“I didn’t need game to land my wife”

A fairly common hater/game denialist shibboleth is the extrapolating from anecdote fallacy. For example, a well-respected herb in his community will find this blog, feel his beta ego fill with regret for years of missed opportunity, and immediately assert he is manlier and/or a more attractive and psychologically balanced individual because he “didn’t need these mind game tricks” to find a wife or girlfriend who loves him.

I don’t doubt that a lot of these anti-game haters are telling the truth as they perceive it. They probably didn’t need game, or more likely unwittingly used a greatly diluted version of game, to find and fall in love with a faithful (best not think otherwise) GF or wife.

Reasoning from anecdote is a logical fallacy, but there are enough of these assertions by game haters that it’s possible a statistically nontrivial number of men really did not need or use game, intentionally or otherwise, to get hitched. Therefore, discounting them automatically is not a legitimate counter-argument. There is a better way to expose their sham claims for what they actually represent.

Here’s the rub: it’s a good bet the quality (aka the sexual market value, or SMV) of their girlfriends or wives is on the middling to low end of the female attractiveness scale.

If you are the average man — average height, employed, no major physical or emotional deformities, able to hold a conversation without shitting your pants, don’t know what LARP means, can refrain from obsessively counting toothpicks that fall on the floor — then you won’t need game, or very much game as the term is commonly understood, to fall ass-backwards into long term relationships with plain janes, facial mediocrities, or chubsters (who, note, constitute the majority of American womanhood, and thus fall right in the middle of the fat (heh) part of the bell curve).

If you are this man, all you need to do to win over a woman like this — the average woman — is approach, say “hi”, chat a bit about her likes and dislikes, and show some persistence and you’ll get her in bed by date five or twenty. Voila!, an “I didn’t need game to land my wife” anti-gamer is born from the wreckage of his surrendered dreams. Since most average men are ball-less castrati, the majority of you anti-gamers are likely staying within your comfort zones and meeting only women who are not attractive enough to fuel inject your lust or challenge your risk-avoidance habits.

This is my working assumption, and I’m certain the types of guys who go stir crazy with spite at the mention of game are dating or married to dreary commonplace women they had little trouble “winning over” the lackluster, “show up on time” way.

So, to visually summarize, if the women you date or are married to are about as attractive as her:

or her:

…then, yeah, congratulate your virtuous self, you won’t need much game to score a date every two months that resolves in uninspired, tepid sex.

But if the women you date, or want to date, are as attractive as these girls:

…then you will need game. And a lot of it. Because, you see, hot girls have options, and options means they will demand more of the men who want to sleep with them and love them. And game, aka learned charisma, effectively satisfies that demand.

Or you can continue taking the path of least resistance and settling down in easy monotony with potato faces so that you can enjoy stalking pickup blogs and railing about the futility of game.

Read Full Post »

Tosh’s Mosh Pit

Readers want a word or two about the Daniel Tosh affair. Ok. Lessons from yet another sordid femcunt yeast explosion.

1. Never… NEVER…. apologize to a feminist cackling for your head. This goes as well for any -ist member tossing -isms your way. If you apologize, however snarkily, you embolden the smelly beasts. Mock them in return. Reframe the discussion. Or just shit in their faces. Anything is better, in this suffocating PC climate, than apologizing to the degenerate freak mafia. And guess what? When you give the enemy no quarter, they tend to sulk silently back into the shadows from whence they emerged.

1a. We’re at the point of cultural antagonism now, that even if you literally did shit in a feminist’s face, you shouldn’t apologize for it. Hold out your arms proudly and let the cops slap the cuffs on you.

2. A woman who voluntarily goes to a shooting range and complains about how offended she was by all the guns on display and bullet casings on the ground, and then demands an apology from the gun range owner, is an idiot who deserves withering scorn. Same applies for a cunt who voluntarily goes to a comedy club and then bitches about the comic’s offensive material.

