Archive for the ‘women’ Category


October 21, 2009

I occasionally tidy my apartment by selling a few things I don’t use anymore on ebay. I’ve heard horror stories about bad buyers, but I’ve had very little trouble. Till now.

This woman emailed me a few times asking really picky questions, most of which were already answered in the listing. She whined that the shipping cost too much and asked if I would leave out the case the item came in to make it $3 cheaper. I said sure.

She had the winning bid, but she immediately emailed saying her “finger slipped” and she had meant to bid $15 less. I make a second chance offer to the runner-up, but he had already bid on a similar item and didn’t need mine.

I told her, which I now regret, that I would let her pay the smaller amount she had *meant* to bid. She then emailed me demanding to know “what I had thought” when her accidentally high bid had shown up.

She paid me over a month later, after not answering any of my emails and ignoring an Unpaid Item dispute. About two days after she paid, she emailed demanding where was it???

And by the way? Her address is in BEVERLY HILLS. I haven’t been to California since I was a kid, so I dunno, maybe there’s a poor area of Beverly Hills. But this dame lives in the Hills and is whining about $3 off postage? And wanting $15 off the bid she put in?

Her email address starts with the word “princess”.


September 23, 2009

The ego epidemic: How more and more of us women have an inflated sense of our own fabulousness

Us women are more egocentric and narcissistic than we ever used to be, according to extensive research by two leading psychologists.

More of us have huge expectations of ourselves, our lives and everyone in them. We think the universe resolves around us, with a deluded sense of our own fabulousness, and believe we are cleverer, more talented and more attractive than we actually are.

We have trouble accepting criticism and extending empathy because we are so preoccupied with ourselves.

Addicted to shopping: Half of women admit they can’t go a day without buying something

More than 15million British women are addicted to shopping, a study revealed today.

Researchers found over half of the entire female population shop because it gives them a high and a third can’t help spending money – even when they can’t afford it.

Six out of ten said they ‘have to’ spend money every single day – even if it just meant buying bread or milk.

Why I loathe feminism… and believe it will ultimately destroy the family By Erin Pizzey

ERIN PIZZEY set up the world’s first refuge for battered women in 1971 – and went on to establish an international movement for victims of domestic violence. But what she has never made public before is that her own childhood was scarred by the shocking cruelty of both her parents.

My father was ordered to Beirut by the diplomatic service, and we were left as refugees in Kokstad, South Africa. From living in an enormous house with a fleet of servants and a nanny, my twin sister Rosaleen and I were suddenly at the mercy of my mother Pat’s temper. And it was ferocious. Having escaped the brutality of the war, we were introduced to a new brand domestic cruelty.

Indeed, my mother’s explosive temper and abusive behaviour shaped the person I later became like no other event in my life.
Thirty years later, when feminism exploded onto the scene, I was often mistaken for a supporter of the movement. But I have never been a feminist, because, having experienced my mother’s violence, I always knew that women can be as vicious and irresponsible as men.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the movement, which proclaimed that all men are potential rapists and batterers, was based on a lie that, if allowed to flourish, would result in the complete destruction of family life….

Indeed, when I later opened my refuge for battered women, 62 of the first 100 to come through the door were as abusive as the men they had left….

Needless to say, my mother went berserk. She took me upstairs and beat me with an ironing cord until the blood ran down my legs. I showed my injuries to my teacher the next morning – but she just stared back impassively and did nothing….

Feminism, I realised, was a lie. Women and men are both capable of extraordinary cruelty. Indeed, the only thing a child really needs – two biological parents under one roof – was being undermined by the very ideology which claimed to speak up for women’s rights.

This country is now on the brink of serious moral collapse. We must stop demonising men and start healing the rift that feminism has created between men and women.
Harriet Harman’s insidious and manipulative philosophy that women are always victims and men always oppressors can only continue this unspeakable cycle of violence. And it’s our children who will suffer.

Link dump

September 21, 2009

The “Bitch” Evolved: Why Girls Are So Cruel to Each Other
Researchers study the natural foundations of female social aggression

Women really can’t keep a secret: Tongues start wagging after just 47 hours

Ever wondered how long a woman can keep a secret? Well the answer, it seems, is less than two days.

Researchers found that they will typically spill the beans to someone else in 47 hours and 15 minutes.

RE teacher facing jail after sex with schoolboy, 15, she met on Facebook

I think I’ve linked this before, but I couldn’t find it, so:
Shocking 400 percent rise in women who batter men

Shocking to whom?


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.

A Couple More Links

July 24, 2009

Here’s a new MRA blog: Things you wouldn’t understand… because you’re a woman.

There’s only a couple of posts so far, but they’re right on the money.

The Modern Condition: Vicky Cristina Barcelona

What do women want? Every society before this one would’ve simply said that it doesn’t matter. What God wants or society needs were seen as more important. Ours is the first society to run on female choice. Whatever the effects, it’s certainly been an interesting, if depressing, evolutionary experiment.

I should point out that before feminism, despite what feminists pretend, society did not run on male choice. It was always about what society needed or religion required. That was a much better system than the whims of anyone, male or female. Thinking about it makes me damned wistful.

Link Dump

July 23, 2009

To test the idea that people use conformity strategically to signal agreeableness, Vladas Griskevicius and his colleagues ran another “mating prime” study. They expected a sex difference, because women have a stronger preference than men do for mates who display assertiveness, dominance, leadership, and risk taking. So, mating primed males may try to display these lower-agreeableness traits through conspicuous anti-conformity  by resisting and rebelling against peer influence. On the other hand, mating-primed females may try to display their higher-agreeableness traits (kindness, empathy, social networking ability) through conspicuous conformity to peer influence.

From Spent: Evolution and Consumer Behavior, via Delenda est Carthago.

Bad guys really do get the most girls

NICE guys knew it, now two studies have confirmed it: bad boys get the most girls. The finding may help explain why a nasty suite of antisocial personality traits known as the “dark triad” persists in the human population, despite their potentially grave cultural costs.

The traits are the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behaviour of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism.

Bottled Water: Bad for Males, Good for Females

The Department of Aquatic Ecotoxicology at the Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, found that plastic mineral water bottles contaminate drinking water with estrogenic chemicals. In an analysis1 of commercially available mineral waters, the researchers found evidence of estrogenic compounds leaching out of the plastic packaging into the water. What’s more, these chemicals are potent in vivo and result in an increased development of embryos in the New Zealand mud snail. These findings show for the first time that substances leaching out of plastic food packaging materials act as functional estrogens.

When I first learned about this, I tried to avoid consuming things that had been contained in plastic. After a couple of days I realized that this is impossible in the modern world.

A Female World

My male students are really adapting and faking to be sensitive fashion-aware feminized creatures, all in an attempt to score. That is what girls want, so that is how men will be. It took me a few years to recognize that the sensitive, unmanly young male students I meet in the university are not homosexuals, but perfectly normal males trying to get near the super-attractive semi-nude girls so abundant on the campus. They talk about feelings and astrology, they hate any show of violence or force. They hide their maleness, they adopt soft and sensitive forms of speech, they wear girlie pastel-colored blouses and soft-texture pantaloons, they are as unthreatening as they come. Welcome, new world.

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

July 18, 2009

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays by Murray Rothbard

..the female militants fall back on another argument: that centuries of being “brainwashed” by a male-dominated culture have made most women passive, accepting their allegedly inferior role, and even liking and enjoying their major role as homemakers and child raisers. And the real problem for the raucous females, of course, is that the overwhelming majority of women do embrace the “feminine mystique,” do feel that their sole careers are those of housewife and mother. Simply to write off these evident and strong desires by most women as “brainwashing” proves far too much; for we can always dismiss any person’s values, no matter how deeply held, as the result of “brainwashing.” The “brainwashing” contention becomes what the philosophers call “operationally meaningless,” for it means that the female militants refuse to accept any evidence, logical or empirical, of whatever kind, that might prove their contentions to be wrong. Show them a woman who loves domesticity, and they dismiss this as “brainwashing”; show them a militant, and they claim that this proves that women are yearning for “liberation.” In short, these militants regard their flimsy contentions as unworthy of any sort of proof, but this is the groundless method of mystics rather than an argument reflecting scientific truth.

And so the high rate of conversion claimed by women’s liberationists proves nothing either; may not this be the result of “brainwashing” by the female militants? After all, if you are a redhead, and a Redheaded Liberation League suddenly emerges and shouts at you that you are eternally oppressed by vile nonredheads, some of you might well join in the fray—which proves nothing at all about whether or not redheads are objectively oppressed.

