July 30, 2015 § 3 Comments
“women are made to feel guilty and slutty for their sexuality. When that stops, women will make men feelmtheirmdesire. Desire for women is judged as being slutty. The Patriarchal archetype of who’re and Madonna had led to this . Women are just people, not your mom or your prostitute.”
“As I explained in another comment on this thread, the reason that women are slut shamed is essentially because men are socially weak due to their lack of sexual value. The guy “gets” the girl, right? He’s put through some ordeal, slays a dragon, some bad guy, overcomes this or that obstacle, resolves the conflict in the narrative and successfully wins the girl’s love. That’s the familiar archetype which appears everywhere in our culture and has going back as far as you want to look. Well, break it down. The fact that the guy has to get the girl in the first place means what? What if he can’t slay the dragon? Of what use is he? None. He’s invisible, a failure, a loser, etc., and women will regard him as such, if they even notice him at all.
Women by contrast are the ones being saved. Their value is not tied to conditions. They aren’t asked to slay any dragon or climb some mountain, all men ask of them is that they love and need him. What the guy spends the duration of the narrative attempting to achieve at great risk and cost to himself is already hers by default. She is already needed and wanted, and probably by plenty of other aspiring heroes. See the difference?
So why would men want women to be chaste on the one hand and then complain about the barren, sexual and emotional wasteland that most women create for men on the other? It’s because women have sexual value whereas he does not. If she dumps or divorces him, he is far more easily replaced than he can replace her. She has no dragon to slay, she need only sit at a bar alone and rack up phone numbers. She can go make an okcupid profile and screen potential applicants like an employer at the height of the great depression. And him? What does he do? He’s right back to slaying dragons, if he’s able to at all.
For women, they need only let sex happen. Attention is hers to give and the more scarce it is, the more she can extract from men in exchange for it. Men, by contrast, have to battle to make sex, intimacy, and relationships happen. Attention is theirs to win or fail to win. Her sexuality is so valuable that men will pay for it. His is so worthless that he literally has to pay to give it away.
So the problem doesn’t begin with men, but with women. So long as women consciously or unconsciously think of their sexuality as a bargaining chip or a tool of manipulation which compels men to qualify for female intimacy, so long as men are forced to shoulder the burden and risk of attempting to qualify for that intimacy, women will be slut shamed and resented by men who are rightfully insecure that the prize they’ve ostensibly won after their ordeal can easily be snatched away by a more powerful hero.
Men are just people. They aren’t monsters, villains, heroes, workhorses, or all powerful wizards who control everything and are therefore solely responsible for our gender norms as well as everything else under the sun. In other words, they aren’t your dad.”
July 27, 2015 § 2 Comments
“A study that followed 3,700 low-income working couples between 1998 and 2000 found that for every dollar a man’s hourly wages increased, the odds that he’d get hitched by the end of a year rose by 5 percent, and those earning more than $25,000 during the year had twice the marriage rates of those making less. The Pew researchers also concluded that “the economic hardships of young adults may be one reason that so many have been slow to marry.”
Isn’t it fascinating how people will talk around the bitter truth that nobody wants to face? Everybody already understands that equality is a sham and that women expect breadwinners, that male social and sexual success is entirely conditional and entirely dependent on macro economic, political, and historical forces he will likely have very little control over.
And yet, everybody, including the author of this article no doubt, will curiously forget this when they start mewling and bleating about male privilege and the supposed oppression of women. They will wail and moan about “misogyny” and roll their eyes when you point out that men are disposable. What does the above statistic prove if not that? How is it possible that so many people who should know better can’t infer the obvious here and recognize that, to the extent that there is a wage gap and that men do work longer hours or choose more dangerous and demanding occupations, these “choices” they are making are powerfully influenced by, if not entirely the product of, women’s expectations of them? Is it not fucking obvious? Is it that everybody knows it but is afraid to say it in public? What the fuck?
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, women leave men little choice but to succeed financially and professionally, then turn around and use this male success as proof of women’s oppression. This is laughably stupid and yet these ideas still retain mainstream currency. We’re suppose to invest in young women’s education so that they can compete with men for the same jobs and drive everybody’s wages down even when men face far greater social consequences than women for not succeeding professionally? What?
We’re supposed to break the bank and blow all our resources on getting women into STEM fields they aren’t even interested in when it is men who are far more likely to be homeless, far more likely to commit suicide, far more likely to engage in criminality, and so on? Even while all these statistical disparities are easily linked to poverty and lack of opportunity? And all of this so she can play grown up for a few years after her astronomically expensive and tax payer funded education until she opts out to have children?
It’s like they obscure the truth from themselves. Even the things they know can be forgotten or dissociated from their obvious implications if that is what’s required to protect their ideological ego investments. I can’t think of a more profound, destructive, and deeply rooted form of public irrationality. Not even racist and religious stupidity gets the pass that gynocentrism does.
