Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

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 »

As the Kristen Stewart affair (re)confirms, women, particularly young, slender women with high mate values, possess a seeming masochistic tendency to seek out relationship drama and wallow in it. All women have this urge, although the degree to which the urge expresses itself varies in its intensity among women. A very rough estimate by yours truly puts it at 1/3 women crave sadistic assholes (who may even beat them), 1/3 of women are drawn to men who provide non-thuggish but nonetheless insecurity-amplifying drama, and another 1/3 are put off by thuggishness and prolonged drama-inducement but who do enjoy some minimal amount of relationship tension, whether manufactured by the man or organically arising from his higher value relative to hers.

Furthermore, this craving for asshole men diminishes slowly with age, and with declining beauty. The elicited excitement and allure of the jerk tends to be strongest in very pretty, slender women aged 16-25, and weakest in ugly women over age 35. The reasons for this dynamic are obvious: very attractive and maximally fertile women — that is, those women with the most options in the sexual market — are best able to capture the attention of an asshole, and extract commitment from him. Older, uglier, fatter women are not even on assholes’ radars; their options are limited and their ability to extract commitment from men is kneecapped, so they tend to de-emphasize their longing for badboys and emphasize their appreciation for the secure reliability of lower value niceguys.

A few feminists are only now beginning to grapple with these hypergamous truths of female nature, not least in part because of the efforts of alternative blogs belched up from the bowels of hell, like this one, but they have yet to fully imbibe the meaning behind the evidence that confronts them. Many of them will attempt to scaffold their tattered ideology and hide the beast from their sights by making feeble assertions to the contrary, with no evidence in hand, that for instance, to pick a classic example of the genre, men “like drama-inducing bitches just as much as women like drama-inducing jerks”.

Well, ain’t that an ego salver! Too bad it isn’t true. There is very little real world evidence, either in the scientific literature or in anecdotal observation, that men crave relationship drama and the bitches who can give it nearly as much as women crave the badboys who can give them drama. Dark triad traits? Benefit men’s desirability; do nothing for women’s desirability, or even hurt it. Female groupies for male prisoners? So well-known that there are even websites devoted to letting women air their grievances with the prison system and detail their efforts to get conjugal visits with their killer lovers. And then of course, there are the women who, despite plenty of resources and peer pressure to guide them to better choices, freely opt to love and love again abusive men who turned their faces into mashed pulp.

Men do not share with women this masochistic compulsion for relationship drama. Men who are stuck with abusive women are often losers who know they couldn’t find another woman to save their lives. Men who have options will leave bitchy women without a second’s thought. Men, in fact, are the total opposite of women in this regard: the typical man will usually RUN AWAY FROM bitchy women in favor of sweet, feminine women, given equal looks. Even given unequal looks, most men will choose, for example, a sweet, caring 7 over a bitchy, sadistic 9, at least for long-term consideration. (For a one night stand or short term fling, men will put up with some shit in exchange for the pleasure of defiling exquisite beauty.)

So it is with this sex difference in drama-seeking in mind that the theme of this post emerges.

Maxim #19: Making a woman feel a little emotional pain will reward you a thousandfold in returned physical pleasure.

You don’t have to be fists-of-fury Chris Brown to pick up a Rihanna and make her fall in deep, profound love with you, but don’t let the lesson of their relationship be lost on you. If you are a beta male — and odds are you are — you can superglue your relationship bond by instilling in your woman a calculated level of discomfort and insecurity. You won’t feel bad about this, because you will know that the discomfort you create is subconsciously DESIRED by your girl. Despite her outward appearance of frustration and timorous appeasement, you will know that inside, she is lit up like a vagina tree, with a squirting orgasm shooting out of the star on top.

The more beta you are, and the hotter your girlfriend or wife, the more necessary will be the application of drama inducement game (DIG).

Reader David Collard comments:

I have written a poem about virginity and defloration, mainly to annoy skanky feminists:

http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/first-draft/

As I have said before, deflowering my wife was unpleasant, and painful for her, but I am glad I got to do it, not some man before me. […]

I have seen a serious scientific (evol psych) argument that the pain of childbirth gets a woman to bond to her child, and the pain of defloration gets her to bond to a man. On the other hand, my wife says my deflowering her put her off sex for quite some time. She had a very tough hymen.

It is an intriguing theory that women are, in some primal sense, attracted to the freeing chains of pain. The pain — physical or emotional — seems to release in woman animal lusts, which then stampede beyond her control. This loss of control is something women secretly yearn to experience, and the alpha males who so delight them are the men most adept at stripping women of their superficial veneer of control.

David writes that childbirth and defloration are both major masochist milestones in a woman’s life that also represent pinnacles of pain. In the crucible of this pain (physical in these two instances), a bond so powerful, so unbreakable, is formed, that the woman will be forever merged in psyche, soul and snatch with the child and the man, respectively, who visited this pain upon her. I believe this is the best argument there is for beta males to actively seek out and deflower virgins, for the resultant bond will be so strong that they can then coast in their betaness for many years afterward without threat of cuckolding.

“Anonymous” writes:

Quoting Kristen Stewart: “I feel boring. I feel like, Why is everything so easy for me? I can’t wait for something crazy to fucking happen to me. Just life. I want someone to fuck me over! Do you know what I mean?”

So, she wants to play some Russian Roulette? Why are women so masochistic? You have a tenuous alpha/beta analysis when it isn’t even 100% clear that Alpha’s are better for survival or fitness then beta (why are there so many betas if alpha is the better gene)? I won’t quibble over this because your pop science has a much more serious problem. The central problem with female fitness in modernity has nothing to do with alpha/beta but is delayed pregnancy. What are the psychological consequences of going 15-20-35 years after menstruation and failing to get preggers? Ancient women were ALWAYS pregnant, like in stone age societies. Women are designed to be constantly knocked up and hauling 5 kids. How can their psychology pull the 180 to barren femcunt lawyer slut? Or barren and bored slut actress? You don’t think this makes them masochistic freaks? They are built for pain (pregnancy and hauling kids). Your Alpha/Beta analysis works, but the bigger issue is masochism and other psych problems from being chronically barren.

I understand anonymous’ wrenching repugnance at women’s callow and seemingly self-annihilating unimpeded sexual behavior, but that is a confusion remedied by a widening of perspective and a depth of experience. This odd drive by women for the powerful, charming, dominant men, even when it threatens a solid and secure relationship, must have served some benefit to our distant female ancestors, including the mothers of the infinite mothers of your mothers.

But then, as anonymous rightly states, there has always been, until relatively recently, a natural curb — an auto-pilot emergency brake — on this female hypergamous impulse, that would engage when the impulse became destructive. This natural curb was PREGNANCY. Ancestral women used to get knocked up quickly, at very young ages, and then be burdened with child after child until the wall removed from them the last hope of fulfilling a latent hypergamous urge. A Kristen Stewart, shorn of the props and rebar and condoms and abortifacents and Pills of modern society, would not, in the ancient times, have had the luxury of chasing down and fucking multiple alpha males to satisfy her id-shaped itch. In times bygone, her downlow would have meant the abandonment and eventual death of her child by her beta provider (Robert Pattinson) and the ostracization by her tribe’s women. Her alpha lover (the director) would not have agreed to help much in the raising of the children she had borne from previous men. There would not have been a media-savvy slut-excusing PR machine, aided and abetted by feminists and manboobed robots, to carry her through the ordeal to a safe landing ensconced in the lap of a replacement alpha male.

Instead, a modern Western Kristen Stewart gets to skip all that pain that would have been hers in prior eras, and indulge her hypergamy nearly free of consequence. Perhaps anonymous has a point; the mitigation to almost total irrelevance of this primal pain that was once the birthright of women has rendered their sex so psychologically scarred, so emotionally gutted, that they deliberately seek destructiveness in their relationships to feel anything at all. This destructiveness, once harnessed, feeds on itself, and there is no cure save sexual obsolescence, which must come, as it does for all women, sooner than they think.

The barren woman. The spinster. The pathetic partying cougar. The slutty alpha female. The delayed marriage and childbirth. The 0.5 child SWPL mother. Is it all coming together in a vortex of unhappiness and self-despoilment? Is the answer a reconnection with the animal spirits — and the animal dangers — that used to animate our free choices?

Kristen Stewart and millions of women in similar circumstances as hers will realize their fates too late. Worse for them, the Robert Pattinsons of the world are beginning to wake up and realize their fates as well. The interesting times are just beginning.

This post sealed with a kiss for Billyboy Bennett.

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Shiva the Detroyed Feminist locates a crumb of feminist hope amid a sea of feminism-crushing scientific studies and reality-assaulting dissonance:

I think this will win comment of next week:

This just blew open the “wall” theory. [ed: she wishes.]

sure, women may not be at the prime of their beauty in the future but they’ll still be in prime fertility at , say, 45.

Wow.

[ed: just wow.]

The schooling shall commence…

The wall is a function of women’s looks, which are, evolutionarily-speaking, a proxy for women’s fertility. Ovary transplant tech may extend fertility but it won’t do a damn thing for aging women’s declining looks. Men’s eyes don’t see women’s ovaries, they see women’s bodies and faces. Men are wired to respond sexually and emotionally to youthful female looks, not to a hidden working uterus. A 70 year old woman could be rejiggered to bear children thanks to the intervention of science, but she’ll still look 70 years old, and so men won’t be turned on by her. She will suffer the indignities of wall victimhood, having to settle for conceiving children with a turkey baster or a blind old goat who gets around on tennis balls. Tragically for feminists nursing delusions of sustained desirability, in the gene-governed sexual market where visual cues are men’s primary information medium it’s the proxies that matter, not the actual biowiring underneath.

There’s really no point to explaining the facts of life to feminists and other assorted grievance groups with real reasons to fear and loathe the truth — beyond its entertainment value as a button-pusher — because in three weeks’ time the same lot of them wander back into this happy hunting ground babbling the identical, debunked bromides all over again. Logic and reason hurt their wee egos for a brief spell, and then when enough time has passed for their self-medicated ids to baseline to normal and reconcile their cognitive dissonances, (say, ten minutes), they are right back to chanting pretty lies, sticking their fingers in their ears, and stamping their ascii feet. Never underestimate the lengths to which humans will lie to themselves and, consequently, to others to maintain an illusion of high sexual or social market value in the face of rapid deterioration or expendability.

If I had to put a number on it, I’d guess 80% of the human population is aggressively self-deceiving, with the number reaching close to 100% in backward societies and within certain ideological sects. With those numbers arrayed against you, it’s fruitless to battle for hearts and minds. The best you can do is mercilessly mock their pretensions to high holy hell, preferably in front of an audience, until some tiny illumination of self-preservation sparks in their limbic chimp systems and they sulk off to lick their ego wounds rather than face the psychic torture of further debasement on a public stage. Even the most blockheaded deluded dumbass will think twice about shrieking his or her stupidities when Total Ridicule is the only reward.

Read Full Post »

The feminist and equalist gatekeepers of discourse are getting nervous that their house of lies is about to crumble in on them, thanks to the yeoman efforts of the alt-sphere. You can tell the heat is on them by the fevered pitch with which they churn out their copy, rife more than ever with sloppy logic, appeals to emotion and propaganda masquerading as fact.

An exemplar of this indisciplined genre is this Time article asserting that men are attracted to high-earning women, authored by Liza Mundy. The basis of her claim is the Hamilton Project which, she says, shows that men are more attracted to high-earning women.

Mundy makes the classic category errors of her type:

1. She conflates the marriage market with the sexual/dating market.

While there is overlap between the two markets, men bring to bear an adjusted set of criteria upon potential marriage partners. For instance, men will value chasteness and a low partner count history in marriage material women more than they will value those things in a sexual fling. (More tellingly, men tend to value looseness in short-term sexual prospects.) Men may also make cold, unemotional calculations that a woman of means can give their layabout asses a better life. For these reasons, plus more, the hottest woman a man meets is not necessarily the one he will wind up marrying. Often, men will marry out of expediency or a growing sense of weariness with the dating grind (it is a grind for a lot of men who don’t have the game to handle the particular challenges of dealing with lots of women on a regular basis).

2. She assumes men have unlimited options are are therefore marrying exactly the women they most desire.

If the highest income women are marrying at higher rates than the “bottom” 90% of women (and that’s a pretty big bottom), it does not necessarily follow from that statistic that the men those high-earning women marry are attracted to their marital choices. Or that the women are attracted, either. It could just as well be the case that those men are settling for aging, high SES women who are themselves letting up the gas on their hypergamy and relenting to the internal pressure to marry before they hit their physical expiry, a pressure which will be much more acute for women after a decade of higher education and career building.

3. She thinks that marriage is proof of physical attraction for men.

Again, there is nothing special about signing on the dotted nuptial line that reveals men’s raw desire better than their incorruptible boner reflexes. If (and that’a big “if”) men are marrying high-earning women at higher rates than they are marrying low income women, it could mean that one or both parties are settling to avoid loneliness, that lower income women are spurning men who want to marry them, that high income women are relaxing their standards for marriage, or that men are coerced by social conditions into marrying for reasons other than physical attraction or even love. It could be all of the above. If Mundy were truly interested to know which women high value men are attracted to, which women those in-demand men most DESIRE, she would strap a plethysmograph on a sample of men and measure their dick turgidity as they eat dinner with, talk to, and make out with hot poor babes and plain wealthy women.

Any guesses what that data would show? Mundy? *crickets*

4. She misrepresents the data.

The best I saved for last. Go to the link to that Hamilton Project study and read it for yourself. You’ll notice something peculiar; specifically, the graphs don’t mesh with her interpretation.

First, the marriage rates for men ages 30-50 in the top 10% of earnings are down to 83% today, from 95% in 1970. Fewer men of all income groups are getting married. If men are attracted to high-earning women, why aren’t more men getting married to the larger pool of these high earning women, a pool that has grown substantially since 1970? One theory: Educated, high earning women are the upgraded trophy second wives of divorced men. A smaller group of older, high status men are churning through a larger group of careerist women. Say hello to our brand new, serial monogamy, r-selection society.

Second, the graph for “Change in share of women married, by earnings, 1970-2011” shows that every income group of women, except for the top 1% of earners, experienced a decrease in marriage rates. Even the top 5% saw a decrease, albeit a smaller decrease than that experienced by women in the bottom 85% of earners. If men are attracted to high-earning women, then why are women in the upper quintile of earnings — real catches to men, according to Mundy’s theory — seeing a decrease in their odds of getting married?

The bottom line is that women’s earnings have only an indirect effect on men’s mate choices; namely, the higher a woman’s income, (and this goes just as much for women who went from zero income to minimum wage), the smaller her psychologically acceptable pool of prospective mates. And we see this reflected in the actual data, (as opposed to the data Mundy perceives). The top 1% of female earners are the only group of women who have seen a rise in marriage rates, and the explanation for this lies less in men’s physical attraction for them than in cultural forces, governed by underlying biological rhythms, altering the landscape of the marriage partner hunt.

The evidence for a direct effect of women’s earnings on men’s attraction is scant, and where such evidence exists, it tends to show that men are TURNED OFF by women who make more than themselves. At best, the direct effect on men of women’s high income is like lingerie on a dog — funny to think about, but completely neutral as a penis stimulant. At worst, a high income can actually hurt a woman’s chances with men, especially men who don’t make as much as her, and she will be exposed to men who use her for the lifestyle while saving their true animal lusts for the hot, poor ass on the side.

