Wewelsburg Longhouse

Mistakes women make with men

Paglian Himmler — Wed, 29 Jul 2026 00:53:31 GMT

Some unproductive things I observe women do in relationships.

Assuming he will change

Jordan Peterson proposed that Beauty & The Beast is the female equivalent to the hero’s journey. This is not completely untrue, but it should come with a huge asterisk.

In pre-industrial society, people paired up a lot earlier than we do now. Late teens to early 20s is when men have a lot of energy, very high sex drive, and very little sense of mortality. When a man becomes a father, his testosterone drops because it’s done its job and the behavior that got him laid would become a liability to his family. That’s how women civilize men.

This does not mean a fundamentally incompatible, mature man can be nagged, shaped and criticized into an ideal. It also does not mean a thuggish man, an abusive man, a landwhale, a cheating man, or a man who’s obsessed with goyball, will abandon those tendencies due to one particular woman’s magical vagina. This can be assumed to become more true the more vaginas he’s been in.

A man is an as-is purchase with no warranty. Anything he does — always consider the possibility he will do it forever. Anything that’s happened in his past, such as addiction, abuse, or infidelity — always assume it will resurface. Are you fine dealing with that?

Putting men on a pedestal

This is being an actual “pick me”.

Some women will bend over backwards attempting to cater to a man who frustrates them, and they are clearly a poor fit for. They change their personality, looks, interests, etc. and pretend things don’t bother them. This is done in very unsustainable ways. The relationship ends or goes nowhere, in spite of this.

A woman who’s very desperate for male attention will see information about “what men like” and try to meet every standard at once as if “men” are a monolith.

Ultimately, I think this leaves women confused as to who they actually are, and it erodes their ability to tell who they’re actually compatible with, or whose standards they’re capable of meeting for the next 50 years — also, who’s capable of meeting their standards.

This doesn’t mean to never pursue self-improvement, never be open to learning about a man’s interests, or never consider possibilities in terms of aesthetics or habits, but relationships cannot be built upon paper-thin facades.

Playing “house”

“Why should I buy the cow when she milks herself for free?”
— French proverb, probably

This is usually said in relation to sex, but it should include: moving in together, giving him money, and/or going to his place to cook and clean on a regular basis. This advice is especially directed at women doing things for men they know full-well they do not want to marry, or don’t know well enough to make that assessment.

Moving in together only makes it more difficult to break up. That’s all there is to say on that.

I think one should treat their dating partner like a homeless person, in the sense that if the partner is to be given things, they should be given specific items - food on dates, gifts and gift cards - but never loose sums of money, gas money for trip mileage one was not in the car for, any kind of bills or rent. Never give them a credit card or access to a bank account. If one absolutely must take them shopping, purchase the items for them. One should never let the partner have unlimited on-demand use of their car.

In the man’s home, the woman should be a good guest. That means helping him if he cooks, or helping clean up after that meal. That doesn’t mean showing up to wash a week’s worth of dirty dishes, do his laundry, vacuum and dust everything.

If he’s that much of a slob that it’s impossible to tolerate visiting his home as it is, perhaps talk about it, but more likely: just break up. Cleaning up after him isn’t impressing him, it’s not inspiring him to be neater, it’s setting an expectation.

It may be making him dishonest about the feasibility of the relationship because breaking up would mean losing access to free-of-charge Fleshlight Mommy.

Unrealistic standards

Ethan is a 32-year-old self-made billionaire who works a flexible 20-hour week so he can prioritize quality time. He funds a lavish, spontaneous lifestyle of luxury travel while remaining entirely humble, grounded, and unimpressed by money. He stands a muscular 6’2”, possesses ruggedly handsome features, and maintains a perfect six-pack without revolving his life around workouts and meal prep, or ever missing a social event.

He is deeply vulnerable and communicates feelings flawlessly, yet he never gets insecure, jealous, or moody. He is a charismatic social butterfly who commands every room, but he is completely obsessed with his partner and prefers staying in with her. He reads minds perfectly, anticipating his partner's needs before she even speaks them, and handles all relationship conflict with absolute serenity. He cooks five-star gourmet meals, cleans enthusiastically, and instinctively knows exactly how to comfort her after a hard day.

In the geek communities around fiction-writing and D&D character creation there is such a thing as a “Mary Sue” character - the male analogue being the “Gary Stu” - that (mostly) amateur writers use as wish-fulfillment to portray an idealized self-insert or a character based on an ideal partner.

Some must-have lists and ick lists read like insane Gary Stu descriptions. There is a difference between having standards, and and trying to get something that violates both basic economics and every law of thermodynamics.

I think 5 each, maybe 10 as an absolute maximum, is the correct number of must-haves and dealbreakers. These should be taken seriously as non-negotiable. One should be willing to walk if Ethan the billionaire had one of the listed dealbreakers, or was missing a must-have.

The search for the magic cock

Some women look for a man thinking he’s the missing component that will finally fix their falling-apart lives which they are at the center of.

All their prior relationships sucked and ended poorly. Nobody they ever had sex with knew how to hit. They’re always bored and everyone they dated was boring. Every man’s an abusive narcissist.

One should always be considering themselves as the common denominator in every problem in their life — not always the perpetrator, but always a prime suspect. Bad things sometimes happen randomly, but when a pattern begins to develop, it warrants introspection. Stop adding complexity for a moment, step back, and consider why things might keep happening how they do.

Many people are broken for a variety of reasons that are probably not their fault, but expecting a new relationship to fix it “this time”, or make them into a different, more ideal version of themselves, will only create disappointment by perpetuating a cycle. At best, a relationship built on a fragile, unstable psyche is like a house on a shitty foundation — it may work fine for a while but it is, in the long term, structurally unsound.

If one feels fundamentally incomplete without a relationship, what they need is not a relationship, but to work on feeling complete without one. If it sticks, that stability can help them find better relationships and hopefully stop encountering the same problems over and over.

Female sports

Paglian Himmler — Sat, 02 May 2026 23:27:16 GMT

5/24/26 - Removed irrelevant sections, added a part about being gay.

I grew up in a household with the RW opinion that girls should do only feminine activities — no ball sports or provocative forms of dance.

Did this restriction preserve my femininity?

Undoubtedly not.

I forget who said this, but “If you force trad, you get rad,” and I quite embody that.

I think using “because foid” as a reason for girls to be forced-to or forbidden-from many things is more likely to result in feeling like to be female is to be trapped in an woeful flesh prison.

Womanhood.

But then again, I suppose my femininity was preserved in the sense that if I were to poon out and become the most passing transman possible, an innocent game of catch would be like throwing holy water on a vampire. “I know what you are.”

How I catch a ball. Note the deployment of both hands, closed eyes, and that it’s not being caught.

Professional sports

I see women’s professional sports as fairly irrelevant due to how few people participate in them, actively or passively. The only reason anyone cares in The Current Year is because of the political issues: trannies, WNBA wanting equal pay, and the racial theater surrounding Caitlin Clark.

That’s all the further I’ll address that.

The culture surrounding little kids and sports is stupid

There is a widespread belief that kids will grow up to be retarded losers if they’re not started on formal sports teams (also all kinds of lessons) as soon as possible. The problem for me is in no way the sports themselves, but how the sports are taken too seriously and other areas of life are subordinated to practices and games.

It’s completely reasonable for people who believe that’s a mandatory part of parenthood - or else they’re selfish, neglectful parents whose kids won’t know teamwork or discipline - to simply say “No thanks, I’m good,” to parenthood.

Prior to the helicopter parenting age, if you ask older people, their participation in sports was informal and self-organized without adult intervention. They turned out better for it. When I say “Zoomers had everything done for them” this is what I’m talking about, not that they never experienced any hardship.

Sports culture is a gateway to wiggerism

Because of the affirmative action that’s made ball sports mostly non-white - football, basketball, baseball - that cultural influence pervades even at the very unserious levels.

In that sphere, one will be inundated with non-whites as role models, pump-up music and practice music is going to be rap, and the cultural memes and mannerisms are going to be non-white.

Either it rubs off on you, or you exist in an environment where you’re a foreigner putting on a facade, and that can erode the sanity of all but those exceptional at compartmentalization.

Very young kids’ selves are malleable, they don’t compartmentalize, and tend to do whatever gets approval from others. Somewhere around 5-6, their moral locus shifts from their parents to their peers, and this is the beginning of their decision in later development whether to reject their culture, remain allied to it, or use it as it as a battering ram.

Both these issues affect boys and girls, but I think the “melanated swagger” one may pick up from sports culture is more obvious and uncanny when girls do it, not that it’s a good module for boys to plug into their personalities either.

In my observation, however, most girls in high school and middle school who did sports did not appropriate this swagger, at least not when they weren’t playing ball. The ones who did often did play ball, but not always. There were plenty of unathletic wiggerettes.

Dance can get a bit groomy

The specific style of dance matters less than how it’s done. RWs are not the only people to notice frequent occurrence of elements in kids’ dance routines that are not age appropriate.

Example of an adult doing an Esmerelda dance widely agreed to be inappropriate for kids. Kids don’t understand seduction or flirtation to be able to dance these roles, artistically, and it looks weird when they do because they’re not supposed to.

There are obviously far worse examples of inappropriate routines. I don’t know what possesses instructors to choose or make “bad” choreography. I don’t know whether they’re desensitized, intentionally trying to be transgressive, or it’s a well-intended attempt to try to make the kids feel grown-up.

I don’t think this is necessarily a LW thing, because it seems like more of an offshoot of child beauty pageants that were really popular in the Bible Belt in the late 20th century. I think the hippie movement’s normalization of undone hair and unmade faces provoked a reactionary movement - as is want to happen - that defined femininity with big hair and bold makeup.

The LW influence is the mindset of “It’s not sexual, you’re just a pervert,” and the thing that’s supposedly not sexual is, like, someone spreading their legs directly at an audience with a 2” piece of cloth over their crotch.

I’ve seen someone try to normalize pole dance for kids on a similar basis that it’s just a form of acrobatics that’s not inherently sexual unless it’s made to be. While that’s technically true, just because you can ignore the cultural context doesn’t mean everyone else will. It certainly doesn’t mean bad actors won’t take advantage of an opportunity when they see one.

Too far in the other direction leads to “titanium burqua” but this ain’t it.

Health trumps everything

With over half of adults overweight and obese, and kids even worse off, I don’t think this is the time or place to be splitting hairs over how exactly people choose to move, so long as they do.

I think it’s better to have over-scheduled kids than obese kids.

It’s better to be a wigger than a landwhale.

It’s better to twerk in a skimpy leotard than be too eldritch-fat to wear a leotard.

That said, these are not binary choices. The ideal is neither of those extremes.

As is constantly the case, the LW body positivity movement shoving fat bitches in our faces for over a decade has lead to a RW reaction that glorifies a different kind of unhealthy body composition.

A BBW.

The debate over what people should look like seems retarded to me because we theoretically already know. We have the magic numbers in terms of what a healthy body composition is, and what a healthy hormonal profile looks like. We know what healthy posture looks like and know what musculoskeletal insufficiencies can be inferred from poor posture.

We are able to apply objective standards to other species, but when it comes to our own, everything becomes so neurotic because human bodies are moral and political. What’s the point in signaling politics or morality if it’s not an obvious statement?

“The Patriarchy wants women as weak and small as possible.”

I never really got that sense, personally. I always felt like men were far less scrutinizing than women were, at least in terms of what women looked like in action movies, comics and porn - presumably the male fantasy - versus what they looked like in fashion magazines and other female-targeted publications that promoted meme diets.

Patriarchy-approved!

I remember RamZPaul put out a video titled something like “Lara Croft Will Not Save Us” in response to various gun girl “conservathots”. It was an appeal to get out of goonbrain and think more about who is wife material. I don’t have an objection to this necessarily. We gotta reproduce for it to count, but there’s no reason an athletic gun girl can’t make a baby here and there. If anything, this is who should be making the babies.

Everyone also likes different things. One man’s 4 is another man’s 10 and that’s fine. Men were also gaga over Christina Hendricks and I remember women having an issue with it in a “You only like her because she has big boobs!” way. She doesn’t seem particularly athletic, but she’s definitely not as small as possible.

When anyone claims something like “ancient people worshiped fat women” this is probably what they’re talking about, not like the obese women who say that in order to cope.

Patriarchy-approved cannons!

I noticed much anti-tomboy propaganda on X came from Indians. They hate women with any visible muscle because the average Jeet male has no visible muscle. They are also largely vegetarian, historically, compared to Central and Northern European stock that lived on meat and milk and forced the Romans to invent new war tactics.

“Women who lift weights are so gross!”

The east Asian issue is not the men, but the European preference for Asian women due to their slim builds. Again, I feel this is again lead by European men who don’t lift, and even when they do, they’re insecure in their masculinity, and need a woman to be exaggeratedly more diminutive to them in order to feel masculine.

A healthy Western man should never be threatened by a woman’s athletic ability. He’s already at least twice as strong from doing nothing at all, and has superpowers he can choose to use and be 4x as strong.

Since most women don’t prefer heavily muscled bodybuilder physiques - preferring instead athletic but slimmer, softer, more classical builds - it begs the question of why so many men are capable of doing this, or motivated to, if it doesn’t attract women. The study found that other men are more intimidated by other men’s muscles, and beards, than women are attracted to either. Rob Henderson speaks of this.

Most men don’t like women with bodybuilder physiques either, but far fewer women are capable of this and almost none want to.

I’m being more than a bit facetious at this point (or am I?) but there might be something gay about finding merely-athletic women “manly”.

There has been much discourse over whether liking tomboys is gay, and just as most people may read the imam’s quote and think to themselves, “What kind of idiot could mistake a man for a woman simply because he is clean shaven??” the instinct to compare an athletic woman to a man demonstrates a similar type of confusion.

It’s at least somewhat gay to see a woman’s muscles and subconsciously include her in the male physical dominance hierarchy. The most straight psychology has a very high threshold for when it considers a woman to look like a man — she would have to look like a man in a literal way.

How much is too much?

Lean Beef Patty

I see Lean Beef Patty posted often in debates of whether muscles are attractive on women. She is very polarizing, with some men thinking she looks hot and others saying she looks gross, and everyone who thinks she’s hot is a closeted homosexual.

In my unprofessional opinion, I think she is on the edge of “too much” — far beyond what is necessary for fitness. As far as I know, she’s not doing anything unhealthy in terms of taking roids and having dangerously low body fat.

In my own experience, however, this is a very difficult physique to achieve. It’s not very sustainable, either. But it makes sense because she is an influencer and looking like this is her job. This is also the case with many women who look extreme — they’re hardcore into figure competitions, they’re models, they’re influencers, etc.

I find it pointless for men to debate this because the chances of encountering a woman like this in the wild, in any place other than a gym or adjacent context, are so insignificantly small. If they get a girlfriend and she starts getting into lifting, it’s so extremely unlikely she will ever look anything like this.

Take a chill pill.

The most likely outcome for a woman who starts lifting or doing any kind of exercise is being healthier and hotter, e.g. more feminine.

The horror.

I also think men who make a huge deal about how women should never lift anything heavier than a toddler are types who have never seen women in person. They just live on the internet and take in a bunch of extremes. If someone looks at the pic above and announces “Arms too manly. 2/10. Would not bang,” they’re not banging anything in the first place.

Tomboys are based

As Based Camp has pointed out, there are different cultural ideals of femininity. Currently, the discourse is dominated by the MENA and Slavic (reactionary to communism) ideal of dominant men and weak women.

Other cultures, such as northern European, Scotch-Irish Appalachian, and Mongolian, have a different ideal: the traits a man picks in his wife are the traits he picks in his sons. There’s a good reason the Spartans were so ferocious given their population, however they were defeated because no one wanted to do the dishes (womp womp).

Your dinner, sir.

Sure, east Asian women are delicate, but look at their men.

There was a time in Western history in which Fascism, accurately, recognized that active, outdoorsy women who weren’t obsessed with fashion were preferable to slim, urban, sedentary women. The Soviets happened upon the same conclusion.

Honestly this is fine — family, work, sport, art, politics.
Very convincing argument for Stalinism 10/10.

This is extremely true if we consult objective reality. Much modern infertility is caused by systemic hormonal issues from obesity, primarily. On the other hand, excessive thinness can cause infertility.

Returning for a moment, to the Western glorification of Eastern bodies, we’re just not built like that. Asian women are scaled to Asian men. Asians and Europeans are different organisms. Being mad about this is stupid — it’s being mad that one thing doesn’t look like something it’s not.

Dog breeds are synthetic but my point is if European men don’t like how European women look, they need to stop watching anime. Asian men have it hard enough.

Pregnancy is what it is to a large extent, but physical fitness and good diets help women cope with the symptoms better. For example, morning sickness is an adaptation to help women avoid toxins, so avoiding goyslop can potentially alleviate some morning sickness. Having good core development can decrease discomfort, help prevent ab separation, and shorten delivery in a healthy way. Having a healthier baseline helps women recover faster postpartum.

The Nazis were rather progressive in this area.

Thulean Perspective had cautioned women against lifting “heavy”due to it increasing incidence of pelvic floor tightness that increased the risk of prolapse and tearing.

He never defined “heavy” but scientifically, this is an issue for high-level powerlifters, which most women are not. Women who are otherwise sedentary can also have problematic pelvic floors. Too much time spent in high heels can cause excess tightness, for example. On the other hand, a pelvic floor that’s not tight enough can also be an issue.

Continuing activity is generally recommended for pregnant women, albeit in a modified form. Many women have access to pelvic floor PT to address issues they might have have going in, prevent issues while continuing activity, and recover after delivery.

Fuck school

Taking sports too seriously leads to people getting life-ruining injuries at young ages. Competitive sports definitely increases girls’ likelihood of this happening, but the frequency and severity of their injuries pale in comparison to boys’ injuries, particularly from football.

Sacrificial ball game is not part of Western culture.

It’s hard to find a man who played high school football as anything other than a benchwarmer who doesn’t have a chronic mobility issue from something that happened from football. This goes doubly if they played in college. Most of them have something wrong with their joints or back, they’ve had concussions, etc.

College sports scholarships are a major driver in this trend, and why parents are so willing to sacrifice their kids’ bodies and childhoods for a piece of paper.

This is a problem, though, that simply shouldn’t exist in the first place.

Credential inflation is out of control, the cost of college is far too high, there are too many unemployable degrees, schools give absolute dogshit career advice, too many job fields that are degrees when they should be trades, and too many jobs that are like:

“Toilet cleaner, junior/associate. Requires BS in industrial hygiene or related field, 5-10 years experience, 2 professional references. Supervisory experience preferred. Required certifications: CPWM, SWANA, OHST. $15-$20/hour contingent on experience and qualifications, 1099 18 month contract-to-hire, benefits on conversion to $8.25-$10.50/hour W-2.”

What is my point, ultimately?

People should do whatever is accessible to them, that they will actually do, to keep an objectively good body composition and posture.

The pursuit of sport should be balanced with all other demands, but health trumps morality.

Ball sports culture encourages wiggerism.

Dance can be inappropriate if the instructor/school is retarded.

Young kids are probably better off playing instead of being overscheduled.

Women are better exercising than not.

It’s weird for men to be intimidated by a women’s fitness since he can practically guarantee outdoing her with little effort.

The West needs a firewall that largely blocks Indians.

White men need to lift, stop watching anime, and stop monopolizing Asians.

There is not a single college degree worth one’s knees or spine.

Best exercise for kids

Other than playing outside, in my opinion. The commonality is that they are social, are a mode of unstructured play, and can be used for stunting to ascend the social hierarchy.

Swimming. They should learn to swim as early as possible, if for no other reason than to not die from drowning.
Gymnastics. Basic tumbling, nothing too crazy or serious. Mostly the value is becoming accustomed to moving one’s body in unusual ways, and kids who can do stunts get social clout.
Bicycling. I’ve never known anyone who hasn’t rode a bike.
Skating. Ice or roller, skateboarding, etc. There is such a profound lifetime difference in people who learn to balance, and and those who don’t. These also translate well to a number of other sports adults are more likely to do, such as skiing.
Casual ball. There’s definitely something to the fact most species with brains will spontaneously play with a ball. It doesn’t have to be formalized to get value out of it and much value comes from simply messing around, especially when the parental workload is considered. Older kids naturally pick up on structured games like kickball, basketball, etc.

Best exercise for foids

These would be sports where women can participate casually with men without being at a massive disadvantage, and ones that complement physiology — doing stunts for social clout.

Hiking. Essentially a free space. Things are such that “walking in a natural environment” became a sport instead of something people simply do, but it is what it is. It scales from manmade trails to challenging hikes, and women don’t generally have a problem keeping up except under the most extreme conditions, which most people are simply not going to encounter.
Weight lifting. Baseline fitness maintenance to replace all the farming and manual work we no longer do. Being fit as a woman carries a lot of social clout.
Dancing. Everyone should dance, but not being able to socially dance as a woman is negative social clout. Men will pay money to watch women dance, which says something.
Skiing/snowboarding. Not the most accessible sport and it’s seasonal, but it’s probably one of the more popular social sports for adults. In UMC and beyond, not being able to ski carries negative social clout. However, if one has learned to skate as a kid, and they’re a reasonably fit adult, translation to skis takes only a few hours.
Indoor rock climbing. It’s sort of a fad right now, but it’s a social sport where women aren’t massively disadvantaged. There is not direct competition, everyone is dealing with their own body weight, and use of flexibility and technique can compensate for strength disadvantage.
Tennis. When played casually, it’s accessible, and men and women can be competitive without it being un-fun. In UMC and beyond, it can be used for social clout or at least to avoid negative social clout.

Anprims are right about gender.

Paglian Himmler — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 22:42:13 GMT

I think what happened to gender roles caused gender dysphoria to emerge around 1920 or so. The same circumstances also caused feminism to emerge as an inevitability.

What deep-cut rightoids think of today as “traditional gender roles” is derived from the most logical ways for people to conduct themselves in agrarian societies and harsh Darwinian conditions.

It wasn’t something they had to be hectored on, forced to comply with, etc. and not just because they weren’t aware of an alternative. For example, if a modern couple decided to live off-grid and subsistence farm, without going out of their way to be trad, their roles would look similar to how people used to live. It would happen automatically for the most part.

I think the reason women didn’t have a major issue with men having privileges is because the privileges were balanced with how physically demanding day to day life was and how likely they were to die from violence, whether from battles, murder, dueling, hunting, etc.

By the time most people were living in industrialized, urban conditions, the challenges that used to justify men’s privileges started to go away, as well as the environment that made “traditional roles” obvious and logical, especially for the middle classes. These conditions started developing in roughly the 18th century and became the norm in the 20th, and so did feminism.

The church institutions scaled back by this point, from how massive they used to be, and layman professionals filled those jobs - the beginning of white collar and bureaucratic work - which were CLERICAL jobs because they used to be held by the clergy. The clergy gave up privileges in order to be in a position to do these jobs, and have other privileges such as being protected from violence.

At this point, people were living in a largely peaceful society with improved rule of law, so men were far less subject to violence. Additionally, they didn’t have to give anything up to have “cushy jobs” instead of manual labor.

A lot of people caught on quickly to the fact certain aspects of social order (e.g. gender roles, but some other things too) were no longer self-reinforcing. They had apprehension about what those changes would create, and so doubled down on gender roles and gender performance being things done for their own sake. With the environment no longer making these things obvious and logical, they become burdensome.

Nietzsche talks about this: a practice becomes a tradition when people forget why they were doing it.

Industrialization was followed by two world wars in quick succession which provided rationalization to preserve privileges for men.

By the time men were drafted to fight in Vietnam, the nature of war and the motivations for it had changed substantially, and the average person realized that modern wars are fake and gay. Nuclear weapons - mutually assured destruction - factor in. Fast forward to now, and ~90% of roles in the American armed forces are administrative, logistical, or tech support. Dudes are still getting ganked, but at this point, if there were a draft, it’s may be more likely that one would be piloting a drone from an office building or driving a forklift, rather than in a combat role.

When it comes to the question of drafting women in The Current Year, with the 90/10 split between support and combat roles, there’s essentially no reason not to draft women.

In the current circumstances, especially, it’s not insane to question the privileges than men have. Living in harsh Darwinian conditions with constant, almost day-to-day violence, is not the same as registering for selective service and likely never being drafted in your lifetime. For the same reasons, the privileges women used to have, to help them in such conditions, are simply not as valuable.

“They should be valuable because they are!”

Sure, and we can value goods and services based solely on the labor needed to create or provide them…

That’s where we now are. What about gender dysphoria, then?

I think it’s a response some people have to the meaninglessness of gender in modern society. We no longer have an environment forcing us to relate to gender in an essential, animalistic way — the way to perform gender is through basic biological functions dimorphism sets men and women up to do. It’s not a performance, though, because it has no artifice.

In an attempt to maintain social structures, people in the turn of the century created a simulacra of gender roles, which are what most people now think of: the normie concept of gender roles. These are based on aesthetics and behavior — literal performance.

If gender is no more than a performance - a set of clothing, hairstyle, speech pattern, mannerism - and one dislikes what they’re being asked to perform, there’s no concrete reason they can’t simply perform something different.

Then, gender dysphoria may be a latent recognition and resentment of the arbitrariness and shallowness of modern gender roles.

Feminists and troons are not wrong in this respect.

IS COLLEGE ATTENDANCE A WIN FOR WOMEN??

Paglian Himmler — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 01:06:05 GMT

I hate school so much.

Job training is good. Education - what it should be, not what it is - is good.

School is a humiliation ritual. Anyone who disagrees with me is a freak.

But is the current state of college enrollment a win for women?

Equal opportunity admissions to college and allowing women to pick their majors was a win. That was also in the time when college wasn’t a scam and degrees actually meant things. I believe this continued to be the case until a number of things changed around the 60s-70s.

With the post-secondary ed system being how it is, women being a majority in it is not actually a win.

A degree no longer translates necessarily to a high-paying job. Getting one typically involves taking on a crippling debt that interferes with every adult life milestone — buying homes, having kids, affording healthcare, self employment, etc. Getting married is unbelievably cheap if you forego the big party and fancy dress, but a lot of people feel like they need to do that - whatever, man - and postpone getting married, likely because their student loans contribute to their inability to afford it.

I’m extremely in favor of women learning job skills. There are multiple ways to go about this, however. Women need to be aware of the ramifications of having an expensive student loan bill with respect to how that impacts the logistics of their family life.

Lori “The Transformed Wife” Alexander is a humorless killjoy and hypocrite whose idea of home decor is inspired by nursing homes, and I don’t agree with her that a “debt free virgin with no tattoos” is the only thing a woman can be, but there’s a grain in wisdom in the observation that owing a several-hundred-dollar monthly bill on a 10-20 year debt that cannot be discharged, will be an obstacle to living a single-income male-breadwinner lifestyle, if that is the goal. It’s not unreasonable to not want to take on someone else’s $600/month bill that would be contributing literally nothing to the household at that point. The student loan payment can be the deciding factor in whether a woman can swing even 12 weeks of FMLA at 80% pay, because she has short-term disability that approximates to kinda-maybe-I-guess-it-might-be [derogatory finger-quotes] “maternity leave”.

Hell, a student loan bill can be an obstacle to girlbossing while supporting a stay-at-home husband. Imagine giving your househusband a $500 allowance instead of sending it to SoFi or MOHELA. He could buy SO MANY GUNS, AND CHICKENS AND COOPS AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE!

It’s even an obstacle to affording wine and cats.

It’s an obstacle to traveling to southeast Asia to “find one’s self”.

It’s definitely an obstacle to getting one-shotted by ayahuasca and becoming a circus stripper.

Unfortunately, the public school system promotes college, college, college! Go as long as you can to college! Get an advanced degree at college!

It promotes this to girls and boys, but especially girls, and girls and their parents are uniquely susceptible to this.

Men complain that women are taken care of by people and they have a support network. Everyone cares more about women and their well-being.

What they don’t appreciate, due to greener-grass fallacy, is that there is a price to pay for support and care. That price is being subject to the opinion of every single interested or invested party.

Sometimes that can be reasonable. If a relative is paying one’s tuition, it’s fair they have a say in the school, the major, living arrangement, grades, etc.

In more cases, the person uses the girl/woman to regulate their own emotions. Their care and support is not tangible, it’s validation and approval for no pragmatic purpose. It’s emotional. Often, it’s barely rational. If this person is a parent, it can have undue sway over the dependent child. Many people are legal children when they initiate their “college journey”.

Other than DEI, I think three things contribute to this.

Due to some mix of nature and nurture, probably, the female brain is very sensitive to approval and disapproval. The evo-psych theories make sense, as do the social theories that patriarchy, as the main beneficiary of such behavior, prioritizes teaching girls conformity and agreeableness above all else.

College is still, according to the status quo, the path of the “good citizen”. Smart people go to college, dumb and lazy people don’t go to college. When someone says they have a college degree, social scripts say, “Oh they must be very smart and diligent.”

It’s a standing precedent that “being good” is very important for women. In previous generations that meant things like being a virgin and not having tattoos. Now it means going to college.

On the other hand, while society cares for and supports males less, this lack of opinionated meddling also leaves them free to make their own decisions, such as not going to college. Hardly anyone cares if a man has had premarital sex or got a tattoo.

Optics matter so much more, apparently, for females than males. I think it goes back to the conception of women as property.

If a man fucks up his life, he fucks up his own life and his mom is sad.

If a woman fucks up her life: stakeholders most affected. This is especially the case for stakeholders who haven’t been born yet — the infinite stakeholder glitch that can be exploited.

I think there is an element of overcompensation that occurs on multiple levels. Because women haven’t had equal opportunity to access education as men have, and this has been the case for the majority of Western history, there is a sense of needing to make up for lost time.

A hypothetical: If women had had equal access to education for all this time, could there have been more sex parity in areas like art, science, mathematics, literature, and philosophy?

Your guess is as good as mine, but even if that’s true, it’s not going to be the current educational system that will help achieve that.

Another layer of overcompensation is wistfully resentful mothers and other relatives. They explain their marriage as something they settled for or “wound up in” in lieu of pursuing their prior goals and aspirations. The more traditional of these older women may frame it as loss of opportunity to meet a better man. They could have met a better man at college or in a post-college workplace, instead of marrying the grouchy lump their high school sweetheart metastasized into.

Also related to historic inequality in educational opportunities, there is a latent paranoia that this age’s Marie Curie or Grace Hopper is in our midst and could make a ground-breaking invention or discovery, but only if sexism doesn’t keep her out of college. I think this makes some adults reluctant to admit that college isn’t right for every girl.

The reasons why college sucks are enough to warrant their own post, but I think it’s fairly encapsulated in the way that expensive, very protracted “Underwater Prehistoric Lesbian Basket Dance” degrees are promoted to girls - or degrees for things that are useful but should not require a degree - at the cost of crippling debt.

The same institutions that swindle them and waste their time are the same ones that have been telling women that patriarchy is why they make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes.