In Praise of Traditional Women

Deny them the opportunity to be a victim by giving them everything they want except for you (the male). See, the radical feminist's ultimate desire is to possess you and to destroy you from inside of a relationship. In doing so, they have effectively turned the man into their lesbian lover. Sounds sick and twisted and...I have had that explained to me by a radical feminist, so its not my narrative! Its very much like a virus destroying the host using the hosts own cells and energy. But, by giving them everything they want except for you, then you have effectively destroyed them. A pleasant smile at their demise is warranted but no tears are required. It is a war. Never forget that.

Oy. This thread is ridiculous.

^^^lol i was just thinking the same thing, dumbasses discussing a dumbass subject

meritocracy will never exist because of nepotism (involving family AND friends and groups). end of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ecojeanne [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

meritocracy will never exist because of nepotism (involving family AND friends and groups). end of.

---

Sounds like someone has drawn deeply from the bottle of Victimhood.

Nepotism is a hurdle that can be jumped over IF one really wants to win in life. You can always beat the bastards, assuming you really want something.

That's half the fun of my job--I always seek out new areas for work and there is always some "old boy network" present that asks, "who the hell are you?" Its always fun to rush traverse the castle moat, rush the gates, and beat them at their own game. And, then...walk off seeking the next new area of work and the next battle.

And, instead of a gender war or a political war or whatever....fight for yourself and your own cause. Actually, that is what a traditional woman does or a traditional man for that matter. You fight for your cause as a family unit or as an individual if you have no family. A traditional woman or man assumes roles in that fight, that struggle...they divide the labor very much the same way as does the soldier take on specialties in fighting a war on a battlefield. If everyone is off doing their own thing...then there really is no point in forming a family unit. Its just a drag on the individual.

it's easy to play the game all one needs is charisma. i have indeed played the game. someone somewhere will always be promoted for being a lick arse and not actually good at the job. i neither agree nor disagree with the game however i am just pointing out the obvious; meritocrocy will never supersede nepotism.

I agree that nepotism plays a role in our society. I'm glad you mentioned it Eco, b/c I was thinking that my post about meritocracy sounded a bit too idealistic. I was going to mention cronyism but thought that it might open a big can of worms I wasn't prepared to explain.

I don't know what level you have been exposed to it. If you are talking about crappy employees staying in their jobs b/c they've been at the company for years, I agree this can sometimes be a problem. If you are talking about more senior people giving contracts to their associates, well, there is that also, tho there are also some very good reasons for this practice. I tend to think of nepotism as either productive or non-productive. The latter actually does eventually come out in the wash, as we saw recently (unfortunately) during the recent financial crisis.

At higher levels, nepotism actually does serve a purpose. Sometimes, ironically, it can actually serve meritocracy. It seems counter-intuitive at first but not if you really understand how things get done. One of the duties of those in executive positions is to facilitate the 'talent' when they find it and make sure they aren't hindered from doing what they are good at.

I think you'd have to work in high-level government, academia or business to fully appreciate what I mean. Nepotism can be a problem, definitely, but it can also be a really powerful way of getting things done. Nepotism and meritocracy aren't completely orthogonal in all cases, I guess is what I'm saying. Hence the big push for transparent corporate governance policies.

Oh mate, I have to love you.

Firstly, you quoted Hitler :). Perfect. Hitler is your role model :). You know you're headed towards the looney bin.

I'm sure you believe in the truth of what you're saying and you can make it sound right (although articulate people can make anything sound right).

One problem - it's beautiful theory and does not work that way in practice.

You are right in that some men were perhaps slightly happier in dominant relationships (usually men who are insecure). But these men also tended to beat their women and had poor relationships with their children.

More successful men tend to look for independant women - they want an equal not a submission. Women who go out looking for a husband are NEVER successful. And I bet the women you yourself had strong feelings for were also independant to a degree.

Psychologically, men do not like dependant women in practice, even if so in theory.

As a woman, yes it would be nice to find someone to look after you financially, emotionally etc. But life is not like that. And that is not the way to happiness. Despite what crap religion might tell you, women were not an "afterthought" or a "helper" to men. Women were designed with minds to be useful contributors to society.

The female cat is not a helper of the male cat. The female cat is a cat. And the woman is a human being.

I have had to deal with a dominant and aggressive father demeaning me my whole life, despite my professional achievements outstripping his, he will never give me any respect or love for this. I found love and security and meaning from strong women and caring men.

Why are the most "liberated" countries the most happiest in the world? And the most hard-line conservative are the least and most problemed?

Your logic is screwed.

And you have just motivated me to put more into my career, sincerely thanks for that.

^^who are you talkin to?

Hey Indi... what does nepotism mean? I mean I looked it up and this is what it said

–noun
patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics

So does this mean this is a person who would... ok lets say Me and my cousin work in for the same company.. I'm a manager and she's a ... phone operator... I promote her to a manager position even though she isn't qualified. That means I'm guilty of nepotism right?

Some explain please :)

Yes, that would be nepotism of the non-productive sort. However, if you had a cousin who you knew would be brilliant as a manager and so you promoted her, (probably not to manager, but something that would let you train her toward it), that would be productive nepotism.

The trouble with blatant nepotism is that it actually causes a lot of resentment, never mind actual problems with company operations if they are unqualified. So only very stupid managers do this. Ones who probably shouldn't be in those positions themselves.

A higher level of nepotism might be a corporate exec who hears 'through the grapevine' that a new exec position is opening up. They suggest to the board their friend who they know is a great fit for the position but probably wouldn't get hired based on a cold CV submission. That kind of thing happens a fair bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAM [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

The radical feminist doesn't want peace, doesn't want meritocracy...they want power.

---

Alas, the lowly radical feminist has succumbed to the worst possible fate --- being human and falling victim to greed. It happens to men... it makes sense that females (the other half of the species) could be just as vulnerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAM [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]

Deny them the opportunity to be a victim by giving them everything they want except for you (the male). See, the radical feminist's ultimate desire is to possess you and to destroy you from inside of a relationship. In doing so, they have effectively turned the man into their lesbian lover. Sounds sick and twisted and...I have had that explained to me by a radical feminist, so its not my narrative! Its very much like a virus destroying the host using the hosts own cells and energy. But, by giving them everything they want except for you, then you have effectively destroyed them. A pleasant smile at their demise is warranted but no tears are required. It is a war. Never forget that.

---

At the risk of having my gender finding me distasteful... I have witnessed this on many occasions in the relationships my male friends have had with women who had embraced feminism with profound fervor.

I've also noticed the desire some women have towards obtaining power... thus destroying the balance and the relationship, only to be left wondering what went wrong, and who they should blame. This is even true in lesbian relationships, where some women feel this irrational need to be overly dominant. It's as though it were some sort of destructive inferiority complex.

Some women fail to realize that power is naturally balanced between the genders... if you're willing to look at the whole picture --- not nick pick about the specifics you feel are owed to you. In any relationship, success and happiness is usually found in a relationship that has equality and balance of power, or very near it between the partners.

When the battle of the sexes constantly ends in a draw... at some point, you have to start wondering why.

Following up on the last post...

We are the only species in which the two sexes are literally at war with each other...does such a species have any hope for long term survival? The ultimate "draw" in all of this is the silent agreement to pursue alternate lifestyles. A gay activist was quoted in the newspaper the other day saying that given the state of relationship between men and women, he fully expects to see more men enter into a gay lifestyle.

Now, I think many of those men are not "gay" in the flagrant sexual way--in fact, I think that sexual intercourse, beyond possibly fellatio, plays a very small role for many gays. They seek someone to hold them, to kiss them--physical intimacy of this type is a basic necessity to the human psyche. Realize that many women today present such a hardened image that many men are, in fact, leery of them. These men don't want to marry "men with tits," which is pretty much the image that many women present these days (particularly American women). I think many are seeking a loving relationship and find that it isn't possible to easily have that with a woman and that there are men who are equally loving and affectionate who will offer that to them (and vice versa). And, they find greater stability in child rearing, too.

Of course, it isn't everyone...very true. But, the war has been codified into the social order, the legal codes, etc. So, whether you are a troop in that war or not, you are still drawn into the crossfire.