Monday, 27 April 2009

The Miseducation of Women by James Tooley

Another seminal (pun intended) book on the destructiveness of feminism, which dates national decline back to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Very readable and makes its points clearly.

Any woman who wonders where all the decent men have gone will know that they lie buried after extermination in the mass grave of feminism.

Instead of limiting the supply of sex only to marriageable men (thus incentivising them to behave decently), men and women have been behaving like promiscuous constantly copulating gay men but with the additional disadvantage of producing offspring that have the effect of lowering the quality of the national gene pool.

So that is why Andromeda seeks Perseus in vain. The Age of Heroes is well and truly over.

Anne Phillips disagrees at

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-miseducation-of-women-by-james-tooley-641100.html

She says:




"Tooley is probably right that young women are drinking too much chardonnay, and no doubt right that many are unhappy. But the problems facing women can hardly be explained by the successes of a feminist campaign against the housewife. We live in a workaholic society that conscripts men and women alike into longer hours of employment than most of them would choose, and prices decent accommodation beyond the reach of most households with a single earner.


In this context, young women would be ill-advised to give up on their education or rely on a male provider to sustain them in their domestic joys."


Voting for a political party which offers low taxes, give tax breaks to married couples, with the stated intention of repealing all anti-discrimination legislation would be the obvious answer.

Unfortunately, it is only the BNP who dare propose this.

The BNP either cannot or will not address their image problem by changing their racist constitution and their racist membership policy. They would actually be performing a great service to the nation, but they are unable to see The Enemy Within, who are their WAGs and of course their own understandable desire to continue worshipping at the shrine of sexual liberation.

They certainly will not be making themselves unpopular by complaining about the availability of no-strings sex and are determined to treat the symptoms (ie Muslims, mosques, burqas, foreign workers, illegal immigrants) rather than the causes (feminism, promiscuity, single parenthood, no-fault divorce, a corrupt and corrupting political system, liberalism, the cowardice that restricts the condemnation of single mummery).

They are content to leave this to the despised Muslims, who are the only group who can question feminism and sexual liberation without being laughed at.

The BNP's reluctance to take the bull by the horns is not that surprising since they, like most of us, are already divorced, single parents, illegitimate or parents of illegitimate children, or have close friends and family who tick all or some of these boxes.

The BNP will continue to keep quiet about the taboo topic that will be even more divisive than paying non-white citizens to go "home" or withdrawing from the EU.

Judging from how quickly their ex-London organiser Nick Ericksen fell on his sword after saying things offensive to feminists, they will not be addressing the issue of toxic feminism that is even now destroying the happiness and potential of both the men, women and children of this country.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23470426-details/Women+more+troubled+by+bag+theft+than+rape,+BNP+candidate+claims/article.do


No doubt the Muslims will sort all this out when they take over.

Their clearer understanding of The Enemy Within is well-established.

64:14
O you who believe! surely from among your wives and your children there is an enemy to you; therefore beware of them; and if you pardon and forbear and forgive, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Tuesday, 14 April 2009

A contribution by Andrew Slade - "The Disillusioned Bride"

Andrew Slade, whose marital status is uncertain, emailed me this day:

I came across this MS poem in a National Trust House at the weekend; attributed 2 Jane Taylor (1783-1824) "The Lavenham poetess". But it might as well b entitled "The Disillusioned Husband", written at the height of the Age of Romanticism: unrealistic expectations unrealised!


Please post it under my real name,

THE DISILLUSIONED BRIDE

The twentieth week is well-nigh past,
Since first in Church we two were asked:
Oh! Would we had not gone at last.

=My husband.

Thy kindness has a fainter blow,
I see thee daily cooler grow,
How canst thou bear to serve me so?


=My husband.

And when sometimes thou wouldst fulfill
Some little office for me still,
Thy love now seconds not thy will.

=My husband.

Safely thou showest a tyrant's heart,
For Hymen's thread with cruel art
Hath bound us so we must not part.

=My husband.

Thy unpolite expressions seem
With no affection now to team
And never are my charms the theme.

=My husband.

Thy frowning eyes once mildly bright,
Oh! now more frightful in my sight
Than all the gloomy fiends of night.

=My husband.

Oh could I see nor them nor thee,
A happy creature I should be,
'Twould be a happy day for me.

=My husband.

Partaker of this strange decline,
My feelings too their warmth resign:
My flames can cool as well as thine.


=My husband.

Such feeble signs of love thou showest:
Thou does not love at all, thou knowest,
So don't pretend to say thou dost!

=My husband.

For me to love thus treated ill
Is quite beyond a woman's skill:
Indeed I neither can nor will.

=My husband.

But if much cooler thou dost grow,
Some proper spirit I shall show:
I will not long be treated so,

=My husband.

For should thy conduct still be cast
With much resemblance of the past,
I'll leave thee in the lurch at last.

=My husband.

A sad poem, I note. Chinese wisdom has it that husband and wife should always treat each other in the home as the other's honoured guest. Perhaps such a thing is only possible in the context of a Domestic Partnership, a concept I hope to pioneer and exploit commercially, in time, with the right sort of Domestic Partner.

Andromeda is still seeking her Perseus.

Monday, 6 April 2009

Men now so useless they cannot deal with ambiguity because of paralysing fear of rejection

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1167826/Want-chat-chap-Cut-small-talk-say-scientists.html



So, men are so frightened and clueless now that they cannot respond to subtle female signs of interest and encouragement unless it is something as unambiguous as



"Fancy dinner?"



"Can I give you my number?"



"Do you have plans later?"



"What are you up to tonight?"



"Your place or mine?"


So it's official then. British men now secretly want to dress like women and sit around in bars looking "new-manly" while waiting for women to chat them up. Their pretty fluffy little heads are now incapable of dealing with such things as ambiguity, risk of rejection and the basics of male courtship that even lower animals know they must perform if they desire the opportunity to sexually reproduce.

I wonder if the problem is anything to do with the fact that most British women are now so "liberated" that they think being promiscuous, or, not to put too fine a point on it, being a slag and a slapper, ie females behaving like a predatory males, is a badge of British womanhood.

(Perhaps this is why Muslim women go to the other extreme of covering themselves in their burqas, to show that they are most certainly not wearing this particular British badge.)

If it is true that both men and women have had their characters ruined by feminism, then this explains why men (who are too busy considering and accepting offers made to them by their liberated women) no longer have the inclination or capacity to fulfil their natural masculine roles of impressing their women with their ability to be provide and protect, in order to win their favours.

It would appear that women are now seeking advice about cajoling men into having sex, as if they were infants with feeding difficulties and an aversion to the breast.

Men are now more to be regarded as Reluctant Companions to Women who may at any time change their claim from being

(a) in need of protection and provision, or
(b) equal partners, or
(c) she who must be obeyed

according to circumstances and mood.

Men are also regarded as sperm banks by the more ambitious and enterprising sink-school "educated" young women who want to "move on in life" and receive more benefits and more spacious council accommodation for themselves and their variously-fathered children.

Professional women who cannot find a decent man to become their husbands and the fathers of their children after spending their potentially child-bearing years building their careers, have a similar "sperm bank" outlook towards men.

If I were a man (or a boy http://www.joost.com/135i5lz/t/Beyonc-If-I-Were-A-Boy#id=135i5lz), marriage would be the last thing I would do these days. Were I to meet a woman whom I considered capable of being a good wife and mother, I would expect that she agree to the terms of a Domestic Partnership Agreement, with negotiations conducted "at arm's length" by our respective legal advisers, before entering into any relationship involving cohabitation and children.

Unromantic, I know, but to do otherwise would be folly indeed.

Friday, 3 April 2009

Marital Discipline through Flogging

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/taliban-pakistan-justice-women-flogging

It is NOT in the Koran that you are to be lashed for merely being in a position to commit adultery. It must have been the case that pre-Islam, the Afghans would flog each other over trifling matters such as dropping litter and subsequently adapted Islam to their customs.

I repeat, there is nothing in the Koran that says "flog a woman 34 times for putting herself in a position where she could have committed adultery". It does however say in the Koran that 100 lashes are to be administered for convicted adulterers and 80 lashes for falsely accusing someone of adultery.

Under such a system, I would argue that victims of adultery be personally allowed to administer these punishments in the privacy of the bedchamber. I know for a fact that quite a fetish is made of discipline and the sex industry caters very well for this preference in men such as sir Max Mosley. I do not doubt that quite a few women also like this sort of thing, if it is not too harshly administered.

It may even spice up a flagging sex life and bring the couple back together again.

Who knows, many of the witnesses to the flogging may have found themselves quite, er, uplifted, by the experience of hearing the shrieks of a woman receiving her punishment on her bottom wearing red pants, and hearing the smack of the lash upon her flesh ....