“Woman Have Quietly Snitched From Man His Really Human Qualities”

From “The Day Book”(Chicago, IL) – May 28, 1914:


  1. following the Yellow Brick Road thru the Golden Calf Tanning Salon, straight to the Homeland of the Wicked Witch of the West

  2. I bet they never dreamed in 1914 that more than loyalty would be suspect.
    Sad that men are rightfully afraid to be around children.
    What would Jesus say?
    He would say it would be better for them (misandrists) to have a millstone around their neck and in the lake,because they are hurting the children by this hetero-hate.
    May God deal with the family court judges in his special manner.(lake of fire for eternity)

  3. Wow, even back then people could see what was coming. But those people were so enlightened. How could that be?

  4. @farm boy
    Women are much smarter (and content) when living the natural order.

    I value CL so much that I really would die for her. But I would not enforce this upon CL since that would be tyrannical. She has the freedom to empower herself and I will not stand in the way.

  5. I do not understand why men need women to let them be better. If a man wants to be a better man, shouldn’t he just be a better man, irregardless of those around him?

  6. @7man
    so men need to feel free to behave like frat boys at all times in order to express their true self?

  7. Typical Vox Day, granting the economic disaster to women becoming more empowered. It’s become all the way around a comfort age, a spoiled and pampered age, and that’s not all due to women.

  8. Rather funny Michelle, the message seems to be that men need to be comfortable, because if they’re not, if women make them uncomfy (which can range from reasonable definitions of discomfort to the mere presence of females in “male” places like science and top management, depending on the men), we’re all heading for trouble.

  9. Its women who act like frat girls at all times, in order to express themselves

    Jennifers & Michelles comments read like a drunken women stag night …

    More proof women should never have the vote, or access to the internet …

    Go back to popping birth control & aborting children, sluts

  10. LMAO Another male in who we must protect to keep our 1st world running. Go hide in your games, wuss.

    By all means, the women specifically referenced in Vox’s article were idiots; some women think they’re entitled to protection from the discomfort of gravity. And pansies make everyone uncomfortable. But one turn deserves another; I don’t complain about the presence of men (often like it, in fact), and I don’t expect a man either to expect protection from the discomfort of a female in his workplace.

  11. MacPUA,

    I’ll copy your intelligent way of drawing conclusions and finding proof:

    Your comment prooves men should never have access to the internet.
    When I think about it, it’s also a proof that men should never have the vote.

  12. This comment will need moderation.

    This, obviously, is the juncture where men and women don’t understand each other. They work out of different social paradigms.

    Women generally play exclusion games. They form cliques, spread gossip, and turn the odd one out.

    Men generally play one up games. They challenge each other, denigrate each other, and dominate one another. Among the qualities that are constantly, not frequently but constantly, challenged is “toughness”, the ability to continue regardless of adverse conditions.

    Now I attempt an existential demonstration which hardly ever works :

    The problem isn’t just you bitches are stupid, but that you’re whiny self absorbed p*ssies. If you want to come and play at DEFCON, then you can f*cking earn it . If you can’t casually discuss cross protocol code injection, Lambda expressions, and IPV6 multihome address formats, then just shut the f*ck up and sit over there against the wall quietly with the meatheads. We don’t have time for you.

    “Nice” only matters if it contributes to results . If you get indignant, you’re out. If you pout, you’re out. If you cry, you are out of f*cking here. If you giggle, you will be the obiect of our amusement for months to come.

    You will not show any cleavage or tramp tags. You will not touch anyone, ever, and that f*cking well includes with your hair. You can wear deodorant but never any perfume, or make up. You will not offer to get us f*cking anything. If we want you to go get something, we will tell you.

