Russian “Trad” Women Admit They Are Gold Digging Whores

2 thoughts on “Russian “Trad” Women Admit They Are Gold Digging Whores”

1. “Being a hubby is essentially being a slave. Unless this bitch is a great stay-at-home-mom who cooks, cleans and looks after your children with care and with passion, then she’s not worth a damn penny.”

   Still slavery, That is the plantation, I encourage you to read “The manipulated male” by Esther Vilar, It is not only an attack to feminismn but, mostly, to stay at home housewives:

   “THE FEMALE VICES

   A PILE OF LINEN, neatly ironed, lies in the closet. The roast is nicely
   browned all over. A curl falls in exactly the right place over the forehead.
   The pink of the nail varnish matches exactly the pink of the lipstick. The
   laundry, clean and fresh, is fluttering in the breeze. Ten pairs of shoes stand
   clean and shiny in a row. The windows are polished till they make the
   passersby blink. Husband went off to work on time. The children are playing in the sun. Everything is perfect, and woman’s world is one hundred
   percent in order. At such time their sense of pleasure and happiness reaches
   its zenith. And just to make sure this exhilaration lasts, a woman will
   quickly bake another cake, water the rubber plant near the living-room
   window, or get on with knitting a sweater for her youngest child.
   Those who do not work have very different pleasures from those who do.
   A woman does not laze around on a couch surrounded by newspapers.
   Man’s idea of idleness is quite different (and that is why she appears so industrious to him). A woman does not want to stay at home just to rest (what
   has she, after all, to rest from?) – but she is addicted to pleasure, and she
   needs time for her pleasures. And what are they? Baking cakes, ironing the
   laundry, making clothes, cleaning windows, curling her hair, painting her
   toenails, and sometimes even – and we will come to this later – doing a little shorthand and typing. And just to make sure that no one recognizes the
   fact that for her all this is pleasure, she calls these pleasures “housework.”
   She is only indulging in orgies of “personal hygiene” to please her partner.
   And if one of her silly little pleasures is to sit at a desk in an outer office,
   translating ready-made thoughts (ready-made since they are provided by
   professional men) into a visual medium, well, let her call it “stimulating
   mental work.” In this way woman and her coterie indulge in a great, permanent party and live in a world of freedom and rationalized happiness,
   removed from any responsibility. They occupy a realm man would never
   dare to dream of, a world he believes to be the domain of hippies, a life to
   be found, perhaps, in the carefree South Sea Islands – but never so close to
   home.
   Of course, there would be nothing to object to in these harmless orgies of
   pleasure if only men recognized them for what they really are. But it is a
   pity that they ruin their own lives believing that women’s lot is worse. It is
   quite impossible for a man to imagine that this represents happiness to the
   opposite sex. They would have to realize that it is woman’s nature to be
   able to enjoy amusements at the lowest and most monotonous level, and
   such boundless idiocy is beyond male comprehension.
   Not even psychologists can grasp it, although they spend their lives
   studying the female mind. Being men, they must find it more interesting
   than their own. But it would never occur to them for a minute that woman’s
   so-called psyche is unfathomable merely because of the absence of intelligence; that feminine work appears unattractive to the male only because he
   is incapable of imagining the required degree of stupidity necessary to be
   able to enjoy it.
   These experts have discovered that most schoolgirls do well in subjects
   that do not require thought, that can be memorized, such as languages (to
   have a good memory can, as is well known, also be a sign of feeblemindedness) or that, like mathematics, follow strict rules, which again are
   learned by rote, while other subjects (physics, chemistry, biology) are beyond them. From this it does not follow that these girls lack intelligence but
   that there is a “typical feminine” intelligence; that this kind of “intelligence” is a developed (not innate) kind of stupidity. The last original
   thought the average female child utters will be around age five. After that,
   her completely imbecile mother takes care to suppress any sign of budding
   intelligence.
   Most men will never admit the depth of their wives’ stupidity. They
   agree that women are not terribly clever, but grant them “intuition” or instinct instead. And they like to call this a feminine instinct as opposed to
   that of an animal. Unfortunately, this famous feminine instinct is really
   nothing but a euphemism for statistical probability. Women interfere and
