Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Misandry’ Category

Chalk up another loss for the “divorce experts” (aka the “man-hating feminist cunts, phaggy white knight enablers, demagogic politicians, and greedy lawyers”): the financial impact of divorce hits men hardest.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies has found divorced people aged over 55 had less disposable income and fewer assets than their married counterparts.

The study also said men end up worse off, but this is in contrast to the views of divorce experts, who say older women are the ones who are missing out financially. […]

The study examined the financial consequences of divorce for up to 3,000 older Australians between 2001 and 2016, using data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics Surveys.

It found that during this period, there had been a 10 per cent increase in divorce.

The research also found that men were slightly [ed: “slightly”? see below] worse off than women when it came to household disposable income.

Click on the direct link to the study for actual numbers on how men are getting ass-raped by the divorce industrial complex:

Australian Institute of Family Studies Director, Anne Hollonds said the study focused on people who had divorced on average 15 to 20 years ago and found their finances remained in a weaker position than their married counterparts.

“Our analysis shows that divorced men and women have less household disposable income than their married counterparts at this later stage in life. On average divorced single men were $10,000 worse off and divorced single women were $6,300 worse off over the 16 years,” she said.

This is in Australia, an Anglosphere nation as overrun with man-hating feminist idiocy as any Inner Hajnalian formerly all-White nation, so you can assume the same study in the US would have similar results.

The study doesn’t speculate why divorced men are financially harmed worse than are divorced women, but I can offer a few guesses why:

  1. there is more institutional discrimination against older men in the job market than exists for older women seeking work
  2. divorced men (have to) spend more of their own money to attract a new lover, whereas divorced women can leverage their cooking skills and holes to gain access to a new man’s money
  3. divorce on the whole redistributes money from men to women
  4. alimony and child support costs fall largely on divorced men

What’s funny is that a raft of studies show that men are financially more responsible than are women, so the “divorce gap” in household disposable income that favors women could conceivably be a lot smaller or even reversed if divorced women didn’t have the option (mostly unavailable to divorced men) to cajole new lovers to pick up the tab.

***

From very occasional poster,

My ex gets 30% of my military retirement until I die (her lawyer screwed up twice–she was eligible for 34% and he didn’t even ask for SBP until it was way too late and he was legally not allowed to). She $2,000 a month in alimony for the first four years after the divorce, so she got over $3,200 a month free and clear. Yet she somehow managed to run up $80,000 in debt in the first year after we divorced.

Wait, the children lived with me. After a few years she was up to $30,000 behind in unpaid child support. Took her to CS court, was asked why I was harassing this poor woman. After the first hearing, I told my lawyer that if the roles were reversed I would have left that hearing room in cuffs. My lawyer disagreed. After the second hearing where the judge nearly held her in contempt just for attending (child support court is technically the state vs the payer, as the father I was irrelevant), she agreed.

Five years after the divorce, my first child is a full ride scholarship at a decent private college. My second is a senior in high school. I am wasting money fighting her annual round of contempt claims, but so what, I managed to rear them safe from her and her thoroughly documented physical and emotional abuse. I make a healthy six figures.

What made it possible was I read all the warnings about divorce and divorce court, and took them seriously. I documented thoroughly. I didn’t waste the court’s time or my money on anything irrelevant to the well-being of our children, who were themselves insistent to the social welfare thugs that they wanted to live with their father, period. I knew that any financial good deed to the ex would be wasted and would mean nothing to the court, so I gave none. Her lies to people cost me jobs I had lined up, so I went unemployed for years and let her deal with the consequences.

I’ve told many men this, but they don’t get it. They are their own worst enemies. Develop a cold heart and steel yourself so that you don’t react to anything she does or says. Concede nothing, so many men give away the farm. I had to flee the house in the middle of the night with our children, but I had a place to go to and called the police along the way. Guess what, it’s just a legal for men to do that as women. I filed for the TCO, the TRO and the house, how many men do that? What did the constabulary say when they arrived at my refuge? “About damn time you did something, mate.”

I am the exception to the crippling poverty, and there is a ton of luck behind that outcome, but fortune favors the prepared. I knew the truth about women, and about the family court system, so I didn’t let myself get financially raped while crying about fairness. Finding myself on a tilted playing field, I figured out how to tilt it in my children’s favor. I was accused of being dirty, cold, unkind, unforgiving, I never cared. No one, but no one, cares about my children like I do, no matter how much they say they do (usually for a gummint paycheck). No fucks given.

