So you’re a helpless victim, but you control the economy (paradox much?)

There’s this docummentary going around (whine-omettary?) called miss-representation. It’s whining about how the media doesn’t cater to women enough… and one of the things they keep saying is “we women control 84% of purchasing, so pander to us more”… “oh and btw, we’re victims”

How can you control the consumer-based-economy, and be a victim at the same time? It’s just like that other femmie paradox “Women are intellectually and spiritually and mentally superior to men, but they got tricked and duped by those sneaky men”.

How can an inferior person trick you and manipulate you and control you? Paradox much? And not only that, all men on planet earth performed the same manipulations and tricks without ever even talking to one another. Even remote tribes that have had no contact with anyone in 3000 years, are found to have the same gender roles -> did they get the telepathic memo from our manly telepathic plotting channel? You know, where we secretly plot against da wimminz using telepathy?

Also, the entire “logic” behind this misrepresentation movement is “The media are to blame for women’s laziness”

It says that more women aren’t trying to become CEOs and leaders and what not, because there’s not enough such women shown in the media… Well, to that I have a simple question. If the media determined women’s laziness or pro-activity, how come it doesn’t apply to women’s passivity in the mating sphere?

In most of those same shows, ads and movies – women are represented as amazingly confident heroines and seductresses. In fact, most men born on this planet have only seen a woman making the first move on a TV show – but never in real life, with either himself or other men.

If the media supposedly is to blame for women’s laziness in politics, then how do you explain women’s laziness in the mating and courtship spheres? Women in the media have been FAR FAR FAR more active that real life women since the birth of hollywood. In movies and TV, there’s always a seductresses who confidently and boldly takes the helm and pro-actively takes what she wants in her love life and sex-life… Yet these women are surprisingly rare in real life (and often ugly, sorry to have to be blunt). Megan Fox look-alikes that go around pro-actively pursuing men in real life? It’s nowhere to be found. In the media they’re one of the most common female characters.

At that, you might respond “AHA!! But that’s coz most women don’t look that hot! The media teaches you that you can only be pro-active if you look like Megan Fox!!!” -> Nice bullshit attempt mon ami, but most guys don’t look like Zac Effron or George Clooney, but any non-celibate guy on the planet has been making moves his entire life. So again, your media excuse bullshit is just extremely poor.

Stop blaming the media for women’s laziness. Until I see you speak up about women’s laziness in courtship, I ain’t buying this “women need to be 50/50 in everything” mentality. This is why the only femmies I have ever dialogued with, were femmies who admit women aren’t 50/50 and need to do more in this sphere. Heck, I’ve even talked to radfems just because they accepted that women are lazy in dating and need to do more.

Unlike fence-sitters, I decided a while ago that femmies are not to be had a dialogue with, for a very simple reason. A person who ignores the number one single biggest area where male/female gender roles clash is intellectually dishonest. How can you talk about male/female relations and passivity/activity, but leave out the biggest elephant in the room? That means you have NO honest interest in discussing gender.

Let me remind you, these people DENY it is even theoretically possible that men and women have ANY differences in proclivities. In other words, if in a certain sphere, men and women do things differently, that is ALWAYS a matter of nurture and is NOT to be even debated.

How can you take the concept that “men and women need to be 50/50 in every area of life” as some sort of “universally-given-constant” that is not to be argued or even debated – but then never mention the fucking biggest area of life that isn’t 50/50? It’s the one single area that impacts all men and women (and het/met/hom/lgbt/cis/dis/trans/mans/whatnot) ever born on planet earth. In fact, we wouldn’t be born or even exist without courtship -> It is like the META-frame that encircles all else that is gender and all that is human… It is the one thing behind all the billions of people to have ever been born on planet earth. It’s the big fucking elephant that they go out of their way to avoid even mentioning -> because they still haven’t found a way to rationalize it away.

IN FACT MATING IS THE WHOLE REASON biological sex and gender exists in the first place. To never mention it is like discussing cars and never mentioning engines, or discussing planes and never discussing flight.