Things women should know about men

This isn't the list of 50 things I would compile, but it's not bad place to start. Here are some of the particularly good bits of advice:

2. You Can’t Change Him

7. Don’t Ask Questions You Don’t Want To Know The Answers To

18. If You’ve Been Living Together For Longer Than Three Years, He’s Not Going To Marry You

25. You Should Always Take His Side

28. He Hates That Short Haircut

35. Don’t EVER Emasculate Him

47. Make Sure You Look Just As Good When You Go Out With Him As When You Go Out With The Girls

The primary point that was missing was this: Be Submissive, Not Challenging. The one vital thing women most often fail to understand about men is that men are made for conflict. When we are challenged, we instinctively want to vanquish and crush the opponent, no matter who it is. But bat your eyelashes and ask for something sweetly, and it makes us want to launch a thousand ships on your behalf.

Read More

How to get more women in tech

It's all about the semantics, apparently. This is a truly remarkable educational program, for varying degrees of remarkable:

With a three-step method, Harvey Mudd College in California quadrupled its female computer science majors. The experiment started in 2006 when Maria Klawe, a computer scientist and mathematician herself, was appointed college president. That year only 10% of Harvey Mudd’s CS majors were women. The department’s professors devised a plan.

They no longer wanted to weed out the weakest students during the first week of the semester. The new goal was to lure in female students and make sure they actually enjoyed their computer science initiation in the hopes of converting them to majors. This is what they did, in three steps.

1. Semantics count

They renamed the course previously called “Introduction to programming in Java” to “Creative approaches to problem solving in science and engineering using Python.”  Using words like “creative” and “problem solving” just sounded more approachable. Plus, as Klawe describes it, the coding language Python is more forgiving and practical.

As part of this first step, the professors divided the class into groups—Gold for those with no coding experience and Black, for those with some coding experience. Then they implemented Operation Eliminate the Macho Effect: guys who showed-off in class were taken aside in class and told, “You’re so passionate about the material and you’re so well prepared. I’d love to continue our conversations but let’s just do it one on one.”

Literally overnight, Harvey Mudd’s introductory CS course went from being the most despised required course to the absolute favorite, says Klawe.

Translation: a woman who couldn't hack either programming or mathematics herself despite majoring one of them came up with a program to retain the very weak students that traditional programs are specifically designed to weed out. This is great news from the college's perspective, as it can now graduate considerably more female STEM graduates.

The bad news, of course, is that virtually none of them will be employable, as the program has been softened and dumbed down to the point that both men and women who were capable of hacking the original one won't be prepared for post-graduation employment. But what does Maria Klawe or Harvey Mudd care? They got paid and they got their numbers up, which means they probably had a financial incentive to do so.

It would be educational to learn where these CompSci majors are in ten years. I anticipate that less than half the original 10 percent, or one-eighth of the currently inflated number, are still doing any programming.

Read More

Another gamma fail

What sort of response do you imagine this heartfelt message of support was likely to inspire from women. He's telling them that they're all beautiful, nay, "fucking beautiful", and they don't need to tart themselves up in ruthless competition with one another for the benefit of cruel, sexist alpha males. Just look at those puppy dog eyes, that sensitivity, that all-inclusive message of hope and acceptance. Surely this would meet with a shower of female approval, right?

Of course not. Male supplication always - ALWAYS - backfires. Now, a woman doesn't mind being told she's beautiful so long as it is coming from a man who a) obviously tells every woman that, or b) clearly has the ability to have sex with at least 10 other women the woman would consider to be a credible rival.

But to hear it from a supplicating, low-status boy whose merest intimation that he might have a shot with her is an insult? That, of course, sparks female outrage.

Read More

Turning Gamma to 11

This is a perfect portrayal of how Gammas get intersexual relations so terribly wrong. They have literal anti-Game. What this poor gamma male is trying to do is take his Nice Guy Game to the next level; being the nice guy hasn't gotten him anywhere, so now he's playing the Penitent Nice Guy in the hopes that self-flagellating supplication will achieve what mere supplication could not.

Don't be that guy. He would attract more women if he were to stop showering and spit in the face of every woman he met. He would do better to hold up a sign saying "I need femnism cuz after I Nock a bitch up, she going 2 tha clinic cuz I ain't paying 4 no kidz."

Read More

5 percent at 40

That's the statistical probability that every young woman should be told at 18:

What Jill doesn’t understand is that her fertility is not subject to whim or wishful thinking. Her chances of getting pregnant decline rapidly after 30. By age 40, less than 5 out of every 100 women will be successful at conception. When the Jills of this world decide they want children at 36 or 38 or 42, they enter a long, often fruitless quest for safe pregnancy and childbirth.

Are you in the top five percent of anything now? Then why do you think you will be then... and that's your chances of having just one child. Marry younger. Start sooner. You can always continue your career later.

As for men, make it a mantra. Five percent at forty. If a woman says she wants to have children "someday" , that should be the immediate response. Five percent at forty.

Read More

As the Hamster Spins

Dalrock observes the entirely predictable actions of a nominally Christian blogger who deserted her innocuous Delta husband, and, after only a few months of adulterous sex, is already lamenting her inability to fix Alpha males with her MVP:

I say I want a nice guy, but instead I’ve been picking the challenging ones. The ones that don’t love Jesus, or the ones that say they do but don’t mean it. The workaholics, the underachievers, the closeted gays, the ones that aren’t over their exes, or the ones that only text at midnight after a few drinks — I’m not making excuses for you anymore.

Which, of course, raises the obvious question: why were you making excuses for these gentlemen in the first place? What is often termed "Missionary Dating" is nothing more than a woman's desire to be placed in the missionary position by a man who is officially unsuitable but sexually desirable.

The irony is that non-Christian women who are less interested in inventing Scriptural excuses than they are in having good relationships have a better understanding of the importance of the basic concept of female submission. Lady Gaga, of all people says this: "I'm in charge all day long, the last thing I want to do is tell him what to do," she explained. "It's not good for relationships to tell men what to do."

Read More

Social change has consequences

This feigned shock at the public disregard for children is more than a little disingenuous after forty years of feminism:

One little girl was clutching her favourite toy while her younger sister was sucking her thumb – and both looked utterly lost and forlorn. In a bygone era, a concerned adult might have stopped to ask them where their mother was. But in a damning indictment of modern Britain, hundreds of busy people simply walked on by.

The girls stood for an hour on a Saturday morning in a busy shopping arcade looking for 'help', as part of a social experiment for television. Hidden cameras recorded Uma, seven, and Maya, five, who took it in turns to look lost. Astonishingly, over the whole hour only one person, a grandmother, took a moment to find out if there was a problem. All of the 616 other passers-by completely ignored the girls.

How can anyone living in a society that denigrates children and child-bearing, which regards pregnancy as an evil to be avoided, and attacks men who pay attention to children as probable pedophiles, be surprised that most adults are not inclined to lift a finger for a child for whom they bear no responsibility.

Read More

Athol Kay on Violence

Athol considers the various options a man has when faced with a violent female partner:

[Y]ou have to accept that once someone starts being willing to use Violence against you, it will continue until something breaks the cycle.

There are four possible outcomes…

(1) You do nothing, she keeps smacking you when you’re insolent. You learn to be whatever she decides is “good” and figure out ways to apologize for things that are her fault, lose all sense of a personal identity, clean up the messes she makes and generally turn yourself into a human shield if she ever looks sideways at the children.

(2) You respond with greater Violence and hit her back harder than she hits you. Well… this might work briefly, but honestly the more predictable outcome is simply an escalation of both of you playing the Violence strategy toward the full colonoscopy of emergency services and interventions. There’s not really a winner here.

(3) You quit the relationship. Actually this may not be a bad option. If there are no kids involved and no particular reason to stay, you really may as well bail on someone who displays this level of poor judgment. I’m betting she’s not exactly a peach in the other areas of her life either.

(4) You get Outside Force involved. This is the only possible route if you want to try and address the situation and also keep the relationship intact. The trick here is that you have to make this as defensively clear that you are not the abuser as you can. Video or audio of her acting violent and/or verbally aggressive, while you are clearly not doing anything other than defensively trying to block and dodge may be helpful. If you are injured and she isn’t, head to the Emergency Room and say what happened, which will then trigger a police visit to follow up on your defensive injuries.

Being more cynical about the system than Athol, I very much disagree with his conclusion. From what I have seen and read, (4) is skipping past Go and going directly to the full and aforementioned colonoscopy. If one reads Theodore Dalrymple's chronicle of witnessing violent abuse and intersexual relations as an emergency physician, it is apparent that (2) is actually the smarter bet.

Why? Because the woman is always more malleable than a system that relies upon and profits from a continuing supply of "abused" women. Any contact with the system, even voluntary contact from a genuinely abused man, permits it to manufacture an "abused" woman, even from a woman who is herself the abuser. And it will not hesitate to do so.

