Category Archives: Women

On Dhimmitude and the Zakat

From here:

squeezethejuice (Muslim): There is nothing wrong or immoral with Jizya, b/c those paying also get benefits that even we Muslims are not entitled to. And should always be comparable in amount to the amount of zakat that Muslims are expected to donate; same order of magnitude. Among the benefits, for example, they are exempt from joining the Muslim army and potentially fighting defensive wars against their own Christian or Jewish brethren, even those who have committed acts of violence against innocent Muslims.

What ISIS and the others don’t understand about Jizya is that we Muslims are bound to offer security & protection to those paying it, i.e. no threats or anything.

And there are more ways to pay Jizya than just money. While the Jews are rich and will never be in this situation, poor Christians can offer their young daughters in marriage to Muslims, and of course we should consider their Jizya paid for the next 5 years if they have done so.

Angemon (non-Muslim): Zakat is 2.5% of the yearly income, jizya has always been crushingly heavy with the intent of humiliating non-Muslims. Those two taxes are not “comparable” or in the “same order of magnitude”, and historically the jizya was collected through force, mafia style – it’s no coincidence that the term “mafia” comes from the Arabic and originated in a region who was once under Islamic rule.

And it’s not that non-Muslims were exempt from joining the Muslim army – the Janissaries were originally non-Muslims abducted from their families – because they had a special status. It’s that Muslims were too afraid of letting non-Muslim owning weapons (for fearing a rebellion) or letting them fight (especially when Muslims were fighting against he native trying to get their land back).

Think about it: if non-Muslims were paying the same amount of tax as Muslims and not being drafted to the army them human nature would cause Muslims to convert out of Islam and not the other way around. When Muslim conquered a new land they were in minority so they couldn’t risk letting the conquered getting their hands on weapons and starting a rebellion.

And can you imagine a Muslim leader, indoctrinated to believe that Jews and Christians are always scheming against Muslims, let’s say, Christians from a land he just conquered to fight against Christians who were trying to drive the Muslims out of their lands? Why would Christians being forced into battle against their own people side with the Muslims? No, non-Muslims were forbidden from owning weapons and fighting because Muslims feared for their safety. Would they need to fear for their safety if they treated non-Muslims fairly?

Even if we were to overlook the jizya, there are plenty of degrading conditions in the pact of Umar that make it quite clear that non-Muslims in a Muslim state don’t have the same rights as Muslims. Heck, let’s let Abu Waleed explain by his own words how “wonderful” life is for non-Muslims in a Muslim state:

Besides the barrage of lies about jizya and the status of non-Muslims in a Muslim state, poor stj makes a remark about Jews that was probably straight out of a deleted scene from Borat. What do you think it would happen to a Jew who couldn’t afford to pay the jizya in the hands of someone who seems to think all Jews are rich?

We know what happened to Kinana when he told Muhammad he had no treasure hidden. He was tortured with fire on his chest and, since he neared death without saying anything, Muhammad had him beheaded. And since Muhammad is the example Muslims are supposed to emulate…

stj also seems to believe that it’s ok for poor Christians to sell their daughters into marriage with Muslim men as payment for the jizya. So much for “security and protection”, non-Muslim women in a Muslim state are to be used as chattel for the enjoyment of Muslim men.

Notice that he said that “There is nothing wrong or immoral with Jizya” because those who pay it, even if they do so by selling their daughters into marriage, are entitled to the “benefits” explained by Abu Waleed in the above video, so he doesn’t see anything wrong or immoral with using non-Muslim women as currency. So remember, if you think it’s immoral to sell a girl into marriage to someone who will regard and treat her as subhuman trash you’re an “Islamophobe”.

Note the Youtube video above. That is exactly what dhimmitude is supposed to be under the Islamic state, and for centuries, non-Muslims probably had to live in dhimmitude. However, state-imposed dhimmitude has been dead since about 1900. Even in Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, it does not exist. I believe some form of dhimmitude was enforced when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan.

It looks like ISIS is trying to impose some sort of dhimmitude on the Christians under its rule. The Shia are faring war worse. ISIS simply kills any Shia they can get their hands on. They do the same thing to any Alawite they can get their hands on in Syria. ISIS also kills Yezidis at random and on sight. Both Yezidis, the Shia and the Alawi are considered to be heretics. When ISIS took over the Druze region of southern Syria recently, a number of Druze villages were ordered to convert to Sunni Islam or die. The villages duly converted. In truth, Druze really isn’t even Islam, although it looks a bit like it. Some Christians have also been given the “convert or die” or the “convert, leave or die” option by ISIS in Syria.

Since dhimmitude for all intents and purposes has not existed for 115 years, it seems a bit silly to rant and rave about how Muslims force all non-Muslims into dhimmitude when they are the majority because it is simply not true.

However, these Al Qaeda radicals do indeed want to bring back dhimmitude is some form or another. Jihadis have raided Christian homes in the Dora region of southern Baghdad and ordered Christians to pay the zakat or be killed. After ISIS took over a town in Syria recently, they ordered all Christians to pay a zakat. The zakat was quite a hefty amount, and most of the Christians did not have it.

As you can see in the video, the purpose of dhimmitude is to make life as a non-Muslim under Muslim rule so awful and humiliating that many non-Muslims simply convert to Islam to get out from under the oppression. All of the arguments for the zakat are false. It’s not a protection tax; instead, it is more like a Mafia protection racket. The non-Muslims are told to pay protection fees to the Muslim Mafia. If they don’t pay up, bad things are going to happen just like if you refuse the pay the Mafia’s protection tax. There is no humanitarian aspect to this tax.

The Muslims have always lied about what happened in the countries they conquered. In most lands it was the same story. Gradually, over time, more and more non-Muslims converted to Islam, although Spain, the Balkans and India were exceptions. The Muslims say that more and more infidels simply embraced Islam over time, apparently because it is so groovy. That’s clearly not what happened. They were terrorized into converting via dhimmitude.

Egypt has a large number of Coptic Christians. However, under Mubarak, they were not allowed to repair their churches when they started to fall down. This is one of the tenets of dhimmitude – Christians are not allowed to repair existing churches nor are they allowed to build new ones.

Also the periodic terror that is inflicted on non-Muslims in many to most Muslim countries can be seen a form of dhimmitude.

24 Comments

Filed under Africa, Alawi, Christianity, Egypt, History, Iraq, Islam, Islamic, Judaism, Middle East, North Africa, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Shiism, Social Problems, Sociology, Sunnism, Syria, War, Women

Islamic Feminism

Here.

An excellent article, and she makes an excellent case that fiqh rulings that justify zina and huddud laws are irrational and are not valid interpretations of the Quran. The fiqh rulings were made by Islamic scholars down through the centuries. They interpreted various passages in the Quran as meaning this or that.

For instance, the idea that women are supposed to cover up their whole bodies comes from an interpretation of the Quranic statement that women must cover up their “jewels” when out in public. In the Quranic context, it seems that the jewels refer to a woman’s private parts – her breasts, ass and pubic area. Somehow “jewels” was interpreted by partriarchal male scholars to mean that a woman had to cover up the near entirety of her body. Make sense? Of course not.

Zina and huddud laws are those that regulate sexual behavior. In practice, they have regulated the sexual behavior of women but not men. Women are imprisoned under these laws for adultery and fornication. Even women who are raped are imprisoned, incredibly enough, for adultery and fornication as in Pakistan’s huddud laws.

Zina laws are also the basis for the honor killings that are so prevalent in the Muslim World. Various excuses for honor killings that say that people other than Muslims also do this do not hold water as the practice is largely confined to the Muslim world.

Clearly though, honor killings are an Arab practice that spread to Arabized cultures such as Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Caucasus, Turkey and Berber North Africa. On the other hand, there seem to be Muslim nations where this does not occur especially where Islam was a recent foreign import and local religious traditions have not yet been usurped. Honor killings are rare to absent in Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma, Cambodia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Albania and Bosnia.

The author shows that passages criminalizing sexual behavior actually refer to people having sex in public or where others can see them. So fucking in public and probably strip shows and pornography are covered but private sexual behavior is not.

In addition, the Quran grants divorce rights to women, yet fiqh rulings have always forbidden divorce by females and instead codified divorce initiated far too easily by males.

In Mohammad’s time, female Muslims were relatively free. They have only become more restricted with time. For instance, Ayesha was known to frequently preach in the mosque after Mohammad died. When was the last time you heard of a woman preaching in the mosque?

I have read a few of these feminist and progressive interpretations of Islam. While they make sense, they unfortunately seem irrelevant to our times.

This is because the Muslim world is going backwards and not forwards. All across the Muslim world, Muslims are getting more fundamentalist and less progressive and liberal. The spread of ISIS and Al Qaeda and their various offshoots, along with Islamists winning various elections in Egypt, Palestine, Yemen, Turkey and Iraq are indicative of this trend. Even where seculars won elections such as in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Lebanon and Tunisia, strong, often armed fundamentalist groups continue to operate. Each of these countries deal with armed Islamists stirring up trouble, in Pakistan’s cases, a world of trouble.

Show men one area where Muslims are liberalizing.

The Muslim World is evidence that clocks do indeed run backwards at times.

16 Comments

Filed under Arabs, Asia, Culture, Feminism, Gender Studies, Islam, Law, Pakistan, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Sex, South Asia, Women

PUA/Game: Worst Advice Ever Given to Men

“Just be yourself.”

If you ask women how to be successful with women, they will always say, idiotically, “Just be yourself.” Great idea except it doesn’t work. If your natural self is a chick magnet, then ok, be yourself, fine.

But if this worked then no one would ever have to learn game, right.

Alpha/Sigma: Top 15% of men. Attractive to many of the females much of the time.

Beta: 70% of men. This is your “normal, regular, everyday guy.” Not that there is anything wrong with that! Attractive to some of the females some of the time.

Omega: Bottom 15% of men. Elliot Rodger. More or less attractive to almost none of the females nearly all of the time.

Now let us assume that all of these guys are just being themselves. What’s the problem with Omegas? The damned problem is that they are just being themselves! When they are “being themselves,” they are acting Omega, period.

Nowadays a lot of Beta guys are trying to figure out how to be Alphas. They feel that being Betas is causing them pain and hardship with females. What is the problem with these Beta guys? The whole damned problem is that they are being themselves! To these guys, being yourself means being Beta. Why are they learning Game? They are learning Game in order to be themselves less, to create a new persona using the techniques of Game.

The fact that women always give us this stupid advice shows me a couple of things:

  1. Women do not have the foggiest idea of what it means to be a man.
  2. Women apparently have no real conscious understanding of male-female dynamics and what sort of men women are attracted to, ignore or are repelled by. Why do women have no understanding of the Real World. I believe it is because women to not believe in the Real World.

Females simply prefer to live in Fantasyland from the time they are girls playing Dollhouse through marriage and possibly onward, although older and even elderly women are often have a better understanding of Cold Reality than any other woman. This is probably because when a woman becomes elderly, she really doesn’t need the comfort blanket of fantasy anymore. She’s seen the real world and lived through it and is not afraid to tell it like it is.

Why do females dislike the Real World? Everyone knows that the Real World is a cold, cruel, hard place. Men are cold, cruel and hard anyway, so they just accept this and move on. Women are very sensitive creatures and it’s hard for them to accept a brutal and depressing reality, so they simply say it doesn’t exist.

3 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Women

PUA/Game: Newsflash: Women Love Men Who Love Women!

I took a class once on D. H. Lawrence. It was all women except for me and one other guy.

Well, it was paradise.

Every day after class, I ate lunch with these three beautiful women aged 27, 28 and 37, and I was 22. Two were married and another one was living with a man who happened to be a huge cocaine dealer. We got along famously; I hardly fought with any of them even once.

All of these PUA/Manosphere types who argue that the only way to get along with women is to be an asshole to them or treat them like shit are just wrong. At the time, and hopefully even now yet, I loved women. I truly did. I spent a lot of my time hanging around with women. Many of my best friends were women. I could easily sit on a couch on an evening with three women and watch a Bette Davis movie. I didn’t even like guys; if I had my preference, I would have spent most of my time around women.

On the other hand, I didn’t put up with any crap from these women either. When the 27 year old once said, “Well, you are pretty skinny…”, an obvious insult to my masculinity, I immediately responded, “Shut up, cunt.” She looked hurt and said, “I’ll box your ears, you macho pig.” The other women looked at me with a mixture of disapproval and respect. One said, “Booob…” But I didn’t hear much more crap out of any of them for the whole semester.

I was regarded as a sexual threat and a best friend at the same time, and by the end of the semester, I was starting to know the majority of these chicks (the two married ones) in a Biblical sense.

I can’t see how a man whose philosophy is that the only way to get along with women is to be an asshole to them and treat them like shit loves women. I can’t even see how he likes women. I would say with an attitude like that, you can’t be anything but a misogynist. The fact that this is the template over in the PUA/Manosphere speaks volumes about the misogyny-enriched loamy soil in which these movements sprouted.

Believe it or not, if you really like women, or better yet, if you really and honestly love them, it shows. Women figure it out real quick. And contrary to the crap from the Manosphere/Misogynist-sphere, I do not think most women prefer misogynists to ladies’ men. In other words, newsflash! Hey Manosphere! Listen up! Women love men who love women! Just as you might expect. Duh. But a real ladies’ man doesn’t take any crap from women either, and believe it or not, women actually respect that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Women

Types in the Manosphere Part 1

From a comment on a very interesting blog called Gunlord. I like this guy a lot. He’s basically a MGTOW type (perfectly happy being a total bachelor, not really wild about women anyway), but he doesn’t like to talk about it, doesn’t hang out on the MGTOW forums and thinks the whole movement is stupid.

Some of his ideas I seriously don’t agree with, but others make a lot of sense.

From the comments page:

You have the standard male supremacists who want women back in the kitchen, the MGTOWs who think women in the kitchen are “parasites,” the transhumanists who think some combination of artificial wombs, sexbots, and buttsex will liberate men from women, the “Human Bio-Diversity” enthusiasts who are called “white knight nationalists” by everyone else, the Christians who want to establish a theocracy, the atheists who think religion is a sneaky plot by women to enslave men, the Aspies who think even men without autism are just “women lite,” and so on and so forth…

In this post, I will go over the male supremacists, the MGTOW’s, the transhumanists, the Christians, the atheists and the HBD’ers.

Male supremacists: Very common on the Manosphere. They want to go back to the old days, which means, I dunno, before 1920. Take away all women’s rights because they are too crazy and emo to deserve them anyway. I never could get down with these guys. I’ve long been an equity feminist, and at one point I was actually a member of NOW (The National Organization for Women). This is so retrograde and reactionary that it’s simply bizarre.

MGTOW’s: These are a light version of female separatists, but they are not a corollary of lesbian separatists. They are into living the bachelor life and putting off marriage for as long as possible. They have a very dim view of women to say the least and advocate replacing them with dolls, fleshlights, porn, masturbation and at the very most prostitutes. They wish to avoid relationships with women and even advocate not dating them. They think men should even limit their friendships with women. In other words, they think women are a plague to be avoided at all costs.

They have a somewhat rocky relationship with the rest of the Manosphere, especially the PUA types who they call “pussy beggars.” In return, the PUA’s refer to MGTOW’s as “Omega losers.” Politically, they are almost all Libertarians.

They have a very open view of what is available to men lifestyle-wise: live at home, live with roommates, move around the country, take off and go live in foreign countries, change careers, make as much or as little money as you like, and especially, quit caring about what society demands of you and start embracing nonconformism. Do it your own way, and don’t let women, kids or society get in the way. Guys, do whatever the Hell you want and quit caring what anyone thinks about your choices. There are supposedly a few MGTOW’s who are married or in relationships, but I have not met them.

I like these guys in a way. I like their open-ended view of the possibilities for males. They don’t care if an adult male lives at home! Wow. Face it, societal demands and restrictions trap a lot of men into this or that job, location or lifestyle. When you have a wife and kids to support, you can’t exactly be a free-spirited vagabond.

I also love that they are reclaiming bachelorhood. Yay! For too long bachelorhood has been seen as a bizarre pathology, and at some point, all men are required to marry and hopefully have kids. At my age, it’s not that I need to get married but more that it’s seen as way weird that I never got married even once. If I would have tied the knot for a year, I would be in much better shape.

Bachelors are seen as possible homosexuals, incel losers, antisocial loners or out and out bizarre and possibly/probably dangerous weirdos. In other words, if you never got married, well obviously it is because something is wrong with you. At some point in your bachelor life, you will reach a point where pretty much all society is rejecting you, and it does not feel good.

I am not down with the living without women and avoiding sex out of preference, as I have never been that way. Sure, there have been periods with no girlfriend in my life, maybe even years, and there have been periods of incel living ranging from months to a year or possibly more. I never cared about marriage as long as there was one or more women in life and hopefully I was getting some sex. As long as I have women and sex somewhere floating about my life, even on the horizon, I am happy as a clam and see no need or reason to marry.

I don’t regard women as parasites to be avoided at all costs. I’d just as spend most of my socializing with women and blow men off. Why would I prefer to be around women all the time? Because I like to live dangerously!

Transhumanists: Ok, this is insane. These are the male version of lesbian separatists. Replace sex with women with sexbots and mix in a lot of fagging off with other guys while you’re at it. For babies, we will grow them in artificial wombs. No need for women and those yucky ovaries. I have no idea what their politics is like. Sorry, this is way too weird for me.

HBD’ers: I had no idea they were part of the Manosphere. Apparently they are a very wussy part of the Manosphere because they spend most of their time white-knighting. These guys don’t care about women or men. All they care about is genes, IQ tests and eugenics. They love those wonderful White and Asian races, and they have nothing but utter contempt for those disgusting, inferior Black and Brown races. Politics is conservative to Libertarian. Many are strong supporters of the Republican Party and spend much of their time Democrat-bashing.

Christians: Supposedly want to establish a theocracy. I haven’t heard of any of these sites. There is one good Christian Manosphere blog by a guy named Dalrock who isn’t even a misogynist. Extreme hypergamy is even effecting these hardcore Protestant fundamentalists. Politics is probably Republican Party.

Atheists: They supposedly blame women for the plague called religion and think women set up religion as a plot to enslave men. That’s pretty crazy, and thankfully I have never been to such a site. Politics? No idea.

17 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Conservatism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Libertarianism, Man World, Political Science, Politics, Race Realism, Religion, Republicans, Sex, Sociology, US Politics, Women

Why Men Might Want to Learn to Like “Chick Music”

Females often also like the harder music that we males often like, but to be honest, when it comes down to it, females will usually prefer softer music, and males will often like harder music. You might think it’s pussy to like chick music, but I have been listening to it all my life.

I think it is good for men to get into chick music, if you like it. For one thing, a lot of it is good music. For another thing, a lot women, especially young women, love this kind of music. So now you have one more thing in common with women! Females are typically very happy to find a normal, regular, non-wimpy guy who actually enjoys the type of music they like.

In addition to sharing one more common thing with women, listening to this type of music can help you think like a woman. I actually do have a very large part of me that more or less thinks like a woman. You might think that is pussy or gay, but actually it enables me to get along with women very well! The more you understand women, the more you learn to think like a woman, the closer you will get to women. If you have good Game, that can lead to lots of great sex.

Honestly, most of the most notorious womanizers I have ever known were not ultra-macho types but instead they were somewhat androgynous. Their androgyny meant that they had a lot in common with women, and they sort of thought like women too. This is one more thing that they had in common with women, and it enabled them to get along with females very well.

This is why I have never agreed with the “You have to treat women like crap. It’s the only way to deal with them,” point of view. Lots of men who truly love women do great with women. And a number of these guys love women so much that they actually think like a woman to some extent. Women love men who love women, and they also love men who can think like a woman to some extent without being a wimp or a queer.

38 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Music, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Women

Yet Another Female Myth

Anon writes:

What you’re seeing here is a biased audience. Men who are able to get a woman are happy and don’t have any reason to go online communing with other men over how happy they are with women. It’s when a problem arises for someone that they feel the need to vent. These men complaining about women are the ones who strike out a lot and have been hurt as a result. Of course they still want a woman biologically, but they’ve been rejected so many times they can’t bring themselves to actually trust a woman.

Many women get like this about men, too, when they’ve been rejected a lot or had a lot of relationships that ended poorly. My mother was like that, she ascribed to the “men are pigs who needs them” doctrine but as soon as a dashing cowboy started courting her she was all over him, it was gross. XP

So no, I don’t think loving and hating women go hand in hand. I think that rejection is hard for people to deal with and leads to hatred, but regardless your biology doesn’t change.

Female myths are in bold. This is the typical female response.

Any man complaining about women obviously isn’t getting laid or can’t get laid.

But that is so untrue! Because many of the biggest players of all are the worst misogynists you ever met! Have you noticed how misogynistic so many pornographers are? Those guys get more pussy than your average army battalion and they’re misogynist as Hell. Go to the PUA sites like Roissy and Roosh. Those guys are drowning in pussy and so are a lot of their commenters and the misogyny is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

And I happen to have a girlfriend right now, and until recently, I actually had 2 girlfriends. Which is not unusual. In my life, I have dated maybe 200 women and girls. So as you can see, I can’t get laid! And not only that, but it’s a lifelong condition!

I understand females very well and have had a universe of great experiences with them.

All  men have problems with women, all of them. It’s universal. All  married men complain about women, whether they are getting tons of sex or whether they haven’t had sex with their wives in 20 years. It’s universal male behavior.

As far as loving women and hating them, I do not see a lot of that. But you can certainly love the positive half of the female essence for all it’s worth while disdaining the negative half on some level or better yet, accepting it for what it is and that it is not changeable and then ignoring it.

Loving women and hating women both require a lot of energy.

If you have decided that you want to love them (focus on the positive side) then you won’t have much energy left over to hate them.

And having been around a lot of misogynists, I do not think they love women very much, sorry. Hating women takes a lot of energy. You probably wouldn’t have enough left over to invest in truly loving them, which is expensive energy-wise.

2 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Women

Feminism Is Fighting a War Against Reality

From the ridiculous, idiotic PC-Left site FSTDT. In this case, the feminist branch of the PC nutcases jumps in.

They posted this comment from Dalrock’s site below. Dalrock is a fundamentalist Protestant Christian Manosphere site. I really do not mind it so much, and it isn’t particularly misogynistic as far as Manosphere sites go.

The problem with seeing women as “badly broken” is that it leads logically into, “But they can’t all be broken. So I just need to keep looking until I find a Nice Girl, and she’ll like me for being clean and kind.” Or a guy thinks if he can just get his crush to listen to reason or get some therapy or something, she can be “fixed” and lose that attraction to bad boys.

Women aren’t broken, they’re just women. (Or to put it another way, they’re broken by Original Sin, and have been since Eve, so it applies to every single one of them until the Second Coming, so accept it as their nature and deal with it.) Your great-grandmother didn’t reject the thugs and layabouts and settle down with that nice farm boy because she had no desire for bad boys, adventure, or independence. She did it because her desires were restrained, by laws, conventions, upbringing, religion, and economic realities. Those restraints are now gone, so we’re seeing them in the wild, as it were.

Guys need to get past being angry at women for not being men with breasts, or thinking they can be fixed. Think of them as flighty little birds, pretty to look at and pleasant to have around. Their song can be enchanting, but it wears on you after a while. They can be fierce in defense of their nest, but otherwise are easily frightened and swayed by emotion. They’re soft and warm and cuddly, and great to have around for some things, but terrible at others. They need constant care and guidance, and should rarely be required to make a decision more taxing than what to cook for lunch.

Once you see them realistically for what they are, with their own pros and cons, you can A) decide with open eyes whether you want to risk shackling yourself to one, and B) enjoy their company more in general. I find women much more enjoyable, even delightful sometimes, now that I’m not always mystified by what they do or wishing they’d stop being weird and act “normal.”

The FSTDT feminist lunatics then pile all over this poor guy with the usual feminist bullshit. First of all, they call him a misogynist. While there are some comments in this post that I would not agree with, I do not feel that this post is particularly misogynistic, particularly in terms of the Manosphere. In fact, I think for the Manosphere, this is a pretty pro-woman post. Let’s go over it.

The problem with seeing women as “badly broken” is that it leads logically into, “But they can’t all be broken. So I just need to keep looking until I find a Nice Girl, and she’ll like me for being clean and kind.” Or a guy thinks if he can just get his crush to listen to reason or get some therapy or something, she can be “fixed” and lose that attraction to bad boys.

Women aren’t broken, they’re just women. (Or to put it another way, they’re broken by Original Sin, and have been since Eve, so it applies to every single one of them until the Second Coming, so accept it as their nature and deal with it.)

The FSTDT folks are ripping him to shreds for this one, and he sort of deserves it. They are saying that this shows how religious men hate women, but his views are not limited to fundamentalist Christianity. The view he is espousing here is typical of the Manosphere and unfortunately, it is typical of men in general. How do I know this? I have been talking to men my whole life.

It’s wrong to say that women are broken, or, if they are, that they can be fixed. They aren’t really broken, and yet they also can’t be fixed. They are what they are. From male eyes, women do seem crazy. If you want to call it broken, go ahead, but I would not use those terms. This is simply how they are. They are born this way. This “crazy” behavior is due to their genes, hormones and probably culture too. There is nothing to be done with it, so you have to accept the fact that this is just the way they are, and they cannot change. That’s called acceptance.

Your great-grandmother didn’t reject the thugs and layabouts and settle down with that nice farm boy because she had no desire for bad boys, adventure, or independence. She did it because her desires were restrained, by laws, conventions, upbringing, religion, and economic realities. Those restraints are now gone, so we’re seeing them in the wild, as it were.

This is a major complaint of the Manosphere, that females are attracted to bad boys. Well, of course they are. Have they always been? Probably. Attraction to bad boys is probably in their inborn nature. They have evolved this way for some reason.

And in the past, women were forced away from their bad boy preferences by society, religion, economics, law, convention, and family. All correct. Therefore, a lot of non-bad boy men could easily marry. Now all of the constraints against women going for bad boys are gone, so the Manosphere says we are seeing women going for bad boys in droves (unchecked hypergamy). I assume they are probably correct in this analysis though it’s hard for me to tell on the ground due to my age.

Females have been going for and preferring bad boys my whole life. I am very familiar with this behavior. However, since I got a somewhat bad boy image myself early in life, this ended up being a good thing for me. But it’s not a lie. And at my age, mid-50’s, women are continuing to chase bad boys and give nice guys the bird. Some things never change.

The FSTDT morons, like all feminist fools, say that the “bad boy” thing is a great big myth. Probably if you ask most women, they will insist that that it is a myth. Many of these women will probably be bad boy chasers themselves or will be currently involved with a bad boy.

This is because women have no self-awareness. They don’t even understand themselves, they don’t understand men, and they don’t understand other women. This is because they live in fantasyland and refuse to accept reality. They have also gotten the Denial defense down to a fine art.

Yes, women like bad boys. Solution: become a bad boy! That’s what I have done.

Guys need to get past being angry at women for not being men with breasts, or thinking they can be fixed. Think of them as flighty little birds, pretty to look at and pleasant to have around. Their song can be enchanting, but it wears on you after a while. They can be fierce in defense of their nest, but otherwise are easily frightened and swayed by emotion. They’re soft and warm and cuddly, and great to have around for some things, but terrible at others. They need constant care and guidance, and should rarely be required to make a decision more taxing than what to cook for lunch.

Right. Women are not men. Despite what feminist idiots say, women are incredibly different from men. Sometimes I think we are like people from two different planets. But once you accept that or learn to love that, you can get along with them pretty well. Women can be immensely flighty, moody and emotionally all over the place. All of this behavior is magnified immensely when a women is in love or in a sexual relationship. Sex and love magnify women’s nuttiness to a profound degree.

If you understand this, then it won’t freak you out when the women you are screwing or who is in love with you is acting crazy. She’s acting nuts because she loves you, silly! It also true that women vary in their flightiness and emotionality.

Women are nice to look at and they can be fun to have around when they are being pleasant. Their song can be enchanting indeed. Does it wear on you? Not on me, but what wears on me is the regular if not continuous drama and chaos that ensues during a romantic/sexual relationship with a woman. Daily emotional crises can be pretty hard to deal with for a man who prides himself on emotional control. Yes, women will defend their children nearly to death. Women are indeed easily frightened and of course they are wildly swayed by emotion. This intense emotionality, an essential feature of the female, is alien to most males and is the main reason men call women “crazy.”

They can be very soft, warm and cuddly, correct. They are very useful for certain things and nothing but a huge hindrance when it comes to others, especially when their emo storms are trashing whatever project you are trying to accomplish.

A woman in love absolutely needs constant care and guidance, in particular care. Men ignore this at their own risk. A lot of men simply do not want to give women the proper care and nurturance that they require. If she’s not getting it from you, she might just try to get it elsewhere. It is not in men’s nature to care for or nurture females all the time. Nevertheless, you need to learn how to do this or at least fake it very well. If you don’t, your relationships with women will always have problems.

and should rarely be required to make a decision more taxing than what to cook for lunch.

Wow, that’s a nasty one, but I see why he says it. I think women can make excellent decisions. In my family, during crises or difficult times that required serious decision-making, my mother was often much better than my father. This is because in any crisis, my father simply panicked, flipped out, started screaming and yelling at everyone and always chose “We will do absolutely nothing” as the correct decision for the difficult situation. In other words, he chose stasis or inertia. That was almost always a terrible decision, and some form of action was usually required. So he would get overruled by my mother

There is another problem here that the lunatic feminist idiots will never admit to. When you have a romantic/sexual relationship with a woman, you might be tempted to let her make a lot of decisions. That might be a terrible idea. If she wants to make decisions, let her go ahead. But if she seems to hesitate or looks lost, go ahead and make the decision yourself. Careful studies have shown that relationships where men make most of the decisions are much more stable than relationships where women make most of the decisions.

Why is this? Women say they want decision-making power, but as usual, they are lying to themselves. They really don’t. They want a strong, powerful man to make up their minds for them. And if the man seems weak and unable to make up her mind for her, she will be forced to make decisions for herself, which she resents. She will see him as too weak to make decisions for the both of him, and his weakness will anger her and cause problems in the relationship. PC idiots will never admit things like this, but it is actually true and you ignore this truth at your own risk.

I find women much more enjoyable, even delightful sometimes, now that I’m not always mystified by what they do or wishing they’d stop being weird and act “normal.”

Exactly. You see, he has come to accept women for what they are. They no longer surprise him or freak him out. He no longer expects them to act like guys with tits. He is no longer baffled or puzzled by what seems to be crazy behavior. He understands women and accepts them for what they are and knows they cannot be changed. And in acceptance lies peace of mind.

It is unfortunate that he describes women’s behavior as weird and not normal, but that is exactly the way any reasonable man sees women’s behavior – it’s nuts. Does that mean women are weird or abnormal? I do not think so, and women’s behavior is very normal for a woman – it is exactly the way we expect a female to act. Are women weird? Well, they seem weird to men, let’s put it that way.

37 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Man World, Psychology, Religion, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Women

Lenka “Trouble Is a Friend”

More from this Lenka woman. Her music is called “Alternative Pop.” It is also called Indie Pop. Power pop, punk and post-punk were all influences.  It originated in the UK, especially Scotland, in the mid 1980’s. The grandfather of all of this sort of music was a band called The Smiths. We can go back even before that to the Buzzcocks and the Ramones. Let’s face it, there is a lot of power pop in those punk rock groups.

Next came the Jesus and Mary Chain, a band I am very fond of. They combined influences from the Velvet Underground, the Beach Boys and Phil Spector’s “wall of sound.” New Order, which grew out of Joy Division, was another influence. New Order seems to be influencing a lot of modern music genres.

I think I am starting to like this type of music!

This is more “chick music.” Look at the lyrics. Sounds like she is describing a typical female Borderline Personality Disorder type:

“Trouble Is A Friend”

Trouble – it will find you
No matter where you go
Oh, oh
No matter if you’re fast
No matter if you’re slow
Oh, oh

The eye of the storm
Or the cry in the morn
Oh, oh
You’re fine for a while
But you start to lose control

He’s there in the dark
He’s there in my heart
He waits in the wings
He’s gotta play a part
Trouble is a friend
Yeah
Trouble is a friend of mine
Ahh

Trouble is a friend
But trouble is a foe
Oh, oh
And no matter what I feed him
He always seems to grow
Oh, oh

He sees what I see
And he knows what I know
Oh, oh
So don’t forget
As you ease on down my road

He’s there in the dark
He’s there in my heart
He waits in the wings
He’s gotta play a part
Trouble is a friend
Yeah
Trouble is a friend of mine
Oh, oh

So don’t be alarmed
If he takes you by the arm
I won’t let him win
But I’m a sucker for his charm
Trouble is a friend
Yeah
Trouble is a friend of mine
Ahh

How I hate the way he makes me feel
And how I try to make him leave
I try
Oh, oh, I try

But he’s there in the dark
He’s there in my heart
He waits in the wings
He’s gotta play a part
Trouble is a friend
Yeah
Trouble is a friend of mine
Oh, oh

So don’t be alarmed
If he takes you by the arm
I won’t let him win
But I’m a sucker for his charm
Trouble is a friend
Yeah
Trouble is a friend of mine
Ahh

Ooh
Ahh
Ooh

5 Comments

Filed under Britain, Europe, Music, Punk, Regional, Rock, Scotland, Women

Lenka, “Knock Knock”

This is interesting music from an interesting artist I have never heard of before. Lenka is a singer-songwriter out of Australia. Her debut album was called, “Lenka.” This music is best described as “pop music.” I actually do like Pop a lot, but I haven’t heard any good Pop in a long time. I was actually starting to wonder if any good new music was coming out anymore. Now I know that we humans are indeed still making good music, as I assume we will be into the forseeable future.

On another note, this could be considered “chick music.” This is precisely the sort of music a lot of girls and women like.

Leave a comment

Filed under Girls, Music, Women