Silly Girl, thank you for the link!

In case you missed your history classes, this is what happens in most 'democracies' when women gain political power. They made plays about it in greek times.

I'm happy to have you commenting here, but I don't actually believe that this was engineered by the Illuminati. The assault on civilization worked out so well simply because evil is congruent.

Here's a myth directly related to this.

We hear all the time — from posturing women claiming moral higher ground — that because men are by nature promiscuous whereas women need a deeper (?) emotional connection to their partner (read: her inner-slut module must be fully activated by an "alpha male"), they are somehow (it is implied) morally superior in their sexual behavior to men.

What nonsense.

The typical married man, even when he has a mistress, or is say getting blow jobs from his secretary, will still not divorce his wife, and may even continue having sex with her (at least out of a sense of obligation).

A married woman, in contrast, by the time she loses interest in her husband (i.e. stops getting what Roissy calls the "gina tingle" from him) will not only start making it more difficult for her husband to have sex with her, but if she is totally "connected" to her extra-marital partner, will (under the current laxity of laws) dump/divorce the husband and move on.

In which way is the latter morally superior?

For men, if a man whom we call our buddy or a loyal business partner, just moved on to being buddies with another guy simply because, well, he has better social/business connections, more money and charms, better at golf, etc., he cannot in any way be considered a morally integral man. He'd be considered a back stabber, a cheat, a social climber, anything but a manly man. Man who suck up to power and fall for it are the most repulsive men to other men.

We hear the claim that "honesty" is the highest moral virtue, and the wife dumping the guy she doesn't "love" (i.e. sexually titillated by) anymore is more honest and therefore morally superior.

So, if I insult someone who seems physically uglier than me, that's morally superior because it is honest? If I refuse to extend charity to someone less fortunate because I honestly consider him a "loser," that is morally superior because it is honest?

Since when is giving in to your basest urges synonymous with honesty?

It is exactly because men can treat sex mechanically and not let it get in their way while making decisions about say loyalty to family that men are morally more reliable.

Feminist propaganda is riddled with paradoxes like these. No wonder, it is a godsend for the morally weak and intellectually feeble to rationalize and morally cloak their flaws and morally unacceptable behavior.

The greatest PUA in my experience (lots of mostly happy experience with one night stands) are men who are nice to other people, have nothing against them, but just like having sex with a lot of women. Women flock to these men, and they're much less likely to then turn into stalkers because everything was up front at the beginning; if the woman gave crazy vibes, also, the guy walked away because he doesn't want that. I mean, there's no need to turn off emotions as a PUA, there's a need to do that as an asshole.

And the "shit test" stuff is something I've seen both men and women do. The idea that it's a test is a piece of interesting superstition originating in the nether regions of self-help books. It's not a test. It never passes. You can't pass the test, and the person giving you the shit isn't paying any attention to your reaction, apart from blaming you for any reaction you have and punishing you for "misbehavior." This supposed shit test is a sign that someone has serious emotional problems. Male or female. And if calling them on it doesn't help (it sometimes does) get away from them and find someone who's mentally healthy.

You really never encountered a woman who was mentally healthy and was just nice to her romantic partner? You need to get out more.

Lose the weight and start treating people well. There's no drought for us normal people at all. Only for people no one would want. Not a new development.

While not exactly new or surprising to us, it is documentation.

Women and voting patterns.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

Here's a myth directly related to this. We hear all the time — from posturing women claiming moral higher ground — that because men are by nature promiscuous whereas women need a deeper (?) emotional connection to their partner (read: her inner-slut module must be fully activated by an "alpha male"), they are somehow (it is implied) morally superior in their sexual behavior to men.

What nonsense. How is that so?

Think of it like this: the majority of married, even when he has a mistress or is, say, getting blow jobs from his secretary, will still not divorce their wives, and may even continue having sex with them (at least out of a sense of obligation). A married woman, in contrast, by the time she loses interest in her husband (or stops getting what Roissy calls the "gina tingle" from him) will not only start making it more difficult for her husband to have sex with her, but if she is totally "connected" from her extra-marital partner, will (under the current laxity of law) dump/divorce the husband and move on.

In which way is the latter morally superior?

For men, if a man whom we call our buddy or a loyal business partner, just moved on to being buddies with another guy simply because, well, he has better social/business connections, more money and charms, better at golf, etc., he cannot in any way be considered a morally integral man. He'd be considered a back stabber, a cheat, a social climber, anything but a manly man. Man who suck up to power and fall for it are the most repulsive men by other men.

Then, we hear the claim that "honesty" is the highest moral virtue, and the wife dumping the guy she doesn't "love" (i.e. sexually titillated by) anymore is more honest and therefore morally superior.

So, if I insult someone who happens to be physically uglier than me, that's morally superior because it is honest? If I refuse to extend charity to the less fortunate because I honestly consider them "losers," that is morally superior because it is honest?

Since when is giving in to your basest urges synonymous with honesty?

It is exactly because men can treat sex mechanically and not let it get in their way while making decisions about loyalty to family, etc. that men are morally more reliable.

Feminist propaganda is riddled with paradoxes like these. No wonder, it is a godsend for the morally weak and intellectually feeble to rationalize their flaws while cloaking them with moral arguments.

Feminist blogs get tons of comments accusing them of the same things you are being accused of. Opinions differ, and it is a part of America.

I do not argue that some people have egocentric viewpoints, and that these can be terribly annoying. But they exist in all categories that we design for ourselves. They are not connected with those categories in and of themselves, but with specific people, individuals, who happen to somehow have gotten through life well enough to have access to a computer.

Though personally I think that in solipsism it's possible for others to disagree with you – that's just how your mind manifested them. It's the egocentric viewpoint that other people actually care what one thinks that gets me; it's so ironic that everyone thinks others care about their thoughts, when most people just care about themselves.