These war stories from the divorce trenches are tough to read, but every man should read them because a little preparedness and clarity of mind beats getting caught in the id-shredding shrapnel of a scorned woman with her merc army of lawyers and judges.

Read Full Post »

37 women before and after their impact with cunt’th wave feminism.

The transformation above 🖕🏻 is the most heart-wrenching to me. Something snapped in her. You can see the joyous femininity in the first pic replaced in the second pic by a seething bitterness. Alpha widowhood?

Total destruction 🖕🏻. Could be two different species.

Women, DON’T DO DYKES. And stay away from the buffet.

Lesson: feminism is as destructive of female beauty as is hitting the Wall.

Why would pretty women hideously disfigure themselves? Jack McKrack writes,

women are literally psychologically handicapped. if you were a young hottie, think about what it would take for you to turn your back on a life of privilege – thousands of beta orbiters ready to serve your every beck and call, free drinks, free food, endless favors, etc. – to be a hideous freak who’s despised by all but those in your freak sorority?

i get why fugs go 3rd wave. they’re a laughingstock, or worse – they’re invisible. feminism at least makes them into *something* that has to be acknowledged in a room. but why on earth does a hard 7 with the world as her oyster go 3rd wave?!

It would be as if mark zuckerberg threw away his billions, his houses, his cars, and drove his company into bankruptcy…..

hm wait, it kind of is still like that for him.

Speculating, I offer the following explanations for uglifying behavior that seems to defy the Darwinian Directive.

  • fatherlessness, weak fathers, slutty mothers, and supplicating millennial males.
  • burned by a jerkboy lover, the embrace of ugliness “protects” these girls from getting burned again
  • disgusted by cloying beta males, the ugliness likewise “protects” the girls from “creeps”
  • basic bitch misandry (“i hate men so i will deprive them of their greatest pleasure: pretty girls”)
  • experimental lesbianism that went too far
  • feminist brainwashing by evil professors filling her head with garbage
  • and finally, don’t underestimate the impact that shifting cultural mores can have on individual behavior: the culture inculcates rabid man-hate and toxic grrlpower. it shouldn’t surprise that marginal, weak-willed chicks heed the agitprop and conform to the new norms.
  • F YOU DAD
  • you know how some men have a fear of success because success means they have to abandon their excuses and rationalization for inaction? feminism disfigurement could be similar for women: a fear of romantic success because they don’t want to abandon their excuses and rationalizations for failing to secure a man in a committed relationship.

Ironsides looks on the bright side,

They’re revealing their inner selves as a warning for those who observe the world with a trace of sanity.

In doing so, they’re most likely removing themselves from the genetic future of our race.

This is a good thing. More power to them. The monster within has decided to show itself outwardly as well.

We can’t afford to lose very many pretty White girls to the Feminism abattoir. The death of a million fugs is a statistic; the loss of one cute girl to feminism is a tragedy. It’s a goddamned shame to lose any of these girls to their inner demons. Some of those girls were downright hot before the feminism cerberus ate their souls and turned them into unlovable, unfuckable monsters. A shame for them, and a shame for the newly minted incel betas who now have fewer cute girls available to them.

PS Totally related: The JQ: An Empirical Examination.

Read Full Post »

The American Library Association has been overrun by gloryholing nümales, rug munchers, and pussyhatters. (see slideshow)

ljl at that banal intersectionalist poopytalk at the bottom.

If Ben Franklin could have seen what would become of the American Library institution, he would have stayed in Paris, enjoying ze poolside.

The American Library Association is now staffed and overseen by submissive beta bitchboys, aggrocunt feminists, and ex-DMV employees, all of them intent on achieving final victory over the hated (and self-hated) White Man: corruption of his institutions, erasure of his history, and replacement by his lessers.

When weak men and abrasive women have captured the institutions, decay, desecration, and destruction of those institutions isn’t far behind.

Related: There is evidence (thank you, ¡SCIENCE!) that big goofy smiles — aka gloryhole faces — are associated with lower dominance and lower prestige.