3. Tosh is a funny dude. He’s also, perhaps, the most un-PC comic working today, save Adam Carolla. (Sorry, LouisCK, I suspect you’re really the beta you play on TV.) How does he get away with it? A friendly, approachable demeanor. A superficial naivete. A mischievous smirk. But don’t be fooled; the guy is a sadistic soul-shivver of the first degree, and that’s why he’s funny.

4. You can’t be funny repackaging lies. This is why feminists and other equalist foot soldiers are never funny. They traffic in lies, which contorts their faces into permanent sourpusses. The best comedy builds from a foundation of taboo truth.

5. Female privilege. Matriarchal power structure. Call it what you will, the fact is that women are granted certain exemptions in society based on their sex alone. And one of those, as GLPiggy notes, is the freedom to mouth off in comedy venues without consequence. Women know that the odds they will be aggressively shouted down by the comic or the audience, or even physically assaulted or tossed out, are far lower than they would be for a man who mouthed off in the identical fashion. Women also know that should someone go a little “too far” striking back at their idiocy, an army of undersexed, tool white knights will rush to their defense. Women definitely do leverage this advantage of their sex to be immune from serious consequence, although they will never admit it, partly because this leveraging happens in the subconscious and is thus inaccessible by their higher order thinking lobes.

6. Humorless shrikes. Is there any species of humanity more pathetic?

7. The US is going the way of Canada and the UK: real, free speech of the kind protected by the First Amendment will be dead in this country within our lifetimes. Bet on it. The only salvation now will come in the form of revolution.

8. Are women naturally hysterical, like toddlers, or do they fake it to enjoy the rewards of triggering the damsel-in-distress effect? Yes, and yes. No, bitch, Tosh’s jokes were not going to incite the whole room to gang rape you. Get over yourself and hie to a fainting couch. Now if you *really* want to feel gnawing terror, I know a few neighborhoods I could drop you off in at 2am…

9. If you’re an ugly feminist, no one wants to rape you. Sorry to burst your bubble.

10. Why do feminists whine on and on about rape? Secretly, they get a little turned on by thought. That’s what happens to your perspective when you have for company a battalion of lapdog beta males agreeing with your every insipid musing.

Read Full Post »

Entitled Careerist Woman Logo

Petition to make this the official logo of the modern, Western, feminist, entitled careerist woman.

“I watch you die.”

Ugly, bloated Western woman dressed in the latest fashion sits idly with look of perplexity as a man in distress collapses before her leaden gaze. She even leans away from him, offended at this breach of protocol. Another woman seated nearby joins her in the sitting. The men around them rise to help the stricken man.

It’s a peculiar time when men rush to help another man out while women dawdle uselessly, their nurturing instincts vacuumed out of them by decades of feminist indoctrination and consumerist rat-racing. Another bell tolls for the West.

Could someone make a gif of the relevant portions of this video? And then plaster Jizzabel’s comment wall with it?

Read Full Post »

Never Listen To A Feminist’s Opinion About Helping Boys

There’s been a trend lately of books by feminist authors writing about boys and their problems. Seems the impact of declining fortunes for boys (in the feminist dominated West) is beginning to penetrate the blocklike skulls of the cuntiscenti. Does this mean the formerly delusional are finally powering down the furry hamster deflector shields protecting their fragile grrlpower egos? Eh, not so fast. Reading the excerpts and reviews of these tomes of deeply shallow thought quickly reveals that the feminist propaganda machine is still churning out man-hating boilerplate at maximum capacity. The only difference is that the shrieking stridency has been replaced by soft-pedaled coos of subterfuge.

Case in point: a new book by self-described feminist Lisa Bloom. From the introduction:

At this very moment, through no fault of their own, our boys are caught in the vortex of four powerful, insidious, often invisible forces that conspire to rob them of their future.

The first line sounds promising so far. A realtalking sister? Pfft. Please. Check your hopefulness at the door. If you need to know one thing about bitches who write books about boys, it’s that they are constitutionally incapable of tackling the shortcomings of their own sex and the detrimental policies advocated by their mouthpieces. Which will be demonstrated below, as you find out fast how easily Bloom slips into, in so many words, the phonyfuck talk of “what boys need is more feminism and de-masculinizing reprogramming”.

First, our heartbreakingly subpar schools. To say that twenty-first-century America doesn’t value education is like saying Donald Trump doesn’t prioritize humility. Class sizes grow, as kids sit on the floor or are crammed into “temporary” classrooms in hallways or bathrooms. School buildings crumble, leak, and emit toxic fumes.

Lie number one. The US is third among countries for amount spent per pupil. When you break it out by race, you find that American white students can compete with the best of them from Europe. The truth that mass market dreckmeisters like Bloom won’t touch?: The students, not the schools, are the problem.

I didn’t read anything in this wordy excerpt about Title IX causing the closure of many men’s sports programs to cater to girls who have less inclination to play sports. I didn’t read about the glorification of girls’ self-esteem and the demonization of boys’ unique characteristics. Not a word about the decades-long push to force naturally unenthusiastic girls into boys’ STEM subjects. Or all the freebies, gimmedats, affirmative action and social support networks, built up over generations by dykish feminists, available to girls that boys, especially white boys, are barred from exploiting.

In 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot warned of the giant sucking sound we’d hear if the North American Free Trade Agreement passed, sending American jobs to Mexico, but even Perot could not have imagined the gargantuan vacuum created when millions of American manufacturing jobs were siphoned off to China, India, and elsewhere. Those jobs are now extinct in America. The giant sucking sound turned out to be a muted, steady bleed-out of the blue-collar male work force.

Not a word about uninvited mass migration from Latin America placing downward pressure on blue collar wages, except to crow in Ellis Island-ese about immigrant moxie. How much you want to bet this schoolmarm is all for open borders?

As they are negotiating their way through our miserable schools and jobless economy, our popular culture—the third soul-leeching, invisible force—seduces our boys with flashy, loud messages that manhood equals macho bravado, emotional numbness, ignorance, and thugdom.

Boy stuff bad. Girl stuff good. Let’s make our boys deferential betas, emotional sissies, well-read critics of feminist lit and THUPER THENTHITIVE Iron Johns. Strangely, not a peep from Bloom about the blame due all those single moms squirting out the tidal wave of unmanageable orclings.

“I got mushrooms, I got acid, I got tabs,” raps Eminem, idol to many boys, “I’m your brother when you need some new weed . . . I’m your friend.”

“I kissed a girl” — Katy Perry. “And I liked it” — Lisa Bloom

There is one road for boys who don’t overcome their failing schools, who aren’t exceptional enough to find a job where there is none, who absorb the message that real men express anger via gun violence or who use or sell drugs to escape or to make a few bucks, and that road has one dead-end terminus: our ever-expanding, bursting-to-the-seams prisons.

Lie number two. I’m going to call Bloom out for this even though I’m too lazy to scour for the relevant data. I bet if you break out incarceration rates by race, you’ll find again that the rate for white Americans compares favorably with Europeans. Or at least the difference isn’t so stark. I don’t have a beef with reforming the prison system so that fewer nonviolent offenders like pot smokers are locked up, but to imply that the nation’s boys would be better off if more thugs were released into public circulation is the height of non-sequitur stupidity.

More relevantly, Bloom could talk about reducing prison rape, which is a REAL black stain on America’s moral standing. But then she’d have to turn in her feminist bona fides and admit that more men than women are victims of rape. And we can’t have that, what with RAAAAPE cries being such a useful fundraiser for the man-hating dyke brigade.

We may be the last country on the planet to lock up juveniles—overwhelmingly boys—for life-without-parole sentences for crimes committed when they were minors.

