patrick.net

MolotovCocktail says

Stupid woman. Doesn't she know that seed oils will interfere with her car's hormones and make it fat?

LOL!

This is a woman being held accountable, possibly for the first time in her life:
https://youtube.com/shorts/H-lt8xd1gc4?si=Saj2SJow9xI6W_Ld

The comments are... very heavy on this one:
https://x.com/amyklobuchar/status/1932996233137717619

4:1 Ratio!

Women are genetic biologic extortionists. If you can beguile them with a proposed better and more fruitful path of extortion, you can get them to bite even if it winds up being counterproductive.

Ceffer says

Women are genetic biologic extortionists. If you can beguile them with a proposed better and more fruitful path of extortion, you can get them to bite even if it winds up being counterproductive.

"Men will sacrifice their happiness for a family;
Women will sacrifice their family for happiness"

https://whitepapersinstitute.substack.com/p/a-new-feminine-politics

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/wollstonecraft-a-vindication-of-the-rights-of-woman

“In short, women, in general, as well as the rich of both sexes, have acquired all the follies and vices of civilization, and missed the useful fruit … Their senses are inflamed, and their understandings neglected; consequently they become the prey of their senses, delicately termed sensibility, and are blown about by every momentary gust of feeling. They are, therefore, in a much worse condition than they would be in, were they in a state nearer to nature. .”—Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Ch. 4
1792

... At the core of New Feminine Politics is the belief that women should not be coerced any one path in life but that we should use a core set of values to orient ourselves within daily life.

1. Loyalty to the Nation and the Republican Motherhood

“If we don't stop immigration—this torrent of immigrants coming in—we're not going to be America anymore … “—Phyllis Schlafly ...

2. Rejecting Radical Individualism

“Now, there's a desire for order, authority coming from a feeling that society has gone too far to the side of individualism and liberalism.”—Marion Marechal-Le Pen ...

3. Embracing the Family

“Family life was and always will be the foundation of any civilization. Destroy the family and you destroy the country.”—Erin Pizzey, CBE, founder of British women’s shelter movement Refuge. ...

3. Reclaiming Sexual Propriety

“Feminism has led the way in demystifying personal relations, forcefully insisting they are political to the core”—Elizabeth Fox-Genovese ...

4. Recognizing Our Partners: Our Men

“But being a boy is not a social disease.”—Christina Hoff Sommers, The War Against Boys. ...

5. Representation of Women and Women’s Issues

“this class of women currently has the mic. I suspect many will fight tooth and nail to keep it, using every form of overt and covert political street-fighting at their disposal. In pursuit of their class interests, they’ll use weight of numbers across education, NGOs and corporate HR departments to tip the scales in favour of the legal fiction that sex doesn’t need to exist.”—Mary Harrington, Feminism Against Progress. ...

Typo in article, with 3. repeated.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/bicycles-and-man-problems-saturday

The New York Times is, once again, baffled. This time, over the timeless issue of romance. Yesterday, the mystified Grey Lady ran a poignant, but querulous, story headlined, “Men, Where Have You Gone? Please Come Back.” I could have just told the author: they ran away, terrified! But that would spoil the takedown. And the comments were closed, so she isn’t listening anyway. Anyway, she has her own theory. Hint: it’s all men’s fault:

The piece’s writer, Rachel Drucker, 53, described herself as a divorced former custodian of records for Playboy Magazine. Thanks to her smut-peddling experience, she’s become an expert on men. Or at least, that’s what she thinks. “I came to understand,” Rachel lectured readers, “in exact terms, what cues tempt the average 18-to-36-year-old cis heterosexual man.”

But alas! At 53, Rachel’s bag of transactional smut-peddling tricks is empty. Or at least, she’s shot past the 18-36 runway. Rachel now lives in a rom-com. She described her New York life as though she were a main character in Sex and the City. After one gentleman politely excused himself at the last minute from a date, she got dolled up anyway and took herself out for dinner. Rachel doesn’t need a man! ...

Rather than producing any self-reflection, Rachel’s experiences led her to wonder: what is wrong with men? It was her piece’s quiet fulcrum, the tell or giveaway. Blame others. There’s zero indication that Drucker ever questions the dominant feminist narrative of the last two decades, nor wonders if the “quiet confidence” she admires in the restaurant’s other single, liberal women might feel, from across the gender aisle, like impenetrability or even contempt. ...

Beyond its superficial lament for missing male companionship, Rachel Drucker’s piece was a quiet, stylish elegy for the AWFLs themselves. Beneath the carefully curated pathos arose a more subtle grief: the mourning of a cohort of lonely liberal women who followed the progressive script, built their careers, kept themselves radiant and emotionally literate, and yet somehow wound up alone at the restaurant, surrounded by others just like them.

AWFL women were promised —by feminism 2.0, by culture, by prestige media like the Times— that if they became independent, confident, discerning, self-aware, and empowered, the rest would follow. Sure, patriarchal Prince Charming might not show up, but his liberal, emotionally available cousin would. The even-steven relationship would be better. Mutual. Adult. Female-focused.

But beyond that empty promise lies an even bigger falsehood. The AWFLs were assured they would never need men anyway. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. But now the bicycle’s gone missing, and the fish are writing op-eds wondering why the ocean feels so empty.

Hello! Rachel! You told men their services were no longer needed! You sneered that their masculinity was toxic in the workplace. Then they stopped showing up for work. Surprise! Consequences, meet cause.

AWFLs created a zero-sum game where they always win, and wonder why men don't want to play. Under their AWFL rules, if a man leads, he’s controlling, but if he follows, he’s weak. If he pursues, he’s creepy—if he doesn’t, he’s cowardly. If he wins, it’s problematic. If he loses, it’s unattractive. Heads, she’s empowered. Tails, he’s inadequate.

If we want to explain the explosion of men —especially young men— flocking to MAGA, look no further than Rachel Drucker. Thank you, AWFLs. The broader MAGA ethos offers men something feminized liberalism never has: respect for masculinity. Strength, protection, risk-taking, family provision— under MAGA, those are not patriarchal threats; they are cherished virtues. ...

“Young men,” said Charlie Kirk, 31, “are profoundly more conservative than people would have expected and, in fact, are the most conservative generation of young men in 50 years. They want to be part of a political movement that doesn’t hate them.” ...

Which brings us to the ghost in the machine, and the Democrats’ most durable and problematic contradiction. Democrats originally recruited women with a seductive, post-feminist message: you don’t need men. For some women, that might be true. But the maximalist message that no women need men contained its own self-destruct script: men are unnecessary.

In other words, if women don’t need men, why does anybody? ...

Until very recently, the no-man message won elections, since party affiliations are sticky, and the timid GOP feared angering feminist harpies. (And who can blame them?) But, instead of balance, the no-men message demanded cultural reversal. Instead of equality, it demanded erasure. And men, increasingly pathologized, began to opt out of relationships, institutions, and even political engagement, in droves … until Trump lit the bat signal.

Meanwhile, Democrats and their faltering progressive culture offer only ambiguity. What even is a man? Progressivism reduces manhood to a lack of boobs and a fake phallus. Modern liberal dating is even worse: Mandatory consent seminars, tattooed feminists, emotional manipulation to date trans men, chronic fear of offending, recurrent false rape accusations, and skeptical partners programmed to expect male failure. ...

Feminism told women they don’t need men. Now, progressives are shocked to discover that, without men, women don’t need progressives. While liberals keep trying to reverse-engineer political outcomes through ad buys, academic jargon, and technocratic policies, the other side is building (or restoring) culture— or at least, riding the post-feminist backlash wave.

Neither Rachel Drucker nor Democrats have any man problem they can “solve.” They face an irresolvable culture problem. The culture is pulling away from the station, and they are still inside, scolding the ticket clerk for wearing his mask too loosely.

"The Progress Of The Harpy". They are startled to know that they can be toxic enough to scare men away from sex, much less men not paying for it any more. Men won't buy into that sit, no matter how hysterically made up, plasticized or yoga pantsed they are.

The first empty headed feminist screed out of their mouths and they surround themselves in barbed wire and danger signs. They might still have a castrated drone or two in orbit, who fit the feminist gelded archetype, but they still want a dominant man somewhere in their itchy egg baskets.

The lady that does my hair says she knows 'lesbian couples' in the industry that have a zipless fuck night when one or the other can go out and try to get laid by a man. They think it's liberation rather than pathetic surrender.

The 'good news' is that the minority, forebrain-less types who will literally hit on and fuck anything are still out there in abundance for those feminist dafters who think that Netflix represents reality.

Anecdote of a smart woman herewith.
Thursday I and a friend took the truck out to explore out past a popular beach near La Paz.
It was 95F.
About a mile from where people are, we saw a car on the beach.
A woman waving her arms at us, and we drove closer. She got stuck driving her rental car on the beach.
She said she's from Mexico City and working in finance. I noticed a tote bag with Black Rock on it.
We let air out of the tires, and dug a lot of sand away from the wheels, and put the floor mats under them.
No dice, so I had 150 feet of thin rope and doubled it a couple of times, then tied to the axle.
The truck was in 4x4 lo gear, and I started pulling in reverse.
After a while the girl told my friend driving her stuck car: "I forgot to tell you, I engaged the emergency brake."
What a stupid bimbo.
Edit: there is no cell reception, and she was at least a mile from anyone who could drive her back to La Paz; she would have had a tough time walking in the broiling sun.