Another mangina idiot

Hank Pellissier thinks he found a correlation between women’s equality / feminism and the average life expectancy of men. Never mind that “woman’s equality” is a notion so blurred even feminists can not clearly define what it means, let alone measure objectively. Never mind that real equality is unachievable. Never mind that “women’s equality” – in the current feminist/political sense of the word – is a relatively new notion, about 40 years old at best, and so it did not have enough time to impact longevity statistics. Never mind that countries on the top 10 list of male longevity all have important factors contributing to life expectancy, like healthy food, a clean environment, healthy lifestyle or good healthcare.

He cites another bunch of statistics but it does not occur to him that every one of those stats are directly linked to high standards of living, which, for all intents and purposes, causes feminism. Feminism does not cause longevity or peace or happiness; high standards of living causes these, but it also causes women to get bored and create retarded sisterhoods – see the fall of Rome.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Civilization, Feminism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Another mangina idiot

  1. Avicenna says:

    The Fall of Rome is due to the spread of the Iron age. Unlike copper which is relatively rare iron is common and easily mined and smelted. The roman army was relatively small and compact because it was a professional army but it couldn’t be everywhere at once and eventually just got mobbed by the various horse tribes of the central european steppes. It meant that everyone was packing the same quality of weapons and that the roman technological superiority was down. It still took vast hordes of fighters to bring down Rome and an actual schism (Eastern Roman Empire/Byazantium technically lasted until the crusades). Stagnation also played it’s part as technological development was stymied by the adoption of Christianity since it’s origin is actually as a Doomsday Cult with emphasis placed on getting into heaven rather than technological development causing free thought to be stifled crippling Rome’s greatest resource which was “research”.

    Not due to women getting rights.

    Women’s rights have co-related to the doubling of our effective workforces and an explodingly huge economy courtesy of women actually proving they can do our jobs equally well. This has caused a massive increase in the ability to afford expensive medical research which has improved our life expectancy.

    Also giving women rights has improved our infant mortality rate since a lot of women’s rights are to do with reproductive health which causes a big boost in life expectancy by stopping as many children from dying as possible which swings life expectancy upwards.

  2. Deansdale says:

    First of all, about Rome: the reason for changing the roman army from a citizen army to a professional one, and reducing the number of soldiers was economical and political, and here women’s grasp for power (their “ancient type of feminism”) do come into the picture. And please don’t talk about roman “research”. Technology was not much of a factor; strength was in numbers then. All the “technological advancement” in the timespan of the Roman empire amounted to harder swords.

    Roissy’s article sums things up neatly but if you need other sources hinting at the growing power of the women of Rome – and its detrimental effects on the status quo, here’s Wikipedia:
    The middle-aged married women of Rome crowded the streets, denied access to every avenue to the forum, and intercepted their husbands as they approached, demanding them to restore the ancient ornaments of the Roman matrons. (…) Finally, the women got what they wanted. Tired of the women’s persistent demanding, the dissenting tribunes withdrew their opposition.
    An other interesting observation about Rome & its women:
    Things changed very rapidly towards the end of 1st century AD. Although families still lived in one home, during the Imperial Age, women could own land, run businesses, free slaves, make wills, be heirs themselves, and get a job in some professions. The ancient Romans tried to help their family grow through marriage, divorce, adoption, and re-marriage.
    Some more:
    The Romans had their own evolutionary story about family mores (…) their story did contain elements of the decline of paternal authority and the stable family. (…) women became more liberated and less dependent on their husbands. In fact, by the late Republic a rich wife who could divorce and take her wealth with her had a real threat against her husband and could wield influence over him. The sense of independence also showed up in increasing sexual promiscuity and adultery.
    And the last one:
    Radical changes in the political system made it increasingly less capable to govern the people. Rome went from Senate based, to Emperor based, then effectively to rule by the army and the urban mob with the Emperor as a figurehead.

    So, the barbarians invaded, but why couldn’t Rome resist? Because it has lost it’s military power, in part thanks to women raiding the treasury (not literally, but practically), undermining valid political power and morale.

    Women’s rights have co-related to the doubling of our effective workforces and an explodingly huge economy courtesy of women
    Is this what you believe? The USA was the most recognized as the world’s greatest superpower when “women’s lib” started in earnest, somewhere around the 70s and the 80s. Now… Crisis after crisis, and almost everyone says it’s headed for a fall. “huge economy courtesy of women” my ass, if you pardon my words, but I think even feminists know that women are working in the public sector most of the time, thus generating practically nothing in the economic sense. Also, the two-income household becoming the norm made inflation and housing prices go boom. “Doubling our workforce” made life that much more miserable for 90% of the sheeple people.
    (Also, “doubling of our effective workforces” is an illusion since letting women in did not double the number of available jobs, it just redistributed the old ones. In layman’s terms, adding women to the workforce created a lot of unemployed people.)

    This has caused a massive increase in the ability to afford expensive medical research which has improved our life expectancy.
    It was technological development itself which made modern medical research possible, it has nothing to do with feminism. It’s a common fallacy of feminists to attribute everything positive in the last 4 decades to feminsim regardless of any correlation existing or not.

    giving women rights has improved our infant mortality rate since a lot of women’s rights are to do with reproductive health
    See previous paragraph. Improving infant mortality rates was the work of men such as Semmelweis, the “savior of mothers” and other doctors and researchers. Feminists had nothing to do with it. If anything, feminism has helped to kill millions of babies thanks to its promotion of abortion. (I’m not against abortion, I just state this as a fact.) I know it’s not represented in the statistics about longevity, but still, mentioning feminism as a savior of babies is quite distasteful.

  3. Avicenna says:

    The marian reform turned the Roman City into an empire. It also meant that you could have well trained armies. Every army in the old world with drill was a force beyond compare. The Legion’s fought forces many times their number “knowing” they will win. It was the same with Alexander’s Companions whose drill ensured they won those fights. The hastatii/principe/triarii method was inflexible and the valour of units was often questioned with units often being lost simply due to lack of training and drill.

    The Roman professional army was terrifying to watch because it was designed to be easily moved into position and fight off many times their number of enemies.

    Rome lasted for nearly a thousand years via the Byzantium empire (Eastern roman empire). That’s “breathtakingly long”. The oldest nation on earth is the UK with nearly 300 years of existence. (The next is the USA with 236 years). Most other nations have ceased to be and been reformed in that time period. None of it has to do with women.

    Seriously, the reason Rome lost out was that it began to face central european tribes who brought in cavalry and had stirrups and extremely powerful bows. They were outgunned and outmaneuvered. The age of infantry passed away and the age of cavalry appeared out of the ashes. It has nothing to do with women.

    That’s like blaming the downfall of Egypt on the fact that we put sweaters on our dogs.

    No. The biggest drops in infant mortality have occurred post WW2 when women were given more freedom over the rights of their own healthcare and so could go get treated. And I work in a nation with very limited women’s rights. The mortality rate in children is 60 per 1000. In the USA it’s around 7. In the UK where we have a lot higher equality it’s around 4. It’s directly related to how much freedom women have.

  4. namae nanka says:

    “The mortality rate in children is 60 per 1000. In the USA it’s around 7. In the UK where we have a lot higher equality it’s around 4. It’s directly related to how much freedom women have.”

    “The age of infantry passed away and the age of cavalry appeared out of the ashes. It has nothing to do with women. ”

    I am loving your correlations here.

    “Women’s rights have co-related to the doubling of our effective workforces and an explodingly huge economy courtesy of women actually proving they can do our jobs equally well. This has caused a massive increase in the ability to afford expensive medical research which has improved our life expectancy. ”

    The productivity has fallen per capita, an example is the doctor shortages due to too many women being in the medical field. The irony couldn’t get any starker.

    http://www.angryharry.com/esIstheTrainingofWomenDoctorsAWaste.htm

    And so have the wages, do you ever wonder if women could do men’s jobs “equally well” why do we need so many laws in place to give them a leg-up?

