Why Are Women Being Educated?

It's not a coincidence that the first corrosive liberation movement that came from the Marxist Frankfurt School was the liberation of women. They knew exactly what they were doing.

 

Yep. They sure did...

 

What was that? The downfall of western civilisation?

 

Only weak men fear strong women.
Little pathetic men with control and mommy issues.

 

It's not dismissing them when we're trying to prevent more from going against their nature and ultimately pursuing a life that will leave them depressed and unfulfilled.

All the women I know who have lead traditional lives are much happier than their career oriented counterparts. Only a man who hates women would want to rob them of the few things in life that will make them the happiest and most fulfilled.

 

What a moron. Seriously, that guy is an idiot.

So basically, we can conclude from his statements:

1. Women are only on this earth to reproduce and take care of family
2. Women can't hold attention needed to be educated
3. Women shouldn't compete with men for work they are more qualified for
4. Women are "handicapped" at what men are capable of doing

This idiot has drawn so many conclusions that are not validated about the girl he observed.

In short, really, the guy is an idiot.

 

Now I know you're joking. Good one.

 

Roosh should stick to pick up artists and male-related commentary and lay off the biological imperative stuff, he is much better at advising on how to meet and pick up women in different locations. He has a website, Return of Kings, that is essentially a "Jezebel-Cosmo" type site for heterosexual men. I do not read it other than the rare link to it in threads like this here and elsewhere. But want to make a point here about the hypocrisy of the LW and prevailing culture... as expressed well in this thread and on this forum by some of our LW hypocrites. His site, and the article in the OP, are no more shocking nor offensive than THOUSANDS of articles a day from the other feminist side aimed at maleness (toxic masculinity) and male foibles in places like buzzfeed, Jezebel, Cosmo, etc. There are dozens of feminist blogs and outlets for every one Roosh. It's all pop GIGO for the masses on BOTH sides, yet LW HYPOCRITES and BS ARTISTS treat people like Roosh as the worst kind of human being on one hand, but for the mountains of garbage on the other side? Well that's just pop culture and feminist social justice at work. What a joke. Both sides are just "pop culture" and if he's found a way to make a living off it, then he's not one whit worse than a feminist blogger with a webpage who links to Solanas there as a historical curiosity. The double standards of the left, as usual, are astounding, and this is why they are losing and will continue to lose among the right side of the Bell Curve. They have replaced all critical and objective thinking with hollow, transparently inconsistent virtue signals. Many of them are waking up to how egregiously gov-edu has disserved and impaired them cognitively, and that snowball (i.e. "red pill") will continue to grow and roll as well.

The problem with female "equality" under the law and in the culture is not that it exists, that's been the aim since the notion of the rule of law grew out of the Enlightenment (yeah, feminism didn't "do that") but that the intent was never there to create it in the Complex in the 50s when feminism originated, but to create DISCRIMINATION in women's favor in all areas of life, work, home, legal, cultural, towards Complex political gain due to turning women into the new proletariat to replace the unreliable labor proletariat (same for blacks). Want to find out what I mean INSTANTLY? Ask a woman who believes the propaganda definition of "feminism" as "equality between the sexes" (it's really Marxist cultural destabilization and control via identity politics and victimologies) whether men should pay for the first date or not? What do you think the overwhelming answer will be? I know because I've done that very thing on female heavy forums in the past. 80% of the staunchest "feminists" will still want men to pay, and will rationalize it in the most childish ways. This is just one of 100s of examples of the self absorbed equality-fallacy that a vast majority of LW women believe in.

What you will find is that a huge swath of women TRULY believe that feminism is not equality at all, but an ADDITION to their privileges of the past, something EXTRA they "just get" for possessing a vagina. They view the world of "equality" as a "pick and choose" cafeteria plan. Ask the male customer service rep at the utility company whether he should get as much pay as the guy out climbing the poles and risking instant death every day? He'll readily acknowledge that he should not get equal pay. Ask a female employee? Odds are she will blindly believe she deserves the same pay as the worker in dangerous conditions... because "muh equality." Yes, they are inconsistent hypocrites. Is this part of their femaleness? or just the standard opportunism of weak-minded LW collectivists? Who knows? I don't care.

I worked in corporate America for decades. The DAMAGE of reengineering the workplace to accommodate women in every way "just because muh equality" while allowing them the privileges and special treatment of the past is shocking. Awful for morale, and drives the actual talent, including the few meritorious women right out. Together with a regulatory climate that is designed to choke out local competition, the largest crony companies continue to profit, as the DJIA shows... but there will be a reckoning. When other less "muh equality" bound countries in Asia strip the U.S. of our commercial sovereignty it will be too late to fix.

Equality is great. It's called the rule of law and was always a goal of the Constitutional Republic. We realized that goal in a toenail of historical time. The feminist cafeteria plan version of "muh equality" that is actually discrimination and double standards? that was created out of Mao Hats in the 50s? Cultural and commercial toxic waste, and we will pay dearly for its excesses.

 

For the egg.

Why, really, do women need men? For sperm.

Huh. Imagine that. We could all just not get educated, and reproduce idiots like the guy in the video.

 

So, your anecdotal perceptions, dictate and reinforce your perspective? REally?

 

Actually no the statistics back me up too.

 

To answer your question ....
An educated woman is a benefit to society. Regardless of a woman's inherent natural qualities an education is increasingly more important as technology becomes more ingrained in our daily life.

To deny an education is to enslave. If you want women to be subservient the a lack of education is a good start.

I endured the video up to the 4:45 mark. It was clear from the get what this guy was all about. He sees women as sex toys and nothing more.

At one point he said "men spend 1000's of hours learning how to date."
Seriously? It takes 1000's of hours just to learn how to date WOW, talk about slow learners.

At 4:47 he says "how many hours have i spent learning game just to get laid." He cuts of the word "laid" to insert "have a token intimacy". It is clear what he means.

The dude in the video exhibits the emotional development of a 17 year old. Obviously he feels threatened by women. I hope that after further review you can see this guy for what he is.

 

Our democracy supports EVERY citizen's right to choose, and that is not limited to reproductive choices. . . . What moral privilege gives you and this idiot a platform to dispute these rights???. . . . Attend to your own affairs, and don't meddle in matters that should not concern you.

 

Which is an argument for what? Certainly not that they should be sheltered from knowledge and skill developement...

 

Only pathetic, weak men cannot live and work with strong women. Little worms with mommy issues. Sad, really.

 

It would be interesting to see this man debate Malala.

 

This fella is about as forward-thinking as the clowns claiming that 'miscegenation' should be discouraged or outlawed.

 

We're not importing millions of immigrants per year. As the first link below states, it's about a million, half of which are already here under a temporary visa of some sort. The second link points out that the US rate of immigration is only slightly higher than Germany's and England's. We can throttle back our rate to below theirs, but unless you want to force women to have children, that will not fix the population drop....a lower population is fine with me. Too many ****ing people moving into my neck of the woods. I may have to move again just to get away from them.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...rubio-says-us-admits-1-million-immigrants-ye/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate

 

In the U.S., it does in fact take thousands of hours for the average man to achieve the same level of sexual opportunity that the average woman has right out of the gate, and that's what he is talking about. In other words, to attain sexual opportunity equality with average women, average men must spend immense amounts of time on their appearance, careers, seduction skills that women needn't spend. A vast majority of men do not put in the work to attain this aspect of sexual equality, and so don't truly comprehend what it means, taking whatever they can get as opposed to doing the work to get what they really want from women.

The average woman can stay in bed all day, contact random underwear models she considers hot from the net, and they will come to her and instantly provide her with sex. The average man cannot do this, and the few men who can are either the tiny fraction of a percent of "naturals" or men who have put in immense effort. His statement is completely correct when viewed in this way, and that is the way the PUA community views that question. Is this cause for complaint? No, accomplishment actually, but it is a simple, uncontroversial fact in context.

As for "he feels threatened by women?" No, he has had more women than 99% of the men in the world, and his complaints about educating women are part of the disillusionment that comes with experiencing the "malleable" side of female nature thousands of times over in the mating game, their fluid reality, desure ti be seduced/tricked rather than approached rationally, inconsistency/dishonesty, and immense powers of rationalization. Any man who goes through a period of "figuring women out" or how to get beautiful women to have sex quickly will suffer similar disillusionment. Women are no better than men, and where men have certain noxious general foibles, women have theirs too... every bit as bad. The difference is that we live in a culture that legally and morally condemns male foibles, yet actually -elevates- female foibles, and when one learns the truth about women, that they are not one bit better or worse generally than men, just bad in different ways, it can be a shock. I see that shock in Roosh and his half-baked appeals to the "good ole days" of gender roles.

 

He's 37. He should be over the shock.

 

Dude, you are spinning numbers out of thin air since the movie only grossed $166.2M domestically; with an average ticket price of $8.50, that's only 19.5M tickets, half of which were men taking their dates to see the movie to seek Dakota Johnson's tits and hoping to get lucky later in the evening.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Fifty-Shades-of-Grey#tab=summary

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/movie-ticket-prices-hit-record-high-first-quarter-996254

 

Basically all I got from your video is that his guy is upset that he has to court women. And he thinks he has to do that because of education. So he's basically saying smart women don't date him easily. I would agree with that conclusion.

On the bigger question of should women be educated, you ask as if we are educating them. You ask as if we, be it men or whomever the we is, has the right to decide that FOR women. You answered your own question. It IS about personal liberty that women can choose to educate themselves or not. The fact that you think there is intelligent debate to be had here makes me question your education/intelligence, and that's just a gut reaction not necessarily a flung out insult, simply because the premise here is that bad.

 

^^^^ Didn't get a lot of dates in HS or college?

As for Roosh, he claims to have had a lot of women, and he probably has had a few, but I doubt any self-respecting woman is going to put up with his bullshit for more than one date and certainly not afterward.

 

Agree that dwelling on this or that inequity as a perpetual victim for years would be bad, it would make a man who did that just as bad as feminists or other identity politics grievance mongers. I can't tell from the video, after watching again, whether he is personally wallowing in a passive aggressive faux victimhood way, or just observing... or perhaps more likely, selling clicks and merch to lovelorn men by head-patting them.

But OTOH, age is irrelevant. For some, it takes raising a family in perpetual misery and a brutal divorce to make men realize that they could have avoided their misery had they put in the effort to make themselves more attractive generally within the pool so that they could pick and choose just like women do instead of taking one of the first girls willing to hop in the sack, that they needed to obtain much more sexual experience with women before signing a "lifetime deal." Women have these opportunities innately, men must work for the equality of sexual opportunity.

The paths to equality in sexual choice for men begin either in favorable genes and family tree or in lots of hard work. There really isn't any other path, and women do not experience similarly in our culture. That realization can come at any age.

 

I agree with your first paragraph and am inclined to think he may have mental health problems.
I don't think he has been married. His reaction to the young woman in the waiting room was a bit immature and not as someone who has been in a sustained relationship with a woman,