Global Affluence

The Chateau also notices the connection between affluence and feminism.

As was the case with Rome, the rise of feminism parallels the accumulating wealth and prestige of nations or empires. Affluence may be a causative factor of feminist idiocy, or it may be a correlative factor. Either way, once a nation has succumbed to materialism, it has succumbed to feminism, and once a nation has allowed feminism a toehold in the body politic, decadence and decline are not far behind.

Of course, here at FD, we believe it is a causal relationship.

Roosh also notes what is happening to Eastern European women as they emerge from their communism induced poverty bubble.

Eastern European Women Become More Masculine In America

As The Pussy Turns

6 Ways Poland Is Becoming Degenerate Like America

It becomes increasingly clear that no matter where or when, affluence is responsible for the global pandemic of feminism. A cure must be found soon!


Flappers:  A preview of modern feminism

In the roaring twenties, a ‘period of sustained economic prosperity’ a new breed of feminist appeared.  The Flappers:

Flappers were a “new breed” of young Western women in the 1920s who wore short skirts, bobbed their hair, listened to jazz, and flaunted their disdain for what was then considered acceptable behavior. Flappers were seen as brash for wearing excessive makeup, drinking, treating sex in a casual manner, smoking, driving automobiles, and otherwise flouting social and sexual norms.[1] Flappers had their origins in the liberal period of the Roaring Twenties, the social, political turbulence and increased transatlantic cultural exchange that followed the end of World War I, as well as the export of American jazz culture to Europe.

The Wandering Mind blog also has a good write up of flapper culture.

Flappers and the New Feminism

In the 1920s flappers represented a new type of feminism. They possessed different goals and methods than feminists of the early twentieth century. During the 1920s middle-upper class women were no longer concerned with political equality, rather these new feminists desired social equality. Historian Michael Lerner asserted, “women had the right to enjoy themselves socially as much as men did, whether through drinking, sex, or indulging in the pleasures of urban nightlife.”[1] Flappers gleefully defied many long-standing ideas about American womanhood by demanding social equality. They redefined acceptable social behaviors through their dress, new approaches to courting, and their fascination with public drinking. By most descriptions, Lois Long, a reporter for The New Yorker, was the embodiment of the 1920s flapper. Her writing provided a voice for these new feminists.

You can certainly see the very beginnings of modern feminist ideology and it seems to be driven by affluence.  Flappers also represented a significant break from first wave feminists.

Flappers represented a dramatic change in women’s behavior. Previously feminists had been single women determined to create some sort of political change. Pre-World War I feminists focused their efforts on causes such as suffrage, temperance, and equal employment opportunities. Women, such as Jane Addams, wanted to make America better through their dedication to service. Thus, the earlier generation of feminists was not at all happy about the lack of seriousness among the new generation. Women went from service-bound matrons to carefree, consumption-crazed flappers. Journalist, Gail Collins, conjectured, “It was a disturbing time for the older generation who had grown up believing that they had a duty to make the world better.”[27] Flappers viewed pre-War feminists with a cool disdain, flippantly characterizing them as bitter old maids.

However the Flapper era did not last long:

The flapper lifestyle and look disappeared in America after the Wall Street Crash and the following Great Depression. The high-spirited attitude and hedonism were less acceptable during the economic hardships of the 1930s.

When the affluence disappears, so does feminism.  Flappers were just a preview of modern feminism, interrupted by economic depression and war.  We would have to wait 20 years for affluence to return and 30 for feminism rear it’s ugly head once again.

Although it is hard to complain too much about the behavior of the Flappers when compared to today’s feminists, it is interesting to note the turning point and the beginning of social feminism.  One of the amazing things about feminism is it’s ability to slowly get worse and worse.  Men are like a slowly boiling frog, unable to escape from this feminist pot.

The Age of Affluence

Two of my recent posts have chronicled the travails of wealthy young women in modern times.  But where did all this affluence come from and when did it start?

Why are the 1950’s remembered as an age affluence?

It is interesting to study inflection points.  How society was before and after a major event.  Remembering of course that societal shifts are slow, with each decade seemingly reacting to the lessons of the previous one.  Author Kharrima takes us on a whirlwind tour of the 1950s.

1950s: A Prosperous Decade: The 1950’s was the most prosperous decade because of the war time economy because WWII got the U.S out of the Great Depression and the recovery of Japan and Europe allowed them to start trading with the U.S which also boosted the U.S economy.. We were continuing to build up our military and industrial complex due to the Cold War. Wages and savings accounts were at an all time high because there was nothing to spend money on before and after the war people were dying to spend money. 60% of people made it into the middle class. Era of Conformity: This decade was known as an era of conformity because everyone wore the same clothes, ate the same foods, and drove the same car. Everyone had the same shared experiences (i.e the depression and the war). There was an emphasis on nuclear family because people were concerned about security and stability; this leads to suburbia The Rise of Suburbia: The buildings of Suburbia led to a better economy. Why was it popular? Everyone who can afford a car can afford to drive to work due to the auto culture (which helps lead to the construction of the interstate by Eisenhower). Suburbia reinforced conformity; the houses all looked alike and everyone was driving the same cars, had the same appliances, same jobs, and the kids all went to the same school. Loss of feminism and emphasis on the nuclear family and mass consumerism: Women almost forgot about feminism. Women were marrying younger to prevent pre-marital sex. The ideal number of kids was 4 (which results in the baby boom). The separate sphere’s ideology was embraced. The credit card was born in the 50’s. TV helped mass consumerism as well; they portrayed images of middle class lifestyles and used commercials. Consumerism was another way to conform. The Auto industry also boomed again. McDonalds was also born due to the auto industry. Challenging Conformity: Some of those who challenged Suburbia and conformity were Alfred Kinsey, Playboy, Rock and Roll, the Beats, etc. Biologist Alfred Kinsey studied human sexuality. He discovered that ½ of all women had sex before marriage and 25% of women had affairs. 8% of his students were homosexual or had a homosexual experience at some point. Playboy appeared in 1953. Marilyn Monroe was on the cover of the first issue. Hollywood promoted dual images of women (either the housewife or the sex kitten). The 50’s were not affluent for everyone. Minority groups were not living in suburbia which aids in segregation and the ghettos continue to grow. Rock and Roll is born from rhythm and blues and country. People needed a white man to move and sing like a black man, Elvis was their answer. People often felt that Rock and Roll was a communist conspiracy. Parents feared that rock and roll would morally corrupt their children. One of the main figures of the Beats was Jack Kerouac. It came from them feeling “beat down” from the book “On the Road” he wrote while traveling. Allen Ginsberg wrote the poem “Howl” in 1955. He cursed in the poem and talked about sex, drugs, booze, music, art, etc. The government confiscated his books out of stores and tried to take them against the Supreme Court but it was overruled due to freedom of speech. The beats rejected materialism of the 1950’s and they were trying to be unique instead of conforming. They were rebels against suburbia.

“Loss of feminism”, which was actually surging in the 1920’s with the 20’s also experiencing an affluence boom.  Known as the roaring 20’s, driven by the stock market on unlimited margin borrowing.  The Great Gatsby gives you a pretty good idea of how things were back then.  However then the crash came and soon after Japan attacked America.  It’s amazing how war and poverty make men go from disposable to invaluable.

“Women almost forgot about feminism”.  By the time the 1950’s hit, society was reacting to the lessons learned from the 30’s and 40’s.  Trying to rebuild the country after the ravages of war and depression was mostly a male endeavor.  Sure women worked hard during the war, but most were happy to “opt out” once the men came back.  Two decades of poverty and hardship made women value the provider male and forget about feminism, at least temporarily.

However by the mid 50’s the stock market had recouped it’s losses and hit new all time highs.