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/12/let-women-work.html

    “The biggest drops in infant mortality have occurred post WW2 when women were given more freedom over the rights of their own healthcare and so could go get treated.”

    You mean abortion isn’t mortality? Still laughing at the whole women got “more freedom over the rights of their own healthcare” and so there is low infant mortality. If only men let them go to witchdoctors and quacks before, we would never have had any infant mortality.

    “It’s directly related to how much freedom women have.”

    don’t stop believin’!!

  5. Deansdale says:

    Oh yeah, thanks Namae, I forgot to comment on the part you highlighted :)

    women actually proving they can do our jobs equally well
    This is literally laughable. Just watch an episode of Dangerous jobs for Girls. I recommend 1×02 in which the girls play lumberjacks. The very first task they get, ie. throwing a cable over a bunch of logs, which is child’s play for… well, even for an average boy of 12, catches the women – even the grrrl power feminist one – with pants down. None of them can throw a freakin’ cable over a bunch of logs. Hilarious.
    do our jobs equally well“, yeah, sure.

  6. Deansdale says:

    Wikipedia on infant mortality:
    Traditionally, the most common cause worldwide was dehydration from diarrhea. However, the spreading information about Oral Re-hydration Solution (a mixture of salts, sugar, and water) to mothers around the world has decreased the rate of children dying from dehydration. Currently, the most common cause is pneumonia. Other causes of infant mortality include: malnutrition, malaria, congenital malformation, infection and SIDS.
    (…) rates have significantly declined in the West in modern times. This has been mainly due to improvements in basic health care, though high-technology medical advances have also helped.

    I see no mention of feminism here, do you? And don’t tell me feminists have invented basic health care.

    Also,
    The infant mortality rate for European Americans was 5.7 per 1000 births in 2003-05. For African Americans it was 13.6 per 1000, and for Hispanic Americans it was 5.6 per 1000.
    this – according to your ideas – clearly indicates that white and hispanic women are “free”, but blacks aren’t.
    Or maybe you’re just wrong.

  7. thevagrantsvoice says:

    Do forgive me for popping back here, but I couldn’t resist commenting on one assertion:

    Technology was not much of a factor; strength was in numbers then. All the “technological advancement” in the timespan of the Roman empire amounted to harder swords.

    To but it bluntly, if I may be forgiven for being a gratuitous guest, this is ludicrous. A few quick overviews of roman military technology and innovations can be found here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_history_of_the_Roman_military#Roman_implementation_of_technology

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/tech_01.shtml

    The Roman armour was also superior; they had both chain mail, which might have been worn by the auxiliaries, though no one is quite sure, and also heavy armour made of overlapping iron plates that would stop anything short of a ballista bolt.

    http://www.unrv.com/military.php

    With superior tactics and organization, designed specifically for technology such as the Gladius, the Legion was an unstoppable force for nearly a millennium.

    http://romanmilitary.net/tools/ (contains a decent overview of many aspects of Roman weaponry)

    To address your points about “feminism” and the fall of Rome might be best left for a separate post, but I don’t want to make myself more troublesome ’round these parts than I already have…just that while I’m not a historian of Rome specifically, an assertion as groundless as “all the “technological advancement” in the timespan of the Roman empire amounted to harder swords.” To be frank, it is insulting to anyone who respects that great civilization and makes you and your movement look horribly foolish.

  8. Deansdale says:

    LOL
    You are welcome.
    I don’t think I look foolish, because technology didn’t mean that much of a difference in those days. Yep, they had a few ballistas and better armor, but did it save them? No. Did it mean anything real? No. In the end it was still men vs. men with something sharp or blunt in their hands. The barbarians had more men, so they have won, despite the “technological difference”.
    You people talk like these roman guys had phasers or somethin’.

    designed specifically for technology such as the Gladius
    Come on, for Pete’s sake, the gladius is not a “technology”, it’s a f*ckin’ sword, and not a very sophisticated one at that (like a katana for example) – and it came from spain to boot. So much for the “research” of romans.

  9. thevagrantsvoice says:

    lol. Well, you can think what you want, in that case. All I’ll say is that from an MRA perspective, it’s incredibly amusing–you people go on and on about how men are not only the stronger gender but the more innovative/technologically inclined/etc. gender. Yet here you are demeaning and dismissing the accomplishments of (male) engineers, armorsmiths, etc. without which the Empire would not have lasted nearly as long as it did.

    *shrugs* Well, it’s your blog. Forgive me for popping by again, then. My apologies.

  10. namae nanka says:

    “And don’t tell me feminists have invented basic health care.”

    My fellow countryman(India) and dear sir, are perhaps disillusioned by feminism’s putting a label on everything created by men and then calling it feminism’s accomplishment. I don’t think we can escape it, but it will surely help if mature men like him in an enviable profession don’t continue preaching its idiocy.

  11. Avicenna says:

    It’s just a sword that happened to be mass produced and standardised during a period where people showed up to war with spears which they had no idea of how to use since most people were casual soldiers. In an era of wars fought by pushing then running down the side that broke, this was a weapon that would solve war by killing people during the pushing bit. I suggest you read the death tolls of Romans vs. Barbarians. For the most part it was Barbarians being butchered by Romans until the very end (you win all your fights but the last) During the glory days of the Eagle there were very few defeats and they were all remembered (Such as the Loss of the Eagles to Germania)

    I am ethnically Indian but a citizen of the UK. English if you must know.

    Everything was created by men because women did not have any rights until recently. My grandmother’s education was questioned (less than a 100 years ago) by people who said, “Why should they be educated, she is a woman she only needs to cook and clean”. People still say that today in India. The fact my grandmother can read and write in more than one language and do mathematics is the reason that my family has so many doctors and the women in my family are so educated. The first few countries to give women equal rights are places like New Zealand. Women have only really had equal rights for around 70 years in most of the western world. And you had to crush the idiot attitude of men who ruled the system first in order to create true equality.

    If you genuinely believe women are inferior then no matter the talent you would never accept a woman in a position equal or better than you. You will never accept any achievement and attempt to denigrate everything they have done. Women have only really fought for equality as a solid group in the west from the 60s and 70s. We still have a lot to do since obviously our work is not done.

    As for your comments on doctors… Are you sure the individual writing it has any idea about medicine? Because a lot of his complaints seem to be him calling a whaambulance.

  12. Deansdale says:

    Come on, people… Look at the gladius. It’s nothing more than a pointy piece of metal. It couldn’t get any simpler than that. Compared to a katana it’s like a wooden leg.
    And to remind you again, it’s originated in Spain.
    Talking about it like it’s some of the finest technological developments of Rome, and of the era, is kinda lame.
    They had ballistas, now that is something, but they only had one ballista per century, which means it was of limited use against a horde of barbarians.
    If anything gave them real advantage over the barbarians it was their discipline, training, and well thought out tactics, none of which is a technological development.

    Also, let’s make this clear, I’m not dismissing the accomplishments of roman inventors, I’m just pointing out that you’re overrating their importance military-wise.

    @Avicenna
    people showed up to war with spears which they had no idea of how to use
    Every 10 year old kid knows how to use a spear.

    women did not have any rights until recently
    This is pure BS. Maybe I will address this in a later post, but many have did it already without any change in feminists’ twisted thinking so I reckon it’d be a waste of time.

    you had to crush the idiot attitude of men who ruled the system first
    Does the logical impossibility of this not occur to you? If the attitudes of the leaders could be “crushed”, then it means they were not the bigots you describe them as. If they were bigots, they wouldn’t have changed.
    Also, it’s not the attitudes that have changed in the last century, it was the times. Technology, environment, social services, etc. Before these it was impossible for women to have the personal freedom you now enjoy, and not because men have oppressed them (men themselves did not have this freedom either), but for obvious down-to-earth reasons like the lack of spare time and resources.
    I don’t expect you to understand this but I’ll try to explain anyways: a distinctly average family in the 19th century lived as peasants. They did not have money to hire babysitters, so it was either the mother or the father who had to supervise their own children. (There were no kindergartens then of course.) It was bleedingly obvious that it was a 1000 times more practical if the mother did this, so she stayed home with the kids and raised them while keeping the house clean and cooking for the family. Tell me with a straight face that an average women in the 19th century would have any use for any “diploma” of sorts. The notion “why should they be educated, she is a woman she only needs to cook and clean” was a practical one, it had nothing to do with mysoginy. Also, do I need to remind you that before the 20th century higher education was not the binge-drinking free-for-all it is nowadays. Until the 20th century less than 1% of the population could afford it, so, saying that “men had the right to higher education” is pure idiocy since 99% of men did not have this “right”.

    If you genuinely believe women are inferior
    LOL
    Only feminists believe that, that’s why they try to force quotas everywhere.
    I know women are different.

    Women have only really fought for equality as a solid group in the west from the 60s and 70s.
    It was never about equality, only in some of the bewildered minds of the optimistic, but not very bright feminists. Tell me, does the banning of men-only golf clubs while promoting women-only ones look like equality to you?

    We still have a lot to do since obviously our work is not done.
    Yeah, yeah, and it never will be, since you fight against illusions, lies and nightmares – with illusions, lies and nightmares.

  13. thevagrantsvoice says:

    If anything gave them real advantage over the barbarians it was their discipline, training, and well thought out tactics

    Well, fair enough, I can accept that–it’s a reasonable assertion, and one that I actually agree with. I simply took issue with what seemed to me your complete dismissal of Roman technology. But yes, their technological accomplishments wouldn’t have done much if they didn’t have the discipline and know-how to use them, so you’re right in that sense. In any case though, as I said, it’s your blog…suppose I’ve made a gratuitous guest of myself already xD I’ll get m’self out of your hair now. Thanks for your time.

  14. Avicenna says:

    Sigh… Go to a museum and talk to someone who knows about roman history. They ruled an empire for close to more than a thousand years, so you should really go see how they did it rather than saying “waah it’s just a sword”. And put it this way, the katana is also “just a sword too”, there were better steel weapons made across the world. The only reason we consider it as a special weapon is because it has so much history and each one is a lot of work since Japan is relatively poor in iron.

    The simple right to vote was only given to women in the UK in 1928 after much sturm and drang about it. In the US women only gained universal suffrage in the 1960s (remember black women are women too). Therefore it is less than a generation for women to gain simple equality in front of the law.

    If the attitudes of the leaders could be “crushed”, then it means they were not the bigots you describe them as. If they were bigots, they wouldn’t have changed.

    We have democracy you know. Women gained a lot of their rights in WW1 when they took over the production of munitions on our factories in Europe. They gained a little bit of power and they got their freedom. Who do you think was making the bullets? Women have slowly fought for equality in treatment because men like yourself exist. For instance you have defended the treatment of women as a necessity rather than “the attitude of a bunch of people who assumed women were somehow inferior”.

    Women could have had all these things a long while ago. Sweden went through a phase of women’s rights in the 17th century, it was just that we never had a concerted effort to change the attitude of men who were already preventing the development of women.

    I don’t expect you to understand this but I’ll try to explain anyways: a distinctly average family in the 19th century lived as peasants. They did not have money to hire babysitters, so it was either the mother or the father who had to supervise their own children. (There were no kindergartens then of course.) It was bleedingly obvious that it was a 1000 times more practical if the mother did this, so she stayed home with the kids and raised them while keeping the house clean and cooking for the family. Tell me with a straight face that an average women in the 19th century would have any use for any “diploma” of sorts. The notion “why should they be educated, she is a woman she only needs to cook and clean” was a practical one,

    So you are admitting that we arbitrarily flipped a coin and decided that “women get to stay at home” and men get to hunt mammoth? A woman back then needed a diploma to do the same job men did. Unfortunately men would not hire her because the assumption is the same as yours nor would they even let her get a diploma. That women are somehow inferior to men was ingrained into society. The reason for quotas which practically don’t exist now were to force women into the workplace so as to cause these changes because it is nearly impossible to get people like yourself to change their attitudes. Till they day you die you will assume that you are somehow superior to women courtesy of testicles.

    And I do comprehend what you are saying. That you think like the average 19th century man.

    Well it’s working is it not? Women are picking up the sport and are performing incredibly well at it considering how many clubs even let them in. And you can only ban public golf clubs that didn’t allow women in. You can form male only golf clubs as long as you aren’t using public funds. And seriously? Golf is what your argument boils down to?

    Nightmare? Namae nanka despite being an MRA will know what happens to women who don’t pay dowries in India. Or women who decide to show a bit of independance. In 2 years I have seen cases of spousal “abuse” where women seemingly just end up falling down stairs a lot. Which is kind of weird since most live in tiny huts with no stairs. Also they mystically seem to be so clumsy that they often roll around in kerosene and fall onto matches. Not to mention that in the USA women’s rights are being reduced via the various abortion laws as we speak. So yeah, women still have a long way to go and you guys are actually the counterbalance to human progress.

  15. Deansdale says:

    So you are admitting that we arbitrarily flipped a coin and decided that “women get to stay at home” and men get to hunt mammoth?
    Ouch. That hurt.
    Like they say: I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

  16. Deansdale says:

    You have to be a feminist to be this un-fuckin-believably blind to the astonishingly obvious correlation between, for example, breast-feeding and who gets to stay at home with the kids in the 19th century (without plastic bottles, refrigerators, etc.). Or that things like childbed fever do prevent women from mowing grass with a scythe from dawn till dusk.
    It took me a day to recover from the mental blow of your retardedness. Sigh.

  17. mongo says:

    Feminism is actively retarding men’s longevity. At the start of the 20th century, men and women lived roughly equally as long as each other in the U.S. at about 50 years of age. Now there’s a 7 year gap, and it’s increasing.

    Both men and women have benefited from technological advances in nutrition and housing, as well as the eradication of common killer diseases, better basic sanitation, safer jobs and better all round welfare – nearly all of which are the result of men’s creativity, labor and drive. Men still lag though in living harder, more dangerous lives, greater suicide rates (not hard to understand why) and they don’t get anywhere near the same funding in medical research, thanks to the greed of the sisters.

    When the billions of extra research dedicated to women’s health and breast cancer finally get a breakthrough, women’s life expectancy can be expected to increase dramatically, since breast cancer is such a leading killer of women today. When that happens, the gap between women and men will increase even further – though no-one anywhere will admit that this increase was brought about by medical research and billions of dollars. It will be because ‘women are genetically disposed to live longer’ – and all the huge amount of medical funding the sisters have managed to corral for themselves will be directed to the next women’s health issue. Just as they’ve done for the last 100 years. Same old, same old.

    Women got their hands on men’s money much sooner in the USSR via the Communist ban on private property, and look what the story is there: men’s average life expectancy in Russia today is only
    58 – women live 13 years more.

  18. mongo says:

    “A woman back then needed a diploma to do the same job men did. Unfortunately men would not hire her because the assumption is the same as yours nor would they even let her get a diploma.”

    You must be one spring chicken. Even in the 1970s – at least in the industrial West – you didn’t need a diploma for many jobs. High school teachers didn’t need degrees. A lot of company accountants had no more than high-school book-keeping as formal education. Many CEOs left school at 15. 100 years earlier, no-one would have asked for such a thing. Doctors got trained on the job, in hospitals or on the battle-front. Blacksmiths practised dentistry – all they had to do was put up a sign and hope they got the business. Look at a census from the period – the vast majority of people were farm hands, unskilled labourers or factory workers.

    Get a clue.

  19. Deansdale says:

    This is not a blog for retarded feminists who can’t distinguish the past from the present.

  20. Pingback: Some idiotic comments about why we “want” to be trans – My Gifted Life

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s