The Dunham Horror's latest blunder

You know Lena Dunham must be extraordinarily well-connected, because there is no other reason for anyone to pay attention to the narcissistic child molester:

Dunham is being raked over the coals. Some critics are particularly offended by her having "equated" Jews with dogs, as the title of her article suggests. The Anti-Defamation League focused on this comparison, as well, calling it "tasteless." Dog-lovers, too, were irritated by the negative connotations.

Others are disgusted that The New Yorker allowed such stereotyping in its pages. And then there are those who are wondering why anyone should be horrified by Dunham's poking fun at Jews, when her recently published memoir revealed that she sexually molested her little sister.

Most striking about the enraged responses was what they did not include: The impunity with which women are allowed to express contempt for members of the male sex, while cloaking their own neediness and hunger for love in outdated feminist lingo.

Indeed, nobody calls them out on things that men could never get away with saying, certainly not in print.

I have to admit, I find it hard to summon up much sympathy for Jack Antonoff. Unless there is something going on beneath the surface that we don't know about, such as his family being held hostage, he is voluntarily choosing to spend his time with the Dunham Horror. And what are all the other petty humiliations in comparison with that?

How desperately thirsty can a man be to subject himself to that? The mind reels.

Read More

The past has consequences

Rollo astutely juxstaposes Sheryl Sandberg's advice for women to sow their wild oats with Alphas, then settle down with Deltas and Gammas afterwards with one woman's actual experience of having her past unexpectedly disclosed to her husband:

As of this morning, we still hadn’t slept in the same bed or spoken more than 10 words to each other in passing. As I was waking up, he was walking in the front door with two coffees. He sat me down at our kitchen table and finally opened up to me.

Basically he feels that he was “conned” (his word) into the marriage, saying that he wouldn’t have even dated me, let alone married me, if he’d known what he knows now. His view of me has been irreparably changed and he no longer sees me “as someone worthy of being [his] wife”. (quoting him here… fucking prick) Beyond the sexual aspect, he says he no longer trusts me because I “kept something this big” from him our whole relationship. Nothing I could do or say could convince him that these were past mistakes and not reflective of who I am today. He wasn’t angry with me, didn’t call me a slut or anything like that. Never once raised his voice. Part of me wishes he did, although I can’t exactly say why right now. It felt like I was being laid off from a job.

So that’s it. We are getting divorced. My supposed life-partner turning his back on me without a second thought. He didn’t even have the decency to discuss it with me first – apparently he visited his lawyer during the week and “the process is in motion” (his words). Knowing him, there is absolutely no changing his mind.

My husband owns multiple businesses and wouldn’t get married without a prenup. I signed it, honest-to-god thinking we’d never, EVER have to use it. Well, he had the fucking document with him this morning. He said he’d pay off the remainder of my student loans, which he isn’t “legally obligated” to do. While I appreciate that, I am going to meet with my lawyer this week and see if the agreement can be challenged in court. We have built a life together, I gave him 5 of the best years of my life and I’ve been 100% faithful to him – I don’t fucking deserve to be tossed out like a piece of trash.

So that’s it. My life turned upside-down in the span of a week, over something I did 10+ YEARS AGO BEFORE I EVEN KNEW HIM. It’s fucking asinine. The thing is, even as I wrote the original post, in the back of my mind I knew he was through with me. He’s ended friendships and business partnerships over less.

As Rollo points out: "One of the primary disconnects women are conditioned to believe during their Epiphany Phase is that a “good man” will be willing to forgive and forget her past indiscretions. On their journey of self-exploration and discovery women are encouraged to adopt a finely tuned cognitive dissonance with who they conveniently become and what should be the consequences of their pasts. While men are expected to live up to their responsibilities as men, and are expected to own up to the consequences of their failures, at the Epiphany Phase women are encouraged to convince themselves that they become someone else – someone who was “so different” from who she was in her Party Years. Her husband feels “conned” because he was conned; conned after discovering the dual personality of his pre and post Epiphany Phase wife."

It seems to me this gentleman was absolutely, if belatedly, correct about his wife's complete lack of character and he's doing the right thing by kicking her to the curb as quickly and cleanly as possible. Not only did she conceal her past from him, but now that she's been caught out, she's trying to figure out how to escape an arrangement she agreed to even though he's going beyond his legal obligations by paying off her student loans. (Is anyone even remotely surprised that a woman like this has debt?) Her Female Imperative of the right to historical revisionism and the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed has been violated, and rather than regretting her mistakes, she is enraged by the consequences of them.

Women always want to believe the past is irrelevant, which is remarkably stupid because the past informs who and what we are today. And those pasts can only be fully understood and accepted if they are admitted; lying about them is foolish because most lies are eventually exposed sooner or later over time. Not everyone is short-sighted enough to live only for today; most women don't want to be married to such men anyway since they tend to be unreliable and unable to support women and children.

Expecting any man who is sufficiently far-sighted to successfully launch multiple businesses and insist on a pre-nup to react like some drug-addled musician who can't remember yesterday or think past tomorrow is cognitive dissonance of the sort that gets Epiphany Phase women in trouble. If a woman is a slut in college, she's still a slut even when she cleans up her act, she's a reformed slut. Epiphany equals reform, not erasing history. A reformed slut is not the same thing as a woman who is not a slut. That doesn't mean the reformed slut can't be a lovely individual, or that she is a woman no man will marry, it simply means she can't marry any man who isn't willing to marry a slut. This isn't rocket science.

Once a gambler, always a gambler. Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. Once a player, always a player. Once a slut, always a slut. It's about the internal wiring, not the external actions. Even when one gets one's behavior under control, the wiring is still there.

And if the reformed slut does marry under false pretenses, she's a con artist, and she should be no more surprised when the man she conned no more wants to continue the marriage than Bernie Madoff's victims wanted to continue their investments with him.

Read More

Praising female crime

Dr. Helen observes that when women commit crime, not only are they seldom punished to the same extent as men, they are even praised for it:

So when a woman is a predator, her behavior is to be understood, and channeled for personal growth. When a man is a predator, he goes to jail and even if he is innocent but suspected, there are often consequences as the campus rape panic shows all too well. Phillips points out that this stalking behavior in women is quite common. Why is it so acceptable in our society? Why do we allow men to be followed and abused?

Women tend to destroy property when they stalk, what makes this okay?

It would appear that crime is yet another female imperative, does it not?

Read More

College: what is it good for?

Why would anyone want to send his daughter to an American university in light of stories such as this:

Over Christmas, the Daughter returned from college in New York, steeped in identity politics and brandishing her PC views like a cat o’ nine tails. Boy, were we in trouble. “Every time I say something, she says it’s offensive or racist,” complained her brother, who wanted his funny, irreverent sister back.

I asked her if there might be something wrong with a nation which jails one in three black males, whilst obsessing over precisely how they should be referred to. She then admitted that she had recently gone on a New York march against the killing of young Michael Brown in Ferguson. The police, she noticed, were arresting only black people. When an elderly black man fell over, Evie had shouted at the police to please help him, but they turned away. Whether we call him a black man, a coloured man, an African-American, or a person of colour is not the issue. The issue is that, as far as the cops were concerned, he was barely a person at all.

For me, the amusing part is that the mother doesn't even realize that her daughter didn't do anything to help the man; apparently yelling demands at the very police whose actions she is protesting is the full extent of her moral responsibility. So much for the pretense of equality.

Read More

Good Samaritan vs Female Imperative

A simple test of moral sensibilities:

A man named 'Lye' has written about his experiences confronting a stranger at a Detroit Lions football game, after he claims he saw the man's very pregnant girlfriend 'romantically texting' another man throughout the match.

At the end of the game, Lye handed the man a note revealing the alleged adulterous text messages, and later posted a picture of the note and the pair he claimed to be the couple to Facebook. Those images have since gone viral and are now sparking a heated debate online about whether it's appropriate to wade into a complete stranger's relationship.

According to Lye's post on Facebook, he was attending a Detroit Lions game last month when he was seated behind a couple who appeared to be dating.

Throughout the game, he claims he saw the woman casually texting a contact in her phone named 'Jason' apparently making comments like 'I wish I was with you all day' and 'I will see you as soon as I am done with him'.

Meanwhile,he claims the woman kept the phone screen tilted out of eyesight of the man seated next to her, and would even shut it off and put it away when he engaged her in conversation.

Feeling sympathetic for the man seated in front of him, who he believes was being cheated on, Lye got up near the end of the game to find a pen and piece of paper to write the stranger a note. When the man got up to leave, Lye handed the piece of paper to him and said to read it when he got home. 

If you would not hesitate to tell a stranger they were being robbed, or in danger of being physically attacked, why would you hesitate to tell them that they were being cheated on? It's remarkable how many white knights possess moral standards that work only to the benefit of women, and never their fellow men.

As for the idea that Lye's informing the man of the woman's actions somehow put her at risk of physical abuse, that is nothing more than an attempt to excuse her actions. If she is at risk of it, she herself put herself at risk twice over. Once in deciding to involve herself with a man who was prone to physically abusing her, and second in deciding to cheat on him.

Evil always seeks to operate in the dark and it always decries the light that exposes its actions. And the Female Imperative is intrinsically immoral because it seeks to render women sans moral agency.

This actually makes for a good test for one's moral sensibilities. Any man or woman who finds Lye's actions to be dangerous or problematic in some way is solipistically seeking to prevent others from telling on his activities should he find himself in a similar situation.

Read More

For Alphas Only

One could not find a better description of hypergamy and the Female Imperative in action than this female-designed dating app:

While they have helped thousands find both long-term love and short term flings, dating apps have created almost as many problems as they have solved. From a constant barrage of seedy messages (and pictures) from shady characters, to meeting up with people who clearly took their picture when New Kids On The Block were still in the charts, navigating your way through the world of dating apps can leave you feeling rather sour.

But a new app, created by two women, promises to put an end to these dating woes by putting women in control of the dating scene. Two Cambridge graduates have invented a dating app called Antidate that makes women invisible until THEY decide to make a move. They can also use the app to locate a hot man geographically

Antidate allows women to remain anonymous, entirely unseen by the men in their vicinity until they choose to contact them. Women can look at the profiles of men near their location and decide who is their type while staying completely invisible.

This means they can avoid both creeps and wasting time talking to people who you will never 'click' with.

Look for Antidate 2.0 to arrive in about eighteen months, featuring the ability to complain about those "hot men" who banged a user and moved on as "an immature, misogynistic man-boy with no respect whasoever for strong independent women" and tag them to disqualify them from continuing to use the service.

It's fascinating to see that the female imperative is so engrained in women that they can't recognize the fact that a dating app, by definition, has to be useful for both sexes. Antidate is an appropriate name, as it turns the conventional dating mechanic on its head and puts the entire onus for pursuit on women.

And "dating app" is really a misnomer. This is nothing more than a harem app for high-status men.

Read More

Nothing trumps the Female Imperative

Not freedom, not religion, and apparently, not science either:

I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing. That's one small step for man, three steps back for humankind.

Back from what? That is the question the SJW feminists never want to answer. We know they don't actually care about equality. We know they don't actually care about fairness. So what is it that they want?

The answer is always the same: more. Women will cast down the foundations of science, they will destroy the Church, they will cast down Western civilization itself rather than give up their Quest for More.

Read More

Sic semper militus pallidus

Notice how idiot white knights will attempt to defend women from the consequences of their actions even when the woman initiates the violence. And notice how the woman is dumb enough to attack a man twice her size. She was very lucky he used an open hand instead of going Ray Rice on her chin.

Read More

Stop telling women to smile

The fierce moral urgency of telling men when they may, and may not, speak:

I created "Stop Telling Women to Smile," a street art series, to speak back to the men who harass me. The work began as way to tell my story, but it has grown to reflect the stories of many other women.

While I think that the law has its place in helping keep women safe, I don't think this is an issue that will be solved by assigning it to the police. Because police sexually harass women, too. Some women are wary of bringing the police into their communities because of fears of brutality and profiling.

We don't want to criminalize men. We want simply to walk down the street, and live our lives without the constant verbal harassment and abuse. We want to be treated as people who are outside because we have lives to live and business to handle – not as decoration. This will happen when men acknowledge their privilege, pay heed to the realities of women and begin to police themselves.

So, some women want to criminalize men talking to women in public, while the more moderate women merely want them to voluntarily lose their voices. Meanwhile, in #GamerGate, women are angry because other men don't want anything to do with them.

It's almost as if there is no pleasing them.

I have to admit, I have never in my life told a stranger to smile. I can't imagine giving a quantum of a damn whether some woman I don't know smiles or not. For the most part, I ignore women in public entirely; in general, it has been much more common for them to approach me than the other way around. As this poor, abused gentleman found when he tried to simply walk around New York City minding his own business.

Read More

Because afraid

That's how women who favor "equality" attempt to justify women sexually objectifying men and making the sort of public comments that would put a man's career in jeopardy:

“Women are coping daily with a threat of rape which men aren’t,” says Elvines. “I don’t think it’s nice for anyone to be just judged on their appearance - no one likes to feel they’re just being judged on that. But while men might find [sexual objectification] annoying, it doesn’t have that scary meaning.

“It’s nice to think, when you live in an equal society what will it look like, but we don’t yet.”

This ‘fear factor’ is ultimately why no one has spoken up about being offended by Young’s words, but why we would be up in arms if a hapless male BBC presenter had said the same. It is highly unlikely that a young Tom Jones would have been in any danger from Young had he walked into her studio 30 years ago. But if a young female singer had walked into a male BBC presenter’s studio 30 years ago, well, who knows what would have happened?

Until we live in a truly equal world, we’re going to have to deal with the fact that there is this strange grey area, where we will react differently to a man and woman saying the same thing. It isn't the nicest solution, but right now it's the only one we have.

It would be dangerous to encourage men to make jokes about 'responsibility' and 'sex' - even in the name of equality - because it would send out a negative message. But, it isn't fair to say it's OK for a woman to make those some comments.

Young, in my opinion, could have done with thinking more about the wording she used, and she should be reminded of this just as a man would be. But, at the same time, when we look at the context of the world we live in, it's clear she was joshing about. So, it would be a shame to focus too much on that and lose the real power of her words: that women do like sex, they think about it, and shock horror, they even desire it.

How old are these women that they think there is "real power" in women saying they like sex? And how little do they like sex that they think it is necessary to state it out loud? But once more, we see that "equality" is a complete myth and does not exist in anything but the fevered imaginations of pinkshirts and innocents.

Read More

Feminist philosophy

It's amusing to see women hesitant to endorse perv-shaming for fear that doing so will come back to haunt women:

Slut-shaming is wrong. We all know that – even Robin Thicke could probably hazard a guess in that direction. Ditto fat-shaming. It’s never OK to publically humiliate someone because of their gender, weight or relationship history.

But what about shaming someone for being sleazy?

Welcome to the murky world of perv-shaming, where young women are publically naming and shaming men who have supposedly sexually harassed, or assaulted them. There was a prime example this week, when American bartender Laura Ramadei wrote an open letter on Facebook to a man who allegedly groped her.... In posting Lederman's personal details online, Ramadei’s actions reflect a wider trend - that for seeking justice via social media. She is relying on people power to hand down a public and humiliating punishment.

There's no mention of reporting Lederman to anyone official.

Of course, this is a one off. An isolated incident. But, other recent examples are more serious - I'm thinking of the movement started by video games fans, called #Gamergate, aimed at publicly shaming certain female players.... These women are victims of online mobs. Just like victims of revenge porn - where ex-partners post explicit photos and personal information about women online - they have been publicly and unfairly named and shamed.

They deserve our sympathy. But does someone like Lederman?

After all, he allegedly groped a young woman. And he definitely made a sexually inappropriate joke about taking her ‘to go’. But does that justify Ramadei posting his personal details on the internet and perv-shaming him?

It’s a complex issue. On one hand, raising awareness about sexual harassment is incredibly important. Websites like the Everyday Sexism project have shown us that. But there is a difference between highlighting a problem and becoming a vigilante.

Observe the woman's dilemma. If slut-shaming and fat-shaming is wrong, then so is perv-shaming. And if perv-shaming is right, then what is the argument against slut-shaming and fat-shaming? After all, sluttery and obesity are considerably easier to prove than a claim to have been bottom-pinched.

These are the deep philosophical questions with which the feminists of today must wrestle. Notice that male occupations such as the Beautiful and the True don't come into it, as the central concern is "could it have the consequence of making women feel bad".

Read More

Teach women not to rape

TIME observes that women rape men as often as men rape women:

For many feminists, questioning claims of rampant sexual violence in our society amounts to misogynist “rape denial.” However, if the CDC figures are to be taken at face value, then we must also conclude that, far from being a product of patriarchal violence against women, “rape culture” is a two-way street, with plenty of female perpetrators and male victims.

How could that be? After all, very few men in the CDC study were classified as victims of rape: 1.7 percent in their lifetime, and too few for a reliable estimate in the past year. But these numbers refer only to men who have been forced into anal sex or made to perform oral sex on another male. Nearly 7 percent of men, however, reported that at some point in their lives, they were “made to penetrate” another person—usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as “other sexual violence.”

And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.

I was a victim of a female rapist. Where was the candlelight vigil on my behalf? Why was she never prosecuted? There is clearly a female rape culture and a conspiracy of silence protecting the women rapists in our midst.

Read More

Dr. Helen hits USA Today

With her rhetorical six-guns blazing:

Imagine that your 14-year-old daughter engaged in sex with the 20-year-old man down the street. Anger would hardly begin to describe your feelings, but then imagine how you and your daughter would feel if she became pregnant and the man who abused her got custody of the child and your daughter had to pay him child support for the next 18 years.

This would not only be unthinkable in our society but most people would say that it bordered on abuse or worse. Yet, as reported in a recent Arizona Republic news story, this is what happened to Nick Olivas, who happened to be 14 at the time he had sex with a 20-year-old woman. The difference, of course, is he's not a girl.

At the age of 21, Olivas found out he had a child and that he owed over $15,000 in back child support plus interest. He was rightfully upset, stating: "It was a shock. I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It's unexplainable. It freaked me out."

When a state government finds out a 14-year-old girl is a statutory rape victim of a 20-year-old man, the common reaction would be to file criminal charges to put the predator in jail. But for male victims, child support laws turn state governments into the allies of abusers instead of advocates for the victims.

Why the double standard when the victim is male?

Now that is a lovely rhetorical start designed to punch right through the female imperative before the reader realizes it, then adeptly making the twist to appeal to the legal equality that feminists supposedly stand for.

She's right, of course. The law holding male statutory rape victims responsible for their children is absurd. That being said, female rape victims who bear their rapist's children do assume responsibility for them, so the correct thing to do would be to give a male victim the right to claim paternal responsibility and/or custody without either being imposed upon him.

Read More

Women are rapists too

A few weeks ago, I pointed out that on the consent standard, women appear to be just as prone to commit rape and sexual assault as men:

When Lara Stemple, a researcher at UCLA looked at the latest National Crime Victimization Survey, she was shocked to see that men experienced rape and sexual assault almost as frequently as women, and that women were often the perpetrators. Once the definition of rape was expanded to include more than just penetration, it became clear that men and women were equally likely to be raped, and more importantly, equally likely to be rapists. Researchers from the University of Missouri got the same results, finding that “43% of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95% said a female acquaintance was the aggressor.”

Sexual assault on college campuses and how that is handled has been all over the news lately, with even the President taking time to address the issue. But almost without exception, all the cases given as examples involve women as victims and men as perpetrators. Yet the survey and the confirmation from independent researchers indicates that men are often the victims and women the perpetrators.

The difference, of course, is that while men may regret being sexually assaulted  by a sub-par woman, they don't press charges, they just expect to be mocked by their friends. And rightly so.

Like those 43 percent of young men, I am a victim of rape by a female aggressor. Do try to keep that in mind before you attempt to criticize me for anything. It should be interesting to see how the women who elevate rape victims to secular sainthoood will twist-and-shout to distinguish female-rape from rape-rape.

Why do these female rapists need to be educated? It seems to me they need to be jailed.

Read More

Criminalizing dominance

Apparently since women are such helpless flowers, it is necessary to pass laws preventing the men with whom they are having sex from making them feel bad about themselves:

HUSBANDS who keep their wives downtrodden could face prison under new plans set out by the Government today. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, published proposals for a new offence of “domestic abuse” designed to criminalise men who bully, cause psychological harm or deny money to their partners.

The law would make the worst cases of non-violent “controlling behaviour” a jailable offence. Exact terms of the offence are yet to be defined, but it could involve humiliating, frightening or intimidating a partner, keeping them away from friends or family or restricting their access to money.

If humiliating a partner or keeping them away from their friends is to be a criminal offense, I suspect considerably more women will be at risk of jail than men. Of course, we all know that despite the fig leaf of the prospective law's theoretical application to both sexes, the devil will be in the enforcement details. 

Social dominance can be interesting. The other day, I was at a party where one woman was holding a small group of men and women hostage as she moaned on and on about the various travails of her life. I was reluctant to join them, but I liked several of the people who were shooting me "kill me now" looks, so I felt it behooved me to rescue them So, I sat down, and promptly wrestled the conversational dominance away from the woman by turning each statement of hers into a question directed at a different individual.

Before long, everyone was contributing something to the conversation and the former monologuist had fallen silent. Within six minutes of my arrival, she sullenly stomped off, deprived of her audience. In most cases, direct confrontations are not required to establish dominance. It is usually sufficient to undermine whatever tactic the dominant individual is using to maintain his hold over the others. In the case of women, it usually the solipsistic technique of relating every possible subject back to themselves.:

Woman: "It's so hot today!"

Monologuist: "Oh, I know! I was just talking to my grandmother in Sante Fe, and can you believe it, it's hotter here than it is there! I was telling her, it's the middle of August and here I am wearing a sweater. I don't know if you know it, maybe you haven't seen it, it's the blue one I wear sometimes and I knitted it myself--"

Man: "So! I heard Manchester United lost this week--"

Monologuist: "Oh I LOVE soccer! You know, Jimmy, he's my youngest, he starts playing soccer in two weeks, and can you believe it, he doesn't have any shoes! So we were going to go shopping for them at the mall tomorrow, but I heard you can get better prices from the specialty stores. But I need to go to the craft shop, I'm working on a new sweater, you see..."

After three or four abortive attempts at changing the subject, most people just give up and suffer in silence. But the breathless monologuist is very attuned to how other people are submitting to her or not, and so you only have to cut her off and force a topic change three or four times before she'll give up and go in search of easier prey.

There is no need to say "Shut the fuck up, you narcissistic bitch! No one here gives even a quantum of a damn about your fucking sweaters, the present state of little Jimmy's podiatriac wardrobe, or the temperature in Santa fucking Fe!" Although sometimes it is tremendously tempting.

Read More

The argument for patriarchy

It's also the argument against women in science fiction. It should be no surprise whatsoever that the science fiction world has devolved into award-winning dinosaur revenge fantasies, gay Asian angst, genderless pronouns, and necrobestial emoporn nominally representing the best of the genre ever since the strength of SFWA failed like Isildur before the fires of Mount Doom. (The men of what was once an association of science fiction writers did not tell Ann McCaffery she was welcome to depart when she threatened to leave the organization if fantasy writers were not permitted to join.) In fact, it is the essential argument against unrestricted female involvement in anything.

Women habitually, perhaps even instinctively, seek to degrade standards. They are motivated to do so in part because they are more herd-oriented and they enjoy being around their own kind, but also because they are, on average, smaller, weaker, slower, less intelligent, less sturdy, and more self-absorbed. That's why women are constantly yammering on about inclusion, outreach, and the evils of standards, which is nothing more than rhetoric used to justify lowering natural barriers to female involvement, influence, and control.

Which, in the end, eventually leads to the equivalent of a naked woman menstruating on an empty canvas and calling it art. Never forget that the ultimate aim of all female involvement in every human activity is to eventually reduce it to a group of women talking about themselves, ideally while being admired for their looks, wit, and superior sense of style by attractive heterosexual men.

Read More

How you know they're important

Both Roissy and I observed, years ago, that we would know Game and men's issues were entering the mainstream, not when the media began paying attention to the actual opinion leaders, but when they began appointing women as official spokeswomen for it. Apparently the same is true for the MRAs.

The Men's Rights Movement and the Women Who Love It. Who are these women men's rights activists? And why do they embrace a movement that some see as blatantly misogynistic? Below is a rundown of key players. A few of them, including Janet Bloomfield, who was the focus of a recent in Vice News article, have been in the spotlight recently. Others are virtually unknown to the mainstream, but within the movement they're seen as luminaries.Some of movement's fiercest activists aren't men.

Now, I very much encourage what these women are trying to do. It's not even remotely their fault that they find themselves being given a platform denied to the men they are trying to support. Dr. Helen, in particular, is always very good about rejecting the idea that she speaks for men or that she even can speak for men. She understands that we are perfectly capable of speaking for ourselves and points that out with regularity. But it is still a bit ironic, if entirely predictable (and it was, in fact, predicted), that the aspect deemed most newsworthy about the Mens' Rights movement is that there are women who support it. Real live women and everything!

It is great that Dr. Helen and other women are getting the word out there; exposing people to the ideas is far more important than establishing any cults of personality, and let's face it, some of our sites can be a bit much for the neophyte. But it is still amusing to see an article with pictures and glossy illustrations of Janey-come-latelies who have been addressing the subject since the early days of 2011.

If we were women, there would already be a Time Magazine cover with Roosh, Roissy, and me dressed in all black, arms folded, cast in dramatic lighting. Based on our respective numbers, I would estimate that a man's site requires about 20x more traffic to receive the same amount of media attention as a woman's. But it doesn't matter anyhow. Roosh is far too busy doing unspeakable things to the local women in Tanzania or wherever he is now and Roissy is even more reclusive than I am. We'd probably just send Rollo, Dalrock, and Yohami in our stead.

Read More

No one cares when you kill yourself

If you are a middle-aged white man:

More than 70 percent of all suicides in the United States are white men, most of them in their middle years, and many take their lives in the wake of some loss, whether professional, personal or physical.

There are 39,518 annual suicides in the USA. About 25,000 are middle-aged white men. That's only 14,000 fewer deaths than there are every year from female breast cancer. Meanwhile, there are 145 annual deaths from anorexia nervosa, of which about 129 are young women.

And yet we are subject to an unending barrage of media propaganda concerning the terrible societal problem of young girls feeling bad because they erroneously think they are fat. Which is rather ironic, as, based on the current obesity statistics, they are probably going to end up as fat, waddling, land whales if they don't manage to starve themselves to death first.

Thereby illustrating, again, that most people are simply not very concerned about the fate of men. I suspect people would only consider the problem of middle-aged white male suicide to be more of a priority if they had a greater propensity for taking those who drove them to it with them. Or if they didn't leave their financial resources behind.

Read More

No, your mere company isn't enough

Yesterday, Eliza expressed some distinct surprise at the idea that men might not be interested in her company outside of sex. I suspect this is a not uncommon view among women, who fail to understand how very little interest the average man has in the company of women outside of the potential sexual aspects of the interaction.

Let me see if I can put it in terms women might understand. Do you know how little interest boys have in girls before they hit puberty? That is about how much non-sexual interest most men have in women. Not because women have cooties, not because men are misogynistic, but because men have absolutely no interest in the subjects that fascinate most women and tend to find the female forms of conversation circuitous and tedious.

Consider how much interest you would have in listening to me, or any man, discussing a 500-page rulebook that delves into great detail concerning the armor and light machine gun armaments of WWII-era Polish tanks. Or analyzing the ideal killing zones in the Call of Duty airport map. Or defending the case that Fran Tarkenton, and not Ken Stabler, was the best quarterback in the league in 1976.

(Don't pretend any of these things actually interest you. It may surprise you, but men see through your attempts to stake out a claim to be "gamer girl" or a "real NFL fan" or a "serious muscle car buff", most simply pretend otherwise out of either an acknowledgement for the gesture you're making or sexual interest. As it is said by a certain pop band, "boys will laugh at girls when they're not funny". Guess why?)

For most men, spending time in the company of women means sitting there in silence, with a tight, polite smile on your face, occasionally exchanging "kill me now" glances with the other men in the vicinity. Don't take my word for it, test it out for yourself. The next time you're in mixed company, try to count the rough amount of time that the women spend talking versus the amount that the men talk. In most cases, the ratio is 80-20, and not infrequently, higher.

This isn't always the case, of course, I am familiar with a few exceptions myself, but it is the general rule I have observed over the course of three decades. For some reason, it has been deemed the social norm for women to dominate the mixed discourse with the topics of interest to them, but rude for men to speak about their interests in mixed company. And yet, observe a group of men and you will see that they are perfectly capable of engaging in lively, dynamic conversations... just not about subjects of zero interest to them.

It's not a question of intellect or education either. In my experience, highly educated women are the worst, as they tend to have less interest in discussing any specific issue per se than proving to everyone that they are at least familiar with even the most esoteric subjects. If you find yourself in conversation with a highly educated woman, entertain yourself by making up something ridiculous, like the Nemean Dialogues of Socrates, the Decepticon of Ovid, or Lord Byron's epic poem, The Walrus and the Butterfly. More often than not, a highly educated woman will not only claim to be familiar with these nonexistent works, but will actually claim to have read them in college for one class or another.

(NB: Some men will do it too, usually Alphas or Gammas. The hardest part will be keeping a straight face, especially if you ask them to clarify a point or two for you that you've found difficult to understand. What did Byron really signify by the Walrus? I mean, the reference to England's sea power is obvious, but since the Butterfly represents the female spirit, what is the deeper meaning?)

Anyhow, the point is that outside of sex, women aren't very interested in men and their interests and men have even less interest in women and theirs. It is a simple and straightforward observation, there is nothing wrong with this perfectly normal state of affairs, and the better you understand it, the more easily you will get along with the opposite sex.

Read More

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