Players in the American women’s soccer team think they are entitled to be paid the same as players in the men’s team. Silly stuff. The pay of sportsmen and women is geared to how much revenue they bring in. Generally, women’s sporting teams bring in much less revenue than do the corresponding men’s teams. No discrimination, just business. Still, women suspect they are being treated unfairly and continue fighting for equality with men, which they have long since achieved. They would do better to join the feminist fight against transgender activists who pose the threat du jour. These activists really want to marginalise women; as would-be professional soccer playing women would find out if they had to compete with men in drag.
Ever wonder why women have equal status in the modern western world? Clearly, more status in the ABC if the preponderance of female reporters is any guide. And I still let them get on the bus first and am overly solicitous and considerate. Though a lady warden at my church, I’m treasurer, suggested one or two emails I had sent her were brusque. Mea culpa, I remember being irritated over something and perhaps being not as Christian-like as I should have been. Still, I reckon I’d have been less remorseful if a man had been the other party.
Is this deference on the part of men to women proper? I most definitely think it is. It is a sign of our peerless civilisation. Better by a country mile than any other that exists or which has ever existed. It’s a product of our Judeo-Christian roots, honed through centuries of Christianity and, importantly, through the Reformation, particularly in Britain – which, it should always be remembered with pride by those with British roots, took the lead in ridding the world of slavery, at least in the civilised western world.
Pretty sure that without Christianity and, therefore, without settlers from Christian Britain blessedly arriving on these shores in 1788, Australian Aboriginals would have become at some distinct risk of being enslaved at best. Stan Grant, Lidia Thorpe, Megan Davis, Noel Pearson, Chris Kenny, et al, take note.
Anyway back to women. Their equality hasn’t been without cost. In particular, their voting pattern has pushed politics leftwards, and that‘s been a dreadful development for human wellbeing. If left to women, no doubt, the Voice would get up. Luckily, we probably have sufficient number of male voters to kill off the racist proposition. Still, despite women’s skewed voting preferences, I would vote for universal franchise; albeit, for those aged twenty-one and over who (I’m daydreaming here) can show that they have paid (net) income taxes in at least two years or are legally married to someone who has. No sexual discrimination. All two taxpaying sexes included.
What keeps women equal? In a word men. Men brought up in a Christian culture. Mainly white men for most of the time. But what matters most is culture not race; and the influence of Christian culture, as, for example, in British India. Aboriginal women were apparently treated very badly by their menfolk in times gone by. Many still are, so we hear. That’s not too unusual in non-Christian cultures. Muslim women seem to have it tough. OK, they can drive now in Saudi Arabia, perhaps go scarf less in Iran if they’re willing to take a beating or two, and even go to primary school in Afghanistan.
The point is women are always a step away from subjection; as they’d find if Islam ever took over, as it resolutely aims to do. Outside the bounds of Christianity; that, so-called, ‘toxic masculinity’ tends to bubble up and hold sway. And it’s no accident that the ‘sisters of perpetual indulgence’ mock Christianity. Christianity, albeit less muscular than in days of old, is still a bulwark against the dissolution of society; of which gay pride and transgenderism are emblematic. Women don’t do well in dissolute societies.
What a bracing brisk read. Thanks Peter, may many more hear the simple gist of this on the wind.
Well said, Peter, and thanks.
What is to be done about women’s general preponderance towards voting for socialism and stupidity?
Pretty sure that without Christianity and, therefore, without settlers from Christian Britain blessedly arriving on these shores in 1788, Australian Aboriginals would have become at some distinct risk of being enslaved at best.
They were enslaved, after 98% of them had been murdered.
The reason?
The Wool trade, which was huge in GB at the time.
France, Spain and Holland weren’t big in Wool, so there wasn’t any percentage for them in exterminating the inhabitants.
ChatGPT isnt even phoning it in to Ed case now.
Rick
Perhaps a severe economic downturn will bring enough of them to their senses. In particular, if their children turn to asking for help just to keep afloat.
Turd Case
Evidence for your “98%” number?
And also for your hysterical screeches about mass murders on the Tom Wills thread?
No evidence offered within 24 hours will prove that you are, as usual, lying.
