The Perfidious Yeastbucket

Behold the female. In all cases, emphasis added.

See this site. A Gab correspondent who is a friend of this blog brought that site to my attention.

See this.

Looking at that basic composite structure of matter - the atom, we cannot help but notice its similarity to the family or "nuclear family" as it is called. The nucleus of the atom contains the "female" protons that passively aggregate together along with the "children" (the neutrons,) which add an element of stability to the atom as children add stability to the family. The "male" electrons actively form a "social" hierarchy as they fill orbitals of different size and shape that surround the nucleus. Also, due to their peripheral location and lesser attachment to the nucleus, they are "free" to become involved in a greater variety of interactions related to the formation of more complex structures (e.g. molecules.) Though electrons have the active roles, it is the protons and neutrons that are the focal point of the atom, it is "they" that the electrons are forced to revolve around. A person unfamiliar with the invisible attractive forces of the protons could easily misinterpret the inner workings of the atom. Here is the way a feminist might have explained things; "Those chauvinistic electrons circle around all day while keeping the protons confined to the nucleus along with the neutrons. They fill up all the orbitals while denying the same opportunities to protons. And whenever they feel like it, they abandon their nucleus and go flying off after some other protons." Fortunately for us, feminists did not establish the laws of physics and chemistry, if only we could say the same about today's social legislation.

See this.

The chief passions that women control begin with sex and expand into sexual love. A strong state of sexual arousal causes the conscious faculties of men to be shunted off - to be literally brainwashed, leaving the void to be filled by manipulative women. The mere anticipation of intercourse produces a tension and craving that has been compared to drug addiction, draining the wealth of men and putting it in the hands of women.

That is why we cannot depend on homosexuals to moralize to us about male-female relations. Only the heterosexual man, subject to “biological sexual harassment” attacks by women, have a complete and comprehensive understanding of the behavior of the perfidious yeastbucket.

Of related interest.

Bettina Arndt is an Australian analyst who has included biological factors in her discussions of sexuality since the 1970s. Her most recent book, What Men Want (2010, chapters 3 and 4), is based on interviews and refers to research in evolutionary psychology, neuroscience and sexual physiology. In a recent article Arndt discussed women’s tactics in attracting men, such as dressing to show breasts.[ii] Her story, appropriate titled “Busted: The Politics of Cleavage and a Glance”, combined anecdote, interviews and behavioural science. She drew on research on male–female differences in sex drive to argue that women who dress sexily in public are flaunting their sexual power…

Meanwhile, homosexual white knighters are more interested in male “Aryan youths in rainbow thongs,” so what do they know about any of this?

See this.

Let us look at the interrelationship of power and voting to understand why only men voted in the past. Before civil society began, men were controlled by "The law of the jungle"; those exerting superior physical force out competed, and often killed, those with inferior abilities. As populations expanded and men were forced to live in closer proximity to each other much of their right to use physical force was transferred to the government. To the extent this was done voluntary, and therefore justly, those men then partook of this power transferred to the government by use of their vote. Physical force is the domain of men, that is the fundamental reason why they should vote and not women. Women never transferred their natural advantages to the government, their power is still used privately, to allow them to exercise 53% of the voting power is to allow them to exercise greater use of physical force than men. Rousseau wrote how some of the feminists of his time being "not content to secure their rights, lead them to usurp ours; for to make women our superior in all all the qualities proper to her sex, and to make her our equal in all the rest, what is this but to transfer to the women the superiority which nature has given to her husband?" The 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote is one of the greatest usurpations in the history of the human race, yet there are few people living in this country who perceive things that way, such has been the persuasive power of women.

For those of you that who have managed to retain a little common sense, who still have even a few brain cells that have not been obliterated by feminist propaganda, I will ask you to consider two things. First, if women were "powerless" as feminists claim by not being allowed to vote, and men being oppressive patriarchs and opposed to this right, then how did women manage to acquire this right in the first place? Does not the fact that they did acquire the right suggest that they had means at their disposal more powerful than what men had to oppose them, and does not that imply that women already possessing greater power should not have had their power added to by acquiring the right to vote? Secondly, if the sole, or overwhelming criteria for acquiring one's due from society was from the right to vote, than the condition of children should be lower than the worst slave who ever walked in shackles upon the face of the earth. For not only do they not vote, but they even lack any basic measure of physical strength or knowledge in order to feed and defend themselves; in the feminist way of thinking they should be completely helpless and die of starvation shortly after birth. Nothing of course could be further from the truth, children are not only well taken care of, but they are often afforded protections that even adults do not possess.

That is a cogent analysis of the voting question.

To understand how this can be we observe that in the hierarchical chain of human society, children stand much in the same relation to their mothers as women do to their husbands. Whoever is in need of another to supply their material wants has emotional, and other immaterial power, to compel the delivery of their requirements. Plutarch tells us that the Athenian Themistocles once told his son that he was the the most powerful person in Greece because "The Athenians command the rest of Greece, I command the Athenians, your mother commands me, and you command your mother."

Very true.

See this.

Having addressed things at the most fundamental level we now move to incorporate that quality which separates us from the animals, namely, reason, which is notably pronounced in a patriarchal society and reaches its peak under a republican government. As this type of government displays a marked hierarchical arrangement, which involves a series of  pyramidal lines or "chain of command," it is true that along those lines a strong force is exerted. A more feminine society lacks such a strong hierarchy with its lines of command as the association of individuals in such a society is less rigidly organized, yet, such looseness permits a closer  association among individuals, and association is inherently related to influence, and influence to power. To use a graphic example to illustrate which is more oppressive, consider which circumstances you would prefer to find yourself, in a body of water with a Great White shark or a school of piranhas. With the Great White, no matter how big or how hungry, you have a chance to evade or fend it off, because it is a single animal with a single line of attack at any given time which you can respond to with some hope of success, but the piranhas attack you at a hundred different places at once, and even though their bite is smaller, the collective effect will be almost certainly fatal. What if you were under water without air, which would offer you the least hope, the piranhas or the prospect of drowning? While the piranhas are almost certain death, drowning is even more certain, because the water, even though it offers no violent contact, is everywhere and all around you, like "the absolute will of an entire people" there is no escape. Even on a private one-to-one basis without the all powerful collective effect of numerous individuals, we see that, while a man may occasionally hit his wife, a wife may incessantly "hen-peck" and "smother" her husband, as to which is worse, ask any husband - or piranha.

Seeing now the the two opposite tendencies in men and women, and in their politics, we may now recognize familiar complaints; the male complains that his freedom is being denied to him, while the female complains that she is being "abandoned" by the male exercising his freedom. If legitimate government is by "the consent of the governed" then the female complaint is unjustified, for a man should be allowed to "abandon" any situation that he feels does not sufficiently address his interests, just as women have granted themselves the "right" to do. The proper remedy for women should be to see to it that the "social contract," as with their personal relationships, sufficiently addresses the interests of men, so that they will voluntarily wish to participate. Yet, just as women - as women, have little respect for freedom because it is a quality they do not possess in abundance, so too does their lack of a sense of justice - which is derived from reason, allow them to sufficiently address the interests of men.

We can now view a patriarchal society vis-a-vis the "War of the Sexes"; since a greater population density forces people to associate, and because allowing women to rule would mean certain tyranny, men must assume patriarchal roles as a means of self defense. Consequently, women's claims for "liberation" from the patriarchal state are really their desire to oppress men further then men would be oppressed assuming patriarchal roles, so men are then forced to choose the lesser of the two evils and "oppress the oppressors."

On the abortion issue:

See this.

And this.

And this.

We know that the Fourteenth Amendment, like the Thirteenth, was created with the intent of remedying racial discrimination against black people in this country. Since the Fourteenth Amendment has been extended to cover sex discrimination, then by the same "logic" the Thirteenth Amendment would have to be extended as well.  Therefore, it is illegal for a member of one sex to subject a member of the other sex to involuntary servitude. One must wonder whether people will one day look back from the future and wonder how such a thing as alimony and child support could ever have happened; will they finally learn that slavery is wrong no matter who it happens to.

And this.

A woman who has taken a vow to "love, honor, and obey" her husband "until death do us part" can violate every word of her marriage vows and still make a man pay alimony and child support. When a contract is mutually broken the contracting parties return to their original positions, to make one party continue to honor their contractual obligations while the other party is required to do nothing is a clear interference of "the obligation of contracts."…

…It should be further observed that in a marriage or similar relationship the rewards are different for men than for women; in general, there is more of a material reward for the woman and more of an emotional reward for the man. Within the sphere of material rewards the duties of men tend towards public life as the provider, and for women as the homemaker with its array of domestic duties; cooking, cleaning, etc. as well as such intangibles as love, companionship, and sexual relations. If it had been acknowledged in the past that a woman had a right to support from her husband, it was also acknowledged that the husband was entitled to "wifely duties" consisting of the domestic and intimate matters mentioned above and going under legal expressions such as "consortium" and "society."…

…Someone might wish to point out that forcing women to fulfill their roles from a distance the way men are required to do would involve great difficulty. For an ex-wife to come over every day to cook and clean might well be impractical, particularly if she lived at a distance. As for the more personal side, will an ex-wife be required to have sex with a man she hates; will he even want her to walk in the front door? What would be feasible then, shall the ex-wife be required to pay another woman for such services, or perhaps pay the government to provide her ex-husband with such benefits. I suppose the idea of a "sexual welfare" program might sound rather amusing, but then politicians have no problem prostituting themselves for women…

…The fact that there are complications does not justify ignoring the rights of men, if the government cannot provide equitable relief for both sides then it must step aside and allow people to work out their problems on a private basis. The government has been very creative in finding ways to satisfy women, if it made similar efforts towards men I doubt if it could not achieve similar results.

That is a very interesting argument. Most divorces are initiated by women; they are openly violating their marital contract. Then some of them demand alimony and child support on top of that.  The perfidious yeastbucket, indeed.