On the state of Virginia and the machinations of tyranny thereof

You'd think what's occurred in Virginia would convey that nowhere, and no one, is safe from tyranny in this country any longer. But I still talk to people who think that "couldn't happen here;" that their part of the country, home, etc., is the exception. Which merely vindicates my long standing assertion, that the left is not the biggest threat to American liberty, and never was. The biggest threat to our freedoms is, and has ever been, the ignorance, apathy, and indifference of those who purport to be on the political "right." Our society has become pervaded by the most pernicious delusions of security, predicated upon often entirely imaginary (and effeminate) notions, in conjunction with an abject ignorance of history.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of having a rudimentary understanding of history. It is impossible to understand the present without understanding the past. And understanding the past also enables, to a certain extent, prognostication; i.e., the ability to see the future. ("What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.") Human nature, being unchanging, means the humans of the present have the same needs, wants, and proclivities as the humans of the past, making them, and the societies they establish, predictable to a not insignificant degree.

"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Second Virginian Convention, March 23, 1775.

And as anyone at all familiar with history, American history in particular, would know, we've seen what's happening in Virginia before. And who better to give us an account of such than a Virginia native?

"I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. - Ibidem.

Like Patrick Henry, I ask what enemy does Ralph Northam and the Democrat Party have in the state of Virginia, that warrants the accumulation of armed forces and denying the people the use of arms? The answer is, the people. Governor Northam by his efforts, blatantly considers the people his enemy, and is therefore by default the enemy of the people. The measures being proposed in Virginia have but one, plain purpose; the subjugation of the people of Virginia. When the government amasses forces among you, when no external invader or legitimate domestic threat exists, that should at the very least evoke suspicion. When it does so in conjunction with seeking to disarm its own citizens, that removes all ambiguity regarding its purpose, and is a conspicuous precursor to subjugation.

I supported the protests in Virginia. Many didn't, and wanted action, but I think the protests were necessary; to show, unequivocally, that peace was tried first; to show that all other options were exhausted.

"Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!" - Ibidem.

The proponents of liberty went to the capital armed and harmed no one. Their disposition for peace and reconciliation openly demonstrated for all to see. There now shall come a crux, at which peaceful appeals must end, and action must commence. And that crux, if it is to occur at all, must occur before disarmament; because it cannot occur after it.

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?" - Ibidem.

The statement "they tell us that we are weak," and "unable to cope with so formidable an enemy," should be immediately familiar to anyone not completely estranged to current events. It's conspicuously manifest in sentiments such as this.

Or (who could forget) this gem. 

As anyone with a functioning brain will immediately recognize, what Biden and Swalwell are trying to "tell us" is that "we are weak," and "unable to cope with so formidable an enemy" as our own government. Nevermind the immediate, and obvious non sequitur that if this were true, and us having said arms wouldn't matter, there would be no need to disarm us as the government would be able to subdue us whether we were armed or not. So again, they are telegraphing their intentions, by making such statements and seeking to disarm us. Both of these men, for example, are telegraphing their willingness to perpetrate genocide; which completely contradicts the ostensible premise of (disarming us for the purpose of) avoiding needless bloodshed and saving lives. If as they claim, they were so intent on avoiding bloodshed and saving lives, they would relent and allow the people keep their arms. They would prefer that to the carnage of civil war. But they don't. To hear a leftist speak on the right to bear arms, is to hear someone argue it's worth committing genocide, if it results in "saving only one life."

We will kill Americans with hellfire missiles to save lives, to improve the "well being of Americans," and "take thousands out of harm's way." That's Joe's position. Notice also how, in the previous video, Joe omits the part of Jefferson's quote about the tyrants bleeding, and only mentions the patriots in his remarks. Dementia? More telegraphing? You decide.

Nevermind also, how leftists consistently contradict themselves on this issue, routinely taking whatever position benefits them at the moment (as always). As I've observed for years, these same people declared the War in Iraq lost, precisely because our military was unable to completely extirpate an insurgency using small arms. So when it's politically expedient (because it's a successful war for which you can't take credit), insurgents with small arms cannot be defeated, and it's pointless to even try. But conversely, when seeking to enslave their own people domestically, insurgencies with small arms don't stand a chance. 

"Some analysts locate the problem within the military’s culture. Most of America’s opponents in operations since World War II, and particularly since the end of the Cold War, have been non-state actors and insurgents highly skilled and resourceful in taking on conventional military forces in “asymmetrical warfare.” American forces have been trained, organized and indoctrinated in conventional operations using high-tech weaponry, so they have been fighting with a considerable handicap. Certainly, this issue was in play during Vietnam, and in the Iraq War, when the Army found itself out of its depth in confronting a complex insurgency after seizing Baghdad with relative ease. The United States military hasn’t done well with counterinsurgency, which always involves political as well as military conflict, and it would do well to stay clear of them in the future. Firepower, mass, maneuver, and advanced technologies—the sine qua non of the American way of war—are not effective weapons against lightly armed insurgents." - James A. Warren, The Daily Beast, Why Can’t the Most Lethal Military in History Win its Wars?

So again, when comprised of Muslims (which the left adores), insurgents wielding small arms are Kryptonite to the U.S. Military. But when comprised of tyranny resisting Americans, suddenly insurgents with small arms are hopelessly outmatched. What has by the left's own admission worked incredibly well abroad, they claim would not work at all here against that same military. The truth is it would be even more effective here. But as stated previously, leftists take whatever position benefits them at the moment, because they're all duplicitous scum. They will literally, as illustrated above, take both sides on an issue depending on which side suits their interests at the time. And obviously it doesn't behoove them to tell you that a large military (what they would be using to disarm you) has a "handicap" when facing "lightly armed insurgents."

Here's the thing, that people like Joe and Eric either intentionally omit, or being abject imbeciles fail to grasp. In the event of a conflict, the nature of which they're describing, you're going to see significant defections from the federal government, as people choose their state, local, and family interests, over a national bureaucracy to which they are nothing more than bullet fodder. How do I know that? Because that's what happened in the last civil war on American soil. ("I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.")

"Disloyalty, before unsuspected, suddenly became bold, and treason astonished the whole world by bringing at once into the field military forces superior in numbers to the standing army of the United States. Every department of the Government was paralyzed by treason. Defection appeared in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, in the Cabinet, and in the Federal courts. Ministers and consuls returned from foreign countries to enter the insurrectionary councils or land or naval force. Commanding and other officers in the army and in the navy betrayed their councils or deserted their posts for commands in the insurgent forces. Treason was flagrant in the revenue and the post office services, as well as in the Territorial Governments and in the Indian reserves. Not only Governors, judges, legislators, and ministerial officers in the States, but even whole States, rushed one after another, with apparent unanimity, into rebellion. The capital was beleaguered, and its connection with all the States cut off. Even in the portions of the country which were most loyal, political combinations and societies were found furthering the work of disunion; while, from motives of disloyalty or cupidity, or from excited passions or perverted sympathies, individuals were found furnishing men, money, materials of war, and supplies to the insurgents' military and naval forces. Armies, ships, fortifications, navy-yards, arsenals, military posts and garrisons, one after another were betrayed or abandoned to the insurgents." - Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War under President Lincoln, Feb 14, 1862.

This is what people like Joe and Eric, are either too stupid to realize, or don't want you to know. In the event of a revolution, people currently serving the federal government, are going to defect absconding with valuable intelligence and expertise. People currently serving in the U.S. Military, and familiar with F-15s and Hellfire missiles for example, will join the insurrection and bring with them valuable information about those weapons systems and how to circumvent or thwart them. This will be compounded by opportunists aiding and abetting the insurrection for their own reasons (e.g., personal profit). And all this will be in addition to a federal government that will be at a profound disadvantage, and potentially even crippled (at least initially) for a protracted period, while it regroups and tries to stem the loss of resources and absolutely copious intel leaks. (If you think the federal government is leaky now...) Let it also not be forgotten the secession of countless counties, or whole states, would have a significant effect upon the federal government financially. Being left with all the extant debt of the U.S., but a significantly diminished ability to repay (through taxation) both that debt, and any new debt it accrues during such a conflict. 

As for nuking insurgents, that assumes they'll all be in a single, or even a handful, of places. Which, as illustrated above, they won't be. They'll be dispersed throughout the country, i.e., everywhere, i.e., even among your own allies and forces. To nuke them would require nuking yourself. But apparently Eric believes irradiating large swaths of your own country, rendering much of it uninhabitable and its resources inaccessible for years, and killing large numbers of your own forces in the process is the way to put down insurgencies. Anything to save lives, for the children, etc. Kill millions, potentially tens of millions, to save thousands guys; "to protect our families and communities." Whatever it takes. And if you don't agree with us, then you want people to die.

These are the kind of people who want to run our country, and far too often, are running our country.

Simply put, it's not going to go like Joe and Eric think it will, or at least want you to think it will. What Joe and Eric are doing, is engaging in preemptive demoralization, by telling you that the enemy is too strong, that you can't possibly win, that it's impossible, and therefore you should just surrender now. There's no point in resisting because you're already conquered, and if you resist you'll just be conquered harder. They don't want you know the truth that Henry knew.

"Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us." - Ibidem.

And this obfuscation of the truth, in addition to their flagrant contempt for Founding era principles, should tell you everything you need to know about them. It's one thing to think Jefferson didn't know everything, and another to scoff at and view him with condescension if not derision. Men like Joe and Eric hate the Founders, hate America, hate your liberties, and hate you. And I don't know what's worse. The fact they're continually given a venue to espouse their hatred, or that there are actually people (if you pay attention) in the crowd smiling and nodding in agreement, as Joe verbally defecates upon the genius of a man who did more for genuine liberty in one lifetime, than a jackass like Joe would in a thousand lifetimes. These Democrat "town halls" are naught more than a spectacle of Marxist morons affirming each other's ignorance and psychopathy. That's all they've ever been, and all they'll ever be.

As I have said from the outset, I support the Second Amendment sanctuary county movement, but it is in and of itself not enough. It's merely a band-aid. If these people can infiltrate and subvert government at the federal and state level, they can certainly do it at the local level. Local elected officials can be intimidated, vilified, and bribed, and likely with far less effort and for far cheaper, into submission like elected officials at any other level of government. They can be voted out and replaced with stooges and sycophants like those at any other level. These counties must band together, into binding compacts for their mutual defense (like the colonies), or they will be dispatched one by one.

The establishment of sanctuary counties is merely the beginning of preserving and restoring liberty, which can only be achieved through the decentralization of power (back to the states and municipalities), and not the end. If it stops there, and progresses no farther, it shall all be for naught; slowly infiltrated, eroded, and dismantled from within. 

In conclusion. The "peaceful" protests have occurred. Virtually every avenue for a peaceful resolution has been exhausted, and though there have been some ancillary victories here and there, the larger conflict and assiduous assault on our liberty continues unabated. It is up to the people to decide at what point, if any, they will rebuff this tyranny in earnest. The time is rapidly approaching, if not upon us, when we must likewise ask ourselves. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" Or, renouncing our history and heritage as a God fearing and gun bearing people, do what Henry would not and "in vain indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation."

On the folly of "feminism"

As usual this is taken almost verbatim from my past social media posts.

I like how the chicks in the video literally vindicate all the criticisms of women dispensed by the guys in the audience, but are too stupid, and busy engaging in their feminist orgy of self-affirmation to realize it. You see the all too typical feminist pretentiousness on their part, manifest in the assumption that all these men should want to be with them, and/or should be approaching them and asking them out with no expectations of any sort on the woman's part. Merely being told yes, and the women choosing to be with you, is all the reward you should want or need. They're so successful you see, and "got it going on" in their own minds (and all of their vacuous ideologue friends agree with them), that these men should be lining up to be with them. And when they don't, they explain it away with self-affirming fantasies of their own making, e.g., that men must be "intimidated" by their success, or their intellect, or their strength, etc. 

As I told a chick on my social media before. You're not intimidating, you're obnoxious. Your "accomplishments" aren't attractive. Men are not women. Men don't want women for how "accomplished" they are, men want women because they have a sweet ass (1), provide companionship (2), and will be good mothers to their progeny (3). If you're intelligent (4), and can participate in "deep" dialogues, that's just a bonus. We will take the first three things, without the fourth, but we will not take the fourth thing without at least two of the first three. Hate it all you want, it won't change anything. (Personally, my life got so much better when I stopped looking for the fourth thing altogether.) That's what normal, "good" men, want. They don't go out looking for their intellectual and professional rivals. If you provide one, two, and three, the average guy isn't going to care if you can spell your own name. And it must also be understood the more devoted you are to career and accomplishment, the less likely you will be able to provide two and three. All that time you're achieving, is time your personal financial value is going up, but your value as a companion is going down. So if you've devoted your life to achievement, thinking it would win you the desire of "good" men, you messed up. I'm not saying that to be hateful, and I'm not saying it makes it impossible, but it's the simple truth of the matter. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand men.

(The chick to whom I said that? Outraged of course. She started making flagrantly antagonistic comments on my posts, messaging me and basically accusing me of being a misogynist, etc. I ended up having to block her.)

The only thing "modern" women are the victims of is what they wanted. Period. As stated in the past, the natural and inevitable result of women being freed from traditional gender roles, was men likewise being freed from such. With women now paying their own bills, and being "sexually liberated" (which is just a euphemism for promiscuous), men have little reason to marry any longer and have also shifted toward lives of self-indulgence. Women give away #1 above freely now completely eliminating the necessity of marriage to procure it, and if you prefer a life of self-indulgence free of the expense of a wife or children, there's no reason to ever go beyond that. 2, 3, and 4 become superfluous.

The response of western women to this state of affairs, is to oppose and reject traditional gender roles, but only for themselves. They still expect men to conduct themselves according to their traditional gender role, and to meet the same expectations that men had a century ago. And this double standard is conspicuously manifest in numerous ways. A primary example is the female expectation that men have equal or more money than themselves and be providers; i.e., hypergamy. A century ago, when women didn't work, it was only natural for them to expect that men have more money and provide for them. They generally didn't want to date or marry down for obvious reasons. The problem is that they still expect this despite radical social changes, imposed at their behest, that have rendered that expectation impractical if not impossible. Obviously, as women become more independent and financially successful, ever fewer men meet that criteria and the smaller the pool of eligible mates necessarily becomes. More women get college degrees than men now, but they still often expect men to have equal or better paying jobs as/than themselves, and don't want to date or marry down. And they expect this because far too many of them are completely vacuous, self-absorbed, and illogical creatures.

In yet another video, a female doctor in her thirties laments being successful, and yet alone. And her sentiments are basically the same banal nonsense you hear from all "modern" women ("feminists"). She doesn't understand why she can't find a man when, by her criteria for an eligible mate (financial parity), she's excluded arguably well over 90% of the male population. This is compounded by the fact she thinks men are looking for the same things in a mate she is; e.g., financial security/prosperity. They're not. They're looking for at least two of the three things listed above (assuming they're looking for an actual relationship). Again, four is completely optional. And the fact is there are droves of younger, more attractive women than this single doctor in her thirties, for whom men making a physician's wage will meet the criteria of dating/marrying up (as she wants to do). And those male doctors can get those women with only a fraction, or none, of the headache involved with dating and trying to prove themselves to female doctor in her thirties. 

I see this pretty consistently. These "professional" women, no longer in their prime and single, and clueless as to why. And who do they blame for it? Certainly not themselves. It's the fault of men. It's not their fault for having completely delusional expectations. All these men just don't understand how awesome and wonderful they are. And what man, real man that is, would put up with such insufferable pretension? This is why if you see a "feminist" with a male companion at all, it's invariably a beta male, because only a beta would accept being the subordinate party in a relationship.

