At least she's a cheap date

Mysogynist Moment

Apparently, Faceborg COO and irritatingly smug feminist Sheryl Sandberg thinks that a man can get laid like tile as long as he actually sweeps the tiles:
If we are to believe one of the world’s wealthiest feminists, the route to a man getting a rich and fulfilling sex life is to do more domestic chores. [Didact: The stupid... the FAIL... IT BURNS!!!]
And this “sex for housework” trade-off even has an unremittingly cringeworthy name. 
“Choreplay” is being championed by Sheryl Sandberg, billionaire Facebook COO, uber-feminist and author of the #BanBossy and #LeanIn campaigns. 
Though the word dates back to at least the start of the decade, it now forms part of Sandberg’s latest idea, "Lean In Together," which encourages women and men to fight for gender equality “in the boardroom and the bedroom”. 
Sandberg thinks men need more carrot and less stick to help us achieve true gender equality, even if that means enticing us with the promise of sexual favours in order to get us to pull our weight around the house. 
In the latest of her four-part 'Women at Work' series, entitled 'How Men Can Succeed in the Boardroom and the Bedroom' , she points out that “Couples who share chores equally have more sex. If men want to do something nice for their partners, instead of buying flowers, they should do laundry. Choreplay is real.” 
Really? I think many men would probably disagree. The first barrier is the word itself. I challenge anyone to come up with a word that is singularly less erotic than “choreplay”, a verbal brewer’s droop if ever there was one. 
At a stretch, it could be something that appeals to the sort of men who frequents Soho torture dungeons (“You want sex, boy? Well get down on your hands and knees and scrub that kitchen floor, you worm!”) but we're talking pretty niche. 
To make it even less sexually charged, Sandberg’s previous buzzphrase – “Lean In” – has been stapled on as a prefix. So we have “Lean In Choreplay”. 
It’s salt on the sex slug: it's anti-Viagra. It could only be less erotic if a consent form were needed in order to initiate “choreplay”. 
The second, possibly bigger, annoyance is Sandberg’s baseline assumption – in line with the oft-repeated feminist narrative – that women do all the housework, even when both partners work. That might have been true of our dads, but my generation is pulling its weight. 
As it happens, a Spanish study published a few months ago, based on 20 years worth of data on married couples in the US, found that men who regularly cook and clean have less sex than men who don't lift a finger, not more. But that's by the by.
I can't even... how do you... what the... I mean, really?!?

Get Back To The Kitchen
The only appropriate response
Now, anyone with half of a functioning brain can tell that Sheryl Sandberg is out-of-her-gourd crazy. I mean, look at this woman:

"Don't you go telling ME about how MEN are in charge at Facebook!"
And now look at her husband with his wife:

... CEO David Goldberg is Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s Husband
And we're supposed to take sex advice from these two?!?
Yes... clearly a pair of nymphomaniacs there. You can just see the sexual tension sparking between them, can't you?... Well, you might have been able to, if it weren't for his giant fat belly and her droopy breasts getting in the way.

At least we can say this about Ms. Sandcooch: all you have to do to get her all wet-'n'-wild is to take her to Bed, Bath & Beyond and pretend to shop for a dustbuster. 

(I must apologise to those readers of a sensitive nature who read that and promptly lost their lunches. I assure you, it wasn't intentional. I'll pass out free barf bags next time.)

Having summarily dispensed with the notion that Ms. Sandberg has even the first clue about what an "active sex life" really means, let us turn now to this idiotic notion of hers that husbands who do the housework get laid more.

Quite aside from the fact that SCIENCE disproves it, through the use of still-important and useful ideas like evidence and hypothesis testing- which are concepts that are apparently quite alien to Ms. Sandberg's liberal brain- there is ample room to question the basic premise on grounds of simple logic.

It should be no secret whatsoever that women respect and admire masculine men. There are things that a man can do around the house that are very much within the domain of masculinity- gardening, building things, lifting things, and even cooking are all perfectly legitimate masculine pursuits.

Note, however, the things that all of these pursuits have in common. They require skill, experience, patience, and strength to do properly- any man who has ever done a real barbecue with his ten best friends and his entire family around him knows what I mean when I say that doing this right is both a science and an art, and comes through long and hard-won experience.

All of these things require a man to display some form of mastery over himself and his environment. And if that was all that Ms. Sandbags had in mind, then there would be no quarrel between her and the sane-minded.

But no. Her idea of a man getting involved in running the house is to do the cooking and the cleaning and the ironing and the laundry, equally sharing the burden with his wife.

This, as any red-blooded man can quickly figure out, is a great way to find oneself staring down the barrel of a divorce. And this is exactly why no sane man should ever listen to a woman, especially not a feminist, about what women find attractive.

The writer for the Telly, who I suspect had to be sedated in order to write his article in sufficiently politically correct tones and measures for a newspaper that appears desperate to out-Guardian The Guardian, had the following to say about the notion that a man who does the dishes is sexy:
Thus, in a gratifying confirmation of the blindingly obvious, women don’t even find men who do the dishes to be, well, dishy. Quelle surprise: no woman lusts after a man in rubber gloves.

One final thought: if you were married to a billionaire like Sandberg and she still expected you to do the laundry, wouldn’t you man up and say, “Honey, how about we hire some home help to do this for us while we take an early night? I think we can afford it.”

That way sex might be less chore, and more play. Unless “choreplay” is about something else: making men feel they have to “earn” everything in life, with sex being the ultimate “good boy” reward.
The worst thing about Ms. Iceberg's ridiculous bloviating is not the utter smarmy preachiness of it. No, the absolute worst thing about it is the tone-deafness.

This woman is a billionaire. She got that way by working for a company started up by a young man who is a good 15 years younger than she is and who had a great set of ideas. Her role- and she deserves a great deal of credit for this- was to figure out how to make the idea factory that was Facebook and make it profitable. She did that, and was duly rewarded for her efforts by becoming one of the richest women in the world when Facebook went public.

Make no mistake, however; she did not do this in a vacuum, and she did not do it thanks to girrrrrrl power. She has gotten where she is because of men.

She married an independently wealthy man- David Goldberg, CEO of Survey Monkey. She can afford a lifestyle that virtually no other woman her age, and very few men of any age, can dream of. If she decides that she doesn't want to do the housework, well, her husband sure as hell won't be the one doing it either- that's what hired help is for, after all.

And when you're that rich, your perspective on what works for everyone else tends to get, well, a little skewed.

In the last few years, as I've come to see feminism for the idiotic absurdity that it really is, it has become clear to me that a society turns to feminism and equalitarianism when it has basically run out of other pressing problems to solve. When a society reaches a level of material comfort where the basics are no longer an issue for all but the absolute poorest people in it, such colossal wastes of resources and time become feasible and attractive because there really isn't much else to worry about.

Unfortunately, by taking such utter stupidity at face value, a "progressive" society ends up emasculating itself, destroying the very virtues and ideals that gave it strength and vitality. And in the end, it destroys itself.

There is a quote by the great essayist and political thinker Walter Bagehot that goes:
History is strewn with the wrecks of nations which have gained a little progressiveness at the cost of a great deal of hard manliness, and have thus prepared themselves for destruction as soon as the movements of the world gave a chance for it.
Mr. Bagehot never lived to meet Ms. Sandbanks there. But he, like most of his conservative-minded European fellows of that generation, knew and could foresee that great societies collapse from within before they are conquered from without. And he could see that by surrendering the basic instincts of manliness and strength, we surrender that which gives us the ability to forge ahead in a hostile world.

Feminism, especially Ms. Sandberg's sickeningly stupid brand of "Lean In" feminism, is not a recipe for long-term marital felicity. It is instead the perfect crap-sandwich to give a foretaste of a coming collapse of the very civilisation that made such excreta possible.

Actually, feminism is just retarded. "Literally retarded, like a kid who takes 15 years to learn how to wave bye-bye and never does quite master patty-cake."


Popular Posts