   give opinions about everything, and, since they are so stupid, they don’t realize that they are making fools of themselves. According to the law of averages, their forecasts will be correct now and again. In any case, most of
   their predictions are negative or vague. Banalities such as: “It can only end
   in disaster,” or “I’d steer clear of that, if I were you,” or “Your so-called
   friends will only let you down in the end” are meaningless. Anyone would
   be safe making such generalizations. And if, occasionally, women do see
   more clearly than men, it is only because their feelings, unlike those of
   men, are never involved.
   Women’s silliness is but the natural result of their attitude to life. By the
   age of five, any girl will have been persuaded that she wants to get married
   and have a home and children; and when girls are ten, fifteen, or twenty,
   they still want the same things. So if a woman decides, even as a child, to
   live at man’s expense, what good will intelligence and reasoning be to her?
   She must keep her mind free for her future man, otherwise she could not
   respond to all his inclinations and interests and praise him for them. As a
   child, how can she determine what type of man she will marry? What use
   would it be if she opted to become a socialist – demonstrating female students are usually associated with demonstrating male students – when later
   on she might decide to marry a well-to-do manufacturer? Suppose she became a vegetarian (sensitive being that she is) – what happens if she later
   marries an Australian cattle farmer? What is the use of a woman becoming
   an atheist when she may spend her life within the rose-covered walls of a
   vicarage?
   Would it have helped Jacqueline Bouvier to have developed ideological
   concepts as an adolescent? A leaning toward democracy helped her first
   marriage with J.F.K., a leaning toward fascism helps the second. But since
   she is one of the most “feminine” of women, she is probably not interested
   in men’s beliefs anyway. Basically she is interested only in pleasing and influencing women.
   In the end it is probably better if a future lady of society has a smattering
   of the arts, table manners, and languages so that if she is later in the awkward position of having to play a role in public life – as the wife of a man
   who plays a role in public life – she can easily get out of her dilemma. All
   she has to affirm is that a “real” woman’s place is in the home, looking after
   husband and children, and the world will then accept her attitude as one of
   remarkable self-effacement and applaud her for it.
   Women’s stupidity is so overwhelming that anyone who comes into contact with it will become, in a way, infected by it. That this is not obvious is
   solely because everybody has been exposed to it from birth and, as a result,
   has become inured to it. In previous years men either ignored it or believed
   it to be a typically feminine characteristic which harmed no one. But with
   the increase in leisure and money to spend, woman’s need for entertainment
   has grown. Consequently, her imbecility is spreading into public life as
   well, reflected not just in vases, bedroom pictures, brocade curtains, cocktail parties, and Sunday sermons. The mass media have become more involved in it. Women’s programs are gaining ground in radio and television.
   And even respectable newspapers print society gossip, crime features, and
   fashion news, horoscopes, and cooking recipes. And women’s magazines
   become every day more numerous and sumptuous on the stands. Step by
   step, not only the private sphere of men but all of public life has become infected by this stupidity.
   There are periodicals and books which deal with politics, philosophy,
   science, economics, and psychology. There are also those dealing with
   fashion, cosmetics, interior decoration, society gossip, cookery, crime , and
   love affairs. Men read almost exclusively the first kind, women exclusively
   the second. Both groups consider each other’s reading matter so repulsive
   and dreary that they would rather be bored to death than indulge in it. The
   fact is, men are more interested in whether there is life on Mars or whose
   arguments are more valid in the Sino-Russian frontier dispute than women
   are. Women only want to know how to embroider little brown
   bunny-rabbits, how to crochet a dress, or whether a certain film star is getting a divorce. So the sexes continue along their separate paths, each with
   his own horizon, never establishing real contact with the other. There is
   only one subject which will arouse the interest of both, and that is the subject of women.
   Naturally some men are not spared the task of reading special women’s
   publications. Although fashion does not interest most men, it is designed
   chiefly by male slaves: and yet women have the nerve to say they bow to
   the dictates of the great couturiers. Men also think up other media for female pastimes. In order to be sure such efforts will be a success, they have
   to lower themselves to women’s mental level to find out what they like.
   Since this is nearly impossible for men, they rely very often on a staff of
   female editors, who are quite happy to tell them what a woman likes – but
   from then on it is the man’s responsibility; his tasks will be an attractive
   layout, better distribution, and sales promotion.
   Magazines serve many purposes in the female world. Some are for entertainment (for example, Ladies’ Home Journal and McCall’s); others satisfy
   the craving for gossip (Photoplay and Movie Life); still others give advice
   on which mask to choose (Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar). There are even
   magazines which unite the various spheres of interest (such as Cosmopolitan, Mademoiselle, and, in Europe, Elle). All these magazines have one
   thing in common: they ignore men. The subject of men’s magazines, on the
   other hand, is almost exclusively women. If man is mentioned at all in a
   woman’s publication, it is only to enumerate his supposed preferences in
   women, home, and food: “Wear flesh-colored underwear this summer –
   men love it”; “Natural make-up is preferable for your first date”; “Use candlelight – it makes him feel romantic”; “Three recipes to make him love
   you” – and so on. And because such wholesale lists of male preferences can
   only serve to help women catch and hold any given man, they are really no
   more than recipes. Readers of such advice are either still unmarried and
   therefore shopping for a good worker, or they are married and thus dependent on keeping what they have already conquered in the way of manpower. These are directives telling women how to get the best out of the
   most reliable robots in the world, for that is how they regard men. It is not
   uncommon to see an article entitled “How to Catch Mr. Right,” “Ten Hints
   on How to Keep Him in a Good Mood,” and “Advice for the First Three
   Years of Married Life.” There is nothing oblique about articles of this kind:
   they are as clear and lucid as if they were tips about buying a car, or washing and caring for a cashmere sweater.
   Since the range of subjects likely to interest women is necessarily limited, editors are frequently at a loss for copy. As a result they have to fall
   back on the so-called male themes and, since men’s interests are so wide,
   there are plenty of them. These go through a complete metamorphosis to
   suit female readers, the main rule of which is quite simple: each article
   must create the impression that it is basically a report about women. For
   example, an account of the life of a former heavyweight champion must
   read: “Women ruined me.” If a composer is interviewed for an article, he
   must say at least once that women are his inspiration, that a melody is “like
   a pretty girl” – only not quite so beautiful. With skill, even the most
   unlikely subjects can be camouflaged to appeal to women. One can arouse
   their interest in the defense budget, providing one dresses up the report as
   an account of the family life of the Secretary of Defense. It goes without
   saying that sufficient space must be allowed for pictures of his wife and
   children. Women will read articles on foreign countries if the passage begins: “I married an Israeli” (Japanese, Egyptian, Chilean), provided the
   wife in question comes from the same background as her female readers.
   This principle may in fact be applied to any field and is particularly successful with politics. Political topics can be brought to women’s notice only
   if they can be persuaded that the action centers on a woman. The war in
   Vietnam held female attention only when the press produced the first photos of the legendary Madame Nhu. The problem of Northern Irish Catholics
   has become interesting to women only since the advent of Bernadette Devlin. No number of articles written about the problems of contemporary Iran
   helped more toward the understanding of this country than the tragedy of
   the barren Soraya.
   The first political action of any man who seeks power should be marriage to a photogenic woman. One can only guess at the advantages there
   would have been for Israel or India had Golda Meir or Indira Gandhi been
   beautiful according to the rigid standards of women. Instead of Grace Kelly
   or Farah Diba of Iran, their photos would have graced the covers of illustrated magazines. Women would then have read features entitled “The Jewels of Golda Meir,” or “Why Indira Gandhi Appeals to Men” – and as a
   side effect the other half of the world, i.e., the rich half, would be told again
   and again about the crisis in Israel, or would realize that in India hundreds
   of thousands of children are starving to death – children who could easily
   be saved for the sums of money spent by women on nail polish and nail
   polish remover. “

   Reply

2. Russian women are notorious gold-diggers. Everyone knows this.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.