Tuesday, October 04, 2016

Women on the Verge of Societal Breakdown

I am very happy to announce the latest release from my diminutive but thriving publishing house, Club Orlov Press: the publication in English of Piero San Giorgio's international bestseller that addresses the problem of preparing to survive the spreading disorder and unrest specifically from the viewpoint of women. This remarkable book fills a major gap in the available literature on this subject, most of which is written by men and infused with a male-centric perspective. This gap is a major disservice to women and causes a major problem for men when they attempt to explain the nature of unfolding developments to their partner and to get her involved in preparing for them.

Piero's book is unique in that it directly speaks to women and addresses their specific interests and concerns in a way that is neither gloomy nor sensationalist, but constructive and practical. He illustrates the crucial role which women need to play, as traditional keepers of home and hearth, to keep the family together and doing well during treacherous, turbulent times. But he also recognizes the great difficulties women will face as the societies they depend on decay and fall apart, and the precariousness of the major gains women have made over the past century, which he rightly calls the Century of Women. While recent social progress has made women independent and men somewhat superfluous, these trends tend to quickly reverse as society begins to regress. Piero calls on men to start acting like men once again, and to once again become strong, reliable defenders of women and of their families.

The book is itself a testament to the effectiveness of Piero's approach: close to half of it is filled with testimonials from his female readers, who speak of their own preparations and their hopes, fears and wishes, their successes and frustrations, as they work toward achieving a level of autonomy and preparedness that will allow them to survive perfectly foreseeable calamities that are bound to become more frequent as this century wears on.

You men who are reading this: you owe it to the women you care about to tell them about this book.

Women on the Verge of Societal Breakdown:
Preserving Hard-Won Freedoms during an Age of Uncertainty

Order link

Here is the back-cover text:
In thinking about the evolution of the role of women in society over the past hundred years, Piero San Giorgio appeals to women as wives and mothers, calling on them to appreciate the fragility of our world and the impermanence of our civilization. Piero is attuned to the reality that as our contemporary society collapses, a woman will find herself in an extremely vulnerable position: the law will no longer protect her or her children, while the males battle for survival. Piero explains the specifics of survivalism for women, teaching them how to independently cope with the looming catastrophe and survive. The practical sections on preparation are followed by testimonials by 23 real women, of different nationalities, ages, social strata, sexual orientations and marital status, who have already embarked on the path of survivalism. They give advice—very practical and realizable, and not just to women but also to men—on becoming autonomous and independent from the system, and on becoming prepared for all things and at all times.


Michael said...

"Piero calls on men to start acting like men once again, and to once again become strong, reliable defenders of women and of their families."

Why? That is the question young men ask, and I have not heard a good answer. The incentives simply are not there.

Unknown said...

In a world where only self is valued, you are right Thomas. That defines our present, and it is devoid of what makes man great.

It's not about what's in it for you. It's about values, priorities, purpose, love, appreciation, and true partnership. Those esteemed qualities are what men of virtue stand for. Ultimately, I believe that is what is being advocated, and what you identify is the cancer.

Dmitry Orlov said...

Thomas Jackson,

There are several answers to your question:

1. The marketing answer: "The reason the incentives are not there is because the women you care about haven't read Piero's book yet!"

2. The politically incorrect answer: "You couldn't start acting like men if your lives depended on it (which, ironically, they do). You have been bred to be docile little girly-boys. To ask you to act like real men would be like taking a golden retriever on a bear hunt."

3. The painful truth: "The incentives materialize the moment you decide to start acting like men again. This decision would influence your choice of mates in favor of those who will give you the right incentives. But don't be surprised if they can't be bothered to learn English."

Ien in the Kootenays said...

I will have to read the book before forming an opinion. It is definitely a question that should be asked. I do believe that our society has gone too far in the direction of individualism. Life is a balancing act between the needs of the individual and those of the collective, be it family or village or whatever. I have been wondering if, along with peak oil, we are reaching peak birth control, and what will that do to women? I am just old enough to have come of age before the pill and before accessible abortion. It was different, it really was. Do we want to go backwards? Hell no, we won't go! But in every social experiment worthwhile babies get thrown out with smelly bathwater. A bit more respect and less casuality around sexuality might well be beneficial. I want to blog on these topics, but not till after the garden is asleep.

Pentrus said...

Mr. Orlov:

Your response to Mr. Thomas is very illuminating. I do not think the older generation of which I am a part is relevant to most younger men (probably an overly-broad generalization), but most women of my age still appreciate being a partner in a relationship which has defined roles. They (such women) expect the men in the relationship to be a defender of the family and all the values therein. Being a defender does not always mean being physically strong (although that doesn't hurt)but strong in the commitment to the values of women and families and standing up for them even if it means taking a few "licks". On the other hand the women stand ready to back up their mate as best they can while keeping hearth and home in order. That seems to have fallen out of favor these days, but it worked for generations and I'm betting it helps many couples/families better weather the coming hard times.

Unknown said...

I have put a bit of thought into the post-apocalyptic fate of women and I suspect it will not be pretty. I do not agree with or understand Dmitry's replies to Mr. Jackson. All I can say is I have never met a woman who even faintly resembled a decent human being. After decades of vicious, malicious, vindictive emotional violence (abuse) from every woman I have ever been with I quit women at the age of 48 in 2004. It is the best "relationship" decision I have ever made. I have never had a woman on my side in anything. Backstabbing, undermining, sabotaging, setting-up-to-knock-down, denigration, disparagement and abuse were the default and constant strategies of the women I have been with and the women I saw abuse my friends. Strategies for causing trouble within and outside the relationships and spouting slanderous gossip is all these women were capable of. Strangely they could all get along at work but once they walked in the door their claws were out and their blood-lust was boiling. Any woman I have been with would probably shoot me in the back while I fought for her then spread her legs for the man I was defending her from.

What indeed would a man be fighting for? 80 or 90 percent of the hundreds of men I have talked to in the last 45 years would have NOTHING to do with women were it not for the sex. I personally do not miss sex at all. What's there to miss? Women use sex as a power over mechanism to manipulate and control. Take the sex out of the question and what does a woman have to offer? Nothing I can see. Women bring nothing (literally) to the table and demand everything in return. So what was it then I'm fighting for?

I'm 61 and grew up with Feminism and while the girls I grew up with took feminism to mean they no longer had to cook, sew, clean, knit, garden or respect the man they claim to "love" I still have to change the oil in the car, rotate the tires, mow the lawn, build the fence, put up the shelf and pick up the dog crap. Femin-nazism if you ask me. And what of the young women I see on the street today in their ultra tight lycra jammed up their ass cracks you can see what they had for supper last night and so taught around the camel toe I can tell whether they are shaved or waxed. This is how the 3rd Ave streetwalkers dressed not so long ago. I'm fighting for what now?

Homo sapiens is a failed species and this planet and it's species will not miss us after we are gone (if there is anything left when we are gone) and the Universe does not give a crap about us so that was fighting for what now?

Dmitry Orlov said...

Garett, I feel sad for you. As someone happily married to a Russian woman for over twenty years, but as someone who had a few American girlfriends while I was "sowing my wild oats", I can tell you that your troubles are common, and that there is a common cure for them. Giving up on women isn't it, though.

Auriel Ragmon said...

I feel real sorry for Garrett that he has not found one single woman whom he could really relate to. My second marriage now for 25+ years is to a woman who is my equal in every respect. (My first, from my youth was not as happy although we produced two good kids!) I hope that Garrett finds someone whom he can love and cherish, respect and cuddle with in his old age, but if he is so negative he will miss the good things. and I'm almost 81 now.
Jim of Olym

D.Mitchell said...

I am raising my daughters more traditionally. I homeschool. They must learn to cook, clean, sew, crochet, garden, and can as part of their school work. They also learned some karate and weapons. In addition to all this they have taken ballet and art. Don't fret though, they have traditional school subjects such as language arts, composition, reading, history, geography, mathematics, etc... Everything is learning in our home. Making dinner, setting the table, baking bread, reading to younger siblings, teaching younger siblings, finishing a book, writing a letter to grandma by hand not text, etc...

Even though my daughters are as pure as the driven snow and prepared for motherhood equally as well as working a small job, none of their peers appreciate their unique skills. In fact, some people my age have discouraged them from their home studies. Of my four daughters, one has rebelled in a major way ad refuses to do anything I taught her. Thankfully she has moved out. The last three tolerate or enjoy the lessons on womanly housekeeping.

My daughter's wish men their age appreciated these skills. Of the three, the one old enough to date has only suitors close to my age interested. One is a well established gentleman of course, and very kind to her, which she finds very attractive. She says his heart is gold and she would never find that in someone even close to her age. My other two daughter's that are not old enough for relationships see this and think they will never find anyone even remotely close to their age. Both have expressed dismay and concern that they will be 30 or 40 and childless because they could not find a proper husband. Their peers only want "independent" women and asks "why should they pay?" I pray each find a man that is suited to their unique selves. If we were Christian it would be easier to find such a man...but we aren't. Instead they must sift through the ones that have no morals. What a pitty.

Dmitry Orlov said...

Here is Piero's thoughtful answer to Jackson's question:

The fact that we ask a question is a sign of the difficult times that men and women are traversing.

This question would have seemed absurd two generations ago and would be in the remaining traditional cultures today. It was man's duty to protect women - woman and children first, we used to say while the ship was thinking. A man - any man - who lived by a code of honour, and that was most men, knew that he had to protect all women, but especially his woman, his wife. And that meant not only protecting her against the thug in the dark alley, but also remain married and provide for her, and the family, the proverbial food on the table. Sure, many men did sleep around - as some women did too—but it was unthinkable—it was the coward's way—to leave one's woman and let her struggle alone with children.

Today, the nanny state has become the provider, the protector—the pusher—of women. Indeed, there is no incentive for men to act like that. On the contrary, courteous, strong, principled men are mocked for being silly—why be like that when you can swindle around for years in a never-ending adolescence with no consequences, and if you attempt some commitment you risk ending up stuck with alimony and child support payments, thus burdening and bankrupting our lives. Today women seem to rule the social world and while they pay the price later in their lives, men pay it from the start.

The answer is possibly that if we don't protect women, other men—less open to women's rights and opinions, will take them from us and force them—yes, force is the word—into their ways of the world, thus removing us genetically and culturally over time.
So it's a survival question for us men, to convince women that they need us.
it's not trivial, I assure you.

Bushpilot said...

Hi Dmitry
Why can't a woman be more like a man?, sung by Rex Harrison in "My Fair Lady" , comes to mind.

Ien in the Kootenays said...

@Garrett Fox. Dear sir, I am not perfect, but dare to consider myself to be a half decent human being, in female body for this incarnation. I would not waste time and energy on replying to your diatribe, but I must say this. The behavior you describe, of women who want all the benefits of an old order as well as those of a newer one, is far from universal but does exist. I call it double dipping and it irks me no end. However, there is a male equivalent. I know plenty of men who love being relieved of the heavy burden of being the sole breadwinner, but refuse to do a fair share at home. The worst cases expect to be served like a patriarch even when they are unemployed and the wife ends up working outside the home. I have nothing against a traditional setup if that works for the partners in question, especially while children are small. SIGH. Back in the sixties I thought it would be so simple. Feminism is humanism. Liberate both sides from imposed stereotypes and let people pick and choose what suits them best from the work that needs to done, both the bread winning and the work inside the home. If choices conform to traditional Tarzan/Jane roles, fine. If not, fine too. Time will tell which aspects are Nature and which are Nurture. Yeah, it was naive, it is taking longer than we thought, and now collapse threatens to throw a spanner in the works. Now, as for all these wonderful strong protective men. What exactly will they they be protecting us from? Oh right, other men. Meanwhile, what happens to all the women who lack a male protector? The unmarried, the widowed? Back to the margins and take in washing?

Zoidberg said...

Ien in the Kootenays: “Meanwhile, what happens to all the women who lack a male protector? The unmarried, the widowed?

They can cry to the fabulous “strong, independent women” who “need a man like a fish needs a bicycle”, and who “can do anything a man can do, but backwards and in high heels”. Fear not, the sisterhood is strong, and more than up to the challenge. No doubt they are ready to kill and die for other women. Wouldn’t you? Woman up! Men, especially those “other men” – the ones “less open to women’s rights and opinions” –, are no match for your superior female powers.

And yet, here you are, belittling women by implying that without male protectors, they might not fare well. What are you, a misogynist?

Finally! Men can take a break, and stand out of the way. I am ready to disappear genetically and culturally. And I am not alone. Men are obsolete, remember?

neil said...

What's the common cure, Dmitry?

Ien in the Kootenays said...

@Zoidberg This was a sincere question to a thoughtful man of integrity, Piero. As far as I can tell without having read the book he proposes a certain social order, which has its points, but leaves women who lack male protection in the lurch. The comment refers not to women per se, but to women in such a society. Why does it seem to be so hard for so many men to just work together, unless they get to be boss?Where do you see me going on about female superiority?

aNanyMouse said...

@ Ien in the Kootenays, and Garrett Fox
Of course there is (and may always be) feminist double dipping, and a male equivalent. I’ll quite bet that many who get taken by these types have no idea how to sniff out such people, from those who are on the level. The US is a Sales Society, but its residents know more on how to sell, than on how to protect themselves from subtle (esp. personal?) sales pitches.

My decades of largely successful dealings, romantically with women, and in business with men, and deep debriefing with friends with similarly broad experiences, lead me to urge that sniffing out the double dippers etc. will be much easier, if people approach dating etc. situations the way most employers/ landlords approach prospective employees/ renters, esp. in requiring/ assessing business/ personal References or the equivalent.

Until such time as a woman (w/o, say, a karate Black Belt) has been able to size up at least one of a man’s (best) friends or longtime business associations, she should not get into his car (Crime Scene #1). Until such time as a woman has been able to size up at least more of a man’s (best) friends etc., she should not be alone with him in, say, her or his pad (Crime Scene #2). Any man who won’t respect these rules (upon clear presentation/ discussion of their rationale) should be dismissed forthwith.

Until such time as a man has been able to size up at least one of a woman’s (best) friends or longtime business associations, he should not spend anything more than trivial sums of money on her. Until such time as a man has been able to size up at least more of a woman’s (best) friends etc., he should not consider living with her, let alone any major contract. Any woman who won’t respect these caveats (upon clear presentation/ discussion of their rationale) should be dismissed forthwith.

I’m appalled at how seldom such considerations are discussed in the US, esp. given how common these problems are.

aNanyMouse said...

(Crime Scene #1 is the vehicle where the victim gets controlled by the criminal; Crime Scene #2 is the place where the victim is taken to be fully exploited by the criminal.)

NJGuy73 said...

Ien in the Kootenays - The women who lack a male protector, including the unmarried and widowed, will be provided for via charitable organizations like the ones which have been established throughout time. A man doesn't have to wield a gun to be a protector. As for collapse "threatening to throw a spanner in the works," by "works" do you mean "process by which humanity reaches state of gender egalitarianism to your satisfaction?" Well, a case could be made that it was only due to cheap oil that gender egalitarianism has ever been feasible. Post-cheap-oil, all humans will either adjust to nature on nature's terms, or perish. Nature doesn't care if a woman feels underappreciated or if a man feels overworked. And nature sure as sh*t doesn't care about anyone's gender fluidity or sexual politics.

Joel Kessler said...

Once the zhit hits the fan, things get Traditional pretty fast ... that's why it's Traditional ...

Unknown said...

I think (having not read the book yet) that these issues relate to one of the least discussed solutions to collapse. While it is virtually certain that gender roles will be renegotiated, and many people will be left raising children without partners due to social instability and unrest (including a much higher death rate), one other aspect of human life will undergo a revolution as well, and it will bring joy and humanity that we have missed for decades now. I'm talking about the return of community. Anyone with the idea of going it alone will find themselves dying a painful, solitary death (perhaps young, perhaps old) because there will be no one there to care for you when you are injured or ill or very elderly (I assume some people might become elderly on their own... a small percentage, but I know a few people who are that capable). However, resilience is found in rebuilding the community. That's where trade happens, and that's how you defend yourself against roving mobs looking for food, or shelter, or whatever you've managed to preserve of the comforts of civilization. As the first people to start getting ready, we are all (male and female) in an advantage over our neighbors, and we should use that advantage to make our neighbors into our allies. This is easy if you save seeds or raise chickens, because you can get your neighbors gardening, too. Then your neighbors aren't mobbing your doors when the smell of your soup wafts down the street. Instead, they are there to give you tomatoes when your garden gets tobacco mosaic virus. The initial stages of the transition could get very ugly. Only strong bonds will be trustworthy. It is best to start creating those bonds now, and build on them at every opportunity, so that instead of living in a dog-eat-dog every man for himself world, you live in an allied community ready to fight side by side to defend each other from the intruders that will inevitably follow. The idea that you can go it alone is probably only possible on that sailboat, where you can always escape. By building community, you create purpose and meaning and value, you can save and promote the things you want in the future, the ideas and values and cherished ways of life you want to continue. Going it alone ensures you will be alone until you die, whenever that happens to be. You don't need to be married or have children or take any side in the battle of the sexes to be part of the community. All you have to do is talk to people, trade, and help each other, and ask for help when you need it. In a strong community, no one needs to fear the mob.

Ien in the Kootenays said...

@NJGuy73. Charity is exactly what I am afraid of. Those charitable organisations were pretty hellish for most people dependent on them. For people unfamiliar with the past, try reading some Dickens, or for a more recent past Frank McCourt's "Angela's ashes.". As for traditional....there are many traditions and some of them work better for women than others. Think Iroquois. @Jessi, entirely agree and working hard at doing exactly that.

aNanyMouse said...

@ Ien in the Kootenays (and jessi thompson):
Tying my first comment (on References) to your prior point “that our society has gone too far in the direction of individualism”, this direction has been very pronounced in the extent to which youngsters have, in modern Megalopolitan society, been left to be hyper-individualistic (and thus woefully blind) in picking mates, contrary to the community approach in pre-Megalopolitan times, when parents or extended families dominated the process of matchmaking. Once parents/ grandparents ceased to live within, say, an hour-long carriage ride of their (grand)children, the former could not effectively vet the prospective mates of the latter, e.g. by numerous meetings with the prospective mates and their (extended) families.

In pre-Megalopolitan times, it behooved a hyper-individualist to learn to stifle his individuality enough to pass muster from experienced vetter parents/ grandparents, lest he end up being boycotted by all prospective mates, (and the wider community) and thus be left to die alone. Nowadays, he can peddle himself at Match.com, reasonably hoping to find any number of Live Ones, with little fear of being vetted by her extended family.

As long as modern Megalopolitan society holds up, youngsters will need to learn the References-vetting process referred to in my first comment. Once grandparents can’t afford to flee the environs of where their grandchildren live, the traditional process of matchmaking will probably reemerge, and communities will end up much more resilient.

Ien in the Kootenays said...

@aNanyMouse, interesting concepts, I am trying to wrap my head around the scenario in real life. Agree entirely that it is a good idea to check out a person's friends and associates before getting in deep! For the record, my first date with my spouse was a Dutch date in every sense of the word. I preferred paying my own way. This was in 1963. We are currently in the end game, with me being caregiver while he struggles with a variation of Parkinson's and increasing dementia. I am typing this while waiting in the hospital and had to interrupt when the doctor came in. More @Jessi, this is what 150 strong, published by Dmitri, is all about, and Dmitri's book on Communities that abide.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is that arrangements that allow offspring to survive and prosper are the arrangements that will continue. Personal preference and personal experiences aside, many, many aspects of how we live will be shifting and changing. Those who adapt in a practical and successful way will continue and theirs will be the patterns that will create society. Strength and resilency take many forms and those who can create alliances and work effectively with others will continue. It was the ability to cooperate which allowed early humans to thrive.

Conrad said...

The relationship between a man and woman is influenced by the society it lives in, and the education they all have had, as screwed up as that has been over the past hundred years or more. Don’t minimize the influence Hollywood and television has had on our lives and how those screen images have warped us, mostly for the worse. There was a time when the images we mimicked came from our local community. Yes, a lot of the time chauvinism ruled, but changes to that situation would come through a natural movement of protest bubbling up spontaneously within the community.

For a long time Hollywood’s values have been washing over all of us: conspicuous consumption, for one. Images of very successful people surrounded by all the glittering consumer goods. Girls and men with the best figures, with all the leisure and money in the world, flying all over the planet at will.

A young girl I know, 22 years old, living at home, going to college, has read hundreds of fantasy books and seen nothing but fantasy movies. (Her 18 year old brother is on computer games all day long , shooting Muslims with high powered rifles) She has never put in 8 hours on a job. She says she wishes, seriously, that she could meet a prince who had magical powers. She is deeply disappointed that the real world is not like what she reads in her books. She has no idea of what’s going on in the world, or what real men are facing in the job market, or what the Vietnam war did to men of the previous generations. One has to ask: What kind of a partner will this girl be for any man?

While taking acting lessons in the early ‘60s, I talked to a veteran actor at the time who, over a cup of coffee, told me: “Mark my words, in the future, television and movies will be dominated by kids and everything that caters to kids, because that’s where the money is.” And here we are, mired in it.

In my opinion - and it may sound myopic – if we are going to experience any sanity in our lives, we have to shuck all this propaganda garbage that we swim in every day. Our personal lives are grandly corrupted by Madison avenue and the American war machine and the psychopaths we vote for, decade after decade. What’s the answer?

How about a television smashing ceremony? Let’s make it sexy and smart to demolish your TV set. Once started this could go viral, especially if you video tape the event and put it on YouTube. A ten minute speech should be written up listing the ways that television is a useless, superficial propaganda mouthpiece for the oligarchy, the military/industrial complex, the drug companies, the psychopaths we vote for decade after decade, and the benefits to the people that will accrue when they start talking to each other, reading investigative reporters not bought and paid for, using the uncensored sources on the internet.

After the speech, take a big sledge hammer and smash the set to bits (on a tarp in front of a dumpster, of course). Video the event and put it on YouTube. As this goes viral it will scare the hell out of the psychopaths who think they have you right where they want you. That will be the beginning of a healthy transformation.

Carolyn said...

I think the single factor most important to the quality of life for women and families is women's ability to choose whether and when to have children. Humans have been trying to control our fertility for as long as there have been humans, but it's only recently, in the last 50-100 years, that we've started to get good at it. Does this book address at all how we can go about keeping birth control and other reproductive health care as accessible, effective and reliable as possible through the coming hard times?

Rhisiart Gwilym said...

Responding to Bella Ward: Your last line is so right. I could face a bear or a lion with a sharp-pointed stick in my hand - and a lot of bluff. But my chances wouldn't be good. OTOH, four or five of us - either sex - standing together and pointing our sticks en phalanx, and all making plenty of belligerent noise, could be pretty well certain to get the predator to think again.

As I head towards 80, I become acutely aware of how much I depend on community now to keep going. I cherish it mightily; both the formal Britainwide socialistic communitarianism put in place by the mildly socialist Labour governments in office just after WW2, some of whose social security provisions are still staggering along - just - even now; and also the true community of my local web of family and friends, who become more and more essential to my survival, as I lose adult strength. Anyone who's done survivalist experience in deep wilderness knows that humankind is a social species, and does much better mob-handed than each of us does solo, no matter how adept we may be a wilderness techniques. We just aren't set up to thrive as well as loners.

Besides, living outwith the weird, once-only anomaly of the recent huge energy splurge, now coming to its end, is damned hard physical work. Things are a whole lot easier when you share that out. I assure you I speak from rueful experience, these days. Firewood getting for my on-board woodstove is quite a demanding discipline lately... :)

shiningZ said...

@Carolyn, birth control in a package on a shelf is surely a product of the mechanistic age. Still, I think it would be a mistake to say that women can find fulfillment and reward in the political sphere only with fossil fuel refinement on a large scale.

Certain European societies from the Bronze Age to the modern age had a place for women on a par with men, though roles and relationships were separately defined. This was arguably a result of the prevalence of fosterage. In these societies it was not usual for children to be brought up be their biological parents, but by couples that chose to be established, child-rearing partners.

Ien in the Kootenays said...

@Carolyn Agreed. However, people have always been able to minimize fertility to some degree, having more children in good times than in bad. Not as fool proof as today. There will most likely have to be some adjustment in sexual mores. I sincerely believe the trivialisation of sex has gone too far, and this hurts women more than men. I am not proposing a return to Victorianism or so called honour cultures. Thinking more of the fun that can be had doing "everything but".

Kimberly Steele said...

The slow, long collapse we are in (I am in the US) is the weirdest thing. It always feels like a sudden currency Argentine-style crash/bank holiday is around the corner. The economy is like watching a bad horror movie on 4x slow, the jump-scares happen but they are glacially slow and dragged out, as if they were happening under water. As far as "What will women do?" I think of one of my relatives. She does not know how to cook. She refuses to clean. She has no idea how to garden -- she leaves that to her husband. She's not even all that great at her one job of raising children, as is evidenced by her children's brattiness and mini-screaming fits, though she is attentive; think "helicopter". She is a stay-at-home mother. Husband is out there busting heavies while she does what is allegedly the world's hardest job. For now, she's fine. She has lots of money thanks to a few lucky streaks, including inherited family money. Now, I don't think women should have to clean or cook for anyone else in this single, short live we are given, however, if you can't even do those simple things for yourself, whether male or female, you are a worthless wretch. If you have a child, shame on you. You'll raise another hapless parasite, which is the very last thing this world needs. If things get significantly worse, this is a person who has zero skills, not even basic ones like cooking and cleaning let alone making wine or transcribing music. As a capable cook, relatively hygienic person with her own successful business, I'm frankly amazed at this unmotivated person and her ilk. They only survive upon the grace of cheaply available petroleum, but oh do they survive! When does the crap hit the fan for them? At this rate, seemingly never. Must be nice to sit around in a house you literally make your husband clean after he gets home from a 12 hour day at work. And I'm over here, busting ass and figuring out endless ways to improve the taste of beans and rice.

Carolyn said...

At least we know more now about how ovulation and fertilization work than we did back in the old days, that's something to work with even if we lose the technology to mass-produce off-the-shelf birth control. It's interesting to ponder how we can try to steer social mores towards respecting women as fully human with their own autonomy and agency and right to bodily integrity, even if we no longer have the chemical means to control fertility ourselves. Of course, our current society doesn't even respect women that way right now, does it...sigh.

Lisa Mullin said...

The pain of illusions being shattered, here is a conservative woman ..one you all would like women to be, showing her anger at men.

Finally she is realising what so many others already know .. so many are duds, 'protectors', hell no, predators (or wannabies) through and through.
That there is no point, and never has been, to expect men to protect women. In the end the male to male bond is far more important to most men and women are essentially worthless to them.

"I fought on behalf of my principles while other women told me I hated my own sex. Not only charges of sexism, but I defended @marcorubio during Go8, I fought in my state to stop the @ScottWalker recall, etc… Now some Trojan horse nationalist sexual predator invades the @GOP, eating it alive, and you cowards sit this one out? He treats women like dogs, and you go against everything I – and other female conservatives – said you were & back down like cowards."

"Get this straight: We don’t need you to stand up for us, YOU needed to stand up for us for YOU. For YOUR dignity. For YOUR reputation. Jeff Sessions says that he wouldn’t “characterize” Trump’s unauthorized groping of women as “assault.”

Are you kidding me?!

Others try to rebuke his comments, yet STILL choose to vote for a sexual predator - because let’s be honest, that’s what he is. “What he said is wrong, and the way he treats women is wrong, but it’s not wrong enough for me to not vote for him."

Thanks, cowards."

"If you can’t stand up for women & unendorse this piece of human garbage, you deserve every charge of sexism thrown at you. "

"And what you’ll be left with are the corrupt masses that foam at the mouth every time you step outside the lines. Men who truly see women as lesser beings, & women without self-respect. And your “guiding faith” & “principles” will be attached to them as well. And when it’s all said and done, all you’ll have left is the party The Left always accused you of being.




I agree that the past century has witnessed a sharp rise in the feminine energy, which seems to be accelerating even faster in this century. In times of trouble, I don't think we are going to just reverse back to the "old days". Societies never just reverse, there is always a new form that emerges. We are going to get some "traditional" values reemerging while also new values overlapping and co-existing and some new hybrid forms getting established.

If oil were to be easily available in the next couple of hundred years I believe the Western world would have entered a new matriarchal phase where women are in charge for the most part. This would be complicated by the fact that Islam will be the dominant religion, taking over more than half of the world, including large parts of Europe. The dynamic that would emerge from this combination would be quite fascinating. But given that oil is ending, we are unlikely to become matriarchal, as technology will not be there to support the advancement of women: you can only run so fast when you are 8-month pregnant. Hence, women once again are likely to become physically dependent on men, but this will vary to a large degree by region and culture. Birth control is not going to just disappear at once, and for as long as it is there, women would have a choice. And they are not going to pair with weak males, they are going to try and pair up with strong males. In parallel, the Islamic benefits of official polygamy are not going to go unnoticed by strong Western males, so I predict that many parts of the Western world would morph into a quazi-islamic arrangement where you'd have one alpha male surrounded by a harem of females who would prefer this humiliating situation to a constant struggle for survival. But not all women would chose this. Many would turn into alphas themselves and would be supporting weaker males. You'd see a reverse polygamy in some places, where two or even three males would team up with one woman (she is a medical doctor and who is also wealthy, owns land, etc). Men seem to take competition less emotionally than women do.

If we look at the animal kingdom, for most mammals, the burden for survival lies on females 70-80%. They raise the young, fight off attacks of males, including their own males, to protect their offsprings, search and hunt for food, teach their young how to survive. For some animals like wolves, things are more "fair". Geese and penguins mate for life; for bird males have to change their colors literally to get a chance at reproduction. There is no one type of social arrangement even in the animal kingdom. Why do we expect humans to follow any one path? I think that given the sudden changes in the socio-economic framework, we are going to see many concurrent arrangements. Nothing in life has ever been homogeneous. The more sudden the changes would be, the more variety we would see in how humans would adapt.

As a modern woman who has lived and worked in three very different countries, I do not feel "safe" to rely on men. Any man, relative or not. I am taking steps to prepare myself to live as independently as I can as I grow older. Physical health is the most important thing. If you can move, you can survive. Cooking and cleaning, while I am good at that, I don't think those are the skills that are hard to learn. I have no doubts that the young generation of women, who seem so helpless now, will learn all that very fast if they have to. Humans will survive in any circumstances, some will die, but the strongest and smartest will survive, and there is more than one way to do it. I am hoping to live long enough to see how it all would pan out.

Whatever the circumstances, the economic truth would always prevail. Whoever pays the bills will call the shots, and things will be hard on everyone, men and women.

Unknown said...

Carolyn, the means may exist for you to limit your fertility. But in a primitive society, children are desirable. After a period of not too many years, they become useful in maintaining the family. After not many more than that, they marry and continue the family line.

You may have the means to limit your fertility. But if you have that as an important personal objective, will a man want to marry you in that world? I really think that idea, promoted as a part of "women's liberation", may be consistent with this world but is not with the more basic one we envision. A woman who doesn't want children? What a strange idea!

Unknown said...

Lisa, some of those women who have suddenly appeared to accuse Trump have been shown to be working with the Dem party. There's not time to track down all the stories, but Trump has promised to do so after the election. In court, where discovery will allow the truth to come out. If these women are telling the truth they have nothing to worry about. But for now, I'd say the story has been reasonably debunked.

You have a choice. You obviously don't like Trump, but he would stop the Islamic flood. If Hillary wins this place will experience more of what western Europe is getting. Have a look at Germany and see how well their sister Angela Merkel is protecting women there.

Hillary's promises won't pan out because the producers she's counting on are already making plans to avoid being under her thumb. Trump is our last try. The collapse will really come if Hillary is chosen. Maybe the UN will step in to protect women at the expense of men; she'll certainly invite them, but see how that is actually working in Germany. Maybe not. Try it and see. I don't recommend it though.