Recently I watched something shocking:
This fact, that US military won’t recruit people with IQ 83 or under, is both shocking and intuitively clear to me, because I do understand that in the modern world, there’s a decreasing pool of opportunities for stupid people. In a world that is mostly high-tech and sophisticated, marginally retarded people just can’t find anything useful to do, and if they can’t find anything useful to do, it’s either attempt to create a world more to their image, so to speak, basically retarding the modern world by a few centuries, or separate the world into high-IQ one and low-IQ one, basically having a space-age star trek society and a medieval shithole next door, or extinction of low-IQ people because high-IQ people will need the resources and will be able to just take them, or, most likely, extinction of the high-IQ people because the low-IQ ones are more determined, they never have any self-doubt, they are completely certain of their course, God is always on their side, they reproduce at an exponential rate, and the West is unable to defend itself against this threat in any way, due to its current philosophical constraints.
In any case, take a look at this: https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
Guess why some countries are poor, and will always stay poor, without any chance of improvement.
Their average IQ is below the threshold of admittance for the US army, and if you’re too fucking dumb to be trained to be a soldier, well, no comment. Maybe they can find some niche in the sexual industry, to put it nicely. Sure, the average IQ doesn’t tell the whole story, Croatian average IQ is 90, which I have no difficulty believing because most people I meet here are stupid as rocks, but if you come to the university the average IQ would be around the MENSA admittance threshold, so you can obviously have a significant number of very smart people in a society in which majority is borderline retarded. However, having in mind that the average IQ in some societies is near or below completely unemployable, don’t get me started about unequal income levels and social differences. If someone with IQ 83 is below subsistence, and someone with IQ 150 is wealthy, that’s not an unexpected outcome in a society that uses computers, Internet, complex tools and international markets to function. The problem is, what will happen when a huge majority of people falls below a threshold of being able to find a normal job that pays well enough to make a living on the market? I’ll tell you what will happen. They will embrace socialism, because it will be the last straw. They can’t make it in capitalism, they’re too fucking stupid to program computers, make web apps or order cheaper things from Alibaba or Amazon. However, they can still vote, and this will be exploited by people whose IQ is much higher than 83, I guarantee you that, but they will manipulate the stupid disenfranchised masses into voting them into power.
There’s another problem, of course. Our civilization is increasingly demanding. It’s easy to dismiss the IQ 83 people, because I would expect that to be close to the higher-end of the Homo Erectus level of cognition. Heck, Bonobo chimps are quoted as having IQ of over 40 (yes, I know the IQ scale is normalized to 100 relative to a population, and not absolute, so read with this in mind). However, in a simple society such a person can function. He or she can pick berries or cocoa beans. In a modern society, the threshold of dropping out is higher. Projecting this trend into the future, it’s conceivable that at a certain point anyone below MENSA admittance threshold won’t be able to successfully function. Projecting it further, you get to the point where only a few thousand super-smart individuals in a few tech companies will be able to function at a level necessary to make good money, while the rest will be akin to chimps living in a world ruled by men. What happens when having a PhD and IQ of 148 isn’t enough to get a subsistence wage job, because there’s only a few jobs that aren’t automated, and they are basically for astronaut-level qualifications, with multiple science degrees and IQ of over 180? Sure, it’s easy to dismiss stupid people who favor socialism because they can’t make it on the market, but what happens when there’s 8 billion people and only 8000 are qualified to actually do anything worth paying them for?
I’ll tell you what happens. Civilizational collapse, and not in the hypothetical aforedescribed future, but fucking now. That’s the reason why everything is falling apart and socialism became popular. It’s because if you’re not a genius, you’re getting increasingly fucked, and even if you’re a genius your life is unbearably difficult, to the point where you don’t have a life beside work. The whole thing is a nightmare for almost everybody, which is why everybody is sending all those smiling selfies, posturing how wonderful their life is. It’s because their life sucks so much they are afraid all hell is going to break loose if anyone finds out, so they posture online and eat antidepressants like candy in private.
Or the smart people at the top decide that they could pay the masses some kind of universal pittance in return for existing. The idea of universal income seems to follow from your outline.
It’s interesting, I have a friend who’s a factory worker. He cannot progress much past this job. It’s very difficult to think about the likely path of his future. I can’t tell him “learn better English” or “study things online” because he would’ve already done that if he could. He’s only interested in his local shithole soccer club and women of questionable character. What can society do with a person like that? And that’s the majority in any country, which is why democracy is a laughable concept.
This universal income thing would not work. Why? First of all, it’s a stimulus for dropping out, in a society in which making a living is increasingly hard. Giving someone this option is devastating. Second, people with low income and low IQ tend to reproduce at a much higher rate compared to high-income and high-IQ people. So, essentially, you would pay stupid people to reproduce for free while smart people are killing themselves at work trying to afford even thinking about having a family. So, essentially, you punish people for being competent and reward them for being incompetent, and people respond to stimuli.
tl;dr: it would work only if this form of welfare was preconditioned with sterilization. Like, sure, balls/ovaries off and you can get enough money to survive. That’s why slaveowning societies traditionally sterilized male slaves: you don’t get to lose wars and reproduce.