I recall Orson Scott Card said something about civilisation being invented by women.
It is genetic imperative. A man can spread his genes by raping and pillaging as many women as possible. A woman needs a stable environment to bring her genes to term, and raise her children successfully.
The silly part of that theory is it implies thoughtful design.
they are gatherers.
A female relative in India who has received an internship at a well-regarded scientific research institution in the West is being prevented from traveling abroad by her family because “a girl shouldn’t travel abroad on her own”. Her father is the biggest impediment. This in spite of appeals from her professors at the local IIT. This talented kid would rather be in the west.
The first thing to understand is why.
Women are used to being kept by men. That’s the way civilisation works: men are the breadwinners and women bear the children — as they were designed to do.
Then along came feminism, which taught Western women they could be “liberated” from men — half a century after Western men had granted women universal suffrage.
The only thing saving Western women from barbarism and savagery is the Christian culture that raised Western men.
So the new Western culture ushered in by feminism now expects most “liberated” women to work full-time and to feel guilty about mothering their children in the few hours they still have outside work.
Feminism is like any number of passing fads that have convinced children to hop on social justice bandwagons: they all depend on unlearning history and the wisdom of those who’ve been here longest.
Kind of. Marriage civilises men, and men then build civilisation.
Consider the societies that have large numbers of men that are unwed, such as some Muslim societies where the most desirable men end up with two or more wives, and large numbers of the lesser men do not have access to women. The unattached men can be recruited into armies for conquest, and their numbers culled, plus they can only be controlled through the strict lifestyle rules imposed by Islam. Consider also the societies where most children are born out of wedlock, whether that is black or white doesn’t matter.
When men “settle down” and consider the well-being of their family the foundations and laid for prosperity and peace. Being able to spread your seed is only the first stage, true fulfilment of the biological imperative is being able to have your offspring to the stage of being able to produce their own children.
Was she really upset or looking for an excuse?
More womin should call out this weaponized emotion or men should stop falling for it.
Have a read of Reddit topics anytime you want to see what a lack of values does to young people these days .. what a cesspit.
Twitter is better these days than it was.
If Americans are led by anything, it is Hollywood and the example there is not good. Violence and horror seem to be consistent threads that clearly, American audiences enjoy.
Maybe the oldler generations of the west were influenced by the morals of the Christian Bible, but not the current generation. That’s the source of Wokeism isn’t it, no other compass than to follow the mob, however dreadful it is, it is belonging to something. The human condition to belong to a herd.
Feel so sorry for men these days. You need not apply for CEO positions, preselection for political parties, councils, msm positions (esp ABC), the list is endless, you haven’t a hope, it’s wimmin 24/7.
As an older female, the pendulum for equality has swung too far and todays precious females make me sick with their feelings triumph facts “logic”and woe betide a male who questions or criticises them. He’ll be a goner. Thank god for most men who can engage practical foresight to the insanity of vibes such as the “Voice”and has a secret ballot to do so without being ruined.
There are so many potential comments to make, but I will digress the thread with most of them!
The problem with ‘equality’ is that carefully selected elements are measured in order to determine if this vaguely defined outcome has been achieved. Generally these are gains or benefits. Seldom, if ever, is risk measured as a cost of achieving such outcomes.
Historically, men have been subject to the most risk of loss (life, finances, etc.), in terms of employment (including in the military) and the earning of resources. The exception is childbirth. Do women on the whole now accept more risk as a balance to the greater quantity of outcomes?
Feminism, by the way, has always had the goal of First World status. The challenges faced by women in the Third World seldom receive anything more than token attention by the well-resourced ‘mainstream’ look-at-me feminism.
The reason for this is risk.
There is less risk of loss by acting from within the guaranteed protection of the myriad of institutional and other protections (legal, financial, social) offered by systems of government such as in Australia, compared to, say, a Middle Eastern country.
It makes perfect sense from a perspective of survival, to choose less risky behaviours.
It’s lovely being married, male and female style.
I think that goes for men and women when both contribute with their hearts.
Children reap the the bonus. They thrive on security and happiness at home.
The Derby and Joan stuff together has much to recommend it too.
