Men Now Need More Than Just Money To Be ‘Marriageable’

[SaxonPagan]

Just what are women being educated in? Higher education does not one bit of good for women.
Unless you want women educated in how to be feminists that hate white men. Sorry the "haindmaiden hysterics"
doesn't wash with me.

Not too sure what "haindmaiden hysterics" (sp?) actually are but your assumption that women who go into higher education all become feminists is nonsense.

You just want to deny them this opportunity because you have other plans for them, such as mass-producing children from their late teens onwards.

[velvet]

Feminist and anti-white communist indoctrination is not education in good faith, and that is what "education" has become now, because (((the enemy))) has marched its way through the institutions in order to purposely destroy our people and our culture. Our beloved young women (and men, for that matter) must be kept free from the influence of these vultures. The enemy's goal has always been to build walls between our men and our women and brainwash us to not procreate. Do you truly believe that we are your enemy? That we seek to keep you stupid? If so, then the (((true enemy's))) mission has succeeded.

How about you brave men finally take back our countries and stop the jewish indoctrination in universities, in schools, in kindergartens?
Nope, you people keep advocating to limit education, and Chlod's original statement did not refer to "higher education" anywhere, or any other kind of differentiation. He said: take your girls out of school, and that's what I reacted to.

Do you think there was "marxist indoctrination" between '33 and '45?
While I agree with you that degrees in liberal arts (wtf?) is as worthless as it gets, education as such, guided by a more healthy view on things in general and particular, is a good thing. And if anything, we should fight to take it back from them, and not promote (((the other side of their coin))), namely "patriarchy".

And I've read enough discussions on these topics here to know that this is by far not only about higher education, it is about education as such, it is about degrading women from human status to whatever again, things we just left behind in a centuries long struggle, which was brought by that "patriarchy" ppl keep advocating. And I must think, the next they will do is convert to Islam and marry 4 headscarfs delivered for free to them, because essentially this is what they want...

Look, I dont disagree on the state of education today, I just dont agree that we should dump education. What we need is a different kind of education. It's the same nonsense with ppl who advocate dumping the state because of what it is these days, when what we really need is a different kind of state.

But instead of maybe thinking about what I say (and the more common sense guys on here too), I am attacked as a "feminist". It's the same kind of weaponised word like racist, just inverted by pseudonationalists with a strong christian stench on them to invalidate any argument. But yeah, of course, after all, anything that questions the (((christian "patriarchy"))) just has to be feminist, right.

[Chlodovech]

How about you brave men finally take back our countries and stop the jewish indoctrination in universities, in schools, in kindergartens?

Impossible, so we got to concentrate on the next best thing, on what when can achieve. But even if you could take over the schools: the nation does not need more women pursuing careers, more women who are in college/uni than not themselves do not need it for personal fulfilment either. Yes, there are women who don't want children and some who probably shouldn't have none either - if this group, which is a minority, goes on to study and have careers then I'm all fine with that. That's a good thing.

The problem here is of course not women studying as such: the more a woman knows, the better, also when instructing her own children - the problem always was when she studies, it happens to be in her most fertile years (because feminists want all women to pursue careers). There are ways to circumvent this problem, Greg Johnson has proposed delaying studying for women with a decade or so, with the state then of course supporting those women financially after they've given birth to a few babies. If I was the führer of the free world, I would completely pay for all women's college/uni expenses provided they become mother to two children before the age of 30 or three before for the age of 25 - plus, they receive one iron cross which they can wear at all time on their dirndls or clothes. After the fifth child oak leaves would be added.

Can't you see how women trying to emulate men is wrecking our nations and the balance in gender relations, velvet? I'm asking you to not look at this issue from the perspective of a modern day woman, but rather from that what benefits social stability and das Deutschtum. It's not about keeping women down. Don't look at the issue as one of women's lib, but as a nationalist. We all have to make sacrifices, nationalism is an ideology of sacrifice. It's not about 'what can I get out of it?', but 'what can I give?' What can you give to Deutschland? And what's the best thing you can give to Deutschland? No mimimimimi.

And if anything, we should fight to take it (education) back from them, and not promote (((the other side of their coin))), namely "patriarchy".

Patriarchy gets shit done. You know what was a patriarchy, velvet? The Third Reich. And the Second. And the First. The alternative for patriarchy is chaos - historically speaking a rise in women's rights has always been accompanied by civilizational collapse.

There's just so much wrong with the push for getting as many women as possible to study at such a young age.

Men want to take care of their wives rather than compete with them, we're programmed to do so - we don't want to be "something extra" in a woman's life either with her being able to walk out on you on a moment's notice.

Men don't fall in love with your degree - unlike what some women and feminists believe - it plays no role, we'd just as happily wife you up if you're unemployed as when you're CEO, probably much more so. Because we know you'll make more time for children, the house and ourselves. Yes, a career woman is a turn-off in that regard.

Female students are always less inclined to study in the stem fields - to study those things which would give them real job prospects, never mind well paying jobs. They opt for softer course material instead.

Most women still want children - and modern women have been told the feminist lie that they can have it all - a career and children - but we know that's hard to accomplish, at least the way our societies are structured. A woman will always end up mismanaging either family or job to a degree, probably both.

At the same time most women, like most men, don't get any real satisfaction out of their jobs (85% of Americans don't like their job at all, for instance), the natural calling of the majority of women isn't a career, they don't feel that way themselves. Feminists make them think they need or want that and shame them if they don't.

There's also the issue of feminine values dominating male spaces once entered by women. Having to think of everyone's feelings all the time is rather demotivating for men. And 'women in the workforce' has always been a bankster trick to maximize profits while citizens earn less with two breadwinners now than what we used to do with one.

Also, college/university campuses and life are notorious for sexual experimentation - young women rack up a score there, to their own detriment. Another turn-off. And in the U.S. so many get into massive debt in order to finish their education. More turn-off. Nobody is jumping at the chance of partnering with someone who has huge debts, this also goes for the men of course. Nonetheless, men's study choices are still more career-oriented, so they'd probably get out of debt sooner. Nachtengel sure as hell wouldn't marry a guy who had debts, there's a technical term for this: it's called being smart. It's a little suspicious anyway.

There are so many other things to consider here except for absolute liberty for women at the expense of everything else, everything we hold dear. There are infinitely more arguments against career women than in favor of them. You still haven't explained what would be so bad about women doing what they've done for tens of thousands of years, until the Sixties of last century.

And I've read enough discussions on these topics here to know that this is by far not only about higher education, it is about education as such, it is about degrading women from human status to whatever again, things we just left behind in a centuries long struggle, which was brought by that "patriarchy" ppl keep advocating. And I must think, the next they will do is convert to Islam and marry 4 headscarfs delivered for free to them, because essentially this is what they want...

It's a decades old struggle rather than centuries old struggle, agrarian societies were in need of farmers rather than scholars to keep society going and people going to school wouldn't have amounted to much anyway - what's the use of learning Latin and Greek when you're going to plow fields? Higher education was available to women, just like the vote, within decades of men having access to it. And of course, under patriarchy there were women (and men) who studied as well, but mostly in the confines of cloisters. Patriarchy and civilization go hand in hand, too.

Patriarchy has always been limiting free sexual expression, and probably somewhat more so for women than for men. Men are limited in different ways, but the limitation is necessary to keep our baser instincts in check. Enforced monogamy needs to be seen in that light too. True, it's not just about higher education, it's about the common good in general.

It's not about ushering in an era of white sharia - this is about reconciling our needs as a nation with the needs of men and women. It's about restoring balance after 50 years of tearing down society.

But instead of maybe thinking about what I say (and the more common sense guys on here too), I am attacked as a "feminist".

"Feminist" is an excuse, but "Christian" isn't? You're literally advocating a feminist policy while saying naughty things about the patriarchy (and its proponents are primarly atheists today) but okay, I digress - defending one feminist policy doesn't make one a feminist. I don't think you were called a feminist as such.

[Bärin]

I don't think a man needs an education to be marriageable. That's liberal BS. The only education he needs is self-sufficiency, not a paper, degree or course. For a woman it's even less important, it's actually counterproductive. And it has nothing to do with Christianity. I'm atheist and I've said it before as well, institution education for women is one of the biggest issues that prevents motherhood. There's no reason for a woman to finish her studies and develop a career in the first place. The longer she waits to have children, the less chances she will still want to have them later on. Let's say she finishes her bachelor's or master's, then she may want a job to build a bit of experience for later (or so that she can get paid maternity leave) or a PhD, and soon she will be caught in the job market. Before you know it she will want to wait a bit longer and then you will both be too old to have children. Look at this thread Nachtengel made for example: https://forums.skadi.net/threads/125...-Have-Children

I wonder how many of those female members who wanted to wait a few years ago because of their studies, etc. have children today. I'm thinking not many. I bet many women who ended up postponing motherhood and family because of their studies and career, find themselves unmarried in their mid and late 30s.

On the other hand if the male wants to establish himself career wise first he can do it, and marry a younger woman which will compensate for the fact that he waited. But women have a biological clock. The longer you wait and postpone motherhood, the less chances are you will actually do it later.

[SaxonPagan]

Whilst there are some valid observations in there, Chlod, I think when we cut through it all we end up with the usual taboos, including suppressing our ‘baser instincts’ (sex), enforcing monogamy and coercing women into having children. It’s essentially bringing the whole population back into line with the morality of the Catholic Church, whether you realise this or are doing it subconsciously.

You claim that the only alternative to a patriarchy is chaos but if you look at the first and second halves of 20th century Europe it’s quite clear which one was the more chaotic. All those patriarchies going to war with each other didn’t exactly bring order and harmony to the world, and please tell me more about the civilisations that (allegedly) collapsed due to an increase in women's rights

[velvet]

Impossible, so we got to concentrate on the next best thing, on what when can achieve.

"We" can achieve nothing, because "we" are not in power. Not even near to it. We cant even advocate ideas publicy, because in most European countries nationalist ideas are illegal. So in the circle pit of internet forums with like 20 more or less active users and an endless list of users who stayed for one post you're going to achieve anything? Okay, good luck.

But you see, the thing is, that we have for decades the problem of not having that much females in our circles, which is being blamed on that women are more liberal, all feminists or whores or both and what not. But maybe it's because of all these ideas of "white sharia" and the like? Maybe also remember that we "lost" our countries with patriarchy. It was all MEN who granted the Jews equal rights in everything, it was all MEN who gave up everything. Not to women, but to foreigners, without ever standing up. While you all keep blaming women. And fighting for our people, for our countries, nah, impossible, rather lets promote white sharia, because that's the winning strategy.... not!

I've said that before I think. In older days, the women and children, the entire village followed the warriors to the battlefield. Maybe they werent there for "moral support", but to take care that the warriors dont run away? Just thinking.

[velvet]

It's a decades old struggle rather than centuries old struggle, agrarian societies were in need of farmers rather than scholars to keep society going and people going to school wouldn't have amounted to much anyway - what's the use of learning Latin and Greek when you're going to plow fields? Higher education was available to women, just like the vote, within decades of men having access to it. And of course, under patriarchy there were women (and men) who studied as well, but mostly in the confines of cloisters. Patriarchy and civilization go hand in hand, too.

No, it's a century old struggle. Just when "patriarchy" (that form of it christianity brought) had established itself, half of Europe was up in arms to reform it, because the entire thing was totally undigestible for us. Unfortunately, we failed to get rid off it again. Instead "reformed" it, made it digestible, because of weak men falling for the lies, and then the women falling for the lies, that it would "uplift" them, and then they found themselves in worse situations than ever before.

Not that I expect you to understand it, but there is a difference between a "male dominated" society and a "patriarchy". Islam is patriarchic, and before we unfortunately reformed it, christianity was just like Islam.

Patriarchy has always been limiting free sexual expression, and probably somewhat more so for women than for men. Men are limited in different ways, but the limitation is necessary to keep our baser instincts in check. Enforced monogamy needs to be seen in that light too. True, it's not just about higher education, it's about the common good in general.

You're happily mixing up things. Original christianity was not monogamic, btw. As said, it was very much like Islam. So, if you dont want to wake up in Afghanistan 2.0, maybe rethink what you are advocating.

"Limit sexual expression". Imho, this is a matter of normal decency, that porn isnt promoted, that there are no gay pride parades, not the gay token black in every tv show, no "sex sells" on everything and what not. I dont think "patriarchy" is needed for that. It needs proper education and raising of children, promotion of normal, healthy values. And reinforce our cultures, living our cultures, recreating society from culture.

Unfortunately, civilisation has not much use for culture. Culture creates societal structures and values and guidelines, not civilisation or patriarchy. Culture is the Volk, the Volk is culture. Civilisation was always "above" these things. All great civilisations of history were multiethnic empires, they thrive on the achievements of the cultures and people they conquer and for a while they fly high. And the end of the day sees the original founding people extinct, and the empire falling apart.

Except for China, btw. They've overcome the "god idea" about 3000 years ago, they've kicked out the priests from ruling positions or just influence on state politics and replaced religion with philosophy, they've built a wall to keep foreigners out. Until the conquest through western forces in the 19th century, they were the oldest continually existing civilisation on earth without being a multiethnic empire. Mimimi goolover, but maybe there is something to learn from them?

[Þoreiðar]

Whilst there are some valid observations in there, Chlod, I think when we cut through it all we end up with the usual taboos, including suppressing our ‘baser instincts’ (sex), enforcing monogamy and coercing women into having children.

Every society coerce and enforce its values on it's inhabitants, in some way or another. Without systematic structures which makes certain perceived virtues encouraged or mandatory, and certain perceived vices discouraged or outlawed, there's no society in the first place.

In this day and age, families are indirectly forced to rely on two full-time jobs to make ends meet. Is this objectively worse than being indirectly forced to make monogamous one-income families? I suppose it is if one's dream is to live one's life as a bachelor(ette), but if one's concern is the well-being and continuation of one's Nation, it certainly is not.

You claim that the only alternative to a patriarchy is chaos but if you look at the first and second halves of 20th century Europe it’s quite clear which one was the more chaotic. All those patriarchies going to war with each other didn’t exactly bring order and harmony to the world, and please tell me more about the civilisations that (allegedly) collapsed due to an increase in women's rights

That's one way to look at it. Another is that under patriarchy, Western People ruled the entire World. While under feminism, they don't even rule their own neighborhoods, and are set on a path to self-extermination within the foreseeable future. To me, that's not a difficult choice.

[SpearBrave]

Fixed it for you. Just what are women being educated in? Higher education does not one bit of good for women.
Unless you want women educated in how to be feminists that hate white men. Sorry the "haindmaiden hysterics"
doesn't wash with me.

Um, how wrong you are...…… In late 2013 I suffered a mild heart attack due to an enlarged heart, the physician at the VA hospital had placed me on the wrong medication causing my heart to work harder than needed by retaining fluid on the heart. I went to a private hospital and was seen by a female cardiologist had she not been the one to detect my medication was off I would probably not be here today. This woman went to higher education in order to become a cardiologist.

So without that female doctor I would not be around to question you dark age freedom restricting religious views.

[SaxonPagan]

That's one way to look at it. Another is that under patriarchy, Western People ruled the entire World.

Under patriarchy, Western people fought constantly amongst themselves and those that went on to rule the world did so by conquering other patriarchies.

So the societal model in itself didn’t bring success. There were winners and losers with the main beneficiaries probably being a clique of rich (male!) Jewish bankers.