Another sterling contribution from America’s single moms! Rebuttal, Mzz Bloom? *crickets*

But there is a great deal we as parents can do at little or no cost to give our boys the advantages they need right now to jack up their odds of finishing high school, going to college, and leading a decent, free life in which they can not only support a family but also contribute to their communities.

Lie number three. Not everyone is cognitively capable of succeeding at college. In fact, the number of boys who could handle college life is only around 25% of the population, and likely less than that. If your premise starts and finishes with college attendance, your policy and your good intentions will fail.

Why is this book about boys rather than all our kids—boys and girls? Shouldn’t we be concerned about girls’ literacy, for example, and making sure that they too stay in school, fend off negative cultural messages, and become adults who find productive work so that they can support their families too?

Hell, yes, we should!

So certain are you? Female economic empowerment has rendered large swaths of working class men unattractive to women who can support themselves. A truly insightful thinker would ask if getting women out of the workforce might actually improve men’s employment prospects *and* their willingness to settle down and support a family for whose welfare they would then exercise a great responsibility.

As I said all along, the problem of American ignorance applies equally to both genders. The distractions may be different (girls: Real Housewives, TMZ; guys: ESPN,Call of Duty),

Notice how this slippery eel conflates sports with celebrity worship, as if they were equal vices.

but the lack of focus, the disconnection, is the same. (In fact, I can now report that it may be even worse for guys, as we shall see throughout this book.)

You’d think it would kill her to use the term “men” instead of “guys”. But, hey, that would get in the way of her work building up boys’ self-esteem.

At my speaking events around the country, parents would talk to me about the challenges of raising girls, but they would also tell me about the problems they were having with their sons: falling behind in school; addiction to video games; inability to communicate socially; music, TV, and films that encourage boys to become macho jerks; how hard it was for them to get their son to pick up a book.

Maybe because the books available to boys are feminized schlock? I mean, has this broad seen a typical English class high school multicult reading list lately? What boy could take pride in reading the sniveling guano of grievance mongers and slam poetesses?

Is everything a bright-line gender issue? Of course not. But there is no getting around facts like the beauty industry markets almost entirely to women (and its incessant ads make us feel ugly and flawed), and Grand Theft Auto is overwhelmingly played by boys (and depicts for them a manhood defined by fighting, guns and violence).

Lie number four. The culture does not create innate sex predilections; it reflects and amplifies them. Sex differences are real, hard-wired, and exist from the moment of birth. You do boys no service by telling them their preferences are pathological and forcing them into learning tracks that turn them away from their natures.

Gender still marks so much of how the world approaches us. (To those who break out of traditional gender molds, I salute you.)

Part of the problem is that too many men and women are breaking out of “traditional gender molds”. But such crimethought would require a less reflexive compulsion to supplant substance with shibboleth.

So a quick note about generalizations: as a lifelong feminist (my dad used to say I needed “consciousness lowering”), I bristle at gender stereotypes—false claims made about an entire group. “Women are lousy drivers.” “Men are better with money.” Uh, no. Statistically speaking, the reverse of each of those statements is true, as we shall see.

Lie number five. Women really are worse drivers than men. And where men suffer more traffic fatalities, women get into more nonfatal crashes. “As we shall see”, indeed.

That “Uh, no” is a dead giveaway of femcuntery. It’s right up there with the “Wow, just wow” faux shock moral indignation that lefties burp out when they hear a taboo truth uttered stone cold straight instead of draped in euphemestic SWPLcode. “Uh, no, I will not allow that obviously true generalization about the sexes to soil acceptable discourse.” “Wow, just wow, I can’t believe you said something I secretly believe is true but will never say because I’m too desperately needy to risk the loss of empty status points and invites to cocktail parties.”

I don’t care how much a feminist claims to have the best interest of boys in heart, if she immediately reverts to “uh, no” close-minded feminist shorthand, you can expect a cascade of 500+ pages of steaming bullshit coming your way.

Sadly, every day assumptions are still made about individual women and men based on sexist stereotypes, ignoring individual talents and merit. A woman is perceived as “softer,” less promotable, and less of a leader simply because of her gender. A man is told he wouldn’t be as good at caring for children because “women are naturally better caregivers.” Pernicious biases restrict individuals from demonstrating their own unique gifts, training, and skills.

The war against pattern recognition marches onward. You’ll know the enemy is sensing defeat when they start reaching for the nuke button.

I do not traffic in gender stereotypes, I assure you.

I really don’t think you have to assure us. You’ve made you inability to grapple with this issue in an original and impartial manner very clear.

I simply follow the research to see what it tells us about girls and boys, women and men, and report it to you straight.

The five lies above, all within your book’s introduction, say otherwise.

When I found a small but statistically insignificant bit of information, I left it out.

Translation: “All that nasty research proving the existence of innate sex differences? Yeah, you don’t need to upset yourself with that boy stuff.”

And naturally, every child is different. Even in our thuggish, hypermacho culture, there are boys who are gentle, who love art and theater and dance, who are kind and compassionate.

And finally we get to the crux of her campaign to save our boys. She wants to turn them gay. The more gay/girly our boys get, the better for our gloriously feminist society!

In our failing schools there are boys who read Shakespeare on their own and check out ten library books at a time.

No thanks to feminists.

Despite the drumbeat of bad news for minorities, I met Latino and African American boys in East Harlem who are beating the private school kids in advanced robotics competitions.

Pending “Lie number six” designation, I’m gonna need to see a cite for this extraordinary claim.

Although particular cultural pressures are at play for boys generally, your son—every boy—is unique and deserves to be loved and approached as he is.

Even the serial killers who get tons of love letters from admiring women?

He’s not a statistic; he’s one-of-a-kind. Of course. I get that. I have a son too.

“And so therefore I am qualified to write about the entire population of boys.”

The real lesson of “Swagger” is this: How do dumbass, lying feminists continue getting books published?

Oh yeah. The publishing industry is filled with women and gays. Maybe it could use a little more diversity on staff, like, say, straight men.

Read Full Post »

Women Are Equally As Shallow As Men

SFG remarks:

Women are shallow, but so are men. ‘Shallow’ means caring about appearances, which are the only things that matter in the social world. So ‘shallow’ is something we socially-inept types sling around to insult those who are better at marketing themselves.

Using the word “shallow” as it is reckoned by those who typically use it — women, feminists in particular, manboobs, and assorted fellow loser travelers — it is more precise to say that humanity is “shallow”. Women are just as drawn to shallow traits in the opposite sex as are men; the difference is that women’s shallowness is exalted in the public sphere. And it is exalted because there is no social compassion for the men who fail to meet women’s shallow standards and slip through the cracks. In contrast, women who fail to meet men’s shallow standards are decried as victims of oppressive male objectification and showered with sympathy.

This double standard exists because men are biologically expendable and women, sadly, biologically perishable. The underlying biological ur-reality forms the psychological reality which overlays it and projects into consciousness the workings of the subconscious id. Every word we say and action we take is ultimately slave in service to the primordial beast in our brains.

Another reason men are more easily and rapaciously slapped with the “shallow” label is because their sexual preferences are more visually discernible; female prettiness and sexiness, which is what men desire above all, are readily observable. Such is not the case (at least not to the same degree) of women’s sexual preferences; female preferences are focused more on men’s status, dominance and charm, and thus less easily distinguishable at a glance. The non-visual, time-delayed nature of much of women’s animal desires allows them to plausibly evade the smear of shallowness. But just because women’s preferences rely more on feedback from judging men’s dominance displays and comparing men’s relative statuses than on feedback from seeing men’s looks doesn’t make women any less shallow. It just diverts the flow of shallowness to a different part of the kiddie pool.