Mostly, I commented because your article showed me another reason why someone might come up with the idea of universal income. I used to think it came out of a misguided sense of “fairness” or even mercy/pity towards those who can’t fend for themselves. However, your article shows how it could have come out of a sense of self-preservation, or even the preservation of civilization by those on top. Universal income has become one of those pervasive, trendy ideas in modern culture, like colonizing Mars. The Mars idea is similarly a symptom of rats trying to flee a sinking ship.
As for fixing societal problems, it’s largely a moot point and a purely intellectual puzzle. As you’ve yourself said many times, the problems of this world are deep in its foundations. Anything else is just a superficial patch, maybe it holds for a while but it’s not an actual solution.
A funny thought occurs to me. Instead of paying people to have more children, we should be paying them not to have any. The current practice of paying the least productive people to reproduce is a recipe for disaster. But then you have a shrinking population of young, productive people… And it goes round and round, patch upon patch. I don’t see good solutions, except reverting the foundations of this world to the rules that are in place elsewhere.
It can be done: the state could pay women to have children, and this salary should be on par with the male equivalent of serving as a professional soldier in the armed forces or the police; something of inherent value for the state. However, they would need to be qualifications: the women would have to be over IQ 130, and married to men over IQ 130 who have high paying jobs or something, and those men should be freed from taxation, in addition to the salary paid to their wives. This would motivate things the right way. Also, if you’re poor and IQ under 100 and you have children, you automatically disqualify yourself from ever getting welfare. If you don’t have children and you get sterilized, you qualify for minimal subsistence welfare wage, basically the state paying retards not to reproduce.
That is quite an elegant solution. Of course, it would never fly with the far-left liberals who panic at the idea of judging a person’s worth on an objective scale.
Well, I’m glad my pessimism was wrong and there is a practical solution.
As a tangent, I do get annoyed with the alt-right ideas that all or most women are supposed to be stay at home moms. I listened to Molyneux trying to browbeat a woman out of finishing school and getting a job, instead talking her into just finding the right partner to have kids with. As if going to school and having a career is some sort of brainwashing. What’s the difference between that and muslims who think women should just shut up and make babies? Are we going to beat the muslim rate of procreation by using the very same ideology that makes them total shit? I don’t buy it.
Perhaps I’m in the small percentage of women who truly don’t want kids and a family, and that’s why the idea is repugnant to me. I’ve grown up with people laughing at me for saying I wanted to be a financially independent professional. Because I’m a woman, so what was I thinking? “Oh, you can make coffee, now you can get married!”
Perhaps it’s idealistic of me that I can’t imagine women who would only want to have kids and do nothing else with their lives. To me, that would create unfulfilled, toxic creatures who are hell to those close to them. Perhaps I’m overestimating the majority of women.
Still, I think the solution is to keep educating them, not throw them back into the stone age so they wouldn’t fuck up society with their hyper-liberal agendas.
My solution, of course, could never work because the leftists would be up in arms about it, “Hitler”, “nazi” and “eugenics” being the keywords, as if there’s anything wrong with eugenics. Eugenics is why people get physically aroused by potential partners who have many virtues, and are turned off by potential partners who are devoid of virtues. The opposite to eugenics would be to force people to fuck the ugliest evil retards imaginable as much as they fuck nice people, because equality. Things don’t work that way, fortunately.
Regarding what women should do, honestly, I would want to create an environment where they can do whatever they want, without society making them feel worthless if they choose the “wrong” option. Some will want to be scientists, some will want to be managers, some will want to be doctors, but the problem with human reproduction is that for women it’s an exclusive proposition: you either reproduce or have a career, because you can’t have both. My problem is, education seems to be targeted at having a career, so it appears pointless for a woman to get education if she’s “only” going to reproduce. I don’t think of it in those terms; I think of it in terms of husband and wife being partners, where the husband is the one formally having the career, but the wife is supposed to be his intellectual partner, someone smart enough to give him usable advice, and someone who will provide most of the early education to the children. She can’t be some stupid breeder hen. It’s actually difficult for me to even argue the position properly because there’s so much negative emotional charge associated with the traditional female role it’s incredible; I feel as if I’m arguing in favor of water not being wet or something. However, as someone who has two female partners in a family unit, who both perform traditional female roles, and who are wickedly smart, it’s hard for me to hear the feminist position that you articulated and not call bullshit, because that’s what it is. Essentially, there’s no reason why a stay-at-home mom couldn’t read a hundred books a year while her husband is working his butt off somewhere without ever managing to do anything intellectually challenging; neither formal education nor work are necessarily intellectually challenging or uplifting.
