Image

Any Comments?


About these ads

32 responses to “Any Comments?

  1. It seems that Mr. Wallace is against the idea that a woman owns her own body, and should instead become a baby machine and subservient to the wishes of men and society. How Islamic, or Catholic, a view.

  2. Who’s Bob Wallace and why should we give a damn what he thinks?

  3. Doesn’t alter the fact that there is a large amount of truth in what he says. If , for example,women did not have the vote, it is unlikely that shite like Camoron, Clinton, Bliar (esp Bliar), Bush and Obama would have been elected or even considered electable. It is very foolish to have an overly rosy view of the human race and/or an overly “romantic” view of women.

  4. In the UK, women tend to vote Tory more than men.

  5. 1) There’s no such thing as ‘women’. I mean yes, as a desgnation of the female of the human species, but to group all women together in this way is preposterous. Women are as diverse in their outlook as men.
    2) For some reason, there are very few, hardly any in fact, women among the great composers. I believe this pattern is repeated throughout the arts and sciences. I have no idea why this should be – I’m just throwing it in.
    3) It’s probably true to say the majority of advocates for abortion are women. ‘A woman’s right to choose’ etc.
    3

  6. Having trouble with my computer, so here’s a continuation; – Of course it is not a woman’s right to choose at all. Would a woman claim the right to choose to murder her newborn infant? Then what gives her the right to murder a child in her womb? We can dress it up with words like ‘termination’, but to me there is no difference at all.

    4) I believe wives were the legal property (or chattels) of their husband until quite late in the 19th century.

  7. Part 3 (my computer will only let me type so much at a time). I just threw last last in as an observation, but I believe the notion of ‘one man one vote’ (or one woman)is fundamentally flawed. The only people who should vote are taxpayers. They should decide how their money is spent. Once you get welfare recipients voting themselves more of other people’s money you’re on a slippery slope to bankruptcy.

    • “Once you get welfare recipients voting themselves more of other people’s money you’re on a slippery slope to bankruptcy.”

      But taxpayers are themselves welfare recipients in the form of tax-credits, make-work and public-sector jobs. The only people who add real value to the economy IMHO are some small business owners, R&D, various technicians and the slaves on the production line working for peanuts – I’d only give them the vote ;-).

  8. The State IS female reactionism. A uterus is far far more valuable than sperm, so there is a biological tendency to preserve female interests over male ones. Biology precedes culture which feeds back to reinforce it in the most efficient way possible. Modernity has made male provision/productivity less relevant in a survival sense – thus the mass of men need to be demonised and downgraded, while the men at the top become more desirable than ever (as in the early human tribes). Manginas and traditionalist White Knights assist this process without even being aware of it….

    The best summary I’ve read of what is really going on can be found here:

    http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

  9. This comment posted of Ally Frogg’s blog sums up growing male anger:

    “Allow me to tell you something in plain old simple English. I am a man and I am sick of being ignored. I am sick of hearing how bad women have it in this country when in actual fact they have exactly the same opportunities as men and probably live safer lives as a result of being afforded greater protection. The amount of media attention that women get is grossly disproportionate and way out of context. Feminism has completely brain-washed the public (via the media) into believing that only women can have it bad. This trend is relentless in its pursuit to indoctrinate our society with the notion that women’s rights is unparalleled in terms of social importance and now it appears we’re in a rut which is bringing significant harm to men and our young generation of boys.

    I’m sick of hearing about women on boards, no, seriously I am, and I can pretty much guarantee that there are millions of men who feel the same. There are far too many do-gooders (usually either feminists, white knights or people just a wee bit dense between the ears) who are too scared to stand up for the principles of merit. I’m sick of hearing about how the government should support getting more women on boards when I don’t hear a single thing about getting more women to do some of the other important jobs, which, incidentally contribute to 98% of workplace deaths! The term ‘cherry-picking’ springs to mind!

    I’m fed up of hearing about violence against women when there is FAR more violence against men in today’s World. I’m sick of hearing about female genital mutilation without reference to male genital mutilation. And I’m sick of politicians and their ‘female friendly’ policies, which quite frankly are wearing thin. I’m also sick to death of every other advert demonising men, making them look like idiotic morons or sexually objectifying them in an age which, apparently, sees this as acceptable. I’m sick of reading about how lads’ mags should get banned whilst no one contemplates the damage that wrestling mags may have on young boys and it’s unbelievable how zero reference is made to the plethora of underaged shirtless boys there are in girls magazines who are plainly there for the pleasure of girls. I’m sick of how the news reports disasters as comprising of ‘women and children’ . Can you imagine tomorrow’s headlines as: “Disaster strikes. Over 150 killed including 40 men and children”? I thought not! The list goes on and on…

    Actually, I’ve come to realise that indeed the pendulum has swung so far the other way that it’s now stuck in the freaking ceiling, held there by a bunch of hypocritical, selfish, self-centred, bigoted, illogical feminists and white knights who are holding it up by the skin of their teeth. It’s time to let go and set that pendulum ticking again because things have already got way out of hand. I read your first couple of paragraphs and this is what made me put pen to paper:

    To be blunt, I was less than impressed by the idea and saw no particular reason to add to whatever publicity was already afloat. If I’m honest, I was kind of hoping that if we all ignored it, it would go away.