Men simply cannot rely upon Outside Force. It is too treacherous and too readily turned against them. Therefore, the only real options are (2) and (3), which means the only option if one wishes to salvage the relationship is (2). My disagreement notwithstanding, I must note that there is genuine wisdom in his concluding statement: "once someone can hit you and get away with it, they don’t stop hitting you."

Read More

Stop being a little bitch

Advice for men. All three points are solid.

Stop Explaining Yourself

This might be my biggest pet peeve. Especially when I catch myself doing it. A lot of guy’s first instinct, when they say something that isn’t met with immediate praise and acceptance, is to start rationalizing what they said. This screams weakness and lack of self-confidence louder than anything else I can think of.

To continue my stream of personal training examples, yesterday I informed a lady that I’d no longer be conducting sessions after 6PM. I knew this was a situation where I might jump the gun and offer a big explanation up front, so I prepared myself. I started by simply stating, “No, going forward I can’t do Thursdays at 8PM.” Rather than explaining why or try to appease her initial reaction—I waited. Of course, she asked me why, and commented how perfect it worked out for her at that time. I responded by saying I simply decided not to do late sessions anymore. I may have lost a client, but I was prepared for that outcome and didn’t let my instinct to please everyone get in the way of what I wanted.

If you don’t get instant validation of something you say, that’s okay. Leave the burden on the other party to ask a question or make a counter argument before you start droning on and defending what you said.

This doesn't mean that you can't ever explain yourself to someone when an explanation is requested. It means that it is not the default action. The default action is the announcement. If an explanation is requested, you can decide whether or not offering one is necessary in the situation, but you should not offer one up front.

In most cases, no one gives a damn why you are doing something, they only want to know what you are doing. To offer up an unsolicited explanation is implicit approval-seeking, which both men and women quite rightly see as weak and a display of low value.

Read More

The mistake of mate-guarding

The Chateau explains why showing how much you care when a rival expresses interest in your woman is a problem:

Here’s where it gets interesting for philosophers and warriors of Game alike: While mate guarding may offer some temporary or discrete relationship security, multiple acts of mate guarding will paradoxically increase longer term relationship fragility. The mechanism by which this LTR instability is generated is a status feedback loop; if a man mate guards, his woman will subconsciously evaluate his romantic worth downward because (her sensitive idware will reason) only a beta male would feel the need to mate guard. An alpha male would not; his aloofness would be perceived as proof of his impenetrable high status.

Yes, when a beta male mate guards, his girlfriend will proclaim in the moment her ego-stroked thrill at his display of jealousy, but over time the accretion of those displays will erode her charitable judgment of his mate value. This is why women are viscerally disgusted by the thought of overly “possessive” boyfriends.

At the end of the day, people will do what they decide to do. There is no controlling them; the failure of one totalitarian government after another has shown that not even the threat of lethal force will suffice. The only reliable "mate-guarding" tactic is to do absolutely nothing at all, except to be sufficiently desirable that it is eminently clear that you can find a new mate whenever you wish.

Read More

But who will they blame?

If they don't blame men. I mean, it can't be the fault of a strong, independent, successful woman who is good enough, smart enough, and most importantly, pretty enough:

Natalie Barr, an anchorwoman for Channel Seven in Australia, is telling working women that it's time to stop blaming men every time they don't get a promotion or a job.

“I'm not angry at men. I can't remember being passed over for a promotion because of a man and I have never felt undervalued because I'm a woman,” Barr wrote for Australia's Daily Telegraph. Barr said that in her youth she wasn’t given a cadetship (basically an internship for your entire college degree), but she never thought it was because of discrimination.

“I just had no bloody idea what I was doing; and they could tell,” Barr said.

Men can, as it happens, tell when a woman doesn't have any idea what she's doing. As hard as it may be to believe this, a woman's Magic Vagina Power does not actually ensorcel every male within a 30-yard radius and cause them to believe that a woman is automatically superlative at every form of human endeavor.

Even if the gamma males are more than eager to ensure her that is the case.

Never forget: "Boys will laugh at girls when they're not funny."

Read More

Portrait of a Baby Boomer

Now, obviously not all Baby Boomer grandparents are horrible self-absorbed people with zero interest in their grandchildren. And I can personally attest that it was not unheard of for Greatest Generation grandparents to be similarly disinterested; while I was close to one set of grandparents, I had virtually no contact with the other pair. But as Generation X has children, it is discovering that many Baby Boomers have even less interest in their grandchildren than they did in the "latchkey children" they produced.

The defining moment that convinced me I never want to be a grandmother came a few months ago. We were invited to a friend's 60th birthday lunch in a lovely riverside gastro pub. Six couples who had known each other for decades. And my friend's two grandchildren.

He and his wife had been asked to look after the little darlings for the day, and were certain the lunch guests wouldn't mind. Well, the others may not have done, but I most certainly did - a lot. Instead of chatting and laughing about old times like we usually did, the conversation centred on what the six and eight-year-olds were doing at school, their extra-curricular activities and their hobbies - all encouraged by the gushing grandparents....

Even though I am in my 60s, I can think of nothing worse. And I've told my 25-year-old daughter Alice - who is due to marry in November - that in no uncertain terms.

The Baby Boomers are, on average, all about the attention. They never recovered from being told how important they were. Here is a woman in her seventh decade who is upset because a pair of children are getting more attention that she does. What does this tell you? Don't expect a woman to grow out of her solipsism. A solipsistic woman never matures, she only ages.

Read More

The high cost of female coders

Read between the lines here, and then consider the consequences that hiring just one female engineer has had for a well-funded startup:

The exit of engineer Julie Ann Horvath from programming network GitHub has sparked yet another conversation concerning women in technology and startups. Her claims that she faced a sexist internal culture at GitHub came as a surprise to some, given her former defense of the startup and her internal work at the company to promote women in technology.

In her initial tweets on her departure, Horvath did not provide extensive clarity on why she left the highly valued startup, or who created the conditions that led to her leaving and publicly repudiating the company.

Horvath has given TechCrunch her version of the events, a story that contains serious allegations towards GitHub, its internal policies, and its culture. The situation has greater import than a single person’s struggle: Horvath’s story is a tale of what many underrepresented groups feel and experience in the tech sector....

In short, Horvath said that she felt she was being treated differently internally simply due to her gender and not the quality of her work. She calls her colleagues’ response to her own work and the work of other female GitHub employees a “serious problem.” Despite GitHub hiring more female developers, Horvath said she struggled to feel welcome.

In other words, her colleagues didn't think well of her work, she was having an inappropriate and unprofessional relationship with at least one male colleague,  her presence caused the performance of another male colleague to go downhill, (possibly through no fault of her own), she pissed off the founder's wife, spent considerable time on a project of no possible use to the company's bottom line, spend much of her time at the office in the bathroom crying, the founder has now been "put on leave", as has one of the engineers, and the company has inadvertently become the focus of considerable media attention.

How good does a female coder have to be to make her employment worthwhile if all that is the potential cost? Do you think the founder is likely to hire more members of that "underepresented group" the next time he starts a company? Do you seriously believe that every male coder who saw what happened won't remember it in the event he goes off to start his own company? Are other women, like the founder's wives, going to be supportive of their husbands hiring women in the future?

It's fine and dandy to proclaim that men and women should be robots, but it is also a fundamental denial of observable reality. Women are, and always will be, an intrinsically disruptive force so long as men are sexually interested in them. That doesn't mean that the cost of the potential disruption may not be worth it in some cases, but it is simply dishonest to pretend that it isn't a very real and important factor that needs to be considered by every employer. And the more the employment sex police attempt to impose their equalitarian "solutions" to the "problem" on companies, the harder it will be for women to find work in technology.

Read More

#iamdoingprogramming

Check out the spectacular gamma male fail occurring on Twitter at the moment. It is literally right out of Roissy's textbook. A woman took offense at this comment on a post contemplating the observable failure of women with computer science degrees to stick with programming jobs:

I think too many of these girls who get drafted in under the "MOAR GIRLS!" banner never see real work, then bail when they encounter it. Who will be at a technical conference debating the fine points of something technical, or the fine points of a pun, and who will be taking selfies in a mirror with a sign like "I am doing programming!"?

A White Knight, detecting the opportunity to attempt to curry favor, promptly leaped into action and encouraged his fellow Knights of the Supplicating Table to fight this terrible FeelBad by taking selfies. Sadly, despite his bold efforts on behalf of her and all programming womakind, this did not result in his first date with an actual woman.

It's like a pictorial anti-shopping list for women. "Hey, ladies, I'm not only a hapless dork, but I'll put you on a pedestal in a heartbeat too!"

Read More

A loss of motivation

Unfortunate evidence that it's not marriage that motivates women to lose weight, but weddings:

Those who aimed to lose weight before their wedding set out to shed up to 20lbs (9kgs). However, those who managed to lose weight before their wedding put on an average of 7.1lbs (3.2kgs) within the first six months of wedded bliss. Brides who felt more pressure to lose weight to squeeze into their white dress gained up to 9.9lbs (4.5kgs) afterwards – almost three times more than brides who were not pressured to lose weight...

In general, post-wedding weight gain is not surprising and is perhaps a result of more relaxed dietary and physical activity habits now that the newlyweds no longer have a special event - and wedding photographs - for which to motivate themselves. ‘It is equally possible that this weakened motivation for maintaining body weight is due to participants feeling like they have already “snagged” their man and therefore no longer need to work on their appearance,’ according to the study which was published in the journal Body Image.

The best strategy is to marry a woman who doesn't need to lose any weight in the first place, apparently. In my experience, women who take an amount of personal pride in their appearance are much less likely to let themselves go.

Read More

The missing chapter

Camille Paglia points out that for all the obsessive public school interest in sexually indoctrinating young boys and girls, the one thing they don't see fit to teach the girls is the basic realities of fertility:

Fertility is the missing chapter in sex education. Sobering facts about women’s declining fertility after their 20s are being withheld from ambitious young women, who are propelled along a career track devised for men.

The refusal by public schools’ sex-education programs to acknowledge gender differences is betraying both boys and girls. The genders should be separated for sex counseling. It is absurd to avoid the harsh reality that boys have less to lose from casual serial sex than do girls, who risk pregnancy and whose future fertility can be compromised by disease. Boys need lessons in basic ethics and moral reasoning about sex (for example, not taking advantage of intoxicated dates), while girls must learn to distinguish sexual compliance from popularity.

Above all, girls need life-planning advice. Too often, sex education defines pregnancy as a pathology, for which the cure is abortion. Adolescent girls must think deeply about their ultimate aims and desires. If they want both children and a career, they should decide whether to have children early or late. There are pros, cons and trade-offs for each choice.

Of course, teaching girls the facts about fertility and the demand curve for their sexual attractiveness flies directly in the face of both feminist ideology and the Female Imperative. So, young women are deliberately being kept in the dark in order to ensure that their choices are uninformed.

How very empowering! Empowering for whom, exactly?

Read More

Moderation in marriage

There is more to successful relationships than simply being hot:

Of those three traits, the only statistically significant interaction was that men with an above average attractive personality were more likely to get married. Taking each of the factors individually, no other significant trends emerged. But those three factors in aggregate (what the researchers called “the personal traits index”) were linked to likelihood of marriage. Someone who scored more highly on the index overall was more likely to walk down the aisle. (The personal traits index did not have a significant relationship with non-marital cohabitation, however.)

“Increasing the value of the personal traits index by one standard deviation is associated with a 13.7 percent greater hazard of entering into marriage for men and a 13.2 percent greater hazard of entering into marriage for women,” the study reads. “Though certainly not definitive, these results suggest that individuals may be able to trade-off different personal traits to enhance their competitiveness in generating offers and finding a suitable mate. The results also suggest they may be able to compensate for a deficiency in one desirable trait by enhancing the presence of another. For example, a person lacking in physical attractiveness may choose to invest more in grooming in order to become a more attractive partner.”

This is particularly important for women to grasp. If you're a bitch, it doesn't matter how hot you are. Your SMV may be sky high, but your MMV will not be; no man wants to put up with a disagreeable woman. Notice too that people are less concerned about those with whom they live than they are concerning those with whom they marry.

Read More

What women want, part 2

This is taken from a newly published book description. Any questions:

Grigore Lupei is the youngest member of Alpha Trio, the secret Shifter police squad. He’s always been the joker, the charmer, the fun one.

Lately though, seeing with his older brothers with their gorgeous Mates, wallowing in happiness and reeking of sex, is starting to take its toll. It’s getting harder for him to pretend he’s happy with a string of meaningless conquests when what he really wants is something like what Drei and Em have found.

But spending time at the bottom of a bottle is a dangerous prospect for a someone in Grig’s line of work, especially with the vampires plotting to kidnap Cat, Em’s human Mate, to use for their nefarious purposes.

And an ambush one night when he’s drunk and alone might just prove to be his undoing...and threaten the Alpha Trio forever.

Until a vision with silky black hair, plump red lips, and a deadly blade shows up to save him. Kall says she can help Grig and his brothers stop the vampire threat once and for all – but can he trust the mysterious, dangerous stranger?

