Why Are Feminists Against The Male Pill?

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

The Excel Spreadsheet Guy And His Female Equivalent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Gotta Love The Washington Uterus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

The Pay Gap Is A Lie

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Are Women Less Appreciative Than Men?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

It’s Time For Women To Woman Up

There’s been a lot of talk lately in the mainstream (read: leftist) media organs about the rising numbers of single moms and their bastard spawn in America, a dystopian trend to which hosts at Le Chateau were generous enough to alert the reading audience on and off over the past four years. The hand-wringing, the excusing and the rationalizing have reached a fever pitch as sob stories of tragicomic proportions litter the pages of esteemed broadsheets like the Beta Times. It’s a crescendo of heartwarming, anti-male anecdotes about poor, put-upon single moms with snot machines in tow bitterly complaining about the lack of good, reliable men.

Reading this gruesome tripe, something occurs to me. Not once, not anywhere, is the point of view of the typical man in these benighted communities across America examined. Nowhere did I find a mention, even the slightest acknowledgement, of the responsibility that women bear to attract a decent man for marriage and future fatherhood. It’s just assumed that men alone are the sex abdicating their societal duty, that all women need to do is show up, no matter how broken, bedraggled and burdened with bastards, and men will feel an overwhelming urge to marry these unfeminine, spiteful ogresses and provide for them. Yeah right!

Peruse any feminist or beta male columnist pontificating on the single mom + illegitimate hellion phenomenon, and the message condenses to a screech against male desire, tantamount to a lede saying “Men drop out, women and children suffering, men need to man up”. Someone should acquaint this crowd with the saying “it takes two to tango”.

If you want to know why men are running away from marriage, children and beta provisioning, one major reason is that the women available to these working class men are flat out disgusting. Take a look for yourself. What man of normal mental health and active libido wants to romantically woo and date, let alone marry, a beastly, waddling tatted mountain of pustulence with the issue of three other men barking and nipping at her cankles?

If you were a man with diminishing job prospects and stagnant wages thanks to mass low-skill immigration and automation, would you “man up” and “do your duty” for the sake of societal health and elite approval if the only women in your milieu are snorting megafauna hiding week-old salami in their stomach folds and eager to have you babysit their fatherless womb filth? Or would you say “fuck it”, hit the XBox and apply a dollop of asshole game to score a succession of flings and one night stands with the few remaining slender babes in your neighborhood?

And let’s not forget that economically empowered and government-assisted women, slaves to their hypergamous impulse for higher status mates than themselves, can’t help but winnow the pool of men deemed acceptable marriage material. When women say “there are no good men left”, what the astute observer hears is “there are no good men left thanks to a combination of my increased expectations and decreased attractiveness.”

So instead of facing the sexual market head on and grappling with its workings, you get “family values” white knighting numbskulls like BIll Bennett, lost for anything insightful to say, berating men for abandoning those incorruptible angels known as women, and feminists like Katie Roiphe, doing what feminists divorced from reality do best, recasting single momhood and bastard spawn into a valid alternative lifestyle that we should all show more tolerance toward, and redefining standards of civilized family functioning to avoid the omnipresent gaze of the evil eye of judginess.

And there you have the crassest self-deception of the traditionalist and feminist mindset laid bare: the former refusing to understand that standards of sexual behavior are a two-way street, the latter refusing to accept that standards of sexual behavior can’t be waved away to turn losers into winners.

If single momhood and bastard spawn are the blights on civilized Western society that all the data and real world observations indicate they are, then this blog’s simple program to save the institution of marriage is required reading for the “experts”. I’d add the following suggestions you won’t see in the mainstream media to encourage marriage and the formation of two-parent households among the non-elite classes:

Women —

Lose weight. Stop being so goddamned fat. Men are more willing to provide for women who are young and slender.

Learn to use contraception. Do not get pregnant outside of marriage. Men really don’t like taking on the responsibility of children not their own.

Try not to fuck around so much. Men are not enthusiastic about marrying women whose vaginas have played host to numerous cocks before them.

Government — 

Stop paying women for pumping out broods of bastards. You get more of what you pay for. Let the infants die of exposure if necessary. There’s nothing like the starvation death of a newborn child to clarify the mind.

Stop offering incentives to women to attend college and training classes. End all affirmative action for women. Governmental incentives like this effectively price working class men out of marriage contention.

Stop making laws that mandate companies have to accommodate pregnant women and mothers. Substituting big daddy government for beta provider men means fewer beta provider men.

“Experts” —

Relearn the valuable lesson that shame is a great motivator of human behavior. Stop normalizing the abnormal. Call a spade a spade, a bastard spawn a bastard spawn. This is the kind of hammer blow to the head that the lower classes need so that they know which life choices are good for them and which life choices are bad for them.

Do not be afraid to be judgmental. Judgment is alpha.

Self-esteem is not a virtue, it is a symptom. Get the causality straight.

Feminists —

Shoot yourselves. Seriously. You do no one but your own tender egos any good. Your semantic wordplay does nothing to thwart the inevitable reckoning.

Lords of Lies —

Start thinking about what kind of society your lies will create in the long term. That is, if you care at all.

Men —

Read this blog. If the rules won’t play by you, then learn to play by your own rules.

And finally, to the factory-farmed ivory tower sociologists studying marriage trends and turning out paper after paper of half-assed hogwash: there’s a whole other world out there. It’s the world of men, and in that world, men’s desires matter. You should think about incorporating that ugly reality into your theories.

In short, men will man up when women woman up. Because women, as the gatekeepers of sex, get the men they deserve. And, more often than not, what they deserve is what they want.

Read Full Post »

Hugo Schwyzer’s Phony Feminism

Our favorite false flag limpwrist, Hugo Schwyzer, is licking the hairy taint of feminists once more in a vomitous piece about the popularity among men of “barely legal” porn. He really tries hard to put a feminist-friendly (read: anti-male) spin on the uncomfortable reality that men naturally prefer the stimulating sight of lithe, supple, fully ripe young women.

Across the web, videos and images featuring 18- and 19-year-olds — or actresses in their twenties trying to look younger — are by every measure the most in demand. “Teen porn” is the most common genre-specific term used in Google searches, and teen-themed videos dominate the top 25 most-viewed videos on YouPorn. (Link is absolutely NSFW.) […]

Beyond Derbyshire, the most common explanation given for adult men’s particularly intense attraction to teen girls is reproduction. But on closer scrutiny that theory falls apart. Women’s fertility peaks between 22 and 26, well after their “salad days” have come to a close.

The argument that men in their 30s, 40s, and beyond are evolutionarily hardwired to lust after girls just above or below the adulthood threshold has less merit than we think.

One alternative answer has much more to do with adult men’s anxiety than with their reproductive longings. In the fantasy world of “barely legal” pornography, the teen girl is an ingénue longing for sexual initiation at the hands and body of an experienced older man. For an older man (the average male porn user is over 30) perhaps intimidated by the erotic and emotional demands of his own female peers, the imagined naïveté of a much-younger woman is a source of comfort. The less experience she has, the less likely she’ll mock his clumsiness and the more likely she’ll appreciate whatever savoir-faire he does possess.

[ed: alert! feminist feelgood twaddle incoming] The reality is that only those who are wise and confident enough to challenge us can help us grow. Age isn’t just a number; that confidence and wisdom takes time to emerge. So when men eroticize the young, the tentative, and the innocent — for whatever reason — they’re possibly just eroticizing their own reluctance to accept adulthood and responsibility. In that scenario, everybody loses.

This guy can really fling the bullshit. Only someone with intimate knowledge of the subject of barely legal teens can so effortlessly BS his way into nonsensical alternate explanations for male sexual behavior that are otherwise easily explained by a naturally evolved male preference for peak fertility women with little baggage. After all, he’s gotta cover his ass for past, uh… indiscretions. As Bill Clinton understood, nothing distracts feminist attention from one’s own very unfeminist lifestyle like mouthing the platitudes feminists want to hear.

I was once a broken, bad man taking advantage of young women, but now I have seen the light! Praise the bog! Men suck! Men have issues! Men are intimidated by older women! Speaking of which, let’s you and I go for a drink after class today and discuss our mutual loathing of rape culture. I’ll pay just the tip. Heh heh heh.

First, Schwyster is wrong about women’s peak fertility. He pulled his number from Wikipedia which should be a clue to take it with a grain of salt. The age range varies in the studies I’ve seen, but basically most peg female peak fertility in the 18-24 year range. Since barely legal porn filmmakers, by law, can’t hire girls under 18, the most important premise of Schwyster’s argument falls apart before he’s even out of the gate. Instead of confirming Schwyster’s fevered pathologizing of normal male sexuality, the evidence that men prefer watching porn featuring 18-21 year old girls, who are within the peak fertility range, simply affirms the evolutionary theory that gives hives to feminists and feminist suck-ups like Schwyster.

Second, men lust for younger women because those women are less likely to be saddled with other men’s children, or to be pregnant by other men. A young woman’s implied virginity means that fucking her results in a greater chance that any kids she pops out will be that man’s kids. This is important to men, as evolutionary theory would conclude, because men, unlike women’s perfect knowledge of maternity, do not have guarantees of paternity. So men must rely on other signals, such as the youth, fidelity and relative inexperience of their lovers.

Anxiety, or that catch-all feminist trope “intimidation”, has got nothing to do with men’s preference for younger women. It’s all about the sexy biology. By way of analogy, if older men are intimidated by the “erotic and emotional demands” of their female peers, then using Schwyster’s reasoning we may assert that women, who exhibit preferences for higher status men and older men, are intimidated by the erotic and emotional demands of younger men and lower status men. Of course, no one ever makes that claim. Because it’s stupid on its face. Much like Schwyster’s claim that men are intimidated by older, less fertile, less attractive women is stupid on its face. Women aren’t attracted to lower status men, just as men aren’t attracted to older women.

Schwyster knows all this, too, which makes him a phonyfuck of the highest caliber. The guy spent his early years as a professor cashing in his higher status for the pleasure of fucking his 18-21 year old students. Maybe he is wracked with guilt, and his current ultrafeminist stance is his form of atonement. Or maybe (and more likely, in my view) his hypocritical feminist sycophancy is a ruse to get in the panties of the deluded naifs who take his classes.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The difference between me and a lickspittle errand boy like Schwyster is that I don’t go around claiming there’s something psychologically wrong with men for desiring the hot bods and feminine charms of young women. I don’t blame a guy like Schwyster for wanting to stick his dick in his peak fertility students, nor do I stroke feminist egos to earn PC brownie points and page views.

PS Hugo, word of advice. You can get a lot further with better looking, mentally stable women by not sucking up to them so badly. Chicks dig unapologetic men.

Read Full Post »