The Problem With Single Women Having The Vote

When you don’t have an alpha male in your personal life to admire and rely on for support (partly because you make your own money and don’t feel a pressing need to have a middle class compliment&cuddle herb around for security), you turn to the next facsimile — the substitute alpha male who promises limitless resources for you and your future sprogling. This substitute alpha male is The State, and its shaman emissary is Obama.

Don’t believe me? Check the polls.

If President Barack Obama wins a second term, he may have to thank all the single ladies: A new poll out Wednesday shows Obama crushing Mitt Romney among unmarried women by a lopsided 60%-31% margin. […]

The Quinnipiac survey found Romney up 54%-35% among married men and 49%-42% among married women. Obama led 47%-38% among single men and  60%-31% among single women.

Single women are bankrupting this country. And they don’t give a shit, as long as they get theirs, which includes tingles.

Marriage does seem to be at least a partial cure, but with overall marriage rates falling, and age of first marriage delayed, it’s likely the Gimmedat Party will soon demographically overwhelm national elections and put the “opposition” into permanent minority status. Couple this trend with the Mexodus where 2/3rds of all Amerindian migrants — and that’s a lot of them now — will vote for Gimmedats no matter what, and you are looking at a recipe for stark, self-interested regionalism and possible secession, coming soon to a deteriorating bread and circus pledge drive near you.

But, cheers, at least you got the latest comparatively advantaged, slave-labor iPhone and some cheap chalupas!

Related, Whiskey left a pretty good comment over at Sailer’s:

I wish immigration WAS a deciding factor for how Whites vote, but it just isn’t. White women don’t get harmed by it, there’s all those immigrant kids to teach, NGO-mind, and status monger over. Who taught me that?

STEVE SAILER.

The marginal vote gained by emphasizing immigration loses two (female) votes; Romney is a numbers guy, its why he emphasized it but not much on the GOP trail, and not at all tonight.

Does anyone think the undecided are going to vote for a guy who wants to deport illegals? Really? When those voters are overwhelmingly White and female? And single?

As Steve pointed out, the declining White share of the vote makes bigger White proportions mandatory for winning. If Romney wants to win, he has to get more than McCain’s 60% of the White vote. That means WOMEN. Since Obama took White single women by over 70%, and has an edge over abortion, contraception, paying for it, female preferences, culture wars, and the like. Romney can’t win them but he can cut say that percentage down by 10%.

And in office he can without fanfare on the margins increase deportations, fines for employing illegals (hit Chipotle hard), and the like. Marginal changes are all we have got, because Whites are smaller percentages of voters.

Do any of you know any actual women? They despise to a woman social conservatism, and anti-immigration measures like deportation as “cruel” and reactionary. Pandering to them is necessary. I’d rather have less bad than awful.

Whiskey is onto something. I swim among single women — mostly white, mostly educated and/or intelligent, in their 20s and 30s — and I can assure you they have a rock hard clit boner for Obama and leftie policies in general. Romney may as well be the anti-Christ when he’s not some buffoon at whom they happily lob insipid snark bombs. I can count on three fingers the number of unmarried girls I know who aren’t reflexively pro-O-face. And even among those women who might have some sympathies for anti-Gimmedat viewpoints, any hint that you were against eternally welcoming open borders to the third world would send them spinning into point and sputter orbit.

This is the reality we live in. It’s status whoring and self-righteous hypocritical white girl preening all the way down. The people have suckled on the Big Daddy Government teat for too long, and they ain’t giving it up. Single women are the worst teat sucklers because it is in the nature of women, before they have had their estrogenic rocket fuel burned out of them by marriage and children, to extract as many resources from the tribe’s public pot as they can manage, and to dispense as much of the public till to sympathetic groups in a showy self-annihilation of pathological altruism.

And men, the majority of them generally being weak-willed betas all too happy to dance to young babes’ tunes, have neither the balls nor the heart to call them out for their vapid politics. Many white men are so manboobed they actually yearn for their dispossession, both demographically and politically, like some cuckold fetishist lubing his palm with his salty tears and pulling forlornly at his purple pud in the corner as he gets psychologically ass-rammed by his gleeful tormentors.

As the day must yield to night, so did suffrage yield to anarcho-tyranny.

So, there is nothing really that Romney can do, that heeds the media’s constraints on his party for acceptable discourse, to win over this group. He has three choices that stand a chance:

1. Become Gimmedat Lite and hope to peel off a sliver of the single mom contingent, and then rule differently once in office (fat chance), sacrificing a second term for the greater good.

2. Maximize his gains among single white men. If he can get that group to vote for him 80-20, then the 70-30 advantage O-face has among single white women is nullified.

3. Hope that the polls are lying because people are saying what they think the pollsters want to hear.

Right now, number one is what’s happening, and even then I don’t think Romney pulls this off. Why settle for a poor imitation of the real thing?

In a future post, I will discuss how crime thinkers such as yourself can successfully navigate the sexual market of leftie SWPL chicks without scaring them off or suffering undue mental distress. Hint: Be a sly motherfucker.

Addendum:

Will white chicks flock to the alpha male, regardless of his politics? That’s a good question. The alpha allure may have met its match against the promises of the sexless, bottomless beta provider of the nanny state government. Romney out-alpha’ed Obama in the debate…

YOU GOT ALPHA’ED!

…but Obama still holds the trump card of being the guy who represents the dream of every girl to have a harem of eunuch beta male orbiters showering her with emotional support and money while demanding nothing in return. It’ll be interesting to see if the polls budge among women in favor of Romney because he looked like a boss disciplining a lackadaisical employee during the debate. Obama’s head nodding while Romney dressed him down was a huge beta tell, and women pick up on that subtle body language stuff. If they are sufficiently turned off, this election could be up for grabs.

Read Full Post »

Womanly Economy

Are women doing better than men (by some metrics) in the modern economy because the corporate and government world has been rejiggered to accommodate female worker preferences?

Reader epoche writes:

The reason that more men are not in college or at least not achieving the way that women might like is that the economy has specifically been re-arranged to accommodate the feminine preference for material risk aversion making it difficult for men to extract status out of working. There are two ways of organizing society – as noted by Victorian Lawyer Sir Henry Maine A) Status (Compulsory cooperation) and B) Contract (Voluntary cooperation) and the modern progressive movement is a giant step backwards towards compulsory cooperation and away from voluntary cooperation. How a group of people determine achievement says nearly everything about how their lives are going to be lived – this is why Kay Hymowitz noted that these degrees “take years” in “preadulthood” but mistakenly blamed the “knowledge economy” instead of noting the shift away from material resourcefulness and towards credentialing as the source of social standing.

Any “rearrangement” of the economy is likely to be organic in provenance rather than orchestrated, but I’m open to evidence saying otherwise. I’m not a big believer in conspiracy thinking; most of what strikes naturally skeptical people as conspiratorial is just the emergent property of millions of minds with shared neurogenetic predispositions coalescing around certain ideologies and policies that then gives the impression to dissenters of calculated malevolence. This is my working assumption, though I allow that conspiracies — even society-wide conspiracies — have existed and may yet exist again. It’s also not outside the realm of possibility that organic social and economic frameworks may eventually morph into self-conscious networks with conspiratorial underpinnings intent on preserving their power.

The flood of Western women into the workforce has had, and will continue to have, massive, heretofore unexamined in an honest way, unintended downstream and upstream effects on social and sexual organization. It was practically preordained. When you fuck with the god of biomechanics, expect uncontrollable consequences to belch forth from the depths and rake at your legs dragging you into its disorienting hellhouse. This was never going to be a simple matter of giving upper class, bored housewives something to do. Female economic self-sufficiency rivals the Pill, abortion, easy divorce and alternative male sexual outlets for the acid bath demolecularization potential each has on the standard model of growth industry civilization.

If the result of feminism, equalism (aka anti-white male “progressivism”) and all these other little earthquakes rattling the very foundation of the Western sexual market is to make various sectors of the economy more risk averse and more status whoring, and thus more pleasing to women’s innate preference for a hidebound, exclusive aristocracy and genteel “makework” in service to the lords, and less friendly to the openness, candor, effrontery, class shuffling and innovation that is the preference of men seeking to make a mark in the world, then we really have to ask ourselves what the end game will look like. Because, right now, the accumulating signs do not point to a happy future.

Executive summary:

Credentialism stifles innovation and risk-taking, and solidifies a de facto corporate, academia and government aristocracy preferred by women. Credentialism is a natural outgrowth of feminism and equalism, which themselves are natural outgrowths of the feminine sensibility. The root of these twin evil ideologies must be destroyed and the ground upon which they grow salted before the West can begin an era of renewal that returns it to the eternal principles enshrined by the gods of the copybook headings.

Read Full Post »

Incentives Matter

There’s a great thread going on over at Libertardian Central you might want to read before Cheap Chalupas™ gets the ethnic hives and decides to mass delete impertinent commenters who tweak his mood affiliation.

btw, [david] brooks is wrong. as john stated, men *are* adapting to the new reality. when women start becoming economically self-sufficient and thus price out larger swaths of lower or equal earning men, men respond by competing for their attention by emphasizing different traits where they still can exert a higher value signal that appeals to women’s hypergamy. charisma, for example, is one such alternative trait that women are drawn to in men.

also, the female obesity epidemic is doubtless skewing the mating market against men’s interests (and ultimately against women’s interests). more fat undesirable (but i repeat myself) women means more men turning away from providing for women in favor of pump and dumps and porn. ya know, incentives matters. and men aren’t very incentivized to provide, materially or emotionally, for unattractive, self-sufficient women.

it would also be remiss of me to forget to mention that mass migration of tens of millions of lower iq lower skilled peasants to gut the wages and the spirit of working class american men has not exactly assisted their ability to attract women the traditional, civilization-building way. but hey, to the libertardian, that’s just collateral damage in the great free labor dream of eradicating national borders.

Hanna Rosin and David Brooks are tag-teaming in their claims that women are more adaptable than men, or are better at adapting to the modern economy and culture.

To that, I say magnificent bullshit. Men are adapting. They’re just not adapting in the way that women, and NYBetaTimes pundits, would like them to adapt. The means to acquire a good wage, and the incentive to leverage a good wage to attract women, have both diminished to the point that caddishness and porn have become better alternatives for many men. If feminists and lefties and rinos and tradcons like BIll Bennett don’t like this turn of events, well… they have only themselves to blame. You should have turned back form the brink when you had a chance.

I’ll say it again: Never before in modern American history has there been a time when game was as effective, or as necessary, as right now. Game is no longer just a matter of getting your weekend jollies at the clubs; now it’s a lifestyle. For some, it’s survival of the soul.

Read Full Post »

IQ, Executions And Voting

GLP links to a La Griffe du Lion piece that confirms what I stated about retardation — namely, that the correlation between clinical, biological retardation and IQ varies by race. The subject came up over a discussion about Texas’ execution of a man with an IQ of 61 from a test taken later in his life. (His first IQ test put him at 73.)

In the comments over there, PA astutely notes:

IQ-alone limits on execution do carry implications with regards to other aspects of citizenship.

Liberals who trumpet IQ-based restrictions on the death penalty should be wary of where their invented morality logically leads. (As well as wary of their hypocrisy being exposed over the IQ issue, a metric which liberals claim not to believe in unless and until belief in it suits their agenda.) To wit: if low IQ is sufficient to exempt a murderer from the death penalty because of presumed cognitive impairment of his moral judgment, then low IQ is sufficient to exempt dumb citizens from the voting rolls because of cognitive impairment of their political judgment, which is just a proxy for moral judgment.

I really don’t see a legitimate (i.e., sensible, rational, non-shrieking) argument against this simple logic. If liberals and the various hodge-podge of flaming equalists are going to go down this road, they have to accept the logical conclusions that their beliefs take them in regards to issues they congenitally find personally distasteful. If they don’t, they discredit themselves.

Read Full Post »

“What Does It Matter To You?”

“What does it matter to you?” is a common refrain of indignation you’ll often hear from equalists and their phylum. It’s part of the remedial school of philosophical thought that says if a personal action is not directly hurting anyone else, then no moral opprobrium can apply to it. So typically if you get into a debate with a feminist or manboob, it will go like this:

You: Feminist action or behavior [X] is stupid, counterproductive, and rife with externalities.

Equalist felching champ: It’s not hurting anyone, so what does it matter to you?

For a prime example of the genre, here’s a comment by aneroidocean (so pretentious) complaining about the post on mannish female Olympians:

So what is a woman [to do] that wasn’t blessed with wider hips and narrower shoulders? Die quietly?

Gotta love the reductio ad absurdum. A classic leftie feint. You could parry by employing simple logic — “pointing out the fact of masculinized female athletes is not the same as arguing for the prohibition of women in sports” — or you could rightfully conclude that simple logic would zoom right over the heads of such emotional crybabies and choose the mockery route instead:

“No, they should die screaming in agony forced to listen to your pussy whining.”

What does it matter if she competes in the Olympics?

Wuss, there it is. “What does it matter to you?!??????? Somebody call the whaaaambulance! A feeling has been hurt!”

The issue being raised was never about how much it personally mattered to me, or affected my own life. That’s the problem with you unthinking liberals — you always want to reframe an argument you find distasteful, or you find yourself on the losing end of, into a personal matter, a position from which it’s easier for you to morally strut and preen and preach fire and brimstone from your tawdry little masturbatoriums.

The morality, or lack thereof, of manned-up women competing in the Olympics is not the point of the Olympic female athlete post. No one’s rights are abridged if some manly swole she-beast hoists 400 lbs above her head, nor is any moral law du jour violated. The point here is to remind the losers and equalists and assorted anti-realists that there is nothing inherently empowering about female sports participation unless one defines empowerment as “becoming more man-like”. It is also to address, honestly and truthfully, the obvious fact that a lot of female athletes are just quasi-men, in appearance, musculature and temperament. Therefore, the encouragement of women by the media industrial complex into elite sports mostly rests on a foundation of denying women their feminine essence. A nation that wasn’t fucked in the head with an overload of kumbaya horseshit would not shy away from this bald truth of the reality of sex differences, and would realign its cultural incentives so that a proper balance was restored, reflecting innate biological reality, until sports programs and funding return to what they once were: mostly geared toward men. At the very least, the feminist propagandizing of female sports empowerment has to end, and hand-wringing over “equal representation” needs to become a shameful relic from this ugly, god-willing bygone era.

Read Full Post »

Why Women’s Sports Get Less Primetime Coverage

The sports in which women compete that aren’t silly and that are actually fun to watch suffer from the problem of going head-to-head with a much better viewing alternative: namely, the men’s versions of those sports. Because, let’s just cut to the chase, at the elite level of sports (and, really, at all levels of sport except pee-wee), men are, on average, simply faster and stronger than women. Why the hell would anyone of sound mind want to watch a gimped version of his favorite sport when a more electrifying version already exists? This elementary logic escapes the feminist hivemind.

Furthermore, many of the sports in which women compete and men don’t, and which are tailored to women’s particular strengths, are unwatchable by dint of being retarded. See: synchronized swimming. There are only a handful of female-oriented “””sports””” that women compete in at a pro or semi-pro level which garner fairly large, if transient, audiences on par with the audiences that men’s sports regularly achieve. Figure skating is one example (and that mostly because women like the fact it is set to music and colorful, bedazzled costumes are worn).

Really, the only reason men choose to watch women’s sports at all is for prurient reasons, such as the exciting but rare glimpse of a wardrobe malfunction, or the slo-mo replay of pertly bottomed volleyball players diving into the sand. Otherwise, men will pass up women’s sports as long as a men’s sport is on another channel. The dirty little secret is that, among the subset of women who legitimately like watching sports, most of them will also prefer to watch the male versions of their favorite events.

I’m not anti-female athletics. Women should compete in sports, especially femininity-sharpening individual sports rather than competition-emphasizing team sports, primarily to sculpt their figures into beautiful, sexy visages that will help attract the attention of alpha males. Stay focused, ladies.

Read Full Post »

The Ideology Of Powerlessness

In a post over at GLPiggy about “The Soapboxroom” and Aaron Sorkin’s deliberate distortion of gun control statistics, a thought occurs about the mentality of the type of people whose natural reflex is to default to excusing thugs and disarming potential victims.

This mentality is the ideology of powerlessness. When faced with a threat, a person with this child-like psychological profile instinctually resorts to finding ways to strip power from himself and others, and to elevate helplessness to a noble virtue. People who think this way share commonalities with equalists, some liberals, leftists and women. Stockholm Syndrome is an extreme manifestation of the powerlessness ideology.

Those pointing to statistics purporting to demonstrate the downsides of power — in this case, the power inherent in owning a gun and its implication in accidental shootings — miss the point: the downsides of power are still better than the downsides of powerlessness. Do you want to leave your fate in the hands of the powerful, who often don’t have your interests in heart, or do you want power for yourself so that you may exert a measure of control over your own life?

Anyone who wants more control and power over the trajectory and outcome of his life needs to avoid powerlessness peddlers like the plague.

Read Full Post »