Will she bring peace and safety to the Alpha Trio...or something else entirely?

Fans of Stephenie Meyer, Bella Andre, and Kristan Higgins will love this quirky action-romance series with strong, independent women and sexy alpha heroes.

Strong independent women? Check.
Sexy alpha males? Check.
Unhappy with string of meaningless conquests? Check.
Envious of monogamy? Check.
Necrobestial sex? Check.

Ye cats....

Read More

What women want

This advertisement is a useful summary for young men finding it difficult to understand what it is that women find attractive. Notice that love, represented by the slot machine coming up hearts, is last on the list, after money, cars, shoes, male attention, and fame. And more importantly, notice how the ideal man isn't merely handsome and well-dressed, but smirking, arrogant, and expecting compliance. He is anything but sincere and supplicating.

Read More

Magical thinking

Obsidian interviews Dr. Helen, nominally about Men on Strike:

Going back to Kimmel, he asserts that a chief failing of the Men’s Rights Movement, is their, to be frank, racism, classicism and homophobia; he argues that the MRM is largely a middle-to-upper middle class, straight White Male thing, which actively eschews the inclusion or involvement of Men of Color, Gay Men, or Men from the Working Classes. Given that I am known by some as “the Blackest Man of the Manosphere”, I must say that Kimmel has a quite valid point. In your book, while you do mention Men of Color, it seemed rather clear to me that you spoke more to White Men who were more in line with what Kimmel has said in his book “Angry White Men”; this, despite the fact that you interviewed Men across the country. I am curious as to why you didn’t seek out, to be frank, Men like me? I ask because, it has always been my view that Men of Color in particular have a unique contribution to make in the MRM saga; as we go, so go our White brothers. In your view, do you see this as a major problem for the MRM to resolve, or no, and why?

DR. HELEN: I did talk to some Men of Color in my book, for example, Carnell Smith, who I mentioned earlier is African American and so were several interviewees such as a man named “Jerry” in the end of the book who I used as an example of a man who understood how to use the legal system to make sure that he was not charged with unfair child support or false domestic violence charges.

I think that what Kimmel is attempting to do and what many anti -men’s rights types want to do is make the MRM look like a bunch of nasty racists who do not include others and some of them might even be (gasp) Republicans! It is a way of marginalizing the MRM even further. This is a mind-hit being used to make the MRM seem out of the mainstream and weird. It is anything but. Millions of men and some women across the US believe that men are entitled to reproductive rights, due process and liberty just as women are.

I think that the MRM can cut across all demographic groups because as you mention, Men of Color have much to add and many of them have encountered severe sexism in the form of domestic abuse charges and jail time for lack of child support payments for kids that are not even their own. Many Men of Color in the NFL and sports world are keenly aware that women can falsely accuse them of rape and paternity fraud is so rampant that Kanye West has a whole song written about it. I have come across many Men of Color in my work who have been treated unfairly by the legal system in domestic disputes, so much so that they have a sense of learned helplessness about such issues. I would hope that all men would be welcome in the MRM.

Following up on my question above, I note that you cite two very well known bloggers in the Manosphere, who would be considered to fit Kimmel’s characterization like the proverbial hand in glove: Chateau Heartiste, formerly known as Roissy, and Vox Day, of the blog Alpha Game. Both have been cited for their racist views of people of color, and neither seem particularly interested in being inclusive of Men of Color under their tents (in fact, I would go so far as to say that they are both actively hostile to such inclusiveness – I say this based on direct observation and experience of both). As noted above, their astute observations and the like, many of which I do agree with, are utterly undermined by their racism, and gives folks like Kimmel, et al a smoking gun with which to discredit the entirety of the MRM cause. I am curious to know if you had known this prior to the completion of your book, and if so, why you found it necessary to cite them as sources in any event?

DR. HELEN: I don’t have any reason to believe that Roissy or Vox Day are “racist.” I do think that they are astute observers of male and female behavior in today’s society and that is why I chose to include them in my book.

I do not actively eschew anyone's involvement in Game-related intellectual endeavors, I simply don’t give a damn about the problems of other cultures, societies, and civilizations. Western civilization is my sole societal concern. Obsidian is focused like a laser on a community I care nothing about; when he is waxing on about “Bruthas” and “Sistahs” and threatening to start “chin-checkin foos”, it has no more relevance to me than the pressing problems of women in Heian Japan.

I don’t live in America. I don’t speak Jive. I don’t care any more about what is or is not taking place in Obsidian’s community than he does about what is taking place in mine. That doesn’t mean I don’t wish him well, or recognize that there are some issues that affect his community in the same way that it affects mine. But Obsidian might as reasonably declare himself to be racist because of his actively eschewing the concerns of South Korean men. Furthermore, it is amusing to hear him claim that I have anything against Men of Color considering that I am a bona fide Man of Color myself.

This strikes me as little more than the usual magical thinking and a Black man complaining because the Magic White Man isn’t solving his problems for him. Kimmel’s criticisms are irrelevant; almost all social change springs from the educated classes for the obvious reason that they are the only ones intelligent enough to ever accomplish anything. Moreover, it is excess inclusion that has destroyed American society, more inclusion will only hasten the ongoing collapse and the eventual triumph of barbarism.

The raciss card was played out years ago. The complete failure of desgregation is more than apparent to everyone. No amount of labels and attempted disqualifying will change the readily observable fact that the Civil Rights Movement in America was not only a failure, it was a societally destructive catastrophe.

Either my observations and Roissy's observations are true or they are not true. That is the sole relevant metric. They cannot be undermined by racial preferences anymore than they are undermined by sports team or ice cream preferences.

Read More

Feminism causes ADHD

One commenter at VP observed in a discussion of the diverse causes of ADHD:

That is the root of these issues: little children need to be with their mothers, and their mothers need to be with them, and feminists who lie and spread all sorts of poison about "having it all" are the problem. If you work in a coal mine, then your chief concerns have to do with extracting coal and doing it in a reasonably safe way. Your concerns are not about growing experimental bacteria cultures in a test tube, that is somebody else's concern. If you are a mother, then you don't have another career, your career is being a mother, and attention to anything else is dereliction of duty. And an economic system that does not recognize this is suicidal in nature. As we in fact observe.

A mother who neglects to raise her children herself shouldn't be surprise when they turn out feral. If the mother doesn't love them enough to care for them, why will anyone else?

Read More

The teachable ones

I asked a boy the other day if he had noticed anything in particular about what characteristic separated the boys that the girls liked from the boys that they didn't. He thought about it for a few moments, and then answered: "Flashy. They like the flashy boys."

It was an observant answer. But more important, his answer was reflective rather than bitter. Such young men are the teachable ones.

Read More

Why men don't marry

In combination with wages that have declined over the last 41 years, this chart, which shows the decline of male labor force participation from more than 86 percent to less than 70 percent, is probably almost as important in the increased reluctance of young men to marry as the legal bias against them.

Men who cannot support families will not support families. This is the societal price for doubling the number of women in the workforce.

Read More

A pre-ruined institution

It is satisfying to see the feminists, who clearly are running out of targets, turning on one of the historic bastions of male leftists:

Women run just a quarter of the biggest art museums in the United States and Canada, and they earn about a third less than their male counterparts, according to a report released on Friday by the Association of Art Museum Directors, a professional organization.

The group examined salary data on the 217 members it had last year through the prism of gender, for the first time. The report noted strides made by women at small and midsize museums, with budgets under $15 million, often university or contemporary-art institutions. Here, women have basically achieved parity, holding nearly half of the directorships and earning just about the same as men. But the gap is glaring at big institutions, those with budgets over $15 million: Only 24 percent are led by women, and they make 29 percent less than their male peers.

And just five of the 33 most prominent art museums — those with budgets greater than $20 million — have women at the helm.

Let's not only see sex-based quotas, but retroactive sex-based quotas at the Art Museums. Monet knows women couldn't do any worse than their male counterparts have done, even if they turn them all into knitting exhibits or cat portrait studios.

That's the one nice thing one can say about modern art. Women can't ruin it. Men already took care of that.

Read More

Tattoos are for trash

These pictures of celebrities with imaginary tattoos should help illustrate how retarded and barbaric tattoos look on most people. Tattoos are best reserved for a) savages, b) soldiers, and c) sexually-trafficked women. They indicate an individual who is outside the civilized social order. The picture of Jackie Kennedy, in particular, is illustrative.

Disdain for tattoos is both an effective neg and a DHV too. One of the best negs I ever heard was when a friend of mine saw the giant panther newly tattooed across the back of an otherwise pretty girl at his school. She was wearing a sun dress that exposed it and he commented approvingly: "hey, great school spirit!" The look on her face was hilarious.

Read More

"Average is beautiful"

No, average is NOT beautiful. Average is average. If little girls want to play with stumpy-legged chubsters, well, so be it. But let's not pretend that this is going to promote "realistic beauty standards", not without going out and shooting models, cheerleaders, actresses, and other beautiful young women.

Read More

Time spent by sex

I received this, oddly enough, just as I was in the midst of my preparations for International Women's Day:

Thought this might be of interest as you prepare articles in advance of International Women’s Day on 8 March: new OECD data comparing how people use their time that highlights striking differences between countries and particularly between men and women.

Women are slowly closing the gap with men as more have careers. But there is still a huge gender gap in unpaid work, clearly showing that men are still struggling to lift much more than a finger from time to time in some countries: Mexican women spend the most time doing unpaid work, such as housework or shopping, at 373 minutes a day, with Australia next at 311 minutes. This compares to their menfolk: Mexican men who spend an average of 113 minutes on unpaid work and Japanese men who spend only 62 minutes, the least of all. In Europe, Turkish women spend the most time, at 377 minutes, more than double the time spent by Norwegian men (180) who are the most helpful males in Europe and elsewhere.

When it comes to time spent on personal care, including eating and sleeping, the gap between the sexes is much smaller, and it’s clearly more important in Southern Europe. France and Italy are the personal care champions: French women spend the most, at 755, well ahead of Italian women who are second at 697. Their men spend almost as much time – with French males ahead at 738 vs 697 for the Italians.

The Northern Europeans are the queens of leisure: with women in Norway spending more time relaxing in front of the TV or entertaining friends than anyone else (367 minutes a day), followed by the UK (339). In virtually every country, men are able to fit in valuable extra minutes of leisure each day while women spend more time doing unpaid housework.

Two things occur to me as I finish off the final touches on the pink frosted cupcakes sculpted to resemble Margaret Sanger, Mata Hari, and Nancy Pelosi. One, since when is shopping considered "unpaid work". Two, I notice that "the most helpful males", in Norway, are paired with the women who spend the most time relaxing in front of the TV.

This is not a coincidence. But let this be a lesson to you men: if you don't spend more time on choreplay, your woman will be less inclined to have sex with you sit around and watch television. Studies show!

Read More

The science of hypergamy

Now we know exactly how much hypergamy is worth, at least with regards to perceived wealth:

In a carefully controlled experiment (Guéguen and Lamy 2012), researchers tested the idea of how important status is to women. They placed men in expensive cars and instructed them to approach women and ask for their phone numbers. Then they had the men do the same thing in medium- and low-status cars.

The results? The men were successful 23.3 percent of the time when women saw them in a high-status car, 12.8 percent of the time when they drove a middle-status car, and 7.8 percent of the time when they drove a low-status car. Clearly, women are monitoring our status, and we’re acutely aware of that fact.

So the next time someone asks for “proof” of hypergamy, now you can just give the statistics of the willingness of women to give out their number to the guy in the Maserati.

In other words, this single aspect of Game alone will up your chances with a woman by a factor of THREE. Even if wealth-based hypergamy accounts for HALF the entire utility of Game, (and it doesn't, it's certainly less than that), then a refusal to utilize Game means you are reducing the number of women you successfully approach by 83 PERCENT.

Or to put the opposite way, utilizing Game can be reasonably expected to allow you to access at least SIX TIMES more romantic opportunities.

Read More

What's bad for the goose...

Is also bad for the gander:

Victoria Luckwell, 37, whose father Mike set up The Moving Picture Company, and is worth an estimated £135 million, said the current legal system in Britain acted as a “disincentive” for the rich to wed, because they had no way of protecting their family’s assets.

Her comments came after her ex-husband, Frankie Limata was handed a £1.2 million payout by a judge, despite having signed numerous prenuptial agreements waiving his right to any of his wife’s money.

Miss Luckwell has been told by a judge that she must provide him with £900,000 to buy a home plus £300,000 to pay off his debts, buy a car and furnish his home.

As she left court she said: "Sadly I am left to conclude there is a strong financial disincentive for a wealthy woman to marry if she cannot be assured of protecting her family's assets. Simply put, this is a gold-digger's charter." 

This is first-rate black-knighting. An unemployed man marries a rich woman, signs several prenups, then gets them all overturned and walks away with more than a million dollars. But it is still reflective of the Female Imperative ruling the courts in the UK and the USA. Imagine how much Mrs. Luckwell would have squealed if she'd been forced to give up half her wealth, as many men have, instead of less than ONE percent of it.

If Mrs. Luckwell's advice is true for wealthy women, it must be FIFTY times more important for wealthy men to avoid marriage.

Read More