There is one problem with my ideas that I’m aware of, and that is the fact that reproductive instincts are very strong, and possibly spiritually destructive. I’ve seen the negative effects of this on both women and men, and the reproductive instinct is analogous to some zombie virus that forces people on a course that will fuck up their lives. On the other hand, if you don’t follow the destructive path you feel as if you missed something valuable and you’re a loser. As a kid I always wondered why the salmons obey the instinct to swim up river and die of exhaustion after reproducing, and after learning more about human instincts, it’s obvious that humans are not far off; having this in mind, it’s kinda obvious why spiritual orders prohibit reproduction for monks of either sex; it just uses up your entire life and there’s nothing left for any spiritual effort. However, in the next iteration of thought, it appears to me that if I were to incarnate as a woman, I wouldn’t feel it as either a biological trap or detriment; I would dedicate myself to being the best person possible in order to be worthy of being the wife to the best man possible, and I would support him, make love to him, bear his children and serve him in every possible way, and use this as a meditative practice. That’s how women are apparently supposed to do it, and fulfillment is not in the career, not in the world, it’s in the feeling that you’re the person no2 in the world, supporting the person no1. This feeling is actually more fulfilling than being the person no1 in the world, because it’s everything good minus the uncertainty, doubt and responsibility of doing the things nobody else tried and having the fate of the world depend on you getting it right.
As an addition I must mention that for me, this contemplation of the female role, for me, doesn’t necessarily even include sex, let alone reproduction; those things are optional. It would work nicely from a position of a celibate nun perceiving herself as a wife of Jesus. But yeah, my thinking is always very flexible and includes a vast number of concurrent and non-exclusive branches.
Thank you for the very insightful replies.
“Some will want to be scientists, some will want to be managers, some
will want to be doctors, but the problem with human reproduction is that
for women it’s an exclusive proposition: you either reproduce or have a
career, because you can’t have both.”
I have to agree with this, somewhat. You can’t have it all. You either have a shitty career or shitty family/children. But in modern society there are part time jobs, work from home, the internet and all sorts of options.
I think the female generation who had it worse is the one just before mine. They were convinced to chase after work and financial independence, but they also had to take care of everything in the family household. It’s no wonder so many are neurotic wrecks.
“It’s actually difficult for me to even argue the position properly
because there’s so much negative emotional charge associated with the
traditional female role it’s incredible; I feel as if I’m arguing in
favor of water not being wet or something.”
My guess is that the negative charge exists because of the trauma women were often subjected to as a result of the traditional role being forced upon them. I agree that as a choice, it shouldn’t be demonized. But I also find it hard to advocate for it.
“As a kid I always wondered why the salmons obey the instinct to swim up
river and die of exhaustion after reproducing, and after learning more
about human instincts, it’s obvious that humans are not far off; having
this in mind, it’s kinda obvious why spiritual orders prohibit
reproduction for monks of either sex; it just uses up your entire life
and there’s nothing left for any spiritual effort.”
Being forced into such a costly reproductive choice would cause considerable trauma, especially when the cost was often the woman’s life, the life of the children, physical trauma, etc.
On the other hand, in the recent past, there have been generations of women who haven’t been subjected to such a level of trauma. Now that they’re free to choose, they’ve chosen to abuse this freedom. That’s why I don’t consider myself a feminist, because I feel that women are not policing their own. They are abusing their hard-won freedoms and allowing themselves to go too far.
For instance, they glorify the exaggerations of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” I feel that women shouldn’t fall for such blatant emotional manipulations, and should criticize such exaggerations.
“However, in the next iteration of thought, it appears to me that if I
were to incarnate as a woman, I wouldn’t feel it as either a biological
trap or detriment; I would dedicate myself to being the best person
possible in order to be worthy of being the wife to the best man
possible, and I would support him, make love to him, bear his children
and serve him in every possible way, and use this as a meditative
practice. That’s how women are apparently supposed to do it, and
fulfillment is not in the career, not in the world, it’s in the feeling
that you’re the person no2 in the world, supporting the person no1. This
feeling is actually more fulfilling than being the person no1 in the
world, because it’s everything good minus the uncertainty, doubt and
responsibility of doing the things nobody else tried and having the fate
of the world depending on you getting it right.”
My thing is that, I feel I could be the no2 person quite easily. This comes to me naturally, and although it poses its own challenges, it’s not the challenges I want to overcome. I feel that I would easily slip into the role of mother and wife, I easily empathize with having babies, pregnancy, supporting a husband. But that role feels… empty. It has nothing in it that would keep me going. I can barely find things like that in the world, as it is. I guess I would have to brainwash myself into it.
On the other hand, I feel that I have so many talents that I can be productive with in the world. Grow and learn much more. However, this is where I find challenges that I want to overcome. I don’t want to be no1. I just want to accomplish worthwhile things and grow.
Many people don’t know what they should do with myself. I have too many things I could do, there’s not enough lifetimes for it all. To neglect all of those, and devote myself solely to the reproductive role, would seem like a waste.
