Cheerful misogyny
September 25, 2012 26 Comments
A key element of Deep Conversion is what I call cheerful misogyny. This is essentially a paternalistic empathetic attitude towards women in which you recognise their relative strengths and weaknesses and do not pander. To achieve cheerful misogyny you must unapologetically believe men are better than women at certain things, so you can then be dismissive of those women who try their hand where they don’t belong. Mostly this involves deprogramming your forebrain. So with that in mind, here is my deprogramming suggestion on the topic of women in the workplace.
TLDR version
Feminists have made much of alleged patriarchal dominance in the workplace. Roughly summarised they claim women have been excluded from the workplace and public office so that men can keep all the benefits of money, status and power to themselves. This has been achieved by outright exclusion (working men’s clubs, Old Boy network, discriminatory hiring practices), social engineering (denying women suitable education to compete for these positions) and cultural disapproval (pushing traditional gender roles as desirable). One criticism that makes feminists feel really clever, like they are unearthing some hidden deep conspiracy, is that the workplace and public sphere have been masculinised and designed in ways that promote men’s interests at the expense of women’s.
The more crazy feminists (i.e. those tweeting from nests feathered by university money) have claimed logic and scientific knowledge are themselves sexist because they discriminated against women’s ways of knowing. Essentially that fact-based decision making is sexist because it undermines women’s intuitiveness. These crazies are at the extreme.
I’d like to submit an alternative explanation for the traditional male dominance of the public sphere. Men are better at getting things done.
Men deal with the world directly. Nature is red in tooth and claw, unforgiving and uncaring, so to scrape a living men must understand reality and the rules by which it operates. This means reading skies to forecast rains, tracking animal spoor, fashioning tools…. all the way to the ultimate abstraction of physics and back again with engineering tools and structures to claim control over the environment. Men’s deep-seated interest in how things work and their drive to master their environment leads them to social behaviours such as nerdiness and to life-choices such as studying maths, science and engineering which allow them to harness these nature-oriented drives. Men are producers.
Women deal with the world indirectly, through men. They live inside the protective bubble of men and thus gravitate towards the private sphere of the home and the knitting circle. Mostly they are recipients of men’s provisioning and thus take little interest in that part of the outside world where human meets nature – the coal face of men’s struggle against the elements. Their attention is caught only when their results of male provisioning are mismatched or inadequate to their needs, then they wish something to be done onto the world through the agency of men. “Can you put up those shelves, please?” Women’s deep-seated interest in how people work and their drive to manipulate channels of provisioning leads them to social behaviours such as solipsism and to life-choices such as studying psychology, marketing and human resources which allow them to harness these people-oriented drives. Women are consumers.
An opportunity to redress imagined slights
Thus are the natural abilties and inclinations of men and women. So let’s consider what the public sphere actually entails. The workplace is the location in which people are assembled together to complete a range of tasks. Let’s take as an AtlasShrugged-y example building a bridge across a gorge to allow a railway to connect two towns. The project requires people to design a bridge that will support the train, map out the materials needed, engage physical labour to do the building, extract the materials from the earth, forge steel, logistics to transport the men, materials and energy to the worksite, direct the work and so on. All of these activites interface with the real world with outcomes that can be measured and the ultimate proof in whether the bridge stands or falls. Construction companies are masculine because they must harness masculine skills to complete the project. Not because the men involved specifically wish to exclude women for the sake of it. Women are excluded because they are inadequate in these roles.
So the workplace takes on masculine energy as a necessary condition of getting the job done effectively. Red Pill Room calls this the Sandbox (an excellent post). The moment you force femininity into the workplace you dilute the effectiveness of a business’s ability to impose itself upon the world. So is there a place for women in the workplace? Let’s get this question framed correctly. The demands of the project are what shapes the culture of a business, rather than the habits and fancies of men. Men do not fashion business as their private fiefdom or they’ll go out of business under market competition. The men take on the shape of the environment. It’s a common feminist misconception that men love going to work and having their Old Boy’s playground, as if working down the mines or in an office cubicle are some kind of recreational activity. To disabuse yourself of this notion just ride an Underground train during rush hour and watch all the tired slouched men traipsing into the office at 9am then coming home worn-out and defeated from a hard day’s graft. Most men don’t take joy from their work, they do it because it’s their role and a means to an end. They are fitting themselves to the shape of the workplace realities.
Women are solipsistic by nature and thus operate from a “what’s in it for me?” frame. The workplace is an environment to be shaped to suit their tastes and damn the consequences to the project. Red Pill Room calls this the Swingset and it’s disruptive by nature. So let’s not ask what work can do for women but rather what women can do for work. In a free market that’s how it goes – you are hired according to your abilities as required by the firm. Assuming an honest intention by the woman to contribute, what can she actually do?….. History has already answered that for us. Considering the business as it’s own pseudo-household, women are deployed in internal-facing roles that manage the warmness of the environment ro support the external-facing men. Typing, filing, photocopying, tea-making and crucially… looking pretty around the office to make it a pleasant place to be.
Office beautification in 3.. 2.. 1…
There are some exceptions, when a business is particularly people focused such as marketing firms, PR, events management and so on. These are more like outsourced elements what are usually people-focused sides of business whose main activity is world-focused. And what a surprise that women gravitate to these roles. The public sector is another (grossly enlarged) outlier. Free men in free markets hire workers for what they can do – there is a purity of connection. The government hires workers for political purposes and then allows trades unions to inflict producer capture upon the organisation and redeploy it as a source of feathering the nests of it’s employees rather than getting the job done. And what a surprise that women gravitate to these roles.
Real work is a male endeavour. To the extent women can perform adequately they must take on male characteristics by accessing their reserve masculine core. This masculines them, kills their femininity. There are only two choices for society in allowing women to work while retaining their femininity: (i) feminise the culture of work so the women are happy but nothing gets done efficiently or (ii) limit women to particular tightly-fenced roles until they get married off and leave the workforce. The latter is the only choice acceptable to me.
great post, agree with the conclusion
Pure truth, it’s amazing this even needs to be explained.
I believe every society in human history up until western society in the 1960′s inherently knew this, and designed gender roles along the lines of your option ii).
“they must take on male characteristics by accessing their reserve masculine core.”
This is key. I work in a technical field with many, often talented women. My specialty requires directing, challenging and scrutinizing other men in their own craft. The few women who chose this specialty have all sacrificed their femininity. No men chase these gals – none – despite a predominately male population. Instead it is the cutesie secretaries, HR, or similar chicks dolled up in supportive rolls doing what they can to help, who have a gaggle of men admirers.
Women are smart, capable and malleable. But like a malleable metal you cannot but change it’s characteristics with too much bending.
“Construction companies are masculine because they must harness masculine skills to complete the project. Not because the men involved specifically wish to exclude women for the sake of it. Women are excluded because they are inadequate in these roles.”
Golden!
There are extenuating conditions influencing this argument. For example, men are rational and logical, and if society knew that feminism was a crock before it even existed, then why haven’t we been able to logically eliminate it?
There is an easy way to prove if men have been holding women back. Let a group of women do the same contracted work as a group of men. If there is any benefit to hiring women (other than their vagina), then it should become apparent in the final product of their efforts.
But wait a second; even making that suggestion is sexist! Women have taken over the job world not on proof of their equality, but on silencing and destroying the possibility of an opposing voice.
Also: why would a male employer now be satisfied with a team of women, knowing that if he were competing with a team of all men, he would lose? Clearly the government is going to protect the women’s interests to keep them from looking bad. It is in a man’s interest to not produce the best work possible, but to get paid simply for being the most ‘diverse’ office around.
I cannot help but see that women cannibalize themselves. Look at Apple. The iPhone 5 is an amazing invention made by a team of men. Women cannot live without their iPhone. But at the same time, they attack the very conditions that created the iPhone, suggesting that there should be more women on the design team! This would ruin the environment that produced such a brilliant device.
i really like the “cheerful” part. i was working on “baby girl game”, and it is of course partially inspired by your positive attitude, K. we are men. we are strong. we are smart. we are patient. we are loving. we realize that women are weak, that they are petulant, that they are childlike, and that they need a master to guide them through life. we are empathetic, strong, and firm.
there is no need for hate or anger or bitterness. in fact, hatred and anger and bitterness are not the qualities of a real man, a man who has mastered life. those are beta qualities.
no antagonism. just love. love and rough, dominant, hardcore sex. to keep her in her place.
choking and slapping and stuff.
“(i) feminise the culture of work so the women are happy but nothing gets done efficiently or (ii) limit women to particular tightly-fenced roles until they get married off and leave the workforce. The latter is the only choice acceptable to me.” i totally agree with you, it’s not only acceptable, it is logic, sadly enough the world is going for the former point rather than the latter, but i hope to be wrong…
Medicine was long mischaracterized as masculine work. Women doctors flourish and have improved the culture of medicine. [Evidence? That most female area of medicne, midwifery, was in the dark ages for a thousand years under women and within a hundred years of men getting involved, the forceps were invented. K.]
The evidence comes from the patients. When a patient states, ” I want a ________ doctor,” , they almost always are requesting a woman doctor. [When fatties state "I want a pie" are they bringing good practice to the nutritional sciences? K.]
If you really think that a woman’s real place is the home (and only the home) you must believe that men are even better nurses, kindergartners, elementary teachers and charwomen, too. Or are women above the age of 21 (which are unattractive to you) and women you deem ugly allowed to do these “feminine” jobs? [First three are feminine people-oriented jobs, which is the space I outlined for feminine women. K.]
Have YOU ever invented something useful? [Check out my book and original contributions to manosphere theory. My other life achievements will remain private due to the hater problem. K.] Or do you work at an oil platform? Do you really “get” some “things done” other than posting how the male sex is better than the female and how to fuck 18yo virgins in the ass and bath in the admiring comments of your disciples? Why do you adorn yourself with borrowed plumes? [Not borrowed. I did fuck her in the ass. I'd post the video if I was more darkside. K.]
Eh. I have no problem with women in medicine and science. You want to assume lots of debt and sacrifice your most fertile years to have a career? It’s a free country, yeah?
I just don’t want to hear the bitching when women choose not to go into the gunner specialties (like cardiac or neurosurgery), or slog towards tenure.
Or the bitching that ensues when they realize they should’ve found a husband and started a family while they were still fertile.
Lol, I remember when the classifieds had Help Wanted – Male and Help Wanted – Female ads
oh the horror….
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: Septemberish | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
Pingback: LIGFY – After The Hang Over Recap | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
What’s always confused me more than women in masculine jobs (who I generally just ignore for obvious reasons), are the men that chose to work in feminine jobs.
Now, I know most men who teach elementary school are usually flaming homosexuals, both for the other “feminine jobs”, I haven’t necessarily gotten that vibe from the men; I’ve just been confused. HR is a good example. I have met men in HR, who are married with kids, show no signs of being gay on the side, etc… but, I just don’t get it, why the hell would you work in HR?
I like how you’ve backed up your claims with hard evidence and not anecdotes By narrowing what women can do, there’s efficiency costs there too. Are you afraid of smarter women because your pick up techniques don’t work on them?
@ Reich
Yeah, he’s trembling in his boots…
Pingback: Misogyny « The Red Pill Effect
There’s a typo here: “Considering the business as it’s own pseudo-household, women are deployed in internal-facing roles that manage the warmness of the environment ro support the external-facing men.”
I wanted to send this via e-mail, but I don’t see an address in the obvious places.
Pingback: Will Being A Misogynist Help You Get Laid?
Pingback: “Misogyny” and Accepting Your Own Self-Interest | welcometothelifestyle
I can’t tell if this article and its responses are satire? Someone please set me straight if they aren’t. I’m not being cute. I honestly don’t understand if anyone feels that this is true.
I…I think they’re actually being serious.
Unfortunately, it’s probably all real. A large chunk of the pickup artist industry revolves around men exploiting other men who happen to have insecurities.
Men who need dating help in the first place are often riddled with feelings of inadequacy. But rather than attempt to build real confidence, increase self-esteem and reduce anxiety through ethical, scientifically established methods like cognitive-behavioural therapy, these PUAs try and get the men to invert and re-project their hostile feelings of insecurity from the inward to the outward.
Thus “what’s wrong with me – why can’t I get any girls to like me?” soon becomes “women are inferior, they obviously don’t see how great I am – they need to be controlled and led because they’re deficient”. To a mind that is sick of self-loathing and self-flagellation, this might sound appealing, but it’s self-evidently unhealthy.
There are alternatives to both the “what’s wrong with me?” and “there’s something wrong with her!” mindsets – the guys reading this should look into cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trained counsellor.
This post has really made the Hamsters squeal and offended their Mangina supporters (behavioural therapy with a psycho-babble counsellor – oh purrrleeese). Take jz with her assertion that women Doctors have improved the culture of Medicine. She doesn’t say that they have improved Medicine, or that they have improved it more than have Male Doctors. She asserts that the culture has been improved. What on earth does that mean, other than feminised the environment – made it touchy-feely – something entirely irrelevant to the purpose of Medicine – the health of the patient. All of which reminds me of the time I was in A&E and had put on the prescribed gown. The Indian Lady Doctor asked me to raise the hem thereof (to examine my stomach) and having done so, she almost fainted at the sight! I should have brought the smelling salts. When Doctors faint at the sight of a Penis – and not even an erect one, sadly – you know they should be in a different ‘culture’. Excellent post Krauser.
Pingback: Baby girl game | rivsdiary