Famous Barbie realism

A commenter draws my attention to the Barbie book “I Can Be an Actress/I Can Be a Computer Engineer (Barbie) (Deluxe Pictureback)“, which appears to be directly and accurately based on the actual careers of real life affirmative action female engineers in the gaming industry. Barbie is off away in the the art harem, to keep her out the hair of the boys who do the actual programming.

I urge those of my readers with experience in the gaming industry to commend the book for imitating life so well and preparing girls for the reality of affirmative action careers in engineering.

Almost immediately after I posted this, the book was, unfortunately, suppressed, for giving entirely accurate information about female careers.

43 Responses to “Famous Barbie realism”

  1. Thales says:

    “Math is hard.”

  2. Ivan says:

    My experience in the tech world (not gaming) is that there are few competent women engineers and almost all of them are FOB asians. The only white woman I’ve met who knew how to program was from Ukraine. All of the other white women I know who have engineering degrees work in sales or middle management.

    Also, don’t know if anyone else noticed this but if you look through the sample pages in the book linked, you’ll see a page with an adult man doing makeup for a little girl.

    • jim says:

      “Middle management” being working for HR, while nominally an engineer. In many firms, HR serves the dumping ground function that art performs in gaming companies.

  3. Amazon appears to have purged the book. I found reference to it within their cite, but when you click their link (or yours), you get a 404

  4. Adolf the anti-White says:

    When you keep getting censored in multiple different areas (race, gender, economics, et cetera), you know your ideology is in total conflict with the ruling ideology.

    Your local Nazi will not be censored for his ideas on gender and economics.

    • peppermint says:

      yes he will. Gays were much better off in the Free World than under the Nazis or the Soviets, that’s one reason it was the Free World. Also economists.

      And if the Free World had had a king to choose economic policies that would maximize the wealth of the kingdom rather than the political fortunes of some group or ideological purity, and an inquisitor to keep people from trying to push faggotry out into the open, the Free World would have stayed free.

      • Matthew says:

        “Gays were much better off in the Free World than under the Nazis or the Soviets”

        Are you proselytizing for the Nazis? Because sign me up.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Nat. Socs. are pre-1960 revuhlooshun, so yes, they would be expected to change, “Adolph.” Or else censored.

      I’m not especially fond of those “loveable losers” from the mid-20th century, but it’s simply rediculous to say that they are an exception to this rule.

      A.J.P.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Ridiculous, if it helps.

      • Adolf the anti-White says:

        Nazis were, in a word, feminist. Female liberation was not their primary focus, but it was a focus.

        Remember, they were leftist on all things but race.

        >Pro-abortion (the third-reich aborted far more than the Weimar Republic)
        >Pro-sexual-revolution (far more out-of-wedlock births, more access to contraception than the Weimar Republic)
        >Females got more access to employment, especially in the German Bureaucracy

        Wanna guess who directed, produced, and wrote “Triumph of the Will”? This chick:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl

        I’m sure she was the most qualified person. Didn’t get her job by any feminist policy or anything.

        • Red says:

          >far more out-of-wedlock births, more access to contraception than the Weimar Republic

          Got a cite for that one? That’s opposite of what I’ve read about the Wiemar Republic.

          >Pro-abortion

          Abortion/Infanticide isn’t a bad thing when it’s used to remove the weak from your population.

          >Pro-sexual-revolution (far more out-of-wedlock births, more access to contraception than the Weimar Republic)

          Everything I’ve read about the Wiemar republic indicates that girl were getting knocked up at 12 and 13 and there was a total break down in sexual morals in the bigger cities. Where are you getting this stuff from?

          • jim says:

            I don’t have statistics. What I do have is anecdotes that the right that opposed the Nazis, the aristocratic right, did so in large part because the assault on patriarchy and the family continued.

            It is true that the Nazis believed they had to restore fertility, and that they believed, I think correctly, that to restore fertility, they had to restore the pre Weimar sexual rules. But at the same time, believed the opposite. And in the end, continued to undermine the patriarchy and the double standard.

          • Adolf the anti-White says:

            >Abortion/Infanticide isn’t a bad thing when it’s used to remove the weak from your population.
            The only example of abortion/infanticide I’m aware of that removed the weak was the type practiced by Roman Fathers (see the Twelves tables of Roman law).

            The German sexual revolution had it’s beginnings in the late 1800s, but first became a major thing after the US/Britain/France installed a liberal democracy. The Nazis only increased the sexual revolution.

            >Where are you getting this stuff from?
            Various books. To cite some public sources.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn
            >Lebensborn e.V. (literally: “Fount of Life”) was an SS-initiated, state-supported, registered association in Nazi Germany with the goal of raising the birth rate of “Aryan” children via extramarital relations of persons classified as “racially pure and healthy” based on Nazi racial hygiene and health ideology. Lebensborn encouraged anonymous births by unmarried women, and mediated adoption of these children by likewise “racially pure and healthy” parents, particularly SS-members and their families.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_sexuality_leading_up_to_and_during_World_War_II
            >In the 1920s there were about 150,000 illegitimate births in Germany, before halving during the depression and bouncing up to 100,000 in 1935.

            From the rise and fall of the third Reich:
            https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:The_Rise_And_Fall_Of_The_Third_Reich.pdf

            >From the age of six to eighteen, when conscription for the Labor Service and the Army began, girls as well as boys were organized in the various cadres of the Hitler Youth. Parents found guilty of trying to keep their children from joining the organization were subject to heavy prison sentences even though, as in some cases, they merely objected to having their daughters enter some of the services where cases of pregnancy had reached scandalous proportions.

            >At eighteen, several thousand of the girls in the B.D.M. (they remained in it until 21) did a year’s service on the farms – their so-called Land Jahr, which was equivalent to the Labor Service of the young men. Their task was to help both in the house and in the fields. The girls lived sometimes in the farmhouses and often in small camps in rural districts from which they were taken by truck early each morning to the farms. Moral problems soon arose. The presence of a pretty young city girl sometimes disrupted a peasant’s household, and angry complaints from parents about their daughters’ having been made pregnant on the farms began to be heard. But that wasn’t the only problem. Usually a girls’ camp was located near a Labor Service camp for young men. This juxtaposition seems to have made for many pregnancies too. One couplet – a take-off on the ”Strength through Joy” movement of the Labor Front, but it applied especially to the Land Jahr of the young maidens – went the rounds of Germany: In the fields and on the heath I lose Strength through Joy. Similar moral problems also arose during the Household Year for Girls, in which some half a million Hitler Youth maidens spent a year at domestic service in a city household. Actually, the more sincere Nazis did not consider them moral problems at all. On more than one occasion I listened to women leaders of the B.D.M. – they were invariably of the plainer type and usually unmarried – lecture their young charges on the moral and patriotic duty of bearing children for Hitler’s Reich – within wedlock if possible, but without it if necessary.

            The Hitler youth and the modern liberal-democratic college were similar. Both places for sluts to live off the state, and do nothing useful.

            • jim says:

              The Hitler youth and the modern liberal-democratic college were similar. Both places for sluts to live off the state, and do nothing useful.

              Yes, that neatly sums up the problem.

              But in fact state investment in illegitimate children can never substitute for male investment in legitimate children. The way to get high fertility is to imitate the status of women in today’s Timor Leste, Japan before General McArthur, the 1930s Taiwanese civil code, and eighteenth century Britain. The Nazis knew this, and some Nazis sort of dreamed out loud about implementing it, but, since Nazis are leftists, and moved ever leftwards, did not.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          Not Feminist. Women wearing dresses and giving birth to a more than replacement level of children is not Feminist, period.

          “Remember, they were leftist on all things but race.”

          Prove it. And you’re missing the point, “Adolph the Anti-White,” that Germany of the ’30s and ’40s was significantly more Right-wing than the Germany of today in the three major doctrines of Political Correctness. All three, not only Anti-Whitism. All this to sully the name of populism, A.A.-W.? There is an easier way to do it. Simply point out that the “third reich” was not stable as it was a republic. Things like that are practically self-evident now.

          Don’t tell me that Feminism was around before national sentiment was destroyed. The Cathedral has a system of destroying pro-white sentiment and then going after the household of the nuclear family. This way of thinking helps you to understand that neither Asians nor Asians are at risk of Cathedral subversion and gets you focused back on white popultions again. Neither Asians nor Africans have the creativity necessary to implement the disastrous Cathedral policy.

          Time-line for Cathedral destruction:

          Ethno-Nationalism (or Pro-Whitism) destroyed by Anti-Whitism in the 1940s and 50s

          Theonomy (encompassing patriarchy) destroyed by Feminsim in the 1960s and 70s

          Techno-Commercialism destroyed by Environmentalism in the late 20th century.

          We are long due for a change. Let’s get some noble families in place to support that Inquisition against the Politically Correct memes that “Jim” is always writing about.

          A.J.P.

          • Peppermint says:

            Environmentalists just killed German manufacturing. Manufacturing loves competent workers if it can pay for them, but can’t abide high energy costs. Manufacturing in the US was killed by making competence not prohibitively expensive but illegal to buy. If only the Confederacy could have offered the Union a deal whereby the slaves were freed and went to live in the Northern cities.

            Anyway, the original Nazis may or may not have had inevitably increasing feminism inherent to their ideology, but if the neo-Nazi author of “The Turner Diaries” (a much more realistic fiction than the Diary of Anne Frank) and “Hunter” is representative, neo-Nazis believe in contraception and progress at a time when conservatives were still resisting.

            • jim says:

              Nazis believed that they must increase fertility, and to accomplish this, women must return to the kitchen and the old double standard, the old restraints on female sexual behavior restored. Did they send women back to the kitchen? Did they restore the old double standard? Did they restore the old restraints on female sexual behavior? Did they significantly increase fertility?

              No on all counts. The sexual revolution continued under Nazism. The patriarch continued to be even further disempowered under Nazism.

              In this, as well as in their attitude to capitalism, the Nazis were clearly leftists.

          • jim says:

            Not Feminist. Women wearing dresses and giving birth to a more than replacement level of children is not Feminist, period.

            Nazis failed to raise the fertility level significantly, failed to roll back the Weimar sexual revolution, continued to disempower the patriarch.

            Nazis had a contradictory program on women. Their ideology required them to restore fertility. They knew what it takes to restore fertility and were theoretically committed to implementing that – but without implementing that. They wanted to reverse the emancipation of women without reversing the emancipation of women. And in the end, they continued to disempower the husband and the father.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Relative to today, they were certainly more Right. You seem to be saying that I suggest they were a Right-ward move in the early to mid 20th century, and that’s not my point.

            My point is that they are still too far Right on the doctrines of Feminism and Environmentalism for today’s Cathedral. Which was a disagreement from strange assertion from “Adolph the Anti-White” to begin with, but consider the source… (He wrote, “Your local Nazi will not be censored for his ideas on gender and economics.”)

            In the rehvulooshuns of the 1960s, every institute that remained, including remnants of fascist parties, was forced to move Left or be censored. Hence the so-called reactionary groups are censored, and it’s not only for their pro-white positions. Militant “back to the kitchen” messages, whether successful or not, are censored.

            “America 2.0” institutions could and, in my opinion, do escape it, by using Conquest’s Second Law…

            A.J.P.

          • Adolf the anti-White says:

            >Women wearing dresses and giving birth to a more than replacement level of children is not Feminist, period.
            Are we to conclude that feminism only started in the US in the 1960s?

            You’ll notice that black fertility levels are above-replacement. Are they not feminist?

            Fertility does not have an especially close relationship with female liberation. Out-of-wedlock births are closely related to female liberation. By that metric, the Weimar Republic was more feminist than the preceding regime, and the Nazis more feminist than the Weimar Republic.

            >Germany of the ’30s and ’40s was significantly more Right-wing than the Germany of today
            On most issues, sure.

            But people agree with their side in a conflict. A feminist doesn’t disavow Susan B. Anthony because she only wanted women voting, and not women whoring. Germany was on the feminist side, and if Nazism were not hated, would be one of the feminist models taught in your local women’s studies class.

            >Neither Asians nor Africans have the creativity necessary to implement the disastrous Cathedral policy.
            Africans don’t have the IQ. Interesting point about Asians.

          • Adolf the anti-White says:

            @Jim
            >Nazis believed that they must increase fertility, and to accomplish this, women must return to the kitchen and the old double standard, the old restraints on female sexual behavior restored
            Check my (long) comment above. The Nazis openly promoted high-fertility, and preferred out-of-wedlock births.

            The modern welfare state, where a woman gets pregnant, and lives off the government, was the Nazi model. Except the Nazis blathered about her getting pregnant by a pure, racially superior Aryan.

            I suppose I’d prefer the Nazi version over our present system. But it still sucks ass.

          • Adolf the anti-White says:

            @Alan J. Perrick
            >strange assertion from “Adolph the Anti-White” to begin with, but consider the source… (He wrote, “Your local Nazi will not be censored for his ideas on gender and economics.”)
            Firstly, I assume you concede the “economics” point?

            Secondly, on gender, a Nazi is certainly to the right of the typical modern American. However, he is not far enough right to be censored. At least not on Amazon (which was, contextually, the type of censorship I was discussing).

            Precisely what could a Nazi say on gender that would deserve Cathedral censorship?

            >We ought to have more female bureaucrats
            >We ought to have more welfare for (Aryan) single mothers
            >We ought to have looser divorce laws for women

            I don’t see much. The only part of Nazi ideas that feminists would be offended by is the insistence on fertility. But that seemed to be more insistence on welfare for single mothers than actual fertility.

          • peppermint says:

            the correct mocking spelling of revolution is revolootion

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Nazis engaged in doublethink and doubletalk. Hence, favored on thing, and also disfavored that thing.”

            It’s true that aristocrats favour truth more consistently while compared to populists. Obviously, it’s due to heredity power allowing lower time preference.

            However, it was unavoidable in early to mid 20th Century Germany due to the Prussian monarch being overthrown.

            You should really incline your hearts to the popular demagogues and such because they are still more genuine than the average media personalities and it’s hard to avoid going to read the news someplace, once in a while. There just simply isn’t enough so-called Neoreaction media yet and what little of it does exist is overrun by sectarian Theonomists who love to sneer at pro-whites and bellyache about Techno-Commercialists.

            To the general audience: Surround yourself with good things, don’t keep weeping about the latest “outrage porn”, culturally secede, “America 2.0”

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            neoreaction doesn’t need media to digest everything, it needs people who can think. But then there’s Radish to digest everything for us. Henry Dampier wants to be like Radish, with is a laudable goal, but he’s kind of a moron.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint”

            Both of the bloggers you mentioned are sectarians, poisonous to the goal of Restoration of Regency Anglicanism. I’ve given them a look already.

          • peppermint says:

            Dampier doesn’t belong to the tech-coms any more than the average Black is a progressive, but I don’t care what sect Radish belongs to, he brings up things that are interesting.

        • Red says:

          Thanks for the reading.

  5. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Jim,” Barbie is from America 1.0. We need to start finding the institutions and organisations from America 2.0 and support them. They are usually from religious traditions…or, at the minimum, classical literature.

    Best regards,

    A.J.P.

  6. Anonymous Coward says:

    I worked at Intel, where the ratio of babes to dudes is very high compared to smaller shops since big corporations zealously recruit females for their impeccable progressive reasons. Regardless of competency, I have never known a female to actually _enjoy_ programming, whereas there were many such men, including myself. A mid-50’s Chinese s/w engineer once confided in me, “Women actually don’t like programming.” To which I wryly replied, “Yes, but we’re not supposed to say that.” Of course such women exist, but there aren’t that many of them.

    • jim says:

      Yes, it is not so much that the girls need to go to the art harem for lack of ability, though that is often the case, as that they want to go to the art harem.

  7. scientism says:

    So this idea of “dumping” women in various non-harmful places leads to the question, “To what degree is the female economy fake?” We had to create fake subjects for women to study at university to get them into education. This is a big part of the education bubble. Once out, they have a tendency to go into highly regulated sectors – education, government, law, medicine, carework – where it’s easy to regulate jobs into existence (and you typically find them in softer areas of these sectors). Or they’re found in HR making men’s lives difficult and fulfilling both quotas and political requirements like policising libidos and opinions. I’m guessing women are more heavily subsidised than men and their jobs are more likely to be the product of regulation rather than necessity. They’re more difficult to fire, which would explain why men are hit harder in a downturn. It’s the productive men who lose their jobs when there’s less demand, whereas the women who were hired because they had to be hired, and given jobs that exist because they have to exist, aren’t wedded to outdated phallocentric concepts like productivity.

    • Peter Blood says:

      A bloated fake bureaucracy-heavy economy is a small price to pay to keep women “working” and “social justice warrioring” and not reproducing and raising children.

  8. […] a better, i.e., cheaper, way to capture and utilize the energy on this planet. Also a very funny Barbie book. Amazon and Barnes & Noble have taken it down, but it appears to be on sale here and here. Get […]

Leave a Reply