    Let me enlighten you – it won’t go away. Mike [Buchanan] is doing a sterling job and he’s representing millions of men like me who are sick of reading, watching and listening to feministic trash that does more harm to society than good. I am all for equality and equal opportunity, I believe that men and women are of equal importance and should be afforded equal rights and protection. it’s just that enough is enough and the petty little game that most political parties are playing whereby they pander to women in the hope to get their votes has become as transparent as glass and is highly offensive.

  10. In reply to Hugo’s second point:
    The reason there are not many female great composers is because whilst male and female average IQ is measurably the same, men’s IQ shows more variance. There are more men than women with extremely high IQ and more men than women with extremely low IQ. I think this accounts for the seeming disparity.
    I know being a great composer might not be necessarily directly linked to IQ, but maybe the same idea of differing variance applies to composing skill as to IQ.

  11. It’s not really a “women” thing and this is really typical of the human brain’s innate preference for generalising about classes. This is advantageous in human reasoning in general- “the big stripey orange animals are dangerous, avoid them”- but tends to lead us into error when trying to do more general reasoning.

    The problem we have is the triumph of a rather small cohort of well connected “insider” upper class women, who initiated and continue to propel the Feminist Movement. Confusing feminists with all women is the same as confusing communist activists with all workers, or whatever. The reality is that, just as the commies did labour more harm than good, the Feminists have done women more harm than good; except even more extremely.

    It is the reality that many or most women tacitly or overtly support the Feminazi State and Feminism, at least in parts. But again in our analogy, this is much the same as the coal miner supporting the (communist dominated) trade union because it gets him better wages and showers at the pit head. We really must not confuse these things.

    It’s not about women “getting loose to do as they please”. I have argued til I’m blue in the face that the genius of the “West” is individualism and part of that is the virtually unique avoidance of mistreating and closeting women in our culutre historically. The idea of the submissive wife is an alien import via Orientalist religion and culture, and it is thus no surprise that the most fervent promotion of it- including the “two spheres” ideology- has been in puritan dominated places and times. European women were always “loose”, active and working outside the home, etc. European marriage is virtually unique in being treated as a romantic coming together of equals rather than a bartering of women by elders. And this is part of our genius.

    So let’s have a go at feminism- lock stock and two smoking barrels. But not “women”. That is a fundamental mistake.

    • “So let’s have a go at feminism- lock stock and two smoking barrels. But not “women”. That is a fundamental mistake.”

      Trouble is, there’s still going to be lots of angry women taking pot-shots as us because they’ve been brainwashed into thinking that we’ve all had it nice N easy for millennia.

  12. Why are there no comments from women?????

  13. “The reason there are not many female great composers is because whilst male and female average IQ is measurably the same, men’s IQ shows more variance. ”
    Interesting idea, but I don’t buy it. I have a high IQ, bu I don’t have a creative bone in my body. An aptitude for music, like maths, is something you are born with. That’s why there are child prodigies in both spheres. .

    • Hugo. Creativity is not always associated with intelligence. It is well documented that males have more genetic variation than females, this variation is more likely to produce a scientist or a serial killer in males than females – this is the biological trade-off that males pay.

      As for ‘child prodigies’, some have had more practice in their particular fields by the age of six, than an adult will have in a lifetime. Nurture still plays an important role – especially in the early years of development.

  14. Well, I can’t think of many great composers of recent times, period. I can think of a lot of great female pop songwriters and performers though.

    Classical music is effectively a dead art form kept alive by government subsidies, direct and indirect, and its “great” canon dates from a time when one can reasonably agree that men had far more opportunities to succeed than women in it. As such it just isn’t a very good field to look at.

  15. I am in favour of abortion on demand and against all anti-discrimination laws on principle. I reperat-who IS Bob Wallace?

  16. marklibertarian

    If we abolished welfare, public healthcare, public education, and introduced a law of Free Private Contract (thereby eliminating all employment legislation and much more besides), then these anomalies would gradually disappear as a more *natural* order asserted itself. For example, whether or not a woman received a year’s paid maternity leave – at the end of which she had the right to take up her old position or one of equal remuneration – would become a matter of negotiation between her and her employer. If she worked on a checkout then the answer would be No because the proprietor can easily find a thousand people who can work on a checkout. But if she is a highly-skilled employee or a senior manager who has become entrenched in the firm and her departure would be a big inconvenience to the business then the answer would most likely be Yes.

