your first clue that something is wrong.
A man who wants to work in childcare is strange This, exactly.What do you have against strange? I'm certainly strange. BD is strange. Every man and woman unplugged from the matrix is strange. But that doesn't mean we butt fuck little boys! For fuck sake!
If enough people worry about men taking care of their children so that your sister is losing plenty of potential or even real customers over it, the smart thing to do is not to hire men.So civil laws against slander/libel should be repealed under the "bigots with money" exception clause?
Suppose there was a man there and many parents didn’t like it. The moment a women-only daycare opens next to hers, she could lose a lot customers maybe even to the point of going out of business.That woman only daycare wouldn't last long because it would be sued into oblivion!
Evan 2016-04-09 11:06:34
oh ho this is a good post. I'm in Singapore where everything is policed so you're not likely to get inappropriate female teachers, but the background heat against males is definitely stronger. I think you once wrote that there seemed to be more alpha looking asian singaporean guys - that could be because the competition is so intense just to get a scrap of attention from pedastalized pussy. Many betas still though.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-09 11:40:35
The only system that works is if the government stays the hell out of private arrangements, like employment.Sure. Assuming that innocent people aren't being slandered/libeled.
Actually I found another example besides the great example of your sister’s daycare. It is an Uber replacement called “Chariot For Women” that is an Uber like system but only hires female drivers and picks up female passengers to alleviate women’s concerns about assault from being picked up by male drivers.What about transgendered women who were born men?
Kind of unfair in a a sense to treat all men as if they are all the worst kind of men, but it is business, and business is not about enforcing fairness, but about trading useful and valuable goods and services for money. It is a good business idea in my opinion.Show me a business, in a pure laissez faire free market that slanders innocent people and smears their reputations and I will show you a business getting sued like crazy! I hope you're not a businessman. If you are, be careful.
However, given that violence among black people is quite considerably higher than among white people, I wonder how long a replacement Uber service that only hired and picked up white people would last. Not long I suspect before the EEOC drummed them out of business.My point exactly.
We see this in the recent legislation passed in Mississippi which allows businesses to choose not to do business with gay people. I think it is a good law,I agree. That is a good law. But only because gay people aren't being slandered. These businesses just don't approve of homosexuality, which is a valid opinion to have. On the other hand, if they slandered all gays as pedophiles..........well, then they'd have a lawsuit on their hands, even in a completely free market.
However, it is equally outrageous that some small baker, caught in the self righteous pomposity of the SJWs, can be driven into bankruptcy just because their religious convictions would not let them bake a cake for a gay wedding.I agree. Everyone is entitled to their own secular or religious opinions. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, the government has no business encroaching upon the baker's religious freedom. However, if the baker started slandering gays by claiming they are all child molesters.......well........than that bake shop would have a lawsuit on its hands, even in a completely free market! I'm hoping you see the difference here!
People get confused about freedom.Yes they do, sadly!
They seem to thing that freedom is the right to do what they personally approve of. The truth is that freedom is an agreement that I won’t interfere with you doing things I strongly disapprove of if you will extend me the same courtesy.Correct! But you have no freedom to defame other people's characters by falsely accusing them of being criminals. Accusing people of something they're not violates civil law and it should.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-09 14:08:57
I’m sure that actual pedophilia must be exceedingly rare…when we’re talking about attraction to adolescents though, that’s different.Exactly! We are programmed by evolution to be attracted to biological signs of fertility. So if you are sexually turned on by a 14 or 15 year old, relax, that means you're normal. Being turned on by teenagers has NOTHING to do with pedophilia, which is an attraction to pre-pubescent pre-fertile children (which is a sickness).
The British Airways thing is tough.Okay so apparently my information was out of date. After a lawsuit, British Airways has wisely thrown out that policy in 2010 (damn that was a long time ago, lol)! But here's the bad news: Three other airline companies still have that exact bigoted policy - Qantas, Air New Zealand, and Virgin Australia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_seating_sex_discrimination_controversy
A teenager traveling alone has to be seated next to *someone*. And I’m guessing the policy grew out of complaints. When I was 14 I was flying alone to visit my grandparents and was seated next to a redneckish 40-something year old man. After the plane took off, he proceeded to take out a hardcore porn magazine and literally look through it right next to me, stealing little glances at me with a smirk now and then, with the obvious intent of trying to intimidate, embarrass, and/or titillate me.That's a good argument for the company to prohibit looking at pornography on their planes, but not to ban people from sitting next to children just because of their DNA!
That’s the problem. While I don’t like sexism and the vast majority of men would never do something like that, there *IS* a not insignificant contingent of men who know that young adolescent girls are shy, inexperienced, and not used to talking back to adults, who absolutely do use their power advantage to harass girls and get a kick out of intimidating them.Um....okay, so.......how would you feel about a policy stating that men can't sit next to children at sporting events? Public buses? Subway trains? Movie theaters? How far would you allow the demonization of half the human species to progress before you say "Enough?"
That isn’t uncommon for pubescent girls. I never said a thing back to any of the adult men who would say obscene things to me, etc, because I was too intimidated, I would just avert my eyes and pretend I hadn’t heard them. By the time I was 18 I had developed WAY more confidence and a major mouth and attitude, and that kind of behavior completely stopped and never came back. The problem is that those kind of predatory guys target the least confident.Were you the victim of a crime? If not, those men should be allowed to"target" you in whatever manner they see fit. Morally, I don't condone the despicable behavior you described, but freedom is freedom. If a private company wants to make rules against said despicable behavior, in order to end the harassment and intimidation, fine. Private companies can do what they want. But they are not allowed to violate defamation of character laws by stigmatizing the innocent with the guilty, just on the basis of genetic characteristics, as distinguished from bad behavior!
Does that kind of predatory female exist? Seems doubtful.I hope you don't believe this. If you do, check out these three videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc6aJC46Q8&list=PL0A235BDB72C8F8FB&index=29&nohtml5=False https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz_n89ZbZ58&nohtml5=False https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjWLuAGGUYs&nohtml5=False
In most of the hot teacher cases, the boys were probably flirting or initiating just as much. I actually don’t really care about teenagers and adults having sex,Agreed! Nature has given us the age of consent - puberty. Laws shouldn't fuck with nature. Of course, I don't condone breaking the law (you'd have to be stupider than a moron to sleep with someone under 18 in the U.S., considering the consequences), but these ridiculous "statutory rape" laws should definitely be repealed. Only pedophilia - sleeping with/raping pre-pubescent and pre-fertile children - should be a crime (preferably punished with death - it's a waste of tax money to keep tabs on these degenerates for life!). Just make sure you're equally okay with teenage girls sleeping with men, not just teenage dudes screwing hot females!
and I had a short fling with an adult man when I was a teenager,Nice! I hope he didn't get into trouble though (he was definitely a reckless moron).
but my problem is more with truly harassing behavior that is meant to intimidate, not mutual attraction. I mean, I’m sorry, but when I was 13 I had stranger men yelling things like “what does your cunt smell like?” out of cars or across the street to me. I’m pretty sure the reverse doesn’t happen that often.You're making good arguments to restrict behavior, not all men because of how they were born! Shit, if I'm ever on one of the above three airplanes and they tell me to find another seat because I'm sitting next to a kid, I would become a motherfucking white male Rosa Parks, baby! History books, here I come! I expect my statue right next to hers!
people need to understand that there is an enormous difference between actual children and adolescents, and the vast majority of men are NOT attracted to children. Adolescents, totally different story.So true! It makes me sick that in many states, there is literally no legal distinction between a 47 year old man raping an 8 year old girl and a 14 year old boyfriend having consensual sex with his 14 year old girlfriend. NO. LEGAL DISTINCTION. INSANE! .
Blackdragon 2016-04-09 15:23:23
I think the government enforcing 100% equality between the sexes isn’t much different than the government enforcing any other arbitrary standard of “fairness”.Of course I agree. I'm a libertarian. There shouldn't be any government regulation of any business whatsoever. I was just offering a less-bad, more realistic option. "No regulation regarding hiring whatsoever" isn't something that's going to ever happen in the Western world. We're actually moving in the opposite direction.
Anon. 2016-04-09 15:45:14
but my problem is more with truly harassing behavior that is meant to intimidate, not mutual attraction. I mean, I’m sorry, but when I was 13 I had stranger men yelling things like “what does your cunt smell like?” out of cars or across the street to me. I’m pretty sure the reverse doesn’t happen that often.You’re making good arguments to restrict behavior, not all men because of how they were born!
Fraser Orr 2016-04-09 15:50:58
Jack Outside the Box says
Sure. Assuming that innocent people aren’t being slandered/libeled.Jack, I am sorry if I am being dumb, but I don't see the connection. What has the freedom to choose with whom you do business got to do with libel and slander? Perhaps if you could explain the connection I could better understand your argument.
joelsuf 2016-04-09 19:04:29
freedom is the right to do what they personally approve of. The truth is that freedom is an agreement that I won’t interfere with you doing things I strongly disapprove of if you will extend me the same courtesy.Congratulations, you've just pushed my anarchist button. The first definition you gave is the only pure definition of freedom. The second definition involves consensus, which is not fact based. That makes your modified definition of freedom impure. In a truly free area, anyone can do anything to anyone or anything. Its like George Carlin said in his final HBO special: "I feel like I have the right to do whatever I want. But if you don't like it, you have the right to kill me. So where are you gonna find a better deal than that?" And trust me, if everyone followed this "code," all the crimes we talk about would plummet real fast and we would come to a consensus to not hurt anyone unless they provoke that is actually voluntary. Back to BD's post here, no one on either side seems to understand that equality (like good and evil) is an abstract. It all depends on who is being affected. If BD's sister's job was able to hire men, this wouldn't even be written. If cold approaching was illegal and making moves on chicks was illegal but female-on-male, female-on-female, and male-on-male rape was still practiced and celebrated (which many current day female supremacists want), THEY wouldn't care either. So like consensus, equality and justice are terms that groupthinks use to control others. Since the world is always in a natural state of chaos, there will always be inequality. Anyone from any gender will be discriminated against, that's just how humans are. As a defense mechanism (and a VERY effective one), we tend to eliminate difference (or in the modern world, exploit it) for the protection of our own group.
Lovergirl 2016-04-09 19:49:34
There is no way in hell I would leave my small children in a daycare with men. It's too dangerous. I don't care if it's PC or "equal" or not and anyone who actually cares about children is going to put their safety before some ideals about how men should have "rights" to access their children. Does that mean every man is a sick, psycho, perverted child molester? No, but there are a hell of a lot of them out there that are! Go look at a crime map of your city and see just how many registered sex offenders live near you. Then click on their pictures and see if you see ANY women. Guaranteed the VAST majority will be men. Then read the blurbs about what these sick fucks actually DID. Sodomized a 4 year old? It'll be in there.... and they are out there, running free. The main reason this ever HAPPENS is because naive people DON'T take enough measures to keep men from having access to their children. They have these idealized notions about things like, oh, I want to hire MEN to work in a fucking daycare! Come on!! What kind of MAN wants to work in a daycare?! Back when my ex husband was in ministry at a small church, I wouldn't leave my children in the church nursery. Why? Because there was a MAN working in there and I felt extremely uncomfortable with it. Like, um, why is this guy in here with the 2 year olds, by HIMSELF? I would instead, carry my baby out in the hallway if he was crying, by myself. One time I was doing this and walked past the nursery to see this man in there with a little 2 year old girl in a dress. Her family did not speak English and so she was especially vulnerable. She was on his lap and SCREAMING. I intervened and took her away from him, keeping her with me for the duration of the service. I later talked to another mother in the church, a former kindergarten teacher, who had a baby the same age as mine. Her husband was a police officer. I expressed my discomfort with this man being in the nursery and she said she felt the same way. So her husband looked him up and guess what? He was a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER with offenses against children! Is it any wonder he wanted to work with them? Clearly the people who allowed this were not cautious enough, but before someone is caught they have usually harmed MULTIPLE kids. I wish I could say this kind of thing was an isolated case, but it's NOT. It's fucking EVERYWHERE! I did an internship with child protection services and saw some pretty horrific things- like one and two year old boys that had been RAPED by a man. I never saw anything like that happen with a woman! I worked in a home for boys and half of them had been sexually abused, by MEN. HALF. Not women, MEN. One little 6 year old boy, probably the worst behavior case I have ever seen, had been involved in a child pornography ring, run by a man who "adopted" this child at the age of 2 and gave him his name, as a cover. I have seen way too much to ever feel safe with men who want to be "babysitters" to small, helpless children. I have seen COUNTLESS cases where young girls were molested or raped by men who were given access to them. It isn't like parents are being afraid for no reason! Hell, my former stepfather is a pedophile- that molested my sister when she was 4-5 and guess what he is doing for a living now? He works for the public school system in Florida. Because I have no physical "proof", even though I bore witness to some of what happened, I can't get him fired. That's what pedophiles DO. Try to find ways to gain access to children, where they are TRUSTED by their parents. As for what Kryptokate is saying, yeah that too. Men start preying on girls the minute they hit puberty. The comments, catcalls, and all that can be very frightening to young girls. Since most of us have experienced completely inappropriate advances from men at a young age, is it any wonder most women don't trust men around their 11-12 year old girls?
Machiavelli 2016-04-10 03:55:03
@Jezbat Very very wise words from you.It ain't about Social Programming,a guy working in a day care is indeed peculiar because men are not designed to be it. I totally understand that some men just love kids and would want to be around them all the time and take care of them,but that won't be a day care I'm would be sending my kids to. It's same just as I won't be employing a woman to lead an army of men.It would be irresponsible to do so...they aren't meant to make rational decisions and are driven by emotions.Why risk the lives of hundred other men to the mercy of an inconsistency of a lady? Bottomline is,the more men and women stick to their roles,the more the world would be happy. Feminism has polluted the society to a large extent and women today have stolen some top positions of men which plays a large part to the emasculation of men.But,damage has been done. It's always easier to change yourself than to change society.
joelsuf 2016-04-10 04:11:17
Go look at a crime map of your city and see just how many registered sex offenders live near you.Yeah, its frightening. Just found out that Two registered sex offenders work for Feminist Frequency too, how's that for irony? lol, talk about sleeping with the enemy...seems like FemFreq is taking that concept WAY too far!! Its like I said, no such thing as equality, its not natural. Its only natural that we don't tolerate difference, its how we protect ourselves. Also men aren't naturally bred to be nurturers, so if any of them decide to work in day care guess what they are betraying their own natural instinct which is to hunt, fight, and lead. Not sure why BD put this out, maybe he was bored or just wanted to rustle the jimmies of SJWs (which is always fun no matter what side they are on), but interfering with nature is never a good thing, and that's what male daycare workers do. I mean they should be free to try (just like chicks are free to try being UFC fighters or law enforcers), but they aren't gonna have a good time lol.
Gil Galad 2016-04-10 10:54:30
@joelsuf: your characterization of human instinct is too simplistic, and you pushed my ethology button. The traits usually associated with masculinity are indeed, on average, more present in men than women, but the genetic lottery distributes them along a bell curve. The average of the men's bell curve is gonna be higher (if you were to quantify masculine traits) than that of the women's bell curve, but 1° there is overlap, and 2° it is a pretty steep curve, which is why truly natural alphas are so few among men. Usually you already know between ages 12-16 whether you're a "default alpha" or a "default beta"; I'm most definitely the latter and, had I lived in a prehistoric tribe or even a century ago, I would have been one of the complete losers, possibly an omega. It started to change when I started to work out at 15 and lift barbells at 19, further again when I had my first serious relationship which taught me stuff and led me to some early red pill (-ish) ideas and conclusions (among other things, my first serious doubts about monogamy), and the final upgrade when I discovered the manosphere and especially BD. Fortunately, because we're able to think upon our situation and attempt to change it (unlike other animals), we humans can just read a blog and decide we want to change and actually have some odds at reversing a beta destiny. So you're wrong when you think it unnatural for a man to have strong nurturing instincts. It is not a "betrayal" of male instincts, it's just an individual who's low on the bell curve. BD himself repeatedly stated that his blog is for the 30% or so of men who have a chance of becoming alphas or who are alpha 1.0 who can be happier if they switched to alpha 2.0, not for the more hopelessly beta individuals who might read his blog and even partly agree but won't change. I'd strongly recommend you read stuff like Axelrod's experiments and the hawk or dove models, etc: an animal population reaches stability when gene shuffling creates a certain ratio of two or more different behaviors, for example 20% "hawk" (aggressive) to 80% "dove" (peaceful). It also works within one given individual: for example it'll be aggressive 20% of the time and peaceful 80% of the time. Furthermore, I disagree with your premise that we shouldn't go against nature. To use the bell curve again, there is a statistical distribution of people's inherited tendency to end up being criminals (can be exacerbated or alleviated by their upbringing, but not eliminated). At first glance, murder or rape seem evolutionarily "adaptive", because any individual would satisfy their needs for, say, territory or vengeance or reproduction or whatever. But it isn't, because when you live in a tribe people are gonna retaliate to your violence. Which is why even though the behavior still exists in humans (there were always some rare situations where systematically violent people somehow managed to be prosperous and have offspring), it isn't frequent and most people end up being non-violent: criminal predisposition exists in people at the bottom of the bell curve for the trait "empathy" or "dislike of violence", etc, and the bottom includes a very small percentage of the population. In a way, it means murder and torture and rape are "natural", but the much more widespread aversion to these things is also "natural", thus keeping them in check and creating institutions and concepts such as the law to deter people from committing them. You can't advocate "not going against nature" if humans display both a tendency and its opposite that are both "natural", whether we're talking crime, or men being suboptimally masculine according to your standards, or the human predisposition to have a low tolerance of differences. By the way, this is the point that feminists completely missed when they went into hysteria over Palmer's evolutionary explanation of rape (in 2000 I think): they thought that explaining meant justifying, and missed the fact that just like we can explain rape with biology, we can also explain aversion to rape with biology, so which of the two is "good because it's natural" ? We identify with the former and we criminalize the latter, but not based on an "it's unnatural" kind of argument. Airplanes are hugely unnatural. Of course if we're interested in building a prosperous society where eveybody wins (not necessarily in an equal way, which is close to impossible, but in such a way that the tail of the curve isn't unacceptably poor/unhappy), then we'll have to mind nature. But not with an all-or-nothing mindset that disregards a much grayer reality with various statistical distributions - due in large part to genes, not just society.
Speculation 2016-04-10 11:22:33
I love reading Lovergirls comments. They reaffirm everything men can learn about female behaviour. Feeling above all else. I'm not having a dig, just making an observation. Reminds me of the old fast seduction days with Tubaro and Money Matters, JWS etc etc.
Gil Galad 2016-04-10 11:39:39
@joelsuf: another point: you seem to rely too much on what I might call a constructed view of human values ("equality and justice are terms that groupthinks use to control others", etc). The idea of fairness is not (entirely) constructed, it exists in many species and we all have a instinctive understanding of the idea of fairness/equality. I'd bet it's your assumption that selfishness is the only trait naturally embedded in us that makes you think that you can't improve society or make it more egalitarian. The thing is that altruism, fairness and other ideas you seem to view as social constructions also arise from our genes, which is another way of saying that they can definitely be felt and defended with sincerity. They can be recycled by the power hungry as a slogan to control others, there's a difference.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-10 12:20:29
Well, actually… is this even the type of behavior that should be restricted? There are innumerable ways to inflict psychological trauma on a child, is this more offensive than telling that Syrian refugee kid that the (passenger) airplane overhead is about to begin bombing, or threatening death of pet hamster, or whatever? Or maybe parenting kids in such a way that leaves them vulnerable to this through ignorance (or shame) of all things sexual is what should be outlawed?@Anon: Whoa! Who said anything about "outlawed?" Did you read my whole response in context? I never said that obscene speech, or any type of speech, should be "outlawed" by the government. I said that private corporations on their own private property may ban obscene speech or offensive behavior against children (like the type Kryptokate described) via company policy. When I said the type of despicable behavior Kate described should be "restricted," I meant by the private sector in its own sphere of influence, not by the government through law. But the private sector can't defame men, regardless of their behavior, just because they were born with penises.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-10 12:44:57
Jack, I am sorry if I am being dumb, but I don’t see the connection. What has the freedom to choose with whom you do business got to do with libel and slander? Perhaps if you could explain the connection I could better understand your argument.@Frazer Orr: In the United States we have civil laws against defamation of character (slander is verbal and libel is written). The legal definition of defamation is - making factual (non-opinionated) statements or propagating factual notions about another individual that are (1) wrongful (false) and (2) hurtful (concretely damaging or injurious to that individual's reputation or standing within the community). This civil law against slander/libel would still exist even in a perfect libertarian utopia and a completely free market capitalist system. In a free laissez faire capitalist system, it would be perfectly legal for that woman making wedding cakes to refuse to make one for homosexuals because she's not falsely accusing them of something they're not. She is simply standing against homosexuality on religious principle. But if she started slandering them as child molesters, she could face a defamation lawsuit. Imagine that bus driver whom BD's sister fires going on his next job interview where they ask him why he was fired from his old job and he says because they suspected him of touching kids. The accusation is wrongful (false) and hurtful (damaging to his reputation and standing within the community and lessening his professional opportunities). This violates civil law because it defames his character, even in a completely free market system. I hope I have explained myself better now.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-10 13:09:17
Of course I agree. I’m a libertarian. There shouldn’t be any government regulation of any business whatsoever.@BD: But surely you agree with civil laws against defamation? If not, why not? If so, do you disagree with my interpretation of these laws in my above response to Frazer? If so, why?
Fraser Orr 2016-04-10 13:18:35
@Jack Outside the Box says
I hope I have explained myself better now.Yes, thanks, but it sounds like you are agreeing with me that businesses should be able to conduct their private employment arrangements however they see fit. So, for example, would you agree that were someone to follow the lead of the "women's only" taxi service and start a "white people" only taxi service that nobody from the government should interfere, assuming that they did not make any defamatory statements against non white people in their advertising? If they restricted themselves to verifiably correct data, such as the fact that black males commit homicide at five times the rate of white males (even though one might reasonably caveat that statement with a hundred footnotes.) As you note slander and liable require that the statement is both incorrect and concretely damaging. I would never start such a business, it'd make me sick to my stomach, but I don't think the government should prevent someone from doing so. Do you think the government should interfere with "Ladies only Taxi", or "Lilly White Taxi", or "Women only Day Care"? What say you JotB? BTW, one thing I think it worth saying is that the discrimination performed by BDs sister is almost certainly illegal. However, the government has a right to selectively prosecute, and it is really more this selective option that is the source of these inequities. It reminds me of that great quote from Ayn Rand:
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.And of course the corollary to this is that, since the government has power to select who is prosecuted and who is not, that if you make everyone a criminal then all civil rights are stripped away.
Alejandro 2016-04-10 13:25:02
Imagine that bus driver whom BD’s sister fires going on his next job interview where they ask him why he was fired from his old job and he says because they suspected him of touching kids.That was not what Blackdragon said and the driver would have to be a compete moron to put it like that in an interview. "Why did you left your old job?" "I drove a bus for a child care and some parents preferred if the bus driver was a female, so the owner had to let me go" That sounds better than "they suspected me of touching kids". Plus, in real life she would tell the driver a few months beforehand so he can start looking for another job before being fired, which makes it much easier to find a new job.
Blackdragon 2016-04-10 14:07:57
I love reading Lovergirls comments. They reaffirm everything men can learn about female behaviour. Feeling above all else.So do I. I love LG to death, but she's always been very good at proving my points for me whenever she disagrees with things I say, even all the way back to the mASF days.
BD: But surely you agree with civil laws against defamation? If not, why not?I was talking about business regulation and you're talking about defamation. Two different things. I am against defamation being "illegal." That's just more laws and we have too many. Rather, I'm for a free-market, very low cost, loser-pays legal system where if someone defames you can can sue them, easily, quickly, and cheaply, and win. In other words, defamation should be a civil matter, not a matter of governmental law. You lie about me, I sue you and show damages, you pay me. Very simple.
Jezbat 2016-04-11 01:37:10
@Jack Outside the Box BD was right, I really got you started... Although, it looks like you rather enjoy commenting. No need to get excited. All I meant was that from a position of a largely paranoid parent - which means all the parents - if anything including open discrimination of a third person can decrease a real or perceived threat to your children, you will do it. That´s what I meant by "not strange". Nowhere am I claiming that this is right or a good thing or should be mandated by law (I don´t really give a shit about those). But it seems there are people who understood (Machiavelli) or even people who demonstrate my point (Lovegirl), so I´m not going to apologize for not being clear. Anyway, thank you for commenting I enjoyed it no end. In a way your response is much more interesting than my comment itself. Who would have ever thought we would get the phrase "dignity of half the population" and "the ones pushing this bigotry!!!!!" (bold, exclamation marks and all) from somebody else than a diehard feminist? "The bigotry is strong in you." No kidding. How could I not think you´re a kind of a SJW, you just happened to pick a different "cause". Still, the statistics about violent abuse perpetrated by women as opposed to violent abuse perpetrated by men might actually get the discussion somewhere.
Anon. 2016-04-11 03:31:48
Well, try to have an unbiased look. It’s true that violent abuse by a man is more likely than violent abuse by a woman. But both probabilities are orders of magnitude lower than other things that can hurt children. For example, I read about FGM in Africa and got enraged, but then I thought that even if a woman somewhere in Somalia avoids this and keeps her clitoris, what are her chances of living a happy life and meeting decent men with whom having said organ would make any difference at all? So while movements to keep dirty hands with knives away from tender parts of small girls are good causes, to me this sounds nowhere near the biggest problem of women in Africa. Of course, parents want to shield their children from anything even slightly harmful, and this profiling would make sense if 1) they had already addressed all the risks that are more real and 2) this wasn’t at expense of other people’s rights. I see two big problems here: 1. That journalists and activists inflate certain problems out of proportion, and the public pays too much attention to those, due to emotionally repulsive nature of the problems. 2. That sexual assault is more traumatizing than other forms of abuse, which, I think, is largely due to social stigma and inadequate parenting. No idea how to fix those though.
Paul the Ostrogoth 2016-04-12 18:25:28
@Lovergirl and Kryptokate OK. So what if I decide I'd rather hire men than women for my business because women statistically take time off, sue their employers, and throw fits more often, not to mention disrupting a male working environment? I wouldn't be allowed to do that because it's illegal. Why should that be illegal, but it should be perfectly fine to not hire men for certain jobs where they might be more statistically likely to do bad things? If you're going to go the route of "it's OK to discriminate because a person MIGHT do bad things because of his demographic", you need to take it to its logical conclusion. There are a LOT of situations where male employees would be preferable (probably more than there are situations where female employees would be preferable). It would be ridiculous and hypocritical, not to mention intellectually dishonest, to defend it in one case but not the other. Yet somehow as a society we've managed to evolve to the point where people actually take people like you seriously. That's what I really find insane.