Affluence was returning to America surprisingly quickly and it wouldn’t be long before feminism would begin to rear it’s ugly head once again

For her 15th college reunion in 1957 Friedan conducted a survey of college graduates, focusing on their education, subsequent experiences and satisfaction with their current lives. She started publishing articles about what she called “the problem that has no name,” and got passionate responses from many housewives grateful that they were not alone in experiencing this problem.

Except this time the affluence train would not be derailed by another major war or economic catastrophe.  As each decade was more prosperous than the last, each wave of feminism was more virulent than the last.

By now you have seen that affluence along with peacetime seem to be major precursors to feminism.  While war and poverty is the cure.  Unfortunately most of us (except for the black man) would prefer to live and a peaceful prosperous society.  But how to without the scourge of feminism ruining everything?  This is the ultimate question.  Whoever can successfully solve this riddle will win the first MRA Nobel prize.


The Hivemind Narrative Chart

This about sums it up…

Chateau Heartiste

A useful chart that tells you whom to blame when your shitlib social status is challenged by adherence to the proper context for the latest viral news story.

Programming note: I prefer the term “hivemind” to “media” because the former encompasses the full spectrum of thought self-regulation that pervades almost every aspect of current American social life.

View original post

Liberals Hate Asians

They hate Asians for a many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they completely contradict the Liberal orthodoxy of how we live in a White Racist Society that doesn’t give minorities a far shake.  And yet Asians economically are doing better than Whites.  How can that be if we are so racist?!  Does not compute.  So the answer has been to just power ignore Asians.  The race which must not be named…  Astute readers have noticed that for a long time liberals have used the terms minorities and ‘blacks and Hispanics’ interchangeably.  But never ‘Blacks, Hispanics and Asians’.  Asians simply don’t exist in the Liberal Narrative.

However this is becoming more and more of a problem as Asians are the fastest growing minority group.  So finally on prominent Liberal tried to successfully incorporate Asians into Liberal ideology, and the result is a spectacular failure!

The Asian Advantage

The intro is classic

THIS is an awkward question, but here goes: Why are Asian-Americans so successful in America?

but, but, we know minorities are discriminated against…  Awkward indeed.  (Colored Text)

He then goes on to list a bunch of common sense stuff that the ‘Scientific Racists’ have been saying for years.  It’s not IQ so much as hard work, making sacrifices for your children, two parent families, and being committed to education.

But don’t get too happy, now hear comes the Liberal rebuttal.

Lee and Zhou, for their part, think that positive stereotyping may be part of an explanation for the success of Asian-Americans in school.

“They’re like, ‘Oh, you’re Chinese and you’re good in math,’” the book quotes a girl called Angela as saying. “It’s advantageous when they think that.”

This is classic Liberal circular logic that they always employ.  Because Asians do good in school everyone just thinks they do good in school, so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.  Right…  As if there is no way to objectively judge students in a math class!?!  There are no right answers in math, just opinions and feelings.

He then continues with the ‘it’s all a stereotype’ argument.  Another liberal classic.

Another factor in Asian scholastic success may be the interaction of social stereotypes and self-confidence. Scholars like Claude Steele have found that blacks sometimes suffer from “stereotype threat”: Anxiety from negative stereotypes impairs performance. Lee and Zhou argue that Asian-Americans sometimes ride on the opposite of “stereotype threat,” a “stereotype promise” that they will be smart and hard-working.

But in his closing argument he takes it to a whole other level.  Using logic so twisted and fractured only the most devout Liberals can follow it.

Why should the success of the children of Asian doctors, nurtured by teachers, be reassuring to a black boy in Baltimore who is raised by a struggling single mom, whom society regards as a potential menace? Disadvantage and marginalization are complex, often deeply rooted in social structures and unconscious biases, sometimes compounded by hopelessness and self-destructive behaviors, and because one group can access the American dream does not mean that all groups can.

So, sure, let’s celebrate the success of Asian-Americans, and emulate the respect for education and strong families. But let’s not use the success of Asians to pat ourselves on the back and pretend that discrimination is history.

Liberalism saved!  Not.

