Quote: (02-03-2017 03:55 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:
Roosh is 100% right to be skeptical.
Skepticism is always warranted. No argument there.
Quote:Quote:
No American woman is willingly anti-feminist! The only real women that are not feminist are almost always religious women. You know the ones that actually adhere to 1 Timothy in the New Testament. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses', other strict Christianity sects, Muslims, etc. They submit to God 100%. God tells them in his word, to submit to male authority. It's pretty simple for them to follow.
These girls are from a practicing Catholic family. They attend a conservative parish. I just found this out from a friend who is an acquaintance of theirs who has visited their church. This man is EXTREMELY red pill, and married a very feminine woman who is a great wife and mother to their children. His judgement regarding women is solid. Your statement is correct that the best anti-feminist women are religious. They appear to qualify under your qualification.
Quote:Quote:
Others have it hard-coded in their cultural makeup to conduct themselves a certain way or to submit to male authority no matter what. Many Asian women in Asia come to mind. The legal system and the hive mind of the people (historically and culturally) forge that mentality.
The confucian themes of countries in Asia certainly help towards a healthy respect of masculinity. Still, women are women everywhere, and are still need firm but loving guidance. Saint Paul's teachings are clear on that. I endorse them as a Catholic who believes that he meant exactly what he said when men should be the leader of his wife and family. In fact, I'd argue that being an anti-feminist woman in the West requires tremendous courage, especially if they live in a leftist SJW state like California, like the Pettibones' do. They are just a half-hour away from the SJW hell that is the Bay Area. Being anti-feminist is practically considered sedition around these parts.
Quote:Quote:
American women though? Color aside, none of these women have any incentive to rally against their own power!!! If you were an American woman, without religious obligations/duty, you would be feminist too! Even if you were not a card carrying type, you would still be just as indoctrinated as the next American woman. Just because feminists are wearing burkas at a march in 2017, does not mean that they really want that. They are just too mentally deficient to understand the implications of what that lifestyle is like for the people they think they want to defend.
I'd agree that American women in the main, are shit testing men en masse with these Cunt Marches. They are begging to be put over a man's knee and be spanked. That being said, there are a minority of them that are worth looking over. I'm in a conservative outpost of California that actually has some decent women. In a state otherwise overrun with feminists, these women stick out. All of the most feminine women I know are religious. Roosh is right to say the future mother of his children must believe in God and actively religious. I 100% endorse that!
Quote:Quote:
American women would do very well under good sound order. Problem is, you could never argue them into understanding that. No offense to QC, but if my mother with her master's degree tried to read your blog she would get lost and resort to feelings. If she read something Samseau wrote, she would not look at the forest for the trees, she would see that he is advocating the removal of some power she holds, and thus would react strongly against it.
I'm of the belief that most women can't be argued with using logic in the way you would argue and win over a man. There are a few, but they are not average. Many men can also be immune to logic. That's why when you're dealing with someone who doesn't respond well to traditional argumentation techniques, it is best to use game and meme warfare. Use humor to diffuse and win over those on the fence. You'll waste time trying to convince a hardcore Planned Parenthood feminist. Why even bother? You're better off gaming a woman who is still mostly feminine, but needs a little bit of guidance to get her to reject some nonsense like the pay gap myth. In fact, a woman who is willing to listen to a man and learn from him should be a prerequisite for any relationship! Men should be the teachers of women. Women worth keeping around need to be willing students.
Quote:Quote:
Some of you guys need to understand that the opposite of Feminism is Submission. There is nothing submissive about nearly any typical American woman. A woman cannot be submissive in nature if she is running her mouth to begin with. Now if these women are targeting other women only for an audience, I withdraw my criticism, but I do not see an indication of that.
It is natural for a woman to submit to a
worthy man. Part of the problem that women face in the West is that there aren't enough masculine men around. T-levels have dropped, and men aren't taught manly values, or in many cases, don't even have a father. Both men and women need leadership, and they are both being undersold by our current culture. It will be men that have to fix the cultural primarily by changing the game, but I see no problem in women speaking out against feminism as part of a movement led by men. Women are herd creatures. If enough of them realize that being anti-feminist is now "cool", let them jump on that bandwagon. Trying to get women to logic and reason like a man is fruitless. Getting caught over tactics doesn't matter as much as winning the war in general.
You win the war by marshalling the men and leading them, then teaching them how to lead women. You made a mention to "typical" American women. The typical American woman is fat, has tattoos, dresses immodestly and preaches feminist crap. The Pettibone sisters are slender, wear conservative clothing, are from a religious family, one is already married at only age 23 and they both speak out against feminism and are Trump supporters. I'm not sure how much more proof is needed to suggest that they aren't some type of closet feminists waiting to trick a man. Yes, keep your eyes open, but I haven't seen anything really tangible other than conjecture that these women are "bad news". There's skepticism, and then there's being paranoid. Skepticism, combined with filtering is what works. If there aren't any red flags showing up, proceed with caution.
Quote:Quote:
These women are just going to eventually offer a "light version" of whatever platform they are jumping on. Hence the accusations of hustling from guys here with seasoned eyes. These girls might mean well and might come from decent family, but unless they put their money where their mouths are, they are the same as the people Dalrock lambastes on his blog regularly. They will be another Rick Warren or something similar, like Christina Hoff Sommers.
I'd like an example of where they are offering feminism light? They've openly spoke against feminism. They've praised Trump and bashed Hillary. Dalrock makes lots of great points, but lots of it is just bashing. There's a problem when you're only talking about what's wrong, and not providing a path to create the world you actually want to live in. Dalrock is right to point out men need to lead families. Where he and some of his commenters (more so his commenters, at least some of the more bitter ones) go off the rails is that they constantly bash girls not worthy of relationships. Sure, call out the bad girls. But don't pay attention to or date them. More time should be focused on learning game on how to filter in good women, and not just filter out the bad ones. The two go hand-in-hand.
The reason why many of these women went off the rails is because the pastors in these churches are weak beta males. They aren't looking inward enough to actually take action and stop going to cucky churches. As a practicing Christian that goes to church regularly, I don't give money to or attend cuck-lead parishes. Dalrock's crowd and any Christian man should be leveling their heat towards suckup men, and toughening them up, not just railing against feminist women. Complaining about women is pointless. Women will follow whomever leads. Men aren't leading, and women are victims of weak male leadership. Doesn't excuse women for bad behavior, but the bad behavior should have been nipped in the bud a long time ago, but wasn't due to weak men.
Quote:Quote:
Just a matter of time.
That's fatalism, and it isn't a healthy outlook on life. Judging by reading Dalrock's blog, I'm going to take a guess that you're Christian. If not, correct me. I don't see anywhere in the Bible or church teaching that suggests despair is a virtue. Faith is a virtue. We're supposed to be wise men, looking out for pitfalls (in women or elsewhere), but not to be a fatalist or assume bad faith in every single person we come across. I encourage you not to fall into cynicism. Trust me, right after reading Heartise and Dalrock, it is very easy to be hyper-cynical about women. If being a complete blue-pill beta is one extreme, I think assuming bad faith in all women is the other end of the spectrum. In a gender war, nobody wins. The key is to trolling and meme'ing weak men and encouraging them to return to manliness. Women will respond better to a manly man than a weak one. Feminism is the by-product of weak men. Fix the men, and you'll have a better chance of fixing the women.
Quote:Quote:
Also, Libertas' political reasons sound right from a political perspective, but past that, ideologically, their words should be dead to us. Maintain that ban on females Roosh.
You'll get no argument from me that Roosh's ban on women is absolutely necessary. When there is a mixed group of men and women, too many beta males become suckups. Men need to be taught manliness without women around, less they start white knighting for the bad girl's that don't deserve protection. There's good reason why this is a male-only space and should stay that way. Still, it doesn't mean that girls like the Pettibone's attending the Deploraball or writing anti-feminist blog posts are somehow undermining men. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If they write something that starts making excuses for bad female behavior, or bashing men, absolutely I'll condemn them. But to date, I've yet to see any real criticism of these girls which is based in fact, other than they wear too much makeup, a charge of which they are guilty. If that's the WORST of a woman's faults, complaining about them is way off the mark given the average American woman. Without knowing them personally, there's no public red flags that suggest these two are up to no good. If you're going to level charges of them being some type of crypto-feminist, I'd love to see some proof other than conjecture. There's better targets of our precious political capital than these two, at least that's what my gut says until shown some evidence of their alleged maleficence.