It’s like what you said, that washing dishes can be a meditation. If we learn how to meditate while washing dishes, is that all we should ever do? Shouldn’t I learn how to meditate while working at the computer? While composing a song? While networking for a business deal?
There’s probably a case to be made for focusing on what you’re good at. But the fact that something comes easy to you, doesn’t mean it’s the thing where you could grow the most, develop, and achieve your highest potential. And maybe it’s all pointless in this world, maybe we should just bite the bullet and focus on shit we don’t like and meditate through that? But somehow I think we have our affinities and talents for a reason.
I’ve been reading what you wrote and it appears as if you really believe the fulfilment is “out there”, in the wide world where there are all the great things for you to accomplish if only you could break out of the bondages of home where you’re imprisoned in boredom and slow spiritual death due to lack of external stimuli and validation. You didn’t get why I learned to meditate while washing the dishes or washing my dad’s car. I did it because I was taught that those things are unfulfilling, tedious and boring and you should get over them quickly in order to get out there, to the next thing where there’s greatness and fun and novelty. Guess what, there’s jack shit “out there”. Your world is perceived from soul outwards. If you don’t have fulfilment in you, you never get to find it out there. If you have it in you and you get too far outwards, you lose it. The thing about washing dishes is to stop seeking excitement and external validation, stop trying to achieve greatness “in the world”, and first feel yourself at peace, not trying to go anywhere and find anything, because it’s all here. The next step, God is not out there. God is right here. Now. You’re just too much into the world, into the idea there’s something for you to do in order to get fulfilment, that it’s what the world gives you if you do “great things”. No. You need to be the great thing. You need to find fulfilment. Then you touch the thing right next to you, and feel the light of God radiate from it outwards. That’s how you wash the dishes. That’s how you cook food. That’s how you wash the car. Feel the deepest holiness, fulfilment and depth in the most prosaic, everyday things. Not the business deal, not composing a song, not doing something epic that will change the world and make you worthwhile in the eyes of others. It’s exactly in washing the dishes and taking out the trash. Only when you find it there, is that you get it: you’re not here to give things to the world, and receive affirmation from the world in return. You are here because you got trapped. The goal is not to get lost, to find yourself. The most valuable things in the world are not out there, in the board room or where the celebrities are. They are in the close touch with other souls you care about, in your family and the closest circle of friends. The more depth you can feel from them, the closest to God you can feel as you commune with others, the more valuable. That’s the part of the world that matters, that’s important. Career, fame, achievement, they are merely tools that feed and protect the inner core that matters. They are not the source of fulfilment. The source of fulfilment is that from which you wash the dishes in God’s light, creating purity. You know why orgasm is such a pleasure? It’s because it’s about going into you. It’s your being touching its live core. It’s not out there.
I’ve been thinking about this more.
For instance, the concept of male role being “emancipating” while the female role being “repressing” is total horse shit. Let me use myself as an example. What do I do? Well, I co-own a payment firm that provides a service to the customers, basically creating workarounds around American fascism which makes it almost impossible for most people to charge money for goods and services. This is how I make money. Also, I create photography, and I write, but I don’t make any money from that. So, essentially, the part that’s supposed to be emancipating, the payment industry part, manages to be stressful and monotonous at the same time, and isn’t emancipating me worth a damn. I just sacrifice a large part of my life because I need to make money. That’s the part I couldn’t do if I were a woman, and honestly, nobody would miss it, starting with me. That’s what my husband would do, and I would be grateful to him for doing it, and even more for not having to do it myself. The other part of what I do, photography and writing, I could do just fine as a “stay at home mom”. In fact, I could do the most difficult parts of my writing two days after childbirth, typing on a laptop between breastfeeding and changing diapers. How do I know that? Because as a man I wrote the most demanding texts while I was really, really ill, under such extreme pressures that I think most people would have just died; so, I’m kinda low on compassion for people who have it hard.
So, basically, I’m not buying female emancipation through appropriating a male role. As a male, I found zero emancipation through the career path, because it’s just routine monotonous grind combined with stress due to someone causing you hundreds of thousands of euros in lost income just because some female idiot in the risk department had to fill her quota of saying “no” in order to be emancipated and important. Most of the things I find emancipating, such as writing the “Jewel in the Lotus” I wrote at home, they weren’t done for money, they brought me no external validation from others, and if I were a woman in the most traditional female role imaginable I could have done it as easily. So, career. Yes, it’s emancipating if you’re broke and you need the money. However, as a woman I would find it more emancipating to be loved by a husband who provided for me, so that I didn’t have to burn up a third of my day every working day in a corporate grinder. It would be more emancipating to be valued enough to be provided for, than to be left to your own devices because nobody really cares that much for you. Just a thought.
Another thing crossed my mind now, how women hysterically try to portray themselves as equals or superiors to their male partners. When I put myself in a female role, I find this stupid and offensive. The main point of being female in a relationship is finding a man who is better than you, whom you can look up to, and you can be proud to be second to him, proud to be his servant. If you can’t admire him and, basically, worship him as the ideal, what’s the fucking point? You don’t just marry some random inferior guy off the street. The point of sexual selection as a female is to find someone who is so incredibly awesome you are at the point of orgasm by just looking at him. That’s who you marry, that’s why you want to be a woman. If you’re a woman and you didn’t marry a man who is your superior ideal, you fucked up.
And just one more thing, as Steve Jobs would say. 🙂 I see male and female incarnations as tools that serve to do a job. Nine times out of ten, I’d prefer the female incarnation. However, this particular incarnation I couldn’t pull off as a female. The female system just isn’t designed to function as an ice-breaker, a snow-plough, and a weapon at the same time, and that’s the most important part of what I had to do in this life. I had to break through evil, hardship and ignorance, and I know there’s a much bigger chance of being broken under this load as a female. I would gladly change places and gender roles with either of my girls if possible, because I’d like to be them more than I like being me. However, someone had to break through, and this job is much better suited for a male body. Right now, I’m more a weapon than a person. My girls get to be persons. I get to be the iron fist that destroys everything in its path, devoid of mercy and hesitation. I would choose the same shitty deal all over again, though, because if something is that fucked up, I’d rather do it myself than leave it to others. What I wonder, though, is whether I’ll be able to function like a normal person again, after this life, or am I too deformed by the necessities of this incarnation, where I had to develop resistance to delusion and malicious harm, and the ability to destroy things quickly and mercilessly. In the first half of my life, my psychic structure was much more female than it is now – devotion, feeling, gentleness. Now, I’m a shield for females to live under, while I became someone who will just crush something that gets in my way without any trace of compassion or second thought.
“For instance, the concept of male role being “emancipating” while the female role being “repressing” is total horse shit.”
I don’t see it as emancipation, I see it as normal. It’s not about some idealistic liberation from repression, it’s just… normal. If you want to eat, you have to earn money. You can either do that by cozying up to some guy and expecting him to provide, or you can do it by earning it yourself.
I have that impulse in myself, that I could find a guy to provide for me. I have the impulse to cozy up to the smartest, most accomplished guy in the group. These are biological, evolutionary impulses and once I became aware of them, I was disgusted with myself.
If I entered into a relationship with a partner, I wouldn’t want to enter it as a freeloader.
“I’ve been reading what you wrote and it appears as if you really believe
the fulfilment is “out there”, in the wide world where there are all
the great things for you to accomplish if only you could break out of
the bondages of home where you’re imprisoned in boredom and slow
spiritual death due to lack of external stimuli and validation.”
No, I don’t see fulfillment in the world. There’s so little I want in this world that I would leave the moment there’s a chance. I had to build some things that would keep me here, like music.
I had a pregnancy scare once. The thought of having a baby and being completely subordinated to that life filled me with dismay, disgust and such a palpable sense of self-loathing. I would have killed myself, easily, no need to think twice. I have the impression that I’ve already done the whole child-rearing, family nurturer thing in some past life. I don’t need to repeat the lesson.
“Well, I co-own a payment firm that provides a service to the customers,
basically creating workarounds around American fascism which makes it
almost impossible for most people to charge money for goods and
services. This is how I make money.”
You could also earn money by being a programmer for someone else. Or a cashier at a supermarket. Instead you chose to have your own company, so that you have some flexibility for the other things in your life. You also chose based on your ability and skill level.
Your wives didn’t choose to be dishwashers for some random schmuck, but to be your companions and support. Other women don’t quite have that kind of choice in front of them. Between following biological impulses and developing skills, the latter seems like a more rewarding path. Any animal can reproduce.
“If you’re a woman and you didn’t marry a man who is your superior ideal, you fucked up.”
Sometimes you just don’t find that.
I have a problem with this:
“If I entered into a relationship with a partner, I wouldn’t want to enter it as a freeloader.”
The implied assumption is that value is provided only in the male way, by bringing home the bacon. I have a real, profound problem with that, and that’s speaking as the metaphorical provider of bacon. Women are valuable, and their female contributions are also valuable. I really don’t like the concept where female contribution are worthless so a woman must also earn money in order to “carry her part of the load”. No. That’s not how I see it. I will carry 100% of that part of the load and it’s not a problem, I can do it. What I want is someone at home who’s mentally sane, not fucked up, who has a clear mind, whom I can ask to take a look at things using astral vision because I’m too damaged from work and other pressures to be able to see, because my sight is the first thing to go. I want someone who is on a more peaceful track, to make me coffee every now and then and pull me out of the meat grinder before I go completely nuts. I want a companion who’s not all shields and weapons like I am. That’s their female way of participating, of carrying their load. Sure, there are women who don’t carry their load and just keep consuming resources and whining, but that’s not what I had in mind. Having clear and powerful female minds I can call to my aid is incredibly valuable to me, as someone who had to hypertrophy male mental features. Femaleness is important and valuable. We men don’t provide for women just because of reproduction and similar trivial criteria, we do it because femaleness is important and valuable and worth paying for the privilege.
Sorry, I just have to add one more thing:
“Having clear and powerful female minds I can call to my aid is
incredibly valuable to me, as someone who had to hypertrophy male mental
features. Femaleness is important and valuable. We men don’t provide
for women just because of reproduction and similar trivial criteria, we
do it because femaleness is important and valuable and worth paying for
the privilege.”
This is actually very empowering and refreshing to read. But I feel like femaleness alone is just the baseline from which you develop further. You can’t just wallow in the biological imperatives, you have to refine it into something far more sophisticated. Sometimes that’s through studying math, ideally it’s through studying yoga.
“But I feel like femaleness alone is just the baseline from which you develop further.”
Sure. Being a woman doesn’t magically make you great. I know at least as many females as I do males who are total demons and assholes. However, being able to rely on women of great intelligence and knowledge, as well as yogic abilities, is actually something that greatly contributed to my success in many things. I implicitly assume that we’re talking about women who are active partners, functioning on the level of their man and being able to contribute. Such a team then functions in the world mostly through the man’s presence, and it appears that it’s his career, but it’s actually the team’s career, it’s just that the man does the outwardly visible part, while the woman is protected and her role is known only to her husband. Essentially, what I’m saying is that the concept of a stupid enslaved housewife is mostly feminist/communist propaganda, because men don’t really like having stupid wives. My girls are almost never exposed here, in the sense that they don’t write, but their presence is woven into everything I do. Based on the lack of their visible presence, one could make various conclusions, all of which would probably be wrong. If I’m their shield and sword, they are my eyes and ears.
“”If you’re a woman and you didn’t marry a man who is your superior ideal, you fucked up.”
Sometimes you just don’t find that.”
No, you mostly don’t, but I do speak for myself here; someone else might be less radical. As a woman, I would rather be alone than be with an inferior man. I wouldn’t even want to be with a man who is my equal, I would want to be a Rukmini to a Krishna, a Mary of Magdala to a Jesus. If that’s not possible, I would prefer a disembodied ideal to a mediocre person. I’m no less picky as a man, either; solitude was always preferable to companionship of dumbasses. And I understand that my very existence and ability to write down ideas is enough spiritual protection for most; I know it would be for me, if the roles were reversed.
“No, you mostly don’t, but I do speak for myself here; someone else might
be less radical. As a woman, I would rather be alone than be with an
inferior man. I wouldn’t even want to be with a man who is my equal, I
would want to be a Rukmini to a Krishna, a Mary of Magdala to a Jesus.
If that’s not possible, I would prefer a disembodied ideal to a mediocre
person. I’m no less picky as a man, either; solitude was always
preferable to companionship of dumbasses. And I understand that my very
existence and ability to write down ideas is enough spiritual protection
for most; I know it would be for me, if the roles were reversed.”
The inferior ones didn’t interest me, and the superior ones weren’t interested in me. So I decided to stop worrying about that and do my own thing, until I’m at the level that the superior ones would be interested. At that point, it won’t matter because I’ll be self-sufficient.
Although, weren’t there examples of superior women being with disciple men? Like Anandamoyi-ma and her husband, he was her disciple. I don’t think it matters. Whoever you can learn from, you learn.
“The implied assumption is that value is provided only in the male way, by bringing home the bacon.”
I don’t just mean that. How would a man judge whether a woman is great? Molyneux kept telling that woman in his video, to just be great. What’s the objective criterion for that? He didn’t say. Just “be great.” You might say, she should be kind and have a good personality. Sure. I had a boyfriend who was kind, giving and loyal. Call me superficial, but it wasn’t enough. He wasn’t my intellectual equal. So how does a woman show she’s got what it takes to be with a man who’s her superior? I don’t think you attract a superior man by being good at cleaning and doing dishes.
If a man wants a woman he can talk to about higher math, she has to have a degree in that, or equivalent knowledge. If so, why would she be interested only in staying at home and rearing his children?
On the flip side, why would he be interested in a woman who isn’t at least his intellectual equal? Why would he want those genes for his children?
Your wives are also highly skilled and accomplished yoginis (to just name one aspect of it), which was your criterion. So they’re not just wives, they do highly sophisticated, advanced work that nobody else on the planet would be able to.
“Your wives are also highly skilled and accomplished yoginis (to just name one aspect of it), which was your criterion. So they’re not just wives, they do highly sophisticated, advanced work that nobody else on the planet would be able to.”