    Which, of course, is all a *natural* thing and should be uncontroversial in a *natural* order, in the absence of state-enforced “equality”. If I need someone to fix my plumbing and one bidder says, Yes I will do the job for you, but it will be in nine months from now because I am doing something else at the moment, then I will tell him to stop wasting my time and I will choose the other plumber who can do it next week (or today if it is urgent). Yet this entirely natural and rational economic choice has been outlawed by the socialist state, in the name of “equality”. But “equality” is irrelevant to me. My pipe has a leak and I need it fixed now. There are customers purchasing from my store, I need someone working the till to take the money – now.

    Which – to answer an earlier question – is probably why there are no women commenting on here because (I am guessing) there are not many female libertarians, for the same reason that there are not many poor libertarians or libertarians on benefits, or Third World immigrant libertarians, or people from any group that benefits significantly from the socialist state, because turkeys don’t vote for Christmas as they say, which is both the genius and the wickedness of the socialist system: to make as many people as possible dependent on it for their basic needs so as to ensure that it can never be eliminated by democratic means.

    And no, I am not convinced that a libertarian system would be a great leveller, to the same extent as the current state coercion has been, because much of it is not *natural* or rational, as I tried to show above, and free people would not make the same economic choices that egalitarians want them to make.

    • “there are not many poor libertarians or libertarians on benefits”

      I must be one of a kind then ;-)

      Slightly off topic – but it’s refreshing to see an outside analysis of the mess the UK is in:

  17. There aren’t many rich libertarians either. There aren’t many libertarians at all, come to that.

    But this is why I’ve long argued that libertarians must learn to argue that a libertarian society won’t just abolish welfare, but will so reduce the need for it that it will become a trivial matter that can be handled in that context. This would not interest a professional dole scrounger, but there are far fewer of those thatn some people seem to think there are. The prospect of ordinary wages greatly increasing in spending power under a libertarian regime, such that people will not be begging for benefits top ups etc, is much more appealing to the majority who wish simply to support themselves and have a little over for a treat or two, rather than the current constant struggle to survive.

  18. marklibertarian

    A libertarian system *might* lead to a better distribution of wealth and opportunity – this was Milton Friedman’s view – that we should aim for freedom rather than equality and we will end up with a society containing a high degree of equality as a side effect (but that simply aiming for equality will eliminate freedom) . Or it may not. How can we be sure? How do we know that most people will be better off? Can we be sure that these various “victim” groups will not still be “victims” in this new order? If I am not required by law to employ women on an equal footing to men then I probably will not do so if I perceive that there is some potential disadvantage to my business. If I am not required by law to give half of my income to the welfare of people who I have never met then I probably will not choose do so voluntarily. If I am not required by law to enter into a contract with someone I dislike then I probably will not do so as long I can find someone else to complete the transaction. Etc.

    Maybe there will be vast slums where the poor will live in squalor. There will be no welfare and only the religionists will be helping them because they believe that they have a reward in Heaven for doing so. Maybe there will be parts of the city inhabited by junkies who are dying in the street, because in a free market system you will be unlikely to be able to insure yourself against the effects of drug usage. Who will voluntarily provide health insurance to a crack addict? The religionists might help you – so you had better learn to speak in tongues and fall down when the preacher places his hand on your forehead.

    Maybe women’s role in society will be shifted back a century when all the legal privileges are removed.

  19. People have swallowed utopian socialist bullshit for more than 150 years and despite having their nose rubbed in the evil ordure of socialism’s real-world results are still supporting it.

    If you–“marklibertarian” (in the form of the troll that you are) don’t have enough wit to see how much better even the half-fascism we have is than socialism (better because it is half-market also) then you need serious help. The market freed from the 50%+ state oppression we all now suffer under will do better indeed. You want some kind of absolute guarantee?. See the first paragraph above.

  20. Mr. Wallace is a raiser of hackles indeed. The entire essay, from which this quote was extracted, can be found here:

    http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2013/10/feminists-in-dock.html

  21. “It seems that Mr. Wallace is against the idea that a woman owns her own body, and should instead become a baby machine and subservient to the wishes of men and society. How Islamic, or Catholic, a view.”

    I love how girls, even when ostensibly, male, read ideas into articles when they’re not there.

  22. It annoys the tits off me when people just latch onto bits of scientific (in that case, evolutionary) theory without any sort of real grasp of the subject and then, clutching the isolated fragment of science to their heaving breast, race off into the distance towards the foregone conclusion that drew them to said fragment in the first place.

  23. ^ Good Lord, I was right. A man with breasts, which means an ignorantfemaletleftist (one word).