Boomer bosses

I love how nobody could deny a spiteful Boomer did this, upon seeing it.

There need to be anti-Boomer signs like: Social Security has already run out.

This came close:

I’d remind those in the US&UK, especially the universities, that there’s no such thing as a legal right to retire.

Those professors might realise their pension is just a shiny IOU, can’t have that, they might question Big Brother….

Female medieval English skeletons study

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119392

“However, the period of ‘youth’ in medieval England, before the achievement of full social adulthood, may have extended well past physical adolescence, and the age of 25 years is often used as the cut-off point.14″

Louder for the pedos at the back.

“but for most medieval young women physical adulthood did not equate to social adulthood.16″

Obviously.

“Instead, puberty may have marked the beginning of the phase of ‘maidenhood’ rather than adulthood.17”

We now call it teenagehood but I prefer that name for women.

“Lifestyle changes for the teenager, in particular the onset of formal work, may have marked a further step away from childhood, particularly if this involved a move away from the parental home. That the 14th-century poll tax was levied on all those aged 14 years and above suggests that young women were expected to be earning their own money by this age.18

HA. Yeah, the guys who say women should sit at home all day twiddling their thumbs waiting to marry are 1. wrong and 2. have put too much stock in middle-class novelist Austen.

Like today;
“Although exact numbers are impossible to calculate, it is clear from the documentary evidence that a significant proportion of young women migrated to urban centres such as London and York to obtain employment, most commonly a service position.19″

Exactly like today:
“This move would have been a dramatic, and potentially a traumatic, change in lifestyle for young women. Although it may have brought greater freedom and responsibility, it does not seem to have conferred full adult status; there is evidence that young women in service were always viewed as ‘girls’ regardless of their age, just as young men were not viewed as full adults before the completion of an apprenticeship contract.20″

So they didn’t marry for money, they were already economically independent.

If you actually read history and here, forensics.

“in reality, marriage at such a young age was largely restricted to the nobility, with the average age at marriage in the general population estimated at 20–25 years,22
and perhaps even later following the Black Death.23
This would provide a very late age of achievement of ‘adulthood’ by modern standards. However, although marriage was very much the expected path a significant minority of women — perhaps around 15% — never married.24″

Who is dumb enough to have never looked this up?

I keep seeing Americans who make sweeping fictional statements about what ‘we’ Europeans did and it’s like… no. That’s never happened. Citation? Statistics? They are liars. Even in their revenge fantasies of ‘oppressing’ women from work (oh joy, welfare on the backs of random men? can’t win, can we?) then they assume all women would marry off (literally never happened in human history), all women are fertile and their children all magically survive (LOL) and that all men want to marry and got to choose who (LOL no). The economy also needs young workers, part of the immigrant problem is caused by not allowing teens to work.

They’re in bloody La La Land.

Extended maturation is K-selected, the men and women were tougher as a result.

Just realised my grandmothers might be in here.

Almost certainly. Yeah, don’t lie about my nana/s.

“Alongside these dramatic but infrequent events, most young medieval females would have experienced everyday hardships and hazards.”

” The average femoral diaphysis length recorded for the medieval 14-year-old females (354 mm) is closest to that recorded by Maresh for 20th-century 10-year-olds (348 mm). The average figures for medieval 15- and 16-year-old females (365 mm and 366 mm respectively) are still lower than for 20th-century 11-year-olds (367 mm). These data suggest that growth in medieval England fell well below modern standards, perhaps reflecting the lower standard of living medieval children would have experienced.”

If it was that hard on the girls, you don’t wanna go back to that, guys.

“It does not necessarily follow that medieval women were considerably shorter than their modern counterparts. When compared to dental formation, epiphyseal fusion in the female adolescent skeletons from our sample was delayed by two to three years in comparison to modern standards, allowing them to ‘catch-up’ their growth during the pubertal growth spurt.27 This pattern of extended growth appears to have been common in the medieval period;”

The English are tough.

” Only very slight differences in stature were noted between the women of Lincolnshire, London and Gloucester, although the London females had greater diversity in adult height.”

“This may suggest that girls who experienced poorer conditions for childhood and adolescent growth were more likely to die around or before the age of 25 years.”

K-selection. Stunted or shorter women likelier to die. Same with men.

“It has been suggested that female height may have suffered in comparison to male height in medieval Europe due to preferential feeding and care of male children,33causing greater sexual dimorphism in growth and final stature between the sexes. By comparison, the average stature of young men at our sites (156 individuals) was 169.5 cm (5 ft 7 in). This may simply be the result of sexual dimorphism as such comparisons are similar for modern western populations, and therefore does not support the hypothesis that girls experienced poorer nutrition and living standards than boys.”

K-types invest well in all offspring.

“According to these indicators, it appears that all of the individuals studied had entered the pubertal growth spurt by the age of 14 years. In the modern western world girls tend to begin puberty around the age of 10 years,37 and so this result would fit with modern expectations. “

Puberty begins then takes a few years, 14-18/19 matches what I read elsewhere about menarche (posted here).

The ‘modern’ data is skewed by non-whites, especially Asians and Africans, with much lower menarches.

The African is nine, measured in America, as I recall.

“More information can be gained from examining the epiphyseal fusion of the hand phalanges, a process known to occur during the deceleration phase of the pubertal growth spurt, and correlated with first menstruation in modern females. Although the age at which this event occurred varied in our sample just as among modern girls, fusion appears to have occurred most frequently between 15 and 17 years (Fig 2). At 14 years, only 36% of girls display fusing or fused hand phalangeal epiphyses, but by 17 years this figure has risen to 84%.”