Across four studies, the current paper demonstrates that smiles are associated with lower social status. Moreover, the association between smiles and lower status appears in the psychology of observers and generalizes across two forms of status: prestige and dominance. In the first study, faces of fashion models representing less prestigious apparel brands were found to be more similar to a canonical smile display than the faces of models representing more prestigious apparel brands. In a second study, after being experimentally primed with either high or low prestige fashion narratives, participants in the low prestige condition were more likely to perceive smiles in a series of photographs depicting smiling and non-smiling faces. A third study of football player photographs revealed that the faces of less dominant (smaller) football players were more similar to the canonical smile display than the faces of their physically larger counterparts. Using the same football player photographs, a fourth study found that smiling was a more reliable indicator of perceived status-relevant personality traits than perceptions of the football players’ physical sizes inferred from the photographs.

Another nugget of Chateau wisdom lovingly polished by the labcoats.

  • Betas smile too little and smile too much

Yeah, it seems contradictory, but betas never have a firm grasp on when and how often it’s personally advantageous to smile. They don’t smile when they walk into the bar or before they’ve started talking to a girl, and they smile too much once they are in a conversation with a girl. This behavior reveals their tormented beta soul: They are unhappy to be there until a girl’s presence makes them happy. Would an alpha relinquish his state of mind to another person? Especially a woman? No. His joy is self-generated.

When you go out to FMAC girls, try this face for best results:

In the big picture analysis, the efflorescence of gawping soyboys indicates a bifurcating sexual market featuring the cad haves and the incel have-nots. The open-mouthed betas are advertising their submission to the new paradigm whenever they get the chance, hoping an alpha will toss them one of his sloppy fifths and the manjawed shrikes who work with them won’t accuse them of a #MeToo infraction. This period of Western history, particularly in America, is notable for the appeasing prostration of its mass of beta males. The pendulum will eventually swing back to confident beta males in charge of the culture, and when it does it will swing with a vengeance, because we’ve gone much further down the road of anti-beta male degeneracy.

Also related: Richard Spencer’s Alt-Right website was de-registered by GoDaddy at the request of a butthurt black woman “civil rights” lolyer. Hey, how about that! Diversity isn’t so great for free speech! Corporations that cave like this to shrieking anti-White mobs ought to be de-registered from earth.

Read Full Post »

Hat tip, El Kapitan, who writes,

Check out this one. It sums up western Europe so beautifully:

-A rude, aggressive immigrant openly breaking the law.
-A well meaning but completely powerless “native” man.
-A virtue signaling woman, complete with what appears to be a variation of a pussy hat. Prepare to feel organically misogynistic by the end.

Englishmen are the world’s most pathetic White Knights. Even the stronger among them who have the stones to reprimand a drunk migrant on public transit will wilt like summer flowers under the stern gaze of one of their shitlib women.

And just as expected, the Pathetic White Knight receives for his valor the reward of one of his own women coming to the defense of the ingrate migrant. You know how those Western educated shitliberal chicks dig jerkboys! Maybe that’s the problem…Western women don’t want to be their Western men’s women any longer; they want to be the Swarth World’s women.

williamk adds,

My shilling is on limey. Firm, still body language, holds eye contact. Migrant always looks away first and has more random, uncontrolled energy. Would it translate to a fight? Don’t know, but the brit is clearly the alpha of the dynamic here. He even gets up for the “lady” and then swats away her little soliloquoy with total frame control.

Like DNC, I suspect gypsy. Would a “polish” guy be so quick to play the “race” card? I truly don’t know, UK brahs can help – do poles play the racial outsider angle like this? Its fishy.

The drunk looks gypsy or Serb to me, but he could be a mixed ethnicity Pole. Poles have assimilated well in the US, having caused very little trouble historically in this country. I can tell you for sure that if this migrant had been a kebab or cannibal, our Englishman would have taken a knife to the gut as soon as he opened his mouth to complain. But I agree with williamk; the limey has the alpha body language and vocal tone here. Too bad he gives it all away as soon as yon faire maiden chastised him.

“Shut up, cunt,” was the only acceptable response to that fishmouth termagant when she decided to stretch out her piehole and virtue snivel for the assembled.

I can tell you this…White Men of the West are getting pissed off. If the current state of Uppity Phaggotry will ever end, it will be at the hands and by the will of angry White Men.

White men want their White women to stand by them in their fight against the Invasion. Instead, our White women prefer betrayal. They won’t be loyal until White men wield the pimp hand again. And that means White Knights have to be as mercilessly mocked as is civilization’s mortal in-house enemy, the pursed-lip pussyhatter femcunt.

