Archive for the ‘puas’ Category

Link dump

October 23, 2009

Putting girls in their place

This PUA post is about why alpha males are the only ones who can really keep women’s behavior in civilized bounds. Beta males and other women can’t do it.

This makes it all the more important for desirable males to whip girls into shape whenever they get out of control. First, they are less likely to call acceptable acts “misbehavior” because they aren’t competing with the girl, aren’t bitter or resentful — they have enough choices that one girl isn’t a drop in the bucket — and have no genetic stake in how she behaves. Ideally this would be her boyfriend or husband, but even they may not step up enough because they’ll incur a higher cost in the form of a potential strain on the relationship’s harmony.

Women’s suffrage over time By John R. Lott, Jr.

He’s the guy who wrote Freedomnomics, in which he demonstrated how allowing women to vote causes the expansion of government.

Every Feminist’s Nightmare?

Rumor has it that when Professor Walter Block presented a lecture at Loyola College recently in which he argued that free-market competition diminishes rather than exacerbates the male/female “wage gap” the entire College administration, and the majority of the economics department, collectively swooned. There are even reports that they all collapsed simultaneously on the same swooning couch.

The Socratic Ideal of Student-Teacher Sex

A feminist idealizes cougar teachers molesting boys:

But I envy the relationship those Greeks had, back when terms like “statutory rape” didn’t exist. It strikes me as so perfectly symbiotic: The beautiful blank slate of a student takes knowledge from his wise and wizened mentor, and in exchange gives the joy of fresh enthusiasm. And sex. I won’t be so flip as to ask “What’s wrong with that?” (Obviously, there are many unpleasant examples of the Socrates figure taking advantage of someone vulnerable and non-consenting.) But I will say that, in its idealized form, doesn’t that sound kind of nice?

The True Horror in Hitchcock Films

San Francisco’s actual Chief of Police now is an affirmative-action diminutive Chinese-American female from the accounting department who is the laughingstock of the police force. The rate of unresolved murder cases in San Francisco is so high that the city has tried, unsuccessfully, to solicit help by offering $100,000 rewards to people who would come forward with information.

At a loss, the city’s leaders elected what else but a transgender person, Theresa Sparks, as President of the San Francisco Police Commission. Mr./Ms. Sparks’ qualifications for the job consist in his/her managing a vibrator company which was recently running a special under the slogan, “August is Anal Sex Month; 15% off select Anal Toys.”

To bolster this team with some serious dose of law-enforcing testosterone, San Francisco got itself a female District Attorney who bestows additional glory on the city by being half Tamil-Indian and half-black. Kamala Davis Harris refuses to seek the death penalty for murder, which is the law of the land, plea-bargains murder cases, and fails to prosecute criminals arrested with firearms. San Francisco police officers take a dim view of this, what with their own being murdered by criminals that the District Attorney has failed to prosecute. But the need to keep their jobs muzzles their mouths.

Of late, Ms. Davis Harris has made the news due to her office’s failure to prosecute Edwin Ramos, a vicious Mara Salvatrucha gangbanger and illegal Honduran alien, who had been arrested on illegal gun possession charges, and then released instead of being at the least deported. One month later Mr. Ramos would be arrested for the murder of Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons, Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16. The murder weapon has since been linked to two other murders.

San Francisco’s metrosexual mayor is given to utterances like, “You know we’re the only city — I think we’re the only big city in America … there may be an exception or two … that women are running the Police Department, Fire Department and our emergency services. That’s why I feel so safe.”

Women once again demonstrate that they can’t be trusted with responsibility for other people. Allowing women to play at being police officers or D.A.’s is murdering the citizens of the city these women are messing around in.

A Surplus of Women Means Fewer Proposals and Shorter Skirts

Here’s something more positive: Edgar Rice Burroughs and Masculine Narrative


Sharing a bed without sex

September 15, 2009

Some of you may remember hexadecimal declaring that if a woman took off her panties, got into bed with him, and told him, “I’m not going to have sex with you,” he would “respect” that. That’s when I banninated him, because he was telling women they should feel free to do this because only “a piece of shit” would react any other way. Feminists love to endanger women with this kind of advice. I, the misogynist, advise them not to do anything so dangerous and foolhardy, since the odds are excellent that something bad will happen to them if they do so. Putting yourself in a position where your safety and well-being depends on someone else’s ethics is not a good idea when it can be avoided.

