I endorse Roosh’s polemic against educating women beyond high school. Ask yourself a simple question next time you see a university girl: would her time be better spent studying and preparing for a job, or should she spend it as a mother and homemaker, hence allowing a suitable man to take her place at work? In 99% of cases, the answer is the latter; a girl fulfills her comparative advantage at home.

However, there is still that 1% hovering in the air as an open question. There are certain careers, of course, like teacher and nurse, that women naturally flood into, though one hardly needs a university degree to teach 10-year-olds or care for patients. It is, nonetheless, instructive to focus on the One Percenter woman: that rare bird who attains masculine heights of greatness, but only at great cost.

To make my case, I focus on four brilliant women: Ann Coulter, Camille Paglia, Phyllis Schafly, and Marie Curie. I choose these women on purpose, for they are truly exceptional. An attentive reader might ponder why I do not consider the cases of Sheryl Sandberg or Marissa Mayer; the answer is obvious. A competent man can easily replace these women. Yet the four I have chosen are exceptional.

Ann Coulter: Conservative Troll

ROK readers are reminded to be wary of so-called dissident right women – cute girls like Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone are useful in drawing attention to our cause, but they ultimately desire gaining attention for themselves, like many girls their age. Their brains are vessels that are only filled through the intellectual hard labour of men; you need only watch Southern’s YouTube channel to realize she repeats ideas of other men. Yet Ann Coulter transcends these vacuous women, bringing gusto, flair, and wit to the conservative movement.

Coulter is undoubtedly smart and well-read, easily out-debating liberal reprobates. She is also slim and attractive – women in their fifties should take a cue from her. Her take-down of The Young Turks’s Ana Kasparian, for instance, is a pleasure to watch. She exceeds most men’s mental and verbal abilities.

Yet Coulter is unmarried, having dated high-status men like Bob Guccione, Jr., Dinesh D’Souza, and Andrew Stein. She has no children. Women are drawn to men who are superior to themselves – for Coulter, that significantly dries the dating pool. I can only imagine that she lives a lonely life.

Camille Paglia: Lesbian Provocateur

A professor and self-identified feminist, Paglia is held in revulsion by the feminist establishment, for positing that the sexes are inherently different, and that men, not women, have built civilization and art. Her intellectual rigour is outstanding, and the depths of her arguments are sublime. Her 1991 article on date rape, for instance, makes many of Roosh’s same points, excoriating women for demanding sexual freedom, while refusing to take responsibility for it:

The only solution to date rape is female self-awareness and self-control. A woman’s No. 1 line of defense against rape is herself. When a real rape occurs, she should report it to the police. Complaining to college committees because the courts “take too long” is ridiculous.

Paglia is a lesbian and, like Coulter, has no children. She herself admits that her obsessiveness, a typical male trait, gives rise to her brilliance. Although she was red-pilling people long before the current SJW despotism, I suspect, based on her 1990 treatise Sexual Personae, that she completely sublimates her sexual energy into artistic and intellectual excellence.

Phyllis Schlafly: Common-Sense Catholic


Phyllis Schlafly, a socially conservative Catholic writer, was what most feminists could only aspire to be: a successful professional who nonetheless raised healthy, balanced children. Schlafly earned a BA and MA from Harvard, and a JD from Washington University in St. Louis. Married at twenty-five to a wealthy lawyer, she had six children, one of whom, Andrew, started Conservapedia. Clearly she was sensibly aware of her Sexual Marketplace Value; after all, she worked as a model in her twenties, and traded her looks for security with a high-SMV man.

Schlafly catapulted into notoriety for opposing the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have enshrined equality between the sexes into the founding document. Rightly questioning the ambiguity of such an amendment, Schlafly was victorious, out-debating feminists on national television, and the ERA was never adopted.

Conservative girls might look to Schlafly as a beacon of aspiration, but Schlafly made tremendous sacrifices: she had no time to party or socialize in college, working nights in an ammunitions factory, while still attaining high grades. She only started her career after raising children, relying until then on her husband’s family affluence. In fact, she took thirty-three years, between her MA and JD, to be a homemaker. In 1985, she instituted the Homemaker Award, claiming she was most proud of that aspect of her life.

Most girls, let alone men, do not have such fortitude or intellectual ability. Schlafly had both, yet prioritized her family.

Marie Curie: Husband’s Assistant

Would not bang.

Feminists worship Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie as a godlike figure, extolling her as a role model for girls in STEM. While the French-Polish Curie was scientifically gifted and intellectually sharp, her achievements should be contextualized appropriately: she was an empiricist, who relied heavily on her husband Pierre.

Curie’s first Nobel Prize, in 1903, was due to her joint work with her husband, during which she was little more than a laboratory assistant. In 1906, Pierre died in a road accident, and Marie was offered his endowed position at the University of Paris. Armed with vast sums of money, Curie hired many lab assistants, soon discovering the elements polonium and radium, for which she was awarded the 1911 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Whether this was directly her work, or that of her assistants, is an open question.

Furthermore, it is openly acknowledged among scientists that empiricists, those who work in a lab or with data, are mentally inferior to theorists, who actually amalgamate data into scientific concepts. Curie was, by no means, a theorist, and won the Nobel Prize for simply isolating elements.

As an aside, Marie Curie’s second Nobel was almost withheld, due to Curie scandalously having slept with her husband’s former student. This man, Paul Langevin, went on to become a famous physicist in his own right.

Upon reflection, then, Curie’s brilliance relied on her ability to convince the public that she was in fact brilliant. Her reliance on others is only too clear. Even if the standard Marie Curie narrative is true, most girls lack that level of scientific ability, or the work ethic to attain it.


If you are a girl reading this article, then stop at this juncture, and ask yourself an honest question: Am I truly brilliant, or can a man perform my job just as well?

If the answer is “No, a man can replace me,” then why do you want a career? If the answer is “Yes, I am awesome,” then ask yourself if you want a life like those brilliant women considered here. Given their daemonic sacrifices, you may need to gnaw on your second response. 

Read Next: Pushing Women Into Leadership Roles Is Ushering The West To Its Doom


Send this to a friend