Women And The End Of Innovation...

J

JakeStratham

New member
Oct 28, 2009
2,641
177
0
Location, Location
Read.

If you have ever read Fred, you know he has plenty of venom. And he's willing to spread it around without pulling punches. But when it comes to women,* he usually takes the gloves off and starts swinging.

I post this in fun, but also because I'm "friendly" to some of his thoughts on this stuff.

Read.

Sound bite:

Women seem to have no idea how profoundly they depend on men, and not just to fix thingy-whiches that make cars go. The pattern is that men invent and women use. Men invented cars, and women learned to drive them, usually without having the foggiest idea of how they work. Men also invented refrigerators, television, aircraft, hair-dryers, and tampons. Since women with few exceptions do not think technically unless they have to, they are unaware of the inordinate amount of inspired brainwork that led over millenia to computational fluid dynamics, band theory, the double helix, and TCP/IP.
Click to expand...
And with that, we're off to the races. :)


Enjoy.



* Technically, feminists.
 


UuymI.jpg
 
Geez... talk about a rant.

That argument is so full of holes. He's claiming that women aren't good at technical things because they haven't invented much historically.

So the fact they typically weren't allowed to do anything but stay at home and have children up until the 1960s doesn't have anything to do with it then?

He reads as a typical conspiracy nut... deciding his agendas in advance, then warping whatever facts he can do support it, no matter how tenuous they are. He just ignores conflicting or inconsistent explanations.


I'm guessing he's conveniently ignoring Marie Curie (theory of radioactivity), Ada Lovelace (computers, influencing Charles Babbage), Stephanie Kwolek (kevlar), or Dorothy Hodgkin (protein crystallography)?

The argument about the world becoming more "feminised" has some legs, because traditional mechanical jobs have less value than they did in the West.
 
The biggest hole in his article is how he ignores completely the world wars, where women had to take on "men only" jobs. Fixing cars, building airplanes, assembly lines, ect.

Men and Women have different preferences definitely, but just like a guy can conquer the kitchen if he were inclined to do so, a women can conquer the garage just as easily.

It's the motivation that matters behind developing a skill set, not whether you have an innie or an outie.

Another good point is, only recently have women had the freedom to try to do "men only" things. There were some long periods of history where a woman simply didn't have an option to explore more physical or manly work.

I'm in no way defending feminists either, those bitches be scary. Some of them sound like Hitler, and that's when they aren't even bleeding. I'd go out on a limb and say a lot of men would be in ovens if some of these feminists got their way. (Tough to debate feminism without breaking Godwin's law, sorry!)
 
Fred is great, and there are definitely enormous differences between men and women. Men tend to create more, and thus cause more destruction (a by product of creation) and women tend to apply creation to every day life.

The point is that men and women create a harmony by working together, and neither side is sufficient for a complex society on their own.

Fred reminds me a LOT of the Sage of Baltimore, HL Mencken. Mencken hated women almost as much as he hated men. The joke being, he was critical of both, but he feared women and thought men were mostly fools.

One of his great lines is, single men know women best, or else they would be married, which looks like a shot at women, but is really a shot at married men.

Anyway, have back at it seriosos.


EDIT

Also, the feminization of men has to do with two things in modern social democracies.

1. The creation of a bureaucratic class, which is significantly composed of educated females, reducing the role of men as alpha providers

and

2. The fact that men are encouraged to be children until their late 20s, when men typically had their own families at the age of 15 as recently as 200 years ago. Young men are encouraged to party, worry about their looks, play around, and avoid serious decisions until much later in life. This leads not just to a feminization of men, but their infantilization, and why it is so damn hard for a woman to find a good man in his 20s.

* of course, plenty wrong with the role of young women too. But the state meddling in education and jobs really distorts the social fabric in ways we're not designed to accommodate. The Prozac nation didn't start because people suddenly became unhappy without any environmental stimulus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JakeStratham
Woman are also far less drawn to monetary risk the way men are. Hence why you see 100x more males than females in casinos.

Woman entrepreneurs are the american dream.
 
@guerilla
I’m in total agreement with most of that. Here are my thoughts on this bit...

guerilla said:
The fact that men are encouraged to be children until their late 20s, when men typically had their own families at the age of 15 as recently as 200 years ago. Young men are encouraged to party, worry about their looks, play around, and avoid serious decisions until much later in life. This leads not just to a feminization of men, but their infantilization, and why it is so damn hard for a woman to find a good man in his 20s.
Click to expand...

Who is encouraging men to settle down late? It certainly isn’t the media. There are countless articles about the “peter pan syndrome” that attempt to shame men into starting families sooner. I’ve read several and not one was authored by a man (for obvious reasons).

If anything men extending their “adolescence” is a byproduct of feminism. Women were the ones encouraged to slut it up during at their peak years of attractiveness and ride the alpha male carousel. Beta males (the majority) adapted by working the dating scene the best they could while waiting for the market value of available women to drop.

Once women start losing their looks they start warming up to the idea of marrying a provider type. At this point men are more weary of the idea due to past failed relationships, the prevalence of divorce, and a more manageable sex drive no longer able to overpower their reason. This pushes back marriage even further.

More and more men are boycotting marriage. Some are cut out to be family men, while others are not. I don’t buy into the hype that a family man is somehow superior to a single man or more “grown up”. That myth is perpetuated by women, because a man that won’t serve as a wage slave is useless to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom