21 September, 2009

Alex Linder on Women vs. Men

Posted by Socrates in "sex equality", Alex Linder, egalitarianism, men, men vs. women, Socrates, women at 4:52 pm | Permanent Link

“What a perfect illustration the girl is of the difference between male and female intelligence. The girl is obviously smart. She gives the ‘right’ answer – which to a female is always the textbook answer, what the tea(c)her or book says is correct. Not one female in 1,000,000 can think differently than this. Women are repeaters. It is not in them to originate or create anything but a baby except in the most unusual case. This girl is the perfect example of why I say smart girls always come across like ball-retrieving dogs, all but waving their tails. Or parrots. That ‘I said what you wanted’ pleasedness on their face is just funny, I used to sit back in AP English and just enjoy the show. Plenty of women are smart, but only in a mechanical sense. You can just tell the blonde girl would be bereft if she had to figure any real problem out by the way she shrinks when she hears something that has blood and mud on its muzzle. Smart women are just able to access the answer authority wants to hear quicker than others – but they can’t truly think about anything. It really is true, what Schopenhauer (said) – men are what is referred to when we speak of humans. Women are just ways of getting new men. I truly wonder if anybody has ever calculated the incalculable loss to human technical and artistic creation in spending such a high percentage of our dollars the last 100 years ‘educating’ muds, retards and women.”

[VNN Forum post].

  • 215 Responses to “Alex Linder on Women vs. Men”

    1. 2050 Says:

      This was a fun thread, I enjoyed most of it.

      Yeah, that old perv jew Roman Polanski must have figured he had no worries left. Just the fact that such a slimeball jew is in the background of a notorious murder is strange. or to be expected. Nutty hippy cult kills ST. RP probably hired them.

    2. Tim McGreen Says:

      There are still a lot of rumors surrounding those August ’69 killings in SoCal. How convenient that Polanski just happened to be out of town when his wife was murdered. He was at the Playboy Club in London shagging some stewardesses or Bunnies or both when he got the news….But that still wouldn’t explain why the LaBiancas were killed the next evening by the same crew (minus Sadie Mae Glutz). They didn’t even know the Polanskis.

    3. grant Says:


      though I do not know the aspects surrounding Peter Shank but on VOR he spoke about woman…

    4. Sean Gruber Says:

      jc said

      “And bitter experience does not teach much useful about human nature.”

      If experience doesn’t teach us about nature, what does? Your sermons?

    5. Go get an education Says:

      All of you racist and sexist idiots need to get over yourselves.

      Isn’t it funny that you all claim women cannot entertain original thought, yet you simply repeat each other and yourselves over and over again?

      If you were so creative, so imaginative, so original, wouldn’t you be thinking something OTHER than what men thought thousands of years ago?

      If women are so dimwitted, why are you even complaining? Surely, strong, intelligent men could deal with this issue in manly silence? Surely, it would be the easiest of tasks to keep these absolutely stupid women in the kitchen.

      What I simply don’t understand is that, you can look at a woman and not believe that that woman has her own hopes for the future. Honestly, who are you to demand she does not try to fulfill those hopes?

    6. -JC Says:

      Carpenter is correct and that was the point of not only permitting but encouraging so called woman’s suffrage. It was the point of the 18-year-old vote– that “if you’re old enough to be drafted and die for your country then you’re old enough to vote.”

      Vietnam vets will recall how amenable young men, primarily looking at the pictures, were to the left-liberal Playboy Philosophy that was slipped-in to their “reading matter.” Young, inexperienced men are quite receptive to such material couched in that sort of venue. Consider the sort of trash that publishes print and online porn and the effect it has on relations between the sexes that ought to lead to mentally and spiritually healthy offspring generally.

      Its been said that if you’re not a liberal in your youth then you have no heart and, if you’re not conservative when you grow-up then you have no mind, or something to that effect. I don’t buy that and attribute it primarily to many of the conditions of the post-modern world or at least America.

      My wife recently told me of a discussion on a relatively right-wing talk radio discussion with many more than usual call-ins, and the host asked if listeners were watching as much television. The consensus was that, no, they not only had stopped watching television but that they were onto that it was targeting the lowest common denominator and those who were home, maybe on some kind of public assistance or at least didn’t get out and spend their time productively, and minority youth and women.

      Visiting yesterday with a retired special forces friend who always has FAUX NEWS turned-on in the background, I noticed that FOX is apparently after Obama and was using his response to the ongoing oil spill to make themselves look like the polar opposite of the Marxist communists currently riding high. Now I’m wondering what they have planned besides higher prices for all fuel, etc. Not being a TV viewer at all and being fascinated by FOX, I suppose they are rather like cow punchers on a drive trying to turn those somewhat dissatisfied with the speed at which the nation is being taken-down before a stampede ensures.

      Based on what I’ve seen from the local Tea Party, deracinated as it is, tolerating, being careful not to offend, being entertained and led from the stage at the largest gatherings, and apparently wanting to appeal to mulattoes and mestizos, they aren’t strong enough to cause much change. And I noticed how they were being represented by FOX as multicultural. An attrractive female mestizo talking head was used to criticize the Mexican government’s response to the shooting of the 15-year-old rock thrower shot by a Border Patrolman this last week, etc., transparently for her influence on White men; my pal pointed that out to me.

      The Jew is jealous of the best in Whites and mocks “The meat it feeds on.” -Shakespeare (Othello, Act 3, Scene 3)

    7. David Baker Says:

      Get an education,

      I’ve heard quite a few unflattering comments from women about men, too. So, do you leap to the male’s defense as a crusader against “Sexism”? Women are so easily manipulated by the media, it seems all someone in that realm requires is a script that compliments women, then a pitch for whatever they want from women. (In the case of liberals, it’s their votes). Original thoughts may not be solely the domain of males, but women think differently than men, and they are natural nurturers and supporters. Where we may differ in opinion is on the amount of hypocrisy inherent in the women’s movement. They insist on “Equality”, but if they’re not up to par with established standards of physical and mental qualifications for any job, those standards are ‘adjusted’ to accommodate females, not only in the context of qualification, but PREFERENCE. I’ll tell you what, let’s say all state and federal laws requiring the employment and promotion of women were eliminated. No company would be penalized if they refused employment to women, OR men. All set-asides for government agencies to contract with companies headed by females would be rescinded. No “Family Leave” for pregnant women would be required. No Child Care services would be required. Those conditions would leave firms with the choice of hiring who they want. (Except illegal aliens, of course. Another liberal voting block..) Do you believe that would be equitable? Do you think such changes would “Level the Playing Field”?

      Of course, women would scream to the high heavens if A-N-Y of these conditions were eliminated. They so tenaciously hang on to the court’s/government’s liberal organizations, they actually think these services are a RIGHT. I’ll say it again: Every liberal program in existence would end tomorrow if liberals were made to pay the full costs of those programs.

    8. Mary O Says:

      Affirmative Action doesn’t help White women that much, unless they take some job that is mostly held by men; but in those cases, there is usually a reason why women don’t generally want the job.

      Also, when a women wins a promotion based on her hard work and merit, someone will always say that she only got it because she is a woman.

      Most White women would prefer to have a lesser job than to be promoted unfairly over better-qualified men. The women who would succeed under a merit-based system would have greater respect.

      One thing I hate though is this new push to get young girls (12-15) into sports.

      A normal interest in exercise for health, fitness and fun is fine, but this pressure for girls to seriously compete in team sports is an unnatural social construct.

      On the radio, this Sunday, June 20, they were interviewing a local (Westchester County NY) girls coach named Bob Something.

      The vulgarity of his speech was despicable. He assured that the interviewer that he knew just how to reassure the girl who is upset that she had “played out of her ass” that day. Bob claims that he is friends with all of the girls’ parents, too. Do Westchester parents actually allow men to talk to their young daughters with language straight from a gutter? My father would have punched him out cold, if he ever dared to use such an expression in front of us girls.

      The interviewer praised Bob that he had never seen any girl react negatively to his criticism. He made the mistake of asking one of the girls how he managed to avoid hurting any of her teammates’ feelings. “Ohhh, it’s because he’s … Bob” she managed to pant out in a breathy Marilyn Monroe voice.

      So these young women are soon approaching the natural age for starting a family. What does our society give them as preparation? Orders to jump through hoops (like girls soccer & lacrosse) all for the privilege of being allowed to be part of Bob’s platonic (we hope) harem: a tenth-rate imitation of the commitments and family that they really want and need.

      Then we had to listen to Bob explain how his girls “dominate” and how great those “dominating” skills will help them in future job interviews.

      He is basically trying to convert them into guys.

      The Chinese are criticized for killing girl babies, but forcing young women to be something that they are not is almost just as bad.

      Also, I have heard fathers of teen girls brag of their daughter’s team sport performance just as if they were talking about a son. “My girl is captain of the team. She dominates …”

      This concept of girls needing to dominate other girls promotes lesbianism.

      Meanwhile the local newspapers waste ink on these girls. They look terribly unfeminine snarling with teeth protectors & holding bats high.

      Feminist women are blamed for this girls sports phenomenon, but the biggest backers are men.

    9. David Baker Says:

      Mary O., I don’t watch, back, promote or otherwise care about women’s sports. I DO donate to the Girl Scouts, because that organization is dedicated to helping young girls learn valuable teamwork and goal attaining skills. I DO donate to family feeding organizations (and I wish more people did) because they are very short on supplies, and people who need such services are growing in number. Perhaps you could respond to my query. What if every state, federal and local program to force employers to hire and promote women were eliminated? What if lawyers couldn’t sue deep pocket companies for discrimination against females; sexual or otherwise? These are programs that have institutionalized discrimination against men. Why do men have to wait to be hired just because women are applying for the same job, but must be hired due to Affirmative Action? These laws have done little more than create a fertile environment for liberals to form voting blocks, and Jewish lawyers to clean up with litigation against companies who don’t comply with their labryinth of rules and workplace etiquette. I guarantee if all of those rules were thrown out, and companies had their druthers on hiring, they would hire males for most types of work.

    10. Mary O Says:

      Back in the 1960s, a Playboy mentality took over the society. This magazine presented women as just seeing men as “free meal tickets,” and debased the value of all the work that women were doing at the time: raising and caring for children, the sick, and elderly relatives, taking care of the home, and other social and family-related activities.

      Young men don’t want to support a wife, and they don’t really want children that much. This fact was always true; therefore, older societies (like Ancient Rome) rewarded them for marriage and fatherhood with higher status & privilege. Today there are no real incentives for making commitments, because our society hates women. Result: no children.

      In other cultures, young men want to be head of a family, and they want many children. They don’t seem to have this resentment of having to support a woman at all. People deride Islam as being hateful toward women, but our society forces women to give up their infants to daycare while they pursue jobs which are usually mind-numbingly boring.

      If a woman cannot raise her own child, what really is the point of having a child? Here, in Westchester Co., you can see the sweetest little White children being in the care of gruff immigrant women (usually Jamaican), with whom the mothers themselves would not even bother to share a cup of tea.

      OTOH Most mothers would rather just stay home and raise their own children, but if a woman does stay home for a long period of time, she loses all her “experience” on the resume. On return to the workplace, she would be starting from scratch.

      Plus, these marriages with the wife who stays home are not necessarily the most stable. By putting her own earning power in jeopardy, she is risking her children’s welfare; since she may become their sole support. Despite all the talk about how men pay, women are more likely financially devastated by the divorce.

      A woman’s income these days serves as a “pay-as-you-go” dowry, which is worse sexism than the “your family pays once” dowry of olden times.

      Also, a man’s family often discourages his marriage and starting his own family, because they want him to maximize his formal education. This way the son acts as greater tribute to themselves: “my son, who has 2 phds, which I would have had too , if only … ”

      Vicious circle: society hates women, forces young women to act as guys (combat, career, lacrosse), denies them the opportunity for motherhood during the prime years (roughly 19 – 27), refuses to support them in motherhood, therefore not enough children are born, and therefore the White race is losing out demographically, and therefore politically, and therefore (in the long term) financially. Then, White men have more trouble getting jobs, which makes them less inclined towards starting a family, which forces women to act as guys …

      How do you stop a vicious circle? You just have to stop feeding it. You don’t have a good job? You can’t afford children? Have them anyway. Make commitments anyway. Might take 15 years, but the White race would recover in numbers, and push the foreigners out. The immigrants won’t come here, if we have already committed every penny to supporting our own people.

      And, even without EEO, some women would be more inclined by nature to pursue a career. Read somewhere that in the Victorian era, 25% of women neither married nor had children. Authors Willa Cather, Tolstoi & Henry James describe individual men and women who simply decide to remain single. Also, if you read peerage books, you see the same pattern: people would have a very large family of more than six children, but several of the children would never even marry. Therefore, society should esp. support those women who are so inclined to be mothers.

    11. Jim Says:

      An excellent comment, Mary O. I agree with almost everything you said. However, our society, based on jewish values, does not HATE women. It hates WHITE women AND WHITE men. Through jewish feminism, the jews have driven a wedge between our two sexes, and have tried to implement a society whereby White men are feminized and White women are masculinized, thereby vastly reducing the White birth rate. Through their control of the media, the jews always promote miscegenation with the negro, by portraying strong, intelligent negroes with White women. White women, as well as White men have got to wake up and kick out the jews, before the jews have genocided us out of existance.

    12. Mary O Says:

      Jim, I totally agree. Everything I said relates to White women, and the harm being done to the White race. Our society hates White men as well, not just White women.

    13. -JC Says:

      This has been a good discussion; I don’t usually subscribe but think this an important topic. I especially like Mary after hearing her last couple of posts. For those of you with the time and attention span, here’s a post from a remarkable woman:

      Full text of “Seven Financial Conspiracies Which Have Enslaved the the American Peopleā€ by Mrs. Sarah E.V. Emery Cached


    14. -JC Says:

      ESorry: Eliminate that first portion of the link address as I’ve apparently got some kind of Trojan problem. Start with http://www.archive.org

    15. -JC Says:

      Women’s sports and the emaciated look associated with fashion models and soccer playing, etc., not to mention poor food choices and families not sitting-down to meals together, contributes to low body fat in young women who naturally already have ‘girlish figures’ and that contributes to infertility. Accident?