    And if you ever come off that wall where we put you, and speak, then what you have to say better be on-topic, correct, complete, and concise. Yes, we will count the letters in each word you use, and if you f*ck that up,the video of you making ass of yourself will go viral, and you will be ridiculed to the end of the conference in English, Japanese, Russian, French, German, Korean, Interlingua, Klingon, Logban, Esperanto, and two other languages Rosetta Stone has never heard of . It will be epic and we will laugh at you and about you, on every EFNET channel and in SEO metatags, until the next DEFCON. We will make you one of two girls with a cup.


    Ladies, if you can conjure a proper 10 word response, then you can go to DEFCON. If you can nod and keep silent, then you can go to DEFCON too.

  13. Yes, I’d say that comment badly needs moderation, and common sense as well. It’s funny how if a group of women spoils the female image for other women, some men will react by giving them speech or treatment that really is worth a harassmen suit.

  14. Jennifer, read the beginning – the part before the diatribe – again, please.

    It is part of being a man that we test each other’s toughness. I have given accurate voice to the attitude at DEFCON.

    Some women didn’t understand why women weren’t welcome at DEFCON. The reason is because women can’t contribute to the diatribe I posted. You see, we don’t want it fixed or made more civil. It’s not harrassment to us. In fact, it’s why we go.

    The presence of women, echoing your comments, ruins it, because riding on the coat tails of such comment is the force of all the laws men passed to protect you, an armed force – called “police” – with lawyers, judges, and jailors in support.

    So, if a woman are going to go, she must be able to contribute. She must be able to answer that diatribe in the male idiom.

    Do note the difference between the male and female. The respondant female of the diatribe isn’t cast out save for the collapse of emotional discipline. She is accomodated in the same way that any plebe is. She has a place on the wall and there is a way off of it. She can force the whole to accept her by being correct, complete, and concise. Everybody starts out on the wall with the meatheads. Nor are the meatheads cast out. They are on the bottom, but they’re in the pile. Even as she is threatened with ridicule, she is still a part of the whole.

    That’s not how women do things, is it? Women would coalesce into smaller sub groups. They exclude for reasons that have nothing to do with the issues at hand. No mechanisms of forcing inclusion exist. That would be rude.

    I don’t know how to express to you how evil the female social paradigm seems to me. Everything I write fails.

    Let’s try putting the shoe on the other foot.

    You propose that DEFCON’s social interactions be changed to accomodate a female’s sensibilities, so that she wouldn’t be “harrassed”.

    Then I propose that the usual social interactions at women’s baby showers be altered to accomodate my sensibilities, and my sensibilities sound like that diatribe prior. Women, in just reciprocity, ought to be obligated to have baby showers become dens of ridicule and challenge. Coat hangers will be common and amusing gag gifts. Treatments for head lice will be sincere ones. It’s only fair. Men already do this for women.

    Horrifying idea, eh? Yeah, that’s how we feel about making things like DEFCON female friendly.

  15. I said no such thing about DEFCON’s policies being changed, and made it clear I don’t think whiny women need to be there. But singling women out by calling them names exclusive to female insults wouldn’t be appropriate either; THAT is crossing the line. It’s very simple: if women want to be in any part of the military, for ex, they’ll have to accept the drill sergeant’s methods, and those sergeants talk rough. However, if a sergeant started talking to the women in a way that was exclusively insulting, like saying, “C’mon, you lousy c**ts, take out those tampons and get moving or suck my *blankety blank*, that would be rightly considered filthy and prejudicial talk. You’re also incorrect about women in any workplace behaving like teenage girls instead of adapting to the rules; plenty of women like Margaret Thatcher climbed the ladders in their jobs by doing what the job required.

  16. Jennifer, I am failing to get my point across. It’s hard to describe and the distractions are so powerful.

    I’d like for a woman or two, somewhere in the world, to understand men. Well, that’s too extreme because I think Robins mostly gets us. More would be better though.

    Singling out women by such name calling isn’t inappropriate, it’s necessary. The drill sargent’s talk is not rough, it’s kind and loving. It’s not filthy nor prejudicial, but sharp and precise. This isn’t about women adapting to the rules but whether they can become the rules.

