Archive for July, 2009

Degrading commercials

July 30, 2009

I suppose it might seem ironic to feminists, but I hate commercials that demean women. I just saw a diet yogurt commercial that had some chick gracelessly slurping down a cup of yogurt, leaving a bunch of the stuff on her mouth. I think the commercial was trying to make a kind of “bukkake” vibe. Which was pretty dumb, since it’s women who are mostly going to buy low-fat yogurt, and how many women find bukkake appealing? It’s a male kink.

A couple of years ago, there was a commercial for appliances or something that had a bunch of models cuddling floors and refrigerators in an explicitly sexual way. What was that about? Just freaky.

And there was a shampoo commercial where a woman went into the bathroom on an airplane, where she shampooed her hair and enjoyed it so much that she made loud orgasm noises that could be heard all over the plane. If I had ever used that brand, I would never buy it again.

I denounce women who act like whores because I want women to be worthy of respect. And of mating with. But if women behave like whores, they are going, to their apparent surprise, to be treated like whores. In the bad old days of patriarchy, no disgusting commercial like that would ever have been made. Clairol barely got away with “Does she or doesn’t she?” Nowadays, women are “liberated”… from being treated with respect.


Women pilots

July 28, 2009

Actually, it isn’t cute.

Two Women, Not Feeling Well, Manage to Kill 58 People. Talk About Sick.

Today’s newspapers, where I live near New York City, carry two awful stories echoing an ugly avoidable theme — a local woman driving a vehicle full of small children and a professional flying a commercial aircraft filled with 50 paying passengers, both doing so after telling others they were feeling ill but handling the job anyway. In both instances, those inside the vehicle and those aboard the plane were killed; only one five-year-old boy, the driver’s son, survived. In both instances, the passengers, naturally, assumed complete trust in the prudence, competence and sense of responsibility of the two in charge of transporting them — both women. The car’s driver was 36, the co-pilot 24.

Their passengers were wrong and they died for it.

I couldn’t make this shit up. Reality gives us satires of feminism that even a rabid woman-hater like me couldn’t dream up.

Both women knew they were too sick to get out of bed, but, brainwashed by feminists to believe they should strive to be as tough as men, they did anyway. A sane society does not shrink from the fact that women are more delicate than men. One thing that shows up in statistics over and over is, women get sick more, while men have a higher mortality rate. Our physiology makes us more susceptible to various bugs and germs and indispositions. Women mostly don’t belong in the workplace partly because they are going to spend more time tired and sick and unable to work, so you can’t rely on them. The people who relied on the women in the articles above paid with their lives for relying on women.

As Dr. House put it, “Sorry if that sounds sexist, but science says you’re soft and weak.”

The article finishes, “Other than better judgment, could anything have prevented this?”

Yes. Not allowing women to be pilots, an endeavour which is clearly beyond their capabilities. And not telling mothers that they should strive to be “tough” like men by driving three hours when they should be lying in bed. Her brother offered to pick her and the children up. In a society which had not undermined proper masculine authority, she probably would have yielded to her brother’s better judgment and she and the seven people she killed would still be alive.

Opposing feminism is not a matter of mean-spirited wanting to keep women down. It is a matter of preserving the lives which it tragically cuts short.


July 28, 2009

In the land of the rococo Marxists by Tom Wolfe

May I offer an arch and perhaps familiar but clear example? Recently I came across a woman at one of our top universities who taught a course in Feminist Theory and gave her students F’s if they spelled the plural of the female of the species “women” on a test or in a paper. She insisted on “womyn,” since the powers that be, at some point far back in the mists of history, had built male primacy in to the very language itself by making “women” 60 percent “men.” How did the students react? They shrugged. They have long since learned the futility of objecting to Rococo Marxism. They just write “womyn” and go about the business of grinding out a credit in the course.

One student told me the only problem was that when she wrote her papers on her word processor and used spell check, all hell broke loose. “You get these little wavy red lines all over the screen, under ‘womyn.’ Spell check doesn’t have ‘womyn’. Then she shrugged. “Or at least mine doesn’t.”

I hate womyn even more than I hate women.

