[Excelsior]

This is another fantastic article by the blogger Xenocrates, who has been linked to here before.

Intro:

Quote:

I could tell you why men rule the world, but then I'd just be insulting your intelligence. A more intriguing question to ask is, why is it that women don't rule the world? No, really. With all the power that they wield over men, why is it that women don't already rule the world? Men have ruled the world from the dawn of civilization. With all the amazing things that are going on for women, (education, equality, etc.). It's not exactly impossible is it? Well, you may be surprised.

He goes on to list 10 reasons why women appear like they are going to surpass men, but in actuality will not do so.

Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here.

It is an extremely well articulated rebuttal to all of the "women will soon rule the world" talk we keep hearing in the mainstream media. It explains not only why this has never happened, but why it never will. Definitely a must-read.

[BLarsen]

Where do you find this stuff man? I just put this dude in my RSS feed based on the strength of that post...

[Excelsior]

(02-20-2012 12:40 PM)BLarsen Wrote:  

Where do you find this stuff man? I just put this dude in my RSS feed based on the strength of that post...

Credit should actually go to speakeasy for linking me to him several months ago. And yeah, his entire blog is worth a good read if you've got any free time.

[speakeasy]

I started to post a link to this article here but figured I've pimped this guy's blog here enough times already. Yeah that was a solid piece. The whole blog is quality. I think he deserves way more prominence in the manosphere than he currently has.

[thekid]

meh,

his objective is to undermine a pretty ridiculous premise "that women should/will rule the world," no one actually thinks that women will usurp all men in all categories, even dominate. And he makes generalizations that are holding less water: women who lead, excel at business are expected to come home, make dinner etc. That's just not true anymore, most women in high positions of business have a male counterpart who is also successful, that success negates the need for general household upkeep.

I'm not going to go through all of his points, but the post seemed to assume too much, state without citation.

"You will never find an effective female CEO in a multi-billion dollar conglomerate where most of the board directors are also female."

This is because it has never happened before... It would be extremely rare for any major company to have an all female board, just as it is rare to have a company with an all male board. More rights for women does not mean no jobs for men... It just means competition. And if you believe Larry Summers, women might not be that smart anyway.

[kosko]

It was a good article but I do also agree the premise is quite stupid. Nobody... Even Women believe they can achieve dominance over civilization on a global scale. The author fails to take into account scientific, and State constructs that may give Women and artificial ladder into achieving this. Hardcore feminazis won't admit that women can never achieve dominance but they damn well know it. Right when you limited time to pro-create and are physically inferior all bets are off. What these hardcore feminists do know is that they can wield tremendous power by simply achieving economic dominance and control over Men. The political and systems dominance would still be held by the 5% of Men whom control it today.. But economic means with artificial protections from the state and scientific pro-creation would render the 95% of Men whom are not in the entrenched power base useless.

As Women continue to flood institutions, governments, and bureaucracy they will eventually start to change things to suit there delusional needs. The 1%-5% of controlling Men will cheer this as it would permanently quell there biggest fear (uprising of Men against them), if you don't believe me look at how much old foundation money funded and proped up feminism in the first place.

Nurtured Men is the end goal. If they strip the provider and breeder roles of Men what do you have left?

Again it was a good read by the author did not do enough convincing. It seems that this was written more for females then Men. He needed to add the points that even Females can't outright rule civilization and empire they are still trying to step on your neck.

[MikeCF]

Depending on how you define "world," women are already ruling.

Women rule the middle of the Western world. Women already run the mid-tier of most corporations, if not directly as "leadership," than indirectly as HR gestapos.

How many guys working at Fortune 500 companies will post anti-feminist views under their real names? Not many, because the women (and their boot lickers) would oust those men.

At the very top, however, men will always outnumber and dominate women.

[MikeCF]

(02-20-2012 07:59 PM)kosko Wrote:  

It was a good article but I do also agree the premise is quite stupid. Nobody... Even Women believe they can achieve dominance over civilization on a global scale. The author fails to take into account scientific, and State constructs that may give Women and artificial ladder into achieving this. Hardcore feminazis won't admit that women can never achieve dominance but they damn well know it. Right when you limited time to pro-create and are physically inferior all bets are off. What these hardcore feminists do know is that they can wield tremendous power by simply achieving economic dominance and control over Men. The political and systems dominance would still be held by the 5% of Men whom control it today.. But economic means with artificial protections from the state and scientific pro-creation would render the 95% of Men whom are not in the entrenched power base useless.

As Women continue to flood institutions, governments, and bureaucracy they will eventually start to change things to suit there delusional needs. The 1%-5% of controlling Men will cheer this as it would permanently quell there biggest fear (uprising of Men against them), if you don't believe me look at how much old foundation money funded and proped up feminism in the first place.

Nurtured Men is the end goal. If they strip the provider and breeder roles of Men what do you have left?

You're exactly right.

The 1%'s biggest fear is that men from middle class families will challenge their dynasties.

The Kennedys hate the Clintons.

George Bush doesn't want an upstart born to a single mom to have the change to oust his children from power.

To the elite, ruling is seen as a birth right.

Elite men adore feminism because it kills competition.

If you look at elite families, they are anti-feminist. At the top, men are the head of household. Infidelity is tolerated. Women manage the child rearing while the man earns money and seeks power.

The elite are still living the "old fashioned, out-dated, anti-feminist" lifestyle of the 1950's.

Meanwhile, men are told not to act masculine - i.e., to not act as the elites do.

It's a pretty amusing practical joke.

[Chad Daring]

I haven't read the articles yet, but for a while now I've been saying, women would rule the world if it wasn't for the fact that women inherently hate other women. They're incapable of working together for any kind of major goal.

[Goldin Boy]

She sums up my feelings about female leadership/supremacy:

[kosko]

Exactly feeble elites pumped up feminism as a means to protect their rear ends. Its no coincidence that right after America nearly plunged into revolution in the late 60's Feminism took its largest gains in the 70's with protections locked in place by the state.

[yeah get some]

(02-20-2012 08:12 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

I haven't read the articles yet, but for a while now I've been saying, women would rule the world if it wasn't for the fact that women inherently hate other women. They're incapable of working together for any kind of major goal.

One of the points he makes is pretty much what you said here.

He talks about how women will have many female friends, but tend to get into fights for little reasons (such as over a guy), and end up burning bridges. Men who are friends with each other still have different views and have arguments, but will not get emotional like women do, agree to disagree, and not burn bridges. Men tend to know better, and see their good friends more valuable than some random chick that they want to fuck in the long run (bros before hoes). Women however are not like this. One month two girls will be like "Yay! BFF!", but next month one of them will be calling the other a skank for getting a guy that they were both competing for.

There is a girl in my group of friends who is a tomboy, and is seen as one of the guys when we hang out. One time she talked about how she can't stand hanging out with women because they are catty and spiteful, when guys are chill and easy going.

Didn't Roissy write an article some time ago about how women deep down, trust men over women as allies/friends?

[Hencredible Casanova]

(02-20-2012 08:10 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(02-20-2012 07:59 PM)kosko Wrote:  

It was a good article but I do also agree the premise is quite stupid. Nobody... Even Women believe they can achieve dominance over civilization on a global scale. The author fails to take into account scientific, and State constructs that may give Women and artificial ladder into achieving this. Hardcore feminazis won't admit that women can never achieve dominance but they damn well know it. Right when you limited time to pro-create and are physically inferior all bets are off. What these hardcore feminists do know is that they can wield tremendous power by simply achieving economic dominance and control over Men. The political and systems dominance would still be held by the 5% of Men whom control it today.. But economic means with artificial protections from the state and scientific pro-creation would render the 95% of Men whom are not in the entrenched power base useless.

As Women continue to flood institutions, governments, and bureaucracy they will eventually start to change things to suit there delusional needs. The 1%-5% of controlling Men will cheer this as it would permanently quell there biggest fear (uprising of Men against them), if you don't believe me look at how much old foundation money funded and proped up feminism in the first place.

Nurtured Men is the end goal. If they strip the provider and breeder roles of Men what do you have left?

You're exactly right.

The 1%'s biggest fear is that men from middle class families will challenge their dynasties.

The Kennedys hate the Clintons.

George Bush doesn't want an upstart born to a single mom to have the change to oust his children from power.

To the elite, ruling is seen as a birth right.

Elite men adore feminism because it kills competition.

If you look at elite families, they are anti-feminist. At the top, men are the head of household. Infidelity is tolerated. Women manage the child rearing while the man earns money and seeks power.

The elite are still living the "old fashioned, out-dated, anti-feminist" lifestyle of the 1950's.

Meanwhile, men are told not to act masculine - i.e., to not act as the elites do.

It's a pretty amusing practical joke.

Man, that is deep. Well said.

[Moma]

(02-20-2012 09:32 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

She sums up my feelings about female leadership/supremacy:

One only has to speak with older women from the earlier generations. Again, people seem to be under the impression that women were oppressed until now.
Fair enough, but it's funny how women have all this power now and yet still blame men for their relationship choices when they have the ultimate power these days.
That old woman was very wise. It's not in a woman's nature to run men. People these days trying to be what they are not is one of the problems that exist.

I think feminism has pretty much reached it's peak. What more do women want? There is no further obstacles in terms of feminism left. All they are now trying to do is suppress our belief systems.
In terms of physical access, I think everything is available for a lizard.
In Toronto, they have lots of lizard only gyms. But there are no gyms that are for men only.
Double standards all over.
You have pole dancing as an aerobic class in many gyms. Yet lizards complain about being objectified.
It's really all Mickey Mouse nonsense, at the end of the day. To pay it any further mind, is like trying to figure out whether Tintin was gay or bisexual. A pointless exercise.

[Deluge]

Google searches for feminism have plummeted in relative terms since the turn of the 20th century, won't be too long before we can burn its ashes.

Excellent blog post(s) by the way.

[Nonpareil]

Women certainly could run the world, especially now that they have the law, the media and academia on their side...and yeah, they're even CEOs now (of makeup and clothing companies mostly...not of giant multinationals like Google, Apple, Sony, Nike, Procter & Gamble or Ford...), but they will never rule the world for one reason; Emotions.

Everything with women is emotions; how they feel, what it felt like, what it would feel like to and so on, unlike men, who can be emotional, but also know how to shut it down and look at things as they are. Could you imagine a woman sending thousands of young men to kill or be killed in a war? Could you see a woman foreclosing on thousands of homes that the families that live in them need? I sure as shit couldn't, and you wanna be a leader? Well sometimes that means you need to make the tough decisions, and women hate doing that.

[Screwston]

(02-20-2012 09:32 PM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

She sums up my feelings about female leadership/supremacy:

What a smart old lady