Sexual Dimorphism in Modern Architecture

Sexual Dimorphism
Previous ArticleSuicide by Female
Comments (17)
  1. Santiago Mancebo says:

    There’s a tendecy in Russia to buy stuff and modify stuff that resemble natural “green objects”.
    Too much concrete and steel leaves them craving to see natural objects, with not a single tree in sight, it can get depressing, (this is more prevalent in industrial cities where commieblocks, rusted machinery and factories are all you can see)

    Now if only I could find that damned article..

    1. A lot of cities plant trees along the streets. It gives shade to pedestrians, and they are maintained by the adjacent businesses.

      I have nothing against plants, in fact, they do convert carbon dioxide into oxygen which is a useful service.

      1. Santiago Mancebo says:

        I know that trees are planted in the sidewalks. I live in a big city (1.4 Million) and about 70% of the streets have trees.

      2. Simia-Cogitans says:

        You mean essential service, not useful as oxygen is a requirement for animals to live.

  2. N.T. says:

    I’m ok with having some parks around. I relax when looking at plantation. Don’t let credit-hungry feminists appropriate it for themselves.

  3. you want to see female architecture? look at the dreary and uninspired suburbias of this world…all customized to the taste of houswife-child…the same goes for all the other aestethics such as furniture, gardens and decoration

    1. “decoration” perfectly encapsulates feminine “design”. Men design things that are functional, useful, and productive. Women design things that “look nice”, but are completely useless.

      1. Designist says:

        I think it’s unfair that you look at decoration in this way, just because that is all that the majority of women can probably do. Perhaps you are trying to play down feminine decorative ideas rather than masculine decorative ideas, which are stunning; in that sense, I totally agree: the vast majority of women’s decoration is almost always crap. Men have created human and anthropomorphic forms out of marble and other material, and erected obelisks and other aesthetic decoration that is pleasing to the male eye for thousands of years. Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Rome, and Greece are filled with “useless” decorations but decorations is a product of the male eye for the aesthetic. At times, even the design and function is decorative in and of itself, such as the way cities are laid out. Men have a greater eye for the aesthetic than women and their decorations bring life to empty spaces. What you see as completely useless decoration is aesthetic meaning to the men who designed them, as practicing form and design in different material. Men have created automobiles to not only be efficient and useful, but aesthetic, graceful, and comfortable, with unique design. Not all men sacrifice design for function at all times. On the flip side, men have also developed architectural and decorative minimalism to counteract over-design or design over-kill. From my own experience, women barely even know how to decorate. Just look at how women decorate things: pink, pathetic frills and polka dots, and pink or green sofas.

        Decoration is great, but there is such a thing as over kill or pathetic eye sore decor, and women do just that. The majority of men know how to decorate without engaging in decorative overkill.

      2. Max Hydrogen says:

        “look nice, but are completely useless”. Yeah, like women.

    2. I am not sure if has to do with having a second pair of X chromosomes…it is rather the underwhelming existence of being a housewife (although often because of choice) that seems to lead to a particular outlook of things, that appears to People who have to stand with both feet in reality as infantile.

      Besides, design and aestethics are not “useless” and most architecs and designers are male. Look at the work people like Ian Callum are doing, helping a firm like Jaguar to sell cars again.Often the success of a product depends on design, and honestly , surrounding yourself with nice things brightens your day.


      also interesting:

      from the article:
      Despite being the world’s most famous female architect, it is not an accolade she particularly likes to shout about.

      “I don’t generally think of myself always as a woman architect, as I’ve said many times. I feel that I should be recognized as an architect first.

      “People ask, ‘what’s it like to be a woman architect?’ I say, ‘I don’t know, I’ve not been a man.’ But now I think that if it serves as an inspiration or it helps women architects to push on then that’s fine.

      “Whenever I give lectures, I get lots of women come up to me wanting reassurance that it’s a trip worth taking.”

    3. MgToW says:

      “you want to see female architecture? look at the dreary and uninspired suburbias of this world…all customized to the taste of houswife-child…the same goes for all the other aestethics such as furniture, gardens and decoration”

      I agree with this completely. There is a documentary called “End of Suburbia” which details how suburbs got their start. In short, it’s a complete illusion. Grass to represent wilderness yet no benefit of that wilderness. Distance from the city yet closely packed with other suburban homes. It attempted to re-create a sort of manor or estate style living that was only possible for the rich around 1900 in the US. It’s simply not sustainable. It gives the worst of both city and country living with none of the benefits, and………….it’s the white picket fence that represents the female fantasy and embodies the “men build women decorate” truism outlined by TFM.

      Men have worked and slaved away for at least the last 100 years to provide women with this and we not only get no “thank you” but we get criticized for our efforts. At BEST men get to live in that house alone in old age but the norm is that he loses that which he’s worked so hard for.

      Economics has drastically changed this making it impossible for most men to provide this female fantasy to the woman in their lives and I think this has helped push the male awakening further along. Good!

      1. The process is organically and naturally: women and men formed economic units, or rather sub-units of the extended family/clan. This model back then was without alternative since women could not control their fertility and the economy did not provide the majority of women with alternatives/workplaces for women.

        With the advent of modern industrialization and birth-control this all changed. Women today can control their fertility almost 100% and do indeed have many alternatives for Provision outside this family unit: employment, self-employment, alimony and welfare.

        Naturally as they sought to break off from this dependency they opt more and more for these alternatives, which “liberated” them from having a steady partner around.

        Now it is time men do the same and explore ways how to individually and collectivelly find new meaning and means for their lives and liberation. It is not just a reaction (although some seem to be stuck in some form of Frustration Loop), but natural process as well. Neither feminism nor MGTOW dropped from the heavens.

  4. Ob says:

    I think you forgot the externalities provided by parks and green spaces.

    Parks increase the value of building that are around, trees absord a part of the pollution (air and noise), offer a place where people can relax (which is good for their productivity and therefore for the economy).

    The problem always comes from the exceses.

    A city where there is so many skyscrappers that the light of the sun can’t reach the ground is not a city in which I want to live or work.

    A contrario decide to reserve a big space to extend park when there is a big penury of houses or worse something like in Paris where a former railway is about to be transformed in a green path instead of being reopenned and encorage people to park their car and use the public transportations.

  5. Nils Dacke says:

    Just look at how females are only into what is socially accepted and make sure other men follow the current corporate trends which conveys status. All those men who think they aquired some quality stuff while living with a female are fooled.

    The vintage amplifier and loudspeakers have to go because they take up space.
    Cars such as the testosteron monster Pantera Tomaso or why not Citroen xm which looks like something from the 1990 version of Total Recal and is therefore cool in it’s own way, has no place in the female mind. “That thing goes out, what will the neighbours say, i dont want it on MY driveway”

  6. Jay Double Gee says:

    What I understand, reading this article, is that there are basically three or four major points that we should probably take into account and focus on. The first point is the never ending, perpetual, quasi infinite complaining about flawed masculinity versus better and more reliable femininity (or at least this is what “they” want us to believe). It is after all the sign of our times so I’m not that impressed to be honest. Nothing new.

    We are living in the age of squalid intellectual dishonesty and politically correct insanity while a constant hammering of incorrect ideas and unscientific, dogmatic, almost religious feel-good beliefs are leaving us more and more disoriented (and of course more inclined to pay attention to intellectual dishonesty and politically correct insanity in a never ending cycle of ignorance and stupidity).

    So to be fair I am not surprised of those 18 paragraphs of pure feminist garbage: everything that women don’t want to do because it’s too dangerous or too dirty or too deadly is.. unfairly “male dominated”. Consider that the prologue of a book entitled “we won’t stop saying it: men are a bad option, choose women” (but let men do the dirty job). The way I am not surprised of the rest of that article. Women would do better, because women are better. Sounds familiar? This is what the great majority of men have believed for most of their adolescence. So don’t be that amazed, after all they’re just finishing the sentence that most males started when they where teenagers. Right?

    “Women are better”.

    The second point is about those 11 last paragraphs. The feminist, woman friendly, anti-patriarchal, gynocentric, androphobic, pro-matriarchal, round-chested version of the ideal city of the future. A phallus-free new world where anything big, long and erect must go. Including, apparently, all architecture which vaguely resembles what women… don’t have. Because all elongated shapes resemble the penis. Outrageous.

    Never mind the fact that the inside of the vagina is also shaped that way. Never mind the fact that if a train looks like a penis, then a tunnel looks like the vagina. And never mind that both trains and tunnels are marvels of technology and architecture. But who complains about tunnels? Who would ever say that in the future, tunnels should go because they vaguely resemble women’s reproductive organs? And wouldn’t feminists complain of patriarchal misogyny hidden in such preposterous demand?

    But logic is irrelevant. It is the tool of the Patriarchy. In this new feminist world we should give priority to “women’s way of knowing”. And if they know that a skyscraper looks like a penis, it is rather pointless to remind them what is explained in this article, that a skyscraper is nothing else but an ingenious solution to lack of space in overcrowded and extremely expensive city centers of large metropolitan areas.

    That’s not part of women’s way of organising future societies (which, bare in mind, of course will be entirely built by men). Women’s way of knowing how to design future cities is also women’s way of conveniently ignoring that, again, as already written in this article, designing cannot exist without building what was previously designed. That’s not architecture. That’s drawing. I could design a skyscraper. And in fact I have designed many skyscrapers, and villas, mosques, churches and cathedrals… with the aid of computer graphic programmes like S.U. But again, that’s not actually building. That’s a 3D drawing of something that I could never ever build in real life. We need construction workers, roofers, bricklayers.. to turn a design into an architectural marvel. And “where are all the women” ??

    Yes, where – are – all the women? You only need to Google: “Where are all the women?”, and hundreds of articles pop up like mushrooms. Where are all the women scientists? Where are all the women innovators? Where are all the women engineers? Where are all the women speakers at Ted? But… where are all the other “where are all the women” questions? Like, where are all the women soldiers who came back from Iraq inside a coffin? And where are all the women who litterally burnt alive like guinea pigs and crush test dummies while testing a new prototype of an aircraft or a space rocket back in the days of sky and space conquest? Those questions are missing and the patriarchy apparently took a few days off. Don’t ask questions. You won’t get answers.

    Then there is a third point. A small minority of men (and an even smaller minority of women) when reading articles like the one from the Guardian, can only find themselves lost in a wild jungle of stupidity, ignorance, half truths and lousy, banal, and incredibly reductive notions of the way our societies are designed, built, organised and run by men. These few men and women who care about truth are amazingly amazed by these articles. And you know what? I am amazed that they are amazed by these articles. Amazing. As if we didn’t know that feminists are dishonest, medias are corrupted and most people out there deserve the garbage they read and watch given their cultural and intellectual deficiencies.

    What’s new here. Tell me. What exactly is new bad news. Because this is just the repetition of the repetition. The never ending cycle of ignorance and stupidity, as stated before, is just part of our age. An age of squallor and insanity. Of unscientific, dogmatic, almost religious feel-good beliefs. An age.. of feminism.

    In conclusion, there is a fourth, and rather personal, last point. The candied cherry to gently place on this bitter and very unpleasant cake made of ideological trash. The entire idiotic system is put in place and entirely run by misandric, backstabbing, gynocentric and androphobic… men. Because this is the real meaning of a heteronormative and quasi “gynotheistic” system. The androphobic system cannot function without the proper fuel. And the fuel is gynephilia. Remove gynephilia and you remove the fuel which makes the system function the anti-male way it currently is. And the question now is, are we there? Is it happening? Have we successfully turned it off?

    Not at all. Rather the reverse gynephilia is actually boosted. And as I explained in my last video: Mgtow, the unsolved puzzle, not only gynephilia is boosted and put on steroids (to conveniently supersize men’s normal and natural sexual attraction to the “fair gender” (I know, right?), but at the same time heterosexual men’s homosexual repulsion is also boosted in order to make sure that men will never ever empathise with one another and for that reason, will always keep focusing on women and prioritise them in all life situations.

    Like Erin Pizzey once explained to Dean Esmay in an interview:

    “…yes. And that’s why I tried to open a house for men almost immediately after I opened the refuge for women and my problem was – and this was a great shock to me – I was given a house at a Peppercorn Rent by the Council; and then I asked men who had actually given money for my refuge for women and children (they were millionaires) to give me some money for the men’s house, and none of them would give a penny!”.

    And this is the result of years and years of learnt homosexual repulsion. The two different sides of men’s sexuality are two sides of the same misandric and gynocentric coin. One pushes men towards women, while the other keeps them apart, like there was an invisible electrified fence wire.

    What’s beyond this point is, for most men, a psychological minefield. And the most effective way to make men function in a particular way is not to tell them to not look, but rather, to make sure that they will never go beyond that point, without the need to tell them in the first place.


  7. Tim says:

    I’ve always been confused by the basis of the word ‘narcissism’ being founded in male self-obsession. Isn’t that funny? Women get breast implants like they’re ordering tacos. Do men do this? Women color their hair to disguise their age. Do men do this? Women lie about their age. Do men do this? Fail to provide for and/or protect a woman and what are you as a man? According to most women – nothing at all. Who’s the narcissist here?

    The best you get as a man in today’s world is to (1) learn to deeply appreciate the value of modern porn, (2) learn to despise any women but the most provocative of your hands and (3) thank the Gods above you didn’t have to spend copious amounts of time or money for that last orgasm – of which you’ll have millions more. Being single for men is the bomb. Being single for women means that they have to buy their own dinners and drinks ($$$ not transferred from your wallet to hers).

    Women will bring into your life only pain and suffer/ring (pun). Your objective is to give women no power or control over your life whatsoever (see dead/suicidal divorced men). Give a woman power and control in your life and she will destroy you – sooner or later. Remove all power and control from the women in your life and you live the life of a free man – and witness the astoundingly rapid growth of anti-feminism/MGTOW.

    The next Saturday you wake up free from the control of a woman – say a silent prayer in gratitude of your own fortune. Celebrate that moment. Make that Saturday your own – to do with as you please – for you and you only.

    1. Tim says:

      Let no man ever be afraid or embarrassed to relish in the joy of polishing the windows on his own skyscraper. Let no woman ever feel more honored than to participate in that endeavor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *