Women Are Anathema To Revolutionary Movements CH This is why it’s wise to keep women out of vanguard roles in a revolutionary movement: (Zoomable link) Perhaps the most important lesson here is that women are a weak point in any political movement, especially a dissident movement. There is something uniformly pathological about the ones who jump to the front lines of ideological battle. I wasn’t aware of that sordid drama involving (Katie?} McHugh, but the theme of it strikes me as all too familiar. Women are poison pills dropped in the chalice of insurgencies fighting against the status quo. Underneath all the rationalizations, men fight for beautiful, young women. Men don’t fight for land, or honors, or money, except insofar as those things earn them access to beautiful, young women. Consciously, men will tell themselves otherwise and pen odes to loftier ideals, but the Darwinian primal impulse is the lure of fertile furrow. As such, women should inspire, not aspire. Women, particularly young cuties in the bloom of their slender hourglass perfection, are inspirations to men to reach for the brass ring. An insurgency seeking to topple a corrupt establishment is best led by men, compelled by an unspoken and often unacknowledged desire to attract young cuties, intuitively grasping that a victory over the corrupt ruling class means more prime poon for those rebel men. Women who aspire to leading roles in those insurgencies are suspect operatives, for they are purposefully abdicating their natural place in the cosmic order as inspirations to stronger, integrous men. Placing women at the ideological front lines is courting the disaster of gossipy in-fighting and betrayal; women are powerfully drawn to the glitter of social status, and a revolution in which they play a significant face time part puts them in close proximity to the enemy establishment tempting women with penumbras of reflected status. Women can’t resist the siren song of social elevation, attention whoring, and credentialism, however superficial and unearned. Presented with these irresistible offers, women will backstab allies to get at them. There is also something to be said for distrusting women who have the same passionate drive as men to achieve in the world of men. Women who aspire to greatness in endeavors that are naturally and historically the domain of men are women who are, essentially, at war with their own femaleness. It would be the same distrustful reaction both men and women have to effeminate men who forsake manly pursuits to succeed in the natural domains of women. Identity crises in either sex provoke distrust in others. We are rightfully suspicious of men or women who choose to defy their sex’s norms and temperaments. http://bit.ly/2LuYxme

This is why it’s wise to keep women out of vanguard roles in a revolutionary movement:

(Zoomable link)

Perhaps the most important lesson here is that women are a weak point in any political movement, especially a dissident movement. There is something uniformly pathological about the ones who jump to the front lines of ideological battle.

I wasn’t aware of that sordid drama involving (Katie?} McHugh, but the theme of it strikes me as all too familiar. Women are poison pills dropped in the chalice of insurgencies fighting against the status quo.

Underneath all the rationalizations, men fight for beautiful, young women. Men don’t fight for land, or honors, or money, except insofar as those things earn them access to beautiful, young women.

Consciously, men will tell themselves otherwise and pen odes to loftier ideals, but the Darwinian primal impulse is the lure of fertile furrow.

As such, women should inspire, not aspire. Women, particularly young cuties in the bloom of their slender hourglass perfection, are inspirations to men to reach for the brass ring. An insurgency seeking to topple a corrupt establishment is best led by men, compelled by an unspoken and often unacknowledged desire to attract young cuties, intuitively grasping that a victory over the corrupt ruling class means more prime poon for those rebel men.

Women who aspire to leading roles in those insurgencies are suspect operatives, for they are purposefully abdicating their natural place in the cosmic order as inspirations to stronger, integrous men. Placing women at the ideological front lines is courting the disaster of gossipy in-fighting and betrayal; women are powerfully drawn to the glitter of social status, and a revolution in which they play a significant face time part puts them in close proximity to the enemy establishment tempting women with penumbras of reflected status. Women can’t resist the siren song of social elevation, attention whoring, and credentialism, however superficial and unearned. Presented with these irresistible offers, women will backstab allies to get at them.

There is also something to be said for distrusting women who have the same passionate drive as men to achieve in the world of men. Women who aspire to greatness in endeavors that are naturally and historically the domain of men are women who are, essentially, at war with their own femaleness. It would be the same distrustful reaction both men and women have to effeminate men who forsake manly pursuits to succeed in the natural domains of women. Identity crises in either sex provoke distrust in others. We are rightfully suspicious of men or women who choose to defy their sex’s norms and temperaments.

from Chateau Heartiste http://bit.ly/2H6RVoW