A feminist utopia is a million beta males under the heel of an alpha male state, toiling for the pleasure of fat women.
You scoff, “Surely you exaggerate, CH!”
GLPiggy has a post about men paying through the nose for Obamacare, while women enjoy luxurious savings.
A simple resource theft and redistribution from men to women. A theft, because the women exchange no sex for the reward of the men’s resources, which is the natural system of male-female barter that feminists and equalists wish to subvert and reconstitute for the benefit of women alone.
Exaggeration?
Look around you, what do you see? Obese women everywhere. Fat acceptance. Beta males assembly lined through the family court soul chipper while alpha male thugs sire and skedaddle. Feminist quackery infecting every organ of propaganda, learning, and bureaucracy. Agitation for increased wealth transfer from men to women. Rationalization of the gravest female sins, censure of the most insignificant male peccadilloes. Glorification of unfettered female sexuality, disparagement of the faintest show of male sexuality.
This is the world you’re inheriting. A world where all civilizing constraints on female sexuality are released, all restrictions that can be imposed on male sexuality are realized, all monies that can be inventoried and transferred from men to single moms are confiscated.
A world inching closer, day by day, to a feminist utopia.
It seems to me that the major restrictions on male sexuality are largely because of vestiges of the past. For example, the expectation of monogamous marriage is an expectation of the past, not a feminist invention. Men are expected to marry a woman, and marriage is held as a communion where each party contributes half of effort and resources.
If we showed marriage the lack of respect it actually deserves, then we would be free to say “why does she deserve half?” We could ask, “why should we expect these people to sign off to vows that are supposed to last forever when we know perfectly well that they won’t make it together forever?”
I don’t think feminism is really the whole problem. The problem is that feminists (who are women) take advantage of the pedastalizing that patriarchy gave them and also try to push for feminist changes to society at the same time.
If we really were a progressive secular society, we wouldn’t automatically grant custody to women and require child support from men. We wouldn’t expect men to abide to permanent monogamous attraction to a partner (that’s Christianity’s influence). We would not think that the institution of marriage was so important that it entitled each partner to half of all resources accumulated.
[CH: What do you think the ideas of rape culture, sexual “harassment”, and male “privilege” are but a tightening noose on what is allowable for men to express themselves as sexual beings?]
LikeLike
“It seems to me that the major restrictions on male sexuality are largely because of vestiges of the past.”
Not at all. Male sexuality got it’s restrictions the second mass media realized women were their primary consumers, and that women despised [beta] male sexuality. I don’t care how feminist, inclusive or liberal a woman is; if you show her an image of a beta male showing any sign of sexual desire, she cringes a little bit. Guaranteed.
For example, the expectation of monogamous marriage is an expectation of the past, not a feminist invention. Men are expected to marry a woman, and marriage is held as a communion where each party contributes half of effort and resources.
Lol men don’t want monogamous marriage though, women want that. They may not when they’re in their 20’s and have a carousel of fuck buddies, but the second they turn 30 and they start getting less attention as all her friends are getting hitched, they want to get wifed up more than anything else. The only men (who claim) they want a monogamous marriage are the ones who are involuntarily celibate and wouldn’t be able to otherwise get any pussy at all.
LikeLike
The overriding theme of this blog, that women are inferior,
[CH: No. Women are innately different than men.]
remains true. One thing–again–that all of you who are not parents overlook is the reality of natural law. Most women are simply not capable of being “independent” and even the best ones can barely support themselves, whereas the average man produces 4 times what he himself consumes, and uses the rest to support the women in his life (wife, ex wife, GF, kids) and the male children in his life. Another aspect of natural law is that male humans—white dudes—almost invariably love and have an ineffable love for their kids, and they will do whatever it takes to support them.
So now that feminism has created “no fault” (man fault lzozlozzzlzozl not haaaaaaaaaaaaaappy) divorce, when the woman takes the kids, the man will pay whatever he can to keep the kids housed and fed as well as possible given that divorce theft has made supporting 2 separate households necessary.
Usually the reality of the situation needs the woman to have the bulk of “custody” (timesharing) because the man has the better (by far) paying job and the man has to work so it only makes sense to let the woman have the kids at least on school nights. It’s not fair. Beta men in this situation have their soul destroyed, as CH has chronicled.
The entire premise of your post is “off” because you presume the (falsehood) that men and women are equal and are equally capable of proving financially for the kids (or themselves).
LikeLike
CH: women certainly are inferior when it comes to being able to *earn* money and support themselves or their children financially.
Fem, I guess I was really targeting your last paragraph. Here’s why it’s wrong: despite all the talk about the *law* governing divorce, the law does *not* “automatically” give custody to the woman and make the man pay child support. The law on the books in all 50 states, actually, (and divorce is governed at the state level), is facially gender neutral. The parenting/custody/child support plan is done “in the best interests of the children” and the parent who makes more and *can* pay more, pays, while the other parent gets more overnights with the children, such as on school nights.
Now…the NATURAL STATE OF NATURE is that in 98% of cases, the man earns substantially more money and thus becomes the payor and the women receives money and gets more time with the kids.
Now, if women want to claim that “glass ceilings” or some other patriarchal reason is the reason for the income disparities, that’s another argument, of course, but the written LAW in in the statute books in all 50 states is “on its face” “fair” to men.
The reality for all parents who love their kids and want to spend as much time with them as possible, however, is that the law is unfair to *whichever parent earns more money*. That parent will be expected to (1) work and pay while (2) seeing the kids less. Because of the state of nature and the “differences” between men and women, 98% of the time the man is the payor who doesn’t get much time with his kids.
* Again, I’m talking about white beta males. Decent men. I’m not talking about ghetto thugz who have 9 kids they don’t even know about and have never seen.
The way the law is supposed to protect beta men and their children and all of society, of course, is that a good beta man should not be “no fault” divorced in the first place. So he gets to work, provide, AND see his kids every night unless he’s traveling on business.
That is the social compact of a civilized society, and the female/feminists side broke the compact with no fault divorce in the 1970s.
So now asshole “cads” get all the poosy by taking advantage of women’s hypergamy uncontrolled by any law (feral women with “sexual freedom”), as this blog chronicles.
So good beta men are destroyed and many are checking out of the system.
LikeLike
There are cases in divorce court where the ex-husband still has to pay the ex-wife, even if he has full custody, even if she earns more etc.. It happens.
His-fault divorce.
LikeLike
I understand your sentiment but I couldn’t refer to any sex as inferior because they are different and should not be judged based on the same metric. Men compete against men and women compete against women. Men are only superior to other men and vice versa. The battle of the sexes is largely a lie, something neither sex wants and only came about because of enforced integration in workplace where men and women competed for the same resources.
LikeLike
And that somehow makes it okay to “redistribute” resources to women, from men whom they aren’t married to? Maybe it’s because I’m a woman, but your logic makes no sense here…
LikeLike
A pretty lie from the CH. *disgusted and saddened*
LikeLike
I think you can be forgiven for falling into the societal fallacy of what “better” means.
What CH proves, time and time again, is that men are better at being men than women. This is completely unsurprising when phrased like this and only the most helpless of cases would deny that fact. However, what this means is that men are better analytical thinkers, better providers, more capable of defense, and generally more capable of big-picture thought.
Women see theses qualities, correctly, as what civilization is built on. Feminists make the mistake of thinking it isn’t biological. Women have their own sets of strengths which are also, in their own way, indispensable to society. Women are better women than men. However, the modern women doesn’t acknowledge this achievement and instead seeks to be a better man than men.
Until we can move back to the biological paradigm where women can be women and men can be men, we’re going to be lost in this modern menagerie of asexual beings with different genitalia.
LikeLike
Stop searching for consistency among the philosophies of the left. It is a simple power-grabbing operation with rationalizations in the place of principles.
feministx wrote:
Restrictions on any sexuality are not “vestiges of the past” any more than restrictions against crime are. They hold chaos at bay, they keep the state of nature outside the city wall — so that women like you do not have to live in perpetual rape before the “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” quality of life ends in oblivion.
Christianity didn’t innovate the veneration of virgins or discover the social utility of monogamy. Marriage precedes civilization. There is an inexorable logic to civic law that is universally present in every successful polity ever, which tracks the natural law closely enough to be almost as predictable as physics. The feminist fantasies of being able to legislate nature away and design the polis according to the dreams of the ugliest women must end in disaster — the disaster we will live our entire lives in before seeing the turn of the age shortly before our death.
Cheers!
Matt
LikeLike
The Left has principles: the equal satisfaction of the equal desires of the free and equal superman, liberated from the shackles of unchosen constraints such as race, intelligence, gender, nationality, ethnicity, and creed. Their operating principle is rebellion against God and nature. If reality can’t be made to go away, then the State must make it not matter. If you notice reality anyway then you’re RACISS! Or HOMOPHOBIC! Or you’re guilty of RAPE!
The devil was the first leftoid. Now man up and marry those fat 30+ year old sluts.
LikeLike
>>>The devil was the first leftoid.
Yup, he tempted Adam & Eve with the offer of EQUALITY with G-d. Adam and Eve should’ve listened to Tocqueville . . . oh wait he wasn’t around just yet.
I only know this because I followed GBFM’s exhortation to read the Old Testament 🙂
LikeLike
Those are nominal principles you cite. Look at the lily white communities SWPL live in and tell me that their “principles” are anything but superficial placeholders. As Charles Murray puts it in Coming Apart, the upper class left has problems preaching what they practice.
They do not consciously rebel against God. Non serviam is indeed what they are all about, but they are completely unaware of His existence. That’s what I meant about their insensate “power grab.” They cannot be religious in any but the most bland ways — pseudo mysticism, new age hoo-ha, obsessions with a sanitized Buddha and Hinduism — because the very first commandment is a rejection of their thinly-veiled megalomania.
Matt
LikeLike
The elites also haven’t suffered because of feminism, they’ve only gained from their new female employees who are willing to work for less pay. I saw an article recently about marriage at the elite level being stable throughout the last few decades. What was also not surprising was the willingness of the elite women to enter into traditional families where the man worked and the woman stayed at home. One article claimed that Ivy League women were more likely to become housewives than nearly any other college graduate. So feminism missed most of the upper class. Of course, it’s in the upper class where feminism originated as well. It’s almost like someone planned this whole thing out.
LikeLike
Plus the brazen idea that men should date their own age and the incessant rise in age of consent laws. Just the other day a 19 year old who’d said she’d recently become a convert to feminism took her sunglasses off in front of me to show me that I was too young for her. I was supposed to go “Oh, too pretty for me. Sorry”.
Add to that the increase in TV series and films where 17 year old males are lionized as the sexual ideal for women of all ages.
In the past, men (or screenplay characters) who’d accomplished things like John Wayne or Bruce Willis were held as the sexual ideal standard so enough young women ignored the high school jock to dream about being with an accomplished man (maybe one who’d successfully contributed to building her civilization). But take One Tree Hill for example now, where a high school jock is presented as the sexual ideal.
Civilization builders need not apply for sex with the hottest girls under feminism. But they are supposed to stay and work hard to keep the system going.
This feminist culture has already washed over places like Russia and Poland, so there may soon be no place for American men to go to escape sexual obsolence no matter how much money they have. Remember, feminism considers it paramount to stop women from being attracted to money and its Marxist influence even causes young women to reject men who seem successful.
LikeLike
“In the past, men (or screenplay characters) who’d accomplished things like John Wayne or Bruce Willis were held as the sexual ideal standard so enough young women ignored the high school jock to dream about being with an accomplished man (maybe one who’d successfully contributed to building her civilization). But take One Tree Hill for example now, where a high school jock is presented as the sexual ideal.”
i’d chalk that up more to the gays in mass media projecting their boy-rape fantasies onto the culture at large. hell even hip hop has been faggotized.
LikeLike
Divorce laws, as they exist today, aren’t about preserving the sanctity of institution of marriage, they’re about raping it. If we respected marriage as a secular contract with no special social significance, then we could ask why a woman deserved more than half of everything (which is usually what she gets). If we respected it as a thing fundamental to our society (religious or otherwise), then we could enforce “at fault” laws and restrict divorce severely.
The state of it now is a result of the feminist desire for increased female empowerment and decreased female responsibility.
Feminists don’t give a shit about monogamous marriage. But they care a whole lot about punishing men for expressing the slightest bit of their own innate sexuality.
LikeLike
Rewards without responsibility is privilege. It was expected in the past that a man would assume responsibility of the family. He was legally obligated to provide for his wife and children, to fight in his host’s countries wars, and if the family failed it was his fault. With this duty he also gained certain rights, such as the right to vote. When women gained the right to vote they did not assume the mantle of responsibility within a society. It was the first and largest step towards female entitlement and privilege. They are still not required to fight their countries wars. They are not held accountable to the same laws and crimes as men and yet they are given preferential treatment in school and work. There has never been a society that has treated women as anything but advanced children and feminists only exacerbate this problem.
LikeLike
[CH: What do you think the ideas of rape culture, sexual “harassment”, and male “privilege” are but a tightening noose on what is allowable for men to express themselves as sexual beings?]
For “rape culture”, I think that benefits considerably from patriarchial impulses of the past to protect women. One of the major reasons I think the rape culture meme gets so much support is that rape was already considered an extremely serious crime against women before feminist days. It used to be that rape destroyed a woman’s value to society or her family. Because people already had this notion of rape, it became easy for feminists to gain a lot of support when they began complaining about the supposed frequency of it.
I don’t know how common rape is, and I don’t know who does it and for what reason. But, if we were a really progressive society, it would not be seen as worse than any other kind of physical assault because in theory, a woman’s value in life is not actually connected to her sexual purity.
As for sexual harassment, I am not sure if this used to be a common problem and that now it is not. Every story of physical sexual harassment I have ever heard of in a workplace involves a closeted gay man and a straight man. I have heard several straight men (usually small and under 5’8”) complain that some man pushed them against a wall or came onto them physically. For whatever reason, I’ve never heard a woman with such a story from the workplace. But I have to imagine that if it happens to men, then it must also happen to women.
I cannot say what percentage of supervisor-underling relationships occur because of mutual attraction and what percentage occur because of some form of coercion. For my own sake, I am glad there are policies against supervisors dating underlings in most workplaces. I used to work in the hedge fund industry, where no one cares to observe such conventions. And what happened? My boss was completely forward towards me.
I would think men are more allowed to express themselves as sexual beings now more than ever in practice. Now, you can see whatever you want on the internet at any time, you can date whatever girlfriends you want and no one’s father will bother you about it. Practically every halfway respectable girl is on birth control, so you can’t knock them up. I think it’s a good time to be a guy if you just free your mind and take advantage of what’s now possible.
My father was from the old world. He married my mother after 2 hours of knowing her because an astrologer matched them together. I doubt he had even spoken much to a woman he wasn’t related to before then. 300 years ago, your ancestors were not so different. My brother is in the US and he’s an alpha player type that seems to have a new girl with him on his facebook profile photo every few months. Between old patriarchy and the modern world, it’s the former that places the noose on everyone.
LikeLike
You would be right, except that good men care about the state of society, not just our own happiness.
LikeLike
Speak for yourself. Only married dipshits care about that nonsense.
LikeLike
You are right and that is how Western Civilization was built, by such men.
LikeLike
You can’t say whatever you want on the internet. Notice that we all use pseudonyms? There’s a good reason for that.
LikeLike
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2006/12/love-dependence.html
Love & dependence
How has love been viewed in Western culture?
Love has often been compared to a merging of two souls into one. The Empress Alexandra of Russia said as much when writing to her husband, Tsar Nicholas II, in 1914 that “We make one.”
Similarly, the philosopher Alberti praised marital love in 1432 for the “close bonds and united will” existing between husband and wife. In 1958 the poet Sylvia Plath described her love for her husband as a feeling of being “perfectly at one” with him, whilst a much earlier female poet, Anne Bradstreet, wrote in 1678 that she and her husband, even when apart, were yet “both but one.”
A final example of the “two makes one” ideal of love is that of the seventeenth century English poet John Donne, who wrote to assure his love that “Our two souls … are one.”
A similar way to describe love in Western culture is as an intertwining of two souls. The Ancient Roman philosopher Plutarch compared the joining of a husband and wife to “ropes twined together.” The American philosopher William James declared to his wife in 1882 that “I feel your existence woven into mine;” whilst Agnes Porter, a governess, wrote in 1791 of the children she loved that “they entwine around one’s heart.”
This raises a problem. Western societies are dominated by the philosophy of liberal individualism. According to this philosophy, the most important thing is that individuals are left independent and autonomous so that they can create themselves in any direction.
But if love is thought of either as a merging or an entwining of two people into one, then love is in conflict with the above aim of liberal individualism: the achievement of an autonomous, unimpeded individual will.
So what happens? How do liberals respond to this conflict between love and individual autonomy?
There have existed liberals who, in theory at least, have taken the logical step and rejected love. My favourite example would be the Spanish anarchists, representing a radical wing of liberalism, who passed a resolution that for those comrades experiencing “the sickness of love … a change of commune will be recommended.”
The Australian/American pianist and composer Percy Grainger was another who was willing to reject love (in favour of lust). He once declared,
That’s why I say I hate love … I like those things that leave men and women perfectly free … The reason why I say I worship lust but hate love is because lust … leaves people perfectly free.
Another example concerns the writer Isak Dinesen (Karen Blixen), most famous for her novel Out of Africa. A biographer, Judith Thurman, has noted that,
The most compelling heroines in Dinesen’s tales … make a sacrifice of sexual love for some more challenging spiritual project─self-sovereignty, knowledge, worldly power─which enables them to be themselves.
As a final example there is the more recent case of the New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clarke. She managed to shock even some feminists when she justified her decision to remain childless by asserting that,
You’ve got better things to do with your life, unimpeded.
Notice the terms used to justify the rejection of love (whether maternal, marital or sexual). The aim is to be unimpeded, to exercise individual freedom, or to claim self-sovereignty – all of which relate to the basic goal of liberal individualism of being an autonomous, self-creating individual.
To be fair, it’s unusual for liberals to reject love in such a blatant fashion. It’s more usual to try to somehow combine the goal of love with the goal of autonomy.
At a basic level you can see this in the fashionable slogan of single girls in the 1990s that “I might want a man, but I don’t need a man.” This makes love acceptable within the framework of liberalism by turning it into an act of individual will.
The “solution” of the above slogan, though, is only a face-saver. It papers over the reality that most young singles do experience a need to find someone to love in order to feel complete. This is something inborn and resistant to individual will and reason, which is why it’s hard to openly acknowledge in a liberal culture.
A more sophisticated attempt to marry love and individualism has been made recently by the Australian sociologist Don Edgar. Now remember, the task for a liberal like Don Edgar is to somehow imagine relationships in which our individual reason and will would not be impeded. How does he do it?
What he suggests is that there be no external authority in how we choose to express relationships, no restraints, but that instead there should be an “intimate negotiation” between two persons, and a “careful construction of an agreed but unique modus operandi.”
Edgar likes the description by Anthony Giddens (another sociologist) of the shift toward more open and negotiated human relationships as the coming of “plastic sexuality,” where every permutation of sexual behaviour is acceptable provided it is based on mutual respect, disclosure of personal feelings, an equal negotiation of what is acceptable and not an act based on power or coercion.
The funny thing is that Edgar announces at the end of all this that “I’ll personally stick to hetero marriage.” And this gives away a major weakness in his convoluted attempt to try to make love acceptable to sovereign will and reason.
Most of us reach an age in which we experience an instinct to settle down and have a family. What we then seek is a happy marriage and not just “some intimacy, some form of commitment” which is all that Edgar is prepared to bequeath to the younger generation.
What the older generation owes to the younger is to uphold the conditions in which it’s possible to marry successfully, rather than to leave it to millions of competing wills to negotiate a relationship in a climate of self-serving individualism.
It’s not plastic, open or unique relationships that young people need, but stable, secure and workable ones, in which some measure of independence can be sacrificed to a healthy and natural interdependence.
LikeLike
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2006/12/love-dependence.html
The funny thing is that Edgar announces at the end of all this that “I’ll personally stick to hetero marriage.” And this gives away a major weakness in his convoluted attempt to try to make love acceptable to sovereign will and reason.
Most of us reach an age in which we experience an instinct to settle down and have a family. What we then seek is a happy marriage and not just “some intimacy, some form of commitment” which is all that Edgar is prepared to bequeath to the younger generation.
What the older generation owes to the younger is to uphold the conditions in which it’s possible to marry successfully, rather than to leave it to millions of competing wills to negotiate a relationship in a climate of self-serving individualism.
It’s not plastic, open or unique relationships that young people need, but stable, secure and workable ones, in which some measure of independence can be sacrificed to a healthy and natural interdependence.
LikeLike
Men are expected to marry a woman, and marriage is held as a communion where each party contributes half of effort and resources.
Bullshit.. 50/50 was never part of the deal, all wise folk understood this.
Go away, little girl… feminism leeches from your every thought.
LikeLike
@feministx said, CORRECTLY, “It seems to me that the major restrictions on male sexuality are largely because of vestiges of the past. For example, the expectation of monogamous marriage is an expectation of the past, not a feminist invention. Men are expected to marry a woman, and marriage is held as a communion where each party contributes half of effort and resources. ” Only at the end of the first paragraph is she ‘off’, though she is conventional and many practice that bullshit. Men require a woman’s sexual and reproductive fidelity for an adequate reward for material commitment. It is a non-negotiable NATURAL requirement, and most Anglosphere women trash themselves ingloriously as possible and then want The One.
But that’s not what I’m reading in the comments. I’m reading stupid argumentum ad hominem attacks. The devil or a woman will at times speak the truth. The truth is feminists are using past expectations of men as a basis for shaming men into the costs of chivarly without providing offsetting benefits. How slow are you retards! I don’t care who hates me! You are the fucking dumbies ruining my life!
Maybe if the idea of the Female Imperative using ‘vestiges of the past’ came from a man named Rollo Tomassi, you MIGHT FUCKING GET IT!:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/01/02/the-feminine-imperative-circa-1300/
I’m not saying @feministx is dispensing wisdom and nothing but wisdom. What I am saying is FUCKING KNOW THE FUCKING TRUTH AND FREE YOUR CIVIC ABILITIES TO DEMAND THE FREEDOM TO BE A FUCKING MAN, YOU MEN! Gawd almighty! Where is the fucking Game skills, when you can’t even respect someone who gets something right that is obviously fucking right and you just read a fucking post on how women take but don’t fucking give. How much more fucking obvious do you need?!
Women love chivalrous men like they love ATM machines that cooperate without regard for the law of conservation or of natural law in general. We hear ‘Man Up!’ all fucking day. Hate me, fucking haters. I fucking eat that shit up ’cause you’re fucking empty calories when you try to have substance with your fucking selves. Your fear of fear is neurotically hardened into your bullshit virtue. Regulate this. Regulate that. Down with this. Down with that. YOU…HAVE…NO…FUCKING…CLUE…WHAT’S RIGHT AND WHAT’S WRONG! Only your fear is real, and you are too cowardly to see it! And I eat that shit up because that is the only thing real about you fucks! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Take a stronger red pill next time, mother fuckers.
LikeLike
Dude, that is the most beta/white knight post ever put on this blog. Or you are very simple minded and unable to comprehend what you read.
LikeLike
It’s an open letter of my rage. The Socratic method is how we get to truth. We are not philosopher-kings until we start thinking in and favoring ideas, not thinking in terms of words and people categorized into the bins of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, or ‘good’ and ‘evil’. We must navigate the shades of gray in life (no pun intended), or we are relying on luck and chance. I believe 90% of the population has transmografied fear of the unfairness of life into some sheeple virtue of Big God or Big Government dogma. I don’t expect this comment to fly, so hate away, or be perplexed. I eat it up at this point, like being called a bigot of one form or another. How dare I examine ideas! I must be a sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, anti-semetic racists or something since philosophical discussion is snobbish elitism and excluding.
LikeLike
The only vestige of the past that I believe in is dragging a woman back to my cave by her hair.
LikeLike
“The truth is feminists are using past expectations of men as a basis for shaming men into the costs of chivarly without providing offsetting benefits.”
Yes, that is exactly what I was stating. Feminists only succeed at getting their unfair advantages because they can prey on existing chivalrous impulses. If you actually got rid of all of the remnants of patriarchy (like the pedastalizing of women) instead of just some of them, the situation would be better for men.
As it is now, single childless women under 30 make just as much money as single childless men under 30. Women can definitely support themselves in the economy we have. They don’t need alimony, and they don’t need that much child support. But society still sort of sees men as providers and women as those who need to have their lifestyle supported, so things like alimony and high quantities of child support exist.
LikeLike
lzozozlzlzozozozoz
aweosmee post hearratetsszz heartietetetzzzes!!!
on the grand totem polez of the ineterneatz men MENZ
heartietsezt is on the very tippy top lzozlzozz
da GBFM is down belwow bloew somehwere and porud to proud to serve support da hearteeiztze lzlzlzozozozooozlzozlo
YES!! HEARTIESTEZ HITS DA NAIL O THE HEAD!!
“A simple resource theft and redistribution from men to women. A theft, because the women exchange no sex for the reward of the men’s resources, which is the natural system of male-female barter that feminists and equalists wish to subvert and reconstitute for the benefit of women alone.”
YES!! THE FED INVENTED THE FEMINIST MOVEENT TO ENSLALVE MENZ AND CONCVERT TEHRI FAIT DOLALRZ FIAT DOLLARZ AND FIAT SOULLESS LAW DEGREEZ INTO PHYSICAL PROPERTYIES AND ASSETZZTTZZ. THE FED SEIZES A MAN’S ASSETTS BY DEOUSLINGHIS FUTURE WIFE THROUGH HER ASSESS IN SECRTELY TAPKED TAPED BUTTHECTNG EBERNKIFIFYING SESSIONS AND REPRORGAMMING HER TO SERVE DA FAIT DOLLAR AND BUTT TITNGELEOZOOZ OVER MAN GOD FAMILY TRUTH BEAUTY HONORZZZZ lzzzlzozoozozozozozozozo
desoul her through her asses
in secrtely taped butethxting seesisozn
have her seize her husnbandz assetsz
desoul her through her asses
reprorgam her 2 seize her husnbandz assetsz
desoul her through her asses
have her seize her husnbandz assetsz
lzozozozozozozozoz
dis poem sumesz it up rather welelzz:
“da professional womenz ode”
alpha fucks and beta bucks
dat is how we roll
da butthexting cockass we fucks and sucks
and in our anuthes it doth deosul
alpha fucks and beta bucks
it is da way of da fed
to transfer assetss to dose who butthext
cuckold dose who pay for our bread
beta bucks and alpha fucks
it’s what day teach us we;’re entitled too
da assetts from betas we plucks
after da alphas desol us through our hole for poo
lzozozlzzolzlzlzlz
cuckold da betas cockhold da alphas
datsz what day taught us in mba grad school
as da feiisnsits see no truth nor justice in their laws
and say da great books for menz was all fools.
yes, yes, i did very good on my gmats
dey bernenakifed my soul away, left me with cats
zlzlzzozozozo
today da professor GBFM would like to lecture on INFLATION lzozozz
once upon a times $50,000 would buy yo u a nice house a nice wife two cars and three kids who you could play baseballs with and raise to be nice girls and nice boyz zlzoozoz
today $1,000,000 will buys you an cassocked assockccoked, embittered, doused, deosueld and bernanenkied butthexed dfeminsistasz who will take %70 70% of oyiry assets in divroce court as ada dirvroce industries forces men to pay for past use oif a pussiezzes which is why da enoeteconths hate prostiutuitions as it does not make man pay for past pussy uyse but only present pussy use and da neococonths hatchet comepetitzzinonszz lzozlzlzoz, and dat $1,000,000 will be used to pay your wives dirvocre attorney and fund her future as socking sesisosns dat day got her hooked on in college during da prrima noctae asosckingszz seeisosnsnsns lzozlzozozo and den da $1,000,000 will be whittled down furthers buying presscirtption drugs for your dumbed down drugged up kids who you never get to see because ebernenekifiers seized den as poker chips in da fed’s wealth transfer games zlzozlzl
so now you see da definition of butthex, wealth-rttrannsfeeringz INFLATION lzozozlzlzoz
ust remember dat many are not ready to be unbuttblugged from da matrix lzlzzllzzlzl
so many have been butthexed for so long dat 2 try 2 take da life-sucking cockas outta der anuth will result in dem h8ing h8ing h8ing u and defending da tucker max rheyems with bgoldman sax buttehxtteetrszz zlzozlzzooz
like next tim eu are out with a chick, ask her,
“so how does it feel 2 be da first generation of oemenz buttcocked and deosuled by da federlr reseverssZZ? lzozozozozozz”
lzlzozozozzoz
dis is why it is better to just hooks ups with da owmenz da desouled womenz rather than try to talk or reasons or logic with demzz lzozozlz
zlzoozzozozo
LikeLike
Indeed heartiste,
In an era where porn proliferates, so do sexual harassment lawsuits.
A woman can spread her legs at work and take a dozen cocks in her butthole and this is good and profitable.
But if a beta asks a woman out, with the intent of an exalted relationship, he can be reprimanded, fired, sued, and fined.
Thus it is far safer to work in the porn industry than at a modern church, university, bank, or doctor’s office.
zlzozozlozoz
LikeLike
Anyway….
This one is for all the guys who say you need height, money, whatever…to score hot chicks….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2324714/Mena-Suvari-goes-stroll-pint-sized-boyfriend-New-York.html
LikeLike
There’s a reason this is news.
LikeLike
she’s a 4. 5 tops.
LikeLike
lolzzolozzlolloozolz
LikeLike
my sentiments exactly….like, in what world is that a 4? smh
LikeLike
She is not very pretty without photoshop:
http://www.posh24.com/photo/533783/mena_suvari_simone_sestito_par
LikeLike
hey perky tits, can you tell by looking at the photos how much her handbag cost?
LikeLike
Good one Counselor!
LikeLike
Agreed!
LikeLike
Haha nice one!!
Yes PetiteOlive is the expert on $3,000 handbags…if I remember right, she said it was “really no big deal” to spend that much on a purse.
Wonder if she still feels the same way now that unemployment looms?
LikeLike
I still feel the same way (absolutely). I have also been presented with an offer with a larger firm yesterday. Thing is, I hustle, I really do. Keep hating though. xo
LikeLike
a woman will never admit when she’s wrong, even when she *should* feel embarrassment and shame. a $3,000 handbag is riduclous, perky tits, because a VERY good Gibson Les Paul guitar, which can actually do something useful, costs only $1800. period. this point is incontrovertible
LikeLike
I agree with you re the ridiculousness of buying a handbag that expensive. It is utterly, disgustingly ridiculous and serves no greater purpose. I SHOULD feel embarrassment, but I don’t. It is the same line of thought as the idiots who argue “oh but you could have used that money for charity or whatever the F else”. Well, I did it because it FELT good. It is MY money. I am NOT in DEBT and I could do with it whatever I damn well please. Simple.
P.s. I do have charities I am involved in though..lol
LikeLike
“I have also been presented with an offer with (sic) a larger firm yesterday.”
And GBFM really works for the Fed.
LikeLike
you are boring me….
LikeLike
hey sweets, I could not get a clear view, it could be a celine or kors….can’t tell unfortunately.
LikeLike
Right, you just need to be a thug. (Though I’m not sure a mid-30s woman who has been married twice even qualifies as hot.)
LikeLike
objectively speaking, you can’t deny she is at least cute and could date someone taller AND richer at least?
LikeLike
True, but I’ll bet he’s a photographer/director/ producer type (and no, not like niggers who claim they’re producers, an actual producer).
Good on the midget spic. Hope when some brutha tries to horn in on his woman, he and his homies string that boy up from a tree.
Can’t wait for Jim Crow, Part II.
LikeLike
article says he’s a tattoo artist
LikeLike
Interesting. I’m still betting he’s more than just some normal one—more like an “artistic” one famous amongst hipsters, or else a successful chain .
I say based on height. Chicks will date wildebeasts before they date a man shorter than them
LikeLike
yea, he’s pretty average and that was why I posted it. You can tell from his body language that he has mad confidence borderline on arrogance JUST from his BL. Was supposed to be a source of encouragement/proof that it DOES NOT matter your height, income etc if your game is tight. I dunno, I am nice/motivational like that hehe
LikeLike
All I saw was a permafrost scowl… invariably on the phiz of all otherwise “cute” blondes who go cuckoo for varying degrees of cocoa puffs.
LikeLike
meh, subject to interpretation I guess….
LikeLike
What, are you kidding, or does the hamster affect eyesight as well?
Ain’t no interpretation about it… in every picture she’s not even coming close to a sort of happy, or even benign, expression on her face.
LikeLike
No need to take cheap shots. I never denied her facial expressions. What is “subject to interpretation” is whether those expressions are a result of her man, or because the paps are taking pics or she had a shitty morning etc.
LikeLike
Meh… Spin hamster, spin.
LikeLike
The caption says her pint sized boyfriend? lol. Ever notice how the media tries to lower the value of the man in each and every story?
They’ve stopped even trying to be subtle about it.
Probably because the average IQ of the average journalist dipshit has dropped to unheard of levels.
The media has become the ultimate “dumb girl” shit test. You guys ever been shit-tested by an absolute shit for brains? Its fucking hilarious, and blindingly obvious. But like all shit-tests: Do you buy into the proposed frame, or do you make your own?
LikeLike
haha Slang I totally agree. Especially with the Daily Mail! they write some of the most insulting/shade throwing articles in Life. Sometimes though, it is comedic…like when they write about fat celebrities….oh the hilarity of those articles! lolol
LikeLike
Perky tits, I’m going to explain to you why a $3,000 handbag *is* a big deal and why, correspondingly, you are a loser and you prove everything CH writes about here.
Women, when they become lawyers and make some money, like you, spend *all* of their money on themselves, buying shoes and handbags and jewelry and other pretty, shiny things. A woman need not worry about saving for the future, not for her kids and not even for herself. A man will take care of that, no matter what. Some day, you will get married and have kids. I’m not even talking about the obvious—that you’ll stop working or work for fun part time. I’m talking about GBFM’s point about past, present, and future earnings. The house you buy with your hubby, no doubt, at least $3,000 of the down payment, which you will take for granted, will be *his* $3,000 that he saved during his mid 20s by applying delayed gratification to himself. He didn’t buy a $3,000 useless object. He bought himself a guitar, sure, but he felt real guilty when he bought the $700.00 one. Not the $3,000.00 one he really wanted, which is actually substantively better and would have helped his playing improve and sound better. Nope. He didn’t even buy himself $1,000 worth of clothes and shoes, that would have improved his confidence as he walked down the street absorbing scorn from little girls like you who saw him as beta because he had $180.00 shoes and not $800.00 shoes. So there will be some of his PAST earnings for present use of your pussy—it will be in the down payment in the house.
(And, of course, in your ring, which will costs at least $6,000 if not $15,000 for the poor schmuck you’ll demand, being “edumacated” little bitch like you are.)
Not to mention that while women in their 20s who make some money like you are spending all of their income on themselves, they are getting numerous free steak dinners per week, paid for by betas and even some alphas. No…you spend all of your money on YOUR RENT, YOUR HANDBAGS, YOUR SHOES, YOUR SUITS, YOUR APARTMENT (which no doubt has expensive furniture).
Fast forward to the marriage and kids. The man will never have a woman take care of him just for him merely having to stay in reasonable shape and provide a dick. No the men who your vagina views as “cheap” or “stingy” are merely responsible men in this world. We have to think about providing for our children in the future.
So yes, a $3,000.00 purse most certainly is a big deal. It’s ridiculous and it proves the selfishness and just plain cluelessness of women.
Fast forward to the divorce (inevitable). Even though the man’s PAST earnings, from before he met you, that he saved by NOT buying $3,000 frivolous things for himself, even though that’s the case, you will get more than half of the “marital property”, even though HE provided probably 90% of the input to acquire that property, using past and present (during marriage) earnings. While you shopped and played and bitched about him to your stupid friends.
And after the divorce…he will now be giving you thousands of dollars a month of “future” – in relation to use of your pussy – earnings. For at least 15 years or so, assuming the kid is 3 when you divorce. He will do this not because of legal requirements of divorce law. No, it will be because as a man he will have a true ineffably describable love for his kids, which came out of his balls. He will have to continue to give you money because that’s what men do.
So when you spend $3,000 on a purse, it is literally pure, unadulterated status whoring. It is literally showing off to other women (and men—stating the value of the ring you’ll demand) that you can spend $3,000 on *nothing* while children are starving.
But ego girl, check this out: the male lawyers in your generation make money too. I have made at least $110,000 every year since I was 27 years old. I had a biglaw job right out of school, because I was number 2 in my class and graded on to law review. I have made over $160,000 the last 3 years. I’m still mid 30s. I have made more money than you. Yet I have never spent $3,000 on myself other than for a car and house down payment (and my ex wife’s ring). I could have. But no…I walk around wearing $500 suits (decent, but not $3,000 suits) and $180 shoes (decent enough, but not $800 shoes.) I drive a reasonable beta care. I give thousands of dollars a month to my ex wife. Her ring cost $8,000 (10 years ago). I had $60,000 in the bank and no debt, when I was 26 and met her…all saved from my job. I came from LOWER middle class parents.
Oh yeah..on that note. Your DAD. Your poor dad also sacrificed his entire life for you and your mom. He also wears cheap shoes while you buy $3,000 purses. He didn’t buy that guitar he wanted.
Meanwhile, you bring your tight little ass and nice legs to work every day wearing a $1500 suit and $500 shoes and a $3,000 bag, right? And $5000 worth of jewelry. You literally wear about $7,000 to work on your little body every day.
The men you look at as gross betas working next to you are smarter and have accomplished more than you. They wear $400 suits and $150 shoes because they are SAVING for their future engagement ring, down payment on their wife’s house (one day ex wife) , and proving for the kids.
A woman literally never has to think about anything but herself, literally. Never has to think about saving for the future, but she will go through life getting mad at any beta who dares mentioning wasting money even once. And she will look at him with a scorn she could not even muster for a convicted rapist.
LikeLike
sorry, I had to skim through most of what you wrote but point taken (I think). Always good to get different perspectives of things…..my position still and um sorry, about your wife…
LikeLike
You made the mistake offering details about your personal life here, Olive. Haters seize on the tiny morsels you hand out and interpret everything you say thereafter through it, exaggerating it to the point of misrepresentation when necessary. I learned that early on.
Seriously. All that guff from a one-time throwaway comment a couple weeks ago. Your $3000 bag will live forever in infamy. But the joke’s on them.
Matt
LikeLike
Yes, the joke most certainly *is* on us men. That’s my point. We are correct to say it’s a (pretty, thin) woman’s world. (Nicole was correct to correct me. All the bitching we do about women here, we are really talking about thin, pretty women–7s and above. It would suck to be a plain jane or even uglier, fat woman in this world.) Your comment is pure white knight, actually. Do you get that? She has dug herself a hole (defended herself) with 9 or 10 comments defending her $3,000 handbag, not just one comment. And the latest one is most repulsive: “It’s MY money I earned MY money….etc”. That’s exactly my point.
Us men, it’s our money too, but we are expected to spend it on women, not ourselves. Even a;lk money on women. You are full of shit of you say otherwise. There are 2 kinds of prostitutes in the world: professionals, and all the rest, who claim amateur status.
LikeLike
lzolzozlozlzo. saying you had to skim is an attempted e-shit test. You are unemployed and have plenty of time to read the entire post. As an educated lawyer, you’re a fast reader, right? lzozlozlzoz. your comment above about “it’s MY money” further proves my point lozlzolzozl and obviously was written before you saw this comment. you are THE perfect specimen of the American woman CH chronicles, here, much more so than feministx, who is actually much more intelligent than you are while having, perhaps, a less prestigious degree (although she does have a masters). perfect. thank you for that reply.
LikeLike
your proper “position” is bent over with your arms tied behind your back. lawyer girl…your “position” lzozlozloz. some things are right and wrong…not debatable.
LikeLike
First-class comment. Really on point. And yes, our little Petite Olive / Ego Girl / Attention Whore does indeed prove the truth of CH’s comments.
Nicely done.
And despite our Mad Jesuit’s comment to the contrary, the joke’s not on you, or me, or anyone else who finds our little Petite Olive / Ego Girl / Attention Whore repulsive. The joke will be on the poor Beta schlub she marries, divorces, and then fleeces.
LikeLike
And? Everybody already knew that. She is a perfectly known quantity.
So you feed that ego by demonstrating how much a single remark of hers from weeks ago has stuck in your craw to this moment, and then go on for thirteen paragraphs about it.
Step outside yourselves and you will see why the joke is on you.
LikeLike
This illustrates the inherent value of women vs men.
Even in the manosphere women are instinctively paid more attention to. Their stories/comments read and remembered. They gush and guys will soak it up. It also helps to include pics of herself to show she’s actually somewhat attractive and proclaim to the monkey brain that she is worth conversing with.
Women simply have to exist and look good or hell on the internet just imply that you do and people will pay attention to them. People know PetiteOlives’ life story which she so ineloquently blathers on in the comment section. Conversely, no one really gives a shit about FuriousFerret for the simple reason that men have to produce and provide real tangible value, brand name and service to achieve real status.
In order to create a rep as guy in the sphere, you more likely than not have to start a blog and actually produce. The problem with that it’s really hard to run a popular blog as a guy. There are thousands of little blogs by guys and you practically hear the crickets in the background. Whereas PetiteOlive can start one and have 20 likes running across a post describing her hand bag shopping experience.
There is another way to gain recognition though. You can be like theGreatestBeta and act like a simpering feminized dumbfuck and parade your humblebrags around for the world to see.
It’s like a metajoke. In the MANosphere where everybody is like be aloof and don’t give two fucks about what women thing, every time a female comes on, men fall over themselves to interact with her. It’s not really an insult or rebuke either just seems like it’s innate to the male sex.
LikeLike
That’s why I want to work in the public Sector, I want to live as a parasite too.
LikeLike
That makes zero sense from an actuarial standpoint. In a previous life, I worked for a business too small to have an HR department. I was tasked with pricing out new health-care benefits. Universally, the premiums for young female employees were nearly double than those for young males.
The reason is obvious: Most women will have children*, and babies are freaking expensive. Even in a completely uncomplicated pregnancy, you’ve got multiple prenatal visits, several thousand dollars’ worth of hospital bills to give birth, and then that whole first year when they get sick over and over again.
So how on earth are they justifying switching the burden over to males?
*Annoyingly, despite my having been sterilized, the insurance premiums my employer pays as part of my benefits remain high.
LikeLike
No, it’s not just pregnancy, women are larger users of health care in general. Most women go to the doctor as soon as they have a sniffle, and end up in the ER if it’s anything more serious than a headache. Women cost more to insure, preggo or not.
LikeLike
That too. Women are indeed much more likely to go to the doctor if they think something’s wrong–some ascribe men’s shorter longevity stats to this, by the way.
(In my own personal defense, however, I’ve only been to the emergency room to have broken bones set and bad cuts stitched. Oh, and one time with a kidney stone.)
LikeLike
Men’s longevity rates are lower because they fight in wars, work in coal mines, as deep sea fisherman, etc.
Any nominal rate in female longevity increase brought about by higher allopathic medicine utilization is easily ameliorated by the massive iatrogenic morbidity and mortality. Allopathic medicine is the number one cause of death in the US when you combine all of its various causes of death.
LikeLike
To emphasis this I’d state that the oldest person alive today is a man.
LikeLike
“Women are indeed much more likely to go to the doctor if they think something’s wrong–some ascribe men’s shorter longevity stats to this, by the way.”
and they’d be wrong to ascribe that. going to the doctor with sniffles doesn’t mean you miraculously get unknown cancer diagnosed that saves 10 years of your life… usually it just means you’re a pussy who is going to get overprescribed antibiotics.
men have shorter longevity by and large because its more work for a heart to pump blood to a bigger body. Also, more accidents, more stress, and just more physical wear and tear in general due to being men.
LikeLike
“Equality”. Women should be paid the same for less work, and their costs should be the same for more healthcare. It’s only fair.
LikeLike
The justification is that some man had to get her pregnant. The problem with their logic is that some man is easily identifiable assuming she bothers to get the names of her “dates”. So the idea that all men need to suffer for this is nothing more than theft.
LikeLike
I think the solution would be to just make women pay more money into the system as soon as they get pregnant. And they keep paying a higher rate until they have paid back what they took out of the system. That way, the system is fair to women who can’t have kids or refuse to have kids. The women who remain childless are not part of the problem.
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
Or quite simply the costs are split between the mothers and fathers insurance. If there is no father, mom’s gotta pay the fathers half.
LikeLike
Discouraging an already anemic white birth rate is no solution to anything, Malthus. Rappaccini’s teste-soaked psycho-pathologies notwithstanding.
LikeLike
ACA does allow insurers to offer a ‘catastrophic plan’ to people under 30 and those exempt from the mandate, or those eligible for hardship exemption. So, if you buy a catastrophic plan [which you should already have!] then none of the above analysis applies to you.
Pricing for such plans can be adjusted to reflect age mix, and it is in itw own risk pool,these exceptions will allow lower pre-subsidy premium rates. [This is all from the same report.] You only lose out on any tax subsidy you would otherwise receive, which this crowd [incl me] shouldn’t want anyway.
LikeLike
Everything you write is true and depressing. But what can we *do* about it? In Florida, a recent attempt to pass a reasonable alimony and parenting plan reform bill, which passed both houses, was vetoed by a Republican governor who is supposed to be a FAR right nutjob!!! If Governor Scott in Florida won’t sign this bill into law, NOBODY will.
LikeLike
It’s up to the manosphere to post about what Guv Scott just did and get that found in google searches.
If CH and Piggy and friends don’t do this, it’s like it never happened and Guv Scott gets away with it.
Anti male actions need to have repercussions. Politicians know they don’t so they take the path of least resistance and let the feminists control them.
LikeLike
The MRA vision of a Change.org petition/manifesto?
Up, public, rational, all-points-explaned, with all the whys/wherefores spelled-out, visible to all, not just ‘the initiated’
LikeLike
its very clear that in the fucked up world of today,health is a weapon. Taking care of self is money in the bank.Its vital that all young (white) men get on a program of working out,eating RIGHT(hello Paleo!!) and getting informed about health care. GL Piggy talks about opting oyt,taking the penalty;thats all a bit complicated for me,but its something that must be discussed! BTW,BIDEN for President…Right Fucking Now!
LikeLike
I looks like obamacare will require that men and women pay the same for premiums (causing men to pay more than they do now) and that there is at most a 3-1 ratio of most expensive premiums to least expensive premiums(causing the the young to pay more).
LikeLike
Yeah so its theft. Anybody that says you need to pay your dues can go to hell. The people 40+ haven’t paid their dues under Obamacare why the hell should they see any benefit. And there is no way this thing is going to be solvent when I actually need it.
LikeLike
Opt out. Pay the stupid fee, and pay cash for medical services.
I was under the impression that one could have an HSA, but it turns out that they are tied to high deductible health plans.
So, just pay cash for medical services. Medical services are still tax deductible, so it’s still pre-tax income if you’re self employed.
LikeLike
So, just pay cash for medical services. Medical services are still tax deductible, so it’s still pre-tax income if you’re self employed.
Of course, we’d need a public price sheet for all medical service and product related prices first, otherwise the person paying cash will get stuck paying 10x or more that a person with health insurance or medicare pays, as is common today.
LikeLike
No it’s the opposite. A cash MRI usually costs about $400. I’ve known people to negotiate it down to $250. I’ve seen an imaging company bill $13,000 for an MRI, and the insurance company covers maybe $8-9K. The patient gets stuck with the bill. Insurance prices are almost always a lot higher, like $5 for an aspirin and $20 for a band aid.
But I agree with you that a price sheet is needed.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s actually worse than that. A High-deductible health care plan coupled with an HSA is perfect for men under 55 or so. We really only use medical services if we get hit by a bus, develop an itch in our nether reasons, or get busted for DUI/Possession and have to go to court-mandated “treatment.”
My old HDHCP was around $20 a month, and that’s for a late-30s smoker with an asthma flare-up every couple of years. I also did shop around for a doctor who would actually treat the asthma, and not put me on that nebulizer nonsense.
HDCHPs for individuals have been banned as part of the Obamacare (though government “workers” can still get it… I almost put my fist through my car radio when I heard how excited the feds were by their new plan.)
Only good development in recent years have been minute clinics (WalGreens, CVS, Walmart) that do list specific prices for specific services, and do take cash-paying customers over others.
LikeLike
Don’t even pay the stupid fee. It will go away through civil disobedience, which will demonstrate how fictional the premises that justified the tax were.
I lose no sleep over the implementation of Obamacare. I applauded the USSC’s decision upholding its constitutionality.
It’s like small merchants ignoring the payroll tax and simply paying everyone under the table. After a while, the code becomes so complex that everyone is breaking the law. Which means no one is breaking the law. You’re probably committing three felonies right now, did you know?
Sure, some will get the hammer pour encourager les autres, but that is the price of revolution. And this latest IRS takedown is a sign that there may yet be life in the republic’s necrotic limbs.
My operating philosophy in this age of hyperlegalism is: Try To Fucking Stop Me, Pig.
I would think most men felt the same when contemplating an encroaching national bureaucracy that would have had Kafka calling it too absurd for fiction. Really? Some fat negress with five-inch nails in a cubicle is going to tell me what I can and cannot do with my land from a thousand miles away, what I owe to whom, how I am to behave, what I am to think?
Come And Fucking Get Me, Pig.
Matt
LikeLike
http://www.vk.se/865193/dags-infora-jamstalldhetskatt
Umeå county’s “equality committee” are proposing that men pay higher income taxes than women. Run it through Google Translate if you don’t speak Swedish. Oddly enough they put the “gender wage gap” at a mere 7% rather than the usual 30%.
LikeLike
That is because nobody actually buys its 30%. There have been a couple studies that show its 7% though just as many have shown its only 3%. And it really depends on the field. Some areas women are actually making 103% for the same work.
LikeLike
The challenge of course is to find woman who does the same work as a man. On a productivity basis in the same position it’s guaranteed the woman makes nearly twice what the man does.
LikeLike
Yup. 4-7 cents gap is the figure.
+In NYC, if you’re a woman in your 20s in Marketing, you make more than your male counterparts.
LikeLike
“Progressive” taxation already takes care of that.
LikeLike
they put the “gender wage gap” at a mere 7%
Thin end of the wedge. Tout the 7% figure so that men will think it’s not a big deal and won’t protest when the bill becomes law. Then the next year, a “new study” puts the “gap” at 20%. Then 30%.
LikeLike
” all restrictions that can be imposed on male sexuality are realized”
A bit hyperbolic there CH. jersey shore just a few years ago where the boys were pumping and dumping hoes left and right. Big muscular men telling girls they were DTF.
[CH: Why do you think it was a circus sideshow for titillated SWPLs? Feminists love gawking at alpha male antics, but will work overtime to destroy the spirit of beta male sexuality.]
Women consume more healthcare of course they do they are the child bearers after all.
[That’s not the reason why.]
A perfectly healthy man will never have to go to the dr while a perfectly healthy woman that delivers four times will have to see the dr numerous times.
Now a restraint on bastardy wouldn’t be a bad thing as strangers shouldn’t be footing the bill for others mistakes this I agree whole heatedly we need an enforcement mechanism
LikeLike
God, shut up and take your Jersey Shore 7 Single Mom and go join a self-castrating group, turd. You haven’t learned squat from the master.
LikeLike
Then how about charging women who don’t bear kids by a certain age male premiums?
LikeLike
I wish I could find the chart from a couple years ago that I saw it had women consuming something like 2/3rds of all healthcare, but even when you took childbearing out it was still 59-60% (contrast with their 52% of the population).
The reason for this is, women live longer and thus consume more medicare than men. They also consume more social security then men. In fact for blue dollar minority males SS is a god damn ripoff, they would be better off collecting that 12% of their pay.
Another reason is they have substantially increased maintenance costs due in large part to awareness paps, mamograms, birth control, antidepressants, etc. in addition to annual physical/blood draws,
Lastly, they are just more willing to go to doctors over minor stuff. Case in point, I pulled a ligament in my thumb earlier this year which is nonserious but takes several weeks to heal, I didn’t go see the doctor, but I did spend $4 and splint it for a week. My wife got a minor bruised rib which also takes several weeks to heal earlier this year and went in for a god damn X-ray despite me telling her there wasn’t anything they can do. Sure enough there was nothing to do but confirm my layman diagnosis. That visit w/x-ray was billed at $450, knocked down to $180 of which we had to pay $50 but at least she now has the comfort of knowing. /facepalm.
LikeLike
And the hospital probably put her on some Domestic Violence watch list for her trouble. I’m half joking.
LikeLike
i think woman using more than 2/3’s of the healthcare
LikeLike
Don’t panic; the Dems will lose the Senate in 2014.
LikeLike
Dude, that’s like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Country’s over. We’ll slowly devolve into chaos in the next century, even if the government confiscates money to pay its debts. The spoils system is unsustainable, country’s done. And, like any nation in collapse, we have savages in our midst, ready to tear life itself down—they’re called black people.
Grab some guns, join a prepper group, and get a homestead.
LikeLike
Best comment ever. Except it was missing the rape.
LikeLike
Rape is never missing when whorefinder is around…every day with whorefinder is like a black gathering of more than four people…
RAPE!
LikeLike
GOP +3, they aren’t going to pick up 6. And like whorefinder says, that is going to do nothing. But even if it were the GOP would need +15 to actually accomplish anything assume O doesn’t veto.
LikeLike
“Women count cost of car insurance as EU gender rules come into force
New EU gender rules mean women could pay up to 40% more for car insurance – and men will lose out on annuities”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/dec/21/women-car-insurance-eu
LikeLike
The kicker is that as a man you have to hear that your “privileged” as well. Women know the whole thing is a big racket, but integrity is not a strong trait in females.
LikeLike
Best Intentions, Murphy’s Law, Unintended Consequences,…
By the time the FemTopia comes around, another tectonic shift will have displaced the earth under their feet,
-probably sexbots (Google’s next innovation, probs).
The fatties won’t have roped anyone into anything.
Ok, except people like this dude: “Well this is odd”, TheChive.com, http://thechive.com/2013/05/14/well-this-is-odd-13-photos/
LikeLike
Ever read Hansel and Gretel? This is subtler than what the witch did I guess.
LikeLike
Sexbot, virtual reality sex, the male pill, are all coming.
LikeLike
Heartiste, Easy Annie Althouse has a post about a slutty wife and the husband who tried to divorce her, now demanding open marriage as recompense. Wife is up in arms about his plans to sleep with hot ass. Easy Annie Althouse and her beta followers trying to claim husband is EVIL for doing this.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-few-months-ago-my-husband-uncovered.html
Really, this bitch and her followers need to be smacked around.
LikeLike
just avoid marriage. that’s a start. damn near every dad i know in my neighborhood tell me what a lucky bastard i am. i have no shortage of women for the stable, and i’ll never be saddled with child support or alimony.
i quote the psychadelic furs- “you can never win or lose it you don’t the game.” well if have game…….you WIN. it’s that simple.
LikeLike
Got to agree. If you’re not a religious person—and, more importantly, if she isn’t—don’t get married. Strong religion is the ONLY way to keep a wife in check.
Spread your seed, if you must, like niggers do—in trashy whores who can’t get you for child support. Or the vasectomy route, Cappy Cap style.
LikeLike
Right on the money as usual, Finder of Whores. For me to even possibly consider marriage she has to be a right wing virgin Christian nutcase. I’m talking Little House on the Prarie…
Better use of money though is stockpiling supplies, bunker building and extensive training though in my opinion.
That’s Nicoles cue by the way….
LikeLike
You expecting me to disagree or something, Patty?
I don’t believe one needs to be religious as in theist, but religious about something, definitely.
And survivalism (I think the youn’uns are calling it “prepping” now) is a given. I lived in Utah for some time, and saw that working in many ways to create stronger families, and kids who haven’t completely lost touch with reality.
I also got a good example from my family. With the exception of a couple of sellouts, we’re very adamant about being prepared for hard times. This is why bringing my parents back from the crazy Christian flavor of feminism and yuppification was relatively easy. Doing otherwise was literally killing them. Stuff you can get away with when you’re young, you can’t when you’re older.
So if you are getting with a woman for the long term, best to start with a solid foundation in something, partly because this is just logical, and partly because again, social reality is reality for women. If they don’t have some kind of church or society to help keep them in check, unless you are alpha level isolationist psycho, you aren’t going to be able to keep her worldview contained all by yourself.
LikeLike
When the tangent point of maximum dependance on state and redistribution is reached the whole scheme will fall apart. Because the leverage of what to distribute will cease to cover the subsidy.
Surplus production will skirt taxation one way or another and expecting provision of necessities from an inefficient state will become a very hazardous endevour.
Think Russia circa 1998 during default. State handouts even if they existed were meaningless. Social ramifications for not having a complete family were detrimental to survival and prosperity in the limited sense of actual health and vitality.
LikeLike
It is not the world, it is only the west; a lousy 10% of world population.
If you dont like it, change it. If you can not change it, leave it.
I left in 2009 and it was a wise choice.
LikeLike
Amen.
LikeLike
even the ho’s more fucked up here than anywhere else
LikeLike
just saw this off jezebel…http://kotaku.com/the-world-of-japanese-husband-salaries-506417591 no wonder the herbivore movement is huge.
LikeLike
Wow. That’s pretty effin’ sad.
LikeLike
That’s true in most E Asian cultures to my knowledge and it is very common in the US too and not only with E-Asian ethnicities.
LikeLike
but the japanese invented an entire category of bondage called “japanese bondage” where the hot jap girls are hogtied with ropes. I don’t get the divergence ??
LikeLike
Japs are even more inherently beta than I suspected.
LikeLike
Fucking sick shit.
LikeLike
By the way, CH again hits on a related topic that I have mentioned several times, which is actually in defense of one-itus with women who are 7s and 8s: MOST American women are obese.
Earlier today at lunch time, as I do nearly every day, I walked up and down the streets of downtown Miami, which is supposed to be one of the best cities for single men, finding hot women, etc.
I did not see one bangable girl. Not one. Literally only 7 out of every 300 women are bangable 7s, let alone anything better, and only perhaps 1 of those will not be walking with her man at the moment you see her.
When I found my 7 ballerina GF with a smoking ripped body, she indeed was and *is* special. It will be and has been VERY difficult for me to replace her. Women have all the power not just for the legal/political reasons CH covers, but also the reality that a 7 or an 8 has very little competition. Because 98% of her fellow women are fat disgusting pigs.
Now CH would point out that feminism itself has contributed directly to the fatness, and I’m not arguing that.
I’m simply pointing out the reality that for a greater beta 7.5 like I am, who’s divorced with kids, when I meet a 7 with a pretty enough face with a 9.5 smoking body that she’s earned by being a serious athlete her entire life (ballerina), who has a cute personality and is even cuter because she calls herself a butter face (she knows she’s not the perfect 10 in the face), and who loves sex and is good at it and lets me do whatever I want to her and she likes it… yeah…. I get what I will call “Legitimate One-Itus.” She is *very* difficult to replace. In the last 4 months I have found very few women even close to being in her league and none of htem had the perfect legs she has earned.
Yeah….there are 9s out in the club, but some of this game stuff is BS. I’m 38 and while attractive and with decent game when I go out…I don’t have time to go out and try to hit on 22 year olds in clubs. I need energy for work.
LikeLike
I love ballet. Ballerinas are in top shape. I would say marry her. She’s fit, attractive, and cultured. Most people have no idea how subliminally erotic ballet truly is.
LikeLike
Obviously women/feminists will not stop demanding more until they get 90% of the pie and men get 10%.
Then they will say things are equal and fair.
No wonder men have been reluctant for thousands of years to let women have any power.
LikeLike
Like abraham lincoln once said “you want to test a man’s character, give him power”
the same holds true for women but guaranteed nine times out of ten they will be power hungry cunts.
LikeLike
You’re being overly generous. They will never stop demanding more.
LikeLike
but 90% is equal to 10%.
remember, chick math.
LikeLike
I say fuck Civilization and let it burn, it won’t be long before the u.s becomes a single party dictatorship, which dictatorship? id would prefer an augusto pinochet or golden dawn style.
LikeLike
People saw this coming 50 years ago. See 0:40
LikeLike
OK, so you are marketing to women. Do you have low-carb (or even low cal)?
No, you offer…
Fat Chix getting their just desserts. Or just their desserts.
Complain all you want, but it is another instance of what they say and how they act.
LikeLike
The joy of having children, someone who loves you and takes care off you up until old age.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/91-year-ohio-man-evicted-home-daughter/story?id=19134306#.UZPyEKDyhbO
Plus she’s either a single mom or divorced. No hyphenation though.
LikeLike
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/top-retailer-hm-unveils-latest-beachwear-real-women-19099954
Just gonna leave this here.
LikeLike
Well, I had to turn that off halfway through. Jesus Christ.
Thank God I live in New York. I haven’t seen a fat white girl who wasn’t a tourist in weeks.
LikeLike
Thought you guys might find this interesting (from Buzzfeed):
Can I get my babysitter for child support?
LikeLike
My other hate has hate for this referenced specimen. I would have believed it to be a hoax only two years ago. lmfao
LikeLike
[…] The Feminist Utopia Defined […]
LikeLike
All our social welfare programs are wealth transfers from men to women.
They have also infected the PRIVATE pension system. They now make my pension use gender neutral life tables in figuring our annuity payout. (The Fed forced this.) So, I will get 9% less and the women will get 9% more. This is just robbery. Since I work in healthcare, and most of the employees are women, this helps to explain why my pension fund is not only underfunded but now considered “at risk.” My company has made good money every year for the last 25 years. Go figure. It would be very easy to conclude women are parasites on men. Women, being evil at their core, will not see any problem with this situation.
LikeLike
…stop me if you’ve heard this one before.
The idea that ObamaCare will cover “youths on their parents account up to the age of 26” is a dead giveaway the Dems are sucking up to women.
Why not cut off the gravy train at 18?
Why? Because most women have babies between 18 and 26 years of age regardless of marriage
Men can’t make use of such coverage b/c they simply CAN’T get pregnant! And if they can’t find a woman to impregnate and marry then they don’t need such coverage.
LikeLike
My rage just keeps bellowing!!
LikeLike
I hate women.
LikeLike
Now now Marky Mark doesn’t hate women. He just makes songs about not doing drugs and makes bad movies.
LikeLike
“…I hate women”
Naw!
Al Bundy said it best,” I like girls but I hate women.”
LikeLike
That’s the point of any kind of socialism, equalization through degeneration of anything above average.
So the most important members of any society (young males of the dominant ethnic identity) ends up suffering, and as a result the country goes down the shitter because its core demographic is too busy being persecuted for being “mean” and whatnot.
LikeLike
Why shouldn’t I kill myself? I fucking hate being alive in this world. I can’t deal with these women and their endless narcissism. Man up and marry? Game up and fuck? Fuck that shit and fuck this world. Death. Death. Death. Burn. Burn. Burn.
Not doing what a cunt wants? You need shamed. You’re a fucking slave bitch and will do what we tell you. Oh and you’re inferior too cause women are more adaptable like that stupid hate-filled cunt End of Men fuckface Rosin the Jew. May she get fucking tit cancer. Or like every other news media through their faggot as fuck white knights.
“He’s just bitter because he can’t get laid heheh,” the feminist cunt says. Emphasizing the fact that women are fucking walking bags of fuck holes. Bitter is the understatement of the century. Rage-filled monster comes to mind as a more accurate description.
I hope I’m not alone in being a walking rage-box. I hope there are millions of others like me waiting for a chink in the armor to appear and spew our vitriol into the public through decades of repression and angst which built up and built up and built up. But that might be too fucking hopeful, too optimistic.
So why shouldn’t I kill myself? Why do you keep going?
[CH: Maybe you should step away from the internet for a little while and get some sun on your face.]
LikeLike