In truth, women’s preferences are no less shallow than men’s. It’s proxies for reproductive and survival quality all the way down.

Of course, the entire premise itself — that shallowness is an apt description of sexual preferences — is false, and the disparate semantic impact that the term “shallow” evokes is nothing but misty misdirection from the real truth: that there is nothing at all shallow about the deadly serious business of finding the highest quality mate(s) possible and, in a state of nature, passing on one’s genetic legacy into future generations. If the meaning of life is to fuck, then the means by which we achieve our purpose are the deepest, most profound feelings we possess.

Read Full Post »

Why Are Feminists Against The Male Pill?

How often have you heard feminists bitch and moan about the responsibility that women must bear for using birth control? You’d think the womb whiners would be happy that a male Pill was tested and found effective, ready to market. But, no. That would be thinking rationally, and feminists are allergic to reason and logic. Here’s a video of a Brazilian endocrinologist who recalls the time he was at a conference discussing the male Pill when a gaggle of feminists led by the ugly Betty Friedan (his words, accurate nevertheless) shouted him down with chants of “No male pill!”.

So why would feminists be against a male Pill? According to the doc, their answer is that they don’t want the decision to have a child or not taken away from women. In other words, they believe that men having decision-making power over their own reproduction is tantamount to taking that reproductive power away from women. The male Pill, in a twisted feminist’s mind, is akin to outlawing abortion or the female Pill.

I’ve said it before, but it always bears repeating because the message isn’t getting out fast and far enough: feminists don’t give a rat’s ass about “equality” or phantoms of inequality; all they care about is power. Feminism is a power grab, plain and simple. It is war by politics, its artillery ideological zeal and the veneer of intellectual sophistry. Feminists want the ability and unanswerable freedom to have a kid or not have a kid completely at their own whim, regardless of the man’s feelings on the matter and with no concern for his opinion or his presupposed legal rights. A male Pill robs women of the option to ensnare men in gotcha pregnancies, and that is a dilution of female power that feminists just won’t tolerate.

The motivating impulse of feminists, besides the ugliness of its fiercest advocates, is hatred for male sexuality. Feminists loathe male desire. Their envy of men’s relative sexual freedom, men’s libidinous vitality, and men’s broader psychological landscape manifests as an abhorrence of the peculiar characteristics that distinguish the male sex, in drive and personality, from the female sex. Feminists routinely lie in service to their hatred, a hatred which is unquenchable.

Feminine women are not like this. Feminine women love men for who they are, love to bathe in the energy of male sexuality, and love the innate advantages that men bring to the division of love and labor between the sexes. Feminine women are not feminist women. It’s good to remind the good women of that truth, and to beat the soulless ugly machine feminists, male feminists included, over the head with that same truth.

Read Full Post »

The Excel Spreadsheet Guy And His Female Equivalent

Over at GLPiggy’s, he has a pretty good post up about the feminist haranguing of a guy who revealed he keeps an Excel spreadsheet of his dates.

This is a pattern lately. Yet another anti-male two minute hate posing as female wisdom and prerogative. Are we reaching peak feminism? My tireless efforts have not cut them off at the knees yet, but they do vomit their drivel with a little more impotent urgency nowadays, so perhaps they sense the fanged maw of the underground media breathing down their hunched backs.

Anyhow, lost in all this is a sane recognition that men’s and women’s brains are wired differently, and that the tools each sex uses to get what they want are optimized along these distinct mental paths. Women also use an Excel spreadsheet to categorize and itemize their dating prospects: it’s called nicknames. Women are very good at assigning cutesy little nicks to men they date — “the doctor”, “bad breath guy”, “shiny shoes guy”, “the comedian”, etc — and given that women are naturally better multi-taskers than men, it’s easier for them to keep all this Excel-like data in their heads, to be regurgitated amongst female friends over mimosa brunches.

Men, in contrast, are single-taskers and object-oriented, less innately proficient at storing reams of personal data about women, and less likely to discuss their dating travails with male friends over brunch. The only female characteristic that men seem pretty good at remembering is women’s looks; so if women want men to date more “intuitively”, that is, more like women, then they have to be prepared to accept that male intuition hinges largely on objectifying women by their bodies and facial prettiness. I wonder if women would be pleased if men adopted their dating categorization methods and proudly humored the rabble congregating on the male version of feminist group blogs with all the cutesy nicks they come up with — “big boobed broad”, “leaky pits girl”, “butch haircut”, “wide load”, “pancake ass”.

Finally, it should be noted that way more under-30 women than men even *get an opportunity* to date more than one suitor at a time. Female hypergamy knows no upper bound absent harsh market rebuke, so a woman in her prime will date many men at once, culling the prospects free until one or two are left standing. But men, the majority of them unimpressive betas with no game, are lucky to get a date with one woman at a time, and many men often go months or years getting no dates at all. Under these natural conditions, molded over eons of evolution dividing the sexes into algorithmic psychological opposites, men have had no need to evolve the intuitive, multi-tasking brain for categorizing a large number of female prospects at once. This dating opportunity paucity, combined with the instant visual cues of reproductive health that predominantly guide men’s mating decisions, results in a dearth of talent for storing a lot of personality information about different women.

I think the real reason Excel Spreadsheet Guy has “creeped out” feminists is because he is one of these beta males to break the mold by dating multiple women concurrently. In other words, he’s not accepting his role as beta male quietly. Feminists see the inner world of a man who has managed to crack the girl code that typically allows beta males like himself only one woman at a time, if they’re lucky, and they are shocked… shocked!… that a man of such pedestrian station in life would dare to date like women do — greedily, boundlessly, diffusely, capriciously, like a woman on a shopping spree.

Why would women deem this guy a beta? The spreadsheet is the systematizing giveaway. Alpha males who have years of experience getting what they want from women develop a womanly sixth sense for intuitively categorizing their prey prospects. They don’t need the crutch of the spreadsheet…

(though in point of fact not a few pickup artists have been known to keep Karen Owen’s type journals of their clientele — and, by the way, where was the equivalent feminist creeprage over Owens? after all, what she did is no different, in fact worse, than what Excel Spreadsheet guy did)

…because alpha males 1. are familiar with the female archetypes and 2. understand that charming aloofness is more attractive to women than gallant powers of recall.

So what we have here is a failure to contain the female id. The true crime is not the spreadsheet; it’s the gall of a beta male stepping outside his preassigned role to extract what only the top 20% alpha males are permitted to extract. There’s nothing like a disturbance in the force to get the Darth Vaginas shrieking hysterically.

Read Full Post »

Gotta Love The Washington Uterus

In a story about the Secret Service agents and the Colombian whore with the fake tits, I was thrown by this jarring editorial commentary that was inserted after a quote attributed to one of the agents:

“I was really checking [Sarah Palin] out, if you know what i mean?” [Secret Service agent] Chaney wrote in the comments section after friends had marveled at the photo. He is married and has an adult son.

I’m not seeing the relevance of his marital or fatherhood status to the story. Is it the “”"reporters’”"” contention that staring at Sarah Palin’s ass (a fine one, for a middle-aged woman) would be Ok if the agent admitting to it was single and childless?

You’ve really gotta wonder what planet these Columbia J-school grads live on. Planet Stupidity aka Feminism? Yes. You’d have to be delusional, evil or thoroughly brainwashed to think that a man’s sexual desire and attraction for hot bodied women somehow disappears after he gets married and his kid grows up. If women really think that married men stop checking out other attractive women, then I’ve got a bridge to sell them to fatopia, where fat chicks are beloved by men everywhere.

This kind of mass delusion among the elite is what happens when you ensconce them from cradle to grave in a gooey bath of feelgood platitudes, post-rationality sophistry and calculating ignorance. Nuke the beast from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure it’s dead.