Disadvantage and marginalization are complex, often deeply rooted in social structures and unconscious biases

So even though he has proven the formula for Asian success, really things are just too complicated for mere mortals to understand.  We must ignore these facts and continue to believe in liberal teachings.

But let’s not use the success of Asians to pat ourselves on the back and pretend that discrimination is history.

In a supreme bit of irony he started by confronting Asian success in America and ended up deciding that we need to ignore Asians.  Back to square one…

The Daddy Economy

Zero Hedge has been tracking labor force participation rates by age group since the 2008 recession.  One striking and unexplainable trend has been the decline of working age people (25-54) coupled with an actual rise in the 55 and over group.

Even the mighty ZH has been at a loss to explain this.  But now the Atlanta Fed takes a crack

The decrease in labor force participation among prime-age individuals has been driven mostly by the share who say they currently don’t want a job. As of December 2014, prime-age labor force participation was 2.4 percentage points below its prerecession average. Of that, 0.5 percentage point is accounted for by a higher share who indicate they currently want a job; 2 percentage points can be attributed to a higher share who say they currently don’t want a job.
Zero Hedge goes on to be highly critical of this assessment.

Nothing about the lack of job demand as mega corporations continue to lay workers off in droves instead of hiring, instead using every last dollar of free cash flow to buyback their own stock to boost executive compensation instead of growing their company and hire more workers.

Nothing about the collapse in small business formation – that driver of 80% of US employment – as firm exit rates are now greater than firm entry rates

Nothing about the inability to get a job in a world in which the rest of
the global is lapping the US in educational and labor skills.

Nothing about the US economy never having left the post-2008 depression where $4.5 trillion in Fed credit was created just to boost the S&P to all time highs and never making it to the actual economy (until the helicopters finally start paradropping of course)

Nothing about millions of aging, 55 and over, Americans refusing to retire or quit their job simply because they have no return on their savings to fall back on thank to the Fed’s ZIRP, thus keeping the labor pipeline clogged and preventing younger Americans from getting promoted and achieving better paying jobs.

Nothing about a Millennial generation encumbered with $1 trillion in debt, that is so terrified of its job prospects and having to pay down its debt, it choose instead to keep rolling and piling on to this debt by remaining in college indefinitely

Nothing about the perverted incentive structure of a welfare state that makes it more attractive to collect generous government handouts which end up punishing hard work.

None of that.

You see, it is because Americans “mostly don’t want a job.”

All legit points and there is undoubtedly a lot of people who want jobs but have given up due to the crappy economy.  And yet the Atlanta Fed may not be entirely off base…

Continue reading “The Daddy Economy”

San Francisco Feminist looks up from her iPhone for the first time in 4 years, horrified by what she sees

Why does San Francisco feel so lonely?

I was walking down Mission street to attend an event at the Jewish Contemporary Museum. Let me rephrase. I was forced to walk, as my phone battery died when I would normally take a Lyft line. I was forced to look up, right, left and in between. Off my screen into the street. And what I saw while very familiar, woke me up for the first time since I decided San Francisco would be my home, 4 years ago.

Ha ha, poor thing.  Sounds like she was visually assaulted!

Homeless people were lying ALL around, like corpses in a battlefield with no one alive to take them home.


1- Lack of diversity

Don’t get me wrong nothing is wrong with being an engineer or rich or work in tech. But when most of the people who can afford living in a city work in specific type of job, and in a specific industry, that leaves us with lack of diversity, in this case less magical interactions, variety of ways of thinking, being and connecting.

She’s not attracted to nerds.  Shocker…  No magical interactions for you!

How do you make a city feel less lonely? You get strangers to talk to each other. You connect with a homeless person in need.

Wait, I thought she just said the homeless were like corpses?  Dead men tell no tales.

2- Focusing on making it big = no time for people

The aforementioned nerds have done a dating analysis of San Fran and realized you need to be an internet billionaire to actually have a chance with a hot girl.

Continue reading “San Francisco Feminist looks up from her iPhone for the first time in 4 years, horrified by what she sees”