Simple verities.
Requires give and take, with focus on the family rather than the fraud of ‘self-actualisation’.
Even Wendy Bacon – and that’s saying something – now concedes that the so-called glory days of the Push and the 1960s sexual revolution saw women being treated very badly. (Triggs, in typical fashion, covered this up in a Human Rights Commission study of sexual harassment in universities which was all about student behaviour in the present and left the tenured left of the 70s untouched.)
There is an eminently Darwinian argument for heterosexual lifelong marriage. We have by far the longest and most complex nurturing needs of any animal on the planet before we can function independently as members of human society, and stable, committed parents and families are the best means of fulfilling them.
Yes, to a degree. Women who play in the AWFL, for example, get paid way over the amount they bring in. How much do they bring in? Well, to quote (from memory) the great Leigh Matthews, in a discussion with journalist Caroline Wilson:
CW: It’s hard to quantify how much revenue women bring to the TV deal.
LM: No, it’s easy to quantify. They bring in nothing.
“I believe that feminism as ideology is borne as a kind of redpill experienced by women who realize the utter gap between men and women. Most females who identify as non-feminist, or feminist without caring about it much live with an illusion that women are slightly weaker than men, maybe 10-15% weaker, feminist-leaning women are probably convinced that the gap is narrow enough to be bridged by training, belief that various movies with their 5’5 girls destroying tall muscular dudes enforce.
In reality, the difference is much, MUCH larger. It’s not just about raw strength, men perceive and move through the world in ways women never could, their focus, coordination, foreplanning, men command their bodies to the degree that isn’t found in any female.
Can the world’s strongest woman beat the shit out of some skinny manlet? Sure, but take away these extreme, and an average male is unthinkably dominant over an average female. Put him in the room with a 100 women and he’d be a hurricane of death to them.
Some women, sometimes through personal experience (like domestic abuse, or rape) or through simple intellectual reasoning, realize this fact, and it makes them neurotic.
It’s like finding out that you spent your whole life living among giants, only seeing their shuffling feet, it’s like if Einstein was told that 50% of the planet have double his IQ and only let him be a scientist as a practical joke.
This type of character annihilation. How do women cope?
Feminism.
They realize the impossibility of living on equal terms with creatures so unequally superior to them, so their choice is to rebrand these creatures as demons to be destroyed and subjugated.”
Anonymous circa 1998
As a Western Christian man, I say they need to protect themselves – y’know, that whole fish bicycle thingy?
Okay friends, looks like we’re walking back to the plantation.
As long as conservatives keep on pushing this nonsense you will keep on losing.
Why do you think feminists keep on insisting on the need to “respect” women and to strive for “equality”?
Your sons and grandsons already have and will be born into a society which has discarded merit and given women birthrights to standover and be treated better than men. The sins of the past are being inflicted on future generations and intrinsic characteristics are treated as choices or as appreciable, self improved qualities.
Let the adults with the most rights in society defend themselves. Men will vote against their own interests to signal how pro woman they are. A man who is a feminist today is either blindingly ignorant or like a house “servant”.
Feminism works by grooming conservatives into cucking. This is the most successful tactic in current and late 20th century politics. It is exemplified with the ridiculous “I support my daughter” quip which has become a sad and disturbingly funny meme.
Remember in what context “I was taught to respect women” was taught and under what circumstances post WWII women could choose their husbands under. Track happiness in women (or mental health issues) and compare it to the calendar year or state of family law or dating trends.
Tom and Ceres are right. In addition to their arguments, the transfer of wealth from men to women through the tax and welfare system is exploitative. Women don’t need a man because they have married the state. Feminists state they are from “financial abuse” ( a made up nonsensical idea, they can always leave; being poor of a third Mimci handbag is not an injury) but narcissistically refuse to acknowledge their own persistent exploitation of men.
Whilst I don’t believe the obvious and ahistorical progressive lies that medieval Christianity was intentionally or systemically oppressive to women, the idea that pre-Christian Greek and Roman women did not have it good is somewhat silly. Ancient and medieval people even in the upper classes had physically more demanding lives than us and everyone had a responsibility to chip into the household. People were practical and the ideas of a philosophical peasant arguing with the King or men all getting drunk and beating their wives are simply bizarre anachronisms. Christianity took hold because humanity was ready for it. Christian ideals were pushed aside by rulers in various countries throughout history after their conversion perhaps centuries beforehand.