Sure. However, I never said women can be stupid, useless dumbasses and have it work out for them. I’m just not convinced their “career” needs to have anything to do with the job market. The concept that women in traditional society used to be stupid, illiterate cows, and then feminism happened, kinda don’t really acknowledge the fact that there were women in very traditional society like Ada Lovelace, who was able to find bugs in Babbage’s software written for his mechanical computer that existed only in their minds, or that Maria Theresia von Habsburg and Victoria ruled most of the civilized world in a society that was supposed to be male-centric. Women in nobility and wealthy social groups were usually wickedly smart and competent, and that’s since Semiramis, Nefertiti, Cleopatra and Livia Drusilla. Sure, both men and women of lower status were poor, lived like shit and were stupid as bricks, but that’s more due to the fact that they had to work all the time in order to be able to feed themselves which is not conducive to intellectual pursuits, than due to some difference in gender. However, women of high status were always intellectually comparable to men, because as they had more free time, they could dedicate it to reading and discussing ideas, so the concept that women were stupid and enslaved prior to feminism is total nonsense. However, the concept of women competing with men for male jobs is very new and in my opinion very fucked up. The concept of women supporting their men and being able to advise them in their careers is as old as mankind. Of course, the corollary is that if a woman is able to advise her husband, who is for instance a king, her intelligence and level of knowledge must have been right there at the level of his ministers. This makes the position of my girls less unique than one might think; surrounding oneself with counsel that is intimately bound to your best interest is historically a great strategy.
“However, the concept of women competing with men for male jobs is very
new and in my opinion very fucked up. The concept of women supporting
their men and being able to advise them in their careers is as old as
mankind.”
Why is it fucked up? I would rather compete on the market than have to suck a guy’s dick to get money for food. If women are able to compete (and they obviously are, for a majority of jobs), why shouldn’t they be allowed to? In capitalism, they wouldn’t be able to compete if they weren’t capable, anyway. They shouldn’t be unfairly favored, that much I do agree with. But they shouldn’t be disregarded just because of their sex, if their work is solid.
What about me, someone who hasn’t found a proper match for herself? Should I be in a hurry to find someone regardless, before my eggs run out and I shrivel up? Or just work in a job and have financial independence? Working gives me options. I don’t have to settle for some airhead just because he’s willing to take care of me. I don’t have to settle for a guy who thinks yoga is for deluded morons, just because there’s no one better around me. I don’t have to have a family at all.
Also, being the king’s wife worked out splendidly for Anne Boleyn. 😀 You can be the closest to the king, breathe the same air, but one day he decides he wants someone else, and off you’re shipped to a convent or the chopping block.
Anyway, how can a wife support or advise the husband in his career if she doesn’t have the experience in that career, or in the business world at all? She’ll be patted on the head patronizingly and sent back to the kitchen.
“Such a team then functions in the world mostly through the man’s
presence, and it appears that it’s his career, but it’s actually the
team’s career, it’s just that the man does the outwardly visible part,
while the woman is protected and her role is known only to her husband.
Essentially, what I’m saying is that the concept of a stupid enslaved
housewife is mostly feminist/communist propaganda, because men don’t
really like having stupid wives. My girls are almost never exposed here,
in the sense that they don’t write, but their presence is woven into
everything I do.”
See, I can’t help but be saddened by this. I don’t mean any disrespect, but why? I understand it’s easier not to have to withstand the barrage of idiots on the other side of the wall, and unnecessary. It’s not like they need the ego boost from being smart on the internet.
Still, I feel that if women contribute, their contributions should be acknowledged. Like Ada Lovelace, or Marie Curie, or anyone else. They should be free to be as open and outward about it as they want. They shouldn’t need to hide behind a husband, it should just be naturally open and free.
I know your wives are capable of mopping the floor with anyone intellectually. I also understand they have no interest in doing that because they have better things to do with their time. I just don’t think women in general should be hidden in the man’s shadow. It’s unfair and it does make it look like women are worthless and without achievements. Then another man will point his finger and laugh, and cut off all other women from any serious consideration. Because their accomplishments have been hidden in the shadow.
In the end, this world is filled with idiots. It doesn’t matter if they’re male or female. But if the female idiots get no higher education and no experience in the workforce, they’ll remain even bigger idiots than the men. And the women who are exceptions won’t be given a fair chance.
“I know your wives are capable of mopping the floor with anyone intellectually. I also understand they have no interest in doing that because they have better things to do with their time. I just don’t think women in general should be hidden in the man’s shadow. ”
Shadow of that kind is actually a very safe place to be if there are missiles fired your way with the intent to kill you. People in shadows get to be fully human and live normal lives, while exposed people get to take the brunt of the impact and tend to incur damage. You seem to think that public recognition and fame are a good thing, some sort of an ego-boost, external validation that makes you think you’re worth something. How about a situation where exposure to public scrutiny brings a significant portion of negative attention that can really affect you in all sorts of negative ways? Did you consider the possibility that women actually prefer being hidden in a man’s shadow? I certainly encountered enough men who prefer to live hidden under the radar, not exposed to the public eye. I, for one, am ready to take anything on if necessary, but I prefer to be left alone to do my thing without unnecessary interference.
“Shadow of that kind is actually a very safe place to be if there are
missiles fired your way with the intent to kill you. People in shadows
get to be fully human and live normal lives, while exposed people get to
take the brunt of the impact and tend to incur damage.”
If the result of that shadow is that people think women on the average are stupid and incompetent, I’d rather have today’s society where it’s clear that women can take part in the workforce.
Besides, I’d rather be side by side with my husband if there’s danger, than hiding behind him at the first sign of trouble.
Public scrutiny always brings negative attention. I’ve experienced enough of that. But it’s not going to make me hide when I think it’s important not to hide. Next thing I know, someone’s gonna get the bright idea that I should wear a burqa because that way I’ll be protected from all the dangers of the outside world.
“Besides, I’d rather be side by side with my husband if there’s danger, than hiding behind him at the first sign of trouble.”
That’s probably because you’re wiser and more virtuous than my girls, but we’ll try to swallow our hurt pride. 🙂
I’m neither wiser nor more virtuous than them, that much I know. Thank you for your responses, and I apologize if I have been a bother.
“I’m neither wiser nor more virtuous than them, that much I know. Thank you for your responses, and I apologize if I have been a bother.”
Most true Gods I know of have no names given to them by humans. The beings humans have names for and call Gods, however, mostly don’t exist.
That would indicate that living in shadows and being unknown don’t preclude being a God, and being known, in lime-light and worshiped by billions doesn’t preclude being nothing. Good luck with building self-confidence based on external validation. 🙂
“In the end, this world is filled with idiots. It doesn’t matter if they’re male or female. But if the female idiots get no higher education and no experience in the workforce, they’ll remain even bigger idiots than the men. And the women who are exceptions won’t be given a fair chance.”
In the 20th and 21st centuries almost everybody got a very high level of formal education, and there has never been a higher number of people who believed that the Earth is flat. You can put the idiots through school, but they retain their essential nature. One of my objections to this civilization is that it puts too many people through unnecessary education, due to some misguided belief dating back to the age of enlightenment and the invention of the printing press, essentially assuming that if you give people education you’ll wipe out the differences between them, and they will all be equal, which was supposed to mean they will all be Galileo and Newton. What this accomplished is, one, that too many people received education that went way past their level of intelligence, and they didn’t have anything useful to do, so they hung out in bars and invented revolutionary theories. As a way of attenuating that, the states responded by inventing lots of unnecessary jobs in the state administration, to give this “intelligentsia” (a terrible misnomer) something to do. It is my theory that this contributed significantly to the overcomplication of state management of the Austrian-Hungarian empire and thus its eventual collapse. Furthermore, this intelligentsia tended to get employed in the newspapers and they contributed greatly to the formation of the public opinion. One of those consequences can be seen in Krleža’s “Vučjak”, essentially they were the bearers of the panslavist tendencies and the originators of the Yugoslav idea.
A very large portion of today’s problems can be attributed to the inflation of people with degrees, particularly those with degrees in social studies, and I will let you guess how large a percentage of those might be women. Those women will get “educated” in social studies, women’s studies, lesbian dancing classes and basket weaving in pale moonlight, but there is actually zero need for those “qualifications” on the market, so guess what they are doing – they are joining leftist revolutionary ideologies based on rehashed Marxism with some postmodernist flavoring, they get hired in media so they get to influence the public thought, they join NGOs where they cook up all sorts of trouble, they try to get jobs in academia and of course in government, all of which has a strong net negative effect on society.
So, essentially, I fail to see great benefits of having everybody “educated”. If they remained illiterate and were common peasants, they would probably have more common sense in their heads.
“So, essentially, I fail to see great benefits of having everybody
“educated”. If they remained illiterate and were common peasants, they
would probably have more common sense in their heads.”
I’d rather live in a country filled with useless degree holders than filled with such common peasants. Regions with uneducated population are usually shitholes where nobody wants to live or do business. Just look at such regions in Croatia, or neighboring countries.
“I’d rather live in a country filled with useless degree holders than filled with such common peasants. Regions with uneducated population are usually shitholes where nobody wants to live or do business. Just look at such regions in Croatia, or neighboring countries.”
To each his own, I guess. I feel more at ease with peasants at Hvar, than with our local worshipers of Lacan and Žižek, and you might know of whom I speak. The peasants, at least, don’t go farther in their mischief than faking honey and olive oil.
“Also, being the king’s wife worked out splendidly for Anne Boleyn. 😀 You can be the closest to the king, breathe the same air, but one day he decides he wants someone else, and off you’re shipped to a convent or the chopping block.”
This is no different to what happened to monarchs in general when the balance of power shifted. They were commonly turned into dog food, together with their extended families. As someone said about the game of thrones, when you play, you either win or you die. And as someone else said, crown doesn’t necessarily make one dagger-proof.