I don’t often check my wordpress backup of this blog, so comments there tend to wait a lot longer. Anyway, some random person found my post about Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant over there and left a fiery misguided comment, which I approved but didn’t bother to argue with, because the poor soul has had her head stuffed with so much nonsense that it will take years of head-on collisions with harsh reality before it would be possible to begin to reason with her.

Anyway, her unspoken premise, and probably those of a lot of my other trolls, is that civilization depends on people never retaliating against assholery, rather than on people refraining from assholery. That is, some people (read: women) should be allowed to be as vicious as they want to others, while other people (read: men) have a duty to exercise self-control instead of retaliating.

If it were not for the fact that men have about a thousand times as much self-control as women, for the last forty years white middle-class men would have been just as violent as feminists pretend that they are. We would all be living in a Lifetime Channel movie.

Now, the divide between those who are licensed to practice unlimited assholery and those who are expected to stoically endure it with patience normally only exhibited by people who have statues erected to them in cathedrals is not always male-female. The bad-boys who make women wet are also exempt. This is how schools are operated, as I have discussed before.

It’s natural for females, whose survival depends upon ingratiating themselves with those who are willing to do violence, to advocate this method of dealing with people. It isn’t very effective, however. People can be trained to let women and the designated bad-boy bullies who make them wet treat them like dirt a great deal, but no one can tolerate it forever and eventually they’re mad as hell and won’t take it anymore.

It doesn’t even take a lot in the way of retaliation, by the way. I’ve had people – mostly women – in my life treat me like dirt, and I would exercise self-restraint and politely request that they stop and tell them how I felt and all the other shit that feminists claim is highly effective against rape when it isn’t even effective against your so-called friends telling random passing strangers intimate details of your life. Finally, when it was clear there was going to be no change in their vile behavior, I would snap and retaliate. Now, since I’m short and female, when I “snap and retaliate”, it means I yell at you for maybe two minutes tops and then you never see me again. But even this, after many warnings, sometimes months of warnings, utterly shocks these entitlement princesses. They have been so well trained to believe that they can do whatever they want, no matter how harmful it is to other people, and that it is the responsibility of their victims to exercise infinite self-restraint while their rights are being trampled upon, that they literally cannot believe it when they hear a raised voice and a slammed door. No wonder they don’t believe that serious wrongdoing, or serious stupidity, can lead to violence. They believe they can keep friends by treating those friends like shit, and they are genuinely astonished when it doesn’t work that way.

Now for today’s links.

Jacqui Smith: I’d never run a thing before the Home Office

Jacqui Smith has admitted for the first time that she was not up to the job of Home Secretary.

She said she was thrust into one of the biggest posts in Government without any training and called for MPs to receive help before they become ministers.

She also suggested that any successes she had in her post were down to ‘luck’ rather than skill.

Also, a woman besides me is sick of women going to the office dressed like prostitutes.

She was wearing a ‘spray-on’ dress, cut low enough to reveal yards of cleavage and high enough to barely skim her thighs, with shoes so high she had trouble walking in them.

Those clothes spoke volumes more than the carefully crafted CV and told me two essential things: this woman is not intelligent, and she does not respect me or herself….

Dropping into an estate agent’s office last weekend, I found myself transfixed by the female agent who’s bra straps were clearly on display and who was wearing so much lip gloss her lips were almost glued together.

Does it matter? Yes, it does. It damages every woman who engages in it, and undermines women at work generally.

The way we dress has a huge effect on the way we perceive ourselves, and on the way we’re perceived. Sadly, the two don’t always match up.

My star candidate in the sexy dress, for example, may have looked in her mirror that morning and seen ‘confident, individual, fashionable’. I saw ‘bimbo, trying too hard, someone who doesn’t have the sense to dress for the context in which she’s going to be seen’.

Yeah. Just this weekend, I was ogling a really hot chick who was about one inch of cloth away from indecent exposure, and then I overheard some of her conversation and realized that she’s still in high school. I quickly started looking the other way, even though it’s not illegal to look, but I can hardly believe any parent let their daughter go out looking like that. Yes, most women today who are not lesbians firmly believe that women who dress like hookers are no more likely to be ogled than women who dress normally, so they won’t stop their daughters from dressing like that. (Why on earth do they think hookers dress this way? Because it makes men hard and dykes wet, that’s why!) But if these mothers haven’t deprived them of their fathers, and surely not all of them have, their fathers know what makes a man’s dick hard. I once said all this to an older woman and her suggestion was that fathers have too strong a mental block against ever seeing their daughters as sexual beings to even notice when they look like they’re trying to score $50 for their next hit. If I were ever to have a daughter – highly unlikely, considering my age and my manifest reluctance to saddle myself with a wife who could be young enough to have children – I would probably build the same kind of mental block against seeing her that way, so I suppose that could be true.

Domestic Violence Against Men In Colorado

Boys and their toys? It’s biological, not social

The males monkeys played with the ‘boys’ toys while the females played with ‘boys’ and ‘girls’ toys

Boys prefer playing with cars to dolls because of basic biological differences rather than social pressures, scientists say.

Researchers observed young male monkeys spent more time playing with vehicles than with cuddly toys.

They believe this suggests that in most cases boys have an innate predisposition for masculine toys, which is then reinforced by what they learn from their parents, friends and wider society.

Dr Kim Wallen, a psychologist at Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, studied a group of captive, mainly juvenile male and female rhesus monkeys.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: