Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Misandry’ Category

A crooked-faced atheist chick has set the net aflame with a tragic tale of threatening elevator courtship that could rival Caylee Anthony’s death by single mom. According to her, an inept atheist nerd propositioned her in a hotel elevator, which caused her to nearly faint with an attack of the vapors, like any equalist gender-normed feminist would do. In brief, a man entered the elevator with her at 4AM after a “skeptics” conference had ended, and proceeded to awkwardly and nervously ask her out to coffee, which she declined.

Yep, that’s the whole story. Riveting stuff, ain’t it?

But the important thing to understand is how Indignant Atheist Chick FELT. To use her words, she felt

Uncooooomfortable.

Poor dear. And then right on cue a chorus of feminist commenters chimed in with accusations that the awkward elevator man was a potential rapist.

For a replay of the characters involved, here’s a withering rundown of the sordid affair, including links to limp-wristed nancyboys who couldn’t wait to jump like little doggies begging for table scraps from approving feminists.

Potential Rapist Syndrome is a mind virus infecting the brains of put-upon feminists all over America and Sweden. The slightest effrontery by a man not immediately deemed a charismatic alpha male by the woman victim causes the virus to multiply rapidly, resulting in flawed reasoning that imputes the worst possible motives to innocuous, if unattractively nerdy, male behavior. Using the illogic of this mind virus, any action that a man takes in attempt to pick up a woman is potential rape as long as she feels it is.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out in the park? Potential rapist.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out in a bar? Potential rapist.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out here or there? Potential rapist.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out in a house? With a mouse? Potential rapist.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out in a box? With a fox? Potential rapist.

Richard Dawkins was right. This is female hamster-fueled solipsism to the nth degree. The growth industry of Entitled American Bitches is feeding this female martyrdom indulgence in believing the Western world is out to get them. Only a foul bitch so full of herself, so enamored of her precious biological cargo, could wilt at the imaginary prospect that any man who awkwardly asks her out is itching to rape her before the elevator stops at the next floor. Hey Indignant Atheist Chick, Hogwarts called; they want their magical thinking back.

PRS is very similar to PMS in its symptoms. Women lose all logic and reason to a flood of hormones and emotional hysteria, rendering them unsuitable conversational partners until the episode has passed. Do not under any circumstance try to comfort a woman in the throes of PRS, or otherwise try to redeem your “inappropriate” behavior to make her feel better. She will simply lash out with increased rage, incoherent to everyone but herself, other sufferers of PRS and thimble-chubbed beta wankers hoping to sneak in their pants under cover of empathy. A woman experiencing PRS hates the mass of bumbling men for not knowing how to properly satisfy her desires for interaction with an aloof and charming alpha male. Like the PMS victim, any attempt to assuage her irrational torment will be met with an icy stare at best, and thrown objects at worst. Pointing out the flaws in the PRS sufferer’s anti-logic will be perceived by her as an act of psychological war, an imposition of your rigid male sexuality upon her enlightened female vulnerability and purity. Proceed with indifference.

Maxim #48: The feminist loathing of male desire is at the root of all their complaining about men and the dating scene. Feminists, in their hearts, despise the freedom and longevity of male sexuality. And they particularly despise that freedom when lowly beta males attempt to exercise it.

Thus ends the cultural dissolution portion of today’s lecture, and begins the game portion. Given the above, it will surprise some of the readers that this blog holds little sympathy for Inept Elevator Nerd. Asking a woman out for coffee before you’ve won her interest is bad game. Asking her out in an elevator at 4AM when she has nowhere to escape is bad game. Doing all of it with the nervousness of a beta herb who hasn’t had any for years is ZERO GAME.

Direct game of the sort that elevator dude “ran” is best used in open spaces where the woman won’t feel cornered. It’s good pickup strategy to give a woman the feeling of being able to freely excuse herself if she finds your hard sell lacking. A woman is more likely to allow her intrigue to flower if the man who approaches her with directness knows that she values an easy out should she need it. It’s an implied understanding that only men who have experience bedding women will know, and women know this.

Indirect game is better for enclosed spaces like elevators where the first goal is to make the woman feel comfortable in your presence. (Some pickup artists have successfully run direct game in elevators, but it requires a healthy dose of charisma and cocky humor, as well as the social savvy to defuse the inherent tension of small spaces. For example: “Oh, wow, an awkward elevator ride, just like in the movies. I’m getting off in three floors, so I’d better make my flirting count!”)

A man who directly approaches a woman in a context that offers her an unmessy exit is, in the woman’s hindbrain, a confident man unafraid of potential rejection. This is a tacit demonstration of higher value that will immediately set the tone of the pickup in the man’s favor. In contrast, a man who directly approaches a woman in a context that affords her no quick, polite escape is, in the woman’s mind and likely in reality as well, a desperate beta who needs to corner a woman to win an audience with her. She will easily and seamlessly rationalize this awkward behavior on his part as the machinations of a rapist’s mind.

Whenever you worry that the principles of game will become too well-known and overused by men, just remember Inept Elevator Nerd. The world is teeming with men like him who have zero clue how women work. Your worries that game will increase the competition above and beyond what female obesity is creating for the few remaining slender chicks in existence are unfounded. Inept Elevator Nerds continue to roam the plains in vast, undifferentiated numbers.

When in doubt about the goodness and righteousness of game, remember the fundamental rule of female magical thinking, gentlemen:

Beta = Potential rapist.

Alpha = It just happened!

No further explanation needed.

Read Full Post »

The rape case against DSK is falling apart because the accuser’s story isn’t adding up. She’s inconsistent and contradicting herself, according to prosecutors who are now debating whether to go forward with the charge.

Back in May, I wrote, in connection with the accuser’s statement that she was orally raped:

Is it even possible to mouth rape without some modicum of consent? Women have teeth; they could just chomp down.

I had a suspicion this story was fishy from the get-go. Feminists (of course!) will claim otherwise, that mouth rape is a plausible criminal offense, but the more plausible belief is that forcing your dick into an *unwilling* woman’s mouth is a dangerous sport and liable to get it bitten off. Or at least nicked, which is pretty damned painful on the sensitive penis shaft.

So the fact that this Guinean woman claimed to be mouth raped immediately roused me to disbelief. Roused, baby! And now it seems my initial gut reaction was correct: the bitch be lyin’. The fact that she was a foreign national also fueled my suspicions. Contrary to popular conception, the world isn’t full of Anglo-Germanic proto-Americans ready to be assimilated without incidence into the glorious melting pot.

False rape accusations seem to be on the rise. I remember reading a startling factoid somewhere that fully 50% of all rape charges are false. Can anyone dig up the data? I’d be curious if the trendline on FRAs is rising.

This is not to say that alpha males never do bad shit. When you are king of the world, you start to believe your turds are gold-plated, and nothing can touch you. DSK probably did something bad that nevertheless didn’t cross the rape line. But women are manipulative little creatures given the right incentives, and those who aren’t in love know they can leverage a wealthy and famous alpha male’s vices into personal gain and profit. This doesn’t happen as often as it could, because women involved with alpha males are usually in love with them, the power of being alpha and the influence it has on women’s feelings being what it is. It’s the loveless whores that alphas need to be wary of. (Paging Tiger Woods.) My suggestion to alpha males: If you’re gonna fuck around with the help and the strippers, throw them a bone occasionally. Tell her she smells nice, and you smiled when you thought about her today.

Read Full Post »

A couple was arrested for having consensual sex on a public beach in front of people dining in a nearby restaurant. The bail was set at $10,000 for the man, and $2,500 for the woman.

The anti-male commissars infesting our legal system are getting awfully bold, aren’t they? I would like a feminist, any feminist, to explain how exactly this bond disparity isn’t crass gender discrimination.

I won’t be holding my breath.

ps The arrested dude is one ugly mofo, but his face screams aloof asshole. And we all know how much young, hot girls swoon for assholes.

UPDATE

HalfCanadian writes:

The girl had 2 priors that have been posted. DUI and obstruction.

http://gawker.com/5814320/florida-couple-arrested-for-putting-on-surfside-sex-show?comment=40294078#comments

He has priors as well, which include a DUI with drug possession (Mary Jane and prescriptions).

So my original question remains valid. How is this disparate bond amount not gender discrimination under the law?

Read Full Post »

A reader writes:

Along the lines of the scholarship for white men, I was going into a supermarket on Saturday with a 16 YO guy who is the son of a friend. On the way in, he said exactly what I was thinking when we were approached to buy Girl Scout Cookies: “I only support groups for boys.”

His comment warmed my heart. There’s hope for the up-and-coming generation.

Is anyone surprised at this? Spend forty or fifty years rigging the social, legal and cultural apparatus of a nation to favor the advancement of women and to disparage the accomplishments and strengths of men and it’s just natural that bad blood will begin to course throught the veins of the body politic. Spite and self-interest will supersede trust and cooperation. Good job, diversity mongers.

In related news, the latest equalist howler is a Congressional report concluding that the US military is too white and too male at the top. Left off the report were the following study conclusions:

– nursing is too female
– the NBA and NFL are too black
– surrogate motherhood is too female
– sperm donors are too male
– tyrants, despots and dictators are too male
– China is too Chinese
– white men are too white

I don’t think it’s a good thing for a nation’s esprit d’unite if boys decide it is self-abasing to support girls programs, especially ones delivering a product as tasty as Girl Scout cookies. But it is understandable, and totally predictable, when the blank slate leftie loonies have had the run of the place for half a century and have been wildly successful implanting their brain disease into every crevice of polite thought and public policy. At the rate the anti-white male whores are going, we will be at each other’s throats in no time. Perhaps this is what our ruling elites want, for in the chaos they will opportunistically enrich themselves… until the day the ropes are swinging from the lampposts.

I don’t blame the kid in the reader’s anecdote for scoffing at supporting a girls’ program. In this day and age, it’s the manly thing to do.

Read Full Post »

Occasionally even a feminist manages a swiping glance at the truth. Naomi Wolf has a track record of immersing herself in a stinking pile of pretty lies, but her contention that widespread porn availability numbs men to the pleasures of “real women”* might have some merit.

(*Translating from the femcuntspeak, “real women” = aging, slovenly lardasses.)

A whole generation (or two) of men has grown up watching hot chicks have sex on the internet. Most of the girls in porn are better looking than the average fat American woman who couldn’t throw her cankles behind her ears if she tried. It’s not a stretch to think that such mass wanking to the top 10% in tight female bodies desensitizes men to sex with the rapidly dumpifying plain janes they meet in real life. Result: more pump and dumps as men feel less incentive to invest in these entitled shambling mounds.

So a reasonable argument could be made that hardcore porn has raised men’s expectations beyond practicality. Or that it has sated their desire to the point that men lack the motivation to aggressively pursue real life shit-testing women.

Ah, but as with so many theories propounded by feminists and family values conservatives, they utterly neglect to mention the role of female hypergamy and the effect that hypergamy has on women’s choices in the dating market. Remember the fundamental law of the sexual market: As the gatekeepers to sex, women get the men they deserve. If women are rewarding assholes and players with sex, then assholes and players are what men will emulate.

But thankfully the world is blessed with the wit and wisdom — and the sadism to tell it like it is — of the Chateau. So you come here for the full truth, because you think you can handle it. And the truth is that modern women have been gluttonously absorbing their own version of expectation-raising and niceguy-desensitizing porn…

Emotional pornography.

A commenter writes:

Women do have problems with false expectations of romance. Emotional pornography has really screwed with their heads.

Think Lifetime channel movies.

Bingo. Biologically, women don’t get off on visual porn the way men do. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have their own outlets for electrifying the beaver, or that they don’t avail themselves of these female-centric outlets with the same gusto that men do of theirs.

Let’s get right to it. Women masturbate to words. To stories. Stories as told in movies, books and TV. These stories share common themes, often featuring the hard-to-get, aloof alpha male preselected by tons of attractive women, and the maladroit beta male to play the foil. The alpha male in women’s fantasies is outsized. His kind exists in extraordinarily tiny numbers in the real world. Which makes his grudgingly surrendered love that much the sweeter.

Do not for a minute think men’s visual porn and women’s emotional porn aren’t comparable. They are exactly the same in purpose, and in function. Men jack off to YouPorn and women jack off to daydreams of Edward Cullen or Dr. McDreamy from Grey’s Anatomy. One inconsequential difference is that men’s jacking off is typically more physical in nature, with an unmistakeable denouement in ejaculation. Women, having a baseline hormonal horniness somewhat below that of men and being not quite as groin focused in their sexuality, express their jacking off in wistful, emotional mental journeys that occasionally culminate in vulval self-administration under the bedsheets late at night.

The end result of all this jacking off to ideal virtual lovers is the same for women and men: raised expectations and disappointment with the real life alternatives.

As most men are game-less herbs and provider betas, the explosion of emotional porn for women has indirectly caused the betas’ dating market value to drop, in the same way that YouPorn has caused the dating market value of average-looking, out of shape women to drop. The drop isn’t precipitous, because for most people bland but real sex still beats exciting but virtual sex. But the drop is enough to make a difference in the zeitgeist of the mating market, as well as within the quasi-confines of marriage.

