Woman of the future 1900

“This boasted civilization of ours falls to pieces when stripped of its veneering and reveals man’s innate evil propensities in all their hideousness….”

The original good intentions of feminism – to contribute and prevent war deaths.

And by contribute to the workforce, I mean improve everyone’s lives.
AKA the purpose of capitalism.


Half a century later.
“There are fewer unmarried men at large than there have been for years and years.”
“Women are more likely to marry men about three years their senior.”

Many people lie about these time periods but cannot provide a scrap of conclusive evidence that these people were the way they claim.

“Women used to be ladies”

The latest meme making an irritating entrance into popular thought.

TLDR; read bolded.

It’s intended to insult clubbing culture (fine, ban clubs, otherwise, STFU about them).

Like most memes appealing to history, it’s misled at best, misleading at worst.

Rewind to the earliest times with video.
Ladies have fun too. Anything less is an overhanging lie from the Sexual Revolution.

“Yes but women used to be demure and coy, they didn’t dress and act like sluts.”

It is ironic the modern man has such a lax definition, as if looking at a man ‘the wrong way’ is slutty.

Women have always ‘made eyes’ at men, because we have eyes. When we use them, we’re accused of making eyes because studies show men are acutely sensitive to social overtures from women.

Maybe, just maybe, the nature of people doesn’t change much over time, and not everything is about you and how hard done-by you are? The term for that is a victim complex.
Look up the Evelyn Nesbit scandal, it was their OJ.
They even had versions of the Kardashians, pin-up girls before pin-ups, which really date back to the 18th century and painted adverts. If you believe any advert, it’s a de-facto IQ test and you lost.

Maybe read some social history before acting like you understand all women?

Especially those in other time periods.

^If that were true, you’d be a billionaire selling us bullshit. Advertising people understand people.

Funnily enough, women tend to be up on social history, so I find a meme that relies on our collective ignorance of it rather entertaining. The average woman knows as much social history trivia as a man knows military.

In perfect truth, such males want to castigate degeneracy without drawing attention to their own.

Let alone limiting it. R-types playing K.

This is intellectually dishonest, an argument based on bad rhetoric, bad faith, historical ignorance and makes for a coward. If you’re irritated that, in a world where sex is freer than ever, you still cannot get laid, perhaps the problem is not the people you fail to impress?

Maybe the problem is that you keep bitching like a gay guy.

Don’t look at a pretty woman and think the modern version of ‘ANKLE?!!!!‘ only to wonder why you’re labelled a creep and become a social leper. Offended people on this stuff are dull from birth.

Look and think ‘that’s nice’ and move on with your day because this superficial shit is not, by definition, important.

The women least likely to wear a miniskirt are prostitutes, because the goods are not given away for free.

Everything you know is wrong.

Ask a man with sisters if he judges their sexual desperation on what they wear.

Imagine if we applied the same judgementalism to men – all short-sleeve shirts are hereby signs of a gigolo. Shorts? Whore! Wear trousers like a proper man!

Only in the 20th century did it suddenly become acceptable (imho, no) for an adult man to wear shorts. It was considered ridiculous and you’d be mocked for it like turning up to a funeral in assless chaps, as was going topless until coal-miners striked because of job demands. This is the God’s honest truth. Look it all up. Shorts are literally the most immodest thing a man can wear, the male mini-skirt. It’s worse than a mini-skirt because things can play peek-a-boo. Short sleeves come in a close second and were taken up by the Italians with the sleeveless ‘wife-beater’ where they both should have been left, men couldn’t show their waistcoat at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Casual or modest, pick ONE.

I heard this meme from Clarey on YT years ago – he immediately began to criticize every modest fashion going, with an emphasis of vitriol for the maxi skirt. …That’s just a skirt. It’s a term for a proper skirt.

This stuck in my mind because I assumed it was a joke and waited for the punchline, the hypocrisy was so overt to a non-American. You have no idea what you want, but you know how much you want it!

He hated totally normal skirt lengths, pictured in the Edwardian videos, because it covered women up and he couldn’t ogle them, no more than five seconds after saying, to paraphrase- Why don’t women dress like ladies anymore?

The problem is male demand.

Male demand for risque fashions. Rappers are the main problem.

You can see how years of this from Kindergarten can make for avoidance of anyone who tries to pull it.

You can’t countersignal if nobody values your opinion to begin with. Look through the photos of the men saying these things and you’ll quickly realize they attract casual women because they are casual men. I haven’t seen a single one that owns a single (ONE) good suit. A good suit, by style standards and formality rules. Not a great suit, not an impressive suit, not an elegant suit, not a gentleman’s suit. A single decent item.

