Minimizing Strengths, Maximizing Weaknesses
October 10, 2015 by CH
COTW winner is Elmer Jack, with a trilogy of comments that earned a place logged into the CH guest book.
Feminism is about women who are low on the mating desirability scale ruining the chances for attractive young women to have fulfillment, which they say is to be found in the sterile carpeting, crappy chairs, exhausting commutes, and pre-landfill cubicle partitions that define the totalitarian architecture of Encorpera. Of course feminists don’t know what they are talking about since few actually slog through a career outside of academia. For no feminist offers young women the sensible advice to get an education they can use later in life, find a husband early, bear children, and enter the workforce after their children have grown. Now more than ever with the advent of the internet and online education do people have the opportunities to acquire marketable skills and seek work. You can always get a job and you can start a business or career after the age of 40.
Peter Drucker, in his famous essay Managing Oneself, advised strongly the need to understand your strengths and weaknesses, and observed that you can never win by improving your weaknesses, only by improving your strengths.
In broader socio-economic terms, feminism has pressured women to build on their weaknesses (ability to compete against men) and discouraged them from capitalizing on their strengths (youth and fertility).
Young women have taken up this mantra to the extreme as their innate herd behavior has driven millions of them dominate universities and commit to a life of cubicle drudgery over hearth and home.
They would rather have a crappy job with vicious co-workers that provides them money to spend on frivolities than a humble home domain where they rule and experience the joy of children.
It is unfortunate that so many of our most intelligent and well-bred women are buying into this lie only to discover just 10 years after starting that they have missed the boat on marriage and childbearing opportunities.
Adding to this cruel feminist hoax inflicted on impressionable women, some companies make a spectacle of offering to freeze their female worker’s eggs so they can devote their youth to the corporation and attempt childbirth long after the ideal window for this has passed.
This is not to imply that women should not be educated; a woman should have an education as a financial backup and to use after child-rearing.
So we have weakened society as a whole by building on women’s weaknesses in attempts to make them the equal of men, rather than encouraging them in their natural strengths.
And while this charade is going on, men are encouraged to adopt feminine attitudes and lifestyles at the expense of their own natural strengths, now deemed unnecessary in the new gender-neutral economy.
The impact on our society appears in plummeting marriage rates, childless women, fatherless children, inflated home prices, and exploding credit card debt.
To cope with the pressures of competing against men as well as their own female competitors, an astonishing 25% of working women are on anti-depressants. While companies make a big deal out of their zero-tolerance drug policies, their female workforce is higher than a kite on prescription medications.
For whatever impact feminization is having on women themselves, it means something else : you have a huge demographic of talented competitors who control the hiring process, are being given advantages over you for job assignments, against whom you cannot fight as you would any other man, and who ultimately promote our downward economic spiral by occupying non-productive tasks while avoiding the risk-taking that is required to stimulate job creation.
And if that’s not bad enough, many male hiring managers and CEOs are eager to place women simply because the women are attractive or they themselves have daughters. These men, usually married, seek to increase their odds for workplace romances either real or imagined as an escape hatch to their marital drudgery and suffocating corporate confines.
So much goodness packed into Elmer’s Jacked COTW. Recall the two demonic motivations of feminists:
- To teach women to be second-rate men rather than first-rate women.
- To remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.
These two motivations are driven by ugliness, of both the outer and inner kinds.
Reader Chad earns a COTW second place showing.
Feminism like most leftist schemes does not aim at a goal; they are far too short-sighted to contemplate the consequences of their policies.
Feminism is analogous to any other leftist political scheme; they want to reap what they do not sow. Feminism attempts to allow a woman to enjoy all the trappings of being a woman while forcing the burdens associated with being a woman onto the general population. Essentially, feminists want absolute freedom of action while simultaneously being protected from any negative consequences of those actions.
It’s not hard to contemplate that any population that can fully insulate itself from reality will engage in activities that are naïve if not outright destructive. The resulting mentality of which is solipsism. A feminist woman could only assess a man as a means of fulfilling the female imperative.
Of course the left can only be a decent ally to this up to a point. Since leftism has devolved to the point where sex and gender are now subjective, the gains of feminism stand to be forfeited along with any notion of sexual identity.
It’s funny to think that in our bright new Fluidly Freaky Tranny Androgynous Slop culture the aspirations of feminism could be undermined by the very fruits of their gender-bending achievements. But it probably won’t go that way. If equalist leftoids have proven one thing about their ilk, it’s that they’re very good at changing the terms of debate when a logic trap looms.