Still not 100%, K-types have a later range of menarche.

“A second skeletal event known to be associated with first menstruation, the ossification of the iliac crest of the ilium, was also only found in girls aged at 15 years or over. Interestingly, this is roughly in line with the average age at menarche suggested by the few available documentary sources.38 An average age at menarche of between 15 and 16 years would be much later than the modern British average of just under 13 years.39In addition to their shorter stature, this finding adds weight to the argument that environmental factors such a deficient diet and disease were having a negative impact on medieval female growth and development. Interestingly, however, this average age at menarche is below the age of 17 years recorded for mid-19th century females,40indicating that urban conditions were not as detrimental as those experienced during rapid industrialisation.”

The female body takes YEARS to develop, periods often occur too early to carry a child to term. Hollywood lies, because it’s full of creeps.

Men shouldn’t be discussing a reproductive system they cannot understand.

“The evidence for medieval England, however, shows a delay in the achievement of this milestone, which appears to have fallen between 17 and 18 years for most girls, based on 247 individuals with this bone surviving (Fig 3). Complete fusion of the iliac crest of the ilium, which signals the end of pelvic growth, was only seen in a minority of women aged below 20 years, based on the 277 individuals “

They’re K-types, it isn’t a delay, it’s NORMAL. Modern people are aberrant.

17-18 periods stabilize (this takes years, I have spoken to doctors about it).

The pelvis keeps growing to carry and support a child though, only when this is done (about 21, spinal plate fusion) is the woman actually sexually mature with a low risk of still birth, miscarriage or death.

Modern medicine is allowing a lot of non-white thots to survive a process Nature is telling them is fatal. Do not confuse that with Nature’s approval.

These data suggest that puberty was extended into the very late teens for young medieval women, pushing back the timing of achievement of full physical adulthood. This extended period of physical adolescence indicates that living standards for young medieval women, at least in the urban and small town environments, were considerably poorer than those of modern British adolescents. Some variation between the sites was noted, with pubertal development most advanced in the small town of Barton-upon-Humber, and most delayed in the urban hospital cemetery of St Mary Spital, London. This presumably reflects the harsher living conditions experienced by the girls living and working in London.”

Nah, hard work and low fat diet. Treating the women like men will delay them more.

“It is believed that the demographic changes caused by the Black Death may have led to increased opportunities for many women to migrate and work.43

Although less documentary evidence is available for women than for men, there is evidence for female servants much younger than 12 years in urban households,44and some migration may have occurred at a very young age. Although legislation was passed to regulate the minimum age for apprentices — 13 years in the early 14th century, rising to 16 years by the 15th century — apprenticeships were rarely available for girls, and no such legal minimum age existed for servants or casual workers. The available evidence suggests that girls started formal work away from home at a younger age than boys.45

This concept of female laziness is really American.

” a degree of personal freedom; the latter is perhaps most clearly indicated by the large number of migrant women recorded as making ‘merchet’ payments for the right to choose their own marriage partner.46 On the other hand, moving away from home, particularly to a town or city, could bring with it new challenges and hazards, such as sexual predation, mistreatment, injury and disease.”

Americans are so wrong it hurts.

” this result indicates that much greater numbers of women living and dying in London were actually suffering from tuberculosis.”

“Again, the numbers are too small for statistical analysis, but this may provide further evidence for girls having a more indoor lifestyle than boys in the medieval period.”

Forcing women to sit at home is literally bad for their health.

We aren’t mole people.

On the whole, the women actually had it harder than men.

“There can be little doubt that this extensive workload was exhausting for many women, but osteological study can provide further direct evidence for the impact that this had on young women’s bodies.

A wide range of trauma has been recorded on the skeletons of young medieval women, including fractures of the upper limb and finger bones, cranium and ribs, lower limbs and feet.57 However, the prevalence of fractures of each type is lower than among males, suggesting that girls were exposed to (or exposed themselves to) fewer risks of injury than boys.”

We hadn’t evolved for that labour, men did.

“It is notable that, of the 48 cases of trauma reported in the grey and published literature, cranial, rib and jaw injuries, suggestive of interpersonal violence, only started to appear in women aged 17–25 years, comprising 18.6% of the 43 fractures for this age group. This suggests that the risk of violence rose as girls turned into young women, perhaps reflecting domestic violence after marriage.58″

That would explain the death rate. Stress and fractures – no healthy baby.

There is one area of the skeleton where young women seem to have suffered virtually the same frequency of fractures as young men, the vertebral column. By far the highest prevalence rate for vertebral fractures (4.7%, n = 9) was found at St Mary Spital suggesting that female workers in the capital, or at least the poor workers buried in this hospital cemetery, were undertaking the activities most likely to cause spinal injury. The majority of these fractures were compression fractures, often caused by falls from a height, although avulsion and hyperflexion injuries were also present.59

The men sitting at a desk in an apprenticeship had it easy.

“Schmorl’s nodes are common, often asymptomatic, depressions caused by herniation of the nucleus pulposus on the superior and inferior surfaces of the vertebral bodies. Their aetiology is complex, although spinal trauma caused by vigorous activity and flexion and extension of the spine is most commonly associated with their formation.60 The age of their occurrence is not clear, but they generally appear before the age of 18 years.61Plomp et al argued that males are more susceptible to these lesions due to the size and shape of their vertebrae.62 In our study, medieval women had a higher prevalence of the lesions). Analysis of the location of Schmorl’s nodes on the vertebrae revealed that the lumbar vertebrae were affected far more often among women, and the central thoracic vertebrae among men. This mirrors vertebral fractures where in the women all of the fractures occurred in the lower thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, while in young men the central thoracic vertebrae were affected. This may suggest different activities; strain on the lumbar vertebrae, in particular, may be caused by bending and lifting.63″

aka back breaking labour, which could cause…

“Further evidence for stress being placed on the spines of young medieval women is provided by cases of spondylolysis. This describes the partial separation of the inferior facets on the neural arch from the vertebral body, usually between the ages of 10–12 years. The condition results from microtrauma in low grade stress on the lower back due to bending and lifting strains, or a fall from a height,64 but may have an underlying congenital cause. This injury was present in 4.4% of the female skeletons examined. This is higher than the prevalence of this condition found by the authors among young medieval males (2.9%), although the numbers involved were too small for statistical analysis. Again, the area involved is the lumbar region of the vertebral column. In addition, three young women, two aged at around 21 years and one at 22–25 years, display early degenerative joint disease of the vertebral column.”

Forcing women into labour like that kills them, reminder.

What emerges from the osteological evidence is that the workload of many young medieval women appears to have been literally backbreaking, and these early injuries may be expected to have led to significant back problems and pain in later life. It seems likely that these early spinal problems were caused primarily by carrying heavy loads at a time when the spine was still forming and vulnerable. Research from the grey and published literature reveals that rates of spinal injury were higher in urban than rural women65 and suggests that the workload of the young migrant women in service was harder than that of the young women who remained in the country or in small towns with their families. For example, the prevalence of vertebral fractures, spondylolysis and Schmorl’s nodes was lowest at Barton-upon-Humber, a wealthy small town.66″

Marriage, Sexual Activity and Childbirth

There is considerable evidence to suggest that marriage was a defining moment in the medieval female life course, marking the transition into true social adulthood.67 It is notable, however, that there was a significant gap between the legal age at marriage (12 years) and the average age at marriage (20–25 years even before the Black Death) in medieval England.68 The new analysis of pubertal development in medieval England discussed above suggests that the average age at menarche was 15–16 years. Full fertility, in terms of the likelihood of conception, carrying a healthy pregnancy to term and surviving childbirth, would only have followed several years after menarche with the completion of pelvic growth,69 which in our medieval sample appears to have been rare before the age of 19 years.

aka what I already typed, dammit

The fact that many young medieval women would not have been fertile before their 20s may be one reason for the relatively late average age of marriage during this period.70 It also suggests that marriage at the legal minimum age of 12 years would rarely have been fruitful, and any pregnancy that did ensue would have carried significant risks for the mother. We know of several medieval legal cases of the marriage of young girls where the ‘physical readiness for marriage’ of the girl in question was debated.71

This don’t go to college because you get periods thing from America is pig ignorant on female anatomy.

There is evidence to suggest, however, that the majority of cases of marriage before 15 years were confined to the nobility.72Today, girls of higher socio-economic status, with a considerably better standard of life, mature earlier than average. For example, high caste girls in 20th-century India have an average age at menarche over a year younger than low caste girls.73 The average age at menarche for noble girls in medieval England may therefore have been younger than the average age of 15–16 years described above.

more r-selected by men, explains eventual decadence and homosexuality rates, especially in the French

Even so, a pregnancy before the completion of pelvic development would have been dangerous; a famous example of this is provided by Margaret Beaufort, who appears to have been rendered sterile by a difficult first birth (of the future king Henry VII) at the age of just 13 years.74 An understanding of these risks is demonstrated by several contemporary authors,75 and was reflected in the Jewish rule that contraception (banned by Christian teaching) could be used to prevent pregnancy if the bride were too young to safely bear a child.767

The guys trying to force women to reproduce young would ironically render their own wife sterile via their stupidity. Good riddance. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

In theory, marriage coincided with sexual initiation for young women, and if the Church’s remonstrations to remain celibate until marriage were universally followed, it would indicate a relatively late age of sexual initiation. In reality, premarital sex among betrothed couples seems to have been common,77

that links to this study, no, they weren’t slutty

seems*

no

and sex with other partners, in not all cases consensual, was far from rare.

Are you really counting rape?

Evidence for this is provided by the erratic enforcement of ‘legerwite’ or ‘leyrwite’ fines on serf women who engaged in premarital sex.78

What about the men.

Premarital sex is thought to have been particularly common among young girls and women living away from home, for example in service roles, due to the greater freedom and availability of partners as well as the risk of sexual predation or pimping from employers.79 The sexual exploitation of girls in service appears to have been a frequent problem based on the legal record,80 and many young women must have lost their virginity in these circumstances. The extensive focus of many writers on admonishing young women to stay celibate until marriage may be taken as further evidence that premarital sex was seen (at least for women) as a significant societal problem.

Rape isn’t sleeping around, WTF.

Pedophiles raping virgins don’t really count as premarital sex, a choice, does it?

Two aspects of osteological analysis may shed light on sexual activity among young medieval women. The first is a sexually transmitted disease. Venereal syphilis, a treponemal disease, affects the skeleton in its tertiary stage, causing distinctive skeletal lesions.81 From the end of the 15th century, syphilis is believed to have been endemic in urban areas of England, although recent work has suggested that it may have been present at a much earlier date.82

Men spread that, sailors caught that. Your point?

If a virgin woman married a man with it, she’d get it. That can happen after marriage.

These female authors really want to present all women throughout history as sluts. Cui bono?

Among the 14–25 year old female individuals examined, four probable cases of treponemal disease were recorded, based on the presence of characteristic gummatous lesions in the cranium or long bones.83 Three of these were found in the young women from London (Fig 5), and one was found in York, at St Helen-on-the-Walls. One further case is known from Blackfriars, Gloucester;84 no cases were identified in the rural or small town sites consulted in the wider survey. The two youngest women to show signs of treponemal disease were aged at just 16 years. It is difficult to rule out congenital syphilis in these cases, as the presentation of the two conditions can be very similar, although none of these skeletons display the typical dental deformations of congenital syphilis.

So their fathers were sluts, so?

If the disease is the venereal form of treponemal disease, or syphilis, this would suggest the girls were very young when first infected. Syphilis generally takes several years to cause such destruction in the skeleton.85 Although the number of cases recorded is small, given that only 10–20% of individuals with tertiary syphilis experience skeletal involvement, and that skeletal lesions take several years to develop,86 it seems likely that much greater numbers of young women were affected by this disease.

To imply they wanted to be raped by syphilitic men is a bridge too far though.

The spread of sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis was exacerbated by the problem of prostitution in medieval towns and cities. Karras argues that regulations of the Guilds limited women’s access to the normal labour market, forcing them to turn to prostitution out of necessity.87

Assuming that was a mistake.

There is little direct evidence that apprentices were procured as prostitutes, but one extant record from London City and Ecclesiastical Court (ad 1423) attests that one Alison Boston took apprentices who she hired out for the ‘horrible vice of lechery’.88 There are also accounts of men taking young girls (invenculae) to the London stews and selling them as prostitutes, suggesting the types of danger faced by young unskilled immigrant women. Goldberg89 cites the famous references from medieval York in ad 1482 that place prostitutes within the legal realm of ‘lepers’ and pigs in the hazards they caused for the local population.

Enslaved children.

She does not discuss the age at which women may have turned to prostitution, but suggests widows and daughters of labourers, known as ‘spinsters’ and ‘seamstresses’ (sempsters), needed to work several jobs to make ends meet, including petty theft, illegal ale retailing and prostitution. Goldberg argues that although full-time, ‘professional’ prostitutes were rare, many women were forced into occasional prostitution in hard times.90

Contradiction, Goldberg.

also why we have the welfare state

This would have been a particular risk for a migrant girl away from the safety of her family.91 Although it is impossible to state that any of the young medieval women examined were forced into this profession, this must be considered in the cases where possible syphilis is recorded.

No shit, nobody would choose that. The excuses these women make for rape are appalling.

A second consequence of sexual activity, pregnancy, may also in exceptional circumstances be visible in the archaeological record. In total, eight cases of young women buried with fetuses in utero have been recorded from medieval cemetery contexts. These burials represent ‘obstetric catastrophes’ with the death of both mother and child in late pregnancy or childbirth. Although there was a Christian injunction in place in medieval England for infants to be removed from their mother’s womb before burial,92 this does not appear to have been rigorously obeyed.

Yeah, who wouldn’t choose to die like that? I guess they were all just happy sluts, huh Mizz Feminist?

All of the individuals buried with a fetus in utero in medieval cemeteries have an estimated age at death of around 20 years or over, and thus none represent particularly young ‘teenage’ pregnancies.

Because they rarely got pregnant. Look at the evidence.

This may support the idea that in the medieval period teenage girls were not falling pregnant, as first pregnancies are often seen as the most hazardous.93

May? It’s anatomical.

It also fits with the known late pattern of marriage in this society. However, it is by no means certain that all of these women were married. The two examples from St Mary Spital may have represented extramarital pregnancies as the hospital was known to accept unmarried women in pregnancy or childbirth.94 It may be significant that neither of these women received an individual grave or any grave ornamentation. In contrast, the elaborate nature of one young mother’s burial at Barton-upon-Humber, in a coffin within the church and with a cloth of gold artefact,95 surely indicates that this woman was married and held a position of substantial social standing.

Clearly, their situation was a choice.

Given the high mortality rate of women in childbirth in the medieval period revealed by documentary sources,96s it is clear that these rare burials represent a dramatic under-estimation of the real levels of maternal mortality. In many cases, the churches prohibition on burying fetuses in utero may have been observed. In a large proportion of births, too, the child may have been saved, leaving little clue as to the cause of death of the mother.

But doctors (when sane) will elect to save the mother because she can have countless children later but an orphan baby is already financially a goner. Remember this, America.

Conclusion

The period of social adolescence for young medieval women seems to have been an important life stage, encompassing the growth to full physical adulthood and fertility, the adoption of adult working roles and, for most young women, the move from legal dependence on a father to legal dependence on a husband, with perhaps a few brief years of relative independence in between. The comparative absence of young women from documentary sources means that osteological information plays a vital role in our understanding of this group, and it can reveal a great deal about the way in which medieval girls grew into women, the living conditions they enjoyed or endured, the work they did and the health problems they faced.

Many of the conclusions drawn from osteological analysis of this group articulate with and illuminate the documentary evidence. The average age at which full fertility appears to have been achieved, around 20 years, is substantially later than in modern England, but ties in well with the known average age at marriage in this society. The greater susceptibility of young women to respiratory infections, from the relatively benign maxillary sinusitis to the deadly serious tuberculosis, chimes with the picture drawn from documentary sources of an indoor lifestyle for women, close to the smoky fire, and of the cramped living conditions that helped to spread disease. The backbreaking work clearly undertaken by many young women paints a clearer physical picture of their daily lives than that provided by documentary sources alone, and the development of signs of venereal disease in very young women hints at the problem of girls being driven to prostitution in England’s medieval cities.

Gang rape, we still have it. They are driven to it, slave-driven.

Everyone dies

but how many lived?

Every productive person I know is going or has gone Galt. They’ve all reduced their work hours to the minimum, every woman and every man and even kids are half-arsing “homework” that doesn’t count on their grade.

Homework is one of the first lines of this brainwashing.

People who get it can come from all walks of life.

Rows of desks and a manager who pretends to be your friend or replace your parent, it all fits.

Every person who could express their reason is essentially rebelling.

“I’m sick of my work going to people who hate me”.

Who can argue with that?

One example stuck with me, a guy intimated:

Why get that raise if you’ll make less money post-tax to pay for the mosque down the road popping out dependents YOU will be held financially responsible for?

That’s where England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales are right now.

Socialists can’t spend revenue the producers refuse to earn.

They want Cloward-Piven but it also relies on a dragged-out timescale.

This is key.

Communists rely on a smooth transition period of gullible chickens laying eggs to replace themselves.

Nah.

As predicted in Best Post, strike strike strike strike! The worker’s revolution the Left always claimed to want?

You want to spend on PC bullshit like diversity hiring in a company? We leave and let it fail because the top workers aren’t from Asia. The visa Asians are corporate locusts and when the bonuses and special treatment stop, they go too!*

You can make a lot of money off that one, actually. I won’t explain how.

[search calculation average + national IQ of highest % of workforce…. etc.]

Suddenly, there’s a dearth of creativity in various key industries.

Oh noes, what a pity. The Left seems to be stalling for some reason, as the bottom of the pyramid is increasingly hot air!

Why aren’t the Indian IT workers superior replacements to the evil white man?

Hollywood wouldn’t lie to us, they tell us Asians are always smarter than Europeans.

The fact they still live in their own shit is immaterial.

Betrayal? Well, who betrayed whom first?

Who owns the West? Who founded the West? Who developed the West?

Who is owed by the West? Whose birth right is the Western culture?

Answer these then speak to me of traitors.

*Asians also rely on gossip heavily for career decisions, particularly from HR, gossip central. Buy HR something sugary. Suggest to accounting that remittance might be illegal according to national tax law. Have fun.

Gif is completely, totally relevant.

Remember:

They require our co-operation.

They also rely on our information. They’re hardly about to do the grunt work of getting off their fat arses in person.

Countless examples of passive resistance, across the country. Freedom of association is a natural right, whether or not the current Parliament recognises it in statute.

I guess we can take our white privilege elsewhere.

#whitestrike?

It isn’t like I’ve been planning and building toward this very state for literally years.

But if I had….

Ideally, you want every dunce holding a hot potato by the next stock crash.

Call it, if you will, Operation Wipeout.

Encourage every immigrant to buy as much property, way above any earning potential, as humanly possible.

“You have to get on the property market, look at the gains! You don’t wanna miss out!”

Every bachelor must buy a family home! No! Two! Three! Many! “Just rent them out, lol.”

Property is the world’s largest casino. People won’t bet 500k on black but they’ll buy a shithole in a crappy neighborhood for it. Consider it a wealth transfer back to the rightful owners.

Investing in the future of a foreign country is hilariously stupid.

Ideally, get in on the transaction somehow. Offer them halal, interest-free loans, if you have to!

A spoonful of sugar helps. We need debt addicts who act like crack addicts.

Keep that amygdala nice and weak.

The housing “crash” was actually a blip of the coming one, government was about to cease supporting post-war housing for immigrants. The markets told them no, can’t do that, keep supporting them. They’ll do that now…. until they cannot.

What do indebted immigrants do to avoid consequences? Leave.

What do IQ morons who lucked into a high IQ economy do, when their one gamble fails? Leave.

Who do they sell to, at rock bottom prices? The only people who wanna remain, the natives.

The collective effort of their kind selling off desperately at once to all move home drives prices even lower.

They won’t question your help because they expect white guilt and gibs.

After all, give them what they want, wouldn’t wanna be racist, would we?

So desperate for approval, the Guardianistas. Perfect situation if you sit down and think about. For years.

Do not plug into the poison system, as much as possible. Encourage every Marxist teacher (they have forums) to buy into the stock market, because Soros is our ally. Those silly Brexit racists don’t believe in the EU, invest, rub it in their faces when the Eurozone recovers! Brag to your students that you’re putting your money where your mouth is! Then everyone clapped.

When stocks go, that includes construction companies, hotels, every place that has a vast need for buildings. Like Amazon. Totally scorched earth, business-wise, to develop properly.

Minimise your own dependence while financially skewering your enemies like a kebab shop going out of business.

Age of Economics: Castamere Edition.

Invest in your culture, stop buying Chinese crap especially. Shrink the economy.

Traditionally, insecure investors with money to burn go to housing and stocks. Perfect.

Workers have rights again. If you’re unemployed, you’re still a consumer.

We can do it all now the EU is retreating its corrupt business from our shores and domestic workers are seeing a shift of power, subtle but beginning to grow.

Even I’ve gone quiet, moving things around, helping others IRL to minimise themselves is taking time.

People who want to look in the enemy’s faces and say:

I said, years ago, stop engaging with the Left. Ignore them. This has paid dividends.

Tactical retreat of eyeballs, energy, attention, money. They become more milquetoast the more irrelevant they feel, scrambling for the centrist position, which shifts right.

Now we have the EU’s prime defenders arguing for shades of Brexit.

Every Leftist prediction has failed. Never forget this. Every single one.

The idiots are running out of supply, even fiat. Crunch, crunch, crunch.

Grinding gears slowing to a halt. Excellent. Starve the leeches on our civilization.

As the weather gets colder, literally and fiscally, you can always fuck off home?

Would be a shame if protein supplies became more expensive, forcing gang-supporting ‘shops’ out of business, wouldn’t it?

Would be a shame if all the Welfare Harems buying widescreen TVs found they couldn’t eat them.

White people have the Ice Age genes, we just need the practical reminders of how to prepare for hard times.

Or you can buy another iPhone like the boat people. Your choice.

It’s quiet. Too quiet.

It’s a very old British sense of humour for the situation. Like the Russians starving out…. everyone.

Smart people don’t fear a leveling based on the intelligence of self-reliance.

Workers want a recession. The goods are cheaper than labour wages can drop.

The boss has to sell his yacht, boo sodding hoo.

Also, the West has purchasing power to continue the supply of goods, outcompeting third world buyers e.g. for food, which we largely produce, still.

Now, some (wet blankets) have suggested this may be, kinda, financial sorta ‘terrorism’ but we’ve looked it up in depth and humouring idiots with delusions of grandeur is just business, it isn’t personal. They want status, they’re free and have full agency as intelligent human beings not to stake their entire future, and that of their extended family nest, in the white homelands on unicorns, rainbows and fluffy clouds of truly ironic anti-white supremacy.

Nobody is forcing them, it’s completely kosher. According to hypothetical lawyers.

And we’re all LARPing anyway here, aren’t we?

The modern workweek IS a waste of time

For everyone.

It’s based on manual factory work.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5814559/Men-Mars-women-Venus-terrifying-truth-experts-call-shortened-work-week-girls.html

http://productivemag.com/22/lessons-from-a-4-day-working-week

4 hours is a con.

4 days is achievable. 3 for most jobs.

But outlawing business competition (subtext) is absurd.

And working smart counts for more than hours every time.

Women were coal-miners

achtually.jpeg

https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:daj714zik

As were children, you don’t hear them trying to signal with it. It’s rare to find a male-specific line of work women weren’t roped into at some point.

Why do Americans lie?

Are they too dumb to look it up?

Intellectual dishonest?

Shallow?

Is it because they don’t have a history without us?

For once, the feminists got a point. Working conditions are important but since men worked in more factories, it uplifted men at the same time – something they had no problem with.

Look at all the issues with matchstick factories exploding and asbestos inhalation.

It’s particularly grating because all of the men complaining about miners refuse to do that kind of labour now. Yes, that’s right, they totally claim a gender role only to reject it in practice.

Nice freedom ya got there.

Snowflakes.

Quote: Remember

“Intelligent, thinking people could take things like this in their stride, just as they took the larger absurdities of deadly dull jobs in the city and deadly dull homes in the suburbs. Economic circumstances might force you to live in this environment, but the important thing was to keep from being contaminated. The important thing, always, was to remember who you were.” – Richard Yates

Nice girls finish last (earn less)

https://www.aftau.org/news-page-business–management?=&storyid4701=2305&ncs4701=3

It’s to be expected on a level of Duh that forcing women to directly engage in competition with men in the workforce would produce some social changes.

At the very least, modern workers weigh more and age faster (cortisol).

This applies to both sexes. Perhaps women were the fairer sex because the home environment is quieter (cortisol can be triggered by loud noise, although a home can be equally or more busy depending on the industry compared).

The structure rewards masculinity at work. Women need to be. However, even this isn’t enough.

If you’re doing the same work, you should be paid the same. Basic contract law, nothing to do with sex.

Social masculinity is often contextual. As in, plenty of stern women at work soften up in their personal lives. Men compartmentalize too, dating back to the clinical detachment of doctors and surgeons. This is healthy.

I’ve found kindness is frequently punished as we go by an American system (loud, annoying, rude).

There is some evidence for a masculinity wage gap but yes, also a gender/sex-based one.

However, it does varies by industry, like the feminists refuse to accept.

According to the researchers, the same goes for dominant men versus their more conciliatory male counterparts — but even dominant women earn far less than all of their male colleagues, dominant or otherwise.

An impressive list of trashy, d-bag/fuckboy behaviours

This is unusually well-informed, it’s like a comprehensive list of most issues I’ve heard that turned out to be red flags and dealbreakers for women. We see a lot of dealbreakers for men (standards for women) but rarely the reverse. I know there’ll be some butthurt guys sour we’ve noticed but you’re meant to be about self-improvement and that includes relationship errors.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahjewell/men-are-trash

Men always say ‘We don’t know what we’re doing wrong, just tell us!’

Except when we try to tell you, you don’t listen. And then we’re the nag, apparently. They don’t correct the issue by changing their behaviour (if they had the empathy to do that, there wouldn’t be an issue), they want to make excuses as if that fixes things and it’ll stop being a problem. We aren’t your mother. If you don’t fix the issue, and worse, make excuses for treating a relationship like dirt, it won’t be swept under the rug. We can and do leave, often on what appears to the dense male as ‘no notice’.

You get to control a dog, not a person (they are still a human even if you’re married, one of the few divorce reasons even for Catholics is abuse of spousal power for good reason, nobody has carte blanche when coupled, the entire point is considering and compromising with another, an act, not empty words). If the terms of exchange are disagreeable, it isn’t the injured party’s fault for going. It’s the selfish person who expected their desires came above another’s needs or set ridiculous (petty, irrational) double standards based on a trashy temperament (antisocial, narcissistic, borderlines etc). Any man who ponders marriage should make sure he doesn’t commit resentment-inducing errors that might deservingly end in divorce court (btw, this list also applies to women, because this is how you should treat a human, especially one you love). This is a list of disrespectful behaviours you shouldn’t even tolerate from an acquaintance or friend. It’s inhumane, degrading treatment, the calling card of fuckboys, and their daytime form, douchebags.

You can’t put a bandaid on a crack in the foundations. The whole building will come down. Excuses are for schoolboys, women raise problems so the man will be masculine about it and act, it’s a challenge to his masculinity and you’d better not fail e.g. “the spice rack isn’t hung yet…”.

If you think this would turn into a row, congratulations, you’re a man. All he needs to do is say “I’ll do the thing on (day)” and then actually keep his promise. Shocking, I know. Women are such complicated creatures.
If you think it’s actually about the spice rack instead of being about the man performing in his masculine role (or not), congratulations, you’re a thick man who gets into a lot of arguments with women and doesn’t know why. I guess women are ‘crazy bitches’ because anger is never justified from a woman you promised shit to.

In this case, an experienced wife would treat the man according to his emotional age and give him a taste of his own medicine by usurping his role if he won’t fill it, by crossing his line of sight with his tools when he has time to do it, making like you’re going to do it yourself, and letting him ‘show you’. This isn’t manipulative because sometimes, as the DIY death rate shows, men are the dumber sex. Men do the exact same thing when you act like you can’t operate the washing machine but a 2-ton car is a Man’s Job TM. Yes, we’re canny to that too.

Translation, of such a simple sentence about a spice rack: “You said you’d do this 4 months ago, this is the fifth time I’ve mentioned it and if I do it myself you’ll whine and pout for another month, so just hang the bloody spice rack, please. I don’t enjoy telling you to perform your role in this house, you signed up for this. I’m doing all my work and contributing and so well, in fact, that you don’t even know what it is.” When a woman brings something up and she’s irritated, it’s because she shouldn’t have to bring it up.

A woman doesn’t like to remind her man that he is a man. She doesn’t enjoy making demands of him because as an adult he should already know. If they married (non-married, there are no real commitments but it’s vague) then he signed up for a series of duties and responsibilities, and so did she. I saw a great post about how Wife is a job, not a title.

Well, it goes both ways. You married each other, the man did not marry a maid/cook/whore/mother/whatever and she has to settle with a lazy fat lump on a sofa making demands like she’s his mother. Settling doesn’t mean that. Settling is a good thing where you agree to perform gender roles for a life together, that you equally enjoy.

Husband is a job, not a title.

Men with happy marriages are not overbearing, cruel or come up with stupid hoops for the woman to jump through. They listen as they would to a sister and respect her as if her mother.

I’ve seen the manosphere point to comedy and whine that the woman is a shrew and the man lazy. These two behaviours are connected, but they refuse to admit this because they’re allergic to industry or equal standards and this is the reason they’ll die alone. There was a study of the hours a housewife works, keeping the house alone and caring for children alone and it would be deemed illegal if she were paid. The man gets off hours a day, the woman hardly any. Yet they say “why are you stressed?” Honestly, ask every housewife you know to tally the hours she works a week and on which tasks and prepare to be shocked. We don’t complain proportionate to the labour, we get on with it.
Women used to have support networks and/or maids to have the same working hours as men. Our time is very cruel to women, expecting us to Do It All. The economy too, demanding dual incomes, mean women work longer hours with all the fun side effects, like aging faster on the face and cortisol weight gain. It is impossible to ask these things of one person, and as I like to say with the obvious example, raising small children – if it’s such fun, I challenge the men complaining how ‘women have it easy’ by either doing a swap (a la I Love Lucy) or volunteering around small children for a week, say, in a nursery. See how long you last (and those kids can’t interrupt you sleeping off the exhaustion, you aren’t legally responsible for them really and they can’t break your house). No? Don’t want to work with kids? Then quit complaining that it’s easy when you are blissfully ignorant of the requirements, it’s like a champagne socialist talking to factory workers. All talk, no man.

Men have been mis-sold a fairytale from 50s advertising that they can be Kings over their wife. Those advertisers were all men so no prizes for why they had no idea what women were doing at home. Actually, Kings have about the same authority as their Queens and treat them with respect. In many cases, the Queen has more power and the man is in fact Prince Regent, inferior. If you cannot afford nannies and servants, don’t have aspirations above your station (where lifestyle and ‘free’ time are concerned). Money causes most rows i.e. the man isn’t making enough and being The Man but if the woman tries to help he gets prissy. We cannot win and this is unfair on the woman’s side (yes I know the economy is bad too). However, it must be made clear, marrying a woman isn’t buying a slave at market to mistreat. It’s agreeing that you’ll be The Man, forever. To her. Whatever happens, sickness, poverty, aging. Whether you feel like it (lazy) or not. It’s a partnership and one side can’t steer a ship. Don’t like it? Go your own way. This is the way relations between the sexes have always been. The American Dream is literally impossible without equal participation. This isn’t feminist, it’s a team effort. There are no individuals in a marriage.. This dates back to cavemen. Everyone’s work is important to support the tribe. The man is not automatically higher although he leads (and the greater burden for screwing up is on him as last word). They’re both running things, ignore the Idiot Box’s lies, this isn’t a competition (but statistically based on working hours, men would lose) and any man calling a woman out on this will soon experience The Strike. This is entirely passive and hence, feminine. She’s just showing you the consequences of a life without her help, as she was defamed. Where she does the thing you accuse her of (doing nothing, laziness) to show you her value in the house. This starts a row because the man refuses to admit he was wrong before. Pride has wrecked many a marriage, it isn’t as if anyone else is going to hear him and again, he isn’t an individual, he is a husband talking to his wife. Imagine one coworker refusing to admit his colleague did any work, it’s ridiculous. Male eyes tend to gloss over while women are working, the fools can say it doesn’t “really count”, bringing the Strike on themselves and this is why some women draw attention to their efforts, hoping for acknowledgement from the man they love e.g. I did this, I’m doing that, I’m going to do that next, I do everything around this house, nobody appreciates me, look at this thing I am holding or pointing at as I ask you a rhetorical question about it. Sound familiar? She wants your approval, idiot! She wants affirmation from the only man who matters in the world to her, it’s a gesture of love!

It’s like a dog giving you the puppy begging eyes, but even more obvious to a third party.

Then it’s “why is she angry? I did nothing.” Yes, that’s the literal problem. A man who fails to engage with his wife (import of communication) won’t have a happy marriage. Women need words. Words you mean (honesty). Reputation in the house (reliability, a classically male trait) for keeping promises is as important as business rep.

You don’t get to sit around doing nothing being waited on, especially when you’re a prole. That happens on TV with the big houses for ‘working class’ characters and it’s also the reason the ‘man of the house’ is the object of the comedy, because he isn’t the ‘man of the house’ at all, the woman is having to pick up the slack for her failure of a man. You must contribute to the running and keeping of a house even though it is the woman’s domain and she has the last word there (hence bringing up your failure there just like a performance review, is also her job). Women enjoy lengthy discussions assigning specific responsibilities and making these things clear but men fear them. Sloth. You should’ve agreed this stuff before.

If you’re a man and keep letting the opposite sex slip through your fingers, see if you feel a bit offended at this list’s items (and most of it applies to dating, the lowest difficult setting of a relationship with the opposite sex).
Essentially, you should treat a future spouse with the most respect of anyone in your life, including your best friend and family. You’ll be spending thousands of hours with them a year. One sign a marriage is over is that the husband is nicer to the waitress he’ll see for an hour. Women need affection to show affection and it’s the man’s duty to lead.

It’s funny how the trashy men don’t know they’re trash and are often loudly bemoaning the ‘trashiness’ of random women (usually in the USA, as if American woman aren’t the global exception) with utter obliviousness to how repellent this is. As if we don’t notice how you speak about other women.

If you are offended, if the shoe fits and you treat people like this, any people, feel free to strap on that thing and strut, girl. I’m the messenger.

Relationships are a choice. They take effort and communication. Do you want to learn these things now or in post-divorce counselling?
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don’t stand around acting like it isn’t work, bitching.

Best ones imo, expanded;

Paranoid when you spend time with male friends, but when he has female friends, it’s fine, don’t be so paranoid.
Used you like a therapist (emotional pin cushion).
Thought he was smarter than you (regardless of evidence to the contrary, which was obviously a fluke).
Tried to pretend Yes All Men are like him when he behaves badly, blame-shifting.
Coffee snob (signalling prick).
Mansplaining – on topics he is ignorant on, especially if you know better. They double down for ego and wonder why the woman dumps/nexts them and this keep happening, “why don’t women like smart guys” – they aren’t smart, they can’t keep a woman. Meth addicts of 50 IQ points can keep a girlfriend. Smart isn’t like House where being an arrogant prick is funny or attractive.
Thinks intelligence or wit are solely the preserve of males, gets patronizing on their demonstration by a woman (slightly intimidated and insecure about it for no reason to feel ego-threatened, wtf) and wonders why only boring stupid bimbos are suddenly all he can attract.
Characterizes rationalizations as rational, logical, or being argumentative not as passive-aggressive and unhealthy but “playing Devil’s Advocate”. Devil’s Advocate is balanced, no emotion behind it or personal investment, it’s never cruel or mean-spirited to hurt the other person, that’s bullying.
Tried to control your appearance but the street was one-way, crazy bitch. His terrible hygiene is ‘au naturelle’ and his awful style ‘unique’ as if those are good things. Often talks a big game about self-improvement because dumb.
Undeniable human trash from an objective perspective (can’t commit to anything in his entire life, absurdly commitmentphobic of the word commitmentphobic). Generally a failure at everything he tries.