Sheryl Sandberg, billionaire slave driver.

I find Sheryl Sandberg to be quite repellent – not because she is physically ugly, on the contrary, she is a nice looking woman – but rather because her personality is so ugly.  Given what a scold she is, I am always amazed that she is taken so seriously by so many men.  This fact shakes the good opinion I have of men’s general common sense.  From the Air Force to world economic summits, the men in charge seek her out to gather the misleading pearls that fall from her destructive lips. The woman is COO of a social media site, people!  She did not cure cancer or invent some lifesaving or labor-saving technology.  Why the hell do people think she is some kind of Wise Genius?

Let us consider one of her better-known tidbits of evil wisdom.  Mrs. Sandberg wrote in her book Lean In:

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

I can only conclude that she secretly hates women and wants us to be miserable and unhappy. My advice: do exactly the opposite of anything Mrs. Sandberg advises you to do.  Assume everything she says is the opposite of reality.

Do not date bad boys.  Do not date crazy boys or commitment-phobic boys.  Ever.  And don’t imagine that you will find a man who wants an equal partner “sexier”.  You won’t.

Laura Wood has Sheryl Sandberg’s number:

“WHEN a corporate plutocrat in charge of one of the largest propaganda companies in the world urges people to give their entire lives to their jobs, to “lean in” as she likes to put it, shouldn’t people be just a tad suspicious of her motives? Is it possible that the marginalization of leisure and the family just might be in her interests?

Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook and author of bestselling Lean In, has been pushing the gender revolution for years and she gets more and more ridiculous as she goes. Here she is at the recent meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, where the oligarchy meets to wage psychological warfare against families and nations and to promote the global triumph of the debt-finance system. (Do you believe there is even such a thing as the World Economic Forum!? What chutzpah these people have! Seriously, they can’t even disguise their blatant intentions for world control.) From Sandberg:

“We assign our chores to our children in the United States, and it can be worse in other parts of the world… The boys are taking out the trash, it takes less time than cleaning the dishes and they get bigger allowances. We start out in our homes with these very different expectations and the time spent on these tasks is incredibly important.”

She went on:

It doesn’t stop there: “Mothers will systematically overestimate their sons’ crawling, and underestimate their daughters’.”

I’m sorry to be cynical, but I believe the ridiculousness of these remarks is calculated. It is calculated to get attention and cause discussion and petty strife. Conflict and emotional disagreements keep the people from wondering why the heck anyone is listening to this billionaire slave driver in the first place.

Well, it doesn’t keep me from wondering about it.  I like my job and try to do it well, but I don’t want to be a slave to it.   It’s not my life and my identity – my Lord and my family are my life and my identity.  But without faith, kin, and kith, what is left?  One’s job.  It’s hardly any wonder that Mrs. Sandberg, as part of a tiny and very wealthy elite who benefit by keeping women enslaved to their jobs, wants us to define ourselves in terms of our jobs and gives women terrible advice about dating bad boys and marrying men who want “equal partners” (which in the Sandbergian tongue means men who are ambitious for their wives to lean into their jobs even after marriage and children).  A woman without a family has nothing else to devote herself to besides leaning into her job.  A woman with a money-grubbing “equalist” husband has no choice but to lean into her job.  And these women make Sheryl Sandberg even richer and even more respected by men in power.

 

About those safe space circles.

I don’t bother my head much with what feminists think because their stupid, anti-biology anti-reality propaganda which never fails to make women’s lives worse will eventually eat itself alive.  Perhaps it will be the transgender issue that does feminism in or perhaps some other issue but either way, no ideology which is that at odds with reality and human nature can continue indefinitely.

Nevertheless, I am sometimes taken aback when I realize that there is still a fair bit of functional society left for feminists to consume and destroy.

Case in point – you really have to read it to believe the barf-in-your mouth levels of obnoxious feminist entitlement in this recent article written for CNN by anchor Carol Costello (highlighting mine):

[Last week] To its enormous credit, and because it values women, the Air Force organized the largest combined forum on gender issues in the academy’s history. Almost 3,000 cadets attended — mostly young men — to hear the featured speaker, Facebook COO and feminist author of “Lean In” Sheryl Sandberg.

As she took the stage, the nation’s finest young leaders seemed ready to “lean in.”

“I’m inspired by your courage, strength and dedication,” Sandberg told them. “(And I have) special admiration for the women in this audience, because you not only strengthen the Air Force by joining the Air Force, but you fight for equality with every single step you take.”

May I say that was a ballsy thing to say in a sea of mostly men. Don’t get me wrong, there were cheers of approval from the audience, but there was something else too — a negative energy. And it was palpable.

“Women and minorities face barriers that white men don’t face,” Sandberg went on. “And the veil of silence, pretending that this doesn’t exist, does not make the playing field even. For women in the military, there’s a special challenge because you have to be tough enough to fit in.”

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why the United States Air Force is taking direction from Sheryl Sandberg, COO of a gossipy social media site? The Air Force exists to protect the lives of our citizens in the event of a war. Facebook mostly just exists so people can waste time at work bragging about their supposedly fabulous lives.

By the time she got to “I have never met a man who was asked, ‘Should you be working?'” some in the crowd seemed downright hostile […]

The question is why did the crowd seem hostile to Mrs. Sandberg?  The assumption is that they were hostile because they were closed-minded sexists who believe women should not be in the armed services as warriors.  But isn’t it just as likely that the “hostile” attitude was because they don’t care if women work or if they are in the military or if they stay home…they just want them to perform their jobs competently and not demand non-stop special treatment?  Isn’t it possible the hostility was due to the fact that these young men felt blamed for something they didn’t cause, namely women’s angst about their failure to perform (on average) as well as men in the military?

That’s why Sandberg is not only delivering speeches, but has partnered with the armed services to create “lean-in circles,” or peer-to-peer groups, that meet regularly at places like the Air Force Academy.

Air Force Academy Cadet 1st Class Danielle Kaufman is all in. “It’s not just a military problem. A lot of it is societal. We’re put in these tough situations as females every day. (The circle is) a safe environment where people feel their voices are heard,” she said.

Did the Muslim invaders who attacked Parisian civilians on Friday provide safe space circles?  If not, how will these wilting-flower women Mrs. Sandberg is referring to be able to deal with that when the next Muslim attack occurs here in the United States?

If women are the natural equals of men in the military, why do they need “safe space circles”? This makes no sense. Women are equal to men but need to be protected from men so they can prove how equal they are…am I the only one who notices the LOGIC FAIL there? These are the women who are going to PROTECT us in the event of a war, these chicks blubbering to the news about the “negative energy” from men at a Sheryl Sandberg speech?

Yet at the conclusion of her article, Carol Costello asks…

Can you hear us roar, alpha males?

That’s right, alpha males! Rawr! Can’t you hear us ladies roaring over here from our safe space circles that you need to create more of so that we can feel safe while roaring at you?   Really, isn’t giving women a safe rawring space a much more important function for the Air Force to be concerned about than, like, preparing to defend the U.S.? Sheryl Sandberg says it is, and I am sure we can trust Ms. Sandberg to know what’s necessary for the U.S. to defend itself against an attack or invasion.

But will peer-to-peer circles convince an alpha male to lean in? As Sandberg wrapped up her speech, a young female cadet asked her: “How do you stand up and counteract that … unwillingness to open their minds?”

Sandberg didn’t blink. “There’s only two options: One is that men are far, far, far more talented than women and deserve 95% of the top jobs, or the second is that there’s systematic bias. Those are the options. Pick one. Because those are your only two choices.”

Sheryl Sandberg says there are only two choices, so…let’s choose. When in Rome, let us do as the Romans do and vote about it.