A long time ago, before I was born anyhow, men strode the Earth as the propertied class and a married woman was her husband's chattel, which is a legal term for a specific kind of property. Feminists make much capital of this - to be a man's chattel is clearly a fearful thing, and evidence enough of the evil and tasteless nature of men's attitude toward women for all history.

Oddly enough, there were no public market-places where a man could bring his wife once he had sated his hideous appetites on her, and sell her for whatever price the next man would pay. There were, however, plenty of market places where he could sell all his other property publicly, from his house, to his animals, to the wares that were the product of his labour. And buy and sell these other properties he did, with public records that go back hundreds of years documenting the commerce men made of all manner of things, real as well as abstract. But there is no documentation of the commerce of wives between men.

Clearly women were a very singular kind of property.

At the same time, men were schooled to rise when a lady entered a room. A gentleman was also taught to never contradict a lady, to show her respect at all times, to open doors for her, relieve her of any heavy labour and to protect her reputation. These polite obligations passed from expectation to personal responsibility if a man should marry the lady in question.

These behaviours that a man exhibited for his wife-property bear no resemblance at all to the behaviour shown for his sheep/cattle/slave-property.

Rather, it's the very same way a subordinate defers to his superior in the military, the way defendants and plaintiffs defer to the judge in a courtroom, the way a servant behaved with respect to his employer in a Victorian household and the way slaves submitted before their masters in more antique times.

Gentlemen were also expected to sacrifice their lives to save that of the womenfolk in times of peril, such as the sinking of a cruise-liner. Even the lowest of women on the Titanic enjoyed a greater chance of survival than the very wealthiest of men on board.

Yet these women were mere 'property'.

How many men would have sacrificed their own lives to save that of their sheep, cows and pigs? I would hazard none, and yet there's no doubting that a man's livestock is also his property.

Of course, sinkings like the Titanic are not common, and not the sort of thing to make generalisations about. For common occurrences that one can generalise about, one points to battle-ground cemeteries. For the First World War alone, there are millions of dead men all buried together under the hills of France and Belgium, blown to pieces, shot, gassed, bayonetted and diseased in order to spare their women the horror of defending themselves against aggressors. The miles of little white crosses are of a scale that quite stretches the imagination. Picture everyone at Woodstock, all half million of them, laid out dead or wounded. Then double it. That's the same magnitude as the Battle of the Somme alone. One battle of many in only one war. All of these crosses mark the bones of men - the propertied class. Those unfortunate women, that mass of men's property that Feminists would have us grieve for, are nowhere buried in mass graves, having fallen in the defence of their owners.

How very odd.

To be property in name and law
but in manner and substance proprietor.

Frost also proposes that the extreme depigmentation seen among Nordics is partly related to sexual selection. Frost mentions traits other than pigmentation that suggest strong sexual selection among Nordics, namely the more feminine looks of white women, on average, than women in non-white populations. I would like to add a high prevalence of fine facial features, too, and certain parts of the face that bear the signature of sexual selection, such as the jaw, whereby the chin is better developed than in non-Nordics, even though all other parts of the jaw have shrunk significantly.

if anything, the chances are not so much that women will take over the planet and exterminate the men, but that men will start to 'farm' women for their very own purposes - just like they currently do with cows.

And, quite frankly, unless women in the west get their act together and start supporting men rather than making enemies out of them by supporting divisive feminists who do little more than continually stir up hatred toward them, and who, therefore, also undermine the whole well-being of their very own societies, then they shall surely deserve to be tamed, domesticated and harvested for the good of the planet, and, of course, for the contentment and happiness of the men who dwell upon it!

Listen carefully. Basically, women were designed by Nature to taste good to men when they are hungry; and that, fundamentally, is the end of the matter. The Universe does not seem to have figured out any other long term purpose for them. And even the ancients clearly recognised this by emphasising the important bits of women in their sculptures...

Realistically, women have only got one hope when it comes to having a happy future. They will have to taste good to men. And if they do not do this, then they are toast; because they will have nothing else to offer.

The converse, however, is not true. Men do not have to taste good to women to be of value to them. Without men - nothing. No houses or factories would be built or maintained. No roads would be constructed.

It is men who create, construct, develop, operate and maintain just about everything that represents the progress of humans on this planet.

This all suggests that women are going to have to behave more like women than like men, or they will find themselves heading for a fall.