patrick.net

Nothing different can be expected of women if it is borne in mind that the most eminent of
the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great,
genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value. This is
most striking in regard to painting, the technique of which is as much within their reach as
within ours; this is why they pursue it so industriously. Still, they have not a single great
painting to show, for the simple reason that they lack that objectivity of mind which is
precisely what is so directly necessary in painting. They always stick to what is subjective.
For this reason, ordinary women have no susceptibility for painting at all: for natura non
facet saltum. And Huarte, in his book which has been famous for three hundred years,
Examen de ingenios para las scienzias, contends that women do not possess the higher
capacities. Individual and partial exceptions do not alter the matter; women are and
remain, taken altogether, the most thorough and incurable philistines; and because of the
extremely absurd arrangement which allows them to share the position and title of their
husbands they are a constant stimulus to his ignoble ambitions. And further, it is because
they are philistines that modern society, to which they give the tone and where they have
sway, has become corrupted. As regards their position, one should be guided by
Napoleon’s maxim, Les femmes n’ont pas de rang; and regarding them in other things,
Chamfort says very truly: Elles sont faites pour commercer avec nos faiblesses avec notre
folie, mais non avec notre raison. Il existe entre elles et les hommes des sympathies
d’épiderme et très-peu de sympathies d’esprit d’âme et de caractère. They are the sexus
sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but
to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes.
When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it exactly through the
middle! The difference between the positive and negative poles, according to polarity, is
not merely qualitative but also quantitative. And it was in this light that the ancients and
people of the East regarded woman; they recognised her true position better than we, with
our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian Teutonic
stupidity. These ideas have only served to make them arrogant and imperious, to
such an extent as to remind one at times of the holy apes in Benares, who, in the
consciousness of their holiness and inviolability, think they can do anything and everything they please.
In the West, the woman, that is to say the “lady,” finds herself in a fausse position; for
woman, rightly named by the ancients sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of
our honour and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and to have the same
rights as he. The consequences of this fausse position are sufficiently clear. Accordingly, it
would be a very desirable thing if this Number Two of the human race in Europe were
assigned her natural position, and the lady-grievance got rid of, which is not only ridiculed
by the whole of Asia, but would have been equally ridiculed by Greece and Rome. The
result of this would be that the condition of our social, civil, and political affairs would be
incalculably improved. The Salic law would be unnecessary; it would be a superfluous
truism. The European lady, strictly speaking, is a creature who should not exist at all; but
there ought to be housekeepers, and young girls who hope to become such; and they
should be brought up not to be arrogant, but to be domesticated and submissive. It is
exactly because there are ladies in Europe that women of a lower standing, that is to say,
the greater majority of the sex, are much more unhappy than they are in the East. Even
Lord Byron says (Letters and Papers, by Thomas Moore, vol. ii. p. 399), Thought of the
state of women under the ancient Greeks — convenient enough. Present state, a remnant
of the barbarism of the chivalric and feudal ages — artificial and unnatural. They ought to
mind home — and be well fed and clothed — but not mixed in society. Well educated, too,
in religion — but to read neither poetry nor politics — nothing but books of piety and
cookery. Music — drawing — dancing — also a little gardening and ploughing now and
then. I have seen them mending the roads in Epirus with good success. Why not, as well
as hay-making and milking?
In our part of the world, where monogamy is in force, to marry means to halve one’s rights
and to double one’s duties. When the laws granted woman the same rights as man, they
should also have given her a masculine power of reason. On the contrary, just as the
privileges and honours which the laws decree to women surpass what Nature has meted
out to them, so is there a proportional decrease in the number of women who really share
these privileges; therefore the remainder are deprived of their natural rights in so far as the
others have been given more than Nature accords.
For the unnatural position of privilege which the institution of monogamy, and the laws of
marriage which accompany it, assign to the woman, whereby she is regarded throughout
as a full equivalent of the man, which she is not by any means, cause intelligent and
prudent men to reflect a great deal before they make so great a sacrifice and consent to so
unfair an arrangement. Therefore, whilst among polygamous nations every woman finds
maintenance, where monogamy exists the number of married women is limited, and a
countless number of women who are without support remain over; those in the upper
classes vegetate as useless old maids, those in the lower are reduced to very hard work of
a distasteful nature, or become prostitutes, and lead a life which is as joyless as it is void
of honour. But under such circumstances they become a necessity to the masculine sex; so
that their position is openly recognised as a special means for protecting from seduction
those other women favoured by fate either to have found husbands, or who hope to find
them. In London alone there are 80,000 prostitutes. Then what are these women who have
come too quickly to this most terrible end but human sacrifices on the altar of monogamy?
The women here referred to and who are placed in this wretched position are the
inevitable counterbalance to the European lady, with her pretensions and arrogance. Hence
polygamy is a real benefit to the female sex, taking it as a whole. And, on the other hand,
there is no reason why a man whose wife suffers from chronic illness, or remains barren,
or has gradually become too old for him, should not take a second. Many people become
converts to Mormonism for the precise reasons that they condemn the unnatural institution
of monogamy. The conferring of unnatural rights upon women has imposed unnatural
duties upon them, the violation of which, however, makes them unhappy. For example,
many a man thinks marriage unadvisable as far as his social standing and monetary
position are concerned, unless he contracts a brilliant match. He will then wish to win a
woman of his own choice under different conditions, namely, under those which will
render safe her future and that of her children. Be the conditions ever so just, reasonable,
and adequate, and she consents by giving up those undue privileges which marriage, as the
basis of civil society, alone can bestow, she must to a certain extent lose her honour and
lead a life of loneliness; since human nature makes us dependent on the opinion of others
in a way that is completely out of proportion to its value. While, if the woman does not
consent, she runs the risk of being compelled to marry a man she dislikes, or of shrivelling
up into an old maid; for the time allotted to her to find a home is very short. In view of this
side of the institution of monogamy, Thomasius’s profoundly learned treatise, de
Concubinatu, is well worth reading, for it shows that, among all nations, and in all ages,
down to the Lutheran Reformation, concubinage was allowed, nay, that it was an
institution, in a certain measure even recognised by law and associated with no dishonour.
And it held this position until the Lutheran Reformation, when it was recognised as
another means for justifying the marriage of the clergy; whereupon the Catholic party did
not dare to remain behindhand in the matter.
It is useless to argue about polygamy, it must be taken as a fact existing everywhere, the
mere regulation of which is the problem to be solved. Where are there, then, any real
monogamists? We all live, at any rate for a time, and the majority of us always, in
polygamy. Consequently, as each man needs many women, nothing is more just than to let
him, nay, make it incumbent upon him to provide for many women. By this means woman
will be brought back to her proper and natural place as a subordinate being, and the lady,
that monster of European civilisation and Christian-Teutonic stupidity, with her ridiculous
claim to respect and veneration, will no longer exist; there will still be women, but no
unhappy women, of whom Europe is at present full. The Mormons’standpoint is right.
In India no woman is ever independent, but each one stands under the control of her father
or her husband, or brother or son, in accordance with the law of Manu.
It is certainly a revolting idea that widows should sacrifice themselves on their husband’s
dead body; but it is also revolting that the money which the husband has earned by
working diligently for all his life, in the hope that he was working for his children, should
be wasted on her paramours. Medium tenuere beati. The first love of a mother, as that of
animals and men, is purely instinctive, and consequently ceases when the child is no
longer physically helpless. After that, the first love should be reinstated by a love based on
habit and reason; but this often does not appear, especially where the mother has not loved
the father. The love of a father for his children is of a different nature and more sincere; it
is founded on a recognition of his own inner self in the child, and is therefore
metaphysical in its origin.
In almost every nation, both of the new and old world, and even among the Hottentots,
property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that one has
departed from this. That the property which men have with difficulty acquired by long
continued struggling and hard work should afterwards come into the hands of women,
who, in their want of reason, either squander it within a short time or otherwise waste it, is
an injustice as great as it is common, and it should be prevented by limiting the right of
women to inherit. It seems to me that it would be a better arrangement if women, be they
widows or daughters, only inherited the money for life secured by mortgage, but not the
property itself or the capital, unless there lacked male descendants. It is men who make the
money, and not women; therefore women are neither justified in having unconditional
possession of it nor capable of administrating it. Women should never have the free
disposition of wealth, strictly so-called, which they may inherit, such as capital, houses,
and estates. They need a guardian always; therefore they should not have the guardianship
of their children under any circumstances whatever. The vanity of women, even if it
should not be greater than that of men, has this evil in it, that it is directed on material
things — that is to say, on their personal beauty and then on tinsel, pomp, and show. This
is why they are in their right element in society. This it is which makes them inclined to be
extravagant, especially since they possess little reasoning power. Accordingly, an ancient
writer says, [Greek: Gunae to synolon esti dapanaeron physei].(2) Men’s vanity, on the
other hand, is often directed on non-material advantages, such as intellect, learning,
courage, and the like. Aristotle explains in the Politics (3) the great disadvantages which
the Spartans brought upon themselves by granting too much to their women, by allowing
them the right of inheritance and dowry, and a great amount of freedom; and how this
contributed greatly to the fall of Sparta. May it not be that the influence of women in
France, which has been increasing since Louis XIII.‘s time, was to blame for that gradual
corruption of the court and government which led to the first Revolution, of which all
subsequent disturbances have been the result? In any case, the false position of the female
sex, so conspicuously exposed by the existence of the “lady,” is a fundamental defect in
our social condition, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must extend its
harmful influence in every direction. That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown
by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute
independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and
governed; this is because she requires a master. If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she
is old, a priest.
Notes
(1) Let me refer to what I have said in my treatise on The Foundation of Morals, §71.
(2) Brunck’s Gnomici poetae graeci v. 115.
(3) Bk. I., ch. 9.

Patrick says

Hence, dissimulation is
innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever.

ALL women do this.

It's amazing the internet has finally done what men have tried for 1000s of years; to figure out women.

They leave out the one important fact that changes the whole perspective.

Somebody in a chat mentioned this to me, and I was like, Nah, this has to be some perv's fart fetish obsession fanfic.

Nope, official DC Comics Product: The Harley Quinn scratch n' smell farts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoMn2yGNK14&t=35s

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/12/paul-craig-roberts/the-disappearance-of-the-male-role/

Over the course of my lifetime I have watched the role of men taken away. The role of the male as provider, defender, and disciplinarian is no more. It was destroyed by feminists.

To clarify “feminist”: In the past when I have criticized feminists older women who had careers asked why I thought women shouldn’t have careers. Their idea is that a feminist is a woman who has a career. But women have always had careers as mothers, homemakers, grandmothers, school teachers, nurses, secretaries, writers, artists, musicians, scientists, and even spies such as Eve Gordon who made during World War II 112 parachute jumps into occupied Europe. Even in pre-feminist days, one of my aunts despite being married had a career outside the home. She enjoyed the discipline of getting to work on time, the interaction with other people, and meeting new ones.

By feminist I mean a person with an ideological agenda of obliterating the difference between men and women. When I was young men were raised to respect women. When a woman entered a room, the men stood. Doors were opened for women and their entrance proceeded the man’s. Car doors were opened for women who were helped in and out. At the dining table men stood until the women were seated. In those days men still wore hats. A gentleman passing a lady on the sidewalk was expected to tip his hat in respect. A man who struck a woman or used a four-letter word in a lady’s presence suffered a ruined reputation.

Feminists derided the many ways in which respect was shown to women as “placing women on a pedestal.” Showing respect for women was somehow undervaluing them and treating them unequally. Feminists insisted on women being pulled down into the gutter with men.

Big brothers were taught to protect little sisters. It was little brother’s job to learn to protect himself, and fights on the school playground was part of the learning process.

Today men are no longer taught to protect women. But it is a natural inclination in men. Studies have concluded that the introduction of women soldiers into conflict causes a loss of cohesion and focus, because men become distracted by concern for the women.

Feminists were not happy until they destroyed men’s colleges, male leadership in politics, military, and business, men’s clubs and male organizations such as the Boy Scouts which was forced to take in girls. Even the military has been taken from men. How is there a band of brothers when the commander is female?

Men have lost their role. They are no longer the provider. The wife might have, thanks to gender preferences in university admissions, employment, and promotion, the better job bringing in more income. Studies conclude that boys suffer depression from loss of a role. Reportedly, the suicide rate of boys and young men has been rising.

What the feminists have established is a new form of male deference to women. Males must stand aside and give up their role to women.

Feminist were not content to only destroy men. They destroyed women also. The idea of a chaste woman was objectionable because it held women to a higher standard than men.

Helen Gurley Brown, editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine, used the magazine to encourage women to be harlots. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s Cosmopolitan was a fixture in the waiting rooms of doctors and dentists. I often wondered what my mother and grandmothers would have thought of a woman’s magazine, the cover of which heralded articles titled “How to be unfaithful to your husband without being caught,” “how to find a sex partner when on vacation without your boy friend,” “how to manage multiple sex partners.”

Today young women support themselves with their porn sites. Women brag on social media about having had 150 sexual partners, sparking rivals to vow attaining higher levels of wantonness. Female school teachers get themselves pregnant by their under age students. Mothers have 12-year old daughters on birth control pills. School children are sexualized at an early age to get them ready for the legalization of pedophiles, now euphemized as “minor attracted persons.”

LOL

"You know, your cuck husband sucks better dick AND he's really great to have in my Online Shooter Guild."

whatever
@whatever
All you losing your mind that I do not think modern women deserve courtship. Watch this clip from our show. Some background: When this episode aired, she was 28. Average looking woman, ordinary, normal, unassuming, with a normal job working at a law firm. Not a content creator, not on OF. Just a normal woman.

She admits she goes on dates all the while sleeping with other men. There is no chance I am being chivalrous, paying for dates, or "putting in effort" for a woman who is sleeping with other men. In fact, I have ZERO interest in a woman if there is another guy in the picture. There would be NO DATE at all.

Her mindset is INCREDIBLY common, even among "normal" women. Especially if you meet them on a dating app, it's HIGHLY likely she is sleeping with another man. Promiscuity is rampant, and this idea that it's only a small % of women is laughable.

It's EXTREMELY common for men to encounter women who are involved with another man (or multiple men). Men should proceed with caution when dating, and avoid dating women who are not PROPERLY single.

The point is that women who haven't held up their end of the deal still want men to be traditional. They want men to put in effort, but they don't deserve it. Do they still get it? Sure. A lot of simps out there. But they don't deserve it. And prescriptively, men should withhold romantic gestures from undeserving women, or better yet -- not even date them at all.

https://x.com/whatever/status/1875755882564448593

AmericanKulak says

The point is that women who haven't held up their end of the deal still want men to be traditional. They want men to put in effort, but they don't deserve it.

Yes, but are men holding up their end of deal? That is, those men are not sleeping with other women? Or is the premise that the woman stays chaste while the men, because they pay for the dates, are allowed to sleep around?

HeadSet says

That is, those men are not sleeping with other women?

That's not their end of the deal.

DOGEWontAmountToShit says

That's not their end of the deal.

Using traditional principles, I would say it is, for two reasons. Firstly, if one ends up knocking up a rando he is then responsible for her child and, to some degree, its mother. He will then have to divert resources from his family. Secondly is it the role of men to protect the weaker sex, not to take advantage of women.

yawaraf says

Using traditional principles, I would say it is, for two reasons. Firstly, if one ends up knocking up a rando he is then responsible for her child and, to some degree, its mother. He will then have to divert resources from his family. Secondly is it the role of men to protect the weaker sex, not to take advantage of women.

That's not the deal. The deal is to support her and their children. That's it.

The law used to reflect that. No more.

Who supports the bastards then? Do we let them run around without discipline? Do we let them get abused by strangers?

I understand the a man might not have had any legal obligation to illegitimate children, and a woman was (at still is) stupid to open up her legs to someone who is not her husband, but is that the kind of society you want to live in?

yawaraf says

Who supports the bastards then? Do we let them run around without discipline? Do we let them get abused by strangers?

That was caused by no-fault "I'm not haaaaaaapy anymore" divorce, and the elimination of shame for women who divorced decent men and their exclusion from larger social groups.

HeadSet says

Yes, but are men holding up their end of deal? That is, those men are not sleeping with other women? Or is the premise that the woman stays chaste while the men, because they pay for the dates, are allowed to sleep around?

Men haven't changed. Most men will sleep with a chick if it's on offer.

Women used to be shamed if they slept with guys outside marriage, then outside a LTR, and now aren't shamed at ALL, but expect men to be as chivalrous as ever while dating. Nah, shit deal.

Most men were happy dating a chick in hopes of going steady on the 3rd date and getting laid - provided she didn't keep a guy on the side while allowing him to spend money on her.

It simply isn't working, and it's not pron. It was easy divorce and birth control. More evidence it isn't Corn is that the birth rates began to plummet and divorce rates explode in the mid 60s, and the last big leg down was with smartphones, social media 2.0, and dating apps in the late 2000s, not Theaters in the 70s, VHS in the 80s, internet in the 90s.

Bulls go where the cows are. Shaming men doesn't work, never has, that's why no society in history bothered with shaming men much. It works great on women, who are far more sensitive to social shame, pecking order of hens, etc. than men.

yawaraf says

I understand the a man might not have had any legal obligation to illegitimate children, and a woman was (at still is) stupid to open up her legs to someone who is not her husband, but is that the kind of society you want to live in?

You mean the society we had before? With stable nuclear families predominating? Even with Blacks?

Fuck yeah. I most certainly do want to live in such a FUNCTIONAL society again.

You seem to equate 'fair' as having to be just as important as 'functional' or part of it. It is not.

You can't get 1954 stability and prosperity with the laws and social environment of 2024.

Porn has been restricted in South Korea since 2009 and banned since 2019. Birth and marriage rates still stink. 60%+ of OF subscribers are married men in an age when less than half the men under 50 are married.

"I want traditionalism, but not a fiery redhead wife to get the spanking she deserves"

HeadSet says

AmericanKulak says

The point is that women who haven't held up their end of the deal still want men to be traditional. They want men to put in effort, but they don't deserve it.

Yes, but are men holding up their end of deal? That is, those men are not sleeping with other women? Or is the premise that the woman stays chaste while the men, because they pay for the dates, are allowed to sleep around?

Of course not, biology demands men to spread their seeds and women to nest for the human race to be successful. That's why most women don't want a man for family/marriage who hasn't slept with at least a dozen chicks or more, but men don't want women for family/marriage who have slept with more than 5-10 partners. The men need to get their rocks off to know what they want and when they want it, but for women promiscuity is detrimental to their natural sense of family/marriage, so is birth control as it alters their taste. This is all scientifically proven but nobody can admit to it out of fear of being canceled. Ironically usually the worst choice for women in terms of stability is a type A uber successful man, often somewhat of a social sociopath, but it's what they crave most. Biodynamics are tricky.