An elderly ABC reporter was astonished on Monday to discover that there are standards of dress for women in the Canberra press gallery. She quickly apologised, rushed home and tried to avoid making a spectacle of herself.
lol jks. Of course she didn’t. She made herself the centre of an entire news cycle.
Because, you know, privilege.
— PatriciaKarvelas (@PatsKarvelas) December 3, 2018
How dare the patriarchy destroy the rights of a strong, liberated womon in the current year? This would never happen to a man, amirite?
Actually it would, it just doesn’t. And the reason it doesn’t has nothing to do with male privilege and everything to do female privilege in the workplace.
As with everything else in the postmodern Australian workplace, there is a double standard when it comes to dress for women. Men are, on the whole, expected to wear the male uniform in a professional Western setting: pants, dress shoes & socks, belt and collared shirt, with a tie and maybe a jacket if it’s a high-status occupation. That’s the straitjacket expected of Australian men in professional settings.
Women, on the other hand, get away with pretty much whatever they want. They can wear short skirts, which are the female equivalent of shorts. They can probably get away with bloody shorts if they want. I’ve seen sandals, collarless shirts, open-necked blouses and even singlets hanging off women on six-figure salaries while the men around them are in a shirt and tie.
We are now daily subjected to the revolting image of pendulous breasts exposed like some Bronze Age fertility figurine in the most solemn chamber in the land.
— Sortiwa (@Sortiwa) December 1, 2018
Nobody should have to look at that, and while the women who dress like that in the workplace feign indifference, they wear it so you do look. If they can’t make you lust, they’re gonna make you suffer.
The Gen X womon Western Marxists are so soaked in female supremacism, though, they truly believe themselves to be oppressed. Displaying the classic doublethink and projection we always see from Marxists, they instead accuse men of oppressing them. It’s a neat trick, and it gives them power over others, so they’re doubling down on it. And the propaganda is getting intense.
— SBS Australia (@SBS) December 4, 2018
Well what was she wearing to draw such attention to herself?
— SBS Life (@SBSLife) December 4, 2018
Maybe displaying your nipples had something to do with it, love? Men respond to signals. It’s biologically hardwired. If you don’t want to get catcalled, wear a bra.
And if you don’t want any sexual attention whatsoever, try this.
If you live in Sydney or Melbourne, you should probably get used to it anyway.
— SBS Australia (@SBS) December 4, 2018
As well as being child abuse, this is entirely false. Women make study and work choices, and men make study and work choices. Men choose more lucrative and stressful occupations due to sexual competition with other males and pressure from women to provide. Women, instead, choose more fulfilling occupations. And if women only cost 70% of what men do for the same job, men would be unemployed and businesses would only be hiring women. Which isn’t happening. So it’s bullshit.
But who needs facts when you’ve got government propaganda funded by taxes largely taken from men?
— SBS Australia (@SBS) November 30, 2018
Nice stunt, Yumi, but we all know the real problem is that the man sending you those messages wasn’t good-looking and high-status enough for you. You’re offended that a gronky old bastard thinks he can get away with it, and in your outrage you want to parade him in front of the country. If he looked like the guy on the right in the video below, you’d have sent him your number immediately.
One of the many myths of female supremacism in our society is that men are shallow and go for looks while women are deep and go for ‘confidence and personality’. More bullshit. It’s been shown repeatedly by redpill activists that women will respond enthusiastically to a man of good looks no matter what his personality is like. Women are just as looks-driven as men when it comes to assessing Sexual Market Value.
The problem for women though, locked as they are to biology, is that their Sexual Market Value plummets as they hit 30. They hit The Wall. This is a rude shock to Western women who really came to believe that they can have it all whenever they want, and they’ll still be an exciting sexpot at 40. It’s honestly quite sad to see so many women who wasted their youth have this shocking revelation.
Rather than adjust our cultural values and mores around sexual purity and propriety, however, women in public sector roles are doubling down. They are seeking to use the power of the state to destroy The Wall, to try and re-engineer society to make it the boundless provider of free stuff that they were told as little girls it would be. Having screwed their way well past Prince Charming, they want to use the media and government to make The Wall go away and regain their lost status as interesting young hotties with the world at their feet.
It won’t work, wimminz. Your future is red wine, cats and abortion regret.
And for many of you, it’s not your fault.
Although I am disgusted by what our women have become today, I ultimately don’t blame them. Men are the leaders of the family and of society, and if our women are foul and insane then the responsibility for that lies with us. It’s our fault.
Now, before you MGTOW types sperg out on me, I’m not making some sort of white knight argument here. I’m saying that this problem with our women goes back a long way, and if men in the West had not gone astray first then we would not be dealing with an epidemic of broken, shrieking harpies doing everything they can to destroy our civilisation. At some point, we failed to be the leaders and protectors they needed, and they then stopped being the nurturers and supporters we need.
Something happened to Western men, and through them to the Western family. It’s almost like some alien influence came into our culture, and motivated by a remorseless hatred for us and the faith which held our societies together, worked to destroy us. As if some group created movies which celebrated individualism and pleasure-seeking at the expense of family and long-term fulfillment, wrote books which sought to discredit the Christian family and the men who led them, taught university students to become cultural Bolsheviks, funded politicians who pushed policies which replaced the family with the welfare state and used the media to push values destructive of morality, decency and social order.
It’s too weird to think that all those things just happened by themselves. Surely someone, some group, must have been behind it…