I would like to know why they're complaining at all. They're literally complaining about what has been expected of men since the dawn of human civilization. If you were born with a penis, it was simply expected you would forfeit your happiness, your dreams, etc., to provide for a woman and children. But for the most part it would seem they (women) have no interest whatsoever in reciprocating. Pride and Prejudice (both a book and a movie) is literally a story about a rich man, who takes a women out of poverty and obscurity, and elevates her to the highest echelons of wealth and social standing. And women are okay with that. They love it. Some guy coming along and paying for all their stuff is "romantic," you see. But they will not do that for you. Tell a woman they should have to go out and be the sole bread winner for the rest of your life, or take men out of the gutter as spouses, and see what response you get. They "don't want no scrubs; a scrub is a guy who can't get no love" from them. 

I've repeatedly heard women, over the course of my life, lament the sacrifices they had to make for their children. None of them would have accepted me referring to those sacrifices, to the bearing and rearing of children, as "female privilege." No, women only construe such sacrifice as a "privilege" when speaking of men to denigrate and justify pilfering from them. It's how they avoid acknowledging, and suppressing others from acknowledging, the fact it is men who've been saddled with the burden of providing for families since time immemorial. And now that women have begun to assume that same burden they incessantly complain about how awful and lonely it is. They want the privilege without the responsibility; to have their cake and eat it too.

You'd think it would result in an epiphany for women. This is what men have been dealing with forever. Missing out on time with their families, sacrificing their hopes and dreams upon the alter of duty to feed those families, etc. But no. They derogate and vilify them for that too. When it's a man placing a career first it's "neglect," and construed as abuse, and they cheat on him or divorce him for not "being there." And don't tell me they don't because I've seen it with my own eyes. So either way, you will be vilified, and unlike women other men will not be gathering round you to affirm your discontentment and pity you. Unlike women guys don't form back patting committees to support other "strong" and "independent" single men. Because men know that genuinely strong and independent people don't need such things. The real hypocrisy is on the part of women as usual. If a man fails to meet these challenges without complaint he's deemed weak, a failure, a bum, etc., by women. Conversely, if a women fails to meet them they deserve and demand pity and sympathy, despite being allegedly "equal" to men. Women convoke to comfort one another for that which they expect men to do without comfort, or most of the time, even credit. They get together like the women in the video provided above, and have orgies of self-affirmation, in order to stay perpetually insulated from reality. They tell themselves they "intimidate" men, because to acknowledge any personal blame for their solitude would require they make concessions, and undermine the entire "feminist" mythos to which they subscribe.

Such are the sort of women who consistently "want" a man, but conspicuously have no interest in pleasing one, and often convey overt antipathy toward the very notion of having to please one in any capacity. And yet they wonder why they're single. As if their career/accomplishments should suffice to that end or something. (Again, projecting their desires, and what they value onto men.) They have no problem telling men they're not good enough, or fail to meet their standards, but are outraged when told the same or subjected to the same treatment. You have to meet my standards, but you also have to accept me for who/what I am, is the their unofficial mantra. I can be an insufferable nagging termagant, and you can be indefatigably respectful and in reverence of my womanhood. And they have the audacity to talk about "fairness," when all the onus is upon one party to change, or meet expectations.

I could go on ad nauseam about the egregious double standards employed by "feminists." (Because "feminism" is a derivative of Marxist theory, and all Marxists are hypocrites and thieves.) For example "feminists" claim they want to be treated like men, but one of the surest and fastest ways to be fired from any job, is to treat one like you would a man; i.e., when they piss you off, to tell them off, or challenge them physically. They're far more honest when they claim they want the "same opportunities" as men, because that is indeed all they want. They want the same opportunities as men. Not the the same risks, obligations, and austere treatment as men. And proof of that abounds. You merely have to be perceptive enough to discern it. For example.

"In the past," said Christina Koch, "women haven’t always been at the table." I want you to think about that statement; because it encapsulates and vindicates everything I've previously said. Men designed the rockets. Men did all the dying testing the rockets. The United States space program is built upon the genius and blood of men. But she thinks she should have a seat "at the table" because she has a vagina. The inherent Marxist bent is overtly manifest in such assertions, in that like all Marxist initiatives, its true objective is to claim ownership of something that doesn't belong to you. You didn't devise it, you didn't build it, and you didn't sacrifice for it, but you should get an "equal" share in it. That's Marxism. And if you won't give it willingly, they'll attack and vilify you until you do, or until they can sue you into oblivion, or change the law to facilitate them expelling and supplanting you. 

As I once said on my social media.

"You want to know what 'feminism' is? I'll tell you. Feminism is a woman sitting on a man's shoulders, patting herself on the back for changing a light bulb that was invented by a man, accusing the man she's sitting on of holding her down for not lifting her high enough." - Me.

Unlike Christina, who rode to space in a rocket designed and tested by men, and did a space walk in a suit designed and tested by men, I don't expect to be given a seat at the table of something in which I made no significant contribution. Because I know I don't deserve it. I don't board an airplane as a passenger and expect to be seated in the cockpit just because of the genitals I'm carrying. But that is what "feminists" expect, because "feminists" are Marxists, and the goal of all Marxists is to redistribute things from others to themselves. Not to mention "feminism" is advanced entirely by augmenting the power of government. Another indication of its Marxist origin and nature. The "feminist" doesn't want to build her own seat at the table, she wants the government to pass a new law that evicts a man from his seat, and gives it to her. Just like every Bernie Sanders supporter wants new laws that take wealth from others and gives it to them. I should be able to go to college without having to pay for it says the Bernie voter. I should get all of the benefits with none of the obligations. And what, as I've illustrated at length, do "feminists" want?

"Again, why do women have equal rights, when they do not have equal obligation to defend those rights? Do women have to register for selective service? No. Men and women have equal liberty, but only men are required to die for that liberty. This is the great con of feminism. Special privilege for women, who claim to be 'equal' for all the benefits of freedom, and yet claim to be inferior and exempted by their gender from the burdens of freedom. 'Equal' when it benefits them. And 'just girls' when it doesn't." - Me. 

As I said, "equal" when it benefits them, "just girls" again when it doesn't. This manipulation is employed by "feminists," and far too many women in general, far too often. Women, who have wanted the desegregation of virtually everything (when it benefits them), suddenly become staunch advocates of segregation when it doesn't. Women, who claim ad nauseam that they "can do anything that men can do," claim the complete converse (and demand protection from them) when forced to compete with men without a beneficial handicap. Women will of course claim that physical ability is not all that matters, and that women and men for the most part have intellectual parity, and there's truth in that. But it's also true, in my experience, that women get far more accommodation than they're ever willing to acknowledge.

In virtually every job I've ever had that employed both men and women, women were afforded more leniency and less was expected of them, for no other reason than that they were women. Especially in physically demanding jobs. They were simply allowed to do less work than men, and were not expected to bear as much physical abuse as men, because they're girls. Though they could perform the mental aspects of the job equally well, they could not perform the physical aspects of the job nearly as well, but they were never reprimanded for this. It wasn't even acknowledged (for fear of being vilified as an oppressor). Basically, it was like having a really inadequate male employee who never got fired for their poor performance. The women were never expected to perform "equally" with their male coworkers or supervisors, because those male counterparts either didn't want them to get hurt, or the men wanted to have sex with them (and therefore gave them special accommodation as a means of wooing them). As a result the other men were typically expected to compensate for their inadequacy by assuming the labor the women did not or could not do. If Bob can carry two fifty pound bags, but Kate can only carry one, someone has to carry the other bag Kate cannot.

I've also observed that women, who are so adept at discerning "male privilege" in virtually everything, never acknowledge (or even notice) the special treatment they receive themselves (no matter how conspicuous). They tend to believe they are "equal" contributors when in fact they are not. (In no small part because all of the white knighting sycophants around them, tell them they are, in the hope that kissing her ass will result in her wanting to have sex with them.) They're almost always just contributing equally in one aspect of the labor; the mental aspect. (And often not even that.) And based upon that alone they proclaim themselves "equal." If the physical aspect is broached, they will immediately seek to de-emphasize it's relevance or importance, or shame you for broaching it by implying or outright stating it's sexist/misogynistic. A woman shouldn't be judged upon her ability to perform physical labor, they'll say, or some other self-serving tripe. But she should still get a seat "at the table" with those who do it and do it far better. They should get the same praise. The same pay. The same benefits. Etc.

To young men I say this. Don't date a "feminist." Don't date a woman who coneys the slightest indication she subscribes to "feminist" (Marxist) ideology, e.g., says things like "I believe in gender equality." Fortunately, it will often be the case that they don't even have to open their mouths for you to know they're "feminists" (Marxists); because their body will be a billboard advertising that fact.

If you're a smart person, you will have more than enough on display above, to know to stay away. There are so many visual red flags here it's essentially a flashing Christmas tree of ideological AIDS. The only thing missing is dyed pink/purple/blue/green hair. A person's appearance tells you a lot about them. If they're a mess on the outside, there's a very good chance they are on the inside also. If their appearance is disheveled, and conveys dichotomy, it will usually be an indicator their beliefs and values are the same. If a woman doesn't even know how to present herself properly - one's appearance so often being a manifestation of their thoughts and preferences - that should tell you something about her ideologically.

This is a very unpopular opinion in a society incessantly taught that "you shouldn't judge a book by its cover." A book's cover bears its title, however, which allows you to know what a book's about without having to read it. (Yes, I know old books were hand bound and didn't necessarily have titles, etc. If that's what you're getting out of this you're missing the point.) We have eyes for a reason. They're a means of obtaining information and that information is very often (almost always) printed right on the cover. If that cat approaching you is really big, and has long black stripes on it, it's probably a tiger. If that girl approaching you has her boobs and ass hanging out for everyone to see she's probably an insipid slut. You shouldn't disregard the visual information being provided to your brain in the latter instance any more than the first.

(I've actually had a chick argue with me that I couldn't judge this woman based upon her appearance. Despite the fact she's a "vegan" and openly states she's more afraid of "white supremacy" than Islamic terrorism. The chick arguing with me, naturally, had her hair dyed some oddball color. So, she took it as an indirectly applicable to her, which it was.)

For the same reasons you should be extremely wary of anyone who says stupid things like "I don't conform to established labels." Because those people are almost always, without fail the dumbest human beings you'll ever meet, and the epitome of well established designations like "Marxist." 

As the Bible says.

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, 'Look! This is something new?' It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time." - Ecc 1:9.

These people didn't come up with some hitherto never before seen way of looking at the world. They're just dumb hippies, who invariably fit into well established ideological designations, but are too stupid to know they do. And you should likewise eschew anyone who uses the word "equality" in any serious capacity at all. Equality is a Marxist myth. It's never existed in the real world and never will.

"Inequalities of mind and body are so established by God Almighty in his constitution of human nature, that no art or policy can ever plane them down to a level. I have never read reasoning more absurd, sophistry more gross, [...] than the subtle labors [...] to demonstrate the natural equality of man. [...] The golden rule, do as you would be done by, is all the equality that can be supported or defended by reason or common sense." - John Adams, July 13, 1813.

"Feminism," like all Marxist derivatives, is a form of psychosis. 

"If I claimed to be 'equal' in strength to a gorilla, how many of you would think me intelligent for holding that belief? And yet 'feminists' routinely ostentatiously profess a belief in 'equality' with bigger, stronger primates than themselves (men), and are entertained and even lauded for it. And of course feminists, being [...] deluded and interminably paroxysmic [...] will be outraged by such objectivity. Imagine going through life always angry that you're not as strong or fast as a grizzly bear. Imagine demanding laws that force everyone else to pretend you are as strong as a grizzly bear or they'll be expelled from school, fired, jailed, etc. Understand that and you will understand what it is to be a 'feminist.''' - Me. 

And for the sake of all that is holy and good, do not have children with a woman like the one depicted above. She'll raise them to hate you. If they're boys, she'll also raise them to hate themselves and their masculinity, and in the process potentially turn them into sexual deviants.

As always, being the generous dude I am, I offer these sentiments for no charge. This isn't some proclamation of my infallibility or anything, obviously. Though a reasonable person would know that without needing to be told. It's more of a community service. Take it for what you will.