Lovergirl 2016-04-12 20:06:55
@Paul the Ostrogoth- I really think people should be able to hire whoever the hell they want to. No one should be forced to hire females if they don't choose to, or males, if they don't want to. If someone is dumb enough to hire men to work in a daycare, well, I would hope they would lose business rather than end up having kids molested. There aren't any LAWS saying you CAN'T hire men...it would just be a bad move to do so, in most cases. There are plenty of jobs that are pretty much men only, other than a rare female who actually wants to do plumbing, or construction, or maintenance work. Nobody is bothering them because so few women are interested in those jobs. Same with men and daycares, only daycares have the potential of bigger lawsuits resulting from men molesting children than from not hiring them in the first place. It's just common sense. You all are assuming that women are all wanting to be allowed into any activity men do. Really, that is just a select few. I'm not really pro women in the military, for example. Unless she is as physically capable as the men, she really shouldn't be there. Plus, its super hard for me to have respect for women who abandon their children to be in the military. I've never claimed not to be sexist in some ways.
Paul the Ostrogoth 2016-04-12 20:43:46
@Lovergirl OK thanks for clarifying. I actually more or less agree with most of what you said - I generally think men should stick to working with men in certain jobs, and women should be doing things like daycare. I'm basically an old-fashioned sexist. Your comment probably just rubbed me the wrong way because I study and work as a computer engineer, and I'm constantly bombarded with all this feminist propaganda about getting more women in tech, business, law, medicine, and other lucrative white-collar professions (and unfortunately a great deal of it comes from other men). From what I've observed about the women I work with, introducing women into traditionally male professions generally leads to them performing worse, creating drama, and forcing the men to walk on eggshells for fear of a sexual harassment suit. So I'm all for sex-segregated professions (I hate using the word "gender" to describe people because it helps legitimize the whole "sex is biological, gender is a social construct" nonsense). Though don't you think it's telling (and funny) how they only ever push for more female tech professionals, businesswomen, and doctors, and never for female coal miners or plumbers? (Or conversely, how they never push for more men in daycare centers or nursing). And yeah I more or less agree that it was never really men's place to be looking after very young children. (However, I think older children in today's world suffer from a lack of strong male role models, so I wish more men would be involved in older children's lives). But to assume that any random man is going to molest a child is ridiculous - obviously it's a small percentage of men that do that (and there are cases of women doing it too, though probably fewer). And I do think our culture today is irrationally paranoid about it - I don't think people in the pre-feminist era would have been quite as touchy about men going near their children as people now (though they probably wouldn't have liked the idea of a male babysitter, either). I've heard stories from my grandmother of adult men holding her hand as a small child when she was cold - the thought that he could have been a pedo never even crossed anyone's mind back then. To me it seems like a lot of the fear of pedophilia stems from sensational media coverage of a few incidents rather than a widespread social phenomenon. But I guess BD would just call me a "tradcon." I can't figure out what his take on all this is - he claims to be a libertarian, but he seems pretty opposed to daycare centers discriminating against male employees (libertarians would claim that anybody can discriminate however they want). Or maybe he's just making a social commentary, but not prescribing any legal remedies.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-12 21:56:45
Dude, that’s a satirical blog, the article is satire, it even has a disclaimer on the site:Jesus dude, you are so brainwashed! Don't you get it? It's always satire........until it's not. Answer me this: Is this also satire? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC-Cqkq6zWc
Lovergirl 2016-04-13 08:12:57
Though don’t you think it’s telling (and funny) how they only ever push for more female tech professionals, businesswomen, and doctors, and never for female coal miners or plumbers? (Or conversely, how they never push for more men in daycare centers or nursing).I think that is more about women not wanting to be seen as intellectually inferior. It's obvious that we don't have the same physical capabilities as men, but to be discriminated against as though we are dumber, is unfair. Men, for the most part, taking on traditionally "female" jobs would be moving DOWN the ladder and not up, so its not a wonder they don't. I'm, admittedly, still uncomfortable with the idea of a female President. Though a woman could definitely be smart enough for the job, I'm not sure she would be tough enough, especially when it comes to the issue of deciding whether to engage in WAR. Still, if it comes down to Hillary or Trump, I'm not voting for Trump. :p He'd have us in wars we don't need to be in.
ThomasNordic 2016-04-13 14:42:20
paul Ostrogoth But you are indeed a tradcon, arent you? Lovergirl spouts her chauvinistic all-men-are-child-molesters crap, closely related to the classic feminist all-men-are-rapists but thats ok as long as she somehow appreciate men in other ways, such as bestowing upon them the special honour of dying in a war. Men are probably also allowed special rights to various other unpleasant tough or dangerous work. And tradcons lap it up. Its societal programming used against men and its why most anti-feminists are no better than feminists.
joelsuf 2016-04-13 15:09:59
I’d bet it’s your assumption that selfishness is the only trait naturally embedded in us that makes you think that you can’t improve society or make it more egalitarian.Not only is it the only trait embedded in us, I'll argue that its the only thing that drives our actions. Whenever you do something altruistic, you still have expectations thereby making it selfish. I really despise when people accuse me of being selfish, because I know that their request for me to not be selfish is a selfish request for ME to do something for THEM. There's a difference between attempting to be altruistic and micromanaging your selfish desires. I do the latter, and lower my expectations accordingly. But selfish expectations etc. will always exist.
Paul the Ostrogoth 2016-04-13 23:50:52
@Thomas It's telling that LG didn't refute that the whole "men are pedophiles" thing is just feminist bullshit. Also, the "women are just as intellectually capable as men" argument doesn't make any sense here since even if it were true (I don't know if it is or not), it doesn't refute the fact that for a tech company or other white-collar firm, hiring a woman will generally be a net negative compared to hiring a man for a variety of reasons. (The proof is in the law itself: if a woman could really do the job just as well as a man, there would be no need for anti-discrimination legislation in the first place since the free market would penalize discrimination). Or the fact that she somehow thinks women shouldn't be treated as "intellectual inferiors" because "muh equality" while simultaneously busting out the "men should be treated differently because they MIGHT be pedos" card. Typical feminist logic. But I disagree with you on the whole "tradcon is just as bad as feminism" thing. Traditional values evolved naturally from our biological imperative as a society. It is natural that men should be doing dangerous, strenuous work and fighting, due to both differences in physical strength and the fact that the death of a woman is a far more serious loss than the death of a man from the standpoint of tribal survival. It is also natural that a woman should submit to and obey her man, due to differences in physical strength, the fact that he provides for and protects her, and to avoid cuckoldry, which is crucial to keeping men invested in their children's futures. Furthermore, a woman should do most of the childrearing and domestic tasks. This division of labor and sex roles would be beneficial to allowing a group to survive and grow in size, which is why virtually all traditional societies share these characteristics: they out-competed the ones that tried alternative, unnatural methods of social organization. Feminism, on the other hand, has wreaked catastrophic damage to society by destroying masculinity and community bonds. If a small but tight-knit, skilled, and dedicated force of men invaded the US and we didn't have nukes, we'd be totally fucked - we'd never get our shit together the way we did during WWII. I don't think I need to elaborate on this any further. Now, it is clear to me that modern society has abandoned the "traditional values" line, and will never pick it back up again, except by force. I expect that at some point, we will ultimately be conquered and replaced by a more coherent society, whether from the outside or the inside. But these tenets of social organization, which were up until recently a biological necessity, are what truly allow societies to "progress" and the human race to improve - not at all what passes for "progressive" in 2016.
Gil Galad 2016-04-14 07:03:45
@joelsuf: "selfish expectations etc. will always exist": true, we don't disagree on that. "I’ll argue that its the only thing that drives our actions. Whenever you do something altruistic, you still have expectations thereby making it selfish": this is where you're wrong. There is a huge misunderstanding of human ethology - the evolutionary explanation of human behavior - such that when people hear "Your attachment to your relatives comes from the selfish urge to protect individuals who have genes in common with you", they understand "you don't really love them, you're just subconsciously protecting your genes or whatever". Or when they hear "humans have evolved to be altruistic because in the past, people who were helped by other people and then returned the favor had higher survival rates on average, it's called reciprocal altruism" they understand "Every time you do something good, you're not doing it for free, you're expecting payment". This popular hybrid of psychoanalysis and evolution is a horrible distorsion of selfish gene theory and ethology in general. Do you think that birds that come to clean the teeth of a crocodile "expect" the crocodile to be nice and not eat them because they're doing it a service ? They just do it, there is no conscious (or even subconsious) calculation on their part: they are programmed to want to do it, just like we are programmed (again, to varying degrees and along a bell curve) to have a desire to help, or to dislike seeing others suffer. The problem is that people grossly misunderstand the selfish gene metaphor; in fact they fail to understand that it is a metaphor. When I say "Your genes program you to be altruistic because they expect the people you help to help you back", that doesn't mean you have that expectation, or even your genes, which are not conscious agents. The real explanantion is "there are many versions of genes that code for many behaviors, and they vary over geological time. But only the versions that code for successful behaviors ultimately survived, because those are the genes that piloted their human vehicles into reproducing so that they could still exist today at all. In humans, genes for altruism got passed on pretty successfully because altruism tended to be reciprocated, so today selfish genes build altruistic bodies/people, because it's worked for them". There is always a situation where there's no way in hell you're gonna be paid back, not even in reputation or whatever, and where you still feel the urge to help, say, a dog that's gonna get crushed by a car. You're confusing three levels of decision-making: conscious; subconscious, and gene-based, and you're assuming that "genuine" altruism is actually selfishness at the level of the subconscious, while it is selfishness at the level of genes, which is not selfishness at all as far as the individual is concerned. You ignored my suggestion to google Axelrod and the hawk/dove mathematical models etc, which would have shown you how altruism can arise in the behavioral wiring of an animal species. You seem to have deduced your own theory of human behavior in isolation from the decades of work of biologists and mathematicians, and come to the simplistic conclusion that "since an animal can only survive and reproduce if it is wired to care for just that, all motives are selfish".
GreekDragon 2016-04-14 11:58:15
America's pedophilia hysteria: http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/12/man-asks-girls-if-they-are-selling-girl
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-14 12:24:58
@Paul the Ostrogoth:
I generally think men should stick to working with men in certain jobs, and women should be doing things like daycare. I’m basically an old-fashioned sexist.Yes you are. But not against women. Your 1950s views are sexist against men, because your program would completely undo female, and therefore, male sexual liberation in the form of making women, once again, dependent on men for their economic/survival needs, thus enslaving their sex drives to their financial drives and turning them into self-righteous parasitic gold diggers using sex as leverage against men! In other words, PURE HELL!
Your comment probably just rubbed me the wrong way because I study and work as a computer engineer, and I’m constantly bombarded with all this feminist propaganda about getting more women in tech, business, law, medicine, and other lucrative white-collar professions (and unfortunately a great deal of it comes from other men).Women should get into as many lucrative white collar professions as they can because that's the only way to prevent gold digging, women closing their legs until they get paid (pure hell), and other undesirable rationalizations for female sexual restraint! I want less female sexual restraint, not more. And I want women to see sex as something they (the women) receive, not give, thus taking away all their gold digger leverage. But you seem to want men to work for sex and women to get paid for it (i.e. become self-righteous gold diggers), which means, you wish to destroy our sexually open minded culture. Men like you must be stopped!
But I guess BD would just call me a “tradcon.” I can’t figure out what his take on all this is – he claims to be a libertarian, but he seems pretty opposed to daycare centers discriminating against male employees (libertarians would claim that anybody can discriminate however they want). Or maybe he’s just making a social commentary, but not prescribing any legal remedies.BD is simply pointing out the double standard in our society in that discriminating against men is okay but not against women. He'd be fine with private business excluding people from any professions, whereas I think that would be defamation, and therefore, a violation of civil law.
But I disagree with you on the whole “tradcon is just as bad as feminism” thing.Tradcons aren't just as bad as feminists. They're worse!
Traditional values evolved naturally from our biological imperative as a society. It is natural that men should be doing dangerous, strenuous work and fighting, due to both differences in physical strengthThey do anyway. Like you said, we are physically stronger and bodily superior to women. So of course men will be the ones doing all the physically dangerous and strenuous jobs, like coal mining, etc... There is no hypocrisy from women here. They only want to work in jobs where they are our equals, not in physically demanding jobs where they don't belong. This isn't feminist hypocrisy, just commonsense!
and the fact that the death of a woman is a far more serious lossThis is female supremacy, which is a common trait among chivalrous tradcons, sadly.
than the death of a man from the standpoint of tribal survival.That's why tribalism is horseshit and should be abolished as an idea!
It is also natural that a woman should submit to and obey her man, due to differences in physical strength,As long as she does it because that's what turns her on. I value sincerity. If a woman is sincere in her submission, that's one thing. But if she's doing it because she's forced to..........well..............than you're just getting turned on by a puppet.....a soulless little doll!
the fact that he provides for and protects her,This is garbage! No adult should ever provide for, or protect, another adult. Once again, you're talking like a female supremacist who encourages men to be women's slaves, or worker bees, while the women enjoy the life of a parasite! This is female supremacist sexism! Also, if a man provides for a woman, two horrible things happen, in addition to him being a chump slave who has to work for sex instead of getting it for free: 1. The woman loses her sex drive, because she'll start fucking men for practical economic reasons, instead of sexual horny reasons, thus turning all women into asexual prostitutes who give, instead of heterosexual and insatiable women who receive. 2. Monogamy is encouraged on the man she financially depends on, thus destroying sexual open mindedness, sexual liberation, and all that good stuff that us sex positive dudes want! Why are you trying to destroy sex-positivism in favor of puritanical slut shaming and prudish conservative trash?
and to avoid cuckoldry, which is crucial to keeping men invested in their children’s futures.Huh? Paternity test, aisle 7! Is this so hard?
Furthermore, a woman should do most of the childrearing and domestic tasks. This division of labor and sex roles would be beneficial to allowing a group to survive and grow in size, which is why virtually all traditional societies share these characteristics: they out-competed the ones that tried alternative, unnatural methods of social organization.So you want women to be financially dependent on one man, thus destroying female (and therefore, male) sexual liberation, downplaying the existence of the female sex drive (because she's fucking you for non-sexual economic reasons, thus turning you into her worker/slave and her into a self righteous gold digger who thinks she's doing you a favor by fucking you), encouraging female virginity until marriage and women finding a husband at age 18, and returning to 1950s sex-negative puritanical HELL! Are you sure you belong in this community?
Feminism, on the other hand, has wreaked catastrophic damage to society by destroying masculinity and community bonds.Community bonds? Sexual liberation is impossible if we have "community bonds" and live in a society where neighbors observe neighbors. Only an individualistic society can be sexually enlightened and liberated. In a big city, you create your own community (swingers clubs, the poly community, etc..) and if you have a falling out, you can leave that "community" without physically moving. It's wonderful! Instead, you want to go back to the prudish days when neighbors enforced cultural norms and cockblocked be? Fuck your "community bonds!" Move to Saudi Arabia!
If a small but tight-knit, skilled, and dedicated force of men invaded the US and we didn’t have nukes, we’d be totally fucked – we’d never get our shit together the way we did during WWII. I don’t think I need to elaborate on this any further.Then I guess it's good that we have nukes! You're fantasizing, just like Doclove!
Now, it is clear to me that modern society has abandoned the “traditional values” line, and will never pick it back up again,Thank god! My OLTR lifestyle would be impossible otherwise!
I expect that at some point, we will ultimately be conquered and replaced by a more coherent society, whether from the outside or the inside.That's why we're preemptively bombing the Muslims now. I at least commend the CIA for its long term vision!
But these tenets of social organization, which were up until recently a biological necessity, are what truly allow societies to “progress” and the human race to improve – not at all what passes for “progressive” in 2016.So in order to "progress" we need to be slut shaming, virgin encouraging, sex hating, male enslaving, and female parasiting prudes??? Fuck that!
joelsuf 2016-04-14 13:23:34
Tradcons aren’t just as bad as feminists. They’re worse!Flawless Mic Drop victory for Jack as usual. Although I think its funny that this new generation of feminists like Anita Sarkeesian etc only have an interest in swapping out the dominant gender, making feminism the new patriarchy. The clearest example of this is the Chick Ghostbusters movie. Same movie, only the genders are swapped. If that doesn't confirm a tradcon and feminist collusion agenda, I don't know what does lol.
ThomasNordic 2016-04-14 15:13:36
@ Paul But isnt it interesting that you need to invoke massive external problems like WW2 to sell the idea of these great communities, that perhaps do not seem too attractive in the absence of such issues where focus might shift to the poverty and stiffling oppression. It was hardly that great. The british ditched Churchill, possibly the greatest politician of all time, right after the war despite his status as national hero because of a massive desire for social change. Feminism didnt cause changes. Economic growth did. Has something been lost? Sure, but you cant re-build communities that where historically based on shared hardship. I seriously doubt many people would like everyday life of back then to return. We are far too rich and free for that. That doesnt mean you cant have strong communities. That will just have to happen in a different way. I think localism will be quite a force in the future as a reaction to, and in a mix with globalism. But none of the oppressive crap that belonged in a poorer society. And women can do what they want. Why would you want them removed from your everyday life and why on earth are they worth more than you. Its bizarre that you would apparently die before a Lovergirl type who in return consider you little more than a child molester. The big problem for modern feminism is the realisation that men were also set free. They absolutely hate that. In some weird ways they are becoming more allied with tradcons because they need help limiting mens freedom. They should not get that.
Gil Galad 2016-04-14 17:53:24
The big problem for modern feminism is the realisation that men were also set free. They absolutely hate that. In some weird ways they are becoming more allied with tradcons because they need help limiting mens freedom.An interesting point of view. Thomas Nordic, does your username imply you're from a scandinavian country ? If so, how much of a negative effect is the whole gender neutral, women-and-men-have-no-innate-psychological-differences propaganda having on women and dating ? I currently live in France and for now the women don't seem too bad, but France has very recently copied the swedish law that penalizes the clients of prostitutes. I also do feel that many french men are strongly betaized, though I might be generalizing.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-04-14 19:05:55
Yes, thanks, but it sounds like you are agreeing with me that businesses should be able to conduct their private employment arrangements however they see fit. So, for example, would you agree that were someone to follow the lead of the “women’s only” taxi service and start a “white people” only taxi service that nobody from the government should interfere, assuming that they did not make any defamatory statements against non white people in their advertising?Your question hinges on whether you can exclude an entire group of people from employment, based solely on their genetic characteristics, without violating the civil law against defamation. That's tough, because remember, you're not excluding them because they're rapists or pedophiles. You're excluding them because they're men. In your example with the "white only" cab, you're excluding black people because you believe they will be violent, not based on any evidence, but just because they're black. My direct answer is this: If you can show me a private business that discriminates against people based solely on genetic characteristics that, at the same time, is somehow NOT defamatory to that group then, as a libertarian, I'll reluctantly agree to be in favor of it. Otherwise no, because the private employer is violating laws against slander/libel.
If they restricted themselves to verifiably correct data, such as the fact that black males commit homicide at five times the rate of white malesIrrelevant! In a civil court, you cannot use statistics about an entire group of people to impugn the character of a specific individual from that group whom these statistics may very well not apply to. That is a form of illegal defamation. Analogy: If a private company were to start dumping toxic cancer causing chemicals into a public school's drinking water, not all the parents of the kids who got cancer would win their lawsuit, because the parents would still have to prove that those toxic chemicals caused the specific cancer of the specific child. In other words, they'd have to prove that the child wasn't going to develop cancer anyway from a source completely unaffiliated with the private company! Isn't the law cool? 🙂
As you note slander and liable require that the statement is both incorrect and concretely damaging. I would never start such a business, it’d make me sick to my stomach, but I don’t think the government should prevent someone from doing so.That business though would have to tread lightly, because if even one member of the excluded group could concretely show damages, the business could be sued into oblivion. The airline company Virgin Australia doesn't allow men to sit next to unaccompanied children. One time, a flight attendant ordered a man to trade places with a woman. She told the woman in question that she must trade places with him, because, in the flight attendant's words, "He's not allowed to sit next to minors." Surely, the woman instantly thought he's a pedophile. Imagine two months later he goes on a job interview and the interviewer just happens to be that woman who thinks he's a pedophile because of what the flight attendant said. By not getting that job, he can sue Virgin Australia for defamation. So, even in a libertarian utopia, these business need to think long and hard about discriminating against people based on genetics.
Do you think the government should interfere with “Ladies only Taxi”, or “Lilly White Taxi”, or “Women only Day Care”? What say you JotB?See my direct answer above.
Fraser Orr 2016-04-14 20:56:41
@Jack Outside the Box
Your question hinges on whether you can exclude an entire group of people from employment, based solely on their genetic characteristics, without violating the civil law against defamation.Hmmh, this is where your argument is confusing me. Defamation requires, as you stated, both that I make a claim about someone and that that claim is not true. So if I say "On average white people are less likely to be violent, and so our taxi cabs just take white people to reduce the risk to our passangers", by no means is that defamatory. Ugly it might be, but not defamatory.
I’ll reluctantly agree to be in favor of it.I am not "in favor" of such a business, I just don't think that the government has any business interfering in it. If people are sufficiently offended by it they might very legitimately take private action such as campaigning against it, boycotting it, or making a big fuss about it in the press. See, for example, the actions being taken against various fat cats being exposed for hunting large game in Africa.
Irrelevant! In a civil court, you cannot use statistics about an entire group of people to impugn the character of a specific individual from that group whom these statistics may very well not apply to. That is a form of illegal defamation.But "Whites Only Taxis" doesn't defame any individuals, it makes correct statistical statements, and uses that to legitimately select who it will do business with.
That business though would have to tread lightly, because if even one member of the excluded group could concretely show damages, the business could be sued into oblivion.Not true. The plantiff would have to also show that the statements were untrue. Jamal might sue them, but if WhitesOnly had claimed that Black People were on average more prone to violence they said nothing about Jamal.
Imagine two months later he goes on a job interview and the interviewer just happens to be that woman who thinks he’s a pedophile because of what the flight attendant said. By not getting that job, he can sue Virgin Australia for defamation.He can sue them, but he wouldn't win (unless they settled) because the airline never said that that man was a pedophile. Just because someone draws an unreasonable conclusion doesn't make the original statement actionable.
joelsuf 2016-04-15 00:22:55
In some weird ways they are becoming more allied with tradcons because they need help limiting mens freedom.Its not that weird, they pretty much depend on each other. I'll go so far as to say that they are working together behind closed doors to create a new world order of sexuality. Gloria Steinem's writing style is eerily similar to most white supremacists. Bell Hooks physically preaches Black supremacy as well as Female supremacy where she wants women to "become the new patriarchy." Feminist Frequency has (at least) two convicted (and well paid and religious) pedophiles working for them. I will say that they don't want to only limit the freedom of men, they want to limit the freedom of anyone who disagrees with them, even LGBTs. I actually feel just as bad for Manopsherians who are seduced by tradcons as LGBTs who are seduced by Feminists because I know that both of those groups will eventually be targets for them. Its just a matter of time. Tradcons want trophy wives who will obey everything they say. So they demonize chicks who have too much sex by saying that they are immersed in a "hookup culture" which "has negatively rewritten the conventions of relationships to make them less meaningful." They want both men and women to have one partner and one partner ONLY, and the tradcons themselves must approve of it. Current day feminists want cucks who will obey everything they say (of either sex). So they demonize people who don't white knight them as members of "rape culture." They view conventions of dating that they don't agree with as "rape culture" as well. They say that individuals like Beyoncé who know that sex sells and are willing to liberate themselves by doing performances to please both women and men are "terrorists (Here's looking at YOU, Bell Hooks)."
ThomasNordic 2016-04-17 03:18:09
@ Gil galad Yes, I am from scandinavia but Denmark, not Sweden, which is a pretty big difference. There is none of that gender neutral propaganda here. Thats sweden. Its often reported here but mostly for light entertainment. To illustrate the difference. Sweden has a male prime minister, a self-declared feminist leader of a feminist government. Whereas Denmark has had a female prime minister, who would not declare herself a feminist. She couldnt. Its very unpopular. She sat four years, not once, I dont think, mentioning the f-word. Sweden is feminist because its people are quite authoritarian, accepting the will of the state, thus making the elite powerful. And the elite loves extreme left wing values such as feminism. In Denmark its the opposite. Voters run the place. There is no acceptance of the state interfering in peoples lives except to help the old, poor, sick etc. Its a crucial difference. The swedish welfare state is like parents and children. The danish is about personal freedom. You mention prostitution and thats a good example, though there are many. Its banned in sweden but legal in Denmark. Neither is going to change. Sweden has banned it ( for the buyers, men, of course) simply declaring it violence. No need to explain or argue. Only evil misogynists would dare question the ban. In Denmark its impossible to ban because its an invasion of personal freedom, thus needs clear reasons for a ban. And that does not exist. It would be a nightmare for politicians to do here. The media would love to report all the wasted police ressources, surveillance and harrasment of individual people if such a ban happened.
ThomasNordic 2016-04-17 03:51:27
@ joelsuf The goal of tradcons are rather obvious and it makes sense for them to embrace feminism in some areas such as the whole american campus rape thing, which I find fascinating as its surely the most extreme feminist achievment on a global scale. Depending perhaps on how its enforced. Why wouldnt tradcons love it. The new consent standards effectively make men guardians of women and make sex potentially too dangerous for men. A tradcon dream come true. But why does feminism want that? The original womens liberation or sexual revolution would have been about women being strong. Now its all about women being weak.
Fraser Orr 2016-04-17 08:33:04
Yes, I am from scandinavia but Denmark, not Sweden,Thanks Thomas. I am as guilty as others of thinking of all Scandinavian counties as one. Your comments tell me that I need to find out more about Denmark.
Gil Galad 2016-04-17 08:50:59
@Thomas Nordic: Wow, thanks a lot for the info. I must admit I'd assumed Denmark to be more or less like Sweden. One of the reasons is that I (distractedly) watched a documentary some years ago that was promoted by a Danish company (or something. My memories are hazy, but they still biased my judgement): they were basically justifying stuff like fat acceptance (ie: shut up men, fat is objectively beautiful) with maddeningly simplistic evolutionary "explanations", such as "whales store fat to survive, fat would be adaptive, men must be attracted to obese women", etc. I was watching and shaking my head, and I know that any real evolutionary biologist who knows the complexity of this stuff would be banging his head against a wall. Obviously I painted myself a whole picture of Denmark based on just one vague memory plus the association with Sweden lol. What you told me is refreshing, thanks again.
66Scorpio 2016-05-26 17:22:10
I'm a former lawyer from Canada who bumped up against workplace discrimination law as I handled wrongful dismissal cases from time to time. Under statute you are allowed to discriminate on a prohibited ground if there is a Bona Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR). If a person is incapable of performing the major job duties then they are out. However, the courts have said that customer perception is not a BFOR. If your customers are all flaming racists then you are not justified in not hiring or firing the black guy or taking him off the front desk to work in the back room. I was having an online discussion about this recently in the same sort of context of how workplace equality is a one-way street. My example wasn't daycare but rather lingerie sales. You could take a top-notch salesman and he wouldn't get hired by a Victoria's Secret retail store. The flip side is when that punter sued Hooters to hire him and won. I guess there are two takeaways. One is that people are stupid and customers will discriminate for all sorts of illogical reasons. The second is that the laws are even dumber and punish (small) businesses for trying to appeal to their customer base.