Equality in action

As I have repeatedly pointed out, equality is a myth. It is no more real than a unicorn. Those who appeal to it are simply engaging in meaningless rhetoric. And we have absolute proof that the feminist appeal to equality was never anything more than a means of guilt-tripping men into giving them power that they would promptly use to establish pro-female inequality.

The latest trend in dining all over the world including Dubai, Las Vegas, London and Zhengzhou, China is women-only restaurants, where men are not allowed. What may seem like an unfairly exclusive establishment (especially if it was the other way around) has become the norm in various cities around the world, as steakhouses and beer-tasting clubs in London are mainly female-oriented.

The latest eatery to cater to the fair sex is set to open next month in London’s Soho area, as The London Evening Standard reports that Sofakingcool on Frith Street will reopen as KC’z Bar on February 1st as a women’s-only restaurant.

It sounds like a joke, doesn't it, in light of the way women have methodically gone about destroying men's clubs. But it isn't:

‘Many women want to be around other women they can socialise and network with while having fun,’ explains Gates. ‘A lot of them will be lesbians, if you want to focus on that, but certainly not all of them. I envisage all different types of women coming in, from athletes to creative individuals.’ Gates also emphasises that, although men will be allowed in on designated nights, she wants to create a ‘safe zone’ for women to go where they won’t be seen by or bothered by men.

There is the "equality" for which feminists have been fighting: the chance for lesbians to get the straight girls to themselves.

Read More

The greatest crime against a woman

It's not domestic violence. It's not rape. It's not even a sexually transmitted disease. All of those terrible things convey much sought-after victimhood on a woman; that's why so many women claim they were date-raped or near-raped or pushed or frightened just to be able to posture as Saint Victim. The greatest crime a man can commit against a woman short of actually murdering her is exposing a factual element of her sexual history to the public:

“The Bachelorette” contestant Nick Viall stunned his former TV flame on Monday Night by revealing to a live studio audience that he had sex with her during the 10th season of the popular series.

In discussing their brief relationship on “After the Final Rose,” an emotional Viall, who earlier tried but failed to talk to “Bachelorette” star Andi Dorfman, said the two were intimate before she decided to accept the marriage proposal of Josh Murray.

“If you weren’t in love with me…I’m just not sure why you made love with me, either,” Viall said softly.

The visibly stunned “Bachelorette” quickly gathered herself.

“First of all, I think that’s below the belt,” Dorfman said, “that’s something that should be private and kept private.”

Viall, still obviously heartbroken, tried backtracking but it was too late.

“I’m not trying to put you below the belt…”

“You already have!” she snapped.

As the Chateau pointed out, it is just possible that this was a brilliant black-knighting, but it was probably nothing more than a sad and disappointed delta trying to figure out how it was possible for a woman to act on sexual desires unrelated to committed romantic love.

Speaking of THE BETA OF THE MONTH, my vote is for candidate number two, whose girlfriend went off on a vacation without him, got drunk, disappeared with two men, and came back home pregnant. The fact that the guy didn't ditch her on the spot, but promptly fell for the usual routine - "shes absolutely scared to death, shaking, sobbing, apologizing profusely" - would make one despair for the male sex if one wasn't aware of the socio-sexual hierarchy.

Understand this, gentlemen. The waterworks are a standard routine that women run to get out of trouble with men. The fact that she's pitching a weeping, frightened mea culpa, complete with anguished, body-wracking sobs, doesn't mean a damn thing. It's a performance. It is not indicative of how uniquely terrible she feels, how truly trustworthy she is, how out of character her actions were, or even of genuine remorse. It means nothing except that she is trying to convince you to absolve her of the consequences of her actions and resolve the situation to her benefit. The routine shouldn't influence your thinking in the slightest.

Read More

The decline of interparty marriage

More than half of all Republicans won't marry a Democrat.

Last week, some striking data emerged into the political blogosphere, showing that inter-party marriage has become increasingly frowned-upon on both sides of the aisle, but more so on the Republican side. What this shows, of course, is not only that both sides are increasingly upset by the idea of interparty marriage, but also that Republicans are significantly more upset (roughly 50 percent to 30 percent). And there was much fulminating about why--assuming the survey data are correct--this might be the case.

It's not at all hard to understand at all. Obama got only 39 percent of the white vote in 2012. He wouldn't get 30 percent today. The Republicans are increasingly the party of White Christian America. The Democrats are increasingly the party of Brown and White Secular America. This supposed distaste for interparty marriage has little to do with politics and more to do with a distaste for interracial marriage and interreligious marriage.

It's not because of psychological differences or the supposed openness of liberals - anyone who has ever spoken to an American liberal knows there is no more close-minded creature on the planet - but because it is primarily lower-status white men and women who don't shirk at marrying Asians, Hispanics, and Africans.

This sudden decline in interparty marriage may be an early sign of America's white population finally beginning to realize that the "melting pot" was always a myth and it is a separate nation unto itself in what has become, post-1965, a multiethnic country.

Read More

Science confirms the DLV

Men Like Nice Women, But Not the Other Way Around

In the first of three studies, researchers explored whether women or men perceived a receptive opposite-sex stranger as sexually desirable and, if so, whether that “responsive” quality registered as overtly feminine or masculine. The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be “more feminine and more attractive.” Past research suggests that physical cues of femininity stimulate sexual attraction because they suggest higher estrogen levels, better overall mate quality and solid reproductive health.

On the other hand, women didn’t necessarily perceive a responsive man as less masculine, but they also did not find a responsive man more attractive. What’s more, when women perceived their male partner to be responsive, they were less attracted to the man.

In other words, it appeared that in an initial encounter men liked nice ladies; women thought nice guys were kind of lame.

The second study required participants to engage with either a responsive or unresponsive person of the opposite sex, then interact with them online while detailing a current problem in their life. The goal here was to remove the potentially confounding elements of live social interaction (smiling, physical attractiveness) to see if they could isolate how much responsiveness—or niceness—played into attraction.

Again, the men in the study thought responsive and attentive women were more attractive as potential partners, while women found men with those same traits to be less desirable....researchers are still unsure why women are less sexually attracted to responsive strangers than men.

Men find nice women to be attractive. Women don't find nice men to be attractive. The Masters of Game have been observing this for years; science is finally beginning to test some of the Game hypotheses, and unsurprisingly, are confirming them. It's very simple. Being nice to an attractive woman is a display of low value. Being a jerk to an attractive woman is a display of high value. Women are drawn to DHV and repulsed by DLV. Because hypergamy.

Don't be nice to women you meet. No matter what your Mommy tells you, they don't find it attractive. They are attracted to men who blow them off, who demonstrate contempt for them, who regard them as being unworthy of attention. You don't have to be cruel or rude, except to the most attractive women, simply refusing to kowtow to them and looking around the room when they are talking to you is sufficient in most cases.

Civil disinterest is the best uniform approach. Treat an attractive woman exactly the same way you would instinctively treat a fat or ugly woman, and you'll significantly increase the likelihood that she'll be attracted to you. Men don't make the rules of female attraction, we are merely subject to their consequences. So learn how to play by the rules.

Why doesn't being nice repulse men? Because men are not hypergamous and therefore are not repulsed by DLV.

Read More

Magical thinking

I always find great amusement in magical thinkers, those who genuinely appear to believe that reality is defined by their description of it. This artist has taken the concept to verbose new heights:

I started the series because the world’s attempt to control women’s bodies, behavior and identity really bothered me. This kind of oppression seems so entangled in our culture that most people don’t even realize it’s there. My goal with these illustrations is to show this oppression in all its shapes, and make people question themselves about it. The project has grown, and I like to talk about other themes as well, such as racism, ableism and LGBT issues.

But "the world" isn't attempting to control women's bodies, behavior, and identity. Not the Western world, anyhow. Most of the problems the Western world presently faces, and the root cause of its future challenges, stem from the fact that historical restrictions on female behavior have been considerably loosened. In fact, the only people even attempting to restrict anyone's behavior tend to be women.

Since women are authoritarian barbarians by instinct, once freed from their civilized restraints they promptly began beavering away at destroying the foundations of civil society and civilization that were so painfully constructed over the centuries. In less than 40 years, they have destroyed their society's ability to sustain itself, in another 40, their societies will no longer exist in anything remotely identifiable with the civilization of the 1980s and before. 

But at least the grunting, tattooed, illiterate 80-IQ female denizens of the dysgenic barbarian future will be assured that they are entitled to self-respect as they are gang-raped by roving bands of grunting, tattooed, illiterate 80-IQ male denizens of the broken shards of Western civilization. And that's really the important thing.

Read More

A lesson in online debate

This Twitter exchange should help illustrate why the critics of Game are so hesitant to directly challenge any of the leading Game bloggers; despite their pretensions they know very well that they are overmatched. It's not even a little bit difficult to expose their inability to intellectually hold their own, let alone beat us, even when using the very limited medium of Twitter.

RedPillPhil
@DavidFutrelle our all-stars like @heartiste, @Steve_Sailer, @ChuckGLP, @Aurini, @voxday would intellectually eat you alive

Vanilla Rose
@RedPillPhil Um, this is embarrassing. For you. @DavidFutrelle has ripped the writing of @heartiste, @voxday et al to shreds. Regularly.

RedPillPhil
he won't directly debate them though. He just makes snarky little hit pieces.

David Futrelle
I've written many times about @heartiste and @voxday. They're (accidentally) hilarious!

Vanilla Rose
@DavidFutrelle exposes the stupidity of the writing of @heartiste, @voxday, @rooshv and others.

Vox Day
Snarking and posturing != ripped to shreds. He's simply not in our league.

David Futrelle
Vox, you rip yourself to shreds every time you open your mouth or type words on a screen.

Vox Day
Irrelevant. Even if true, in that case, you're still not doing it. It doesn't support the claim.

David Futrelle
I'll take on any "dark enlightenment" bloggers (that's hard to say w/ a straight face) in a cat pic duel.

Vox Day
Why not take me on in an actual debate. An easy topic like: should women have voting rights?

David Futrelle
Yes, women should have voting rights, because they, like men, are human. I win the debate! The end. Thanks!

Vox Day
Sorry, David, you haven't won yet. Yes, you are human. Did you vote in the recent EU elections?

David Futrelle
No. I vote where I live, in the US.. So are you contending that no women live in the countries they vote in?

Vox Day
I'm demonstrating to you that merely being human grants no voting rights. Do you concur?

David Futrelle
There are a few basic requirements for having the right to vote besides being human but being male isn't one

David Futrelle
There is no reasonable reason to deny anyone the vote because of gender.

David Futrelle
... and that's preetty much the end of the argument, despite whatever spurious reason you come up with to deny women the vote. Debate over.

Vox Day
You're begging the question.

Of course, their cognitive disadvantage isn't the only reason they prefer to stay at a safe distance and snark and posture rather than attempt to directly engage and destroy our arguments in front of our supporters. Critics such as Futrelle and Scalzi are of low socio-sexual rank, which means that they have the usual gamma male's distaste for conflict that has a clear winner. The reason is that as long as they can avoid losing, they can still claim victory in their delusional gamma style.

Notice how Futrelle tries to immediately declare himself the winner. This is normal. It's all about the spin with gammas; substance is to be avoided to the greatest extent possible because the more of it there is, the harder it becomes to spin the selected narrative. They are undefeated in their own minds, victors in a long series of imaginary encounters. But even in a short, character-limited exchange such as this, I was able to show Futrelle's reasoning to be incorrect twice, so it is little wonder he does not dare risk a more in-depth encounter with me or one of the other men. The longer it went on, the more inconsistencies I would have been able to expose. Once he realized this, he promptly repeated his initial position and retreated.

This is why we are winning. This is why we will win. Our critics and our enemies have to run away from us every single time we enter a new arena. All we have to do to continue convincing men of the truth of our perspective is to avoid getting lazy, to keep developing and presenting refined ideas, and to remember that rhetoric is no substitute for dialectic. And every time there is a minor encounter of this sort, more people will see that there is no rational foundation for the feminized dogma our opponents are so ineptly defending.

Read More

Criminalizing omega

Women feel they should be able to go out in public spaces without sacrificing the feeling that they are still in private, which would appear to be a nonsensical position until you take Game into acccount. A woman complains about creepshots.

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a creep shot is a photograph taken of an unsuspecting woman, or girl, which is then posted onto social media, blogs and websites with the hashtag #creepshot. They focus on her body – particularly her boobs, bum, legs and any visible underwear. Most of these unsolicited pictures are taken in public – whether at the gym, yoga classes (there’s a whole website dedicated to ‘girls in yoga pants’), or just walking down the street.

It’s vile. But not as vile as the feed of photographs next to it, which I can’t reproduce here. Not because they’re too graphic – most zoom in on a woman’s clothed body, although some are quite explicit and others appear to show young teenage girls – or even because they’re illegal, because they’re not. It's just that they're incredibly unethical....

It is, without question, revolting. These photographs sexually objectify women and turn them into pornography without their consent, or even their knowledge. 'Creepy' doesn't even begin to cover what these people - predominantly men - are doing.

If I ever chanced across a photograph of one of my body parts with a #creepshot hashtag on it, I'd feel completely sick. Not only would it mean that someone had sneakily photographed me in public, but it would show that an online community of creeps were, well, perving on me. It's a horrific thought. But the worst thing is there's not much I could do about it. They aren't committing a crime and unless they photograph someone underage, do an upskirt shot or take it in a private place, this is totally legal.

The hilarious thing about this is the blithe solipsism. These are the same women that devour magazines devoted to nothing but creepshots of celebrities. These are the same women who enthusiastically support the Panopticon in the name of public safety. These are the same women who take hundreds of photographs of themselves in their underwear - or less - and voluntarily upload them to the Internet.

So, it's obvious that they don't mind at all being photographed in public. It's obvious that they don't have a philosophical objection to photos of people in public spaces. What really bothers them? The idea that some bottom-feeding male they deems unworthy of their attention might be deriving a modicum of sexual pleasure from their image nevertheless.

That's how much girls hate omegas.

Read More

Alpha Mail: a similar problem

From the inbox:

I have been married for [a few] years. I have [multiple] children with my wife who it is relevant to mention is [Asian]. We live in [the Asian country].

As far as my rank on the Game scale goes, I'd say I have a lot of gamma tendencies which were probably at their worst during high school and my early years of university. All the sort of behavior that I later learned women find unattractive was exactly the way I would act. I changed as I grew up and I lost weight, was introduced to Game, got a bit more confident and things improved. I think it is important I mention this past though because I probably display these tendencies more since marriage.

After I'd begun dating my wife one of the first things she mentioned was how I had ignored her the first time we met - something I noted as a sign of improved Game. We were fine when we dating and had a good sex life and both of us would initiate intimacy and we both usually reciprocated. This was healthy but our first year was turbulent for other reasons largely related to money. Since our first child, my wife has generally not initiated intimacy and when she didn't refuse, she became a lot more mechanical and treated it like an inconvenience. It continued on well after the birth and after our child became easier to manage.

She made the same sort of excuses mentioned by the spreadsheet man. She was tired, didn't feel like it, was sick and often stomach pains were the excuse. When I get angry or frustrated she will actually tell me I should just masturbate. She once suggested I'm treating her like a prostitute and she has also broken down with water-works when pushed. This is now just as bad after our second child was born. I should add that even her desire for a second child wasn't matched by much sexual desire towards me.

When she does reluctantly become intimate she avoids kissing me, letting me touch her breasts and sometimes keeps herself partially clothed. She more importantly doesn't seem to enjoy it and I''m not selfish or quick with her or. This has frustrated me because it is sometimes weeks or months between encounters and even when she does reluctantly do it, she is as described. Recently she's also been going to sleep early on days where we planned (around children) to be intimate.

Now since we've been married I have generally maintained a good weight, I don't drunkenly try to mount her or force her in any way. I have been given signals and even hit on by other women when at other social events, whether with friends or work related. I have always refused these advances without a thought or avoided flirting back. I naturally want the marriage to work especially with children and not a chance in hell of keeping them under the [Asian country's] legal system.

I have gone about things a few ways, I have told her explicitly that I can get what I want somewhere else if she won't. She was previously jealous of other female co-workers and friends - especially before marriage. She has responded to such suggestions by telling me I would "lose everything" if I ever did while maintaining a cold shoulder towards me.

The above was a bluff of course. I don't want to cheat on her and I would be wrong if I did but I have recently been very tempted. She still maintains the same cold attitude and I have recently been hit on by someone I am attracted to. Nonetheless I've resisted these advances but I would be lying if I didn't admit to being tempted. And this is what really worries me because I am tempted by female advances where I wasn't before. I could live with my lackluster sex life before by telling myself that the children should come first and adultery is adultery however I try to rationalize it. But as you can imagine, I am at the very least reluctant to stay married to her once my children reach maturity no matter how much it ends up costing me to leave.

The only things I can think to add are that she also belittles me, telling me I'm lazy even though I work full-time and recently got promoted. She constantly holds the children up as threats and associates not obeying her wishes as somehow not caring about the children. She plays my older child against me sometimes telling me I scare him when I am angry to her. She also uses them as excuses for not feeling like sex. A lot of our marital problems can be blamed on the lack of money flow but I don't much feel like getting more liquidity for someone that treats me like she does. Living where we live and her reluctance to move also make this a bigger problem. And despite this, we are actually quite comfortable and not lacking for anything generally speaking.

This debacle illustrates the central problem with marriage 2.0. The man simply lacks any material leverage, while the woman has the entire power of the state at her back. And unfortunately, while most women prefer to be at least a little circumspect about resorting to the leverage this gives them, the wife openly revels in her dominant position in the marriage. My strong suspicion is that she married him to avoid being married to a dominant man of her own culture and since the novelty and imagined status of the Westerner has worn off, she really doesn't want to be married to him anymore.

There are two things to keep in mind here. First, not all marital problems can be solved. Second, all strategies for addressing and attempting to solve marital problems have to be viewed in terms of estimated probabilities. It's not about knowing the magic word or striking the magic pose, but rather giving oneself the best chance of success. And sometimes that best chance is still a long shot, which appears to be the case here.

This man will have to decide what level of personal degradation he is willing to accept for the sake of being near his children. My belief, however, is that children are always secondary to the marriage. They are the fruit of the marriage, but both the husband and the wife who insist on always putting the children ahead of their marital partner are making a fatal mistake that will ultimately harm the children.

After some reflection, I think the emailer should simply return to his homeland by himself for two weeks to get his head clear. Being in foreign land is intrinsically unsettling in multiple ways. He should just go, without asking permission, without making a big deal of it, and without staying in close contact while he is gone. If she asks why he is going, he should tell her, honestly, that he is thinking of returning home and he wants to see what his employment prospects are there. No mention should be made of divorce or ending the marriage, no threats or ultimatums should be given, just a simple statement of intent.

She will probably react with dire theats. These must be met calmly and with civil resignation. "I understand, all the same, this is what I'm going to do." There is no point in explanations. She already knows perfectly well why he is considering a permanent return. And once there, he needs to seriously think upon whether he wants to continue to live his life that way or not, and if he wants his children to witness the ongoing humiliation of their father or not. There is no correct answer here, it is an intrinsically subjective call.

These ugly situations are much harder where children are involved, but to paraphrase the Biblical wisdom, he who seeks to gain his children will lose them. The only way to prevent a woman from using your children against you is to make it clear that doing so will accomplish nothing whatsoever, and since he's already made a very bad mistake of trying to bluff her, and having his bluff called, she's not going to believe any posturing on his part short of actually packing up and leaving for a time. The only way to nullify open threats such as these is to materially demonstrate their impotence.

It must be admitted that there is a chance that the woman will file for divorce during those two weeks. All he may accomplish here is to speed up the inevitable. But even that can be seen as a positive step of sorts. To be honest, this doesn't sound like a marriage so much as a wintry battleground.

Read More

One can't help but notice

Women who openly oppose feminism tend to be more attractive than feminists. One wouldn't need the signs to know which is which.

Read More

Slowly, we win

The language and the ideas of Game have gradually worked their way out into the mainstream and are now generating open concerns and opposition from post-feminist young women.

My[20F] boyfriend[21M] is being poisoned by The Red Pill. Help.

We have been together for over a year. He was/is my best friend and we've lived together for 3 years. Long story short, he has some pretty bad issues with depression (in cycles, we're thinking bipolar, he's about to start going to a new doctor to figure it out) and low self esteem. He's had this low period -> go read TRP -> feel shitty about himself for being a "beta" cycle twice so far.

He is letting a lot of their ideas affect the way that he thinks when he's in these low periods. Some examples are feeling like because he's a "beta" he has to work for something(sex) that "alpha" guys don't, and that makes him get even lower, along with feeling like I don't want him because he's a "beta" and that he (pretty much) isn't good enough for me.

He gets really sensitive to people's comments when this happens. An example is when I went to get his keys from him at work, after I walked out the door someone said "damn, who's girlfriend is that!"(I swear to god I'm nothing special, this comment is weird and uncalled for in the first place) And when people pointed to him, the first guy kinda laughed and said "that's not his girlfriend..".

How do I explain to him how horrible TRP actually is? When I say that they're assholes, he just says that there are so many of them, they must be doing something right.

He isn't sexist at all (except for some super common cultural stuff like gender roles, etc) and does not think negatively of women whatsoever, I can tell he's just looking for some way to "improve" himself because he feels so shitty.

We communicate EXTREMELY well and we have very controlled, civil conversations about this kind of stuff, but I'm at a loss about how to explain this to him or show him that TRP is living in some fairy tale world where if you're enough of an "alpha" all girls will "give" you sex 24/7. He's convinced that my semi-low (prefer sex every other day) sex drive is because he's a "beta" and I don't want him and am not attracted to him.

Translation: "my boyfriend gets depressed every time he realizes I've emasculated him by controlling our relationship and dictating every aspect of his life. How can I prevent him from being aware of the truth?" To claim that one is "poisoned by The Red Pill" is akin to claiming that one has been infected by reality. The deceiver sees The Red Pill as horrible because she can no longer continue to deceive her victims.

Remember, the core of gamma behavior is "about lying to oneself relentlessly about what's right in front of your eyes." Game is built upon a foundation of the relentless observation of the facts of human behavior. That is why Game and gamma delusions, and Game and delta assumptions, and Game and female deceptions, are intrinsically incompatible.

I don't care about this particular case, only about what it represents in the larger scheme of things. It means that the attempt by feminists and white knights and gammas-in-denial to marginalize Game as nothing but a skeezy form of misogyny has completely failed. Even a gyne-blinded young delta chump is aware that The Truth Is Out There.

This is what a step forward on the long march looks like.

Read More

Female advice and the Sex-22

It's always amusing to hear female opinions on how to solve a crisis caused by female behavior. Mostly because their first instinctive response is to deny it is a crisis:

“I think the fact that the guy communicates via a spreadsheet is the reason why he’s not getting sex,” is the verdict from relationship counsellor Francine Kaye. “If a man wants to be desired, he has to speak to a woman’s feminity. He has to stop complaining and start thinking 'What do I have to do in order for her to want to have sex?’ ”

A good start is the kind of wooing behaviour most husbands assumed they had left behind as soon as the ring was on the bridal finger. Erroneously, they think that compliments and flowers, hand-holding and general attentiveness are not just unnecessary but cheesy once they are married. Cheesy they may be, but necessary – as attested by the short shrift given to Mr Spreadsheet.

Did I not call that yesterday? What is relationship counsellor Kaye's statement, if not a retroactive justification of a woman's action. Translation: start paying attention to other women. Then she'll magically find her missing motivation. There are three things that speak to a woman's femininity.

1. Be attractive
2. Don't be unattractive
3. Competition aka (1) and (2) seen through the mechanism of other women

Choreplay doesn't work. Romance doesn't work. Vacations don't work. Talk doesn't work. Men have tried those things many, many, many times. Here is why it will never work to do what a woman says you need to do in order to make her want to have sex: the moment you do what she tells you is necessary, that "creates pressure" on her to fulfill her end of the implicit bargain. And women under pressure to have sex don't want to have sex, because women don't want to have sex under pressure, ergo doing what she tells you necessarily ENSURES that she will not want to have sex.

Did you follow that? It's a Catch-22, or in this case, a Sex-22.

1. She says she'll want to have sex if you take her to Mazatlan.
2. You take her to Mazatlan.
3. She is now under pressure to want to have sex.
4. Feeling under pressure prevents her from wanting to have sex.
5. Rinse and repeat.

So, don't bother taking her to Mazatlan. Don't waste your time on whatever women advise no matter how many women blithely recite the usual mantras. Go back to the basics. Go to the gym, improve your style, focus on your career and making more money, and either a) she'll be more attracted to you or b) someone else will.

You can't fix someone else. You can't change someone else. You can only control your own actions. If she wants spend her life as a sexless slug parked in front of a television, that's her choice and its on her. No one else.

Read More

Mortification Game

Of sex and spreadsheets. A number of people have asked me my thoughts on the woman complaining about the fact that her husband dropped a bombshell on her concerning her near-constant sexual rejection of him just as she was going on a 10-day business trip via email, including a spreadsheet that kept track of when each rejection happened and her excuse offered:

A sexually-frustrated husband compiled a spreadsheet charting a whole month’s worth of his wife’s excuses for refusing to have sex with him, including “I might be getting sick” and “I still don’t feel 100%”.

For a whole month the amorous husband jotted down every response from his other half when he asked her for intimacy, which elicited replies such as “I feel gross” and “I’m watching the show”, which he claims was a re-run of a Friends episode. The unnamed man then collated the information and put it into an excel document before emailing it to his wife as she arrived at an airport ahead of a 10-day business trip.

Excuses also include "I'm exhausted", "I need a shower" (didn't shower until next morning), "I'm trying to watch the movie" (fell asleep 15 min later) along with a few cases of not feeling too well and a number of ‘non-verbals’.

Shocked at the email, the anonymous lady tried to get in touch with her husband but found he had cut contact with her.In the end, she decided to share her husband's endeavour with users of social networking site Reddit by uploading the spreadsheet.

She then wrote: "Yesterday morning, while in a taxi on the way to the airport, husband sends a message to my work email which is connected to my phone. He's never done this, we always communicate in person or by text. I open it up, and it's a sarcastic diatribe basically saying he won't miss me for the 10 days I'm gone. Attached is a spreadsheet of all the times he has tried to initiate sex since June 1st, with a column for my "excuses", using verbatim quotes of why I didn't feel like having sex at that very moment."

The spreadsheet, which has since been deleted, quickly went viral with people taking both sides in the debate. Most people criticised the husband's "immaturity" and said he should have gone about it in a different way.

Thereby proving that most people are idiots. The first thing is that this spreadsheet didn't come out of the blue. It is almost surely a quintessential male response to a very typical female tactic: the demand for proof. Women often try to put men in a false "heads I win, tails you lose" position, in which they demand proof of the assertion, but if called on this demand, then try to argue that the anticipation of the need for proof somehow disqualifies its relevance. That is exactly what the wife is attempting to do here. She's trying to use that the fact he made the spreadsheet and sent it to her on the road to retroactively justify her previous actions.

Needless to say, women who exhibit this basic inability (or refusal) to grasp cause-and-effect aren't often taken seriously. Think twice before you resort to such rhetoric; even if it works, you're making yourself look like a moron.

Although apparently there are those foolish enough to buy her "tails you lose" tactic, because they are using her very "immature" language to describe her husband. But there is nothing immature about what the man is doing. It's idiotic to claim, as many have, that he should "talk to her." He's obviously been talking to her already, the spreadsheet is filled with verbatim quotes from the woman. What he's doing is calling her on her bullshit, which makes many men and women uncomfortable. After all, what will happen if women start being held accountable for their actions? We can't have that, can we? Society will implode overnight!

The woman's response, and the furious response of other women, to the husband's action demonstrate how effective it is. Remember, women always communicate strategically when speaking in general terms about sex and love; what they say can never be taken at face value but must be interpreted properly. This is clearly the first time in months that the woman has paid even the SLIGHTEST attention to what the guy thinks; it's genuinely amusing to see the various women claiming that the combination of the spreadsheet and radio silence will have a counterproductive effect when she's already a) sexually rejecting him 88.89 percent of the time and b) has left him at home while she hits the road.

The fact is that she's feeling incredibly humiliated and defensive. And since in women, defensive crouches are followed by instinctively sexual responses, if he maintains his frame, the chances are that she'll return from her trip more sexually willing than before. (Personally, I doubt he will, he'll probably contact her too soon, apologize profusely, buy her flowers, and they'll be back to their old routine within a week.) But what he has inadvertently done is to introduce Mortification Game to a worldwide audience, Mortification Game being a subset of Dread Game.

Dread Game isn't for healthy relationships, but it can temporarily improve unhealthy ones and buy them time to fix things. This spreadsheet isn't indicative of immaturity, but rather desperation combined with a desire to save his marriage while honoring his wedding vows. It would be much more effective for him to have simply gone radio silent and had sex with other women while she's gone; the sexually hypercompetitive nature of women would likely have her sensing his subsequent indifference to her deprivation upon her return. But he chose not to do that, instead he plunged once more into the gap to try to salvage what looks like a fairly hopeless cause.

The beleaguered husband doesn't deserve scorn or criticism, but the sort of sympathy one spares for the underdog. As for the wife, well, any woman who repeatedly turns down her husband because watching television repeats is more of a priority merits all the mortification and marital difficulties she subsequently experiences. I don't know if there are any relevant studies on the subject, but I hypothesize there is a very high correlation between the hours of television a wife watches and the amount of Internet porn that a married man consumes. Someone close to her needs to inform her that this isn't a game, posturing and playing the victim is not going to work here, and she needs to take responsibility for her failures as a woman and as a wife immediately or her marriage will be over.

And, by the way, for men and women alike, keep in mind that if someone ever throws something like that spreadsheet in your face, you have quite literally asked for it. Every time someone brings up a concern to you and you dismiss it for lack of proof, you set the stage for the person preparing a quasi-legal brief against you. Never resort to the idiotic rhetoric of claiming that unless the other person can prove it, it never happens, because that is ignoring the obvious logic that SOMETHING upset the other person enough to cause them to bring up the subject with you.

Read More

The future of fat people

The eternal search for the celebration of female unattractiveness:

“WOW. Did I vastly underestimate women’s need to see ‘imperfect’ bodies just doing regular, human stuff,” Trout wrote in a follow-up to her original piece, which ran in longer form on the Huffington Post over the holiday weekend. “Not only am I getting messages going, ‘You’re helping me with my personal stuff,’ but the support I’m getting is overwhelming.… Obviously, that’s not why I posted the article, it’s a broader social commentary (the point of which was that it doesn’t matter how you look, you’re still entitled to wear whatever you want and be comfortable doing it), but the fact that I’ve received more of those messages than negative ones makes me really hopeful for the future of fat people.”

This is like a bunch of unemployed male slobs celebrating each other's slovenly laziness. They can celebrate it all they like. They can empower themselves by posting pictures on Facebook. And it's not going to make a single woman more attracted to any of them.

I think it's fine for a fat woman to wear a bikini if she wants to. I mean, she might run the risk of getting harpooned by a passing whaler, but as long as she's not doing it in the vicinity of any Japanese or Norwegian ships, she should be safe enough.

It's not men who care if fat women wear bikinis or not. We're not horrified, for the most part, we think it's funny. It's other women who make a big deal of it anyhow. I hope the future of fat people is fat, dumb, and happy, that's certainly to be preferred to seeing them weeping pathetically over their extra-large bags of Doritos.

Read More

Art and the social hierarchy

The occasional Picasso aside, I've noticed that most artists tend to rank very low on the socio-sexual hierarchy, almost a melange of Gamma, Omega, and Lambda. This sort of weirdly childish behavior is so common among them that I soon learned to closely examine every texture in our video games in order to detect and order removed the more egregious portrayals of sex and genitalia:

Fashion chain Next has taken a baby grow off its shelves after customers noticed it was covered in penis drawings. Shane Gallivan, 23, was feeding his 10-month-old twin daughters Evelyn and Amelia at home in Bulwell, Nottingham, when he spotted an unusual shape in their baby grows' 'washing line' design. After looking closer, he uncovered what he believes is the drawing of a penis in the image of a green jumper. He then examined the rest of his daughters' baby grows and found lots of different penis images covering their arms, legs and bodies.

I can't exaggerate how common this sort of thing is. Once your eye is trained to see it, you can identify it everywhere. We were on a flight a while back, and I pointed out to Spacebunny the seven penises that were portrayed in the clouds on the box OF THE FREAKING CHILDREN'S MEAL, including one that was ejaculating. I wish I'd saved it; it was even more egregious than the baby grows pictured in the article.

The manufacturer claims: "This is an innocent mistake that had not been picked up in the approval process."

Innocent on the manufacturer's part, perhaps. Not on the artist's.

Read More

Hypergamy and delusions of equality

It's not hard to understand why Sheryl Crow will never get married. The woman is remarkably delusional concerning her position vis-a-vis the men to whom she is attracted:

The 52-year-old spoke candidly about her hopes and dreams
for the future. 'Hey, I would love to get married - I'm still old-fashioned. But I don't think marriage is the be-all-and-end-all,' she admits. 'It's better to have three broken engagements than three divorces.'

While she thankfully hasn't had that many broken engagements, the country star was set to marry now-disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong in September 2005, before calling time on their relationship in February 2006. She also famously dated actor Owen Wilson in 1999 and singer Eric Clapton prior to that, in 1996.

Speaking of her penchant for dating equally famous and successful men, she says she always ended up feeling that they made her feel small in the end, citing their need to be the bigger star in the relationship.

'I have always gone out with guys who were highly successful, which would seem like it would put me at an equal level,' she explains. 'But what ends up happening is that one of you becomes smaller - and it was always me... I do think that sometimes in order for one person's light to shine, everyone else has to dim theirs.'

Right there is the essence of hypergamous thinking. A woman goes out with a MORE SUCCESSFUL man because she is attracted to him. And, having attracted him, she therefore concludes that she is now "at an equal level". But at no point has Miss Crow ever been as successful as Lance Armstrong or Owen Wilson, to say nothing of Eric Clapton, who has been world-famous for decades.

They didn't need to be the bigger star in the relationship, they WERE the bigger star in the relationship. The problem isn't that she felt small, the problem is that she was trying to make herself feel bigger through them.

The fame issue doesn't matter to non-celebrities, but the exact same behavior is seen with regards to physical attractiveness. The female 6 who goes out with a male 8 subsequently assumes that she is an 8 and begins to behave accordingly. And therefore, it bothers her when he, and others, still regard her as being the less attractive half of the couple, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS STILL THE CASE.

Hypergamy alone is not a problem. It's necessary and desirable for successful relationships in a sexually dimorphic species. But hypergamy combined with a subsequent delusion of equality renders a woman literally unfit, in both the relationship and the Darwinian sense.

Read More

The wounded Gamma

You can always tell when the Gamma male, who will never openly admit that his precious little feelings have been wounded, is having trouble maintaining his delusion, because he keeps returning to the point where it has been punctured, trying to come up with some spin on the situation that he can successfully sell to others and thereby convince himself.

John Scalzi @scalzi
Look! Moronic sexist dipshits STILL agog I noted my daughter lifts more than I can!

Jason Black @p2p_editor
@scalzi Evidently, pride is a difficult concept for them...

clarence @cjohnson319
@scalzi BUT DUDE SHE COULD DEFEAT YOU IN ~*single combat*~ YOU ARE AT GREAT FEMALE RISK SIR

Bill @dadonymous
@scalzi HA HA YOU'RE SO LAME BECAUSE YOU'RE PROUD OF HOW STRONG YOUR DAUGHTER IS! ARGLE BARGLE!

Kathleen McGivney @kmcgivney
@scalzi dudebros gotta dudebro.

Arinn Dembo @Erinys
@scalzi *shakes her head* "My bubble is good. Your bubble is bad."

Martin Wagner @wagnerfilm
@scalzi So, a load of pseudo-intellectual twaddle to defend his insecure need for manhood only to be defined as "can lift moar than women."

Dave Shramek @dshramek
@scalzi "Ha ha ha. You guys are in a bubble. Also, it's a dumb shape for a bubble because it seems to be an inside-out sphere."

Evil Sales Associate @EvilSalesAss
@scalzi What is a "man card" used for anyway? a free coffee after 10 fist bumps?

Ricky Shorter @Gimli_Ricky
@scalzi how do you know what that site contains? I tried, but after a couple paragraphs I could NOT continue reading. It's just..a mess

Austin Collum @austinlc99
@scalzi I've read a lot of shit on the internet, but this takes the Gold Medal for most ludicrously insanely asinine bullshit I've ever seen

Eden Lynch @Eden_Lynch
@scalzi that holo is filled with hater trolls that breed and contribute to the imbecile gene ool - yes cos some1 pee'd in it

JoanofDarkKnits @JoanofDarkKnits
@scalzi hell she can probably lift ME.

John Scalzi @scalzi
@JoanofDarkKnits That's entirely possible. And then Krissy would lift the both of you.

Bruce @thornae
@scalzi: Isn't it fascinating how they translate your "she can lift more than me" into "I can't lift as much as her"?

Christopher Brau @ChristoffBrau
@scalzi HAHAHA the fuuuuck is wrong with these people?

John Scalzi @scalzi
@ChristoffBrau They're sad and pathetic losers with no lives.

Michael Bunting @daedalus4096
@scalzi Because, apparently, there's something wrong with taking pride in one's child's accomplishments? WTF is wrong with these people?

Rachel Baker @PokeyPuppyRdr
@scalzi Interesting that he leaps past you bragging about your daughter's ability to you bragging about your LACK of ability. Hmm.

Kathy @ManicNotCrazy
@scalzi i think your daughter could flatten him in one punch. and we would stand back and laugh! you should brag on your girl. 1/2

John Scalzi @scalzi
@ManicNotCrazy My daughter wouldn't punch him. She'd briefly roll her eyes and then ignore him. Which is about the right response. 

Note that despite all the reassurance he's received from the other rabbits, it's still not enough and he's actively seeking even more. This is because he knows that his weakness, and worse, his pride in his weakness, makes him an object of derision and disgust by men and women alike. And the knowledge of that is painful to his ego.

And this is despite the fact that this particular Gamma has long reveled in feeling weak. Or this photograph would not be "one of my favorite pictures of my daughter and me."

As one recovering former Gamma told me, determined self-deceit is the core of gammatude. He said: "It's not about being stupid, or even a chubby nerd, it's about relentlessly lying to yourself about what's right in front of your eyes. Pulling off those scales is one of the hardest things to do in life when you are in deep."

Read More

Unaccountable children

We see it time and time and time again, how the legal system repeatedly makes it eminently clear that women are to be regarded as little more than children, unaccountable for their actions:

A 23-year-old woman has told police she lied about her father raping her when she was 11 - accusations that put him behind bars for nine years. But Cassandra Kennedy, from Longview, Washington, will not be charged as prosecutors fear it could stop others from reporting sexual assaults.

Kennedy said guilt forced her to tell police she had lied about Thomas Edward Kennedy raping her at least three times in 2001.

'I did a horrible thing,' Kennedy told detectives in January, according to a police report reported in The Daily News. 'It's not OK.'

She added that she was bitter following her parents' divorce in 1991, and that she made up the rape story as her father had disappointing her....

Of the false conviction, prosecutor Sue Baur said: 'This is the kind of thing that shouldn't happen.' But she said that charging Kennedy might discourage victims from coming forward. She added that it was not an indictment of the system, but simply a case of a person withdrawing their story.

And women wonder why men don't respect them or consider them their equals. It's not because men hate them, but because so many women insist on acting and being treated like children.

Read More

How feminism is "ruining" A Game of Thrones

I wouldn't go quite so far as that myself. While there are a number of suboptimal decisions that have been made, such as the invention of a romance between Grey Worm and the child-in-the-book Missandrei, A GAME OF THRONES is still one of the best book-to-film adaptations I have ever seen, second only to THE GODFATHER. No one who has read and loved THE DARK IS RISING and knows what monstrosities were inflicted upon it in the process of adaptation could possibly view HBO's A GAME OF THRONES as ruined. But there is no question that the HBO series has modified a number of the female characters in a feminist manner, and that these decisions have tended to weaken an otherwise strong cinematic story:

It’s cliché to complain about how a movie or television show is ruining the source material by departing from the books.  There’s nothing new about bitching that HBO is sabotaging A Song of Ice and Fire, the literary source for its program Game of Thrones, but what’s not being pointed out is why they are doing it.

The answer is feminism.  Television needs to constantly reinforce the egalitarian narrative.  The point of feminism is to absolve women from all responsibility for their actions.  The show does this by creating simplistic explanations for the female characters’ actions and promoting  Mary Sue style “strong women.”

Women in the books have complicated rationalizations for their actions, often deriving from deep seated insecurities and fears.  Like real life women, they rationalize things to themselves based on deluded self-images, rather than reality.  The show does its best to strip these away, the easier to blame everything on men.

Cersei, in particular, has been sold short. As the writer notes: "In the book, Cercei Lannister is plagued by a mix of insecurity and self-delusion—Tyrion notes that his sister thinks she is “Tywin Lannister with teats.”  Indeed, she looks up to her father partially because it enhances her own self-image as his equal.  She also uses her sexuality as a weapon, betraying her brother (and lover) Jamie, who remains loyal. The show’s Cercei is portrayed as reacting to her oppressed status as a woman forced to marry men she doesn’t love."

It's not that the HBO Cersei is uninteresting; Lena Headey has presented an impressive character and been more than effective with the dialogue she's been given. But it's a little ironic that modifications made in order to make her character more palatable to feminists means that the HBO Cersei is neither as strong nor as ruthless as the book Cersei.

Read More

Never satisfied

This article on the deficiencies of rom-coms, which are movies made expressly for women and which no man would give the time of day were it not for the money to be made in them, illustrates the total pointlessness of ever attempting to please feminists by giving them what they demand:

Rom-com women promote the myth that even the most successful and self-actualized among the female gender require sex in order to be bearable human beings. Before they get the guy, they’re self-involved, anxious, jealous, unfulfilled, and, at times, neurotic. After they get laid they morph into modern day Donna Stones, pleasant and perfectly confident in their ability to face the world.

It could be argued that the stereotypical rom-com woman is so popular because, out of the top 200 grossing comedies from the past decade, women have directed only nine of them. Then again, seven out of those nine female-directed films happened to have been rom-coms that fit the stereotypical bill, leaving audiences to question when, exactly, feminism will begin “leaning in” to the silver screen.

Give them X, they'll demand Y. Give them Y, they'll demand Z. It's considerably less trouble to refuse to give any ground in the first place. Such women are seldom satisfied until they have complete control and have completely driven out every last vestige of male influence and involvement. Don't give them the initial inch and thereby prevent the eventual mile.

Read More

A society of cellos

This ad should suffice to illustrate why educational equality at the university level combined with career-prioritization is an unmitigated and dysgenic disaster for Western civilization. The cello may be her baby right now, the problem is that 20 years from now, her hair will be graying, the cello will be sitting in a storage closet, out of tune and unplayed, and in its place on the slide will be the woman's four cats that she "regards as her children".

And she won't thank those who encouraged her to "pursue her dreams" rather than telling her to get married and have children.

Read More

The decent thing

The newspaper left out one very important element of this story of an abortive wedding:

A newlywed husband divorced his wife before they could even consummate their marriage after her ex sent him compromising photos of her. The couple had been wed only hours when the groom was passed a memory stick containing the pictures hidden in a bouquet of flowers.

A note told him to look at the contents of the device and, when he did, he found the photographs of his new wife, laid bare and in intimate circumstances.

Muslim cleric Sheikh Ghazi Bin Abdul Aziz al-Shammari told Kuwaiti television news that the groom decided on the spot that his hours-old marriage was over, the website Sabq reported.

'The groom came to see me the next day and he was under strong emotional trauma,' said the cleric. 'It was truly the shock of his life and he could not bear the scandal.'

Sheikh al-Shammari said the bride's former lover had days earlier tried to blackmail her into staying with him, threatening to reveal their relationship if she refused. She told him to get lost, telling him she was to be married and that she wanted to start a new life, become a mother and raise a family.

This is a position in which many men have unwittingly found themselves, on one end or the other. Athough described as her "ex" and her "former lover", the fact is that the woman was having sex with the one man while engaged to her BETA-victim. This is apparent because he was trying to continue their current relationship, not revive a past one.

And while the paper and many of its readers may engage in feigned shock and horror that any spurned man might so UNGENTLEMANLY as to expose a cheating whore who is on the verge of successfully sticking her exit landing and pulling off a massive marital con, the truth is that the man ultimately did the groom a tremendous favor by revealing his fiance's true character to him, regardless of his motivations.

A friend of mine once received a phone call from the roommate of the man who was having sex with his fiance. He went to the beach they were at, confirmed the roommate's story, and broke off the engagement a few weeks before the wedding. It was hard on him, but he was extremely thankful to the roommate. And as for those who wonder why the "former lover" didn't act sooner, it is entirely possible that he knew nothing about her wedding plans until then. I once called a girl I'd been seeing at the gym where she worked and was very surprised to be informed that she would be out for the next two weeks because she was getting married that very day.

That was a bit of an eye-opener, even for someone who was as instinctively skeptical of women as I was. And I definitely felt sorry for the poor bastard, though not sorry enough to interfere with the wedding.

Such women always want to "start new lives" and put the past, even the extremely recent past behind them. But the past, especially the decisions we have made and the actions we have committed, defines who we are.

Read More

White knights on Twitter

The worst White Knights are always the feminized gamma fathers:

Vox Day ‏@voxday Jul 9
Darwin + Title IX = Idiocracy. The more women are educated, the less intelligent society becomes.

Paul Mikelson ‏@pablo79raider
@voxday my daughters will be educated so they don't have to rely on some asshole for their next meal.

Vox Day ‏@voxday now
@pablo79raider In that case, you should probably buy them their starter cats now.

It's probably small loss to society. One tends to doubt anyone would have been terribly inclined to enwife the guy's little orcs anyhow.

Read More

Men avoiding marriage: a case study

I was at the gym yesterday talking with a friendly acquaintance, a younger man who is tall, personable, handsome, and in the process of getting his Master's. He's a big, strong guy, thirty, and looks exactly like the sort of guy you'd see in a fire department's annual beefcake catalog. He's precisely the sort of Alpha for whom most women would swoon on sight.

He was telling me about an upcoming trip to the beach with his girlfriend he had planned when I raised my eyebrows, wondering if he was thinking about proposing to her. But he apparently anticipated what had crossed my mind, because he laughed and shook his head. While he said he had great respect for the institution of marriage, and wanted to have children someday, his considered opinion was that a man would have to be a fool to get married these days because it fundamentally changes the woman's attitude and behavior towards the man.

"Once they have the ring, they think they own you," he said. And whether this is generally true or not, it was interesting to see that this thinking on the part of young men has now penetrated Europe as well as the USA. He wasn't afraid of getting divorced, although he was aware that the laws and family courts tend to be stacked against men, he simply didn't see any reason to voluntarily alter the power balance of the relationship to his detriment. "Why would I want to do that?" he asked. "There is no reason I should."

And from his irreligious perspective, he's absolutely correct. Unless you are a religious man, there is no longer any rational reason to marry a woman. You can have sex with her and even have children with her without making any sort of legally enforceable commitment. And unless you are a religious woman who is willing to forswear her legal right to divorce and a potential court-imposed division of family assets, there is absolutely no reason for a man to ever marry you.

If no-fault divorce and the cash-and-prizes system of alimony and child support is not ended soon, I suspect the marriage rate across the West is going to crash even further than we have already witnessed. And although the Female Imperative will demand the imposition of forced marriage laws such as have already been introduced in parts of Canada in order to maintain the Marriage 2.0 system, men will avoid them by simply refusing to live with the mothers of their children.

This is not a good thing. Marriage 2.0 must be dismantled immediately before its additional ramifications shatter the pillars of Western civilization.

Read More

Female education is dysgenic

I've commented in the past about the insanity of any society that prioritizes the education of its women over preparing them to be wives and mothers. After all, the one and only thing any society actually NEEDS from its women, the one and only thing humanity actually needs from its female members, is for them to propagate the citizenry and the species. Powerpoint presentations and prospective cancer cures are all very nice, but they are, strictly speaking, unnecessary luxuries without which the species has survived since before the dawn of recorded human history.

Societies without children, on the other hand, tend to terminate within a single generation.

Since we know intelligence is heritable, it has long been obvious that educating women to the point that they decline to breed was bound to have long-term implications, especially if the women least likely to have children tended to be the most intelligent women. The hypergamous nature of women being what it is, it logically follows that unless the most intelligent women can be supplied with a selection of prospective mates who are more intelligent and more educated than they are, they will increasingly refuse to breed. This has observably been the case, and now the negative effect of encouraging equality in education has been quantified:

This study estimates the effect of dysgenic trends in Taiwan by exploring the relationships among intelligence, education and fertility. Based on a representative adult sample, education and intelligence were negatively correlated with the number of children born. These correlations were stronger for females. The decline of genotypic intelligence was estimated as 0.82 to 1.33 IQ points per generation for the Taiwanese population.

What feminists consider progress is literal intellectual regression. Feminism is not only the most evil and incoherent ideology in human history, its natural consequence is the literal enstupidification of any society that permits it to take root.

The connection between the theory of Game and the continuation of civilization should now be readily apparent to even the most dubious skeptic. There is no conceptual model that better describes and predicts what has been observed taking place over the last fifty years in the West.

Read More

Progress

LL commented at VP concerning how men's behavior has changed with immigration and women's sexual liberation:

My mother who was young in the 70's told me once that one time when she was out with her friends, some guy blatantly suggested her an one night stand. Not even harassment, just a 70's free-love-pick up line. She told this to me like it was something shocking.

Well, every time I go out here in 21st century London, I get harassed, grabbed and often groped. And I always go out with my husband, these things happen when he has to go to restroom and is gone for five minutes. And it's always Arab guys who do the harassment. Nothing works for those guys. When you say you are married, they answer "All white women cheat their husbands" or something like that.

If this is progress, I hate it.

If feminists think Western civilization is "Rape Culture", just wait until they discover what post-Christian culture is like. Outside of Western civilization, the a woman's right to choose will be reduced to the brothel or the burqah.

Read More

Sign the gamma up for girly

The power of the Gamma Delusion is such that the gamma will attempt to redefine any criticism, however objectively accurate, into a self-styled triumph for himself. We've seen John Scalzi attempt to do this with "rabbit", with "insect", and even with the term "gamma male" itself. Now, however, he has gone so far as to attempt to redefine "girly" and "lesser":

Now, no doubt the status-anxious dudebros will delight in my shocking admissions here, because they are silly little boys who apparently think that a man who can happily live with, and help raise, women who are better at various things than he is (including things they entirely erroneously suppose to be inherently masculine) must be therefore weak and inferior and girly. Two points here.

One, there’s the obvious point that in the Scalzi household “girly” means strong and smart and capable and better than decent with ranged weapons. All of which I would happily be. So yes sign me up for girly please.

Two, and to repeat, these sad, frantic lumps of manflesh are proclaiming that a man who is pleased to share his life with women who are strong and smart and capable, and who has no problem acknowledging when their skills are superior to his, is somehow actually lesser for it. This should tell you all you need to know about the intelligence and sensibleness of such a world view.

The Gamma's Gamma, John Scalzi, is attempting here to defend his public announcement that his own high school daughter is stronger than he is, for which he was much mocked by many men and women alike. And indeed, it tells you a great deal about the intelligence and sensibleness and even sanity of Scalzi's worldview that he would publicly insist that something LITERALLY lesser is not lesser at all.

There is no shame in women being strong or lifting weights. I have trained many women in how to lift; my wife has been lifting weights regularly as long as I have known her and she's more hardcore about it than I am.

Scalzi tries a little pivot when he insinuates that he is only being criticized because his critics have an intrinsic problem acknowledging when women's skills are superior. That isn't the case at all. No one would laugh at Scalzi if he admitted that his wife was better at knitting, or darts, or shooting, or accounting, and I, for one, have absolutely no problem believing that his daughter might be a better writer than he is. The bar is not exactly what one would call high.

What Scalzi is being derided for is being a weak, soft, and physically pathetic figure. And he is also being correctly scorned for his deluded gamma insistence that his embrace of his own effeminate weakness is not only a strength, but a strength that demonstrates his superiority to higher-status, more masculine men. Being insecure, the gamma male does not understand that for most men, status consciousness is not synonymous with status anxiety. His various accusations are not only false, they are observably ridiculous.

In a gym in which I worked out for many years, there was a sign in the weight room that many found inspirational.

This room is for the weak, that they may become strong.
This room is for the strong, that they may learn humility.

This message resounded with the strong and the weak alike because it is natural for the strong to take pride in their strength and to harbor contempt for the weak. The iron teaches that every man has his limits, and that there is always someone else who is stronger. It is natural for the weak to seek to become strong. The iron helps them do that. What is twisted, unnatural, and contemptible is for the weak to take pride in their lack of strength, to celebrate their weakness, and insist that the strong should, rather than despising their weakness, aspire to it. The iron can do nothing for such creatures.

Now, I love the iron. I have a long and enduring personal relationship with it. The iron transformed a 135-pound spaghetti-armed weakling into a 180-pound full-contact fighter with 17-inch guns. I love the iron even when it turns on me and I can't lift heavy while my various middle-aged training injuries are slowly healing. I think everyone of every age, male and female alike, would benefit greatly from lifting free weights on a regular basis. And, having lifted weights with hundreds of men and women on three continents over the years, I can say with authority that you will find nothing in any gym, male or female, more contemptible than a girly gamma male who is proud to proclaim that he cannot lift as much as a teenage girl.

One can't honestly call John Scalzi a lesser man for his admissions and pretensions, because that would be to give him too much credit. He is no man at all, he is a revolting low-status parody of one. Sign him up for "girly" indeed.

Read More

Attention uber alles

The tears of her children are no match for a mother's hamster:

My children hate me going to work. So why do I do it (apart from the dosh)... Like it or not, we mothers – working, or unpaid-at-home – are still carrying the practical and emotional burden of our children’s lives. The killer fact is: they bloody well love us for it. And while it makes them happy, we’ll keep on hugging, listening, playing, reading, talking, over-seeing homework, cooking, feeding and even pushing the odd swing. All we can hope is that by the time they’re adults, they won’t remember how often we went to work and they’ll be proud of their well-rounded mothers with interesting things to chat about. In the absence of anything better, that’s what we have to keep telling ourselves.

This is pure solipsism, as the woman assigns to her young children her own values. Setting aside the foolish notion that working in an office makes a woman "well-rounded" or gives her "interesting things to chat about" - mordant laugh - what children give even a fractional quantum of a damn about those things.

Can you imagine if a father was foolish enough to try to justify depriving his children of money in the hopes that they'll be proud of how attractive his mistress is? That is how ridiculously stupid it sounds.

Given that she's quite attractive, my guess is that she likes to play dress-up and flirt with the executives at the office. Being an attention whore, she's simply not willing to give up the attention for anything as tediously demanding as her own children.

UPDATE: Actually, it's much worse than that. She's an outright fame whore.

Read More

Thug hunger

There was an episode of Castle when Kate Beckett, forced to investigate the whereabouts of a Game-savvy player, discovers the extent of his conquests. "I weep for my gender," she comments in despair. One wonders what she would have made of this romantic drama:

British mother abandons her three children to marry Texas violent prisoner she met online after becoming 'impressed with his honesty'. Jennifer Butler is leaving her three children in UK to marry American prisoner. Christoper Mosier will be released on parole in September after serving five-years of a 15-year sentence for drug convictions. Butler met Mosier online in 2011 and they became penpals. First traveled to see him in October and Mosier proposed using a piece of grey string as a ring. Is leaving her three children - all younger than 10 - with their father.

Here is the punchline: "I am devoted to my children but they deserve a happy mum too." Actually, leaving your children to chase a violent felon is almost the exact opposite of devotion to your children.

Judging by the appearance of her children, I'm going to guess that she just couldn't stand her herbish husband any longer and started Alpha-chasing online.

"The single mother started writing to Mosier in July after she found his profile on the website, writeaprisoner.com, which unites would be pen-pals to inmates online."

Writeaprisoner.com is like crack for women craving Alpha.

'I was really intrigued by his profile. It was different to the rest. Most of the guys were posing with their tops off. But his was articulate and he was open about his crime.'

Mm-hmm.... Try that next time, my dear Deltas and Gammas. Be honest and open about your crimes. Preferably with your top off.

Read More

Cooption

This says it all.

Miss MRA @MraMiss
Advocating for the rights of men and women!

One major distinction I have noticed between the Pickup Artist community and the Men's Rights activists is that the latter tend to be of lower socio-sexual status and less aware of Game. They tend to be enthusiastic about female involvement rather than wary. So, rather than simply accepting women of sympathetic views as allies while keeping them at arms length as the Game community does, the MRAs appear to welcome them as members and even spokeswomen.

This, I strongly suspect, is a major strategic mistake. Women are very, very adept at transforming organizations and movements into mere mechanisms serving the Female Imperative. This can be seen in the history of everything from church denominations to the American voting franchise.

It will not take long for "advocating for the rights of men and women!" to transform into yet another form of women's rights advocacy. It is one thing to welcome a friendly passenger to the back seat, another to hand them the keys and trust that they both know, and want to go, where you were intending to drive.

Read More

No truth for you!

It's hardly shocking that researchers, physicians, genetic counselors and ethicists are biased towards denying men the information that their children might not actually be their own. After all, as we know, the Female Imperative can justify just about anything that keeps resources flowing from men towards women and children. But it is a little surprising that they would attempt to construct a model that would permit disclosure to parties other than the parents while STILL DENYING disclosure to the parents:

As more research is done on the human genome and more people seek genetic testing, researchers, physicians, genetic counselors and ethicists are struggling with the issues of how to present the new information to patients and whether certain findings should be presented at all.

A paper published Monday in the leading journal Pediatrics tackles a controversial discovery that can come out of genetic testing: when a child’s biological parent turns out to be someone else.

Whether that occurs through a switch at the hospital, a swap of embryos or sexual infidelity, genetic testing can bring such previously unknown facts to light. No matter the cause, it presents an ethical dilemma for medical professionals and one likely to become more common as genetic testing more more widespread. It has triggered a fierce and complex debate about whether parents — or those who might find out they are not true parents — have a right to know such information.

In the Pediatrics paper, ethicists at the University of Pennsylvania argue in favor of letting the parents of patients know that these facts can generally be found in the course of a test but will not be revealed to them.

“Because there isn’t a national consensus,” said co-author Autumn Fiester, director of education in the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, “getting a proactive policy that could prevent the harms that are taking place seemed like an imperative to address.”

Without such a policy, Fiester said, after the tests are run, parents might be confronted with being told that there’s something they may need to know about their parentage.

“Dangle something like that in front of any human being, and they’re going to be coerced to have that information, even if they will rue the day when they said yes,” she said.

Current guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) advise speaking to patients about the issue of incidental findings but do not recommend disclosure or nondisclosure.....

While nondisclosure may be a good idea for avoiding family problems, there need to be some exceptions, said Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center and formerly of the University of Pennsylvania. For example, lab technicians may see DNA that leads them to suspect rape or incest. This type of finding might need to be reported because of the possibility of sexual abuse.

In other words, if a woman might have done something wrong: DO NOT DISCLOSE THE INFORMATION TO ANYONE! If a man might have done something wrong: DISCLOSE THE INFORMATION TO THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND COMMENCE A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION!

Now, what was that about "equality under the law" again?

Read More

It's just too easy

You know, I intellectually grasp the Gamma concept of embracing the insult, of owning the contempt, and attempting to make a positive out of a negative. It's a defense mechanism, and maybe it is even a necessary one for young men who somehow have to survive years of degradation and social humiliation.

But I don't understand it. I mean, seriously John Scalzi?

Saw the inside of a weight room for the first time since high school today. I took things very VERY slow.

Let it be known that my daughter can lift more than I do. Because she's on her school's weightlifting team, and also because she's awesome.

Watching "Tootsie" with Krissy. Seriously one of the best comedies ever.

Ye cats. You don't have to know anything at all about a man who will voluntarily make public statements like that to recognize that he was nowhere near the top or even the middle of the social hierarchy as a youth. If you're having any trouble grasping the difference between Delta and Gamma, this is it in a nutshell: the observable difference between the behavior of someone like John Scalzi and normal adult male behavior.

See that? Don't do that. Not if you have any interest in attractive female companionship. Much less sex of the variety that involves an attractive, willing, female partner who is not being monetarily compensated.

UPDATE:

ME: Some dudes online are making fun of me because you lift more than I can. DAUGHTER: That's because they're pathetic losers, dad. #point

Yes, no doubt THAT is PRECISELY why people are laughing at him. Just like the popular kids in high school didn't invite him to their parties because they were jealous. One has to say this for the man: when he finds himself in a hole, he is bloody well determined to dig his way out. Because China must be down there somewhere!

Read More