Which brings me to my next point: how do you intend to pay for that?

More fabric, more $$$$$. That is not a typo. A suitable wardrobe is 4-figures, a good one is five. This is based on wear and variety for activities. Being formal is more expensive, rappers lie.

Look at the guys making these claims about ladies. Are they gents?

Any woman looking at these guys will immediately notice the discrepancy, it’s like…

Which fork, Forney?

They have no clue of basic etiquette and try to prattle on like a stage mother.
They are alcoholics who couldn’t tell you the difference between a white wine and red wine goblet if their lives depended on it.

Nobody takes this ‘advice’ seriously. They have nothing to offer but opinion and personal complaint.

The funniest thing my society friends ever heard about women’s fashion was one drab man telling, loudly, anyone who would listen, that spaghetti straps were the sign of a slut.

This story still does the rounds and I’ve heard people quoting it without getting the joke.
Guess the nationality. Go on, guess. I think we all know.
Guess what he was wearing with his bad tan and fake Rolex he kept showing to people who could tell the difference.

These are the guys who refuse to buy a drink to assert interest (formal politeness) or buy a dinner they invited their intended to (the formal rule) but they want a woman with expensive taste?

Are you quite sure?

They slob around in t-shirts and shorts, in general, and wonder why the women draped in £3,000 Dolce don’t give them a second look. Class does come into it. The problem is, they have none.

Therefore, they refuse to see it as an issue…. because it IS the issue.

Women do not qualify to men. Eggs are expensive.

However, not looking like ‘Kevin the teenager’ helps.

Would you show up for a job interview wearing this? Are you using it for a sport? If the answer to both is NO, do NOT wear it out of the house and for the love of Christ get a good suit before you start spouting off on Patriarchy and the dire need of male leadership.

You don’t care how you look? Yes, it shows.

Hate sluttiness? Push to ban all contraception and sexual health clinics. Yes, all.

Hate immodest clothing? Push for Elizabethan clothing laws. Yes, in social history, there are many, many actual, literal laws that restricted things like length for modesty, and most women are aware of these. It would also mean strippers are illegal and you can’t pretend to be rich in clubs without actually being rich.

I don’t expect these guys to grow the balls, ..do you?

Conformity is a feminine virtue, as I mentioned earlier, so don’t blame all women for the actions or obscenity of singular examples, otherwise, all men are like Jack the Ripper; non sequiturs about men would be far more insulting.

Why aren’t women virtuous, they ask, not a virgin themselves.

Because none of the previous words will get through to ‘these’ people.

We mock idiots like you.

The manosphere’s problem in one meme


Literally. I’ve had this conversation;

Guy: What does she want?
Me: Do this, this and this.
Guy But what does she want? Why won’t she just tell me?
Me: Did you ask her?
Guy: I shouldn’t have to, she should just tell me.
Me: And how should she know? Why won’t you just tell her?
Guy: ….But what does she want from me????

If you can talk about sexual stuff, you can communicate on literally any other topic under the Sun. Quit playing coy.

Moral: men don’t get to decide what women need/want, nor vice versa because the sexes are different, remain different and their needs/wants specific, possibly unique. If you disagree, you needn’t associate with them. Clear? Clear.

Alright, real talk. That was good.

And nobody got called sexist because we’re all speaking to each other and listening like human beings.

Misogyny stereotypes (myths) – a case of projection

I love it when they’re logical for once.

Women are sluts – men have higher partner counts.
Women can’t be trusted – most sociopaths/psychopaths are men.
Women are emotional – anger issues are typically male.
Women are violent – not by any known definition of the word and most murders of men and women are done by… men. It’s rational to be wary of men, the same way other men are. If a random man follows you on a dark road, male or female, you’ll panic a little.
Women are crazy – most suicides are men.
Women are unstable – women can live together peacefully, men literally fight. All the time.
Women are useless – women raise men, ergo… men are only as useful as the women who raise them. In Iceland in 1975, the women went on strike – chaos ensued and the men were useless. Do not push us. If men down tools for a day, the economy suffers, maybe. Nobody really cares except factory owners and that’s why strikes keep happening. If women strike, the species stops.
If women stopped working, nobody would notice/Women are lazy – mothers work hours that breach human rights law.
Women cheat – Ashley Madison was a sausage fest.
Women are desperate – have you seen what men will fuck? Toasters, sofas, cars, postboxes, fruit.
Women can’t control themselves – look at all the above facts.
Women can’t keep a marriage together – the biggest causes of divorce are money issues (the male should attempt to be the financial provider) and cheating (look at the Ashley Madison hack stats). Do not confuse the person who filed for divorce for the person who ruined the marriage.
Women drink too much – true, largely cultural – but men drink more. And do more drugs, and OD more.
Women are sex crazy – women can go without just fine. But look to India, where millions of unsexed men are ruining an entire country.
Women need men – sorry, is that supposed to be an insult? You can sniff the attachment issues. Commitment phobes, usually men. They will literally never, ever keep a woman happy. A single woman, they are incapable of it (spot them by daydreaming about a harem, who in reality, would gang up on their weak ass).
Women care about computers too much/attention whore – men brag in their own way and recently post ab selfies. Which sex is the typical porn addict? Which sex relies on hook-up apps because they are poorly socialized? aka scared to talk to people.
Women are dumb – there are more male retards than female.
Women are soft – women are polite, men are rude but confuse this with something to be admired.
Women flake – men are socially dense and spin rejection into a fault of the other party.
Women are terrible with their finances – well, do you want her to earn the family bacon or not? Which sex tends to balance the family chequebook? Single women, yes, but single men rack up more debt on stupid things like car leases and bottle service, so STFU.
Women love shoes – it’s status signalling, idiots. Men love cars, guess which is more expensive?
Women don’t ‘get’ guy stuff – we do, we think most of it is stupid. See recently Pokemon Go and the guy who was tapping away on his phone while his wife gave birth. A+ manliness there.
Women aren’t feminine – feminine doesn’t mean pushover willing to serve some random stranger’s whim. It never has.
Women are frigid – Madonna/Whore in narcissists again.
Women aren’t good at sex – yes, I’m sure out of all your partners it happened to be 100% of the women at fault.
Women don’t like me – similar point.
Women cuckold men – I haven’t seen any hard data to support this, it’s a myth to make the bachelors less depressed.
Women need men more than men need women – single women don’t kill themselves, usually.
Women are incompetent – better school grades, more positions at University, better pay before the age of 30 when they leave the market for the true incompetents to clean up.
Women are lazy – women tend to balance home/work, men cannot. They usually choose work and fear being a stay-at-home father because they know it’s harder work than faffing around in a cubicle for 3 hours of paperwork and looking busy the rest of the time. Most working men can’t even keep their house tidy when it’s just them living there, they still need women in the form of maids, to say nothing of hookers.
Women are weak – higher pain tolerance, bitches.
Women gossip more – about the same, in studies. Men gossip about different things, especially sex, which they gossip far more about (SATC lied).
Women’s genitals are inferior to sacred phallus – two words: multiple orgasms.
And the ultimate one, women are illogical – women put up with men, men can’t understand women. Men confuse rationalization with rationality and are boorish enough to assume their opinion is not only wanted, interesting, but also correct. Is that logical to you?

*mic drop*

eyebrow waggle

When you hear such men, they’re bitter at their own faults.

Freedom for women without feminism

In brief, she argues that pushing women into jobs designed by and for men (a common attitude among feminists) is not the appropriate way to make use of the specific skills of women. On the contrary, it comes close to abuse. However, preventing women access to education and the professional world for reasons of alleged inferiority and limiting their social function to raising children (anti-feminism, Christian traditionalism) is not going to make anyone happy either. Mathilde proposed a third way, a different kind of traditionalism: for a strong “folk”, women must be given the opportunity to develop their personalities and creative skills properly so as to contribute to society in their own, uniquely feminine way. There should be a female contribution beyond motherhood, but it should be in harmony with a woman’s nature and her physical and mental make-up. Ludendorff counts intuitive cognition — i.e., psychological and holistic thinking — as among the most valuable skills of women that would complement the rationalistic, schematic tendency of the male intellect in a meaningful way.


applause clap clapping yes well done

Finally, someone who gets it.

Ignoring half of the population because they give birth is as silly as refusing to socialize with women on their period.
Anyone willing to contribute to the national good should be encouraged.

“Let’s blame women”

I keep hearing this conclusion in various forms from the manosphere and it’s very confusing.

So I looked for a balanced version.


However. Aside from assuming the history of America is the history of the whole world.

Um, aren’t men supposed to be the champions of civilization?

Inconvenient Question: Why are you expecting the women to save the men?

no what I don't believe it can't be true disbelief pushing daisies

In all human history, has that ever happened? Is it even possible? How?

Assuming women all saw the light tomorrow, where are our champions? Where are the suitable husbands and captains of industry? The guys angry-typing in ALL CAPS online who claim ‘they’ built civilization can’t put up a spice rack. What use would we have for them, as they are? Who are we supposed to follow?

We have pajama boys and video game players denying reality as much as a feminist with campus rape data.

What does the manosphere intend to do about that?

Sweet FA, because pointing out their immaturity would trigger their hurt feelings and we can’t have that. They talk a big game about ‘self-improvement’ but they mean fake masculinity, like good hair and big useless muscles aka they act like gay guys. Nothing about building a business (blogging doesn’t count, businesses are literal physical entities you must maintain) and nothing about keeping a marriage afloat from old coots who’ve actually done it. They seriously ask single men how to keep a wife. Should we ask the fat activists how to keep slim?

The evidence points to male academics founding feminism (Frankfurt). Men like the FEMEM leader profiteer from it. Business interests and charity heading men and politicians profit from feminism the most. School keeps everyone dumb well into adulthood now. Young people aren’t being taught how to grow up. Look at the popularity of kid’s cartoons and geek culture. It’s perma-childhood. It’s creepy. It’s like the Twilight Zone.

Some quotes.

Very few people are genuinely evil and wish bad things upon others.  And we can safely say that the majority of women are NOT evil people who wish to destroy the best development of human history.  And though there are some genuinely evil people who DO wish to destroy and harm others (feminists and SJW’s) the vast majority of women are well intentioned, caring people.

The problem, however, is you can be the sweetest woman with all the best intentions in the world.  If you’re naive or ignorant to the point you’re wrong, you’ll still have the same effects of being an evil, malicious person out to cause damage.  Thus, whether out ignorance or evil, society is going to pay the exact same price no matter what your intentions.  And so, as women vote and make other decisions in life about how the country should be run, Western Civilization suffers because of their ignorance and naivety.

Isn’t this really about supporting Marxist parasites?
Don’t men do that too? Don’t men make up the bulk of Communists?
Why only start on women for a bad behaviour both exhibit?

The government spending lie is one we’re all fed at goverment-sponsored schools. We aren’t forced to go to school because they care for us but because they expect to profit from us and our labour once we’re adult.

Yet the manosphere acts like modern schooling is good for girls too. Is it teaching us to be women, let alone good women? No! It’s just as bad for girls as boys.

Previous to women’s suffrage and the massive expansion of government, men were the nucleus of society and the economy.  It was around a man families and society were raised.  And it was his economic production that supported them all.

I don’t know where he’s getting his information (50s adverts?) but children were the focus. Men were the primary provider but women provided labour and fertility. It was a totally even exchange. Both parents sacrificed for the children, the centre of the home was the kitchen.

Who wanted the family to fall, why? To kill capitalism.

Gender politics turns the family unit against itself. We’re being conned.


Because it will keep the left in power.  It will expand and ensure future government control.

paging K. Marx


To be frank there is none.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double

What do the enemy hate?

Nuclear family.

What should we do to defeat them?


The answer lies in the founding principle of Western Civilzation – Merit.


You sleep around and got an STD? Too bad.
You sleep around and got pregnant? Pay for your own medical treatment, it was your lifestyle choice.
You want consequence-free sex? It’s called a hooker.

Treat adults like adults. No more excuses. No more free passes trading on pretend ignorance. Sex is the big one. What did you seriously expect would happen? Did you seriously think it had no consequences?

He’s right about this part. Universal suffrage.

For example, in the embryonic years of the United States you not only had to be a white male to vote, you also had to own property.  The founding fathers had this requirement because not only did they not want blacks or women to vote, but because they also didn’t want stupid white men to vote!  You couldn’t just have been “born a white male.”  You also had to prove you could work and manage your finances accordingly that you were a productive member of society.  And requiring ownership of property was a proxy for that hurdle.

Proof of competence.

However, while that may have had the intended effect in 1790, today we have the technology that a much better and much more meritorious voting franchise can be given – taxes.

Very simply, if you want to vote you need to have paid taxes.

lol laughing rdj tony stark heehee haha

Everybody in the UK is subsidized. Everybody. Somehow.

Even the politicians get expenses for their taxpayer champagne.


And you thought I was kidding. That’s the capitalist party.

Nobody could vote under a No Parasite Policy.

Maybe, like, one guy. Who lives on an island.