A comment by a high-earning woman to that Time article strikes me as an accurate portrayal of the reality on the ground for her kind:

scoutmom

Sorry Time, but as a single woman who makes well over 150k, I don’t buy this story for a second. In my personal experience, yes, I could easily go out there and get married. But, not to anyone I would consider a truly equal partner. In this recession, I’ve seen many men see me just as a meal ticket. It’s not that they are intimidated (well there’s a few of the insecure ones out there), but mostly they see me as someone who can solve all their financial problems. Here’s a profile of the last few guys who either asked me out or I went on a date with:

1. Stock boy at an office supply store – Um, at 42, don’t you think you should be doing something else with your life? And no, he didn’t lose his successful job elsewhere and had to take this. He considered this his career and marijana his hobby.

2. Father of 4 kids (that was OK with me) and had over 78k of credit card debt. He made it clear he was looking for a “financially stable woman to help him out.” Sorry sweetie, I’m no one’s sugar mama.

3. Elementary school PE teacher who never wanted to be more than that. I was actually really into him and we dated for a while, but in the end, when he found out how much I made, he couldn’t handle it and broke up with me.

4. A man who paid 42% of all his earnings to child support and alimony and was about to lose his job. I actually thought he was a cool guy and was OK to date him until he said, “well, I was really worried about losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage and alimony, but now that you and I are together, I know I’ll be safe.” And FYI – he said this while downing 14 drinks in a bar on our second date. Nuff said.

These are just some of the situations that a successful woman who lives in Southern California is dealing with. And for those of you out there who think me not viable to date for other reasons, I am considered attractive by most people, and I used to do some modelling in my younger days. I am now 37, own my own 550k house, a car, portfolio, great relationships with friends and family and have an active social life. I just refuse to take on a partner who isn’t my equal in some way. I really don’t care how much money you make, but don’t expect me to pay for your financial mistakes or have to take care of a man who is mentally a little boy.

So, like the article says, I hide my career and income from men and dating profiles. It just makes me a target. I do not see this trend changing any time soon. Maybe I’ll try dating again when the economy gets better?

A target. That, Mzzzz Mundy, is a better descriptor of the kind of attraction some men have for high-earning women. Rich women aren’t lust objects; they’re prey objects. And the likelihood of being preyed upon is directly proportional to the rich woman’s ugliness.

Read Full Post »

Yes, not only is feminism drawing mustachios on our women, turning them into pale facsimiles of men, the grimy loser ideology is also fattening Americans up for the pig roast. How so, you ask?

The obvious mechanism is through the concerted propaganda effort to elevate deviancy to a sainted virtue, and taint normalcy by reducing it to just another lifestyle choice. The growing (heh) fat acceptance movement is one such example of this emergent social experiment. Platitudes (“we’re all beautiful in our own way”) and shibboleths (“real women have curves!”) and outright lies (“men are culturally conditioned to prefer thin women”) are the feminist’s tools of the trade. All delivered in the dulcet tones of a screeching hyena.

But there’s another, more insidious, reason why feminism bears a heavy debt of responsibility for the American obesity epidemic: by haranguing women to enter the workforce, they encouraged them to leave the homeforce in droves. This mass exodus from the home resulted in fewer healthy, home-cooked meals for the family and more processed, high sugar, high GI insta-feed from the supermarket shelves and fast food reheateries as a substitute.

Mangan details this in his excellent post about supernormal stimuli:

And why do we eat fast food and sugar-laden food more now? The causes are complex, but do concern our political and social environment. I think that feminism, with all its attendant fallout, especially the entrance of women into the workplace, is one of the main social causes of the obesity epidemic. Because so many women work outside the home, the substitution of restaurant and convenience food for home-cooked meals has come to seem necessary for many people. These foods are precisely those that have greater reward value, and that is precisely because modern industrial food manufacturers have designed them to be so.

You want to reframe the national discourse so that feminism is killed dead before it has a chance to infect the next generation of hosts? Just tell a woman about to embark on a contorted feminist line of reasoning that feminism makes people fat. If you want to win hearts and minds, you’ve gotta hit ’em where it matters. And for women, it matters most in the size of their figures.

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hell, yes, we should!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No thanks to feminists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: