Thursday, May 26, 2011

Feminists and Cheaters - cont.

Continued from previous post...

As I said in my last post... if you place men and women in proximity of each other under ANY CONDITIONS - battlefield, college, corporate office, boardroom, restaurant/bar, hayloft - many, many, many of these individuals will engage in sexual congress.

"It takes 2 to Tango", or so goes the saying... so how did it always get to be the man's fault? Biology, and brilliant marketing on the part of Leftist/Feminist movement. BRILLIANT. We all know the biology, I'll spare you the discussion... suffice it to say that men and women use each other to advance their interests/agenda in line with what natural law intended - men are attracted to young women (those that were attracted to post-menopausal women over the eons did not pass on their genes), women are attracted to the things they deem desirable.... we all know that this just is what it is. The Left/Feminists have assiduously (or with blind luck) cultivated a system of discrediting those they view as impeding their agenda.

I have written before of the Liberal/Feminist birth/dearth baby bust. Leftist/Feminists do not breed more feminists; from my observation, a higher percentage are gay than is represented in the general population, and they are invariably college educated, which results in decreased fertility (see link below for the effect that has on baby production), ergo they must recruit Leftist/Feminists... and they do so at the top colleges and universities. 

Now stay with me, this is going to get tricky... The Liberal/Feminist agenda has dominated college campuses, politics, and corporations for the past 30 years. Our largest corporations almost exclusively recruit from the 50 most competitive colleges and universities. It is FAR EASIER to fill a slot at a corporation or government agency than founding and growing a successful business! While the vast majority of millionaires in America are family men that started rather unglamorous businesses with the help, support, and cooperation of the wives (look, I am not religious and do not support marriage/family life for religious reasons... I don't have to, the data overwhelmingly supports the idea that people live longer, happier, more satisfying lives as members of a family), it is the corporations that wield the power. I assert that corporations are NOT RUN by their managers and executives; I assert that the corporation RUNS the managers and the executives. VERY little talent is required for the vast majority of these folks. One "Steve Jobs" can keep a great many execs and managers busy. The other area that requires very little talent but yields enormous power is the Law. And Finance. Medicine requires somewhat more brains and talent than the previous 2, it seems... though we don't seem to be getting much. 

(Here's a fun fact to know... in 1980 only 10% of American women exited their childbearing years childless. Today, that number is 20%. For those with a bachelor's degree the percentage rises to roughly 1/3. I have seen no scientific data covering women with graduate degrees, but my personal observation tells me that the number likely approaches (or exceeds) 50%, with the vast majority of those with children having an only child. I will wind this data point into where I am going with this series.  Bear with me... but on a side note - if you want grandchildren, best to pay close attention!)

The Feminists have figured this out! We don't hear Feminists clamoring for more women to start small businesses and become self-made millionaires... the easiest path to power is within the corporation... since nearly ANY nitwit can run a near monopoly (how hard is it to manage Coke's franchise? Really? How about Clorox? Let me take some of those Coke execs and put them in a local printing, pest control, or contracting business... we'll see how f***ing smart they are...) the Feminists (quite correctly and brilliantly) promote those positions for women in order to gain power.

OK, so you are in a blood match for a political position for which there is no empirical way to judge who  is better than whom... what better way to demolish the competition than by creating sexual traps that will ruin the them? Because of the vagaries of natural law, a great many more middle aged male execs get caught in the honey trap than middle aged women (per capita; I recognize that there are more male executives.... but this roughly reflects the numbers of math, science, and engineering grads) execs... and, presto! Leverage.

(And contrary to what you might think.... I have nothing but respect (the kind of respect one pays to an enemy in the midst of war) for people that play chess this well!)

For every man out there sexually waltzing around there is a woman dancing just as fast but backwards and in high heels.  The Leftist/Feminist agenda made this a crime on the man's part... and a victim out of the woman! Mankind has been shagging each other since the dawn of time... but now it is been made into a political opportunity.

If the Feminist agenda was only to bring equality to women, wouldn't they concentrate on the area that creates the most wealthy people (starting small businesses)? This ain't about equality. Its about power.

Gotta hop... more soon.




12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, life in the world of big business is certainly the place to be for liberal feminist women that despise the big corporations. Does anyone besides me notice the hypocrisy here? The push by feminists is indeed for power.

The other driving force behind the feminist movement is to push all women into the workforce as a means to increase tax revenue. Someone has to pay for all that social spending. Not only is the woman's income taxed, but the money the then flows to childcare is taxed yet again. If she's at home, none of her work is taxable.

In most two income households, the woman's income just about covers the family's tax obligations. She's working 100% for the government. I guess that gives new meaning to the term tax slave. If you are part of a two income household, check it out.

Regards,

Coal Guy

PioneerPreppy said...

Good Post Greg.

While I follow your reasoning with feminist women having less children and therefore not passing on the traits like the older attraction example in men. The feminist have continuously opened up a broader and broader recruiting base for their power. Not only do they ally themselves with any "minority" or special interest group (even ones fundamentally opposed to feminism) to gain an advantage they also constantly increase the benefits of being female to recruit and coerce the young adult women to live the lifestyle.

You would think it would eventually consume itself and in a natural world it would. The problem as I see it is cheap energy. Oil allows the travesty of feminism to continue. Together the two push us past a normal and natural reset and likely could bring about a much harder collapse.

Anonymous said...

Abortion has consumed overeducated societies before. While everyone is aware that Rome conquered Greece and it was all the rage in Rome to have a Greek slave to tutor the Roman children. What isn’t so well known is that Rome really conquered empty hulks of cities. All of Greece could barely field 20K hoplites due to “The horrid practice, so familiar to the ancients, of exposing or murdering their new-born infants”

While we aren’t that bad off, I think your right. The missing kids will make things much worse for us than they need to be; especially for the barren.

Best,
Dan

Greg T. Jeffers said...

Guys... you are stealing my thunder again!!

I am getting there... this has been swirling around my head for some time (thanks pioneer... you pointed some of this out to me and then I started to read stuff that I would have passed over in the past...)

Greg T. Jeffers said...

PP:

My sense is that a belief system is not a genetic thing.

Most children follow in the socio/economic/religious/politico foot steps of their parents.... for those groups that don't do the child bearing thing, by mathematical necessity they will need to recruit.

PioneerPreppy said...

thanks pioneer... you pointed some of this out to me and then I started to read stuff that I would have passed over in the past...)

I try!!!

What boogles my mind are the men that refuse to see it for what it is. Women I can actually understand because they have different priorities. Some have hidden agendas sure but some are just too honest to see the doors that have been opened to them by these feminists. But the men...

A guy at work not 6 months ago was talking about quitting because his wife landed a well paying job. It did bother him a bit that the job in question he had also applied for and was better qualified for than his wife but hey he was happy for her, even though he didn't even get an interview. They had made a deal that once one had landed a decent job the other would become the fulltime stay at home parent.

I urged him not to quit. He assured me his wife was different but.... Three months later he is back only now at starting pay once again and ten years experience and two promotions wiped clean.... and of course a divorce lawyer to pay for now.

I must fight feminism and the multi-cult to the end!!!!

kathy said...

Reading all of this makes me really happy I married the guy I fell in love with when I was 13. He was 20 and wouldn't give me the time of day until I turned 18. We've been married for a really long time (my oldest is 36 and my youngest is 8 and 5 more in between). He rejoyces in all of my successes and was my biggest cheerleader when I was making 8 bucks an hour teaching pre-school and when I was pulling in decent royalties with writing and speaking gigs. Frankly, I think you are giving a lot of woman way too much credit for deep thinking, When I decided I needed to be financially independent it had some ulterior motives. I had seen what life was like, stuck with an abusive, sociopath for a husband, with no way out. My mother didn't even have a driver's liscence. Thanks, but I wanted to be able to support myself and my kids, no matter what life threw at me. That I found a man who appreciated both the sentiment and me was a gift that keeps on giving. Are any of you guys happily married to true partners. I'd give my life for my DH and he would do the same for me. Does it really have to be so advisarial? 40 years and we still have great sex and a lot of fun. Lightened up already.

kathy said...

I owe you guys an apology. My "happily married" comment was really uncalled for. It's tough to be the only woman on this blog. I should stay out of these conversations. I do understand your very valid points. It just is so far out of my realm of experience.

Anonymous said...

Kathy,

I will be celebrating my 15th anniversary next month, I have only been married once and I’m not quite 40. However I don’t kid myself; I won the lottery on that one. All almost my friends are divorced- some poor saps, more than once. Most are near destitute due to the child support payments. It is ridiculous. What did these guys do to deserve this??? Generally nothing- literally.

Some poor sap gets married to a ditsy broad calming “He’s almost perfect I only need to change X, Y and Z.” You see where this is going so you tell him to dump her and then he doesn’t talk to you anymore; at least until after the divorce.

Then next time you talk to him, you ask him what happened?
“Irreconcilable differences”

So you didn’t change X, Y, and Z?
“No.”

This is depressingly common. She marries him knowing he does whatever it is that annoys her. Then gets herself knocked up. Then divorces him because he doesn’t change. Finally she sues him for alimony, palimony, etc. If you ever catch her side of the story he is a jerk because “he just wouldn’t grow up.” It really is pathetic out there right now.

Best,
Dan

Anonymous said...

BTW, I think one of the reasons women tend to get promoted in larger corporations is that they tend to be more docile and more err. diplomatic. I was caned from the bottler you mentioned because when the president asked me what I thought of his pet project I thought he wanted an honest answer.

What really tickles me is fifteen years on they are finally moving in the direction I recommended. Margins are, or at least were razor thin and they were surviving on tremendous volume. The big money pit is the aluminum for the cans; an entire 2 liter bottle of finished product was cheaper than an empty can. The solution is to make a 12 oz bottle, price it competitively with cans and let the can business wither and die. Well they are making both 8 and 14 oz bottles now but they just can’t get rid of the cans. They are in love with cans because you can’t recap it; once someone opens it they are committed to drink it or waste it then buy another one.

Best,
Dan

PioneerPreppy said...

Well Kathy I always feel a bit sorry that you take my rants against feminism so personally. What I don't understand is how a woman can tell a story or paint a picture about the "bad ol days" or "Deadbeat dads" and thats ok but let a man tell a story about feminist gone bad and suddenly every woman takes it personally and the guy is a woman hater?

Forget for a moment my ex is somewhere between 24 and 32k behind in her child support and the State does nothing but yet men who owe more than 4k are automatically taken to jail for a felony.

Hell everyone has a horror story about the other gender.

Yet how many articles are written about women spending years in jail because a judge doesn't believe they reported all their income for alimony? How many times do you read about a man taking an ex-wife to court again after 20 or more years and getting court ordered support from her? I have never heard of either but I can point you to many stories where men got shafted in those exact ways.

And Dan. Women maybe more diplomatic (I would argue otherwise and say it's more a self preservation and acting skill but I digress) yet at the company I work for if a woman goes for the same position as a white man and the white man gets the job there is automatically a complaint filed. Every time. Regardless of difference in experience or education complaints by women are followed up on. A man so shafted has no where to go to complain until he is what 45? The peons maynot always be aware of it but women reaching for management complain and complain loudly and alot to any agency that will listen and men are not a protected class.

So which one is a company gonna hire? The one who has no where to go to complain or the one who can at the very least cost the company hours of unproductive time and perhaps legal fees? Not to mention secure her job for years if she is already an employee just by complaining.

Donal said...

Greg (and anyone interested in a deeper understanding of these relationships), I'd recommend 'The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature' by Matt Ridley. Its a tour de force in this subject.