Sanctimonious, virtue sniveling White women who refuse to fight for their nations by standing by their men are mortal enemies of the West. They will only defer to the pimp hand.

***

A pro comment from Scanman:

Note the invader’s assertion that “you have no right to tell me not to drink. Tell the police.”

The idea that rules are something members of a community agree to abide by in order to maintain certain standards and quality of life of the community is a high trust culture idea (Anglo Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian).

In asiatic/Mid East/African cultures, rules are something decreed from the top down to be obeyed solely to avoid punishment. If you can reliably avoid punishment (which this belligerent asshole knew for certain that he could), there is no reason to obey them.

Now keeping this in mind, someone please explain to me how The Bill of Rights survives when the founding Anglo Saxon stock becomes a minority in the US. If you think Guatemalans or Nigerians give two fucks about such things, you are completely deluded. It was something they had to know to pass the citizenship exam. Nothing more.

Society is a genetic construct. Women don’t have to understand it but they sure as hell have to abide by it or we might as well just burn the whole bitch down.

I’d argue it’s a fool’s errand trying to impart understanding of biocultural realities to women; they will only revolt against those realities. Better and more effective to expect women to simply abide social rules. The trick is ensuring that the social rules are created by White men and not by ingrate invaders.

Read Full Post »

From (of all places) Real Clear Politics, an essay on David Lisak and the lies about campus rape he pushed onto an eagerly believing academia and equally gullible legal system, to the detriment of American men everywhere.

Discredited Sex Assault Research Infects U.S. Legal System […]

The example discussed here began with a small study by an associate professor at a commuter college in Massachusetts. The 12-page paper describing the study barely created a stir when it was published in 2002. Within a few years, however, the paper’s principal author, David Lisak, a University of Massachusetts-Boston psychologist, began making dramatic statements that extrapolated far beyond the study’s conclusions. He created, virtually out of whole cloth, a theory that “undetected” serial rapists are responsible for 90 percent of assaults on college campuses, that they premeditate and plan their attacks, and that they are likely to have committed multiple acts of violence.

When speaking on campuses, to the military, and to law enforcement, Lisak started showing a highly disturbing video that he claimed was based on the transcript of an actual interview with a campus rapist to whom Lisak gave the name “Frank.” The authenticity of the video has been seriously questioned, raising grave doubts about Lisak’s contention that it illustrates the typical campus perpetrator—in his view, an unrepentant sociopath who cannot be reached or educated.

A news search for mentions of Lisak finds only a single one prior to 2009, in which he revealingly opined in an urban policy magazine about the Duke lacrosse rape hoax. He was interviewed again by CBS News in November 2009 about non-stranger rapes. He increasingly became the draw at conferences on sexual assault and his calendar filled with campus presentations. The media began to fawn over him […]

As his celebrity grew, the gap between documented facts and his status as an expert became almost inconsequential.

Criticism did eventually catch up to David Lisak. His serial predator model of campus rape has been compellingly debunked by scholarly researchers and well-regarded publications, including investigative articles and a book. His claims regarding the psychology of campus perpetrators were revealed to be based on nonexistent interviews. […]

His assertions, allegedly supported by a study he co-authored in 2010, that false accusations of sexual assault are exceedingly rare, have been shown to violate basic math by counting as true cases that didn’t qualify as sexual assault, had insufficient evidence to make a determination, or were referred for prosecution but about which the outcome was unknown.

As for Lisak’s vague statements about having interviewed “hundreds” of serial rapists (occasionally styled as “thousands” when others talk about him), in truth no evidence exists that Lisak has interviewed any “undetected rapists,” serial or otherwise, since his dissertation research 30 years ago.

Feminism, of the femcunt or mangina variety, causes real pain and extracts real tribute from innocent men. It’s essentially blackmail of men, a ransom on normal healthy masculinity. Feministism is a blight on the country and should be taken seriously as a wicked ideology which destroys lives, communities, and whole nations.

Unfortunately, our “elites” and our institutions in which we have placed our trust lap up the lies of feminism and beg for more of that man-hating vitriol:

Yet all of these devastating exposés have barely dented Lisak’s popularity. […]

Were the damage wrought by David Lisak’s popularity confined to his college-circuit road show, there might be some hope that his toxic influence would be worn down by the critical thinking ostensibly prized by the academy.

Instead, that has not happened. The list of invited presentations, workshops, and media appearances in which he has hawked his unsubstantiated theories runs an additional 40 pages on his curriculum vitae. Among the most worrisome aspects of Lisak’s presentations and workshops is how they appear to be gaining influence among professionals close to the investigation and adjudication of sexual assault. His debunked serial predator theory and wildly extrapolated statistics on the false-accusation rate form the core of the training materials he has developed—and in some cases sold to law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and the military.

Read on, it gets worse. The System is utterly and totally rigged against men.

Most troubling of all, Lisak’s material is being codified in law enforcement policies, legal precedents, and judicial guidelines at the local, state, and federal levels.

The Sexual Offense Bench Guide for judges in the state of Washington, for example, draws liberally from Lisak’s 2008 publication “Understanding the Predatory Nature of Sexual Violence.” His claims have been similarly incorporated into New Mexico’s Sexual Assault Bench Book, the Tribal Court Judges Bench Book on sexual assault, the Missoula County Attorney’s Office Policy and Procedure Manual, the Pennsylvania Crimes of Sexual Violence Benchbook, New York State’s Judicial Symposium, Wisconsin’s Prosecutor’s Sexual Assault Reference Book, and the Judge Advocate General Corps Criminal Law Desk Book.

The relationship between prosecutors, judges and the juries who will ultimately arrive at verdicts in criminal trials is further tainted by recommendations that prosecutors and judges incorporate into the jury selection process: namely, Lisak’s claim that false accusations are rare and his unsupported theory about serial offenses.

JAG guidelines for prosecutors, for example, advise that “myths” about the frequency of false reports be challenged “directly, in voir dire and in argument.” Prospective jurors whose information does not align with the (inaccurate) information provided in guidelines influenced by Lisak could then be dismissed and/or a seated jury could be told of the supposedly “true” facts.

Ignoramous snarkmouths mock anti-feminism as “male whining”, but flesh and blood innocent men are being chewed up and their livelihoods destroyed by this lying spiteful institutionalized femcuntery that has polluted our legal system:

A judge in Montana, for example, denied a request to have a case dismissed on the grounds of a Missoula police department requiring officers to presume the guilt of the accused when investigating sexual assault. The judge stated that she based her ruling on Lisak’s (baseless, and thus misleading) testimony about the low rate of false reports. When such decisions are made, when presumptions of guilt are part of the training of judges and prosecutors, or reflected in jury instructions, innocent defendants are put in harm’s way.

No institution is immune from the feminist gelding project. The media are bullhorns for every crackpot man-hating feminist or mangina claim that lands in their Faceborg feeds:

Even those ostensibly in the business of impartial news coverage have been tainted by their own guidelines, as when the media have been fed the same misinformation, masquerading as insight. Their contribution to the problem is further amplified when they are further advised not to use the phrase “rape allegation” because “allegation is not a neutral term and strongly implies doubt,” and they fail to see that the alternative suggested—“reported rape”—implies an act that has, indeed, happened, distinguished only by the fact that it is on record.

The authors of this piece ask:

Where does that leave those for whom accuracy, integrity, and truth matter?

Crushed underneath the jackboot of the Anti-White Male Narrative enforcers.

This is not an easy assignment, but the use of good lawyering to dismantle bad “research” can be powerful, and good courtroom theater as well. When faced with a Lisakian claim that “only 6 percent of rape allegations are false,” the defense attorney can ask what percent, then, are true? David Lisak himself would have great trouble answering that question without being exposed as a statistical manipulator, because his writings have never even addressed it. Rather, he has used misleading language to imply that almost all rape accusations have been proven true. Indeed, a good defense lawyer could fairly ask: “Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Lisak, that the number of rape accusations that have been proven false may well be larger than the number that have been proven true?”

Reminder that false rape accusations may be as high as 40-50% of total rape cases.

Women lie. Women especially lie about matters concerning sex. Shitlibs and tradcons need to deal with this fact of womanhood, and stop pretending belief in the Princess Proposition.

Lisak’s claims are wrong and the experts who tout them are vulnerable when asked direct questions. The discrediting of Lisak must become part of the court record, in case after case, before the far more difficult task of correcting the effects of his bogus claims on criminal justice policies can be accomplished.

The Truth won’t be denied forever. It will out, one way or another. And helping the Truth out will be the re-introduction of lots of Based White Gentile Men into the legal profession. More White Gentile shitlord lawyers will put these laywercunts and their greasy society-subverting (((accomplices))) under the microscope, their biases and agenda revealed for the world to mock, their malfeasance exposed, and themselves along with their standing army of Fake Social Scientists punished with extreme prejudice.

The focus here has been on one particular—and particularly problematic—conveyer of misinformation. David Lisak’s high profile and willingness to depart from even his own published papers in service of an agenda makes him the embodiment of the attack on due process. But Lisak is not alone. He has recently been joined by other “experts” straying even further afield from verifiable data and often in direct contradiction of known science.

The Fuggeraut feels no guilt. The Hate Machine feels no empathy. Fuggernaut and the Hate Machine will only stop when they are stopped by a more powerful force wielding a more powerful weapon: The truth.

The difficulty of fighting the toxic distribution of misrepresentation and statistical sleight-of-hand is partially a function of high-profile purveyors and enablers.

sand-sophists

The codification of myths in law enforcement procedures; in the training of prosecutors and judges; and in policy at the town, county, state, and federal levels all but guarantees insidious and continuous regeneration.

There is a great deal of ruin in a nation, and there is a great deal of effort required to repair a ruined nation.

The roadmap such myths provide is wrong but concrete, offering up sociopathic villains in place of a continuum of offenders, permission to presume guilt in the absence of evidence, and a philosophy that accusers not only don’t lie but are never mistaken.

A lot of this man-hating false rape fabulism witch hunting is motivated by an ego-preserving shitlib urge to avoid confronting the elephant in the room: the massively disproportionate rate of black-on-white rape. The Lying Lisaks of the world give white feminists and their mangina lickspittles an excuse to avert their eyes and level their redirected rage against the object of their desire and envy: White Gentile Men.

Read Full Post »

Read this depressing but illuminating account by JudgyBitch recalling her wicked mother alienating her and her siblings from their father, and how it affected the children. At the end, a redemption and the victory of truth will lift your spirits, because this is one sad tale that is repeated all too many times in post-America.

There are two pills to swallow from this story. A Red Pill on the divorce industrial complex and how it effectively shields bad mothers and wives from punishment while shafting fathers and husbands with extreme prejudice, and a Crimson Pill on the primal sexual nature of even good-hearted, well-meaning women.

First, you take the Red Pill:

[My father] met my mother when she was just nineteen years old and he was considerably older.  He never told her about his family back in Germany, and they married and had four children by the time my mother was 25 years old. My three brothers, and me.

And they were fucking horrible parents.  There is no nice way to spin it.  They embraced a religion that encouraged extreme violence against children.  Their philosophy was that a child’s will must be completely broken so that the child will then accept the will of God.  My mother was ecstatically violent, and my father less so, but they were both culpable. Their particular brand of religious violence continues in America to this day.

[…]

And then….my mother discovered feminism. She exchanged one violent, irrational, dehumanizing ideology for another, and she soon decided that she needed a man like a fish needed a bicycle. After countless physically violent arguments with my father, including one episode where she hit him in the head with a cast iron frying pan and left him for dead on the front porch, he turned his back and walked away from us, just like his first family.

One day we woke up and he was gone. My mother was quick to inform us that he simply walked away, and left us to starve in the streets, and that she alone would be the sole reason we survived and prospered. She never missed an opportunity to curse him.  She told us about his first family, and how she did not need to divorce him, because they were never married in the first place.  She hated him and hated all men and our daily lives were filled with her anger and vitriol and violence.  She never gave a moment’s thought to what her hatred of men and our father was doing to her sons. She gave us daily rations of rage and blame and every bad thing that happened was always his fault.

Being a child, I believed it.  So did my brothers.

And we loathed him for it.  How could he leave us with such an evil woman? My mother once held a knife to my throat and made me beg for my life.  When I was eleven. And I remember going to bed, thinking not how much I hated her, but how much I hated HIM for leaving us to her devices.

Turning children against fathers has been a female specialty since forever, but only the post-industrial man-hating femcunt dystopia we know as the progressive West institutionalized and weaponized this malevolent female predilection, by removing moral culpability from women and adding a presumption of guilt to men.

The Red Pill payoff (you knew this was coming):

And then I received a phone call.  It was my father, calling to tell me that my mother’s mother had passed away, and that I should let her know.  So much of the pain had seeped away that I felt confident confronting my father, and I asked him why he had done it.

Why did you just turn your back and walk away?

And then the truth came to light.  He hadn’t walked away.  He certainly had not left us to starve.  My mother had filed for an annulment and requested a restraining order, which she was granted. When I finally saw my father again, he had two boxes with him.  One was filled with income tax returns showing that he had never missed a child support payment, and court orders preventing him from seeing us based on his violence towards my mother, along with supervised visitations that were all scheduled for when he was overseas, working to meet his child support payments.

The other box contained cards and letters.  Birthday cards and so many letters.  All returned.  By my mother.  He never stopped sending them, hoping one of us would one day get the key and fetch the mail, but my mother was always adamant that the mail was her business.

As an adult, it makes so much sense.  How did we continue to live in our house?  How was my mother able to afford food and clothing and YMCA memberships for four children without my father’s support? Of course she had his support.  But she hid it from us, and poisoned our minds against our father.  It’s called parental alienation, and she is not the first, nor the last woman to destroy her children in this way.

It’s a special kind of evil.

In the end, she meets her father, he asks her forgiveness for the way he raised her before her mother excised him from his kids’ lives, she forgives him and welcomes him into her family, he gratefully becomes a much better grandfather to her kids than he was a father to her. As for the awful mother, JudgyBitch did to her what mom did to her dad: removed her from her life.

Nestled in the middle of this story is a Crimson Pill so big it’s a choking hazard.

Interestingly enough, I was never attracted to men who behaved badly.  I never sought to enmesh myself in relationships that replicated the worst of my father.  Quite the opposite.  I didn’t seek out pain in an effort to work through what I had suffered.  I had a lovely boyfriend who was all kindness and sympathy.  He was the gentlest man I have ever known.  And I cannot adequately articulate how his gentleness and caring healed me.

He proposed marriage, but ultimately, he was far too compliant and mild, and I was disconcerted by his willingness to acquiesce to what I wanted, even though I never wanted anything bad.  I could trust him to treat me with the utmost kindness and care, but I could not lean on him.  That was impossible. I declined his proposal and moved on.

Appeasing, supplicating niceguys turn off women, because women perceive their niceness for weakness. And sometimes, the women are right. Very nice men who give women what they say they want, and who dutifully parrot feminist boilerplate and share the household chores under the false assumption that equality out of the bedroom is carnality in the bedroom, sow distrust in women.

Women trust the jerk because they know the jerk won’t tell them whatever he thinks will win their approval. And THAT’S how the jerk, ironically, wins their approval. By not trying for it.

A big reason women are attracted to jerkboys is the aversion jerkboys have for acquiescing to anyone’s demands, let alone women’s demands. That delightfully novel and romantically exhilarating jerkboy self-regard leaves a potent impression on women, who see refracted in the trait a forthrightness and strength of character and purpose that is lacking in niceguys.

Recall the CH Poon Commandments: You are the oak tree, immoveable and solid, under which she frolics and runs to when the rains come. She senses this strength in jerkboys because she can trust them not to bend to her whim, unlike niceguys who do nothing but bend and bend until they’re licking girls’ boots. And no tingle ever gushered for a polite lackey.

***

safespaceplaypen comments,

Thesis:

Interestingly enough, I was never attracted to men who behaved badly. I never sought to enmesh myself in relationships that replicated the worst of my father. Quite the opposite…

Antithesis:

I had a lovely boyfriend who was all kindness and sympathy. He was the gentlest man I have ever known. And I cannot adequately articulate how his gentleness and caring healed me.

Synthesis:

He proposed marriage, but ultimately, he was far too compliant and mild, and I was disconcerted by his willingness to bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit logic bullshit logic bullshit I declined his proposal and moved on.

Heh. The Tingle is Synthesis. And Syllojizzm.

Read Full Post »

A heartwarming story for the holidays.

Tales of woe and perfidy like this one abound. The sexual and marital markets are two way streets. It takes two to tango. If our culture and society degrade or flourish, it will be because men AND women contributed in their particular ways.

Ignore this lesson to polish the pussy pedestal, and you are complicit in whatever social dissolution follows.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: