@HereAndGone's banner p

HereAndGone


				

				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					

					
joined 2025 March 21 16:02:31 UTC
				

				

				

				

				

				

					
						
							Verified Email
						
					
				

				

				
				
				

				
User ID: 3603


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
HereAndGone


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2025 March 21 16:02:31 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 3603


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					
					Week
					Month
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I should therefore quote Dr. Smith on the bad effects of too much education on men. Yes, it's bad for men too, it's just that it's worse for women.


Everyone on here telling me that he makes good points about the nature of women and decline of population even if it is couched in out-dated terms should be happy to find out how being educated has harmed them, right?




The Catholic church has, for many centuries, realized the importance of marriage and maternity in the upbuilding and strengthening of religious life in the community; and if the Protestant churches are not to be emptied of their male attendance, the protestant clergy must speak out in no uncertain tone against the present methods of education, which are turning out women by the thousands, with requirements so varied and so great that no young man can afford to marry them; a step, moreover, which he is deterred from taking by the discouraging report of those of his friends who have ventured to marry the women of their own class, and who have advised them, in the words of Punch : ' To those about to marry, don't.' Whether a man should marry or not is too often spoken of lightly and as a joke. But to those who believe in the immortality of the soul, and that the whole world avails nothing to a man if he loses it, the possibility of early and happy marriages becomes a question of the vastest importance and one which students of sociology, and the fathers of the nation should study with the most intense anxiety and care.


...The profession of teaching was once exclusively in the hands of the men, and it can not be denied that they have achieved some great results. But as education rendered an ever-increasing number of women unsuited for marriage, that is, unwilling to marry the available men, they invaded the schoolmaster's rank to such an extent that his salary has been cut down one half, and now he is unable to marry at all. Two well-known consequences have followed this state of affairs; first it is impossible to get men in sufficient numbers to become teachers for the boys' schools; and secondly, even big boys being taught by women, the effeminization of our men is gradually taking place. Although there are some instances of a mother alone having formed her son into a manly man, yet as a rule the boys require the example of a man's character to make them manly men. This subject has recently been dealt with in several elaborate papers by well-known educationalists, to whom it appears to be a real danger to the coming generation.


...What about the men? If the higher education prevents the women from being good wives and mothers, will it not prevent the men from being good husbands and fathers? To some extent it does, and in so far it is a misfortune, but to a much less extent than among women, for the simple reason that the man contributes so little towards the new being; while, on the other hand, high intellectual training enables him to win in the struggle for existence much better than if he were possessed of mere brute force.  But nature punishes the man who has all the natural instinct cultivated out of him, just as it does the woman, namely, by the extinction of his race. For the struggle for existence among the highly educated men has become so keen, because there are so many of them, that great numbers of them are unable to earn a living even for themselves; while the supporting of a highly educated woman, with her thousand and one requirements, is simply out of the question. A president of a great company recently informed the writer that he had, in one month, applications from eighty-seven university graduates for a position equivalent to that of an office boy at fifteen dollars a month while out of one hundred millionaires, at least ninety-five of them are known not to have been highly educated; but, on the contrary, to have left school between fourteen and sixteen years of age. So there is such a thing as learning too much, without knowing how to do anything. Just as athletes may be overtrained, so men may be overeducated.


This great question has received the attention of one of the brightest men of our age — no less than the chief magistrate of the United States; while quite recently, in the British House of Lords, the Eight Reverend Dr. Boyd-Carpenter, Bishop of Ripon, from his seat in that august assemblage, has called attention to the lateness of the age for marriage and the diminishing birth-rate, foreseeing, no doubt, that these two factors would soon be followed by the emptying of the churches and the lowering of the high standard of British morals and character.  The writer feels certain that, before long, this subject will receive the attention which it deserves from those who love their country and have the forming of its destiny in their hands. If he succeeds, by this or any other means, in drawing their attention to it, he will have fulfilled the object of his paper.




So gentlemen, the solution for the problem means:


(1) You should all convert to Catholicism

(2) You, too, should marry early for the salvation of your soul

(3) You should engender a large family (six to eight children)

(4) You should not let your sons be educated by female teachers as already in 1905 the rising generation of boys are all effeminate limp-wristed mama's boys

(5) You should not be over-educated, nor should you let your sons be over-educated.  Avoid university if at all possible.  Manual semi- and skilled work, or office work in business as future self-made millionaires, is the goal here for success in life.  You know all you need to know by fourteen, now go out there and work!

(6) Marry early to young, ignorant, slightly stupid, possibly lower in social status than you, women who will be totally dependent on you for provision during wifehood, motherhood, and possibly widowhood and who will not have any views, opinions, tastes, or interests higher than maintaining her home and family. Presumably you seek out other men for stimulation of the intellect or just a conversation that is not about babies and furniture?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, but that was seen as a good thing.   Instead of having thirteen children, eleven of whom would die in infancy, now you had four/three/two healthy children who would survive to adulthood, get an education, get a good job, and have families of their own.


What happened after that was a combination of "we would rather spend our youth enjoying ourselves and our adult years enjoying our money" dressed up with "it is immoral to bring children into this world due to overpopulation/nuclear weapons/climate change".


And men, as I have repeatedly pointed out, wanted that as well.  They didn't want to be trapped into marriage with a clingy, dependent wife and a brood of kids, they wanted to sow their wild oats during the Sexual Revolution, settle down to marriage once established in a career, have a couple of kids (the raising of which would mostly be left to the wife) and then enjoy retirement travelling and doing fun things.  Maybe skip the couple of kids and enjoy freedom and economic prosperity.


That is why I am kicking back against "it's all the fault of women, they shouldn't go to college, their fathers should marry them off at eighteen".  The hell you thirty year old guys want a dependent on you full time wife and six kids, you want as many girls who will sleep with you and be sexually adventurous as you can get, then maybe a wife who earns money to contribute to the household herself and put off having kids to later or never.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
My blood was tested recently and there was no problem, but I always keep the benefit of leeches in mind.  Cutting for the stone may be the next port of call, can you recommend a good barber-surgeon?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


do you believe that your uteruses are using up too many phosphates for you to pilot Mavics?




Well you see, in order to pilot a plane or drones or high-tech equipment, I would need to be as educated as a man.  And that would be bad, because it would be developing my nervous system at the expense of my generative system. And that would mean I could only have a few, sickly, children instead of a healthy football team as Nature intends!


It is the phosphates, Science and Dr. Smith's medical colleagues proved it in 1905 and are you going to say they were wrong?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


here you are once more taking grave offense like I personally singled you out with my biased woman-hating agenda




You seem to be very thin-skinned about this, as if I did think you have a he-man woman-hater persona going on.   Maybe you should work on that?  I didn't think you had any particular dog in this fight, other than not getting the point I was making (which was 'look, your ideas seem pretty silly when phrased in early 20th century terms'), but you leaped immediately to "he-man woman-hater".   You do seem to think I am going for you in particular, rather than the general attitude on here around "it's all the fault of women for not having babies the second they reach the age of sexual consent".


Hmmm.   Were you being sarcastic there? Don't make me tap the sign:




Look up at the top of the page. There's a rule that's been there forever:


Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.




Dr. Smith of 1905 was quoting the science of his day about the dangers of uppity women.  We know better in regards to science today, so we think his views are quaint and absurd (women go crazy when pregnant if they're too smart?)


But there are plenty of guys trotting out just as quaint and absurd evo-psych twaddle about the nature of women on here. I'm not going to get into a screaming match if I can help it, but I am also not going to sit and take it like a lady.  So yes, I'll mock that which is mockable because it is not worth engaging with on any other level than "this is risible".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You know what the Motte is all about.




Do I? I'm starting to wonder.  Was that remark about hoping for an economic crash so women (and it wasn't specifying any particular set of women, rather all women which would include the likes of me) will be forced to choose between destitution (yes, that was the exact word) or 'making concessions to good men' - was that remark 'ha ha only joking', in which case it too should have earned the sarcasm penalty, or was it meant in all seriousness?


Because we've lived the days of "sex for meat" and that's the damn reason feminism came into being in the first place.  Hoping to exploit the misery of others is not what I thought The Motte was about.  How about if someone cheered on the idea of AI putting all the guys on here out of work, so that they will have to bend the knee to employers and scrabble for former white collar jobs with the cheap imported labour, which drives down salaries and workplace conidiations?   Suppose I reacted to someone talking about their fears for their late career with "serves you right, you had it too good all along, now you will have to agree with whatever an employer demands of you if you want any kind of job"?


I don't think that wishing misfortune on men would go down well here.  I don't want men to suffer.  But yes, if we are turning into "women are all bitches and should be literally at the foot of a man, any man, and don't dare refuse sex at all for any reason, don't dare have opinions and views of their own, don't dare be anything but the fantasy Stepford wife", then I really don't know what it is all about.


You guys surely have mothers.  Are you really going to say to them "Mom, you shouldn't have gone past high school and you should be glad Dad isn't fucking a 20 year old on the side because you need to appreciate that a man is willing to lead and rule you, you useless eater"?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The thing is, I'm getting rapped over the knuckles for being sarcastic.


Okay, yes, sarcasm there a-plenty.


However, it was "laughing to keep from crying".  I preferred to react with mockery of a similar viewpoint from the past, rather than engage in serious angry cursing of the person who wished for the misfortune of others.


Since it seems satire is out but rancour is fine, shrugging at nonsense will get a scolding but hoping for a disaster is neutral, then let me say: I don't hope, wish or dream of a disaster that will befall those I disagree with or my ideological enemies, not even those I come close to having contempt for.  I can wish bad things, but I know wishing for bad things is wrong and I should not do it.  It's the immediate gut reaction of reading an appalling story in the news and wishing the abominable bitch gets tortured to death.  (As for the spineless fuckstick dad who apparently was fine with her beating the shit out of the kid so long as she opened her legs for him on a regular basis, tell me again about strong male-led households, please!)


Not a good state of mind for the individual, not a good state of mind for society.


So I react with ridicule of an old piece of nonsense rather than screaming anger where I detonate in a fireball not seen since the Tunguska Incident (please forgive me, it's the phosphates, you know!  Medical science has proven it!)


But since, as I said, the preference is for disaster hoping, then shentlemens: may you all experience the likes of that Pap test conducted by a male consultant gynaecologist which was the second and last time I had it done.  The last, since I would bloody well prefer to run the risk of cervical cancer than go through that experience again. To add insult to injury, the guy wasn't even able to collect a proper sample so no results could be obtained, as the letter I got back from the testing lab informed me.


Hoping for bad things to happen to those you disagree with is fine and will not get me into trouble, just so long as I avoid sarcasm, see Amadan's mod decision.  So if I really want bad things to happen to the men on here, expressing that wish is not going to evoke any pushback.  But if I indulge in hyperbolic scoffing where the target is beyond any ill-wish of mine, that is bad and results in a scolding.


Nice to have that clear.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
"I won't make this for you, but you can buy it elsewhere if you want" is not the same as "No, we want to force you to make this".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Well, you know, some university course on how we need to be decolonised of our racist appreciation of this event is probably lurking in the wings somewhere, but until then it's a kickass song and a kickass video using footage from a movie about the battle 😁


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Dear sir, if you genuinely believe women end up in lunatic asylums after getting pregnant because their over-developed brains have leeched the phosphates from their systems, I look forward to your opinions on reducing the superfluity of yellow bile in the choleric.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Glad to see you support the idea that too much book larnin' drives women insane because it sucks all the phosphates that they need for whelpin' babbies!


Truly. Harry Enfield was indeed providing public service announcements.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Tsk, you kids who don't even remember why silver nitrate eye washes were given to newborns!


But kindly also note the double standard: women must be virgins upon marriage, and married off at eighteen (the maximum limit at which nature intends them to be single) else men will be having sex outside of marriage. That men should not be having sex outside of marriage?  Well, uh, that's different.


Dr. Mr. Smith also expects the eighteen year old wife to get knocked up pretty darn soonish and produce six to eight kids.  I wonder how he'd feel about today's view of "we can't have kids yet, they're too expensive and too much of a drag"?  And even those advocating for "why yes, women should be married off fast", how many of you boys want eight kids to support?




The argument is sometimes used that it is better to have only one child and bring it up with extraordinary care than to have six or eight children brought up with ordinary care because in the latter case the mother's attention is divided. But this is a fallacy. Everybody knows that the one child of the wealthy and highly educated couple is generally a spoiled child and has as a rule, poor health; while the six or eight children of the poor and moderately educated woman are exceedingly strong and lusty.




Fortunately, we poor feeble creatures have helpful guides to advise us regarding suitable grooms 😁


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But the phosphates, Breaker, the phosphates!  Top Men of the "women and their funny little diseases" club agreed about the phosphates!  In the struggle of Brain versus Baby, who will win?  She with the dumbest brain and the mostest phosphates, that's who!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Right just lemme take a note here.


Say you are looking forward to women being forced into destitution: a-okay to say.


Quote historical real actual content of the same kind: how dare you be sarcastic!


Interesting view of life you got there, mod.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 3, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
And yet somehow it fell out of the air that a man was found guilty of not recognising a ceremony that was, at the time, illegal in his state and punished for the same.  Schrodinger's gay wedding: it both exists and does not exist? Fail to recognise that you should celebrate what is technically non-existent and feel the consequences?


Some lawyers help me out here: if something is not permitted by the state constitution, does that make it illegal/a crime, or just "no don't do it but we won't stop you"?




In 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be lawfully married in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with their family and friends. At that time the state constitution prohibited same-sex marriage in Colorado, though by 2014 the state had allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States would affirm that gay couples have the fundamental right to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. 644 (2015).




What does "prohibited" mean here?  And if you don't agree to be complicit in a prohibited act, how come you are the bad guy?