I was reminded of that ludicrous statement tonight when I was catching up on Roissy’s blog. First, this is from a few days ago. A reader emailed Roissy with a question:

The other night I had this 18yo on the back of my car, we had made out a few time. She was naked on the back seat with her legs spread open and her back against the window, I was naked and had just put a condom on, and just when I my dick touched her pussy and I was finding her glourious hole she said ‘Not gonna happen’ to which I replied ‘Well, it is happening’.
She then got dressed, said something to the effect of ‘I lost my virginity 2 nights ago (other guy not me) and im not gonna do it in the back of a car’ and I kept my usual aloofness but inside I was confused as hell.

Fortunately for this stupid cocktease, men have now had decades of hearing about women having clearly consensual sex and then charging them with rape the next day, or women leading them on and changing their minds at the last minute, etc. The guy in my example from the women’s magazine article was in the midst of the Sexual Revolution, constantly bombarded by feminist bullshit about how women have just as high a sex drive as men and want to have fun screwing around just like men do, etc., and he was old enough to remember when women didn’t act like that unless they were sluts who wanted to have sex. He had every reason to be confused. Men today know that confusion is the natural state when dealing with modern women and that they just have to put up with irrational, malicious behavior like this. So Roissy’s correspondent knew that the only thing he could do when this chick gave him every reason to think she wanted to have sex and then announced that she didn’t was to zip up and drive her home.

He behaved rightly, but she didn’t. If a man invited a woman to an expensive restaurant and then told her at the end of the evening that she would have to pay for dinner, what would anyone think? If a man got engaged to a woman and then jilted her at the altar – well, heck, you used to be able to sue men who did that. She knew perfectly well that her behavior was leading him to believe he was going to score. The only possible reason she had for behaving this way when she didn’t intend to come across was that she enjoyed messing with the poor guy’s head.

(By the way, the example I gave from that women’s magazine probably wasn’t a cocktease, just a moron. Feminists told her she could undress and get into bed with a man and expect him not to touch her, and she was stupid enough to believe them. The old rules of behavior for unmarried girls were designed to protect pinheaded females like this. Feminists have robbed those dimbos of that safety and thrown them to the wolves.)

Roissy agrees with me about the proper way to treat women who act like this:

A better response would have been to keep your cool, get dressed, and drive her home silently. She would have gotten confused and asked what was up, at which point you would say “I have to get up early.”

Look, dude, you’re dealing with a Class A skank whore. She lost her virginity two nights ago (if she’s telling the truth) to another dude and now she’s in the car fooling around with you. Chicks like this are master manipulators of male egos. They love the validation they get from hard cocks being pushed up in their faces, and then they power trip by denying those cocks sweet release.

Yes. There’s three ways to respond when a woman pulls this crap.

A piece of shit will rape her, and hopefully will go to jail afterwards.

A mangina will grovel, telling her that he “respects” her, go to sleep, and hope that eventually she will have pity and give him some pussy. (She won’t.)

A man (or dyke) with a spine will throw the bitch out.

Then today, Roissy posted about this at greater length, in response to another reader e-mail.

One crucial beta move jumps out — you let a girl sleep in your bed with you without getting any nookie. In other words, she got everything (companionship, sleep, validation, emotional orgasm) and you got nothing except Olympian blue balls.

A few times in my life a girl I had begun dating attempted this “we can sleep together and cuddle as long as you keep your hands to yourself” routine. This magnificent shit test is just about the most selfishly indulgent act of cruelty a woman can foist on a man. If you ever wondered whether women have *any* empathy at all for how a man feels and thinks, the “sleep but no sex” shit test should answer your question: Women don’t have a clue about the male sex drive, and of those that do have a clue they are cunty sadists if they pull this stunt.

I learned my lesson the hard way (quite hard) and ever since have responded in one of two ways:

1.I left if we were at her place, or I kicked her out if she was at my place.
2.I molested her all night long until she either relented and we screwed or she gave up on her idea of sleeping in my bed peacefully without sex.

Amen. My first girlfriend pulled that shit test on me, and I flunked it. Yes, I “respected” her. Hey, I was infatuated and she was gorgeous and a champion manipulator. After that, I knew better. When later gfs tried to pull that on me, I told them to go the hell home.

When I started reading PUA stuff, I found that some of their principles were things I had figured out about women through brutal experience. It’s too bad I didn’t discover PUA before I got fed up with women, but pussy isn’t worth putting up with women. Not anymore.

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

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.”

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.

Link dump

July 16, 2009

Oh, brother. It looks like I’m going to be getting irate comments on my post denouncing feminists for encouraging women to put themselves in danger forever. The basic premise of these people seems to be that, since women should be safe anywhere, including in a man’s bed without panties or drunk in a bad neighborhood wearing a miniskirt, women should go right ahead and behave as if they were safe anywhere, and just hope that the men they encounter happen, by pure chance, to be the enlightened sort.

Most of the comments were so nonsensical that I was embarrassed to belong to the same species as those who made them, but they had clearly worked themselves up into a self-righteous lather over at hexadecimal’s post. (Just think if they used that fervor against actual rapists instead of against people who mention ways of avoiding rape.) And considering that his idea of a good way to open a conversation is to brag about how horrified he is at the very existence of the person with whom he wishes to converse, it’s not too surprising that his commenters act the way they do.

Unlike that poor mangina Professor Anonymous, however, I have the balls not to cave to pressure to take my post down. And there’s always the hope that some woman who reads it will make some kind of subconscious connection and not endanger herself despite the urgings of feminists.

Oh, also, it seems I am guilty of not condoning premarital sex. Which I don’t. Not that I recommend that any man get married in today’s legal climate, and it would be cruel to expect men to be celibate in addition to everything else they have to put up with these days, but that’s not at all the same as approving of screwing around. It doesn’t mean that the women who do it deserve any respect. Sure, the civilization western men have created recognizes basic human rights of sluts, just as it does those of felons, the retarded, the comatose, the unborn, etc. But respect is not a basic human right, and certainly not anything that a woman who sleeps around can expect.

I linked the Editrix to a post I made some time ago about how fatherlessness helped cause the rise of fascism, which, considering how many boys grow up without fathers today throughout Europe and America, is something to worry about. She replied with this post in which she partially agrees with me but says my post was oversimplifying, which I knew it was. The purpose of this blog is to rail against one particular force in the destruction of our civilization. Feminism has accelerated it beyond the wildest hopes of Marx and Gramsci, but it was not the root cause. For the root cause, well, one good place to start would be here. Actually, let me clarify: the “root cause” is human nature. Progressive lies are appealing because they promise a utopia to come as soon as everybody is sufficiently enlightened, and because they relieve those who subscribe to them of responsibility for their actions. Of course that’s appealing. Someone who claimed to have invented a pill that would make ice cream and pizza accelerate weight loss would acquire a following too.

Back to the Editrix’s post, some time ago I found casualty figures for the Great War, broken down by country, but I can’t find them now. When I dig them up again, I’ll post them, but I do remember that Germany’s casualties exceeded everyone else’s by a wide margin.

Roissy has echoed my contention that feminism is just one big “shit test”.

Actually, I don’t think American women want to be equal. That’s just what they tell themselves to rationalize their aggressively masculine posturing toward men. More accurately, of all the world’s women, American women are the biggest shit testers because they so very much DON’T want to be equal to the supplicating American betaboys they date. A desire by American women to shit test men to kingdom come to find the alpha gem among the beta shale is often miscontrued by men as a desire for equal footing with them. The truth is, in fact, just the opposite. They shit test because they want to find a man who puts himself on a footing above her. This is why even the most hardcore self-professed feminists will wilt into a puddle of submissive passion for a devil-may-care alpha male who doesn’t take her oh-so-profound ideology or her empty bleatings for equality seriously.

I hadn’t been keeping up with Oz Conservative, but he’s got a lot of great posts lately. In Sweden, feminists are trying to force men to pee sitting down. Men, don’t let this happen to you! You know, back when Camille Paglia first said, “Male urination really is a kind of accomplishment, an arc of transcendence. A woman merely waters the ground she stands on,” I just thought she was being nutty, as she often is. Swedish feminists, it seems, believed her.

Also, guys, follow the great F. Roger Devlin’s advice not to give a woman a baby unless she agrees to a real marriage to you. Even if all you do is donate sperm, she could come after you for money later.

This article… I can’t even stand to quote it. Just go read. If the feminist trolls are still lurking here, they’ll probably approve of everything in it.

Link dump

June 26, 2009

Women at war face sexual violence

Everybody’s supposed to have a battle buddy in the army, and females are supposed to have one to go to the latrines with, or to the showers – that’s so you don’t get raped by one of the men on your own side.

But because I was the only female there, I didn’t have a battle buddy. My battle buddy was my gun and my knife.

During my first few months in Iraq, my sergeant assaulted and harassed me so much I couldn’t take it any more. So I decided to report him.

But when I turned him in, they said, ‘The one common factor in all these problems is you. Don’t see this as a punishment, but we’re going to have you transferred.’

Then that same sergeant was promoted right away. I didn’t get my promotion for six months.

They transferred me from Mosul to Rawah. There were over 1,500 men in the camp and less than 18 women, so it wasn’t any better there than the first platoon I was in. I was fresh meat to the hungry men there.

I was less scared of the mortar rounds that came in every day than I was of the men who shared my food.

I never would drink late in the day, even though it was so hot, because the Port-a-Johns were so far away it was dangerous.

So I’d go for 16 hours in 140-degree heat and not drink. I just ate Skittles to keep my mouth from being too dry.

I collapsed from dehydration so often I have IV track lines from all the times they had to re-hydrate me.

Isn’t it horrible of sexist pigs like me to want these women to be denied equal opportunity in military deployment?

Feminism and the Male Brain by Naomi Wolf

The poor woman’s trying desperately to cling to some shred of feminism, but she’s honest enough to admit a few things:

The feminist critique, for example, has totally remade elementary-level education, where female decision-makers prevail: the construction of male hierarchies in the schoolyard is often redirected nowadays for fear of “bullying,” with boys and girls alike expected to “share” and “process” their emotions. But many educators have begun to argue that such intervention in what may be a hardwired aspect of “boy-ness” can lead to boys’ academic underperformance relative to girls, and to more frequent diagnoses of behavioral problems, attention deficit disorder, and so on….

Now a spate of scientific analyses, based on brain imaging technology and new anthropological and evolutionary discoveries, suggests that we may have had our heads in the sand, and that we must be willing to grapple with what seem to be at least some genuine, measurable differences between the sexes.

13 Year Old Boy Sleeps with Two Teachers

A Rogues’ Gallery of Rape-y Teachers

This is what happens in an environment where “female decision-makers prevail”: little boys being raped by cougars.

Women’s Brains Respond to Manly Men

It’s still biological. Evidence just keeps piling up.

Backlash: Women Bullying Women at Work

It’s probably no surprise that most of these bullies are men, as a survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute, an advocacy group, makes clear. But a good 40 percent of bullies are women. And at least the male bullies take an egalitarian approach, mowing down men and women pretty much in equal measure. The women appear to prefer their own kind, choosing other women as targets more than 70 percent of the time.

“I’ve been sabotaged so many times in the workplace by other women, I finally left the corporate world and started my own business,” said Roxy Westphal, who runs the promotional products company Roxy Ventures Inc. in Scottsdale, Ariz. She still recalls the sting of an interview she had with a woman 30 years ago that “turned into a one-person firing squad” and led her to leave the building in tears.

Love in the Time of Darwinism by Kay S. Hymowitz

Earlier this year, I published an article in City Journal called “Child-Man in the Promised Land.” The piece elicited a roaring flood of mailed and blogged responses, mostly from young men who didn’t much care for its title (a reference to Claude Brown’s 1965 novel Manchild in the Promised Land) or its thesis: that too many single young males (SYMs) were lingering in a hormonal limbo between adolescence and adulthood, shunning marriage and children, and whiling away their leisure hours with South Park reruns, marathon sessions of World of Warcraft, and Maxim lists of the ten best movie fart scenes.

It would be easy enough to hold up some of the callow ranting that the piece inspired as proof positive of the child-man’s existence. But the truth is that my correspondents’ objections gave me pause. Their argument, in effect, was that the SYM is putting off traditional markers of adulthood—one wife, two kids, three bathrooms—not because he’s immature but because he’s angry. He’s angry because he thinks that young women are dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling, and gold-digging. He’s angry because he thinks that the culture disses all things male. He’s angry because he thinks that marriage these days is a raw deal for men.

Really? How on earth could any man have possibly reached such a conclusion?

In her interviews with 100 unmarried, college-educated young men and women, Jillian Straus, author of Unhooked Generation, discovered that a lot of women had “personal scripts”—explicit ideas about how a guy should act, such as walking his date home or helping her on with her coat.

She discusses the PUA community for several paragraphs.

Men are convinced that they are no worse—and probably a good deal better—than women in making these calculations. With good Darwinian logic, though, they believe that women tend to do their reckoning on the basis of wallet size rather than pulchritude. “Girls are really good at that kind of math,” one jaded twentysomething man writes to me about his entry-level salary. In a review of the movie Sex and the City, the English author Toby Young remembers the five years he had lived in New York: “Attractive single girls not only dropped their ‘dates’ at the slightest whiff of a bigger, better deal, they routinely betrayed their girlfriends, too.” (As his only half-facetious name suggests, Carrie’s Mr. Big is pure alpha—rich and, as if proving the conclusions of recovering nice guys everywhere, a bit of a jerk.)

Nowhere does she admit that the behavior of women in recent decades is responsible for male self-defense from it, but she at least gives MRAs a fair hearing for it.

She’s written a book about marriage which seems quite sensible:

A generation ago Americans undertook a revolutionary experiment to redefine marriage. Where historically men and women had sought a loving bond, largely centered on the rearing of children, the new arrangement called for an intimate—and provisional—union of two adults. Now, as Kay Hymowitz argues in Marriage and Caste in America, the results of this experiment separating marriage from childrearing are in, and they turn out to be bad news not only for children but also, in ways little understood, for the country as a whole. The family revolution has played a central role in a growing inequality and high rates of poverty, even during economic good times. The family upheaval has hit African-Americans especially hard, Ms. Hymowitz shows, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan had famously predicted it would. While for decades feminists and academics toyed with the myth of the strong single black mother supported by kinship networks, black men drifted into fatherhood without being husbands, without even becoming part of a family, while black children were left behind. When Americans began their family revolution, they forgot to consider what American marriage was designed to do: it ordered lives by giving the young a meaningful life script. It supported middle-class foresight, planning, and self-sufficiency. And it organized men and women around “The Mission”— nurturing their children’s cognitive, emotional, and physical development. More than anything, Ms. Hymowitz writes, it is The Mission that separates middle-class kids—who for all their overscheduling are doing very well indeed—from their less-parented and lower-achieving peers. In fact our great family experiment threatens to turn what the founders imagined as an opportunity-rich republic of equal citizens into a hereditary caste society.

Blogger Guy White hat tipped me for a cartoon. Here’s a couple of excellent posts from him:

Our Matriarchical Society

One soldier returned from Iraq in 1991 after spending half a year as POW and got arrested for non-payment of child support while a POW in Iraq. A man who spent 10 years in prison for a crime he proved he did not commit was still on the hook for child support for the time he was incarcerated. As was a man whose DNA test proved he’s not even the father. Even being in a coma is not a defense, as at least one man found out.

You lose your driver’s license, your professional licenses, liens are placed on you and your bank accounts. If you make any money, the wages are garnished. If you don’t find a job quick to pay off your child support debt, you’ll be thrown in jail for up to half a year. When you get out, you’ll still owe the money.

If your parents allow you to sleep on the couch in their living room, it is considered income and you must pay child support from it.

To make sure your life is completely ruined, if you marry again, your second wife will also have to pay your first one because the support is counted based on “family income”. So if your first wife is vindictive enough, she can prevent you from ever re-marrying. See, and you thought you were divorced and free to do as you pleased!

As this article points out, even if a DNA test absolves you of paternity, you might not be in the clear. One of these days, I might find myself the object of a paternity suit. How long do they think men will tolerate this? It can’t last forever.

Here’s an especially good one: More Feminist Regurgitation

Some feminist bimbo wrote claiming that women had invented a long list of things. One commenter patiently explains, “I can poke holes in this list of items ‘invented’ by women. This is actually a list of patents held by women NOT a list of original research and developed by women.”