Jealousy of pretty and attractive girls does, in fact, lie close to the heart of this ugly movement. One point that should be noted, for example, in the alleged economic discrimination against women: the fantastic upward mobility, as well as high incomes, available to the strikingly pretty girl. The Women’s Libs may claim that models are exploited, but if we consider the enormous pay that the models enjoy—as well as their access to the glamorous life—and compare it with their opportunity cost foregone in other occupations such as waitress or typist—the charge of exploitation is laughable indeed…Furthermore, the potential for upward mobility for pretty, lower-class girls is enormous, infinitely more so than for lower-class men: we might cite Bobo Rockefeller and Gregg Sherwood Dodge (a former pin-up model who married the multimillionaire scion of the Dodge family) as merely conspicuous examples. But these cases, far from counting as an argument against them, arouse the female liberationists to still greater fury, since one of their real complaints is against those more attractive girls who by virtue of their attractive-ness have been more successful in the inevitable competition for men—a competition that must exist whatever the form of government or society…

Woman as “sex objects”? Of course they are sex objects and, praise the Lord, they always will be. (Just as men, of course, are sex objects to women.) As for the wolf whistles, it is impossible for any meaningful relationship to be established on the street or by looking at ads, and so in these roles women properly remain solely as sex objects. When deeper relationships are established between men and women, they each become more than sex objects to each other; they each hopefully become love objects as well. It would seem banal even to bother mentioning this, but in today’s increasingly degenerate intellectual climate no simple truths can any longer be taken for granted.

The moral development of women

July 14, 2009

Commenter Silly Girl, who is not in the least silly, has suggested that I post about Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Kohlberg was a psychologist who devised a theory of the stages through which human morality matures. He devoted years to studying how the moral sense develops in children, in numerous different cultures, and found that it progresses through the same stages everywhere. His work is still highly influential: “In 1999 the DIT was revised as the DIT-2;[24] the test continues to be used in many areas where moral testing is required,[28] such as divinity, politics, and medicine.”

Guess what? Most adult men are at Stage Four. Most women remain at Stage Three throughout their adult lives.

Naturally feminists have done their usual prevarification to get around this. Rather than either admit that women are morally inferior, which humans have known ever since we reared up on our hind legs, or dismiss the theory out of hand, they try to change the rules so that women will come out better on them:

Another criticism is that Kohlberg’s theory is sex-biased, a view that has been thoughtfully expressed by one of Kohlberg’s associates and co-authors, Carol Gilligan (1982). Gilligan observes that Kohlberg’s stages were derived exclusively from interviews with males, and she charges that the stages reflect a decidedly male orientation. For males, advanced moral thought revolves around rules, rights, and abstract principles. The ideal is formal justice, in which all parties evaluate one another’s claims in an impartial manner. This conception of morality, Gilligan argues, fails to capture the distinctly female voice on moral matters.

For women, Gilligan says, morality centers not on rights and rules but on interpersonal relationships and the ethics of compassion and care. The ideal is not impersonal justice but more affiliative ways of living. Women’s morality, in addition, is more contextualized, it is tied to real, ongoing relationships rather than abstract solutions to hypothetical dilemmas.

Because of these sex differences, Gilligan says, men and women frequently score at different stages on Kohlberg’s scale. Women typically score at stage 3, with its focus on interpersonal feelings, whereas men more commonly score at stages 4 and 5, which reflect more abstract conceptions of social organization. Thus, women score lower than men. If, however, Kohlberg’s scale were more sensitive to women’s distinctly interpersonal orientations, it would show that women also continue to develop their thinking beyond stage 3.

Gilligan has made an initial effort to trace women’s moral development. Since she believes that women’s conceptions of care and affiliation are embedded in real-life situations, she has interviewed women facing a personal crisis–the decision to have an abortion. Through these interviews, Gilligan has tried to show that women move from a conventional to a postconventional mode of thinking. That is, they no longer consider their responsibilities in terms of what is conventionally expected, of them but in terms of their own insights into the ethics of care and responsibility.


This is just the typical female elevation of personal feelings and sentiment above objective values. It’s useful for the half of the species which we need to be taking care of our children, but it’s the worst possible quality for anyone allowed to take part in government or the workplace.

Theoretical Links

July 11, 2009

First, here’s two blog posts. This is a “race realist” blog, which means I disagree with a large portion of what he says, but these posts are too useful not to link.

Feminism and the Destruction of the West

Most of my readers would agree that the West’s modern political correctness regarding race and gender is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has given any thought to human nature and its evolutionary source. So the triumph of the PC ideology needs an explanation. With regards to feminism, Steve Moxon thinks he has an answer. In The Woman Racket, he looks to evolutionary psychology to shed light on our prejudices and documents how they lead to misperceptions about the sexes and how that in turn leads to failed policy.

Feminism and the Destruction of the West Part II

Heh, it seems this blogger is also a Roissy fan, and even admits Roissy is a little hardcore for him. The post discusses one of Roissy’s posts about the habit women have of falling in love with murderers, like Scott Peterson. (I wonder if Michael Schiavo got love letters from women who read about him? I didn’t hear anything about it, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.) I once read in some history book that in the days of public hangings, it was well known that nothing was more attractive to a woman than a “hempen cravat”.

When a tv movie was made about Ted Bundy, starring handsome actor Mark Harmon in the lead role, crime writer Ann Rule was shocked by the piles of letters she got from women who saw the movie and decided they were in love with Ted Bundy. (He also got a woman to marry him while he was on Death Row.) She finally wrote to every one of them, telling them, “You are not in love with Ted Bundy. You are in love with Mark Harmon.” To her relief, some of them wrote back saying they realized that she was right. But others, even years later, were writing her, saying, “I know Ted wouldn’t have hurt me, I could have saved him!”

Here’s a nice long essay: Modern feminism: an evaluation

I have always believed in equal rights for women, and still do. When I started university in the mid 90s I signed up for two gender studies modules and expected to learn a lot about how men and women are similar or have different strengths etc…
… but I found I was being taught instead about how women had been oppressed by men throughout history by the church, the state, doctors, husbands… and a shadowy system known as The Patriarchy. I was shocked to discover that almost every woman I met will have suffered abuse of one kind or another at the hands of men, and to be frank I started to feel very ashamed of being a man and very sorry for women. But it was only when I began to write essays and went to the library to research these issues that I began to realize that there was something strange going on with my education; I started to notice that the original sources did not support the ‘facts’ that I was being taught. The more I looked beneath the surface the clearer it became there is a very wide gulf between what feminism is supposed to be about and what it has become.

A commenter suggested I write about Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning, which I will, but I think this is enough for today.

Reckless women and responsible men

June 8, 2009

Robert B. Parker’s crime novels are good, but they bug me in certain ways. For instance, there’s the Sunny Randall series.

Sunny Randall is a petite blonde private eye and former cop. Her boyfriend is a cop and her best friend is a huge, tough man. I think Family Honor was the novel I read. One of the criminals in it was a murderous crime boss who employed various pimps and dealers.

Having solved the mystery she’d been hired to solve, Sunny decided, at the end, to satisfy her personal curiosity about something that was going on, so she went to visit the crime boss in his office. Alone. IIRC, he answered whatever her question was and let her leave unmolested because her spunk amused him, or something.

When she emerged from his lair, she discovered that her boyfriend and her best friend were both standing by her car, waiting for her. They had found out about her plan to go hang out with a dangerous criminal and decided to show up so that if she screamed for help, they could run in and attempt to rescue her from the dozens of hardened criminals inside.

I think the author intended for this to be touching. Aren’t these guys sweet, so protective of this feisty little blonde? I think he also intended for us to admire her. Wasn’t she brave, going into a building full of vicious felons, no one of whom she could have hoped to defend herself against, all by herself?

What I felt – and this was long before I turned against feminism or became a misogynist male chauvinist – was disgust. Just to satisfy her curiosity, she put two men she cared about in danger. Maybe that’s why the legends about curiosity causing all of human misery are always about curious women, such as Eve who ate the fruit of knowledge and Pandora who couldn’t resist taking a peek into that box. If harm had befallen Sunny, what could these two guys have done against multiple armed criminals? They’d probably have gotten killed along with her. When women do reckless things like that, they endanger the men who will have to rescue them.

This is why in all past eras, men didn’t allow their wives or daughters to do idiot things like interview felons or go to war-torn Muslim countries. It’s also why they didn’t let women be soldiers or police officers. Real soldiers and policemen – meaning, male ones – have enough to do without having to also defend colleagues who can’t look after themselves.

The Mild Colonial Boy commented on a recent post of mine with a link to this post about Joanie de Rijk. The bit that caught my attention the most was this:

The worst part of it was that she expected the Dutch taxpayers to pay for her exotic trip in the form of ransom. That she was quite disappointed that this did not happen only illustrates the narcissistic feminism that is helping destroy our civilization.

This is what “liberated” women – liberated from the rules of civilized behavior – believe is their due. If they want to go into the hideouts of violent criminals or into Muslim dictatorships, it is the duty of the men of their own countries to risk their lives rescuing them from the consequences of these actions and pay via taxes for the consequences.

Men didn’t confine women to the home because of some sort of sadistic wish to oppress them. They did it to save their own lives.