Naomi Wolf and Kay Hymowitz think they get a free pass to shame men for watching porn to the detriment of relationships with real women. *cracks knuckles* Here’s a roll call of the leading outlets of emotional porn numbing our nation’s women to sex and relationships with real, normal, niceguys:

Grey’s Anatomy
Gossip Girl
The Bachelorette
Desperate Housewives
Sex and the City
Anything on Lifetime Channel or WeTV
Pretty much everything on the major networks in primetime
Any big studio rom-com
Twilight (books and movies)
Any and all pulp romance novels
Academy awards shows
Tabloids
The entirety of the insipid celebrity culture

American women, it’s time for you to woman up. Put down the celebrity rags and stop diddling the bean to the latest news about Jake Gyllenhaal’s love life. The future of your country rests on bringing your unrealistic ballooning expectations back down to earth, in line with what your flabby bodies, unfeminine personalities, galling sluttiness and crow’s feet actually offers men.

Read Full Post »

The Mark Sanchez story is funny from at least one angle — the daughters of single, slutty moms go on to be sluts themselves.

The rich, preppy Connecticut mom of 17-year-old Eliza Kruger — who said she “hooked up” with star Jets quarterback Mark Sanchez after meeting him at a Manhattan nightclub — “likes to party” on occasion with her sexy daughter, sources said yes terday.

“Eliza has been going to clubs since she was 15, sometimes with her mom,” blond Greenwich divorcée Marie McCormick Kruger, a night life source told The Post. […]

Her dad is multimillionaire Greenwich financier Konrad “Chip” Kruger. He and Marie had four kids together, including Eliza, before divorcing in 2006 after years of marital turmoil.

According to their divorce decision, which found neither party at fault, Marie Kruger in the mid-1990s flirted with and “kissed one or two times” a “gentle man” she had met at a local watering hole. In July 2005, the decision said, Chip Kruger “learned that she had slept with her rowing coach” while the Krugers were attempting a reconciliation.

Lesson: Millions of dollars does not necessarily an alpha make. Nor does it prevent your wife from cheating with her rowing coach. And that kid went ha haaw!

You gotta love this aging cougar mom hanging out with her daughter at nightclubs known to be pickup spots for alpha males. Has there been a more obvious case of a sad sack wall victim living vicariously through her hot n sexy spawn?

On a more serious note, the Sanchez case, and others like it, prove that the statutory rape laws in this country are well-nigh fucked beyond any semblance of fairness. It’s time to end strict liability. If a 17 year old has the sense of mind to lie about her age so that she can bang an older athlete, then she can give consent to sex as well. It is not the responsibility of men to do background checks of every young-looking woman they meet. The courts must catch up to the fact that women are hypergamous, and that a result of that hypergamy is a tendency to prefer fucking older, higher status men.

Read Full Post »

This guy draws an interesting comparison between feminism in ancient Rome and present day America, and how the rise of feminism portends a civilization’s collapse. The parallels are chilling. Yeah, it’s Reddit, waddaya want from me? You think you’re gonna get this kind of cutting edge analysis in the New York Beta Times?

Unfortunately, feminism and future is an oxymoron (or fortunately, depending on your point-of-view), as it seems to be unsustainable on the long run.

Based on past history, it appears that a civilization that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in just a few centuries. This is why we have never seen a feminist civilization aside from very short spans at the end of the Roman empire and possibly a few other more ancient civilizations.

Reading the history of the Roman Empire brings such glaring similarities with our own civilization, it is as if human social dynamics are literally stuck in a cycle that repeats every couple thousand years (there were two matriarchical, extremely advanced civilizations: one at the end of the Roman empire, 2000 years ago, one possibly at the end of Babylon, 4000 years ago).

For those who enjoy history, here is a short recap of social changes in Rome, 2 millenia ago (most historians focus on military and political facts, but I find the social aspects just as fascinating):

  • ~5 century BC: Roman civilization is a a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have absolute authority over the family (including the power of life and death)
  • ~1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.
  • ~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a “bachelor tax”, to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.
  • ~3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place, Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate. Vice and massive corruption are rampant, while the new-born Catholic Religion is gaining power (it becomes the religion of the Empire in 380 AD). There is extreme economic, political and military instability: there are 25 successive emperors in half a century (many end up assassinated), the Empire is ungovernable and on the brink of civil war.
  • ~5 century AD: The Empire is ruled by an elite of military men that use the Emperor as a puppet; due to massive debts and financial problems, the Empire cannot afford to hire foreign mercenaries to defend itself (Roman citizens have long ago being replaced by mercenaries in the army), and starts “selling” parts of the Empire in exchange for protection. Eventually, the mercenaries figure out that the “Emperor has no clothes”, and overrun and pillage the Empire.
  • humanity falls back into the Bronze Age (think: eating squirrel meat and living in a cave); 12 centuries of religious zilotry (The Great Inquisition, Crusades) and intellectual darkness follow: science, commerce, philosophy, human rights become unknown concepts until they are rediscovered again during the Age of Enlightenment in 17th century AD.

Regarding the Babylonian civilization (~2,000 BC), we have relatively few records, but we do know that they had a very advanced civilization because we found their legislative code written down on stone tablets (yes, they had laws and tribunals, and some of today’s commercial code can even be traced back to Babylonian law). They had child support laws (which seems to indicate that there was a family breakdown), and they collapsed presumably due to a “moral breakdown” figuratively represented in the Bible as the “Tower of Babel” (which was inspired by a real tower). Interesting and controversial anecdote: some claim that the Roman Catholic Religion is nothing more than a rewriting and adaptation of an ancient Babylonian religion!

You might say Roman cultural elites experienced Robin Hanson’s switch from a farmer to a forager society. How’d that turn out for everyone?

Let’s examine the parallels more closely.

~5 century BC Rome = ~1700 – 1920 America. The family unit is essentially “father knows best”, and slutting around by women is considered the height of shameful behavior, (as is cadding about by men). Monogamy is held up as the ideal arrangement without exception. (The “Wild West” might be an exception to the general rule of the day, as whoring and hell-raising were widespread in the frontier.) Lessers look up to their betters as exemplars of moral rectitude.

~1 century BC Rome = ~1920 – 1970 America. America is rising to the height of her power, a hyperpower being born. An economic and military power heretofore unseen in all recorded history. While the world digs out from under the rubble of consecutive wars and Communist pogroms, we have a battalion of aircraft carriers, a largely homogeneous population, and cheap housing for everyone willing to put in an honest day’s work. But the poison pill has been swallowed; the suffrage movement achieves its main goal, and the dark shroud of the equalist era is about to descend. In academic halls and classrooms, lessers are pedestalized, while betters are denigrated.

~1-2 century AD Rome = 1970-2000 America. The scourge of single momhood, free and easy divorce, child support laws, majority female colleges, DADT repealed, gay marriage, game, etc etc ad infinitum. In short, the ultimate expression of anti-discrimination, anti-received wisdom, individualist ideology, (ironically buttressed by the groupthink of diversity mongers.) Lessers ignore their betters, who in turn renege on their traditional responsibility to act as examples for the lessers.

~3-4 century AD Rome = 2000-2010 America. (You’ll notice America’s progression through the stages of empire is much faster than was Rome’s. This is the blessing — or curse — of high tech mass communication.) The native stock of America, (specifically, the betters of that stock), have stopped having kids. Vice and corruption are on the rise. (See: Chicago, CRA, Goldman Sachs, neocon lies, Enron, Madoff… I could go on.) Economic and political instability are the order of the day. While America’s presidents aren’t being assassinated, our elections have been nailbiters since 2000, and partisanship is at a fevered pitch. A reborn religion called Islam threatens to co-opt the sympathies of Western societies’ rootless rejects and masculinized women. Except for the thinnest upper class slice, betters now ape the habits of their lessers.

~5 century Rome = present day America. America is ruled by an elite of cognitive jackpot winners who use the President as a puppet. Massive debt and financial chicanery is practically enshrined in law. The army is less and less filled with the demographic slice of American citizens that used to make up its ranks. Mercenaries (UN peacekeepers, bribed warlords, arm-twisted allies, recent unassimilated immigrants, and the desperate, poor and out of shape) now make up a larger part of the tip of the spear that projects American power. America is in the process of slow-motion selling off of the Southwest to appease the millions of peasant illegals it cavalierly allowed to invade and settle in the country.

The Fall of Rome = ? America.

America is having her Tower of Babel moment, and the elites applaud it when they aren’t dithering over tax code arcana or the cultural impact of snarky late night TV hosts. These parallels with Rome’s fall should make you feel queasy about the future of this nation. But you’ll quickly push aside those depressing thoughts and switch on for another lightning round of Call of Duty, figuring it’s not your problem. Until it is. Do you feel lucky, punk?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: