Archive for August, 2009

Sorry I’ve been AWOL

August 26, 2009

But apparently one of my co-workers decided to confirm all my convictions.

Yeah, at my office, a woman was put in charge of a vital department and allowed to work unsupervised. Then a few weeks ago, the boss discovered that, surprise! NO WORK WAS GETTING DONE!

She was fired, the rest of us have been working overtime to catch up on her backlog of undone work and mistakes, and I’ve been too exhausted to blog. Fortunately, we’ve now hired a couple of temps to work through this pile of stuff, so maybe it’ll slack off soon.

Those of you who’ve commented with links and stuff, thank you, I’ll look at them and post them when I have some time and energy, but right now I’m just swamped.


Addition to the Sidebars

August 14, 2009

I’ve just added a list of links to what I consider my best posts. It’s at the top of the sidebars.

In Defense of Beta Males

August 13, 2009

Those of us who read PUA blogs perhaps need to remember that “beta” is not an insult. Yeah, they’re unlucky in a primitive society such as modern America and Europe, in which the female of the species has been returned to cavewoman morals, but there’s nothing inherently bad about being one.

A mangina is not a beta male, by the way. Beta males are useful; manginas are not. Indeed, given the way they encourage bad female behavior, they are actively destructive.

The Roissysphere and its moral and intellectual objectives: a proposed manifesto

The issue that I and other bloggers are confronting here is the sexual impoverishment of beta males in the modern West. Western civilization is uniquely superior to all other societies because it was built by and for betas, harnessing their physical and mental power to create advanced technology, stable systems of governance, and economic prosperity. No other civilization – not the Chinese, not the Africans, not the Arabs, not the Amerindians – has ever managed to reach the heights obtained by European states and their offshoots because of this crucial difference. The reason angry ladybloggers can sit on their dimpled derrieres in air conditioned buildings and write blog posts displaying their painful ignorance to the world is because of the beta males who designed and built all of those things. Without them, as Camille Paglia said, “we would still be living in grass huts.”

To benefit betas and keep them invested in society, checks were placed on the sexual behavior of women and the alpha males whom they lusted after. The configuration of marriage afforded betas a chance to procreate, while protecting the women with whom they entered into holy matrimony. In the past four decades, these checks have been annihilated. Using the power of the state, radical feminists initiated a massive redistribution of wealth from the provider beta class to women. Alimony and child support payments, along with no-fault divorce, have annihilated marriage’s value, while welfare state programs such as WIC (Women, Infants, Children) reward women who become pregnant out of wedlock. Put simply, the socialist state has reduced the value of the provider beta to nothing. If provider betas were a corporation, it would have filed for bankruptcy and had its assets sold to the highest bidder years ago. Without the opportunity to reproduce, betas will give the bird to society and drop out, leaving the world to rot.

More pro-beta material:

The Beta Revolution

The Alpha Male, the Beta, and Pitcairn Island, or Watch Your Back

Why the Beta Male Exists


August 13, 2009

I won’t be posting much for a while because real life is keeping me busy and worn out. However, I do have a few links to share.

Here’s a very interesting new blog: Beta Revolution.

Beta – This word will, for simplicity’s sake, be used as a noun. You may ask why for this, and not for that? Well, it’s a revolution you see. Labeling a man an alpha posits certain benefits for which betas may not naturally be accustomed to claiming, not that every beta ought to claim them or necessarily needs to. So beta is a noun which identifies each of us as brothers. Characteristics of betas happen to be necessary for the functioning of civilization, but they are also neglected by the evolutionarily-endowed subconscious of woman.

Whiskey has a good post about the gym shootings.

Which leads to the most disturbing thing about our society today. Even with the rash of shootings, America is so big (303 million people and counting) that the shootings have only a minor affect on society, outside the tragedy for the victims and survivors. But the shootings point to a larger issue: the loss of investment of men in society. An investment that keeps even crazy people from targeting society itself, particularly innocent people, and makes men respond to a threat by risking or giving up their lives to save it’s foundation: women and children.

He also has a post about how Hollywood is promoting female infidelity.

I’ve continued to read Vox Popoli. There’s some important things I disagree with him about, but he is gratifyingly antifeminist and roasts our so-called educational system frequently. Here he discusses why women’s suffrage was a bad idea. Here he discusses a middle-aged woman who “cheats, divorces, and therefore concludes the institution of marriage must be outmoded.”

The Friday Challenge muses on the antimale bias of TV shows. This bugs me a lot, and it bothers ordinary women too. I can’t find the link now, but I read a woman who complained about commercials, saying, “You’re not going to sell to me by saying that my husband is an idiot!”

Here’s more on feminism promoting the murder of women: Sweden allows sex-selective abortions. That’s the difference between me and feminists: I don’t try to get women and girls killed. They do.

More cougar teachers

August 8, 2009

Florida Epidemic: Teachers Sleeping with Students

If you’re the parent of a teenage boy in Florida, you probably muttered “Not again” while reading your morning newspaper this week. There on the front page was yet another case of an adult female teacher being arrested for admitting to having had sex with an underage male student. This time the alleged perp was Maria Guzman Hernandez, a 32-year-old instructor at the private Our Lady of Charity school in Hialeah; her victim was 15. But she just as well could have been the 34-year-old Jacksonville public-school science teacher arrested last month for allegedly having sex with a 14-year-old student, once in her SUV; the 32-year-old St. Petersburg teacher collared in March for allegedly “sexting” nude pictures of herself to an eighth-grade boy; or the 45-year-old teacher at a private Christian academy in South Daytona who was arrested days before for allegedly having sex with a boy from her class in various Daytona Beach hotels.

One theory for the growing number of cases like these, says Sinacore, is what he calls “the more relaxed if not blurred boundary lines between teachers and students as teachers try to communicate with kids in this day and age.” Today’s kids, as the media have reported recently, are far less shy about innocent physical contact like hugging than their parents were as teens. That can be exploited by any male pervert overseeing a classroom. But it can also embolden predatory female teachers, whom experts say are often in emotionally needy states. “The trend with female offenders, more than males, is that they have emotional turmoil going on in their lives,” says Sinacore.

Dangerous Liaisons

There is no way to know whether more female teachers are having relationships with young male students or whether more are simply being reported. But as these cases make clear, inappropriate teacher-pupil relationships are not rare. According to Charol Shakeshaft, a professor of foundations, leadership and policy studies at Hofstra University, sexual misconduct is the top reason teaching licenses are revoked. “About 10% of kids report that sometime during K to 12, they have been the target of some form of educator sexual misconduct, and about 7% report physical sexual misconduct,” she says. “About one-third of those cases are female teachers to male students.”

Most offenders share traits besides being accomplished, attractive and married. They tend to be socially naive and have a desperate need to be liked by their students, says University of Connecticut psychiatrist Catherine Lewis. That ultimately makes them unable to maintain proper teacher-student boundaries. And because they may lack the emotional maturity to negotiate age-appropriate relationships, being with a young boy feels less threatening to them. “

Mars and Venus

August 8, 2009

Today I’m exploring some interesting new blogs I’ve found, and two different ones have posts that unintentionally support PUA theory.

The Wrong Stuff

A young man was suicidal because his girlfriend was obviously losing interest in him.

Tears were rolling down his cheeks in a small torrent. I empathised with his situation. I too knew of spurned love and how deeply it hurt. But staring at him I felt nothing but contempt. Here was a man who was in his early 20’s and had to be bought in by his mother because he was not coping, he was crying in a whining sort of way because his girl was leaving him, here was a man who was prepared to sacrifice his dignity for the affections of a woman who lost affection for him. In short, crying before me was a mummy’s boy who had lost out in love.

The good doctor ordered, “Grow some balls!” and told him to stop chasing the girl. It was too late to save the relationship, but he does have a new one.

In another post, this blogger linked to an illustration blog which had a series of posts on James Montgomery Flagg, the artist who did the famous “Uncle Sam wants you!” poster. The blogger really dislikes him. Why? Because he was only interested in beautiful women, and was an inveterate womanizer. “He also believed that beauty, at least in women, diminished as they approached middle age,” the blogger notes with horror. Gracious, what a strange “belief”.

I’m not defending Flagg, by the way. From the sound of it, he was a self-centered jerk; not because he slept around, but he really did treat people badly and said some pretty appalling things about anyone he wasn’t impressed with. (Example: he wished that he could have the FBI round up all the ugly people in the country and nuke them.) What amuses me is this:

Flagg never ran out of of girlfriends to mistreat (will some kind female reader puhleeze write in and explain this?)

Somebody give this man a copy of The Game by Neil Strauss.

Three women did comment speculating that these women liked the challenge and thought they could be the one who would change him.

As a matter of fact, one of them was almost right. He fell in love for real at last, but after a few years, she wanted marriage and commitment and he couldn’t bring himself to give it to her. She married someone else and he carried the torch for her for the rest of his life: “A roll in the bed with honey isn’t love. And the tragic part of it is that you never learn this until you’re past the age for it to happen to you again.”

Blogs I’ve just discovered

August 7, 2009

Vox Popoli was linked on another blog I follow because of his post on Sodini. I scanned the most recent posts and noticed many things I liked, including two in particular.

One, he obviously has a realistic perspective on the fair sex. Check out his posts on feminism – and those are just the ones that specifically use the word “feminism”. He recommends that people read Roissy et al.

Second, his subtitle delighted me:

Starring Vox Day, Libertarian and bête noire of ScienceBlogs

His objection to that site is the same as mine: it’s more about ideology and having a place to spew invective against people who aren’t far-left Democrat atheists than about science. It’s funny, the first time I came across that site, it was because I had read an article about diet that I wanted to check further. Scienceblogs had an item on that article, which basically consisted of, “That author is evil for saying this, but we aren’t going to waste time explaining the science behind why, because if we allow anyone who questions consensus to count as a ‘skeptic’, we’ll be stuck accepting global warming skeptics and alternative medicine advocates as skeptics!” Thanks, guys, that was real helpful. A few weeks later, I came across the site again when I was looking for something, and this time spent some time there, determining that it was a political site, not a science one. Most of the posts there don’t even have anything to do with science. And given their relentless irrational support for overwhelmingly discredited political schemes such as socialized medicine, socialism in general, government education, and feminism, why should I believe that they are more rational or honest in science than they are in politics? It’s not just the feminist bimbo I railed against a couple months back, every contributor I have ever looked at on that site is like that. Vox Popoli has also noticed this.

I don’t recall where I first saw a link to In Mala Fide, but it was within the last week or so. I had him in my bookmarks, intending to link him here, and then last night he commented here! Welcome, fellow traveller! He’s a PUA, an MRA, an MGHOW, a capitalist, and a realist about such things as crime and excessive immigration.

*looks at watch* Damn, I have to go. I don’t have time to properly introduce the next two, but they’re both MRA blogs, so check ’em out:

Occasional assorted reflections on philosophy, theology, politics, feminism and its discontents, and the male experience in contemporary America.

Rebuking Feminism
To create a greater understanding of men and women and our struggle in todays society. Please feel free to contribute and offer your own writings and information in the COMMENTS section and at REBUKEFEM@YAHOO.COM VOTE IN THE SURVEYS I’VE PROVIDED. I DON’T WANT THIS TO BE A ONE WAY CONVERSATION!

Phyllis Schafly interview

August 7, 2009

Phyllis Schlafly at 84

As you know, nobody made feminists more angry than you did. At one debate, Betty Friedan said to you, “I’d like to burn you at the stake.”

In 1972 the feminist movement made the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment their major goal, and they had every advantage. They had three Presidents, Nixon, Ford and Carter, [behind them]. They had all the governors. They had 99% of the media. They had organizations, they had Hollywood stars, movie stars, and they felt I was responsible for not letting them get what they wanted. So they were mad about it.

They also thought you were a hypocrite because you had a career yourself, but you didn’t seem to want other women to have one.

Well, that’s ridiculous because obviously I’ve had a wonderful life and I’m an example that women can do whatever they want to do. I’ve had it all, but I’ve had it at different times in my life. I spent 25 years without any income, a separate income, raising my six children. And after that I had time to go out and engage in politics. The feminist movement is not about success for women. It is about treating women as victims and about telling women that you can’t succeed because society is unfair to you, and I think that’s a very unfortunate idea to put in the minds of young women because I believe women can do whatever they want. Feminists don’t honor successful women. You never hear them talking about Margaret Thatcher. Take Condoleezza Rice. She’s a remarkable, successful woman. You don’t hear the feminists talk about her or Carly Fiorina or Jeanne Kirkpatrick. They don’t talk about them because they are just determined to preach this idea that women are unfairly treated in our society and they need legislation and government and taxpayers’ money in order to get them a fair break.

Oh, brother.

August 7, 2009

As soon as I heard about the gym shooting, I braced myself for a media frenzy. They love it when someone who isn’t a Muslim commits mass murder. Better yet, he’s white! Hooray! Break out the confetti, white people can be evil too! Also, this means we need gun control! We promise that we won’t send the secret police for people who disagree with our religious and political beliefs once you’re all disarmed, really, we won’t! Sure, banning guns was one of the first things the Nazis did, but we won’t do what they did with a disarmed populace, heh heh heh heh heh.

I’m having a busy week – had to take a relative to the ER (the relative is going to be fine) and some other stuff – so I wasn’t going to post about this. It isn’t really relevant to this blog, IMO. This blog is focused on theory about why feminism has such consistently bad results, and specific incidents that illustrate the theories, such as single mothers murdering their children. (Fathers almost never murder their own children. Stepfathers and “mommy’s boyfriend” do it routinely. Mothers do it less routinely, but way way more often than fathers. This is why children belong with their fathers, the one adult on earth who doesn’t want them dead.)

But Roissy got me a bit interested in the gym shooter. He immediately pounced on the fact that the murderer hadn’t been laid in 20 years, and said that if he had learned game and gotten laid, he probably wouldn’t have felt the need to commit murder. I’m not so sure – Charles Manson didn’t lack for female companionship, and Ted Bundy always had a steady girlfriend – but certainly that kind of loneliness can have a warping effect on the soul. And I would rather people not get their souls warped so that I can take exercise classes without worrying about getting shot.

Then it turned out that the poor sap had actually taken a pick-up seminar. A lame one, by a pick-up guru held in low esteem by serious PUAs, but will that make any difference to the media and the feminists?

None whatever.

“Expect a violent firestorm from the feministing blogs to scream misogynistic bloody murder about the PUA community after this revelation.”

In fact they already are, and naming Roissy in particular here:

I understand that appeals to nebulous ‘misogyny’ are going to always be the default bugbear for militant feminism, but skim over their perspectives:

This is just the groundswell, I expect next week’s View, Oprah and Dr. Phil show’s rosters is already filled with ‘experts’ ready to vilify and ridicule ‘evil’ men.”

I read these, pure gold. I could not stop laughing. They’ll go to any extent to avoid blame. Somehow, this shooting and George’s problems with women are a result of cultural misogyny and patriarchy, not a 20 year celibacy. I wish that F. Roger Devlin was mandatory reading for anyone who wants to post on the internet about men and women.

I read the linked posts. They fling the word “misogynist” around with abandon, which now has me grumpily feeling I should clarify what I mean by misogyny. A misogynist is a person who notices whether or not co-eds are wearing high heels. No, just kidding.

Misogyny is an emotion. Anyone who doesn’t hate women in today’s world has to be comatose, because most women today behave in a thoroughly hateful fashion. Yet most of us will never commit any acts of violence. Heck, I’m constantly denouncing the many ways in which feminists put other women in harm’s way, such as encouraging them to go to places where there is a high probability of their being raped, or putting themselves in situations where a rape could easily happen, or voting for aspiring dictators who want to take our guns, or encouraging the fatherless homes which produce 75% of violent criminals, or permitting co-ed schools, in which girls are guaranteed to be assaulted sexually and physically by boys. Feminists do everything they can to support these sources of violence against women, and react with fury when someone like me mentions how women can minimize their chances of being raped or murdered. (Own a gun, don’t go to bad neighborhoods late at night wearing a miniskirt and get drunk, don’t take off your clothes and get into bed with a man you don’t want to fuck, and don’t set foot on a co-ed elementary school campus unless you’re an adult who is larger than all the males on campus. If that is the case, they’re the ones who should be afraid of you.) I, the misogynist, am the one who’s denouncing things that facilitate or lead to violence against women. Meanwhile, feminists are actively promoting these things. What does this tell you?

So, to the feminist bloggers who think they’ve explained something by invoking the honorable and proud title “misogynist” and applying it to this pathetic loser, think again. Isis the “Scientist” photoshopped a male blogger’s name onto a picture of a coffin, so she’s obviously pretty full of hate herself, but I doubt she’s ever killed any of the literal billions of people who have failed to correctly anticipate what random statement she will decide to interpret as “sexist”. A few days ago I came across another feminist blog which is so icky I’m not even going to link it, but it consisted pretty much entirely of her spewing obscene epithets at Christians, capitalists, and any male commenter who politely disagreed with her. She openly fantasized about all the Christians in the world being put to death, which I would say indicates a bit of hatred, but I don’t believe she’ll ever actually kill anyone.

On the off chance that you feminists want to impress the world with your genuine concern over acts of violence, I suggest that the next time a toddler is murdered by whatever scumbag their mother left their father for, which will probably be by noon tomorrow, you all denounce her roundly. “That whore should never have deprived that poor child of his father!” etc. Feminists won’t do this, of course, because they make no bones about their belief that their orgasms are more important than the lives of their children.

But back to Roissy, I have to say that I’m amused. He routinely gets hundreds of comments on his posts, many of them, naturally, from women who are outraged that he doesn’t see them as the super-deep Special Snowflakes they like to imagine they are. But this time, he’s apparently gotten so many hysterical comments from idiot feminists that he felt the need to tell them off:

To all the femdopes suffering from post traumatic reading incomprehension currently linking to my last few series of posts about George Sodini and menstruating indignantly all over the internet, you should get your logic straight before flapping your gums.

I love Roissy. He always makes me laugh.

Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism

August 7, 2009

Newsweek’s Begley illustrates Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism

Sharon Begley wrote a column for Newsweek that represents her attempt to debunk evolutionary psychology.

“Attempt” is the right word. I have yet to see any argument against evolutionary psychology that held water. Such arguments generally fall into these categories:

1. “But if evo psych were true, then suicide and homosexuality and everything else that makes people less likely to reproduce would NEVER HAPPEN!” This one is based on an incredibly simplistic understanding of evolutionary principles.

2. “Those evo psych people are just trying to MAKE EXCUSES for BAD BEHAVIOR! Darwin made me do it!” Understanding why something happens does not constitute excusing it. I’m always explaining why women behave badly when men don’t supervise them; does anybody here think I’m excusing them? I suspect if we blamed capitalism or patriarchy for bad behavior, we wouldn’t be accused of “excusing” it.

3. “The behavior that evo psych claims to explain doesn’t exist!” Yeah, stepfathers never kill other men’s children, fertile women are no more likely to be raped, and women aren’t attracted to men who look like they can beat up other men.

4. “We are all born as blank slates. SOCIETY is to blame for EVERYTHING. People can be molded into ANYTHING!” No, they can’t. How much molding we can take is limited. No amount of molding is going to make women equal to men, for example.

Back to Begley. She doesn’t like the idea that men are attracted to youth and beauty, women to status.

He then quotes where she tries to convince us that the world is full of men who turn on to fat, old women, backing this up with vague, dubious data.

Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism: “The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.”