Generational Dynamics World View News

[Guest]

So do you think the EU will survive?

[Guest]

Western society spent the post war years literally paving the way for even the most average of wymmen to climb the corporate ladder and be empowered to work hard, get a degree, get promoted, and made it socially acceptable to defer motherhood.

The result?

Dysfunctional 'woke' companies,
incompetent female managers in post 'cos of diversity,
promiscuity ruining the family structure (that literally allowed civilisation to be built),
high incidences of disabled kids born to 35 plus mothers,
single mothers bringing up the next generation of prisoners and sluts,
soy boys with historically low levels of testosterone,
creeping socialism - whereby wymmen vote themselves other people's money (sorry welfare),
and wymmen expecting have a career making a huge living by just stripping off in front of a camera.
We are at the end of days

[Guest]

Sounds like some women finding out what their real value to society actually is...not much, in a lot of cases.

[London calling]

Western society spent the post war years literally paving the way for even the most average of wymmen to climb the corporate ladder and be empowered to work hard, get a degree, get promoted, and made it socially acceptable to defer motherhood.

The result?

Dysfunctional 'woke' companies,
incompetent female managers in post 'cos of diversity,
promiscuity ruining the family structure (that literally allowed civilisation to be built),
high incidences of disabled kids born to 35 plus mothers,
single mothers bringing up the next generation of prisoners and sluts,
soy boys with historically low levels of testosterone,
creeping socialism - whereby wymmen vote themselves other people's money (sorry welfare),
and wymmen expecting have a career making a huge living by just stripping off in front of a camera.
We are at the end of days

No matter what the topic, you can always trust the women to do the right thing.

[Cool Breeze]

What I am trying to point out is that Trump did things that contributed to the loss of the election. He also failed to do much, but the Supreme Court appointments were HUGE, and just for that he needed to defeat Hillary.

John is correct. Navi, you are falling into a trap I have seen way too frequently for smart people. It's the same idea that Trump could have been "that much better" if he just did XYZ. This point of view is complete ignorance of what was required and who was required to do it - you don't get some perfect candidate that is willing to go balls out and fight fire with fire and then assuage some of your foolish desires for "presidential" behavior. Trump was elected and successful, inasmuch as he was, because he was who he was and NOT the traditional fake pol.

Regarding what I've quoted, he won the vote legitimately by 10-20 million. What lost the election was pure cheating and the covid scenario that set it up and was allowed, for whatever reason (chicken shit judiciary). Nothing else. No one will ever convince me that a ticket like Biden and Harris, absolute fools and hated in their own presidential primaries, never coming out and never having anyone at a rally, got more votes than Obama and more votes than Trump legitimately got which also set a record. Put on top what we know happened with the dumps late night and the other statistically impossible voting behavior and you have to be a fool to act like Trump didn't win going away. Trump is not to blame for that "loss" at all because he actually won, and won big.

[DaKardii]

Sounds like some women finding out what their real value to society actually is...not much, in a lot of cases.

In today's society, nobody but the state has much value. We are all expendable.

[John]

** 15-Jan-2021 World View: DaKardii's Topic

Multiple flame war posts have been moved into DaKardii's Topic.

viewtopic.php?t=5907

[DaKardii]

John is correct. Navi, you are falling into a trap I have seen way too frequently for smart people. It's the same idea that Trump could have been "that much better" if he just did XYZ. This point of view is complete ignorance of what was required and who was required to do it - you don't get some perfect candidate that is willing to go balls out and fight fire with fire and then assuage some of your foolish desires for "presidential" behavior. Trump was elected and successful, inasmuch as he was, because he was who he was and NOT the traditional fake pol.

It's not like Trump made serious mistakes when it came to actual policy. Oh, wait. He did. I'm not gonna list them all, but I'll sum it up:

On domestic policy, he failed to get anything substantial done, even when the GOP had both houses of Congress. "NeverTrumpers" is not an excuse because if the Obamacare repeal debacle, the multiple budget debacles, and the COVID stimulus debacles proved anything, it's that Trump wasn't willing to push for what his base wanted once Congress pushed back. He just laid there and took it. Oh, and on multiple occasions he even took to Twitter and attacked Republican members of Congress who actually wanted Obamacare repealed, and actually wanted fiscal accountability/responsibility.

On foreign policy, his team got worse and worse with every new appointment. By Election Day 2020, it was apparent that not only did Trump fail to reverse most of the reckless policies started by Bush II (actually by Bush I, but it wasn't until Bush II that they got out of control) and continued by Obama, he did not intend to do so and in some cases made these policies even worse. If he didn't start a war in his first term, he very likely would've started one in his second.

And in general, he failed to learn from these mistakes, or even admit that he made them in the first place. Because he didn't want to shatter the "infallible God-Emperor" image that existed in the minds of his base. He was too arrogant to do it. Just like Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, and JFK before him. And just like Biden will after him.

[DaKardii]

Uh-oh.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/2144224/br ... hs-double/

[John]

** 16-Jan-2021 World View: Women in the workplace

> Women's primary value to society is as wives and mothers bringing
> up the next generation with the emphasis on morals and strength,
> in a cohesive tribal unit.

> Unfortunately due to the 40 year+ feminist psyop, generations have
> been deluded into thinking they have the same skillset as men, and
> most of the time are even more capable than men due to their
> unique vajeen that gives them superpowers.

> I can think of very few women who are capable of leading nations,
> The Iron Lady Thatcher comes to mind. There are capable women with
> high testosterone and masculine thinking, though they are very
> few. I knew female (lesbian) military officers who were very
> capable leaders, and met police officers in the same league. They
> are definitely in the minority though. Instead most women in power
> today rely on their ability to argue, persuade, or manipulate in a
> social context, think Pelosi, The Squad, Sheryl Sandberg,
> ...

You sound bitter, like someone who has recently been dumped.

The rise of women in the workplace has absolutely nothing to do with
feminism or politics or wokeness.

It has to do with technology.

150 years ago, being a housewife was a necessary and full time job. A
woman had to spend the entire day preparing meals, sewing clothes,
scrubbing walls and doors, fetching water from the well, and so forth.
It was a great deal of work, very time-consuming, and very hard work,
and unless a woman was single and unattached, even the thought of
leaving the home long enough to do an outside job was unthinkable,
especially if she had children.

Since WW II, technology has completely changed the life of a wife:

• First, vast areas of new technology in the home has made the
  job of a housewife almost trivial, as compared to the 1800s. There
  are washing machines, dishwashers, tv dinners, Lysol, vacuum cleaners,
  and so forth. There are a million examples I could name, but here's
  just one. In the 1800s, if your child's sock developed a hole, the
  wife had to spend an hour "darning socks." You don't hear much about
  darning socks these days, but it used to be a big part of a woman's
  life. Now it's rare (though you can learn how to do it if you do an
  internet search). So there are a million examples of things that used
  to take up a lot of time, but now take up no time or almost no time.
  So a wife has huge amounts of free time available that she didn't have
  before, and the obvious thought is to use the free time in an outside
  job, and make some more money for the benefit of the whole family.
  Feminists claim credit for that, but they had nothing to do with it.
  It's technology that has given women the free time to take jobs
  outside the home.
• Second, vast areas of new technology in the workplace have made it
  possible for women to take jobs that were impossible in the past
  because men are taller, stronger and heavier than women. Thus, women
  can operate heavy machinery, can drive trucks, can program computers,
  and so forth, because of new technologies that do the heavy work.
  Once again, feminism has nothing to do with this. It's technology
  that has made it possible for women to take jobs that otherwise would
  only be available to men, who are taller, stronger and heavier than
  women.

There is still a big difference between men and women because of
hormones. You're right that it's rare that a woman can lead a nation.
Women do sometimes lead nations, but that's because they make an
enormous effort.

I'll give an example from software engineering, because that's what
I'm most familiar with.

I've seen women achieve the same accomplishments as male software
engineers, but it's rare. And it's not because women are illogical,
or any nonsense like that. It's because they have other
responsibilities.

Here is a fairly standard scenario in a software engineering group.
It's Monday, and there's a release scheduled for a week from Friday.
There's still a lot of work to be done, so members of the group are
expected to work from early morning to midnight to get the job done.

A man will simply call his wife and tell her he'll be late. A woman
with children is far less likely to be willing to do that. So she
will insist on leaving at 5 pm, while her coworkers continue working.
They will accomplish a lot more than she will, and so they will get
bigger salary increases because of their greater accomplishments.

That's an example of why men have higher salaries than women, for what
is nominally the same job. It isn't the same job, since men are
expected to work a lot more hours than women in many different fields.

I haven't looked at the figures recently, but 20 years ago the stats
were that a salaried man worked an average of 49 hours per week, and a
salaried woman worked 40 hours per week. So salaried men accomplished
a lot more on the job than salaried women, and so they receive higher
salaries, for obvious reasons.

The statistics as I remember them are that women without children got
the same salaries as men, but women with children got less. The
reasons are obvious.

So, women have entered the workplace since the 1800s because of
technology, not because of feminism. But even technology hasn't
overcome a mother's need to prioritize being with the children over
working extra hours. Maybe working at home will even solve even that
problem.