It is an eternal argument. How different are we to men? Physically very different, and emotionally too. We cry, and our bodies can make and feed babies, which brings forth a very particular emotional response that men may appreciate, and think they feel, but which they do not really share. We relate to our friends, other women, in ways different to male bonding. To a certain extent we see the world more as gatherers than as hunting explorers.
Put all of this into the modern world and the overlaps can cause great confusion, but the differences remain.
Ps, women do not lack creative and analytic brains. Evolution has ensured we are well equipped in that regard, as a survival skill given our physical deficits in strength.
rickwsays:
June 25, 2023 at 10:52 am
What is to be done about women’s general preponderance towards voting for socialism and stupidity?
Seriously?
Remove transfers of money from men to women.
Remove welfare
If people can vote themselves an easy life then its only logical (at a base level) for them to do so.
“…the differences remain.”
This is the problem, IMO – modern feminists want us all to be the same.
As you say, we are not the same, we are different, we are complimentary – not just physically, but mentally too.
Where one is strong, the other is weak.
When the two become one (marriage), the result (family) is greater than the sum of the parts.
Modern feminists want “equity” (equal outcomes), not “equality” (of opportunity).
“Equity” is pernicious and always and ever results in bad outcomes and ultimately chaos.
“Equality”, in conjunction with meritocracy, produces the best outcomes for everyone – perhaps not for each individual, but for enough individuals that society as a whole is better. No system produces perfection, but equality and meritocracy has always produced better outcomes than anything based on “equity”.
“There is an eminently Darwinian argument for heterosexual lifelong marriage.”
And also for many, many traits that are typically male or female.
For instance – as Jordan Peterson cites – infant chimpanzees show defined preferences when given a free choice of toys, the males preferring ‘things’ (clubs et al), the females ‘people’ (dolls et al). On sheer survival, and given that females (including humans until very recently!) are the primary care-givers of newborns and young, being “interested” in things that “look like” the young, and being able to socialise the care-giver task, those with these traits will have more offspring that tend to survive to reproductive age than those who do not. Likewise, males that can use tools and catch more meat are more likely to win the fight for dominance and thus be able to reproduce than those who do not.
You can see this in many areas that have been denigrated as “misogynistic”, such as being able to better read a map, or socialising the cost of childcare.
These things are real, and they are undoubtedly selected for in pre-agricultural societies of humans, in much the same way that marriage for child bearing is also “selected for” in Darwinian terms.
This doesn’t mean that all males are physically stronger than all females for example, just that that is “the way to bet” given no other knowledge.
So too with education – women now outnumber men as students at universities, yet we are still “short” of “STEM” graduates. Why? Because many women prefer a humanities degree over a STEM degree, while a technological society values STEM over humanities – thus men (who are more likely to have STEM qualifications) tend to have higher pay. It’s not hard and fast, and I know more than a few female engineers (and they are equality likely to be good at it too, I might add), as well as more than few male nurses. But as a general trait, it is true.
If we do not understand and explain why this is so, and work to exploit the differences in demeanor of individuals rather than “classes” (like sex or race), we will do less well than we could.
I have worked in tech for some time in Asia. There are differences in the composition and approach for women in tech there vs Oz.
Basically boils down to women will take on the more difficult and challenging roles in tech if thats the best way to earn more money – but given a society where getting by is easier they will focus more on the less analytical, challenging roles.
Hence the paradox seen in STEM jobs, less barriers exist in the west but less women aim for the top, best-paid jobs because they can survive without aiming so high. Whereas in developing countries women try harder and do compete for the top roles on STEM, against resistance.
Kneel:
June 26, 2023 at 1:33 pm
It’s not hard and fast, and I know more than a few female engineers (and they are equality likely to be good at it too, I might add), as well as more than few male nurses. But as a general trait, it is true.
Kneel, or as in ‘the exception does not disprove the rule.’