Never Listen To A Feminist’s Opinion About Helping Boys

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 The only difference is that the shrieking stridency has been replaced by soft-pedaled coos of subterfuge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hell, yes, we should!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No thanks to feminists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Women Are Equally As Shallow As Men

SFG remarks:

Women are shallow, but so are men. ‘Shallow’ means caring about appearances, which are the only things that matter in the social world. So ‘shallow’ is something we socially-inept types sling around to insult those who are better at marketing themselves.

Using the word “shallow” as it is reckoned by those who typically use it — women, feminists in particular, manboobs, and assorted fellow loser travelers — it is more precise to say that humanity is “shallow”. Women are just as drawn to shallow traits in the opposite sex as are men; the difference is that women’s shallowness is exalted in the public sphere. And it is exalted because there is no social compassion for the men who fail to meet women’s shallow standards and slip through the cracks. In contrast, women who fail to meet men’s shallow standards are decried as victims of oppressive male objectification and showered with sympathy.

This double standard exists because men are biologically expendable and women, sadly, biologically perishable. The underlying biological ur-reality forms the psychological reality which overlays it and projects into consciousness the workings of the subconscious id. Every word we say and action we take is ultimately slave in service to the primordial beast in our brains.

Another reason men are more easily and rapaciously slapped with the “shallow” label is because their sexual preferences are more visually discernible; female prettiness and sexiness, which is what men desire above all, are readily observable. Such is not the case (at least not to the same degree) of women’s sexual preferences; female preferences are focused more on men’s status, dominance and charm, and thus less easily distinguishable at a glance. The non-visual, time-delayed nature of much of women’s animal desires allows them to plausibly evade the smear of shallowness. But just because women’s preferences rely more on feedback from judging men’s dominance displays and comparing men’s relative statuses than on feedback from seeing men’s looks doesn’t make women any less shallow. It just diverts the flow of shallowness to a different part of the kiddie pool.

In truth, women’s preferences are no less shallow than men’s. It’s proxies for reproductive and survival quality all the way down.

Of course, the entire premise itself — that shallowness is an apt description of sexual preferences — is false, and the disparate semantic impact that the term “shallow” evokes is nothing but misty misdirection from the real truth: that there is nothing at all shallow about the deadly serious business of finding the highest quality mate(s) possible and, in a state of nature, passing on one’s genetic legacy into future generations. If the meaning of life is to fuck, then the means by which we achieve our purpose are the deepest, most profound feelings we possess.

Read Full Post »

The Silent Virginity

There are virgins among us, but they cannot be identified by their ecstatic moans, so they slip unnoticed by the sexually active masses like frigid totems to a bygone era.

A reader links to a study on American virginity rates:

Women who are college graduates are more likely to be virgins. So, it’s not just Ivy Leaguers who are more sexually restrained, but all college graduates.

I still agree with you to the extent that I think there are pockets of promiscuity among educated women, especially among those with graduate/professional degrees, and also probably among those in certain urban areas. Furthermore, I would think that educated women who are promiscuous are probably much more deliberate about it than lower class women who often disapprove of promiscuity in the abstract (I use the term loosely) but are unable to control themselves in the heat of the moment.

Before you players start to wonder if you’re just passing around the same irrepressible slut’s party hole amongst yourselves, note that overall virginity rates are still quite low for the general population, including both men and women.

1.1 million Americans between the ages of 25 and 40 are still virgins.

The CDC also reports that by age 19, 80% of men and 75% of women have lost their virginity.

And, furthermore, keeping in tune with this blog’s unnerving habit of drawing back the curtain on humanity’s clanking machinery, men, being the expendable sex, are more likely than women, the perishable sex, to remain virgins past the age of 25.

[T]he odds a man aged 25-44 has had no female partners are 1 in 35.71.

More women than men are likely to postpone losing their virginity, but during the teens and early 20s their odds follow the identical trajectory. However, by the time a woman enters the age range of 25-44, the odds she has had no male sexual partners are 1 in 58.82—so somewhere along the line women start outpacing men in shedding their virginity.

It is simply easier for the average woman to get sex than it is for the average man, and the later in life virginity rates reflect that reality. (Although the ease with which women can get sex partners may be experiencing a bump upward in difficulty owing to the increasing fattitude of Americans — obese women are 30% less likely than normal-weight women to have had a sexual partner in the last year. Obese men do not have the same problem.)

Compared to men, the relatively low effort required of women to obtain sex is why it’s silly for them to take pride in their sluttiness; getting sex from men is no accomplishment. Now getting commitment from men… there’s the challenge. But of course, if you are a feminist with a grating personality and all you have to offer men is a zip line to your jungly vagina, then you might be tempted to dismiss the shame you feel from giving it away so freely.

After a certain ripe age, a virginal woman might say to herself, “Why am I holding out for an alpha male? The odds of landing one diminish with each passing month, so, fuck it, I’ll take the next cocka that comes alonga.” She then finds that the goal of spreading her legs for a horny bastard is remarkably easy to achieve, which is why the act often leaves her feeling confused and depressed afterwards.

The typical virginal man, in contrast, discovers that it becomes increasingly difficult to lose his virginity with each passing year. For him, virginity isn’t a choice; it’s a sentence. Or it may have started as a free choice, but quickly transmogrified into a punishment. The 40-year-old male virgin who manages to finally bust a nut inside a woman doesn’t feel confusion; he feels elation.

The more interesting angle to the virginity numbers is the discrepancy in rates between uneducated and educated women:

For well-educated ladies looking to join the ranks of the sexually active, unfortunately you’ve got your work cut out for you. Female college graduates are 5.4 times more likely to be virgins than those who never received that diploma—adding a sad irony to the term “bachelor’s degree.”

I suspect this ties into impulsiveness; if you have the time to spare, there are studies floating around demonstrating a link between lower IQ and higher impulsiveness. It could simply be the case that female college grads are better at controlling their impulses, rather than some high-falutin’ notion that educated women are more apt than dumber women to save themselves for marriage deriving from some quaint personal ethos.

But why would women want to, or feel an inner urge to, restrain their sexual impulses? Well, in the ancestral environment, the one that has shaped the contours of our hindbrains to this day, the women who were bad at controlling their sexual impulses were often the ones stuck with babies from men who weren’t willing to stick around and help raise them. More circumspect women were better at screening for men willing to dependably commit to them, a male trait that is exhibited when a man wines and dines a woman while waiting patiently for her to give it up. Evolution favored the propagation of the latter’s genes (with exceptions), and so this female restraint instinct survives into the modern world, in an age of contraceptives and big daddy government, and its existence spurs all sorts of rationalizations from women seeking to make sense of their antediluvian feelings.

Nevertheless, the CDC data showing that educated women are more likely than uneducated women to be virgins seems counterintuitive to me. I swim amongst the educated set and, accounting for a few memorable exceptions, I have rarely befriended or befouled a virgin. On the whole, smart chicks are novelty seeking; they love meeting new men and flirting like femme fatales. Case in point: Smart, educated girls may be more likely to be virginal, but they are also more likely to cheat.

And my experience is not unique; I know few men, alpha or beta, who can claim to plunder virgin puss regularly. The existence of legal age virgins in the megalopolises is so rare that meeting and bedding one would be immediate cause for a triumphal parade around the city square.

As I have said on occasion, you will find that if you keep your eyes open and observe the world around you without self-assuaging delusion, that science eventually comes around to confirming 9/10s of your common sense. Yet once in a blue moon, the scientific data throws a curveball. This is one of those times.

Herewith I offer some explanations for the discrepancy between most men’s real life experiences with a paucity of educated virgins and the self-reported virginity data:

– Women lie worse than men on self-reporting surveys. This is scientifically validated. Now, participant lying doesn’t necessarily indicate that the sexual activity trend lines are wrong; for that, you’d have to somehow show that women are lying more now than they did on past surveys, or that educated women lie more than uneducated women. (In fact, the latter is a distinct possibility, as it has been shown that smarter people are generally better at the deceptive arts, and have a better grasp of what kind of information about themselves is potentially incriminating.) However, the very fact that women do lie about sexual matters more than men should give one pause about taking their virginity claims at face value.

– Player selection bias. This is a favorite assertion of the anti-gamer, feminist and omegavirgindork crowd (losers of a feather flock together): “Oh, you’re just nailing the sluts who like to screw around, so you never get a chance to meet the angelic hordes of chaste, virginal girls.” On its face, this seems plausible, but it breaks down badly upon closer inspection. One, many seducers meet women randomly, outside of the clubs where sluts tend to congregate. For instance, I have met women from extraordinarily varied occupational and educational backgrounds, in stores, at events, on the street, in buses, while driving, at the beach, in class, at work, at weddings, at picnics, and even at a funeral. It would be a remarkable coincidence if all those women were raging sluts. Two, and most disturbingly for the anti-gamer, their assertion denies the possibility that players *are* meeting chaste women, but that these women, accustomed to the limp company of their beta orbiters, are so overwhelmed by the player’s sexy vibe that they become a bit less chaste for the night (or many nights).

Given the above refutation of the player selection bias theory, I suspect that it is true to some minimal extent that men who actively bed a lot of women tend to miss the virgins, who are, after all, not very likely to be out anywhere in mixed company. And the reason for this may be that the ranks of female virgins include a lot of grossly ugly or obese girls who are ashamed to be seen in public. Girls who major in math or other male-oriented tracks are probably overrepresented in this group.

Luckily, by the early 20s, most girls have abandoned the charade of virginity, so player selection bias ceases to be of much relevance for men who don’t routinely try to pick up teenagers.

– Confusing education for introversion. Education, conscientiousness and introversion tend to correlate. If educated women have a higher virginity rate than uneducated women, that may just be a reflection of the fact that educated women are more introverted, and thus less likely to be energized by large mixed groups of men and women where hooking up is more likely to occur. Thus, players who plunder the big cities may be missing out on the virgins because those women are less comfortable mingling in social settings. This particular explanation is speculative, so take it for what it is.

– Obesity is just another word for celibacy. As noted above, there have been studies which found that fat women have less sex than thin women. Not very surprising, as men really don’t want to sleep with fat women if they can avail themselves of the sexier alternative. (A contrarian might argue that fat women, given their lower sexual market value, would more readily put out for men in hopes of gaining their commitment and love. If true, that would work against higher virginity rates for fat women.)

Anyhow, assuming the premise is true — that fat chicks are more likely to live a sexless purgatory — then the obesity epidemic may explain decreasing rates of sluttiness among American women. However, it would not tell us much about the supposed higher virginity rates of educated girls, as it is a safe assumption most truly grotesque fat chicks shamble among the lower classes. Or it could be the case that educated fat chicks, as the more introspective subspecies, are more likely than uneducated fat chicks to sequester themselves away from human contact and sunlight, thus shifting on one elephantine foot higher virginity rates toward the college crowd.

– The “technical” virgin. How do girls rationalize their lying about their sex lives? By inventing false truths. Anal and oral sex among young women are way up, but hey, it’s not the vagina, so STILL A VIRGIN. The hamster is happy. Perhaps this explains better why educated women have higher “virginity” rates — they are using a very loose definition of virginity. And wouldn’t it be just like a smartie to wordplay her way out of an uncomfortable self-assessment? I suspect the Audacious One would be interested in GSSing his way through this byline to the sexual behavior annals. Annals. Heh.

– Bifurcation Nation. I have previously offered as an explanation for the supposed decreasing overall rate of sluttiness among American women the hypothesis that the nation is bifurcating along sexual behavior lines:

[P]erhaps American society is bifurcating into two female camps, with the urban blue state camp waving the banner of Team Slut and the religious red state camp hoisting the flag of Team Prude. Since there are more red state godly girls than there are blue state heretic hos, I figured that would account for the overall trend toward less sluttiness.

Again, purely speculative, but worth investigating. (Paging Charles Murray.) I admit I don’t have reams of experience with evangelicals or Hasidim, so for all I know there is a mass of middle America religious women out there who are refusing sex until a ring is on it. Maybe a lot of these red staters who have the smarts go to college and as a consequence swing the co-ed virginity rate higher. Since religious girls tend to socialize in venues (like church) where players are rarely found (imagine a demon stepping foot on holy ground and immediately bursting into flames), it’s reasonable to conclude that male perception of college girl sluttiness is skewed by the religious de facto shut-ins.

***

Bottom line: Human sexual behavior is exceedingly difficult to pin down, as the nature of the enterprise requires survey respondents possess a bracing comfort with exposing the underbellies of their egos, and nothing is quite as critical to the healthy functioning of the ego as faith in one’s SMV. Don’t trust self-reported sex survey data. Chicks lie. Educated chicks are probably not much more virginal than uneducated chicks, but there is room to disagree on this point based on potential skew in men’s perceptions of the active, college educated dating market. Nonetheless, overall virginity rates are quite low after the late teens, so men need not worry that a shrinking pool of sexually enthusiastic women is about to cramp their styles.

This post grew beyond its preplanned bounds, much like a virgin’s hymen stretches to its breaking point when confronted by the concentrated force of my life-giving battering ram.

Read Full Post »

The Liars’ Progression

…and the lords of lies held illimitable dominion over all.

The 21st century Western elite are liars. All of them. This is a judgment I render with absolute certainty. The precise delineation between those who intentionally lie and those who are gulled into false beliefs is arguable, but the result is the same: a thick fog of lies that suffocates intellectual thought and demonizes lovers of truth. Occasionally, a barbed tentacle lashes out from the mist, like the enshrouded alien creatures in the Stephen King movie, and decapitates the brave soul who ventures forth unarmored, in pursuit of discovery. Those watching from behind the barricades have their cowed submission reinforced.

A regime of lies has a life cycle, and it rests on the simple psychological calculus that a strident offense will always overrun a complacent defense. The cementing of the regime proceeds in stages.

Stage 1: A cadre of liars — outsiders and axe-grinders, often — feel kinship with their lies. They believe their own lies. This is how it must start. Much like the master seducer must believe his own irresistibility to win over whole townships of women.

Stage 2: Truth is subverted when trivial nuance is stretched into universal truth.

Stage 3: The motives and character of those who cling bitterly to accepted truths are denigrated.

Stage 4: Common sense is slandered as reflexive primitiveness.

Stage 5: Appeals to emotion, targeted first at women and the morally child-like, then at weaker men, muscle out accessible logic and undefined intuition.

Stage 6: Sophistry with an intellectual veneer is marshaled in service of the foundational lies. Fools are duped.

Stage 7: The ring of lies expands slowly but inexorably outward, encompassing ever-greater whoppers, until a mass suspension of disbelief is achieved.

Stage 8: Fused with the circulatory system of lies great and small, the masses embrace self-delusion and assist in the accommodation of their own viral infection. The alternative would be ego death, which is a pain too great for most.

Stage 9: The liars, having recruited similarly aggrieved acolytes into loose alliances and having sufficiently numbed the populace, ascend to stations where banishment of heretics is possible, and begin the process of purifying their ranks.

Stage 10: Fear marches in lockstep with status whoring, the twin powerhouse Guns of Navarone that keep enemies of the narrative safely penned.

Final stage: Complacency returns to enfeeble the once-aggressors. Weak points erupt along multiple fault lines in the fortress walls. The mentally enslaved shield their eyes from shards of sunlight, and grow restless with questions and illumination. Apathy becomes shame becomes resentment becomes white hot hatred. Vengeance, the second most powerful human emotion after love, strains at its shackles, threatening a blitzkrieg that would consume the regime in hellfire.

Like Smaug, The Lords of Lies rule this epoch smugly atop their pile of riches, wielding unfathomable power. But their plunder is ill-gotten, and easily recaptured. Every tyranny has its soft underbelly, its gem-less fleshy port to the charred beating heart within. Find it, and drive your spear to the hilt. They deserve nothing less.

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 »

Women’s Unrealistic Online Standards Are Like Ice Cream

A reader claims to note a trend in online personals:

[T]his is a trend I’ve noticed online, women who are QUITE comfortable with dating someone a handful of years younger but do NOT want anyone more than a few years older than they. What accounts for this trend? I mean, you could meet a 28 year old fat dude, or a 40 year old paleo-hardened guy who looks young. Why pre-emptively discount age like that? Most women I’ve met prefer someone same age or older.

I don’t know how widespread women’s aping of men’s standards in online ads is, because I don’t do online dating (at least not recently). However, from what I’ve read about the subject, most women’s preferences in online ads is for men older than they are; which makes sense, since age is a status marker for men in a way it isn’t for women. But assuming for the sake of argument that there is a small but growing contingent of cougars explicitly seeking younger men in what amounts to a mirror image of the universal trend for men to seek younger women, I believe I have an explanation.

First, keep in mind that it doesn’t matter what women demand in online ads, because outrageous standards that are far removed from reality are quickly weeded out of contention, leaving such delusional women sad and alone in real life. A lot of loser women who do the online thing subconsciously know they aren’t going to get laid by the man of their dreams, so they throw all reason and sobriety to the wind and just go hog wild laundry listing their fantasy criteria. For these women (admittedly greater in number now than every before in Western history), it’s more about ego catharsis than about actually meeting a man. ASCII therapy with a public audience of like-minded Medusas one-upping each other to the top of the entitlement heap.

Happily punching in a feverish list of ridiculous expectations in an online ad is the emotional equivalent of plopping in front of the TV (all shows cater to women except ‘Mythbusters’ and sports) and wolfing down a tub of ice cream. Feels SOOOOO good, even if it’s SOOOO bad for her health, looks and love life. Kinda makes a tidy little metaphor for civilizational decline.

Second, the few cougars who aren’t ugly, ragged or grossly obese but who left their prime years far behind in a haze of drunken binges and cock hopping, will sometimes recognize, on a primal level, that their odds of getting a good (read: high value, sort of charmingly dickish) man of the type they pined for at age 20 to commit to them in a loving long-term relationship are very low, and that their efforts are best spent putting out for horny younger men who will at least offer a short term thrill in the sack. This phenomenon — of older woman transforming into clitorally turgid quasi-men — is not common, certainly not nearly as common as the media would have you believe. But they do exist, and you can be pretty sure that most of them could cut glass with their jaws and suffocate small dogs with their jungly, frosted pube patches. Do note, as well, that as women age their testosterone levels rise in step with their lowered expectations, making the prospect of loveless one night stands more palatable to their still feminine egos.

Let’s just say that these horncat cougars are not exactly the sorts of women older men with options want at all, and they aren’t the sorts of women younger men with no options want for more than a few no muss no fuss bangs in which to drain their aching teen balls. Because younger men, just like older men, prefer the exquisite intimacies of young women. Cougars probably know this on some deep supraegotistical level, so they respond to their constrained sexual market choices by pretending to prefer the company of younger men when in reality all they’re trying to do is avoid the soul crushing loneliness that would inevitably result if they adhered to the standards of their real desires and had to face the brutal and merciless cruelty of the sexual market head on.

Women never really lose the ability to extrapolate a one night stand into some fantastical dramatic relationship story arc, so a cougar having a couple of perfunctory fucks with an indiscriminately horny college student in a dating slump can sometimes mean the difference for her between having the will to live for another day and resigning herself to gardening and obesity. It’s not an avenue most older single women are willing to take, but for a few desperate specimens with male-like sex drives and bodies that haven’t yet gone completely to shit, it beats suddenly and unceremoniously being dumped into the invisible fringes of forgotten wastelands. At least for a few more years.

Read Full Post »

The Reason Beta Males Pedestalize Women

Why do so many betas harbor gauzy delusions about female sexual nature? Why are monogamously inclined traditionalists, manginas and white knighters so quick to sanctify women and paint their misbehavior in rose-colored hues while simultaneously offering unconditional support and shitlapping amen choruses for women when they accuse men of committing a litany of hackneyed misdeeds?

I’m here to provide what I believe is the most parsimonious answer to this riddle:

Beta males are rarely in a position to witness the worst of women.

Put yourself in the typical beta male’s shoes. He spends a goodly chunk of his horniest years — teens to mid 20s — when holes in watermelons look like acceptable vagina substitutes, pining for ethereal hot chicks who don’t pay him a lick of attention as they swoop by him on a cloud of incandescent purity. He sees them only from afar, where his imagination is free to feverishly fill in the gaps with only the most pleasant assumptions about his dreamgirls. When the rare communication does occur, she is as nice and kind as a saint to him. He is too smitten to recognize the hint of pity and condescension laced in her polite chat.

Later, usually college, he fumbles his way through awkward social interactions with plainer janes, the great majority of which end up with him being used for emotional sponging and ball-twisting, torturous friendships. All these girls are exceedingly, superficially kind to him because, after all, why look a gift herb in the mouth? A girl loves beta male attention, as long as it’s platonic, on her terms, extractive, and focused on feeding her ego. Naturally, these girl-friends never talk about their sex lives with the beta, never reveal what really goes on behind closed doors, and never invite the beta to join them on any adventures that really matter to him. Contrary to media popularization, betas rarely hear “This one time, at band camp…” from girls in their social circles. What they often hear instead are requests for help with term papers.

Then, due more to a combination of luck and (ovulation cycle) timing rather than bold effort or charm, the inoffensive beta male might find himself in a fledgling relationship with some semi-cute shut-in nearly as awkward as he and already past her beauty prime. She really likes him and treats him well… more sincerely than the cuter girls who made a sport of cockteasing him at any rate… but like ‘Rat’ Ratner from ‘Fast Times’, he labors for months and months waiting patiently for her to put out. For reasons beyond the beta’s ken, she is an extremely modest girl. He interprets her chasteness as evidence of women’s all-round goodness and saintliness, but of course he is sorta pissed off that she won’t satisfy him without months of “getting to know each other” warming up. When he finally does bust that cherry, after painful years wandering the celibate desert, it’s all he can do to stop himself mentally affixing a halo atop his girlfriend’s head, and pronouncing all women the undistilled essence of goodness.

A few pitiable betas, like those with bitch tits, horizontally stretched navels, and receding chins who wear ‘this is what a feminist looks like’ t-shirts, get trapped in sporadically sexual relationships with manjawed femcunts at grad school, mostly because long-winded bull sessions among their kind occasionally spin up enough libidinous energy to resolve in PBR-fueled late night groping, which is promptly regretted and/or rationalized by one or both parties the next morning, usually the girl.

Eventually, the beta male gets married, and his lack of experience — one to three lifetime “partners” (and I use the term loosely) is the norm — has cultivated in him a strong inability to read women’s signals, which sometimes leads him into blissful ignorance where infidelities can linger for years unnoticed, and “Surprise! I have a divorce paper!” gambits accost him like hammer blows to the head. Mostly, though, he floats through his marriage thinking the best of his wife, and worst of himself should feelings turn sour or the sex dry up. Because this is just what men are supposed to do when a woman is less than happy: take the blame. Women are the weaker sex, after all.

So you see, in the final analysis, it is very likely, by dint of the beta male’s ignorance, inexperience and habituated veneration of women and reflexive indulgence of women’s motives, that his view of women is severely constricted, child-like in its naivete. The beta male is not privy to what Tyler Durden famously called the secret society of women. He was never invited, and he was never apprised of the secret society’s goings-on by any woman in his life. He lives in a pinched world with only a peephole to the wonders beyond, given him not by insight but by stumbling into depravity or by the good grace of a sympathetic alpha male. As far as he knows, women don’t have much sex, and they are very nice and polite most of the time.

The beta male pedestalizes women because one, that’s all women have deigned to show him of their sexual inner world, and two, he cannot bear the contrary thought, affirming and cementing as it does his lackluster place on the sexual totem pole. (He is mired down in the sticky pubes, his vision obscured, while alphas dance joyously at the tip of the glans.)

As for the women, those few who have not experienced the thrill of the alpha male often are nearly as chaste as the beta imagines, because they have never been tempted. All they know are a parade of beta males, whom they lash out at occasionally for unwittingly stifling their truest desires, but who, for the most part, they treat in a nontoxic manner that buttresses heavenly notions about their secretive natures. A woman is ever aware of the precariousness of her reputation, and this goes double in rural outposts of heavy religiosity.

And so the beta male has his crimped worldview confirmed by the asexual, undersexual women in his life. But should he ever step outside his empillowed existence… take that daring step into the gritty, grimy world where the female id roams free across fruited plains of phalluses… screw up the courage of heart to face head-on the previously unimaginable… he will find that a bigger universe has existed all along, enveloping the bubble of his life, surging with unleashed energies just out of his reach like uterine aurorae, and if his soul isn’t killed dead right then from shock, he’ll cross the boundary into this new world — he won’t really have a choice — and never look back.

Nor ever again blindly assume the purest of women’s motivations. The stronger among them do with this newfound knowledge the following: acknowledge, accept, incorporate, delimit. He rules his knowledge, but he does not let it rule him.

Such boundary crossing is rare. The beta and alpha male worlds are almost as separate and distinct now as they have been since the dawn of anonymous urban living. Though that is changing.

If betas knew what alphas experience, it would blow their minds. Completely, utterly. Out from under the judgmental Eye of Proper Society, equipped with the requisite beauty to pay the price of admission, the wild female libido is insatiable, crass, debased. It is willing to surrender to the most vile sexual plunderings, screaming in ecstatic pleasure at every enthusiastically welcome violation. Women of the sweetest daytime dispositions and most innocent countenances — smartly coifed women in demure business suits who expound drily on cost-revenue projections and wait tidily in lines for healthy lunch alternatives — will unleash vaginal hell in the arms of alpha lovers, squirting glorious love over dominant men who swap them like baseball cards, presenting like beasts in heat for throbbing units in dank dive bar restrooms, casually spreading as far as they can go in locked office rooms for illicit lovers, giggling in breathy whispers in their lovers’ ear about the clear and present danger of getting caught, deliberately effusing a fake sorrow for the cheated-on boyfriend back home unawares, bemusing wistfully about a history of letting alpha lovers snort coke off her ass while claiming another headache to evade hubby’s entreaties.

Beta males never see this world. To them, it doesn’t exist. And that’s exactly how women want it.

Read Full Post »