Category Archives: Sane Pro-Woman

PUA/Game: Life Is a Shit Test

You’ve seen one woman, you’ve seen them all. AWALT. No doubt that world over. Surely it’s in the chromosomes somewhere. Of course they are not all alike in all ways and many differ greatly, but if you have known enough females in life, you keep seeing the same patterns over and over. So in some ways, they are all the same. But so are us men.

Females make us insane, but I don’t think God screwed up when he made them.

Females are like a test. Think of them like high school, the SAT, getting through college, getting a Masters Degree, landing a good job, scoring some tough achievement in life.  That’s what a good woman is like. She’s a tough nut to crack, but it’s not supposed to be easy. You want universities to have hardass standards for advanced degrees, right? Well then you should want hot women to have hardass standards for us men. They pick the best and weed out the rest, just like with all the other examinations/degrees/shit tests/competitive clusterfucks in life. Life’s an odd’s game. Some win, some lose. Even in socialism or Communism, you never get rid of the competition. No matter how much you even everything else out, women will still winnow out the best men. There is no sexual socialism and there will never be any.

So life is an IQ test, but it is many other things too.

First, foremost, and forever:

Life is a shit test.

Once you get that, you’re redpilled for life no matter your economics or politics or anything.

1 Comment

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

PUA/Game: Freud’s Eternal Question: The Hamster Wheel, Strong Emotionality, Female Self-Delusion – Self-Annihilation Drive, and Feminism

If you start to figure out females, pat yourself on the back. You’re better than 75% of both men and women in that regard. Even Freud could not figure out these endlessly baffling, complex and mystifying creatures.

What does a woman want?

– Sigmund Freud, father of modern psychology.

And yes, the fact that females don’t even understand females is seriously pathetic. Misogynists take note. Here’s one more weapon for your arsenal!

But it’s probably not as bad. Most people are not as evil as their enemies say they are, and the MGTOW’s and redpillers overestimate their opponent, a natural human tendency. Remember the Missile Gap? Remember the SALT Talks? North Korea, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela are current cases. It must be a natural human tendency:

  • Always grotesquely exaggerate the danger and evil of your opponent.

So the charge like so many misogynist beefs is probably false. Actually women probably really do understand women, if they have any sense anyway. No wait. Well, anyways. Moving right along.

Women probably understand women as they understand so many things, but women spend most of their lives blinding themselves to cruel reality because it doesn’t line up with their fairy tale dream of what life is. These self-delusions that women are constantly spinning as, frankly, a defense mechanism, are what is known as the hamster wheels.

So women are not really stupid. More that they are in general self-deluded. The delusions or hamster wheels were created typically by emotions, and women are extremely emotional. So the wild emotions are like your pet rat on the wheel. They’re the fuel that powers the hamstering.

The strong emotions created the delusions (as a defense mechanism) because the truth about life is so awful that many women find it horrific, and they just can’t handle it. Really none of us can handle life (men mostly just fake it), but men are much more like to say, “If life gives you a shit sandwich, eat it whole!” Women shrink back remarks like that, being the Tender Sex. And with their natural tendency towards depression and even annihilation, worldviews like that rapidly tumble them into depression that often becomes suicidal. Almost all women will become suicidal at some point in their lives. Suicidality is nearly a feature of the feminine. I have had enough girlfriends to where I almost wonder if it as an actual drive towards self-annihilation.

On the other hand, we males are born with a drive to annihilate others, so maybe the born suiciders level out the born homiciders and somehow harmony is created.

The takeaway point here is that all the female hamstering and self-delusion is a defense mechanism, probably against depression and suicide. One can hardly fault women for creating defense mechanisms against such things, and there’s an excellent argument that such defenses are necessary.

So they make up the fake reality and call it real. In general, most women cannot tease apart the fake reality from the real reality in all cases, but the best women can tease it apart in 80-90% of cases. These are the women you want in your lives. The more wild hamstering and self-bullshitting with no capacity for reflection at all, and the more problems you are going to have with that women, in my opinion. You will have problems with her if you choose to live in actual reality while she chooses her hamster world.

That’s a recipe for endless fights and outrages. She probably also thinks you are a scum or you’re evil. Women look at men who see life as it is and say, “Wow! Look at how that man thinks! He’s scum! He’s so evil!” This is because in our world people who do not buy the pretty lies about life (usually created by women) are regarded as evil. This is because in the reality of the Hamstering World, the way it is set up is that anyone who refuses to see the reality of Hamster World is simply evil. Hamster World is a nice place full of lots of pretty little lies. Anyone who refuses the reality of this beautiful world in favor of a worldview which is much more evil (even if it is grounded in reality) is seen as having an evil worldview.

People with evil worldviews are bad people. Assholes, bastards, pigs, wankers, creeps. We’ve all been called them all. Being called those names is the price you pay for being a man who sees the world as it is really is – a shitty, lousy, down and dirty rat race dog eat dog jungle full of dangerous apex predators of both sexes. Notice I said of both sexes. This is important. Women call us predators, but all humans are predators. More importantly, all men are predators due to their male imperative. However there is also a female imperative that makes women just as predatory as men. Both sexes are preying on each other. Our prey is our needs. This goes for both sexes. Dog eat dog, and eat or be eaten. I choose to eat, thank you very much.

We see Hamster World in women’s politics first and foremost, such as feminism. Feminism is simply the worldview of women, which is largely constructed of self-delusions created to make the world seem like it is the world women want to live in instead of being the pretty damn lousy world that women really do live in. This is why feminism is so nuts and irrational. It’s also why it is as devious and conspiratorial as the Protocols. Feminism is a philosophy with a based on massive self delusions about how the world works, so it literally cannot be rational, and the psychological drives pushing the Hamstering logic make it crafty, conniving, devious, deeply unfair, and somewhat wicked.

2 Comments

Filed under Depression, Feminism, Gender Studies, Man World, Mood Disorders, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Sane Pro-Woman, Women

Opinion: The Alt Left Should Be Neither Feminist Nor for Men’s Rights. It Should Be for Good Relationships between the Sexes

Great piece by Ryan England. Personally, I feel things are far, far, far too gone for this and this sort of pacifism is just not going to work. England is calling for unilateral disarmament on the part of the men and then sending us unarmed men in to negotiate with savage, ISIS-like terrorists (the feminists). That’s not going to work. It’s like bringing a knife to a gunfight. It would be great if this would be enough but I am afraid that things are far too gone for that now and the only thing left is the more extreme measures. Hey, the feminists started it. They started shooting at us men. You want a war, baby? Bring it on!

Beyond Feminist vs. MRA

OPINION: THE ALT-LEFT SHOULD BE NEITHER FEMINIST NOR FOR MEN’S RIGHTS. IT SHOULD BE FOR GOOD RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE SEXES.

It’s a familiar story for anyone who’s been online for any length of time. A discussion starts over a gender or feminism-related topic.  There’ve been plenty of these lately since the Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment scandal broke in Hollywood and the metoo hashtag campaign, so there’s no shortage of examples to choose from. There’s nothing unique about these conversations, however. They’ve been taking place on social media since Facebook and Twitter first launched and were commonplace on bulletin boards long before anyone knew what a comments section was. The basic conversation hasn’t changed much in the decades since Al Gore invented the internet. A typical conversation will go something like this.

Feminist: Men rape and harass women. That’s why men suck and women should reject them.

MRA: But not all men. But not me. That should give me an advantage in the mating game with women, should it not?

Feminist: But only men. Plus patriarchy, power, privilege, rape culture, etc. Not so fast, buster!  You’re part of the segment of the population that does the most rape and who benefits from rape and are therefore not so innocent as you’d like to believe. And therefore suck no less and are no less deserving of rejection.

MRA: But what about false accusations? What about women who sexually assault men? This nullifies the advantage you claimed in your previous statement. Therefore, women should more readily accept and sleep with us. I mean me!

It’s never long before a conversation like this breaks down, and school yard level copypasta insults break out. “Boo hoo! Eh poor menz!” “Enjoy your cats!” So on and so on. It’ll inevitably come down to one or both sides being ugly, living in their parent’s basements, and being unable to get laid. This is due to the fact that the surface conversation is never nearly as important as the subtext that continually underlies conflicts over gender theory and its real world implications.

The unstated but nonetheless omnipresent axioms that are revealed when any kind of deconstructive analysis is applied to such discussions are that male power is expressed through sexual conquest of the female, and that female power is expressed through sexual rejection of the male. All else is ancillary. Which is largely why pro and anti feminists talk past one another and at one another far, far more than with one another. The legitimate issues raised by either side fall by the wayside because they’re obviously being weaponized to one or the other of those two ultimate effects.

The real purpose for bringing up rape, harassment, divorce, child support, or any other issue, at least in online discussion, is to lower the value of one gender relative to the other for the ultimate purpose of making sex either easier (in favor of men) or harder (in favor of women) to attain.

There’s just one problem with this paradigm, however. It doesn’t work. It’s not making anyone happy. It’s based in a glaringly flawed assessment of human nature and is much more rooted in ego than in reason or human empathy. Men were not rejected into sympathizing with women’s concerns. They go their own way instead, doubtlessly with the intent of bringing those pesky, uppity women to heel. No dice: women are angrier now than ever. Who’d have guessed? The result is that heterosexual activity has been driven into a kind of moral black market wherein most people actually do it at some point or another but also have to conceal it, rationalize it, or engage in it under some kind of false pretenses much of the time to avoid social censure. No wonder bad behavior abounds.

It’s time to smarten up, people. Get out of the grade school mentality. Let’s at least try and hit puberty, okay internet? Human nature is not especially complicated. We tend to simmer down when we feel that our concerns are being heard and taken somewhat seriously, even if disagreed with in some ways. The natural response of people when faced with a lecturing, condescending tone is to get defensive, not to open one’s heart or mind. This is true however legitimate the surface grievance actually is or is not. Which isn’t to say you accept bullshit uncontested. Rather, let your assessment of what’s bullshit and what isn’t depend on honest appraisal, which you can’t get without listening and understanding.

Whatever your claim to victimhood past or present, however poorly you were treated as a child or in your past relationships, other people, even the opposite sex, will not accept your shitty and abusive behavior. Not indefinitely at any rate. However much you feel entitled to it. Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is something we feel instinctively if not intellectually. It stops mattering who started it or who inflicted or suffered the greater suffering after a point. Neither women nor men will accept the other’s claim to morally superior status based on previous victimhood and grievance even if real.

It is easy to say that we should set our fragile egos aside and listen seriously to the other side when they lay out their grievances and issues. This is true. But when the other side does not expect this of themselves, even the most legitimate gripe becomes tainted by the ultimately self-serving purpose to which it is put. The kinds of behavior displayed by feminists and MRAs alike in most internet discussions between the two would be emotionally abusive were they done in real life, and increasingly these kinds of relationship dynamics are spilling out of cyberspace and into the real world. It is no wonder that growing numbers of people, especially the young, are eschewing relationships with the opposite sex all together and claiming to be happier doing so.

And that’s fine for some individuals. If you’re happier going it alone, and I think some people are naturally disposed this way, have at it.

But that’ll be a disaster for society as a whole. Fewer lasting successful marriages and long term relationships (LTR’s) are poised to cause all kinds of problems down the road. Demographic and economic dependency ratios are bound to get worse, and socially destabilizing levels of mass immigration will need to be employed to compensate for falling birth rates. Frustrated romantic and sexual drives will find expression in other usually more antisocial ways from mounting political or religious extremism to mental health problems and increased cynicism.

Even many, though not all, of those who claim to be happier being single are not so much once you scratch the surface. A certain regret often though not always presents itself. And why not? Humans were not hardwired to live alone and not pass on their genes to future generations. A society losing its capacity for love and empathy is not one we should aspire to be a part of.

So here’s a proposal. The Alt-Left should be neither feminist nor MRA. Not exclusively. We should be instead for healthy and good relationship dynamics, be they platonic, romantic, or erotic. We should listen to the concerns of both sides and sort the valid and legitimate grievances from the entitled whining and vapid boasting. It should not be a concern of the Alt-Left which of the two has the more legitimate grievances and is therefore more deserving. Ten years and God knows how many flame wars into the social media age later, we should know by now that ideological partisanship and competitive victimhood isn’t actually helping anybody. It’s driving a spiral of mutual frustration that is causing increased polarization and extremism.

Even if one gender really does have it worse than the other by a wide margin, our approach should be one of mutual listening and empathy, not one of grievance and vengeance. This is not to say that we can’t prioritize some issues over others or that wrongdoers can’t be called out and exposed to such sanction and censure as their actions warrant. But it should never be an ego stroking exercise. Even if you’ve had it worse or your sex or gender has been on the receiving end of injustice, the world doesn’t owe you anything, whatever you may think. Success, be it alone or in partnership, derives from responsibility, not entitlement.

So if you’re single or attached, male or female, here are some things you can do vis-a-vis the opposite sex to improve the situation. And in case you are wondering, this is over twenty years of relationship success (I’ve been with my present wife since 1995) and a decade of every mistake imaginable leading up to it, talking. There’s much I learned the hard way:

  • Listen. Nothing is more effective at defusing anger.
  • Do not stereotype the opposite sex unironically or for non-comedic purposes.
  • Stop with the vain, stupid games. Crushing some young man or woman’s confidence in him/herself won’t bring down the patriarchy or gynocentrism, and it doesn’t make you strong or independent. It makes you an asshole, be you male or female.
  • Do not participate in discussions that tend to descend into pissing contests of competitive victimhood, and clearly state this. Ask instead, “What do you want?”  That’s a powerful question that can very effectively shut down entitled whiners with weaponized grievances.
  • You are owed nothing. Approach all relationships with the opposite sex or with anyone with that in mind. This is not to say that you should tolerate shit and abuse. Don’t. But don’t expect to be put on a pedestal either.
  • Do not have as an expectation for an ideal partner a trait you do not have or can not match. Half of our problems stem from 6’s thinking they’re actually good matches for 10’s, so to speak. Do not expect a prince if you’re not a princess or vice versa. And assess yourself honestly to save a lot of trouble.
  • Live a good life outside of a relationship context. This signifies that you will not be dead weight but instead a net asset in other people’s lives. No one wants a needy dependent.
  • Trust must come before any kind of relationship intimacy, be it physical or emotional. Always. Take it upon yourself to earn rather than demand trust. Decide at what point your efforts are in vain and when to move on.
  • Do not expect from a relationship partner anything that you can do for yourself.  Relationship success thrives best when free of contrived obligations and expectations. Otherwise resentments creep in and do damage.
  • Do not be afraid to point out the elements and their underlying axioms (see above for examples) in gendered discussions but do so only if the person you’re discussing things with becomes obstinate, obtuse, or clearly hostile. The underlying pettiness and stupidity become readily apparent when brought to light.
  • Likewise, if need be, remind people that two wrongs don’t make a right. Plus, no man was ever rejected, nagged, scolded or castrated into liking and respecting women. No woman was ever convinced by rational argument or else likewise rejected, scolded or shamed into liking men. People don’t work that way. Don’t hesitate to point this out.
  • Make your disdain for passive-aggressiveness clear, if need be.
  • If people insist on dominating conversations with socially destabilizing displays of rudeness, sarcasm or hostility, do not be afraid to call them out on it and exclude them from further social activities. If you moderate or administer an online or social media space, you have a special responsibility here. Trolls thrive on the emotionally destabilizing effect that their refusal to be decent and reasonable people has. Do not tolerate it, and ban them at once.
  • Admit that the opposite sex doesn’t always have it easy.  Try to replace resentment with walking in the other man or woman’s shoes, as the case may be. This isn’t to say it’s equally bad on both sides, all the time. Occasionally people will need to be told to stop whining.
  • Do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to clumsiness or ignorance without evidence. This is especially true with flirtation, flattery, or the like.

And above all …

  • Get the f**k off the Internet every once and awhile. Yeah, I know. It’s hard. But there are numerous dynamics that contribute to the Internet being a relatively uncivil place where your faith in humanity can easily go to die. Meet people in the real world from time to time. They’re usually (though not always) not what they appear to be when seen as just a social media profile.

So that in mind, get out there and see the world, dear reader!

2 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Left, Man World, Masculinism, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

A Call to All Liberal and Leftist MRA’s: Please Join Us in Building an Anti-Feminist Left!

I submitted a post something like this to a couple of Reddit boards, including Men’s Rights and Masculinism. Masculinism is probably saner. Men’s Rights are MRA’s and most of them are nuts. Men’s Rights buried my post somehow. Masculinism kept it up there, and we will see what the response is, if any. It’s a low-volume group. There’s no way to post on Redpill, and it’s probably a waste of time anyway. Men’s Liberation are some feminist MRA’s. It’s crap. It’s part of the feminist movement, thought I will grant that it’s a bit more sane than feminism. Men’s Liberation started out great. Warren Farrell was one of the founders, but it went full SJW long ago. There’s probably something worthwhile there, but they would never accept a post like this.

Regarding this post:

I believe that the Alt Left should incorporate anti-feminism as a core value. Nevertheless, that statement is an extreme one. I think there are many good things about feminism, but some things are so horrific that they have poisoned the entire movement. In particular, they seem to have morphed into Puritanical, Victorian, prudish, frigid Comstocks who seem out to shut down all heterosexual sex as illegal or a societal transgression.

I am an MRA. In fact, I am an ultra-MRA. Nevertheless, I do not like many things about the MRA movement. In fact, I hate the MRA movement. The MRA’s are almost as bad as the feminists. Nevertheless, the toxicity of modern feminism must be opposed. Mostly I feel like Ryan Englund that the MRA movement is the other side of the mirror of the feminist movement. They are basically the same thing while being opposites of one another. And I am very concerned that the MRA movement is becoming just another Identity Politics rabbithole.

I also, like Warren Farrell, came out of the feminist movement back when it was sane. I was actually a dues-paying member of NOW for a number of years, much to my mother’s pride. I would not join NOW at the moment if you put a gun to my head. I still support liberal feminism, equity feminism, and sex positive feminism. Nevertheless, it is clear that feminism is a clear and present danger to all real men in the West. And as this feminist cancer spreads beyond the West, all men on the planet will soon be menaced.

Yes, we hate feminism, but we are Leftists! Or at least the movement as it started was a Leftist movement. The real Alt Left worth defending has morphed into a Leftist wing and a liberal wing. The rest are just rightwingers, and most are supporting Trump. I have renounced all of them.

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/dealbreakers-what-the-alternative-left-is-not/

Those are two early foundational documents.

We are a big tent movement with a philosophy of “everyone form your own wing.” That’s not completely true, but what I mean is that except for a small set of non-negotiables, everyone construct your own ideology via picking and choosing the beliefs that suit you best. We are not party line, and we don’t have a lot of litmus tests.

The early founders were straight, masculine men who love sex. Such men either do not exist on the Left anymore or they are being burned at the stake as witches. However, one of our top thinkers is also a gay man. Nevertheless, we do not spend a lot of time on Gay Rights. The Cultural Left has that area pretty much covered. I myself support gay political causes and I even work on them. I am on a number of gay political mailing lists and I work for their causes. A lot of them hate my guts and call me homophobe, but I will continue to work for them no matter how many names they call me. For the most part, gay rights is a matter of doing the right thing. People deserve basic rights whether they like me or not.

We started out as race realists, but most of the movement has rejected that.

Mostly we just think the Cultural Left is out of its head. A lot of us are social conservatives to some extent, but we are not femiservatives and we despise the social conservatism is the US Republican Party. The principal nonnegotiable is on economics. You must be Left on economics! No exceptions! Other than that social conservatism is ok. Some have called us conservative Leftists or socially conservative Leftists. But at least my wing are radical social libertarians.

I came out of the Left. I was a member of the Communist Party USA. I even got a membership card! I used to be on the mailing list for the Weathermen. I bought guns for the Marxist rebels in El Salvador. You get the picture. But a man-hating psychotic feminist Left is something I want no part of.

As a Leftist, I am utterly sickened and disgusted at the reactionary nature of nearly the entire MRA movement. It’s vile and disgusting. We are MRA’s, but we want no part of these ruling class suck-ups. We are for the workers, the working MEN in particular!

Peace out, from a brother to the brotherhood.

I make this post as a call to all lonely MRA liberals and liberals and Leftists wandering in the political wilderness. I call on all of you to come join us to help us build a real anti-feminist, pro-men Left!

5 Comments

Filed under Civil Rights, Conservatism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Radical Feminists, Republicans, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, US Politics

Alt Left: “Why I am Not an MRA”

I continue to say that Ryan England is one of our finest Alt Left thinkers. I say that in part because I agree with him so much. I would put him up there with Brandon Adamson, who I also agree with a lot. And both Brandon and Ryan are two of the finest writers, as in prose stylists, in our movement.

I have reputation for being so radical and nuts that I am almost persona non grata in this movement. I know that posts linking to me have been removed from the Alternative Left that Ryan started. Apparently I am “raciss” or something. It takes almost nothing to get called that anymore. Just be a bit honest, and you’re done. I also have a reputation, via Lord Keynes, for being an extremist on the Cultural Left.

It is said that I have some extreme positions on the SJW Left. He is also rather astonished at how socially conservative I am. But I am not a social conservative at all. My views are Democratic Party’s Official Platform 1995. That these views are now seen as just as socially conservative as Roy Moore is quite astonishing, but it shows just how fast the runaway clown car train called the Cultural Left Freakshow has gone in just ~20 years. And indeed I am not just a conservative. I am also a reactionary. I want to roll back the clock – to Democratic Party 1995. That this is considered Troglodytism is one again a symptom of the disease.

Part of the controversy was that I supported Antifa. That makes you almost persona non grata on the Alt Left. It was said that I had moved to the extreme Left. That’s hardly possible as I have always been there. I was on the mailing list for the Weathermen for Chrissakes. After that, I was buying guns for the Marxist rebels in El Salvador. And I haven’t budged since.

The funny thing is that despite my supposed extremism, I find myself agreeing with Ryan England (who is actually himself quite a radical Left type on the Alt Left) a very good part of the time. This post could have been written by me, but I am not eloquent or disciplined enough to have done so, so Ryan had to do it. If you want to know where I stand on the issue of feminism, etc. (I am supposedly an MRA radical) just read this post. I am as MRA as Ryan is. That our mild views are now MRA shows just again just how insane the “normal” has gotten now. Yep, you read that right. Crazy is the new normal. Sane is new bigotry and reaction.

Not going to say much more about this except that I hope it spurs some comments. Like Ryan, I am also a feminist. I came out of the feminist movement back when it meant something. Once again the crazy train left me stranded at the station holding flowers and jilted once again. I still support liberal feminism, sex positive feminism (though if Jezebel is the definition, I have my worries) and equity feminism. I think Ryan might want to identify as a masculinist or Men’s Liberationist. These are the left wings of the MRA movement to the extent that they exist at all. One can be both a masculinist and a feminist and the demands of basic equality nearly mandate it.

I have scarcely seen an article that lays out the poison of modern feminism so eloquently and accurately. Once again, his words are mine. My principal beef with feminism is outlined here by my alter ego, Ryan.

Read and enjoy.

Why I am not an MRA

By Ryan England

Feminism 101

Doesn’t it want to make you swoon?

 

I know I’m going to catch flak for this, but I don’t care much for the men’s rights movement. I do think they make good points – I’ve read Warren Farrell for example and found his work quite profound. In fact, it really takes a wrecking ball to this idea that men have conspired to make the world a wonderful place at the expense of women. You can’t reasonably believe that after reading Farrell’s works.

Why I don’t really relate to the MRM is rooted in my overarching distrust of identity politics. I do think that there’s all kinds of room to criticize the excesses of feminism, and some points made by the MRM are valuable in that regard.  Decades of ideological protectionism has produced a very real feminist echo chamber with next to no external checks on its claims.  The MRM can by helpful in remedying that.  The MRM also brings our attention to real issues that men are confronted with.  Glaring disadvantage (to varying degrees depending on jurisdiction) in divorce settlements and child custody arrangements being the most obvious example.

The feminist demonization of male heterosexuality; this presumption underlying much of feminist theory that male sexual attraction towards women is somehow demeaning and objectifying of women is something else that needs to be challenged and the present taboo against disagreeing with feminism desperately needs to be broken here.  The MRM can help in that regard.  The equation of compliments and polite civil greetings on part of men towards women with harassment, objectification or even oppression, commonly seen on social media, is a manifestation of this.  If taken at all seriously, especially in any kind of public policy context, this kind of thinking could effectively close the door on prospects for male-female encounters of all but the most institutional kind.

The ever expanding definition of rape, and the ever narrowing definitions of consent, and the increasingly onerous requirements for obtaining legal consent – an express verbal “yes” given for every touch, kiss or caress, and even that be nullified if there’s any alcohol or mental illness or any factor that could in the slightest call into question the strict legal capacity to give consent, constitute another manifestation of this.  The end game here, I suspect, is to make legal intercourse, for all intents and purposes, impossible for men.

Although most feminists profess to disagree in principle with the notion that all things “boy meets girl” are inherently sexist or oppressive – and may even trot out their own relationship as proof of this, the restrictions imposed on gender dynamics by these kinds of very popular demands made by very widely circulated and credible media outlets that represent the mainstream of liberal opinion on gender issues, would make establishing even platonic, let along erotic relationships extremely difficult.

That many feminists choose to make exceptions to their own rules for themselves and the men they get the D from should not be taken as proof of feminism’s flexibility and open mindedness.  It should be taken as proof of moral hypocrisy on part of the feminists so doing, and a tacit admission on their part that their system of sexual morality and conduct is no more reasonable and in alignment with human nature than that of the religious conservatives they so smugly see themselves as superior to.

Compound that with inundation of  feminist perspectives casting heterosexual relationships in so consistently negative a light; as being about nothing other than unequal distribution of domestic labor, unequal pay, riven with male insecurity and unreasonable male behaviors contrasted to the relief women are expected to seek and experience in all-female spaces, as characterized by universally poor male sexual performance and an expectation of female preference for marital celibacy, dildos, lesbianism, asexuality, promiscuity, anything other than relational intimacy – all hermetically sealed by a propensity to yell “fragile male ego” at any dissention from any of the above on part of men – as if this kind of petty weaponized rejection is something we should just sit back and relish, and feminist gender dynamics become a mortal threat to healthy heterosexual relationships, even if it turns out to be death by a thousand cuts rather than a swift beheading.

A strong MRM could be a countervailing force for reason and love in gender relations.  On the other hand, groups like MGTOW could just up the ante and make things worse rather than better.  Don’t get me wrong: you, dear reader, be you male or female, have every right as far as I’m concerned to live your life as you see fit, and if that involves not having a significant other of the opposite sex, good luck to you.  I once wanted an unattached life myself.  May you succeed where I failed.

But to advocate widespread rejection of the opposite sex, as feminism often implicitly and, in the case of separatist feminism, explicitly does, and MGTOW likewise does, is to advocate for the infliction of protracted neurosis and frustration culminating in a demographic holocaust upon whichever population is to embrace this as a form of gender based political activism.  It would inflict incalculable and irreparable damage on the psychological fabric of such a society.

But even a less strident form of male activism than MGTOW could end up becoming a gender flipped version of the worst aspects of feminism.  I’ve noticed that in every debate I’ve ever read between feminists and MRAs – though flame war is a better description in just about ever case, since debate implies a reasoned exchange of views and that’s most definitely not what happens – the exchange always boils down to each side saying to the other, “you’re just ugly and can’t get laid” – with cats and mother’s basements figuring in there somehow. Inevitably, one side resigns in frustration over the strident unreasonableness of the other, and both remain more convinced than ever that the opposite sex is hopelessly screwed up.  There’s not much of a future in this.

Taken to their logical conclusions, demands upon heterosexual relationships would end up more closely resembling shari’a law than they would anything previous generations of liberal feminists struggled and fought for.

Wait a minute …

Of course,  feminism – in its more reasonable forms, is still needed to protect and safeguard the rights of women. Life is certainly not all wine and roses for all women at all times, and men are not blameless. This is especially true in communities where, for religious reasons, women still very much are second class citizens.

This is what I find both astounding and disturbing about What looks like an alliance of feminists and Islamists, particularly in opposition to the Trump presidency.  While I don’t condone the more boorish things Trump has said about women, you can’t compare the danger posed to women by macho locker room bluster with the danger posed to women by shari’a law.  Given the dour attitudes that both feminists and Islamists appear to have towards free and fun expression of happiness and attraction between the sexes, however, I can see the kinship the two might have with one another, though from where I sit, it promises to be a stormy relationship.

What I worry about regarding the MRM, though, is its own potential to become a kind of rank gender partisanship. That “Male good female bad” thinking could, and does, easily arise from it.

Because that, in its own way, is exactly what happened to feminism. What began as being “just about equality” or just about “the same treatment of women as for men” has become a blinding and fanatical form of gender partisanship. Motivated by dogmatic adherence to feminism, whole cohorts of young women (and their male sympathizers) have circled the wagons and harnessed collective groupthink to hermetically seal themselves away from any kind of criticism or dissent.

Driven by a sense of universal and historical mission, these women regard themselves as quite entitled to ceaselessly make unilateral demands of men with no countervailing concessions, tar all men with collective responsibility and guilt by association for the very real crimes and misdeeds of some men, and to effectively kill any prospect for intimacy and trust between the sexes by making militant confrontation the permanent and universal norm for gender relations. Backed by unilateral academic and media support and an arsenal of canned responses and copy pasta with which to respond to naysayers, the impact that this has had on gender dynamics is nothing short of devastating.

As an antidote to this, we need to step back from identity politics. We don’t need a male version of the same thing. Given what we should now know about ideological and identitarian polarization, feminism and the MRM will most likely feed off one another and each further radicalize in response to the other. This is certainly what I’ve seen in every single exchange between MRMs and feminists that I’ve ever seen. If that process becomes normalized, it could well mean the death of heterosexual love in its entirety. The prospect of this worries me greatly. I really hope people of both (yes, both) genders can learn to take a step back from their attachments to gender ideology and start reasoning honestly about these kinds of issues.

13 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Islam, Law, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Republicans, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics

Women Are Awful, but Men Are So Much Worse

Many of the  painful truths about women are considered downright misogynistic if you utter them in polite company. You spout out any of these truths, and you will be shot down as a creep, a pig, a pervert, a harasser, a rapist, a misogynist, a maniac, a serial killer, etc. You will be told that obviously you can’t get laid and have never been laid. You will be told until you are blue in the face that you hate women even though you search your mind and don’t find that emotion and maybe even never have, not that it matters. Instead, you feel like you’ve been loving them all these years.

Well, the painful truth about men is not so pretty either. I am not here to whitewash my gender. We are just awful. And as bad as women are, men are so much worse. Women are simply nuts, but that’s relatively easy to deal with because as a general rule, you deal with that mostly by semi-ignoring them and pretending to be sympathetic to whatever their latest Freakout du Jour is all about. Women are dangerous, aggressive and violent only verbally and psychologically and generally not physically, and even then, men are vastly worse.

Women are still the fragile and tender gender, and all of the frothings about the evils of women pale in comparison to men. As I said, even in verbal and psychological violence where women excel and are sometimes nearly Olympians, men are vastly worse. Men are much meaner verbally than women. And though a woman can be cold and cruel, that is nothing compared to the feral savagery of psychological and verbal violence that men unleash on the world day in and out.

Hey, it’s all down to hormones, eh? We men suffer from testosterone poisoning, and on top of that, we have a wonderful cultural disorder called Toxic Masculinity that I wouldn’t give up for a million dollars.

Face it, we men are born killers.

There are two types of men. Men who want to kill and do it, and men who want to kill and spend their whole lives painfully holding back their urges. So far I’ve apparently been in the latter group, and I think I would rather stay there, but I’ve definitely got that Repression defense mechanism down, let me tell ya.

Furthermore, the vast majority of men’s violence, especially physical but also verbal and psychological, is directed at men. I believe that 90% of men’s physical violence is directed at other men. The figure for homicide must be as high.

And that doesn’t count all of the ferocious assaults I have suffered that would not be considered attempted homicide. Like being beaten in the head with a baseball bat. Yes, it happened to me, but no, he wasn’t trying to kill me. So that doesn’t even count.

You women have no idea what we men deal with with other men. The vast majority of men’s hate, rage and physical violence is directed right at us. An overwhelming majority of the physical injuries and deaths from male violence are experienced by us men. You women think you’ve got it bad, but you ain’t seen nothing. All I have to say is feel lucky you are a woman. Just by virtue of being female, you are avoiding 90% of male violence of all types. You only get 10% of what men dish out. Think about it. You’re getting off easy, dammit.

3 Comments

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

Game/PUA: The Advantages of Older Women – the Older, the Kinkier

A lot of women of all ages are perverts. I have known many women of all ages who masturbated to orgasm every day or most every day. One did it 10 X/week (45 years old) and I knew one who did it 3-4 X/day (50 years old). Many have been doing this for years. I knew a woman in her 20’s who sometimes masturbated all night long or off and on all day.  She had a driving job once and during the lulls when there were no calls, she would drive to an empty parking lot and masturbate there. Wow! That’s the sort of thing men do. Once women figure out how to have that orgasm, most of them are addicts. Masturbating to orgasm every day? That’s as horny as a man! Women are hornier than you think.

Nowadays, I often date women in their 40’s and now in their 50’s. A lot of them are serious perverts. Most are total sex maniacs who want to do it all the time. And as women get older, they get kinkier too for some reason. I figure once a woman gets to about age 50 or so, she has probably accumulated a few perversions and kinks along the way, no?

A lot of older women can have multiple orgasms, but not too many young women can.

It’s a lot easier to talk to older women about sex than it is to talk to young women about it. Older women just seem to accept it as a fact of life, and talking about sex is like talking about eating or sleeping with them. I think by the time they get into their 40’s and 50’s, most women have had enough sex and they have figured out that they like it a lot.

I think maybe it takes women a long time to finally get rid of their inhibitions and open up all the way. I have known women who had such deep and serious inhibitions, in one case due to fundamentalist Christian upbringing, that they did not finally flower sexually until they were after age 40. After that, they set about quickly to make up for lost time.

 

 

7 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Man World, Religion, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Solitaire, Women

Macho and Homophobic Behavior Is Quite Common among Liberal Men

Jason: SHI, based on your comments on FAGS, I would think you’d be out cheering Trump’s masculine pro-white agenda.

Jason sounds like a Cultural Left type here. Newsflash: a lot of White liberal straight men have some pretty un-PC views on race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. Sexist, racist, bigoted, transphobic and homophobic views are notoriously common among White liberal straight men. There’s more to liberalism that this Cultural Left crap you know. This is what it’s boiled down to now: people think that the only reason anyone is liberal is because they are Cultural Left. If you’re traditional or not Cultural Left, how can you possibly be a liberal. And if you hold traditional social views, you must vote Republican. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

I hang out on Left websites like Daily Kos a lot (even though they gave me a lifetime ban recently). Most of the articles on there have nothing whatsoever to do with the Cultural Left. They don’t talk about race, feminism, gay rights or trans rights a lot and when they do, it is more in the sense of basic rights than Cultural Left crap. An article about feminism would take the line of the pay gap or cutting birth control coverage out of the health care bill. An article on gay rights would argue for anti-discrimination in employment and the right to marry.  An article on transsexuals would  say they ought to be able to serve in the military. An article on race would talk about the ways that Blacks are being openly discriminated against in voting rights nowadays, leading to a new Jim Crow. I actually support all of those positions and I hate the Cultural Left.

We need to get off this liberalism and Left = Cultural Left insanity. It needs to strong leftwing men like me getting constantly abused being called conservative, Republican, rightist, fascist, Nazi, anti-Semite, misogynist, homophobe, transphobe, bigot, reactionary, Alt Right, and all sorts of bullshit. Never mind that no rightwing group wants anything to do with me and  I have identified with the Left my whole life. We are throwing a lot of good people out of the Left because they aren’t going along with whatever the Cultural Left carnival ride of the day is. It’s morally reprehensible and it’s also just plain bad politics.

A lot of liberal men are pretty masculine. This whole thing of if you are a masculine man, you have to vote Republican because Democrats are all cucks and faggots is a new thing.

And a lot of liberal straight men don’t like gay men too much. Homophobia is basically normal for straight men. Straight male society has a lot of rules, but one of them is:

1. Absolutely no faggotry whatsoever in any way, shape or form.

You can’t even have thoughts like that. I have known some straight men who told me that they have low level gay interests but they have no interest in acting on them. The attractions are very minor and these are mostly just regular straight men. However, they told me that they had to suppress those feelings when they were around other straight men because they insisted that when they experienced those gay attractions around straight men, even in the privacy of their minds only, straight men often picked up on it and they tended to get very angry in response. You simply cannot have even thoughts like that around other straight men. They will freak and reject you flat out.

Straight men hate effeminate behavior, they hate wussy, pussy, girly, sissy, faggy, wimpy men, and the very idea of gay sex is physically revolting to most of them. A lot of straight men would say the worst thing you could do would be to have sex with another man, and a number of straight men have told me they would rather take a bullet than have sex with a guy.

On the other hand, a lot of these same straight men will support gay rights. They just don’t want any gay men around them. I’ve never known one straight man from my generation who had a gay friend. In my generation, the idea of straight men having gay friends is simply bizarre. How could any straight man have a gay friend? It’s just too weird.

Friendships are based on having a lot of things in common. The one thing binding together most straight male friendships is heterosexuality or love of pussy if you will. Quite a bit of straight male friendships are about socializing around women. You get together and talk about women most of the time. That’s one of the main things you have in common and that’s the glue that makes a close friendship possible. With gay men and straight men, the gap in fundamental basic interests is as wide as the Grand Canyon and I do not see how you bridge that.

4 Comments

Filed under Civil Rights, Cultural Marxists, Discrimination, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, US Politics, Whites

Intuition, Logic’s Unacknowledged Twin

“The more time I spend around this guy the creepier vibes I get from him.”