July 27, 2015 § 3 Comments
You can get a girl who looks like that for 150 bucks – a waste of money, if you ask me.
The reason it works is because men are that starved for things which are basic to psychological and emotional well being for everyone. The whole culture and economic system is built on predation and the exploitation of male mother need. It’s dystopian.
The reason certain guys want to blow tons of money on women like this is because they’re socialized to believe that they have to compete with other men for wealth in order to avoid falling off the social map and being ignored by women. They internalize that value system and derive their sense of identity from it. So total and complete is their submission that they don’t even have an identity apart from it. It’s a status thing for them to be able to blow money on some “model” who would have ignored him when he was a miserable, sexless dork in a finance or engineering program in his early 20s, but then again what other bargaining chip do men have other than the status and “confidence” that women demand? His worth as a human being, and certainly his sexual value to the opposite sex, can only be measured by his ability to produce income and achieve status.
Women, social success, the picket fence dream, peace, happiness, and the satisfaction of those basic needs are placed on one side of an institutional maze that men must navigate in order to successfully actualize and acclimate themselves to the given culture and system and this is how our entire lives are structured. Most of us know nothing outside of that structure. It is a defacto, unconscious alliance between our lovely independent women who act as the carrot and the ruling class or owners of capital who provide the stick. There are only two pillars of authority which will decide if a man is a success or failure in this society and they are women and employers. And every good beta workhorse knows that the way to make his wife happy or get a wife in the first place is to make his employer happy. And for all that he’ll be relegated to the garage or basement mancave in the house he slaved away to buy and can enjoy playing make believe in his blue pill fantasy world until he gets served the divorce papers because his wife grew bored with his dutiful good man hero routine.
It’s why the beta workhorses who manage that hedge fund bought up all the housing stock in your city and turned it into a ghetto full of slums. It’s why your pension got raided while real wages have declined or stagnated for a generation. If you pop the hood, you’ll find that the ruthless competition to amass wealth is rooted in men’s anxieties about sexual and social failure or success. Isn’t that the real context in which we make decisions about careers and adopt our identities? How else does somebody like Lloyd Blankfein get laid?
Women are not a class, they are half of the ruling class. Those nefarious ruling class men that feminists blame for everything make decisions about their lives and careers only within the social context that those ruling class women have provided. Why did you think he worked all those hours and decided to become CEO in the first place? Because testosterone? When do we hold women accountable for their contribution not only to the given arrangement, but historically? We live in a vampire oligarchy that exports imperialism, third world dictatorship and state terrorism in order to generate cheap raw materials and labor, the mother of all consumer societies where advertisers believe women do the majority of spending, and we’re not going to consider this question? Really?
After 2008, the same financial institutions which destroyed your economy and future didn’t want to spend the avalanche of bailout money rebuilding the economy they destroyed, so they speculated, which drove up the price of commodities globally and served as the catalyst for the uprising in Tunisia, which in turn became the Arab Spring, which in turn became the Syrian civil war. Observe the hypergamy butterfly effect. From women’s incoherent little girl stupidity to war.
Refugees, atrocities, international instability, poverty – and all of it, if you peer behind the curtain, originates with some douchebags trying to become alphas by being the most advanced beta providers. Nobody explained to them that they didn’t even need good jobs to get the attention of girls with daddy issues, all they had to do was treat women like shit to generate tingles.
Instead they treat the rest of us like shit and buy entitled princesses Vuitton handbags.
He fucks everybody else over and buys your government because it’s the only real means he has of being noticed by women or satisfying their expectations of him. It’s actually hilarious. It’s the “civilized” version of some hopeless guy in a shitty neighborhood joining a gang and committing crimes. Both are just ant trails we follow to find female approval and sexual attention. You’ll join the corporate gang, the street gang, the military gang, or some other gang because it’s that or invisibility.
Women want social proof, after all. Losers in their mother’s basements and socially awkward creeps need not apply.
As I always argue, masculinity never belonged to men to define or redefine. It was only ever a reflection of women’s sexual choices.
It’s becoming clear why female sexuality was controlled by various traditional marriage schemes. How could it not be if women’s sexual choices outside of a hunter gatherer context have such potentially disastrous and destabilizing political and economic consequences?
Men on the other side of the economic, social, and racial divide have always known this. Hypergamy goes wild when the economy tanks and the blue pill fantasy narrative of gender reveals itself as the con it always was for those who are paying attention. Observe:
But in the end, who cares? This society is a sick joke. It’s not even worth contributing to. It’s in decline anyway. There’s nothing or nobody to save, nothing to fight for or build. Let it burn. Good riddance.
July 27, 2015 § Leave a comment
It would appear that I’m not the only one who has noticed that women think about men in precisely the same way the dumbest most reactionary conservatives think about people in poverty. This whole post is poetry.
The psychology is identical right down to the stock phrases and rationalizations. Who else on the left uses the word “entitlement?” You could actually boil it down to a precise equation and just plug in the appropriate variables for each. And after all that, we’ll still get to hear about how feminism belongs on the left from tradcons in the manosphere who are similarly as clueless.
The reactionary and bourgeois character of feminism is clear as day and obvious for anyone who bothers to subject it to the most cursory critical appraisal, the very same that the almighty pussy pass makes impossible.
July 25, 2015 § Leave a comment
“Woahh hold up, you’re saying the species die out if men do NOT harras woman… Do you even understand the stupidity of what u just said?? Guess what, you can flirt EQUALLY, fall in love marry eachother and happily ever after bladibla. MINDBLOWN”
You have the reading comprehension of a 6th grader. Are you being wilfully obtuse or are you actually this stupid? Do I actually have to babystep you through the reasoning here?
See, the question, which you didn’t answer and which was not rhetorical, was why is it the guy’s job to do everything. The fact that it is his job means that in a given population of men, a certain percentage will be good at it, another won’t be as good at it, some will be average, some will be below average, some will even be worse, and some will be hopeless.
See, it’s like a gradient. Can you picture a gradient in your head? Go ahead and try.
Put the guys who are good at it at one end and the guys who are hopeless at it at the other. See how there are all those guys in between?
Now, given the set of conditions and obligations that women have imposed on men, we will either have a greater number who are good at this or a greater number who skew towards the bad end of the gradient. Does that make sense? Take your time.
So what we’re talking about here is the men who are bad at playing the game whose rules you wrote. What you seem to be saying is that there are a lot of these guys and your solution to this seems to be to stamp your feet, whine and moan and tell them to “play the game better,” but what I’m asking is why are we playing this particular game and not another, and why are the rules such that they are, and who the fuck gave you the right to write them and why the fuck should I care if you have to suffer the consequences of the guys on the bad end of that gradient of possibilities if they are the direct product of your game?
Can you follow all that? I’m trying to make it simple for you since you don’t strike me as the sharpest tack in the box.
I suspect you probably don’t understand a damn word of what I’ve just said, so I’m going to give you an example. Let’s say you have some wealthy plantation owners and they own a bunch of slaves who compete to be the best slave. Slaves who can’t compete, starve.
So, make a gradient again. Good, well fed, winner slaves at one end, and bad, starving, loser slaves at the other.
The plantation owners write the rules of the competition which the slaves must engage in if they want to eat and avoid starvation. If the plantation owners write rules that are such that there is a large number of slaves who go starving or are near starvation, it’s probably a bad set of rules, yeah? It’s probably pretty fucking dumb for the plantation owners to whine and complain when those starving slaves burn their plantation house down with them inside because really, they could have adopted a different set of rules which would have produced less starving slaves. Or, they could have just freed the motherfucking slaves yeah? Why is there a plantation at all? Who the fuck made them the plantation owners? Is this too abstract for you?
The reason you get cat calls and guys with fucked up attitudes towards women is because of the given social landscape, or rules, that women have created. It’s really not rocket science. Women leave it up to men to do the approaching then complain and put endless contradictory and incoherent conditions on how they do that approaching, which is a role that men never asked for in the first place.
Women will friendzone you or turn you into their emotional tampon, doormat or girlfriend if you don’t affect douchebag confidence and break social rules. If you don’t do the approaching, you are socially and sexually invisible. That is why men do that. What don’t you get? Everything they are doing is a response to the set of rules that you have imposed. So the problem begins and ends with you.
I can’t make the argument any more simple for you. You really are like a trust fund kid who is complaining that poor people scare you. The question to ask is why there are so many poor people, not why won’t the poor people stop resenting you or trying to rob you. They do that because they are poor and desperate, you entitled, clueless, solipsistic, narcissistic fucking idiot.
July 23, 2015 § Leave a comment
The following comment was removed and resulted in me being blocked:
When somebody is mugged, do we think that mugger is “entitled” or powerful? If we’re not right wing imbeciles, we recognize that the reason the mugger is mugging is not because he is so powerful but because he is powerless. It’s the underlying socio-economic condition which produces muggers and this is why we will find more of them statistically in neighborhoods where institutions have broken down.
Note the nuance here. The mugger is not a victim. He’s not a hero. He isn’t right for doing what he’s doing, but the answer to the problem of crime probably isn’t simply morally castigating muggers. You’re essentially arguing that the way to stop crime is for people to simply quit committing crimes. If this is what you really believe, then I would be generous in calling you a fucking idiot.
Ok, so what about men, rude comments, street harassment, and all the rest of it? Are we so sure that it is the result of male entitlement and power? Because it looks to me as if the “harasser” is identical to the mugger. It’s not male power which produces these behaviors, but male social weakness in mating. It is the underlying social context in which men experience both women and their own gender, the one in which their identities take shape and which therefore produces the behavior just as surely as the underlying context of failed institutions statistically produces more muggers in a particular area.
Note the nuance here. The street harasser is not a victim. He’s not a hero. He isn’t right for doing what he’s doing, but the answer to the problem of street harassment isn’t simply morally castigating street harassers. You’re essentially arguing that the way to stop street harassment is for people to stop street harassing. If this is what you really believe, then I would be generous in calling you a fucking idiot.
July 19, 2015 § Leave a comment
Think about your relationship to authority figures when you were a teenager. You basically lie to parents and teachers as necessary and do your own thing. You know that you’re supposed to appear a certain way to them, so you pay lip service to their expectations so as not to create unnecessary trouble for yourself. The way they want you to be is just an ideal which you never really bought into anyway.
It’s like white noise in your young life, some bullshit that goes on in the background while you’re paying attention to something more interesting. It’s really just a set of obligations like the kind a young person might encounter at work or school. Its origin is in an authoritative value system that the younger person has not yet adopted, recognized, or even considered with any seriousness. He knows how to appear as if he is behaving properly, but he’s simply imitating and affecting appearance without any real understanding of what it is he’s expected to imitate or why.
What I suspect is that women are doing this when they relate to men. Their whole existence is a lie, basically. But it’s the kind of lie children or teenagers tell adults. We forget that for generations men were a kind of authority figure in women’s lives. Women still treat us this way without realizing it. They lie to us or guilt-trip to get what they want, and failing this, they retaliate and throw tantrums, etc. How different is it from how a child behaves?
When you’re a kid, society is something that belongs to adults and you live within the frame they impose. But what about women? It would be something similar to this if they are always “the other sex.” This is why they’re always complaining about the society they participate in without ever recognizing their own contribution to it. It’s always some faceless power structure, or somebody else’s frame, which they believe was imposed on them. They don’t see that it is their frame that they impose on virtually everybody else. They never recognize that male belief and behavior is only the consequence of having been socialized within the social landscape that women themselves have created.
We’ve basically taken people who relate to the world the way children do and put them in charge. They don’t even recognize it when they are in charge and therefore everything is somebody else’s fault. They work vanity jobs so they can play grown up and see only the benefits of adulthood, but never the responsibilities and obligations. They can opt out any time and yet we’re the ones who are accused of being “privileged.” It’s like a black comedy.
It’s why they’re always looking for daddy. It’s why she shit tests you. They want and need you to create structure in their lives, as if they’re children and you’re the parent. We always conflated women and children, so why should this be any surprise? Feminists tell us that the patriarchy was responsible for this, but they neglect to explain that it was not only men who thought of women as children, but women who think of themselves as children. If they have no other model for thinking about it, this is all they would know. They wouldn’t even know they were doing it.
So much about our discourse is explained if we drop the pretense that women adults who are equally capable of shouldering the responsibility of moral agency in a civil society.
A wise commenter in some corner of the internet or another once said that “asking women what they want is like asking a child how to be a parent.” It’s easy to dismiss this as a quip as “misogyny” and Archie Bunker tradcon bullshit without seeing the wisdom in it. And this is precisely how I interpreted it when I encountered it back in my blue pill days. But take it seriously for a moment and consider the similarities. If you were to ask a child how to be a parent, what would the child tell you? He’d say that good parents let their children stay up all night, do as they please, eat what they want, skip school, and so on. If the child guilt tripped us into taking him seriously and we complied with his demands, both the child and the parent are miserable. Go ahead and ask women what they want and you’ll get the usual run-around, the same empty but socially acceptable platitudes about respect, equality, “being nice,” and so on. But of course, as countless men will tell you, none of these things will please women, but quite the opposite. They’re a surefire recipe for losing her respect and attraction, for being regarded as an emotional tampon, a doormat, or a girlfriend or being rendered socially and sexually invisible.
In a nutshell, what men are confused by is women’s desire and need for male authority, the very same that 40 years of feminist bullshit has shamed men out of adopting.
It’s as Schopenhauer suggested, women are somewhere in between adults and children and the reason we get confused by this is because for a generation now we’ve bought whole heartedly into the egalitarian feminist fantasy of equality. Women were always the roadblock to any possibility of equality, not men. Post sexual revolution, men attempted to treat women as equals, not because they were equals, but for the same reason men provided for them and protected them in generations past. It was just the new form of chivalry which replaced the old gynocentric set of male obligations that had been handed down by tradition for new ones that had been outfitted by feminists and spoiled rich women living in the most affluent societies in human history. For a generation we basically put lipstick on a pig and called it “equality.” Oh well, so much for that.