And this is what feminists are promoting when they bleat about women having “access” to “higher education”. In order to allow more than a tiny minority of women to colleges, colleges had to stop teaching anything remotely challenging and instead concentrate on encouraging brainless tarts to force their students to spell incorrectly. This is the result of the farce of pretending that women are equal to men.


July 28, 2009

Do I have to state “antisemitic comments will be deleted” in every single post before people quit making them? Until last week, I hadn’t gotten one in months. Now suddenly they’re coming out of the woodwork. Are the recent feminist trolls making these comments to bait me? Did some antisemitic forum link to me and send these people my way?

Editrix, I fear one of them may troll you as well. I deleted his comment, but it was specifically aimed at you.

Before I stopped reading latte island, she pointed out that antisemites who attack Israel are defeating their own purpose. The existence of Israel makes it possible for Jews to live separately from gentiles. That’s what antisemites want, right? I mean, the ones who aren’t deranged enough to want to kill them all. (And by the way, antisemites have been trying to kill all the Jews in the world since ancient Egypt, so I suggest you not waste your time. God wants them to continue, no matter what you want.)

Women don’t belong in the workplace

July 26, 2009

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist

An unfortunate consequence of the ever-growing number of women joining the labor force and working side by side with men is the increasing number of sexual harassment cases. Why must sexual harassment be a necessary consequence of the sexual integration of the workplace?

Mainly because women who can’t do the work use phony sexual harassment cases to retaliate against male bosses who expect them to actually do their jobs, or discover their incompetence.

Psychologist Kingsley R. Browne identifies two types of sexual harassment cases: the quid pro quo (“You must sleep with me if you want to keep your job or be promoted”) and the “hostile environment” (the workplace is deemed too sexualized for workers to feel safe and comfortable).

Why doesn’t he mention what is by far the most common type of case: the “give me that promotion even though I’m an incompetent bimbo or I’ll sue you”?

While feminists and social scientists tend to explain sexual harassment in terms of “patriarchy” and other ideologies, Browne locates the ultimate cause of both types of sexual harassment in sex differences in mating strategies.

Studies demonstrate unequivocally that men are far more interested in short-term casual sex than women. In one now-classic study, 75 percent of undergraduate men approached by an attractive female stranger agreed to have sex with her; none of the women approached by an attractive male stranger did. Many men who would not date the stranger nonetheless agreed to have sex with her.

The quid pro quo types of harassment are manifestations of men’s greater desire for short-term casual sex and their willingness to use any available means to achieve that goal. Feminists often claim that sexual harassment is “not about sex but about power;”

“It had nothing to do with my wearing a skirt that barely covers my panties, a tight shirt with a plunging neckline, and lots of makeup! It had nothing to do with my habit of bragging about my cup size and rubbing my body against my male co-workers! When a man I did that to made a pass at me, it was so he could feel POWERFUL! And now people are trying to blame ME!”

Browne contends it is both—men using power to get sex. “To say that it is only about power makes no more sense than saying that bank robbery is only about guns, not about money.”

Sexual harassment cases of the hostile-environment variety result from sex differences in what men and women perceive as “overly sexual” or “hostile” behavior. Many women legitimately complain that they have been subjected to abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment by their male coworkers.

No. An infinitesmal number of women legitimately complain this. Many women lie about it.

Browne points out that long before women entered the labor force, men subjected each other to such abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment.

Abuse, intimidation, and degradation are all part of men’s repertoire of tactics employed in competitive situations. In other words, men are not treating women differently from men—the definition of discrimination, under which sexual harassment legally falls—but the opposite: Men harass women precisely because they are not discriminating between men and women.

Women are too weak and delicate to endure the rigors of normal adult interaction, which is why sane societies keep them at home where they can be sheltered from these things.

Why women should not be ordained, cont’d.

July 25, 2009

Remarks of the Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale

Well Operation Save America came, they saw, they harassed, and they annoyed; but they did not close the clinic. The clinic stayed open, no patients were turned away, and the doors never closed. We remain victorious. And that victory is a good thing – but, make no mistake, even though OSA has gone home; our work is not done.

If we were to leave this park and discover that clinic violence had become a thing of the past, never to plague us again, that would be a very good thing, indeed; but, still, our work would not be done.

If we were to find that, while we were here, Congress had acted to insure that abortion would always be legal, that would be a very good thing; but our work would not be done.

Just how could Congress do that? They have no way of preventing future Congressmen from changing the law.

How will we know when our work is done? I suspect we’ll know it when we see it. But let me give you some sure indicators that it isn’t done yet:

– When doctors and pharmacists try to opt out of providing medical care, claiming it’s an act of conscience, our work is not done.

Let me say a bit more about that, because the religious community has long been an advocate of taking principled stands of conscience – even when such stands require civil disobedience. We’ve supported conscientious objectors, the Underground Railroad, freedom riders, sanctuary seekers, and anti-apartheid protestors. We support people who put their freedom and safety at risk for principles they believe in.

But let’s be clear, there’s a world of difference between those who engage in such civil disobedience, and pay the price, and doctors and pharmacists who insist that the rest of the world reorder itself to protect their consciences – that others pay the price for their principles.

A feminist abortion advocate is complaining about doctors and pharmacists insisting “that others pay the price for their principles”? I couldn’t make this shit up.

This isn’t particularly complicated. If your conscience forbids you to carry arms, don’t join the military or become a police officer. If you have qualms about animal experimentation, think hard before choosing to go into medical research. And, if you’re not prepared to provide the full range of reproductive health care (or prescriptions) to any woman who needs it then don’t go into obstetrics and gynecology, or internal or emergency medicine, or pharmacology. Choose another field! We’ll respect your consciences when you begin to take responsibility for them.

I’ll give you another example, Kathy, and not a particularly complicated one either. If your conscience demands that you promote the murder of babies, don’t get ordained as a Christian minister.

Also, don’t become a Christian if you’re a moral relativist. The two are mutually exclusive.

Another depressing insight into female psychology

July 25, 2009

When are highly-anxious women most anxious? When you least expect it

The researchers could find no significant differences in behavior between the HSA and LSA women or their partners when the results were averaged across all participants in a group. But when each group was divided into subgroups of high- and low-satisfaction with their relationships, a significant difference was observed. Among high-satisfaction women, HSA women showed significantly more negative behavior than LSA women.

The researchers speculate that women who are satisfied with their relationships may fell more secure expressing their emotions when they are nervous or anxious. Since the LSA women probably weren’t as anxious about the speech, they had no reason to show any signs of discomfort, but HSA women did. HSA women who were unsatisfied with their relationships, on the other hand, were not comfortable sharing their anxiety with their partners.

And what about when the boyfriends behaved negatively? Again unexpectedly, HSA women behaved more negatively when their boyfriends behaved more positively to them. Among low-social anxiety women, there was no difference in behavior regardless of how their boyfriends behaved. Why did the highly-anxious women behave worse when their boyfriends were being nice?

Beck’s team believes that these women are more comfortable behaving negatively because they know their boyfriends are supportive. The women with unsupportive boyfriends don’t respond in kind because they feel they will only get more negative responses back from them.

July 25, 2009


The two pilots flying a doomed Buffalo-bound commuter plane were so busy flirting and chatting about their lives, relationships and career goals that when ice built up on their wings and windshield, it became just another topic of conversation.

“I’ve never seen icing conditions. I’ve never de-iced,” said First Officer Rebecca Shaw, 24, according to a transcript released yesterday at a hearing by the National Transportation Safety Board.

She said she was happy to be second in command on the Dash 8 turboprop because she was glad “I don’t have to . . . make those kind of calls. You know, I’d have freaked out. I’d have, like, seen this much ice and thought, ‘Oh, my gosh. We’re going to crash.’ “

At that point, the plane was at 2,300 feet and only minutes from disaster.

The pilot, Capt. Marvin Renslow, 47, said, “That’s the most [ice] I’ve seen on the leading edges [of the wings] in a long time. In a while, anyway, I should say.”

Then, he continued to regale her with tales from his short, undistinguished, career during the Newark-to-Buffalo Continental Connection Flight 3407 on Feb. 12.


Renslow and First Officer Rebecca Shaw did not give me the impression that they followed what we consider acceptable sterile cockpit guidelines below 10,000 feet.

We have that rule so that pilots stay focused and pay attention to the aircraft. The only things the crew should discuss are the tasks at hand, radio calls and checklist items. Nothing extraneous.

So when Renslow and Shaw both remark on the amount of ice buildup at 4,000 feet, they should have piped down with the small talk.

Renslow said that it was the most ice he had seen in a long time. Instead of letting that fact jerk him to attention, he kept up the banter with Shaw.

During the final approach, with the flaps up and landing checklist complete, Renslow is still talking about past flights. He should have been 100 percent focused on the present.

Because it’s hypothetically possible for a man and a woman to work together without distracting each other, or for a woman to be competent despite the special privilege of being allowed to sue her way into places where she doesn’t belong, we’re supposed to risk our lives on the unlikely possibility that all of them will actually do so in all cases.

Information Request

July 25, 2009

I’ve long opposed legalization of prostitution. One reason is that a long time ago, I did volunteer work that put me into contact with some hookers, and what I saw really horrified me. Even the relatively “upscale” ones. I tried to find an organization that helped women in that line of work get out of it, but there wasn’t one in my area. In searching for one, I found some legalization advocate who disparaged charitable and government efforts to help these women. One of her criticisms was that these programs often consist of educating hookers about things like STDs and contraception, which, she claimed, all hookers are already highly knowledgeable about. That wasn’t my observation. Two of the most glaring bits of misinformation we found ourselves trying to combat with these women were that 1) AIDS is the only STD in existence, and 2) getting tested for AIDS regularly prevents you from catching it. And some of them had had multiple abortions. Again, these are the “upscale” hookers, not the low-priced streetwalkers. I shudder to think what they believe.

The utter degradation I witnessed among these women, in addition to making me roll my eyes ever since when I see a movie or novel that claims that whores have hearts of gold (they don’t), caused me to believe that encouraging prostitution in any way, including by legalizing it, was a terrible idea.

Though I have to admit, not much could have really helped most of these women. They were mostly stupid and very nasty people. Education is useless for stupid people, and a respectable job isn’t going to make back-stabbers become nice. Most of them engaged in a lot of self-destructive behavior in addition to hooking; drug use, heavy drinking, and abusive relationships was the norm.

The Editrix, however, is arguing that legalization would be a good thing:

You will see from the passionate tone of this comment that I have a certain case in mind, one within my inner circle of friends, to be precise. Even in cases where the man HAS acted like a swine (left a wife who had devoted her entire life to him, his children and his profession, when he hadn’t even bothered to pay, as he said he had, into her old age pension fund) there is a woman behind it. Before the “sexual liberation” there wouldn’t have been women around, free and on the prowl and hell-bent to destroy somebody else’s marriage, chipping the asshole of a husband away with a chisel. In the past, that paunchy, simpering, weak, slimy, characterless mollusc of a man would have been reduced to visiting prostitutes, and had remained with his wife and children whom he didn’t deserve anyway. Prostitutes don’t destroy marriages, only “honest” women do that. Free roaming women take advantage of that particular weak streak many men possess. At a time, when divorce was almost impossible and had socially ostracizing consequences, all that would never have happened.

It would cut all the sex-peddlers posing as honest women out of business. I said before that the relationship between the sexes is not quite as abysmal here in Germany as it is at your end. Maybe that is due to the fact, at least partly, that prostitution is legal here. As long as it is kept at the sidelines of society it does more good than harm. What DOES do harm is the blurring of the line between a (truly) honest woman and a prostitute.

I need to think this over anew. I can see theoretical arguments both pro and con.

Does anyone have any good links or book recommendations with solid data about the social effects of legal (or tolerated) prostitution? Not political campaigns either way, but factual information.

Oh, brother.

July 25, 2009

Just deleted another antisemitic comment. Like I’ve said, those were the reason I started moderating comments in the first place. I haven’t gotten one of those in a while. I knew it couldn’t last.