Soulless Idiocy

This's gonna make women bleed. Let's have at it.

Over on /r/MGTOW is a post about women having given up two of their three powers over men:

I cannot remember where I came across this concept, but I do recall it and it made a lot of sense...still does. [From memory it was in Anatomy of Female Power by Chinwizu Ibekwe. - BPS]

Women have 3 basic powers over men. Traditionally, those powers were in the form of marriage aka being a wife/mother.

1) The power of the kitchen. Going back as far as tribal time, men have generally provided the food and then allowed women to prepare it. Well, today we know that many women do not cook, and many do not know how to cook. Men are smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds them (women not so much), so by not knowing how to prepare his own food a man is at the mercy of the woman. Today, however, many men know how to cook for themselves and others. Restaurants abound, so a man's need for a woman to feed him is really no longer necessary. "The way to a man's heart is through his stomach", they say...

2) The power of the womb. Up to this point only the female can incubate a baby, bring it to term and give it birth. This as we know should change before too much longer, but woman currently still hold this power. You want a baby? Somehow, someway...a woman is going to be involved.

3) The power of the cradle. Traditionally, the tasks involved in taking care of a baby have been placed upon women. Men might hold and interact, but the bulk of the duties were women's work. Today, because of "working moms", divorce, etc...men have had to learn how to take care of children, including babies. Now many men can do just fine taking care of a baby without the input of a woman. Times past, feeding the baby belonged to the woman. Now, with formula, men can raise babies into children into adults...without women.

Feed me, have my baby, take care of my baby.

Think about it, Gentlemen, women have already forfeited 2 of the 3 most powerful powers that they had to help keep men "in line". The 3rd will 1 day be snatched from them.

So yes, they have given up the power of the kitchen (by extension, the home) and the power of the cradle (by extension, being someone that their children consider worth loving and looking up to aka respect). The power of the womb may or may not be lost, we will see. (I still wonder if the long-term use of artificial wombs will end up with our destruction.)

Sure, it's a pain in the ass to cook and take care of children and keep the house in shape as well as working.

On the other hand, it's far more of a pain in the ass to have the majority of modern women around. "Lazy parasites" is not hyperbole. With modern conveniences, being a stay-at-home mother is a snap these days. Hell, it's so easy that a working man can do it without a woman around in addition to his own work.

Commentor Mgtow__Monero_XMR puts it very bluntly:

Yep. They forgot that all this time all they ever really wanted was to be at home nurturing children.

But instead of being 'slaves' to their families they have decided it's better to be a slave to the souless corporations that give no fucks about them instead.

But the thing is they fall for it. So the lesson must be learned and I feel no remorse.

Rather than having what is becoming literally the easiest job on the planet (short of lucking out to be a trust-fund baby with the $$$ to outsource any and all parenting duties to a maid etc) they let themselves be convinced by feminists that it was better to join the men in doing the scut-work of keeping civilization going.

To be stressed out and fucked around in the course of being a soulless cog in a soulless corporation, that really only wants to wring out every drop of sweat they can from you, before you're sent out to the knackers pasture at the age of 65. (This assuming that she doesn't do such a shit-awful job that the corporation is forced to hire a man to do her work as well, leaving her in a make-work "job".)

Eventually, as automation really kicks in and takes the majority of jobs away in the next couple of decades, something is going to break. There will be no need for the soulless corporations to have as many employees - and women will be just as much on the chopping-block.

What then, Mz Formerly-Employed Now-Unemployable Strong Empowered Cupcake?

What, you demand Teh Eeevil Menz to step up to the plate for you?

After you've consistently shit on them for the past 20-30 years?

Brought to you by Crap-Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Female Best Intentions

It has struck me over the past few months that many women don't always come across as conniving, selfish, greedy, grasping, two-faced bitches. Until something goes wrong with a relationship - then it seems to come out with a vengeance.

So the thought has slowly come to me: many don't really go into a situation with malice aforethought, etc. That's all the sub-rosa brew bubbling underneath. It seems that they might actually come into a situation with the best intentions possible. Only once it blows up does the malice come out.

The level of cognitive dissonance - of willful ignorance - for a woman to pull this off almost gives me a migraine to try and comprehend.

I am struck by the preface to "The 48 Laws of Power" by Robert Greene:

Finally, those who claim to be nonplayers may affect an air of naivete, to protect them from the accusation that they are after power. Beware again, however, for the appearance of naivete can be an effective means of deceit (see Law 21, Seem Dumber Than Your Mark). And even genuine naivete is not free of the snares of power. Children may be naive in many ways, but they often act from an elemental need to gain control over those around them. Children suffer greatly from feeling powerless in the adult world, and they use any means available to get their way. Genuinely innocent people may still be playing for power, and are often horribly effective at the game, since they are not hindered by reflection. [Emphasis mine.] Once again, those who make a show or display of innocence are the least innocent of all.

Children - women - the "most adult teenager in the house" - not hindered by reflection.

A surface (you could even say inner) naivete, unhindered by reflection - and therefore unhindered by morals as well. If you're not reflecting on your actions, then your morals don't come into play, nor does your conscience bother you in the slightest.

So she can go into a situation with honest best intentions and come out with her desired cash and prizes and ongoing slave-man. Never mind the morals - they don't come into it. Never mind the reflection - that never happens. Never mind the conscience - without reflection upon morals, they are never engaged.

And it ends up all projected upon the man as "being his fault". She's not the one in the wrong. Because she doesn't reflect upon these things.

I wonder if there are natural "players" who are the same? Naive - go into a relationship with the best intentions - when the relation blows up - ends it ruthlessly ("it's her own fault"). Look for the next woman. No reflection, no morals, no conscience bothering them. No subtle warnings for the woman to pick up on.

As Robert Greene states: horribly effective at the game.