This is that thing called intuition. It’s actually sort of the opposite of logic. It’s all about the feels. It is also what we call “vibes” which is literally short for vibrations. The implication is that we can feel actual vibrations in the air when we are around something or usually someone that makes us feel a certain way.

It also works on something called Gestalt, which is “I know it when I see it.” You can’t put your finger on exactly why you feel that way, but you just feel that way and can’t even figure out how you got to that conclusion. Sometimes the hair on the back of your head will stand up. Sometimes a shiver runs through your body. Gestalt is “the sum is greater than the whole of its parts.” It’s the “smell” of something, without even using your nose. Like “this smells fishy” about a bad deal.

I am into birdwatching, and one of things we use is Gestalt. Sure, we have all sorts of guides and photos and drawings and whatnot that show us how to tell one bird from another by looks, terrain, behavior, song and all sorts of things, but oftentimes, it just boils down to Gestalt. You see a bird, sometimes just for an instant, and you just know it was a “so and so bird.” Someone asks you how or why you reached that conclusion, and you can’t even say. You shrug your shoulders and say, “I don’t know. I just knew it.” Something about it all added up.

Men decry this because it’s not logical thinking, but logical thinking only gets you so far, and a lot of things cannot be figured out with pure logic. You will dead end and stall or need to back out.

I think holistic thinking or “seeing the whole picture” or “putting it all together” may be intuitive also. You don’t exactly see the whole picture by some logical inductive or deductive method. You sort of “put it all together.” You form a picture in your mind, and there it is. The Gestalt. The “whole picture.”

The finest detectives have excellent logic and intuitive skills. Women are much better at intuition than men. We beat them at the opposite, so it all sort of evens out. That’s why men are stereotyped as such social retards, and women often say we just don’t get it. We men go at social interactions via brute force logic like a dictionary attack to break a password, and the result is a bull in a china shop.

So much of social communication works off subtle signals, vibes, small changes in conversational subject or tone, and the whole panoply of nonverbal communication where you can communicate with people merely by looking at their faces and body language. The pure social actor has mastered this whole pantomime. The social retard just doesn’t get it. Asperger’s people simply cannot read nonverbal communication at all. They often don’t get jokes or irony. They do not understand social conventions, and social rules are lost on them. This shows how important intuition is in social communication or what we call “social skills,” a term I despise.

I would like to see more women get into detective work. Looking at this websleuth group, and some of our best sleuths are women who seem to be operating off sheer intuition. We have a few female detectives and they can be quite good, but almost all detectives are men.

4 Comments

Filed under Asperger's Syndrome, Autism, Birdwatching, Crime, Gender Studies, Hobbies, Law enforcement, Man World, Psychology, Sane Pro-Woman, Women

Game/PUA: Maternal Instinct in Females, or The Wife as Mother

Beauregard: Weren’t “1950’s Wives” almost maternal towards their husbands? I mean, an extremely insecure teenage girl cannot provide that. I suppose strong men (Alphas) might not need that, but 85% of men, including myself, are not that.

Well I would say that a lot of those 1950’s wives were teenage girls, aged 18-19.

Females want to take care of males. Women want to take care of men. I assume teenage girls want to take care of their boyfriends.

Several years ago, I had an 18 year old girlfriend, and she told me that she wanted to take care of me. Every night before she went to sleep she prayed to God to not let anything bad happen to me. She worried all the time that something bad was going to happen to me. I was pretty shocked that such a young woman would want to take care of me. I guess the maternal instinct in females starts awful young. Females don’t just want to take care of babies. They also want to take care of their men.

Most of my most recent girlfriends tried to take care of me. They were concerned about my health, and they worried a lot about me. They pretty much mothered me in some ways. It’s normal for your woman to mother you.

Also it means she loves you. If she loves you, she is going to mother you. If she doesn’t love you, she may well not mother you. The maternal instinct to care for her man seems to be tied into love. If she cares enough about you to love you, then she wants to protect you.

Also women seem to know that we men are like babies or children. Face it, we don’t take care of ourselves, and we do a lot of stupid, self destructive, or out and out dangerous stuff.

 

Sure, Alphas are not looking for women to take care of them, maybe. The dirty little secret is how much most men love their mothers. You go to a prison, and most of the men in there will tell you that they want to kill their fathers, but they all also have Mom tattooed on their shoulders, and you better not diss their momma, or you might get hit or worse.

Men are pretty much babies, as tough as we act. Our mothers take care of us until we leave the home, whenever that is, and after that, we take up with a girlfriend or wife, which is actually a surrogate mother. No man wants to admit this because it sounds so pussy, but it’s actually true. Men know instinctively that they cannot take care of themselves very well, so we live most of our lives relying on women to take care of us in one way or another.

As men age, this mothering of husbands becomes quite profound, and many older and elderly men are dependent on their wives, often to an embarrassing degree. Many men’s health collapses after they divorce because there is no woman to take care of them anymore.

Lifelong bachelors like yours truly do a lot better because we have been on our own forever, and bachelor life is sink or swim. You either learn to cook, or you eat like a dog. You either take care of yourself, or your health collapses.

It’s downright Darwinian, and an early grave awaits the bachelor who never learned to be self-sufficient and in effect mother himself. Because newly divorced men have been relying on their wives for food, shelter, comfort, medical care and even the laundry, a newly divorced man is quite often a fish out of water. This is where you see the statistics about single men living less long than married men go astray. Those statistics are distorted by the poor health of divorced men. Lifelong bachelors often do much better, as they have learned to survive on their own.

1 Comment

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