The list is hilarious. Seems the life raft was invented by a woman in the late nineteenth century. For millenia before that, people who fell off ships just drowned, while the poor dumb men stood on deck wishing there were some way of putting something in the water that might float and give the drowners something to grab onto.

Included on the list is the ironing board and the chocolate chip cookie. No, really. Also alphabet blocks. As one commenter says,

What the hell are alphabet blocks? The things kids play with? Congratulations, womankind. I guess my gender will have to content ourselves with the fact that we invented THE ALPHABET!

Roissy Rocks.

June 18, 2009

He’s got two recent posts that are made of win. Well, most of his posts are made of win, but these especially.

There’s today’s: Great Scenes Of Game In The Movies, where he posts a clip of Cary Grant putting his palm into Katharine Hepburn’s face and shoving her onto the floor. In the end, they get together.

Roissy rants a bit about how most men these days don’t have the balls to confront women, especially not physically, even in the harmless way it’s done in the movie clip, where she’s not at all hurt, only embarrassed. And outside of elementary school classrooms, he’s right. But this made me think of a couple of things.

If you go to the post and watch the clip, you’ll see that first Cary Grant pulls back his fist as if he’s going to punch her, but immediately stops himself and instead puts his hand on her face and gives her a shove. I think the dramatic purpose here was to remind Hepburn’s character as well as the audience of who is the truly powerful one here, and then to show us that the hero is in control of himself, but it is only because of his self-control that she is spared a punch in the jaw after having provoked him so much.

If movies of the time are any indication, it used to be fairly routine for men to give the women in their lives little reminders of the male capacity for violence. Nowadays, a man who shoved a woman to the floor or pushed a grapefruit into her face would be labelled as an “abuser”, which is pretty silly considering the kind of pain men routinely inflict on each other, or that allegedly loving parents inflict on their children. So most men who have the capacity to plan ahead – that is, who can restrain themselves on the spot in order to stay out of jail – are never going to give a woman any such painless indignity.

This is, in fact, a problem. Because feminists, which is most women these days, have no clue what men are like. They either believe that men are monstrous Neanderthals ready to rape and pillage like Genghis Khan at any moment, or that they’re just like women, only hairier. The fact is, women aren’t nearly as violent as men, both because we’re too small and because our hormones don’t motivate us to it. Most female violence that does occur is aimed at helpless targets, such as children or civilized men who won’t fight back (see the “Battered Men” links in my sidebar), and we all know that women are capable of a lot of nonphysical sadism.

So by sheltering women from the usual social customs that used to restrain women from provoking violent retaliation that they couldn’t handle, and the unpleasant but harmless reminders like in that movie clip that men are capable of violence, we’re basically telling women a lie, that they can provoke men all they want and not expect a physical assault when eventually some man’s had enough.

Camille Paglia is often crazy, but she understands this. Some years ago, she told an interviewer about a woman who led her on to believe she was going to sleep with Paglia (who’s bisexual), then changed her mind when it came to the crunch. Paglia said, “I wanted to hit her. If I had been a man, I would have hit her.” The interviewer, no doubt shocked, said, “Would you have been right to hit her?” Paglia replied, “That’s not the point. The point is that I would have.”

Remember when I posted about the Errant Wife a while back? She quoted someone as pointing out that her kind of behavior is likely to provoke some men to kill their unfaithful wives, and she commented, “Seriously?” Is she not aware that infidelity has been one of the leading motives for murder from time immemorial? Does she not understand that a proper marriage is one of the rewards society offers men for restraining their antisocial impulses? No, silly me, of course she doesn’t. Probably she, like most feminists, believes that men commit violent acts because society has brainwashed them into believing that this is how they prove their manhood. Has nothing at all to do with their inherent testosterone or neural structure, no sir. Force all boys to spend their childhoods locked up with silly women who tell them about warm fuzzies and cold pricklies and they’ll grow up to be as pacifist and nurturing as women!

(Exercise: look at the crime rate since boys were subjected to that kind of training.)

I’m not saying that men don’t have any responsibility to control their violent impulses. Of course they do. But actions have consequences. Friends should be loyal to you through thick and thin, but if you keep saying nasty things to your friends and telling their secrets to others, eventually they’ll kick you out of their lives. Children should obey their parents, but if their parents regularly abuse them, it’s more than likely that once they’re big enough, they’ll one day get fed up and brain Mom and Dad with the toaster. If you keep on violating hardwired principles, there will be consequences, later if not sooner. Sure, in a civilized society the man you’ve treated so shabbily will be put in prison for beating or killing you, but how much good will that do you? You’re already dead. Or in traction.

The women I’ve posted about recently, who thought they could go to Taliban-controlled countries unmolested, would probably not have gone through what they did if a couple of their boyfriends had applied a grapefruit to their faces or put their fist through the drywall, as one of Roissy’s commenters suggested.

In related news: Men Are Hard-Wired to Suspect Infidelity

Roissy’s post has, at this moment, 117 comments. I’ve only read about the first ten, but two of those defend Roissy’s charge that most “beta males” today are too afraid of women to shove her onto the floor as Cary Grant did. One called Z says:

I also honestly believe if it weren’t for what modern prison is (gang beatings and gang-rapes of non-underclass non-gang member men by connected lifetime-underlcass thugs) thatt you’d be very suprised at how assertive beta males would be. They dont fear women at all. They fear prison and the wrecking of their lives professionally and financailly that would be imposed upon them by the state upon their release (try to get a decent job if you have been in the joint and have to state that on an application) . They also fear the incident’s record abetting the taking of their children at any divorce proceedings. If knocking out a few of your girlfriend’s/wife’s teeth were only punished by having to work on road-work crews during weekends for 12 hour shifts for one year, or some other non-penal penalty that didn’t affect a man’s employment ($5,000 fine perhaps?), but simply made him work it off for 4-500 hours, dentists would be quite busy (and plastic surgeons) fixing knocked out teeth and broken jaws. Women have -no idea- how violent merely ordinary men can be when not restrained by the state’s *truly* cruel and unusual (HIV from prison rape) countermeasures actually are.

Completely true. Draconian laws that allow men to be jailed for obviously trivial or imaginary “abuse” is a big part of what allows women to get away with the outrageous behavior this blog is devoted to venting about.

The other Roissy post I want to share is The Self-Made Beta. He relates having spotted a beta male talking to a sexily clad young woman, not flirting or in any way acknowledging that she was obviously out to attract men, because he knew she wasn’t the kind of man she was hoping to ensnare.

Here is my call to arms. I believe it is every man’s duty to impolitely flirt and pass sexual judgement on each attractive woman who crosses his path. I believe it is every man’s right, no matter what his age, to refuse to apologize for his natural desires, to make no excuses for his deviant wants, and to grab any opportunity to hit on women in his field of view. I believe it is every man’s mission statement at birth to disturb a woman’s banal self-satisfied sanctuary — her cultivated immunity from unsettling intrusions of the psychologically erectile form – whenever she cavalierly insults his primal urges with naive overtures toward tepid, desexualized friendliness. I believe in all this because a man is happiest when he is demonstrating by his actions a proper respect for his masculine prerogative. I want there to be no mental safe haven for sexually enticing women in public places where men are present. I want them forced to confront what men are truly feeling and visualizing underneath their threadbare civility, and to understand there is no walling off the ever-encroaching predatory chaos of the jungle. I want them to be psychologically groped, everywhere there are men like me at ease with our voracious sexuality.

Lately it seems that I have been seeing a lot of feminists protesting the idea that wearing sexy clothes makes men think about sex. I grant you this is counterintuitive. (Note: irony.) There’s Isis the Scientist, insisting that women who wear brightly colored spike heels shouldn’t have to endure the horror of men lusting after them, for example.

Then there’s a female friend of mine, a mostly intelligent and sane person, but her head has been filled with the usual feminist claptrap. Naturally, she knows nothing of my own convictions. She keeps quoting very reasonable articles by men saying, “I wish women would stop wearing miniskirts and plunging necklines to the office and then claim I’m sexually harassing them when I can’t help looking,” and then denouncing these demonic men for not controlling themselves more.

Maybe I shouldn’t be quite so hard on her. Like I was saying above, feminists have no clue what men are really like. As a lesbian, I have more insight; I have some male qualities, so I understand the other sex better. I know what it’s like to see sexily dressed women in public places and have to restrain my ogling. I used to be very annoyed because a moderately attractive woman I worked with often wore tight, short skirts to the office, which was very distracting in an environment where I was supposed to be thinking about business stuff, not about sex. She was only somewhat attractive, and had she dressed properly I never would have had any such thoughts about her, but her inappropriate attire made her sexy.

Now, if I see a pretty girl in a skirt that covers her knees and isn’t too tight and a shirt that isn’t clinging and doesn’t show much cleavage, I’ll enjoy the sight. But put that same girl in tight clothing that shows more skin, and I’ll be fantasizing about going Conan on her before I’ve had time to blink. There is a definite difference. And if the effects are that different for a dyke, what must it be like for someone with six or seven times as much testosterone as I have?

And by the way, lesbians who wear makeup or feminine clothing take a lot of flak for it from other dykes. Never mind if it’s just their personal inclination; they get accused of “wanting to be attractive to men”. In the gay community, a man who wears makeup and dresses will get much more acceptance than a woman who does. My point here is, since lesbians don’t want to attract men, most of them very sensibly dress in such a way as to discourage it. Who knows what they would say if I quoted some of the articles my straight friend has been denouncing, but in their hearts, they know the truth about how men work. Go to any lesbian bar or other gathering and most of the women will be wearing jeans or even overalls, baggy shirts, no makeup, short hair, construction boots or Birkenstocks, etc. There are exceptions, but that’s how most dykes dress. Some of us will even allow ourselves to become obese to make ourselves unattractive to men – this is unconscious, but I do think it’s a big part of the reason. We know perfectly well that if we put on the spike heels and the tight clothes, men will lust after us.

I call myself a misogynist, but it’s feminists who keep putting women in harm’s way by lying to them about what men are like. I’m offering women a chance at a decent life by remembering a few simple facts:

1. Men are capable of violence. Push them too far and you will experience this.
2. Wearing sexy clothes will make men lust after you. Honest. This is not an old wives’ tale.
3. Your behavior has consequences. You cannot count on 100% of men to have infinite self-restraint.

New Blog to follow

February 11, 2009

I recommend the PUA blog Alpha Dominance.

Take this post:

Today’s modern wife, enthroned in her position of state-sanctioned control, knows the cost of leaving is so great for men that she is empowered to do what she wishes without consequence. The institution of marriage as it is executed in America is a symbolic form of castration, and the stubborn denial of most modern women to see the biological underpinnings of the problem is a major cause of unhappiness in marriage today.

Even better is one of the articles he quotes:

In the old days, of course, men’s inability to perform women’s work competently was a source of satisfaction and pride to countless housewives. A reliable sitcom premise involved Father’s staying home for a day while Mother handled things at his office; chastened and newly admiring of the other’s abilities, each ran gratefully back to familiar terrain….
It turns out that the “traditional” marriage, which we’ve all been so happy to annihilate, had some pretty good provisions for many of today’s most stubborn marital problems, such as how to combine work and parenthood, and how to keep the springs of the marriage bed in good working order.

Two PUA blogs

November 1, 2008

You Are NOT The Father

I was vegging out watching the cultural phenomenon that is Maury Povich’s Who’s The Daddy? specials. I can do this because I delegate all my work to underlings. This particular show was a treat — Maury had on girls who had been on previous Daddy shows and still hadn’t found the real daddy of their kids. One girl had brought two guys with her — numbers 7 and 8 — to see if either of them would pass/fail the paternity test as the father of her cursed child.

Needless to say, except for one glaring exception, the women were beastly. The real dregs of womanhood. One was so hideous the thing looked like a pumpkin placed on top a crumbling mound of feta cheese….

When the next DNA test result was opened and the relatively beta good-hearted guy was declared free from 18 years of financial servitude, the girl totally lost it and ran screaming from the room.

It might’ve been staged, but if their reactions were close to the real deal, then it was obvious that women have a real fear… and a real need… for beta providers to help them raise their bastard children. When a child is sitting there in a stroller, this need is as encoded as the need to get fucked hard by a badass alpha.

Don’t leave your young wife unattended for a moment

That’s worth remembering: girls who appear promiscuous in a bar or club may be perfectly well-behaved girls, but who are just in that phase of their cycle and can’t help but go out to flirt and touch other guys. You can’t let your young wife go out without you for even a single night — that’s all it takes.

I highly recommend both blogs. They’re intelligent and highly perceptive about female psychology and biology.