I take the intellectually cheap way out by making the point it doesn't matter what they want "deep down inside," as it is only their actions that matter. And their actions are they love their careers, educations, and themselves more than they do their children/husbands, theoretical as they may be. But then occasionally they crack, you get a peek behind the curtain, and then you wonder if their "rah rah you go girlism moxie" is just one big bluff, and "deep down inside" most women want a traditional life, replete with husband and kids, and they are all mightily suffering.
The problem I have is that actions have consequences. And after 4+ decades on this planet, it has been nothing but a consistent cacophony of "girl power," "women don't need no man," "my career comes first," and often times outright misandry. And since I do not have the time to decipher what women truly want (nor do I have any incentive), me - along with the rest of the world - have to take women at their word and behave from the premise they prefer their careers, educations, and politics over family, children, and potential future loved ones.
Thus, when I hear a report from the field like below, I have no pity, only laughter. And I learn to enjoy the decline. I suggest you do learn to do the same because enjoying the decline is all we have.
"I just had this long conversation of job fulfillment with my granddaughter still in college. This due to her conversations with women already in those jobs and expressing un-fulfillment. I tried to get her to understand, " There is no fulfillment in any job. It is just a way of subsistence for life. She had a very difficult time trying to understand this, She was crying, near hysterics about it, making all kinds of irrational solutions, confusion was rampant.... I told her fulfillment is found in having a bonding relationship with others. You cannot bond with other people's children. You cannot bond with co-workers on the job or bosses. You can only bond with your own children if you stay at home with them at least first 3 to 5 years while actively pursuing that goal. You can only bond with one man and not with one-man-at-time. She is beginning to see the light but it has been difficult. I tried to get her to not to go to college but her response was, "I don't want to talk about it". How often do women use this excuse to avoid any rational conversation to make an informed decision. She is now just 4 months away from a STEM field graduation in the medical field with hopes of treating mostly children. She has changed her goal a dozen times from age 16 to 21, but it always had some vision of a typical service to children. Notice how this is so close to the role of being a mother and even a wife as she is now in servitude to a corporation or government? "But I'll get paid". No, she will just be getting her bills paid just like a stay at home, well involved mother of three with a good man as husband."
Sponsored by
5 comments:
That uncontrollable need to avoid the issue or rant like hell is her battling within herself for what she wants and what society says she should want but is denied because we're evil. Her grandfather is almost like her inner self telling her what she already knows but it doesn't jive with what she feels is expected of her. She wants to help raise and nurture children, but she's told all around her that being a wife and mother is nothing compared to what else she could be. Those two roles are insignificant compared to what the "man's world" has kept from her.
Tried to comment before, don't know what happened. Anyway.
She's literally arguing against or ignoring her own best self interest. Her grandfather isn't telling her things she herself hasn't come to realize, she's fighting what she's been told she needs versus what she wants. She's supposed to want these things that women have fought hard for, that were denied to her by men, but what she wants to be is a mom. To be a wife and mother would mean she's just wasting her potential, and shitting on what those before her have fought for. Her grandfather just represents the inner conflict going on, she's trying to rationalize her academic/career pursuits, justify them to herself. If there wasn't such a deep divide within her she wouldn't lash out or rant about it or ignore it outright. It wouldn't be such a big deal when it's talked about. But there's something eating at her. Hopefully she doesn't come around when she's 50 and becomes bitter.
Flat out most of the feminist movement is nothing but marketing. Before the 60's women generally did stay at home. After that thanks to Fem 1.0 the social message shifted till we have reached what we have today. None of it is satisfying for either of the sexes.
Here's the shame. I can provide a scenario that would at least alleviate most of the tension.
a) Women exit the workplace environment. Pay rates tick up a bit as a consequence.
b) Country adopts a different educational model. Individuals can earn a teaching assistant certificate online in less than a year.
c) Those parents who decide to homeschool and at least one partner has the certificate would receive 2/3rds reimbursement off their real estate tax bill as a check. That is not an insignficant chunk of money to pay one partner to stay home and mentor the kids.
d) The home partner can pursue educational purposes online these days if that is a desire.
e) Do part time as the opportuntiy arises, especially considering in these CoVid days, it is becoming the primary way to do staff work remotely, online.
I would offer that for most, this arrangement would be more money in the family coffers than the typical commute/corporate/daycare/expense cycle.
Woman wants a patriarch who will tell her what she wants, just as he will tell her children what they want, and ignore any nonsense they both may spout to the contrary, just as a shepherd ignores what his sheep think they want.
Failing that, woman wants to extract resources from betas and high quality sperm from alphas, while undermining her tribe in hopes of external conquest by aforementioned patriarchs.
Woman's wants are incoherent because they are designed by evolution to maximize her reproductive interest in all phases of the historical cycle, without consulting her rational mind. The rational mind is failure-prone and thus evolution will only risk letting men be rational.
Men asking what women want (and taking her answer seriously) is as foolish as men asking what children want. The patriarch defines their acceptable choices. He is their primary source of order.
Enjoying the decline accomplishes nothing. Mocking it may shorten the downcycle of history somewhat. The patriarch who cares about his genetic interest (his primary material reason for existence) has options. He may attempt to reproduce his own race using geo-arbitrage to mitigate the hostile Cathedral. Or he may miscegenate on another race's territory. Or he may decline to reproduce, instead dedicating himself to the destruction of the Cathedral, by any means necessary.
Heroes achieve meta immortality by serving their racial genetic interest through violence, because resisting genetically-distant invasion is far more valuable to one's genetic interest than competing with one's cousins by reproducing oneself.
As Paul Muad Dib said: "Long live the fighters."
To make matters worse, approximately 80% of men are simps. They don't want women to change, because "They love women", so they will accept them no matter how low quality they are.
Post a Comment