American women

An Australian woman (Anna) writes:

“American women are so aggressive. Not a good look.”

“Their aggressiveness makes them look so hard and ugly, even with all the makeup.”

From here.

I don’t think our Australian women are as batshit crazy as many American women. But some other Australian men disagree. And Australian feminists are trying hard to compete.

If Hillary gets elected, things can only get worse for American men.


34 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Avraham rosenblum on June 9, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    I also have found American women to have a kind of aggressiveness which is unattractive


  2. Posted by C H on June 9, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    You folks are being generous. I was in a restaurant eating breakfast this morning. I watched three different American women (I live in the US) at different times come in, be rude, unfriendly, demanding, and they either did not look up from their phones or didn’t take them off their ear.

    And they whine and moan about ‘where the good men’ are. HA! Running like HELL from them, that’s where.


  3. Posted by Jim on June 9, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    Aggressive? Most American women are just straight up cunts. Period.


  4. Posted by Zeta on June 9, 2016 at 8:21 pm

    I saw your erstwhile female PM in action on youtube, she made Hillary look positively genteel.

    Well if Hillary makes it too hard on the men the USA also has a tradition of assassinating their presidents. She could make it on another list of firsts. And join the likes of Indira Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto and experience real equality with men.


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 9, 2016 at 9:41 pm

      I obviously don’t support that kind of direct action. However I have often wondered at how passive men have become in accepting poor treatment from society.


      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 4:42 am

        Its not a question of whether you or I support that kind of direct action it has in the past and will happen again.

      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 4:46 am

        Take a look at a place like Sweden, going from land of Vikings to what it is today. Or even more recent in history Germany going from Bismark’s militarism to Angela Merkel.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 4:47 am

        I was trying to think of any real attacks on authority perpetrated by aggrieved husbands in Australia. The only one that comes to mind is this case:

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 4:50 am

        Men are remarkably obedient to authority in the main, at least in the Nordic and British traditions. (I had always expected the family court bomber here in Australia to be a hot-tempered ethnic, perhaps a Greek or Italian, although it seems he was just an ordinary Anglo-Celtic Australian man).

        Of course what keeps men in their place even in places like Sweden is other men with guns.

      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 5:12 am

        The reason they have tight gun laws in Canada is because some guy of N African heritage in the late 80s went into college, ordered all the men out of the class and killed a bunch of women because “feminism had ruined my life.”

      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 5:16 am

        You can get guns in Sweden – for hunting. And in places like Finland you don’t even need a license for a suppressor. And let’s not forget that shooter in Norway who killed scores of people – he had access to a guns

        In those places I suspect the real reason is that this process has been going on for generations and they have been indoctrinated. But now that Islam has come the reaction will be interesting.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 5:26 am

        Yes, indoctrination. Which rather militates against the idea that “boys [must be] boys”. Although I suspect that feminism is mainly an elite virtue-signalling phenomenon in the Nordic nations. Moreover, there is the Swedish Paradox, which I understand refers to the habit men and women have there, despite egalitarian education, of still pursuing traditional careers.

        And, I know it is only anecdotal, but when young women are portrayed in Swedish crime dramas, they always seem pretty girly to me.

        As for Islam, this is where one starts to suspect it is all about hating beta males really for Western feminists. They seem suspiciously tolerant of “chauvinist” attitudes among Muslim men. (In fact, as an older Australian Catholic, I suspect I get a bit of a pass from some female readers of this blog. Women will tolerate a surprising amount if they feel comfortable with you.)

        In frank moments, feminists will admit something like this. One woman wrote that she had masturbated to being beaten by Osama Bin Laden for having her robes too short!

      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 6:00 am

        Not been to Sweden in a while but one doctor told me on inquiry that he made 50,000 krona/year working 2 days/week. I asked why he didn’t more days he said if he worked 5 days/week he would only make 55,000 krona so there was no incentive to work harder.

        Shortly after that visit to Sweden a Swedish couple became my neighbors in Dallas and they told me that they left Sweden because in Sweden if you try to make yourself better than the “norm” a whole machinery is put into motion to bring back to your place. Basically people get very envious of you if you try to advance yourself or be different and that you have to remain in a socially acceptable “configuration” of perceived equality – an equality that stifles it seems.

        That was a while ago, don’t know how accurate it would be today.

        I do know of some Swedish women in Sweden who are very anti feminist have large families and do the traditional female thing letting their husband be the pater familias.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 6:06 am

        The thing about extreme egalitarian ideas on wealth and its display in Sweden is touched on in this book:*Version*=1&*entries*=0

    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 9, 2016 at 9:43 pm

      Oddly, ex-Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard eventually lost her position partly because she was seen as too feminist. It backfired on her.


      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 4:50 am

        I don’t follow Aussie politics too much but from I have it seems very cut throat. At least that is the impression I get.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 4:55 am

        I don’t know. Not especially, I would have said. Maybe more so these days. There is a lot of anger about at the moment. We have had three prime ministers sacked from office by their own parties in the last few years.

      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 4:59 am

        Thats what I mean, people betraying their own party leaders to take over and then themselves being stabbed in the back.

        BTW that is how Angela Merkel go into power, she betrayed her own mentor.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 5:02 am

        Julia Gillard was put in the deputy prime minister position, because vagina to be honest, and she helped rat on Kevin Rudd.

        Her mistake was to pose as “a prime minister for women”. That kind of thing doesn’t fly in Australia. We are not quite at the level of say, Canada, yet.

      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 5:21 am

        They have never had an elected female PM in Canada yet. In the 90s Mulrooney whose party had approval ratings in single digits resigned and the female next in line was Prime Minister for a few weeks/months as new captain of the Titanic.

  5. Aussie women are aggressive. American women, like Americans in general, are simply arrogant. If I had to choose, I’d prefer aggression.


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 9, 2016 at 10:21 pm

      Yes. I can see your point. Australian women have always been open and frank and down-to-earth. But they tend to be relatively humble and unpretentious.


    • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 4:48 am

      I don’t know enough Aussie women to make such a comparison. Know plenty of Americans though and I would not say that one size fits all. I am not an American.


      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 4:53 am

        Yes, and part of it is simply the sheer size and variety of America. One hears a lot from a fringe group of very angry women. I have also come across some very submissive housewife types. They are just less noisy.

        I knew a sociologist who used to say that whatever you say about America is true, up to a point.

      • It’s a generalisation, admittedly.

      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 5:31 am

        If you are in places like Texas or California you will have a sizable Latino influence that has very different family values from say inner city Blacks in NYC And the women of those communities will reflect that. And remember that USA is a real melting pot especially in the big cities. But now if you go some distance out of the big cities you have a whole new demographic that is often white Anglo-Saxon. But White Anglo-Saxon in North Carolina have different out look from white Anglo Saxon from say places like Vermont or Michagan. In the South the whites are much less supportive of things like feminism. That was my impression having lived all over the USA both in large cities and more rural and very rural areas.

      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 5:35 am

        To understand the regional differences of American women I highly recommend this study by West coast organization (-:

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 5:36 am

      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 6:13 am

        Some interesting remarks on that thread. I am now wondering how Canada, which has a very similar immigrant make up, has become such a socialist country jokingly called “Canuckastan” in the US?

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 6:16 am

        I wonder if the factor that Australia never got was that rather high-minded reformist Protestant strain, such as one sees in New England. And perhaps in Canada. Certainly the Protestants in Australia have tended to be more on the evangelical low-church side.

      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 9:54 am

        When it comes to Anglo-Saxons in Canada the base is made up of the law abiding Royalists who were loyal to the Crown and were on the losing side of the American revolution. These folks relocated to “Upper Canada” what is now known as Ontario and were called “The United Empire Loyalists.” Those remaining in the USA were the lawless (in the Crowns eyes), rebellious, rowdy gun toting types. So you can see a difference from the start of what kind of people are at the base of of Canada and the USA.

        As for religion in Canada – what religion? My impression from my visits to Canada is that compared to USA it is much more secular

        with a rise of non-religious affiliation

        This doesn’t automatically translate into atheism or agnosticism but rather things like “spiritual but not religious” as in not identifying with a Christian denomination. Basically the decline and fall of Christianity in the 1st world countries.

        I would attribute that to Christianities inability to defend itself from the onslaught of modern science. People want to believe in God but Abrahamic religions lack the philosophical tools to help educated people in the “West” counter attack scientific dogmas. Instead I even see Churches bend their knee to such bollocks as “evolution.” The basic tenets of Abrahamic religions are correct There is one God and we are meant to serve Him. But they are unable to explain anything about the material creation in a way that is convincing to modern educated people. For that you need a much more sophisticate philosophical model.

      • Posted by Zeta on June 10, 2016 at 10:04 am


        When asked about the importance of religion in their own lives, 83% of Americans said it is either “very important” (60%) or “fairly important” (23%). Those numbers take a dive north of the border: 62% of Canadians said religion is very important (28%) or fairly important (34%) to them. In Great Britain, however, less than a majority — 47% — said that religion is important in their lives. Only 17% of Britons consider it very important, and 30% feel it is fairly important.

        Why the differences in importance? Al Winseman, Gallup’s Global Practice Leader for Faith Communities, points to the historical separation of church and state in the United States as a possible answer. “State-run religion [in Britain] has had the opposite effect of its intended effect — it caused religion to die,” Winseman said. “Separation [in the United States] helped it to flourish by creating a marketplace of faith. It has done far more for promoting religiosity in the United States within the culture.”

  6. Posted by Julian O'Dea on June 10, 2016 at 2:20 am

    I dealt with a girl working in a large shop today who seemed to be pretty much what young women should be. There was a pleasing openness and innocence about her. (Appearances can be deceptive of course, but I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.) She was pleasant looking, neat, and polite without being obsequious. She tolerated some mild banter and seemed happy in her job.

    She had recently come up to Canberra from Melbourne. She looked like she might have been Turkish or Lebanese perhaps.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: