profhugodegaris

Species Dominance, Artilects, Artilect War, Cosmists, Terrans, Gigadeath, Essays, Media, etc

DO FIP (FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT PERSON) WOMEN EXIST?

DO FIP (FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT

PERSON) WOMEN EXIST?

Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis

profhugodegaris@yahoo.com

https://profhugodegaris.wordpress.com

 

This flyer is a response to TFM (Turd Flinging Monkey, a prominent YouTube provider for the MGTOW movement) who claimed in a recent video that he thought that women are NOT independent self-actualizing creatures.

I was shocked by this. Normally I have quite a high respect level for TFM, because he is one of the smartest MGTOW content providers out there, and obviously a high IQ thinker. He thinks things through, giving a thoughtful view on many topics. He is no fool, which is why I listen to him daily, but this time, I can’t agree with him at all.

I doubt I have misinterpreted him, since his statement that he thought women are incapable of being fully autonomous agents, financially independent, and taking responsibility for their own lives, their own financial lives, etc., struck me simply as wrongheaded, even silly.

Perhaps TFM has an “idee fixe” in his head on this issue, because the statement that women are not capable of being what I call FIPs (financially independent persons) is an empirical statement that can be checked scientifically by going out into the world and actually observing whether women are FIPs or not.

When I was listening to TFM stating his views on female incapability to be autonomous, existentially responsible, beings, struck me as obviously false.

I say this for the following reasons. Recently I had a look at the stats on women studying STEM at universities, and studying math and the sciences at high schools in the US. This is what I came away with, and even made a YouTube video on the topic (flyer no. 165), whose link is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p-mbar-Wfc&index=33&list=PLZNxyp7lrVdW-HpvjlSuS9QcAjaUSC3of&t=23s

The percentage of young women at high schools in the US who study math, physics, chemistry, is the SAME as the percentage of young men doing the same. That was encouraging I thought, but still only about a fifth of young women study calculus.

At universities in the US, women were studying STEM fields (science, tech, engineering, math) at about 3/4 of the male rate and climbing, so I thought that too was encouraging.

From my own experience on two counts, i.e. observing my own sister and her acquaintances, and from my experience as a computer science professor in the US and in China, I certainly did not come away with TFM’s assessment, just the opposite in fact.

My sister is definitely a FIP and a self-actualizer par excellence. She is a medical doctor and quite an entrepreneur, having her own family medicine and women’s clinic that employs some two dozen other doctors, most of them women. I have met on my visits to my sister over the years, quite a few of these female doctors, and of course being doctors, they are obviously FIPs and very successful FIPs, with high incomes and good brains.

My sister may not have my male scientist intellectual curiosity, but she does have a good brain, pretty much equal to my own (but not in math, where I’m a bit of a whiz, i.e. one in a thousand). She is not an intellectual, but is superior to her two brothers in general financial success. My younger brother estimates she is worth several million dollars.

This contrasts with the situation of my brother, who did merchant banking and ran a construction company, but bankrupted three times, and as for me, I’m rather poor, having had half my savings stolen from me from my previous chink fluffie wife.

I remember having a conversation with my sister about a problem she was discussing with her female doctor colleagues at her clinic about the then new “palimony law” in Australia, which would have allowed a live-in sexual partner to “divorce” and take half the possessions of the other sexual partner.

This palimony law was created by the hated fluffie feminist hypocrites, designed to benefit fluffies, at men’s expense, but for these female doctors, this new law had a real sting in the tail, because these women were obliged to “live down” i.e. if they were to get any sex and companionship at all from a man, given that these women were pretty much at the top of the totem pole, there would be very few men of higher status, to satisfy their female hypergamous instincts, so they were forced to compromise.

They had relationships with men of lower SMV (sexual marketplace value) i.e. these men earned less than their live-with girlfriends, so these women were seriously thinking of throwing out their boyfriends, from their apartments, so that the palimony law would not apply in the case of a “divorce” i.e. a breakup. These doctor women could then avoid having to pay out half of their possessions (palimony) to their ex-boyfriends, who had lower SMV and lower earnings.

So these women were obviously FIPs, going through the same kinds of problems that men go through, because the gender laws are so fucked up and abused by the hated fluffie feminist hypocrites, who see men only as cash machines, to be abused and exploited.

So, listening to my sister, I got the impression that here was a group of upper middle class professional women, who were obviously FIPs, who were having the same kind of financial existential problems as men, because they had bothered to become career competent, responsible adults.

Their very existence makes TFM’s statement that such women don’t exist, seem off the wall. Of course they exist, and are far from being rare, because the universities in the western countries are full of upper middle class women who now dominate the professional courses, e.g. medicine, dentistry, vet science, law, etc.

These women graduate with real skills that the economy values and pays well for. They are definitely FIPs, so why on earth was TFM sprouting his mouth off in such an, as seen by me, obviously misguided way?!

The other experience I want to relate was when I was a computer science professor in the US and in China, teaching master’s level classes in AI, machine learning, computer theory, etc, a third of the class members were women, and they were as ambitious, hardworking, and took their studies as seriously as the men, expecting fully to be FIPs and taking responsibility for their own lives, being self-actualizing.

So, the data and my own personal experience contradicts empirically TFM’s opinion, so I’m puzzled why he has the view he does on the non FIP nature of women. Obviously I don’t agree with him on this score, although I do on many other points of his, which is why I listen to him daily.

Now, why am I harping on the FIPness of women so much? Because it is a topic close to a masculist’s heart. The political core of masculism, is to free men from manslavery, from working for women, and the masculists do that by wiping out the fluffies, ignoring them to death, so that their fluffie genes are removed from the gene pool.

The whole point of wiping out fluffies, is to create a FIP society, in which both sexes, especially young women, are socialized by parents and taught by teachers at school to become FIPs, so that they can be financially responsible FIPs as adults, and not expect to be able to parasite off the money and labor of a man.

Masculist theorists are very conscious that the creation of a FIP Society, would solve most of men’s gender problems, e.g. the divorce laws could be much more easily made menfair, because nearly all women would be FIPs, so alimony could be thrown out, custody of children could be made joint by default, so no child payments to women.

The Parer could be brought in much more easily because nearly all women would be FIPs and could afford the full costs of the kid if she chose to continue with the pregnancy that the father has the right to reject if he wants, in the same way that women have a Marer, having the right to reject an unwanted pregnancy on her part, but in today’s world, not on his.

So you can see why the idea that women are capable of being FIPs is critical to the masculists. So much of their political program rests on this basic assumption, so when I hear TFM claiming that FIP females don’t exist, that sets off alarm bells in my brain. It is critically important that he is wrong, from the masculist point of view, so I felt motivated to refute him, hence this flyer.

I think the empirical evidence is strong that women are capable of becoming FIPs and in a major way. Of course, masculist pressure will increase mightily on young women to FIP up, or they will be punished by young men for being hated fluffies and hence not getting a man.

As the media latches onto the fact that advanced economies are wiping themselves out by having low birth rates, e.g. South Korea, having one of the lowest in the world, with a birth rate less than 1.2 children per woman, and falling, then the media will get into the act of reporting on the greatest story of the century, i.e. that humanity will go extinct unless young women and young men can be persuaded to have more kids. This issue can only increase and increase.

So, once the media is on the masculist side, pushing for women to FIP up and to vote with men to menfair the gender laws, so that men are more prepared to be fathers again. Many young men would like to have kids, but don’t dare to in today’s fluffie feminist hypocrite dominated divorce court system, which so financially massacres one married father in four, ruining his life, so not surprisingly, young men choose to go MGTOW as a result, refusing to marry, refusing to have kids and spending their money on themselves, because they don’t want to be parasited upon by a bloody fluffie.

So, summarizing, women can be FIPs, and must be FIPs, even if their general performance level is a bit below men’s, particularly at the top end of the performance scale. Women have a moral obligation to be EMO FIPs, i.e. “equal moral obligations” FIPS, i.e. they are expected by the masculists and by society as a whole to feel morally obliged to be FIPs, i.e. to be morally responsible adult females, pulling their own financial weight and not expecting to parasite off the labor and money of a man.

Such fluffie women deserve their treatment by masculists, being seen for what they are, i.e. immoral, parasitic, manslaving, vermin, to be wiped out.

Cheers,

Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis

profhugodegaris@yahoo.com

https://profhugodegaris.wordpress.com

(YouTube channels) “de Garis Masculist MGTOW Flyers” “de Garis Essays”

%d bloggers like this: