Goodbye, USA. Nice Knowing You.

Good job, feminists.

Welcome to the beginning of our end.

The House Armed Services Committee voted Wednesday to include the provision requiring women to register in the 2017 Defense Bill. Congress is not expected to finalize the bill until this fall.
Although I do understand that it is indeed more fair that an involuntary draft be shared by both genders, I also know that it would have not been necessary if not for the women that insisted and continue to insist that women should be men. That women are, in fact, better at being men, than men.
Well, now that they’ve convinced the government I predict it will not go well the very first time women are required to show up after receiving their draft notice.
Either they will pitch a hissy fit and demand a reprieve, or they will go to war and everyone dies. Everyone they are encumbering on the front lines, that is.
This is just a quick rant. I’ll have to dive deeper in the next post.
God, we might be doomed. Thank a feminist.

9 thoughts on “Goodbye, USA. Nice Knowing You.

    1. It is a remarkably sad reality. I don’t understand why or how this society has accepted the insanity. Women have for 40 years been told they can do whatever they want, be whatever they want..and men have been told nothing accept to play fair. Play nice.

      Women will die on the front lines. They will compromise men in battle. They will not serve in the same way as male soldiers.

      This is a terrible mistake. If the draft is involuntary and all young people are called to war, if our granddaughters are fighting a future enemy with weapons of war, society will have proven itself gone absolutely mad.
      I for one will just continue nurturing the ego of the men in my life and dismantling the anti-logic of feminism in every conversation I engage with feminist ideology. When society crosses the bridge of sanity, I just hope I’m not alive to witness it. I can hope.


  1. are you going to dismantle feminism just to go back to the old way… where men died and women lived? No thanks… If there has to be a war, women first. We have sacrificed to many male lives already. It;s time for WOMEN to die on the front lines. They won’t endanger men. Let them suck up the first 2 million casualties to weaken the enemy… then the men can do the clean up job. Men have been pissed on from a great hight by women… we are not going back to the status quo ante… no way.


    1. Thought provoking question and comments.
      I’ll try to think it through to a logical conclusion and respond.
      First, I am not going to dismantle feminist doctrine or the violence it does to society on any scale larger than my personal scope of influence. This has, thus far, been what I have taught my daughters and what I espouse with as much consistency and persuasion I am able to the younger women that I am invested in as a friend or mentor. I can only hope that the diseased thinking and destructive behavior of misandry will be at least this much less in addition to how these women may choose to also live in a manner that models their values.
      I believe it is most important, first, that women be willing and committed to personal accountability and a truthful recognition of our innate tendencies that are prone towards using our unexamined emotions as valid references and using our words to extract power over others or to injure, deceive and manipulate. Where men may be called to be in control of unchecked use of aggression, the violence women most prevalently commit (without repercussion) is provocation.
      Every person that has reached an age of adulthood has an obligation to discipline themselves to not regress into childish behavior. It happens with both men and women and isn’t a good look on either.

      Unfortunately, it’s been somewhat sexualized for women and as a result, women continue to employ childish behavior to garner favor. And, they aren’t discouraged from doing so when acting this way in contexts where it’s entirely inappropriate.

      So that is a very limited description of my personal perspective of a general nature.

      On to the more compelling ideas that you shared.

      I’m going to assume for sake of having a rational discussion that you have good reasons leading you to conclude it would be desirable that women be the first to die in a future enemy conflict and in numbers that reflect an equitable loss in life that men have given in wars past.

      Fair enough. It satisfies a strict 1:1 quid pro quo.
      If women and men are in fact equal in every regard, it is not difficult to understand how this seems reasonable.

      I’d like to put forth some additional thoughts for your consideration, having no problem respecting your decision to disregard it all as garbage. It isn’t personal.

      The fabric of my argument is laid upon the foundation of belief that all war is an evil. Perhaps it has been inevitable evil, but there is nothing inherently good in war as a means of solving human problems. No one who is sane seeks to suffer or witness the suffering of their people.

      But wars are happening now and will happen tomorrow.
      Women traditionally have not been expected to join in battle as soldiers. They have historically raised arms against invaders into their homes and villages as the last defense to protect the lives of their children, their infirm and themselves and usually and overwhelming to no effect.
      Women have been included in the spoils of wars since its’ inception when the conquering side has had use for them alive. Even then many would be culled having no value as enslaved labor, for trade, sexual use or poor ROI. Women in war zones, today, are often subject to unspeakable treatment subsequent to death. They are human beings and all human beings should be spared the inhumane.

      Despite the rhetoric, women and men are not the same. They are not equal. They weights and measures belong to very different scales in the ways we differ. But, in the way we are the same, that is a sameness that can neither be legislated nor altered because it is fixed and permanent. We know how we are the same as a species, as sentient creatures and as kin.

      We each are born of a human woman. Sired by a human man. Some of us share this relationship with siblings. There is a time in human development that is blind to sexual differences and filters the world through an asexual mind.
      Puberty changes this completely.
      Society, today, is failing to engage developing puberty and in fact is perverting and exploiting it. This failure manifests in many ways, one of which is how young women treat young men and vice versa.
      This culture is one of greed and little foresight. It actively teaches falsehoods in pursuit of selfish material gain.
      We are a society of parents too busy to raise children or even pay attention to what is fed to their minds.
      Beginning with my generations parents–the Baby Boomers–our society’s commitment to anything beyond the individual self is at best tenuous. The culture of post WW2 created in my opinion a fatally flawed generation of people that are primarily responsible for the destruction of social bonds, order and trust.
      No one can trust the other gender. A chasm was created by lies and, frankly, in order for that to have happened, men were responsible for whatever breach occurred. They were the gatekeepers. Maybe they were the weak men like those we have today that fetishize female domination, who white knight the deadliest viper of woman, who are emasculated, lazy or have never grown a pair to begin with. That’s bad parenting. That’s a very sick culture.

      If you, personally, would prefer the continuity of life that has a belief in personal agency, liberty and self government, then you cannot really hope women will be called to battle as soldiers. I suspect you are more than enough intelligent to understand how this would threaten the existence of your progeny, if not you yourself.

      Would you want any of the women who have cared for you as women should to suffer the consequences for those that turned our people upside down and unrecognizable to one another?

      Things change. This is the pendulum swinging at its’ most extreme point. It will swing the other way. Don’t despair or give up believing a correction is soon to follow.

      Most people are simply complacent. Life and the evolutionary process does not favor the lazy or slow to make corrections. Complacency will ultimately lead to extinction.

      I am more ready to hasten the end of that population than wipe out an entire gender that includes those that would contribute successfully to the species’ continuity.

      If you are, however, a nihilist or misanthrope, then this is not an objective. Death if considered the inevitable outcome, will be satisfied only by more death.
      If this is your perspective, you hold it without any prejudice on my part. There are reasons why we believe as we do.

      Now, *that* my friend was a wall of text!



  2. “If you are, however, a nihilist or misanthrope, then this is not an objective. Death if considered the inevitable outcome, will be satisfied only by more death.”

    Not really. Death, en masse, forces a re-evaluation. That is what history proves. When women die, they will then re-think what has gone wrong. I wish it could happen bloodlessly, but history tells me that is simply not going to happen. Perhaps we can minimize it. Actually, when the first 30k women come home in body bags (a paltry number by historical standards), feminism will collapse in a nano-second. Because feminism is a paper tiger… but men are to stupid to realize it.


    1. I have to agree with you on this. I have absolutely no doubt that the first 5 body bags will be plenty enough for that folding to happen. And, at the very first complaint I am going to be one of the first to stand up and shout
      STFU. You asked. You received. Put up or sit the fuck down and start eating humble pie, dumb ass.
      And, that would be my polite response. Not very lady like, but there’s a time and a place for abject disgust, imho. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this . You really made me go deep in the well on this one! 🙂


      1. I would like to think that this would mean the end of the draft for all people, male and female, in the US, because everyone’s ok with throwing men away, but to treat women to the same level of disposability is abhorrent.

        First of all, even if that does happen, it will merely highlight both a) the selfishness of feminists who claim to be fighting for universal good for all (ie, if the draft is such a bad thing, why weren’t they fighting it earlier?), and b) it will merely highlight the disproportionate political power feminists have (despite all claims to the contrary that poor feminists can’t get any women’s issues tabled anywhere).

        Secondly, I doubt it will end the draft entirely. Like all shitty, but somewhat necessary, things in life that men must do, feminists want to put up enough token resistance to be able to lay claim to being crusaders for change…but not actually change anything and still reap the rewards the current status quo. It’s a joke:

        Q: What do feminists think men can do much better than women?

        A: Anything they want done but don’t want to do themselves.

        Hence why you here calls for more women in engineering! Science! Corporate executive positions! Advertising! Media! The arts! Smash the patriarchal stranglehold on these positions! Women are not only able to do these positions, but must be given special dispensation to get them.

        Garbage disposal? Road work? Mining? Lobster trawling? Farming? The ratio of men-to-women in these industries is perfectly acceptable.

        What will happen, like any issue that has affected men for decades but has only now just affected women…

        …is that it will become a women’s issue – and by that I mean, of course, a women’s only issue.

        This has happened in the wider labour sector: as feminism went up, unionism went down. In other words, worker’s rights were eschewed for women’s rights.

        As women entered more and more male workplaces, suddenly, issues that men have had to suck up in the workplace became grave and serious issues that must be addressed…but since it was only women who were allowed to speak up for them (as, of course, they were the ones whom the changes were implemented for), well, any fixes made were only made for women.

        Women were notoriously union-shy in traditionally male-dominated workplaces. (Plenty of women took labour action in female industries), as of course, the union in a male-dominated industry would be full of men. And feminists would want nothing to do with it. Collective bargaining power has weakened significantly. Wages over the last fifty years have stagnated.

        Stagnant wages aren’t a problem for women, as their survival is less tied to their labour than men, whose survival is 100% tied to it. The possibility of marrying, and the idea of a man supporting them, is still very much a real thing, something women are still entitled to that men aren’t. Women still expect men to out-earn them.

        But, as others like Karen Straughan have pointed out – the feminist movement acts like a universal union for women, making regular unionism or labour movements irrelevant. (Even better, feminism extends beyond the workplace, into all aspects of life – social interactions, culture, politics, advertising, arts…) Instead of going to the shop steward when you’re being forced to work in bad conditions or with poor pay, make it a gender politics issue, and change will come from the outside, from organisations far more powerful than your employer.

        Any improvements to the workers’ lives gained through feminist action only, of course, apply to women.

        Any attempts by men in the workplace trying to improve their lot is immediately classified as sexism, either by taking attention away from women, or old-fashioned chauvinism. So of course, female complaints take precedence over male ones.

        Of course, the work still needs to be done.

        But as women, of whom not as much is expected, and who must be given special work and lighter duties lest your company be branded misogynistic, displace men who have the full expectations of labour upon them, that means the remaining men in the workplace have more work to do than they might otherwise.

        We’re not supposed to talk about this, of course. We’re meant to say that the woman who flirts her way into a longer lunch break, whom the boss is afraid to ask to work back late lest she bring down the wrath of HR, and who is near impossible to fire (compared to male workers) does the exact same amount of work as men…even if they don’t.

        (And anyway, that woman won’t demand as much pay, because she knows, deep down, she really doesn’t need this job.)

        But plenty of men will recount these tales, if they feel safe enough.

        In a military sense, we’ve seen plenty of cases where women just can’t or won’t cut it, and this is outside front line service. I’ve seen complaints from artillery and logistics servicemen, for example, about women who just can’t work as hard, lift as much, or do so for as long. In infantry roles, there are very, very few women who can lug a 120lb pack for ten miles.

        Physical aspects are actually the least of the problems of integrating women into the military, however. Feminist have long since learned not to argue on any tangible or measurable issues. Instead, argue emotional aspects – the “feels equal reals” of modern feminism.

        If the draft is enforced for women, the protests will be against what is de rigeur for military service. There will be complaints against the emphasis of the organisation over the individual, and, of course, the strict discipline and breaking down that occurs during training. What is a Tuesday for men will be treated as the gravest violation of womynly rights for feminists.

        Getting back to my original point, what will happen is that the draft will be overturned – but only for women – or at the very least, watered right down, in the exact same way working has been watered down for women by feminists in the civilian world.

        The issue of “the draft” will be wholly and solely claimed as a “woman’s issue” now, as opposed to a general democratic issue (as it should be), and thus men, as has happened elsewhere, will be frozen out of the discussion, even though it affects them more – and it will affect them further, if feminists get their way.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Again, though exceptions exist, generally speaking, women are and will forever be inferior as soldiers. And if women insist on being soldiers and integrated with real soldiers in training and combat, our country will be defended or represented by a military force that is hamstrung and subpar. A D league team. Third string. Scorn worthy and stripped of what makes it worth the sacrifice.

        I cannot consider feminism having anything rational about it until the feminists are at least acknowledging and not arguing against reality. Quantifiably, measurable and reproducible factual reality. While this remains beyond their ability to reconcile themselves to, I have to engage with everything they say and do as I would someone lacking a healthy, developed adult brain.


  3. Perhaps what’s more interesting, EL, is that there have been famous female soldiers, who were treated equal to the male soldiers, and performed just as well…

    …but feminists have been strangely quiet about them.

    I’m talking about Soviet female soldiers in WWII, women like Lyudmila Pavlichenko, and the women of the Night Witches. And, granted, they were treated equally most likely because Stalin had equal contempt for all his people – but it was equality. Brutal equality.

    But they succeeded.

    Unfortunately, if there’s one thing feminists hate it’s a successful woman, especially one who got there by taking on “masculine” traits – eg, knuckling down, not complaining, behaving the same as men whose success they’re jealous of. Succession in male-dominated fields by doing what the males do is abhorrent to feminists, because it breaks their narrative of men being inherently inferior, and women being superiorly different.

    So, what they want is the same level of privilege and status as men have, but not the *exact* same privilege and status. And, most importantly, it must be “earned” in a feminine way.

    The masculine role, as we all know, involves *doing*. The feminine role is just *being*. Men must do, women get to be.

    In other words, women want points just for showing up. It’s a theme recurring through feminist discourse, though of course couched in the correct euphemisms (normally by implying that women face more disadvantages than they do).

    I think the call for women in the defence force comes not from any desire or belief that they have anything to offer the military in the US…but rather the level of status and privilege the soldier has been afforded in US society post-9/11.

    In other words, women saw the attention and wanted in on that. And as feminists believe, women are entitled to that attention just by by existing (after all, that’s a feminine prerogative, and to deny it would be sexist).

    Ironically (though not to feminists) that’s the sort of housewives were traditionally afforded: no matter where a woman came from, what she did before (or after or during) if she married, say, the mayor, she was afforded a similar status and place in society as the mayor himself, though without having to do his duties.

    In modern feminism, all of society is meant to take on the role the husband for women. Feminism states that women are all entitled to the same sort of “mayor’s wife” privilege from all men: if there’s a soldier who wins a VC or Medal Of Honor, she’s entitled to some of that glory, even if she wasn’t the one who braved the enemy fire.

    What I think we’ll see is women being afforded “unique” roles that they are just “magically” better suited to (because of gender…) in the military that allow them that feeling of special exceptionalism they demand while simultaneously letting them coat-tail on the glories of men. Interpreters and Hearts & Minds specialists, medical personnel, etc., who are protected largely from the dangers and labours the male grunts deal with while still being able to claim that free meal at Arby’s.

    We’ll also see more women being parachuted (metaphorically…) into officer positions, because there’s a convenient belief that giving one woman more power and status than average is as good as given a bunch of women average status. (It also conveniently plays into women’s desire to feel superior to other women, too, but shhh, don’t say that to the feminists.)

    Liked by 1 person

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s