    Do you like gold? I do. It never rusts or tarnishes. It’s infinitley malleable. The beauty of some of the things it is used to make could not be achieved with any other substance.

    So, why don’t we use it on steak? We could pepper gold on like the garlic or the salt or even the pepper!

    So, there’s my problem. I’m trying to explain steak to gold and why its inclusion just isn’t going to work.

    It’s the ‘why’ part that’s the most difficult, because most gold really doesn’t care.

    Oh yeah. All that rough talk? That’s like pepper. Gold may think pepper is just filthy, but steaks like pepper. Pepper improves steak.

    I could improve this analogy, but duty calls. Later.

  17. If you seriously think what I used as an example of prejudicial talk is healthy or loving, I seriously worry about your judgement and processing ability. The example I used was beyond sick, and I think you understand remarkably little.

  18. ecclesiastes speaks truth — the truth suppressed and crushed for half a century in the u.s. — and jennifer’s immediate reaction is, well, more suppression and crushing is necessary

    this thread exactly makes the original article’s point — females force their way into male spaces, crying for “equality” and “fairness” then immediately “moderate” male speech and behavior until eveything is Jen’s Way

    once everythibng is Jen’s Way (every Western nation) then men have no option but to submit to the New Improved Fem-place, or split (from colleges, from workplaces, from marriage etc)

    women then crow that they have “conquered” another bastion of “male privilege” and the formerly healthy, functioning male space corrupts, deteriorates, and dies

    at this point, women call in their police state to shame and punish the males for not “manning up” and “taking responsibility”

    christ’s kingdom is the opposite of Jennifer’s Matriarchy (satan’s world) what a joy that blessed day! women will no longer decide who and what men are allowed to be

  19. Ray,

    I want a content check.

    Aside from that address format faux pas – for which I would be justifiably humiliated – is there anything I wrote that is confusing or nonsensical?

    Leaving out those things that we disagree on and those I could have said better, is what I write coherent?

    Don’t be a p*ssy. Be a right bastard for me, Ray.

    Ditto anyone else reading this who has a d*ck.

  20. Another bollocks interpretation of my perfectly clear words, Ray. Well-done indeed, foolish never fail. I don’t really care about moderating Eccles’s speech; his general meaning about not changing the rules is perfectly clear, as is the pepper analogy, while otoh his calling filthy words towards women as I demonstrated in my example “pure” and “loving” is utterly bogus and defies all sense and reason. You’re not meat, Eccles, you’re pepper, and I don’t seem to be able to explain to you how you blow yourself up people’s noses instead of seasoning the meat of discussion; instead of enlightening, you infuriate. Try to talk like a normal person with the rest of us mortals and maybe we’ll get somewhere.

  21. Jennifer, you, obviously, have no idea what a drill sergeant does.

    He prepares his charges for battle.

    They are to keep their wits about them even as their comrades die right before their eyes. They are to ignore their injuries, their weariness, their hunger, their fear of dying, their grief, their guilt, and to perform in a disciplined manner under any conditions found on the planet to fight and kill the enemy that is doing its lethal best to kill them first.

    The drill sergeant does his best to push every button his soldiers have and train them to shrug it off as nothing. If one of his trainees has a sudden attack of moral outrage at an insult in battle – that trainee will die and may take other soldiers with them into the dirt.

    He wakes them at all hours, has them perform to impossible standards, insults them mercilessly because that’s all he can do to prepare them to face an enemy intends to kill them at least and will throw in torture for sh*ts and grins. There is nothing a drill sergeant can do, nothing, that can approach the horror an enemy will bring.

    This is not a low intensity job for the drill sergeant either. He has to be up at all those hours, he has to be able to actually perform all those impossible tasks to humble his troops, and – for your innocent and naive information – has to do a high energy job of insulting people that he’d rather shoot pool with.

    If he actually hated those troops, all he’d have to do is go easy on them, relax and kick back, be mindful of their feelings, and then those soldiers would go into combat, panic, and die.

    He is working his ass off to make sure they live.

    I absolutely stand by every word I wrote:

    “The drill sargent’s talk is not rough, it’s kind and loving. It’s not filthy nor prejudicial, but sharp and precise.”

    Well, I misspelled sergeant. I don’t stand by that.

  22. Dear God, Jennifer, you have no idea how many body bags your attitude would fill, how many orphans you’d leave, much less how many amputated arms and legs. You can’t possibly, knowingly, be this bloodthirsty.

  23. Jennifer, you did get one thing half right – I am infuriating, and in this it is part of my point. In fact there is no other way to say what I mean.

    Go all the way back to the beginning. Men test each others toughness, the ability to continue despite adverse conditions.

    How better to communicate to you “adverse conditions” than to create them for you? You weren’t able to respond appropriately, and, since I’m male, I am the authority on what is an appropriate response.

    I am working very hard to help you understand a visceral point – visceral, that means “blood”. I am making this as polite as I can, when the topic isn’t polite at all.

    Instead of hurling invectives, try asking a question? Tell me where I am losing you?

  24. I’m not talking about drill sergeant’s talk in general, Eccles, which again I made VERY CLEAR. I was referring to if a sergeant made sexually insulting comments, and to one sex only. That kind of talk is not pure or loving, and a sergeant’s speech even when appropriate is not kind; that’s nonsense.

    “since I’m male, I am the authority on what is an appropriate response”

    LOL Quite a few men have not responded to you in what you describe as an appropriate way either. For the last time, expecting women to be tough, and specifically, singularly insulting them with deliberately alienating words, is not the same. If there were a female top executive of a company, run mostly by men under her, and she challenged them all, but ONLY addressed the men in particularly degrading speech, calling them p*ssies and d*cks and balless slobs, they would probably only be motivated to get her ass kicked out of there,

  25. Well, if a drill sergeant did as you describe, I would assume he wanted the males dead and the females alive.

    As you are not able to form an appropriate response, how would you know if men responding to me had done so or not?

    I am not expecting women to be tough, not very anyway. I do expect you to keep your wits about you enough to ask a question when something doesn’t make sense.

    Your speculation on what a man would want when faced with … let’s pick a real, in the news case of this, Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security, presumes something that I tried to disallow at some length – rewarding the successful challenge.

    Napolitano didn’t do that. She didn’t insult to challenge, she did so to exclude, and THAT is the critical difference.

    Men don’t exclude like women do. There are challenges that are made specifically and intentionally to be overcome. My diatribe at the beginning was written in the male idiom. It wasn’t to summarily run off a objectionable female. She gets the same starting point any male does. She would advance as any male would – through demonstrated ability. She faces the same penalties any male would, denigration.

  26. “how would you know if men responding to me had done so or not?”

    I know that male commenters have rebuffed you, slashed back at you, and even misunderstood you, so it’s not a singular reaction.

    I didn’t ask you a question because I think our disagreement was pretty clear. It may be hard to determine where exactly a drill sergeant could go over the line, but if he used sexual intimidation of any sort, I’d find it very inappropriate, whereas you’d find it healthy; I can’t imagine why you’d approve of such a thing morally, even if it was not disapproved in his job description. But this is the clinker:

    “Men don’t exclude like women do.”

    That’s where you’re incorrect; men can most certainly exclude. I’ve seen men subtly exclude women in even religious discussions and matters, and sometimes directly do so.

    I understood your general point, and mainly found your diatribe too overdone to be actually useful in a job arena; it did not simply offer rough and challenging speech, it offered insults aimed at a particular claim: that women were pansies who didn’t have what it took like men, and should just shut up and do what the men tell them.

  27. As rape is common in war, there is no “sexual intimidation” that would be inappropriate in preparing a woman for combat. To fail to use “sexual intimidation” in her training is to leave her vulnerable in the one place she will need toughness the most.

    Do you want female soldiers’ minds shattered by gang rape? Do you have some alternative preparation for being raped, aside from having every female soldier raped as demonstration?

    You’re obviously struggling with this concept.

    The common solution is to exclude women from risk of capture, which cripples a career in the armed forces, but the complaints heard from women about that show the same abbreviated thought as you demonstrate here.


    But those rebuffs of men weren’t inappropriate in the male idiom, at least I don’t remember any.

    That’s not entirely true. The general shrill rejection of me on Dalrock smacked of p*ssies. It didn’t seem enough for them to reject my point, but they went on to reject me and Dalrock flinched in support.

    I have been painting in broad strokes, so individual exceptions aren’t relevant. That some men, on some occasions, exclude doesn’t invalidate my assertion.

    Of course my diatribe is inappropriate in a job arena. We were discussing DEFCON, a convention for hackers, saboteurs, and pirates, and those who attempt to defend against them too I suppose.

    I need some sleep.

  28. Don’t be a p*ssy. Be a right bastard for me, Ray.

    gee thatll take a lot of work :O)

    no i didnt see any problem, the bitch comment was in context with the generic description preceding, i didnt read it as personal to anyone

    after the (standard and obviously inapplicalbe) threat of intervention by her femstate, that = outright rebellion… what this blog purports to oppose, so….

    i didnt read the rest of yr exchanges and wont, if she rebels, rebuke her until/unless it appears as attention whoring, then just move on

    since you are asking i’d also remind to praise females when they obey and so help turn their efforts towards pleasing our Father (like having a blog that unmasks and rebukes feminists)


  29. “Do you want female soldiers’ minds shattered by gang rape?”

    I hate to break this to you, but talking to soldiers in degrading fashions will NOT protect them from severe psychological damage caused by rape. As for Dalrock’s readers, you’re dead-on, but it would have been helpful if you explained more.

    Ray, take your p*ssy-wupped little prickish head elsewhere and try to work on your grammar and reasoning abilities before talking to adults again. If you treat women like dogs, they’ll bite you in the crotch, though I doubt there’s much there to get a hold of.

  30. @Jennifer

    Lacking email reply, I don’t know that you’ve gotten my notes to you. I am certain that you read this though.

    My time is going to be occupied dealing with Issac. I’ll be back, reliably, after it makes landfall.

    Ignore news commentary. This will be my ninth. It looks like a Cat 1, i.e. over-ambitious thunderstorm.

  31. How have women “stripped men of their HUMAN qualities?” And what constitutes a “reallt human quality” to you? Women have, infact have had to FORCE you guys to EVOLVE to the littlest form of a human being. Look at the caveman days. I guess you were happier then, and want to revert to those days to feel like a “real man?” Oh-and remember when you men made women your personal property, and denied us the right to vote? Then there were the good old “father knows best” days where women were expected to be in the kitchen all day, and perform wageless, thankless WORK? That’s what raising (usually several) kids is. It’s work. But, it is not recognized by the patriarchy as such. The woman should stay home, raise a bunch of bratty kids, and cook and clean while her “spouse” is at work, getting PAID, in the real world, most likely having an affair anyways with a different woman, and ging out with his unruly male cohorts, hmm? Women TAME and CIVILIZE men. If he had his way, he would behave much differently in society-oppressing other women (which most married guys do anyways, raping and pillaging, and acting in other barbaric ways. In India, for example men CAN behave like this. Americans are supposed to be the most evolved guys, so they say, but I do not believe this. You mar’s WANT to go back to the “old days.” This will never happen. Your “movement” is laughable, and so obviously misogynistic and hateful that it’ll never fly in today’s modern world. Any REAL man will laugh at you “guys,” and your so-called “movement.” It’s more like a bowel movement..haha! Us Feminists demand equality, and Romney is not president, so…things are looking up for us, and we shall continue to fight the patriarchy until life is equal for women and girls around the world….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s