A man and a woman contributed to that Washington Uterus article. I could understand a woman writing that line, deep in thrall to her rationalization hamster. Of course, an ounce of journalistic integrity should stay her hamster’s paw, but the world has changed and integrity is now a passé virtue. I doubt one bit many of the media propagandists care about their bias. War has a way of enfeebling the moral conscience.

But if the man wrote it? Such a creature would have to be a vaginaman of cavernous magnitude. Vaginaman, beta orbiter hero of feminists! Villain of clear thought and hurty feelings! He can smite logic with a mighty slap of his flappy labia. Swallow testicles in one foul orgasmic up-suck. Helicopter his engorged bitch tits like two signal flares pointing the way downward to bizarro enlightenment. He enters a slut walk, and exits…

Read Full Post »

The Pay Gap Is A Lie

The Bitches of Beastwick are at it again, this time trotting out that gimp and repeatedly debunked — it’s been shot in the head a thousand times by now — hobbyhorse about a supposed pay gap between men and women.

Femcunts, listen up: the pay gap is a lie. Reporting on it favorably and credulously as if it wasn’t already proven a lie makes you liars. Filthy, clam-baked liars.

Once you control for hours worked, time away from career for family, and occupational choice (service sector and people person jobs that women innately prefer and FREELY CHOOSE generally pay less than male-oriented STEM and finance jobs), the pay gap DISAPPEARS.

So why, given that these facts have been out there for years, do feminists like President Obama continue sticking their fingers in their ears and lying through their teeth? Eh, you may as well ask why a warthog is ugly. It comes naturally.

Read Full Post »

Are Women Less Appreciative Than Men?

The NYBetaTimes Magazine features a small infographic titled ‘Academy award winning acceptance speeches by shout-outs (since 1971)’:

“Wife” is the number two most-thanked entity, thanked more often than even the director (!). The number of times a “husband” was thanked by a winner trailed in a pitiful sixth place. (If the world was fair, the screenwriters would be in third place, after the Academy and director, instead of last place. Better yet, the fans who cough up $14/ticket would be thanked most effusively.) Apparently, male winners think their wives are more responsible for their success than the writer, director, cast or agent. Well, they gotta go home to the wife.

These results aren’t a surprise. (When was the last time you met a humble or grateful attention whore? And there ain’t no bigger attention whore than an actress.) But it’s fun to speculate why female Academy award winners are so much less likely to thank husbands than male Academy award winners are to thank wives. Some reasons:

1. Although male and female awards are split evenly among the best actor and actress categories, there are plenty of awards given to technical categories that are probably dominated by men. Also, most directors have been men. So there are just more male winners overall to thank wives.

2. Women who win are (significantly?) younger than the male winners, and thus less likely to be married. Youthnbeauty is more important to an actress’s success than an actor’s.

3. Related to the above, a high status male award winner, no matter how ugly, is likelier to find a happy wife than a high status female award winner, who has priced herself out of most of the mating market. Also, ugly female award winners, despite their career status, still suffer from Kathy Bates syndrome, i.e., “why isn’t my success translating into a long-lived happy marriage?”

4. The feminist aka beta male-hating revolution kicked into high gear in 1971, so those early years were front-loaded with married (egads!) female Academy winners going out of their way to avoid thanking their husbands.

5. Women are, innately, less grateful than men. When a woman succeeds, it’s all about “me me me! look at me go!”. When a man succeeds, he feels a certain principled obligation to extend expressions of gratitude.

6. A woman who succeeds in her career can’t afford to thank her husband, because many people will presume the husband pulled strings for her, especially if he himself is powerful. A man, in contrast, can afford to thank his wife, because there is a tacit understanding among listeners that the wife really had nothing to do with his success.

It would be interesting to see this chart for the pre-1971 years, and broken down by award category. I suspect you would find more appreciative women before the SHTF.

Read Full Post »