Category Archives: Feminism

by | November 20, 2017 · 5:48 PM

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

by | November 16, 2017 · 5:25 PM

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

by | November 16, 2017 · 1:16 AM

Goddamn Feminists Are Changing the Dictionary!

These witches are really starting to get on my nerves. My entire life, I always thought that harass was two words.

In fact, I don’t give a damn how evil it makes me for saying it, but those have always been two of my favorite words in the English language. Harass. The loveliest two words in the English language!

When my mind wandered at work, at home or at play, it often wandered to harass. At night I dreamed of sugar plum fairies and sugar and spice and everything nice and a partridge in a pear tree, but when sweet dreams were not made of this, I dreamed of harass. Harass, harass, and more harass. Whole beaches of harass in tiny bikinis. Fat bottomed girls of harass. A grabass full of harass. On and on harass. Once again harass. Again and again harass. To sleep and wake harass. To live and die harass. To wish upon a star harass.

Now the feminists say this is one word, not two! Bitches! They want to rewrite the damned dictionary! You harridans! Now you’re messing with the OED! You shrikes don’t know you’re messing with, do you? We’ll see you harpies in court! You shrews think you can mess with our damned words now? You ain’t seen nothin, baby! You just wait! We men are coming for our words!

2 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Humor, Sex

by | November 15, 2017 · 6:53 PM

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:

Angry Harry, Left-leaning MRA? from MensRights

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

by | November 14, 2017 · 12:18 AM

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

by | October 28, 2017 · 10:06 AM

PUA/Game: The Ethical Pimp

Here.

The Ethical Pimp: How to Get Ass without Being an Ass, by Tim Mojo Moore.

Nice little ebook. It’s only 63 pages. Since I am such a tight bastard, I read it in part for free instead of forking over the money. Also the author is a little bit of a dick, so I almost did not want to pay him. But mostly I am just cheap and more than that broke as Hell.

I read 13 pages of this book. That’s 20% of it. Based on what I have read, this is actually a good book. I am not sure if it is redpilled. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. But it’s not bluepilled at all.

Let’s face it, the PUA/Game Sphere is horrific.

Main problem with the Gamesphere? The truth they dish out so brutally is pretty awful, especially from the point of view of a Leftist, liberal, progressive, feminist or woman-loving man. Turns out you were taught a bunch of crap and lies about women. Turns out that most of the advice that women have been giving you all through the years is crap and lies. Turns out that most of what women have been telling you that they want all this time is mostly crap and lies. Turns out even your beloved Mom was wrong. That goes without saying, and men should not listen to their mothers when it comes to women anyway, but it’s still a bit painful if you love your mother like all good men do. And in my case, even my father was wrong.

And the lessons of the Gamesphere plays into a lot of what we were always told was old fashioned sexist lies about women.

The sad truth for all men, and especially for us men who love women, is that the truth about women, what they want, what they do and say, their worldview, and what works and doesn’t work with them is just awful. It’s enough to break your heart.

 

Red Pill and the Gamesphere is utterly horrific, but the tragic and cruel truth is that a lot of the things these awful men are saying are simply true. And if you reject their diabolical advice and try to be the nice leftwing feminist guy, you might just end up with a lot of problems with women. Now all men have women problems with women. The only men who don’t are gay men and dead men. If you have a woman, you have woman problems by definition. You can avoid these problems by being volcel or incel, but that’s no fun.

But there are degrees of this pain. And the idea as a man is to have as much success, fun and happiness with women as possible and as little failure, pain and misery as possible. And if the nice leftwing feminist stuff just leads to a lot of pain and failure with women, maybe you need to check your pointless values at the door and try something that works. If what works in enabling you to have happier, more fun and successful relationships with women is a little bit evil, well so be it. I don’t know about the rest of  you, but I am into success. If I have to be a bit evil to be successful, well I will blame God for that and go right ahead. If being a good guy and doing the right thing leads to failure, what’s the point? You hoping to get an A on your Life Report Card from Jesus? Screw it.

Look, if there is one truism in life, it is this:

  1. Do what works.
  2. Don’t do what doesn’t work.

The world is not a very moral place. Humans are really just mammals, and we are a result of tens of thousands of years of typically vicious Darwinian evolution. You play the game of life with the cards handed out to you by the world. I suppose the key is being as good as you can possibly be and still be successful. If you have to be a bit bad to make it in life, well, fine, but evil is usually best when kept to a minimum.

It is in this vein that this rather vulgar book is written. Tim is trying to show you how to get women without being a what women call a creep. He also doesn’t want you to be a douchebag or an ass. In the lawless Mad Max World of Third Wave Feminism, you are going to get called sexual harasser, sexual assaulter and maybe even rapist if you even try to have sex with women at all, but if  you follow this guy’s advice, you will get called that less and the charges will lose a lot of their bite.

Tim says you can be successful while avoiding all of these rather evil shortcuts men use to get what they want. He calls his formula being a “nice bad boy.”

I like it.

Heterosexual sex, like geopolitics, is a dirty game. Martyrs and choirboys need not apply. You’ve got to do what works. But you can always minimize your assholery along the way.

Carpe diem!

#livedangerously

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Political Science, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Romantic Relationships, Sex

by | October 24, 2017 · 8:23 AM

Alt Left on Feminism

The Alt Left position on feminism should be quite simple:

One bullet, one feminist.

I am not sure if I actually believe that, and I’m pretty sure I will ever put it into action, but this is how I feel deep down inside.*

I want to kill the feminists.

These bitches are the enemies of all men, and honestly, all women who love men.

The war against the feminists is a war to the end. It will go on until one side destroys the other. The feminists are the mortal enemies of all of the men. We will give them no quarter.

There will be no peace with the feminists.

*But not really. Even my own mother and sister are feminists for God’s sake. I can’t exactly wish to kill them, now can I?

 

8 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Man World, Radical Feminists, Scum

by | October 8, 2017 · 8:27 PM

PUA/Game: The Basic Rules of the Boy’s Club for Men

Fraser Crest: Wow, that was homophobic and bigoted. Anytime we make sweeping generalizations about any group of people, especially a minority group that has been oppressed and persecuted by a majority, you run the risk of being “phobic”. It’s stereotyping, it isn’t just, and it isn’t the truth.

So, if that person was in Hollywood and therefore knows ALL about gay people; then, I must be an expert on Orthodox Jews, Russian Jews, Rock-n-Rollers, actors and actresses, singers and musicians, bla, bla, bla, because I lived in and around Hollywood for nearly 30 years.

I had very masculine friends, muscular, confident, and genuinely good people; one friend who liked to do drag once in a while (he couldn’t wear anything too tight because he wouldn’t be able to conceal that huge bulge he had), and another friend who performed in a drag acting troupe that did performances on the weekends in Silverlake with hilarious characters, musical numbers, and a storyline that progressed each week. He was talented and funny, and I enjoyed going to see the shows and usually sat with his partner (a very butch, Latin former gang member who had been married three times and had three grandchildren).

My best friend was from Brazil and working on his PhD at USC (he now teaches back home in Brazil at Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil, and his mother is a well-known gay rights activist), and he didn’t fit into a gay stereotype.

As for myself, I lived near the Guitar Center and a theater bookstore – for many years I had long hair, and people asked what band I was in, and one time I was offered a spot in a band (because they liked my look) if I could play bass guitar – I can’t.

When I cut all my hair off, went really short and worked out at the gym – a girl who worked there told me her husband (a comedian) had written a 3-minute performance piece about ME. It was called “The Refreshingly Gay Man” – because I was neither feminine nor hyper-masculine as if trying to conceal something. I was just me. Her husband told me that when you wake up in the morning and open a window and take in a deep breath and stretch — he said that’s what I am – refreshingly gay.

After 9-11 I realized I didn’t know very much about Muslims at all, and I started to read…I hated what I was reading. So, I got a book that’s published by Muslims about their religion…I hated that too. So, I got a book by a lesbian who was raised Muslim and her search to find resolution and peace…didn’t help.

I so desperately did not want to be a bigot, and have bad feelings about a billion + people, but I was discouraged…until one day I discovered an incredibly beautiful singer who sings in Arabic. I have listened to her music for many years now, and I can sing along with quite a few songs. Music is a powerful healer. But she just helped me realize what I already knew — that there are good and bad people in every group…and truthfully, there was a big, abusive religion that forced conversions, tortured, murdered, or enslaved some who wouldn’t convert; and persecuted Jews, calling them “Christ killers”.

That little old religion is still based in Rome. Plus, there is a lot of violence and gross stuff in the Bible so stop pointing out crap from the Quran and think you just exposed all of those Muslims… because there are really decent, caring, loving, peaceful people who happen to follow their religion as they understand it to be or should be.

I also have a friend whose mother turned him into the authorities for being gay – he was only 23 or 24 — he had to appear before Islamic Court (three times) in Tehran. They took everything from him (job, bank account, car, furnishings), issued an order for execution and banned him from travel. Two friends got him out of Iran, risking prison if caught. He was exiled in Turkey for approximately 2 years before being accepted as a refugee to the U.S.

When I heard his story, I heard the words very clearly in my heart say, “I have to do everything I can to help him”. He calls me “dad” or “papa” now, I love that kid, and I’m so proud of him. I am still shaken by what he went through, but I am humbled that he is my “adopted son”.

No, all gay people are not the same.

Although I did joke in the 80’s that some gay men, when they get drunk, turn into black women. But I’m gay. I’m allowed a joke with my friends.

What you are reading up there is the way most straight men really, really feel about gay men. I am straight, and I have been around straight men my whole life. I know what my people are like. I think most straight men are homophobic on some level.

The Rules of the Boys’ Club

These are the rules for masculine straight society or for the Boy’s Club for Men that most such men are members of. Being a Club member means you are one of the boys or one of the guys.

1. NO GAY SHIT. ALSO NO FAGS (SORRY FOR THE LANGUAGE). Not even .00001% gay shit allowed, and no, none of them, no fags, don’t even come around, they’re not members, and they need to somewhere else with their own kind or their straight women friends. No hard feelings, but they are not wanted here. It’s a private club after all.

Gay shit? No, no, no, no, no, no, no.  Don’t even think about it! Do it, and you’re gone. Just like that. You are banished. You can’t even talk about it. If you do, you are suspected of being gay right there. It’s considered such an abomination that you never even bring it up. If you have some feelings like that, we get it, a lot of straight men do. But you really need to STFU about it, and keep it to yourself, dammit.

This is actually the number one rule of the Club, and in a sense it even supersedes masculinity, but not by much. Generally the two are part of a package, one package. Masculine = homophobic and vice versa. Like peanut butter and jelly, they just go together. If you are wimpy but homophobic, well, “At least you’re not a fag” is the attitude. We would tolerate you a bit more because although you are pitiful, at least you are not a menace, an outrage, or an abomination.

This does not necessarily boil down to hating gay men, though sadly it often does. A lot of Club members nowadays are more accepting and tolerant and excuse gay men from Club rules.

They’re not part of our Club, they are not welcome here anyway, and they are seen as outside of our society. They’re over there. Because they are not Club members, the rules do not apply to them. More Club members nowadays think that gay men can’t help it, and we accept them on a somewhat pity basis on the grounds that they can’t help it, and hating them would be like punching someone for being lefthanded. He couldn’t help his handedness. So gay men are exempted from the fierce homophobic rules of the Club. They can act as effeminate and faggy as they wish. It’s weird as Hell, but whatever. Maybe they can’t help that either. Maybe that’s part of getting wired up gay. We give them the benefit of the doubt. Besides, simpatico is a major Club rule and even applies to people outside the Club. See below.

2. BE MASCULINE, DAMMIT. Yep, not real masculine, but just masculine enough. This is called, “Walking the walk, and talking the talk.” If you are not at least masculine or macho enough, get out. You’re not part of our Club. The attitude is “Go over there with the women and fags or your wimpy, pathetic, pussyboy friends.” We don’t even like wimpy and seriously unmasculine, weak men. They’re pitiful and a bit disgusting, and they are not wanted in our circles. Act like a man, dammit! What are you, a girl? This is a minimum requirement for true Club membership, and it goes right along with Rule 1.

3. BE HETEROSEXUAL. A very masculine man who was seriously homophobic and not gay at all but nevertheless did not like women for some reason would still be accepted in the Club because he fulfills Rules 1 and 2, which are mandatory. People would think he was weird, but whatever. So Rule 3 is not mandatory, but most Club men definitely fill it anyway. He gets Club membership on a waiver basis because he fulfills Rules 1 and 2. We rarely see truly asexual men in the Club though. If you truly want full membership, you gotta like pussy. You get massive bonus points once we figure out that you are a regular,  normal, heterosexual, high-sex-drive pussyhound who is crazy about women or at least crazy about having sex with them. You don’t have to be having sex with them, but you get huge bonus points for aggressively wanting to do so.

4. GET LAID. This is actually the least important one. I have known seriously masculine, homophobic, apparently heterosexual men who could not get laid with God’s help. One was an extremely scary guy with a car repair place who wore leather all the time and always looked mean and angry.

He was accepted in the Club because he was a badass, but a lot of men did not want to deal with him because he was “just too full of hate.” Yes, you must be homophobic and masculine, being straight helps and you don’t really have to get laid, but if you are too mean and aggressive, you are “psycho,” and even most macho guys think you have gone overboard. You are seen as giving off bad vibes and living in a world of meanness and hate. Believe it or not, most Club men dislike the idea of living in a world of meanness and hate. Most Club men are actually trying to relax, not be angry or hate people, and be halfway nice most of the time. It’s called “being cool.” Even Mexican men are like this. Their version of it is called “simpatico.” and Mexican men are profoundly masculine, yet simpatico is nevertheless a  part of the machismo.

You don’t even have to get laid much. If other men see you for years without a woman, they would still accept you if you fulfill Rules 1-3. Extra bonus points if you at l least talk loudly and aggressively about women and sex with them in a lascivious, high-sex-drive sort of way. We know you’re OK inside, you’re just having a spell of bad luck, and almost all Club men have been through dry spells anyway. Most Club men know that getting women as a single man is not that easy even nowadays. Women don’t give it up for free easily.

Why do you think there is a Whore Market? And a pricey Whore Market at that. If women were easily giving it up for free all the time, the Whore Market would collapse. The fact that there is a Whore Market shows that women are actually operating what boils down to a Pussy Cartel which engages is mass price-fixing, monopoly tactics, and a lot of dirty tricks all to keep the price of sex and access to women’s bodies as high as possible. The Pussy Cartel runs something called the Pussy Market. The Pussy Market and the Whore Market are two different things. I am not sure how they relate, but the Whore Market very much needs the Pussy Cartel to limit access to sex so as to drive up the prices of the Whore Market’s product.

This Cartel the reason for the Jailbait Mass Hysteria. Women are terrified that if more JB’s become legal, a lot of men will choose boppers over real women, and the Pussy Market will crash. It’s all about keeping the price high. That’s what is behind all the outrage. Pure fear.

It’s the same reason that feminists are making desperate moves to try to keep men from getting mail order or overseas brides. Too much really scary competition, and more fear of a Market Collapse. A market on which prices are artificially inflated.

Why do you think so many men jump right into marriage? They get married to have lots of regular sex! Men don’t marry for love. That’s just some crap they tell their girlfriends and wives to keep them around. They marry for sex! Now some love might come along as side order, yes, but the sex is always the main course. Women will never figure this out, and they will continue to laughably think men marry for love. Nope!

So Club men are sympathetic to a homophobic, masculine, straight man who’s not having any luck. Almost all men in the Club have some low-level sexism and think women are a great big, huge, pain the ass, at times infuriating, endless headache of a problem. Sort of like a car that you really love, but it’s always in the shop.

It sounds course and crude, but most men use women as a place, product or even object to fulfill their sexual needs. Women are like sexual gas stations where you fill up your human body car. Yes, there is sometimes fondness, kindness, warmth, tenderness, and niceness at the same time. Indeed, pleasantries are often exchanged in the process, but the Sexual Pit Stop is their basic role. Some love might go along with this basic function, but that is actually peripheral. Probably no woman on Earth will ever accept this, but it’s the way it is, like it or not.

But if Club members see that guy with a woman over at his place or spending the night  there even one time, their opinion of him goes way up, sky high, and every Club member around wants to come up to him and give him five. He was a member of the Club before, but now he’s really a member. This means he is now what is called officially “a regular guy.” You become a regular guy by getting laid.

If you do very well with women and are a player, you are granted Hero status in the Club. You’re not even a Club member anymore. Now you are a super-member.

You are like a general who is covered with medals. Club men will praise you, buy you meals, etc. They will walk up to you and slap you on the back. Other men in the Club will walk up him with a “Can I have your autograph?” attitude. They will even put their arm around himyou, but it’s not seen as gay because you are a macho hero player, and everyone knows you’re not gay. Ordinarily, you have to be very careful getting physical with other men in the Club because the homophobia is so off the charts, but exceptions are made for the Player. He’s the Superstar. He’s The Man. The rules don’t apply as far as he goes.

But mostly the attitude in the Club towards Player is that he is simply hilarious. Everyone in the Club thinks it is absolutely hilarious how this guy gets so many women. The reason why he is hilarious and why he is a superstar hero is because it is actually very hard to be a real bigtime player. Only 6% of straight men have sex with over 100 females in their lives, and probably 95% want to. Or maybe it’s 100%.

Women will never figure this out either, and most women solipsistically think getting laid is utterly trivial for men. Women can get sex anytime they want, and women are solipsists by nature, so they think if they can do it, men can do it too.

Same thing with marriage. Women usually marry for love, and since women are solipsists, they think if women marry for love, then men must too.

Women just don’t get what it’s like to be a man.

I will say though that once a woman gets to her 40’s and 50’s, a lot of them have pretty much figured us out at least in part, and they accept us for being the way we are, mostly because they figure we can’t change, we are hopeless, and we are just doing what comes naturally. A lot of old women also understand men well too. But they still don’t completely get us. I am not sure if one woman has ever figured out men. Sometimes I wonder.

3 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Feminism, Gender Studies, Girls, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Islam, Jailbait, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Psychology, Religion, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Women

by | September 25, 2017 · 9:41 AM

Alt Left: Chaos Amidst the Ruins: The Insanity of Female Rule in the West

This is a repost of an older post with a slightly different title. I would like to point out that this is also a position statement of the Alt Left, that is, the Alt Left strongly opposes Female Rule (basically Feminism in Power) and urges a return to male rule. Females may serve in power as long as they do not impose feminism on society, but the record is not good and seems to indicate that any time women take power, they always impose feminism, which is always catastrophic and causes nothing but chaos. Hence, the Alt Left are MRA’s or even strong MRA’s. However, the Alt Left opposes the extreme misogyny that characterizes most of the movement.

Female Rule or Male Rule means simply whether society decides to set its norms and laws based on either male or female views of the world.

For example, in modern Western society, we now have cases of Female Rule. This means that female norms, rules and laws have supplanted male rules, laws and norms.

Female Rule: Western Society amidst the Ruins

Various insane things have resulted since Female Rule has begun in the West:

1. Domestic Violence. A man goes to jail if he ever hits any female for any reason, apparently even if she is threatening his life. A woman may strike a man as many times as she wishes, but if a man hits back even one time, he is going to jail. In other words, if a woman hits a man, he has no right to hit her back. If she hits him 100 times, he has no right to hit her back. If he hits her back, he’s going to jail.

2. Sexual harassment. Female geniuses have now succeeded in making it so that if a man flirts with, looks at, or asks a woman out at work, this is “sexual harassment,” and the man will be fired from his job. Apparently the goal here is to eliminate men flirting with, looking at and asking out women at the workplace.

3. Alimony. If a woman divorces a man after 5 years of marriage, she still gets 50% of his income for the rest of her life. Why should she have that right? This is insanity.

4. Rape. On California college campuses, males accused of rape incredibly are regarded as guilty until proven innocent. Men must somehow prove that they did not commit the rape. Every sex act must receive approval before it is done. If you want to touch her tits, you have to ask her permission first, and she has to say, “Yes.” If want to you kiss her, you have to ask her, “Can I kiss you?” and she has to say, “Yes.”

If you have sex with a woman and she never utters one single word of protest to your advances, then this still may be rape, as “silence is no longer consent.” So you can still be charged with rape even if a woman never said no because you could not read her mind and figure out that she was thinking she didn’t want to do it.

In the UK, all males charged with rape are now guilty until proven innocent. Silence is not considered to be consent; a man can still commit rape even if a woman never said no because he wasn’t able to read her mind and figure out she didn’t want to do it. See the lunatic Evans case for more, where a star footballer served 2.5 years in prison for having consensual sex with a drunken woman who was in the habit of doing such things.

Sweden now has the 3rd highest rape rate on Earth not because there are many rapes in Sweden. Actually there are few rapes in Sweden, and the true rape rate is low as it has always been. However, Sweden has now been taken over by feminist lunatics who have installed the craziest rape laws the world has ever seen. Hence many sex acts and behaviors which were once legal are now considered to be “rape.” Tell a woman you are going to use a condom and then have sex with her without one? In Sweden that is called “rape.” Many other behaviors that are neither rape nor even illegal in 99% of the world are considered “rape” in Sweden.

5. Pedophile Mass Hysteria, a moral panic whereby the normal male attraction to teenage girls that all healthy males experience is insanely conflated with pedophilia or attraction to little girls 12-under, has been directly caused by Female Rule. Because of this irrational moral panic, solid majorities of Americans now believe many an insane thing.

Apparently most Americans believe these things are true:

  • A man who is aroused by teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
  • A man who has sexual fantasies about teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
  • A man who says he thinks about having sex or feels like he wants to have sex with teenage girls is a “pedophile” who belongs in prison.
  • Sexually speaking, a 13-17 year old teenage girl is the same thing as a 7-11 year old little girl, a “small child.”
  • Being aroused by a 13-17 year old teenage girl is the same thing as being aroused by a 7-11 year old little girl.
  • Teenage girls are “children” who are somehow “incapable of making decisions” about just about anything, especially sex.
  • Teenagers shooting nude photos of themselves and passing them around is called “production of child pornography.” The teenagers doing this are “child porn producers.”
  • Consensual sex between minors is “pedophilia,” and if minors are caught having such sex with each other, they need to be arrested, charged and convicted of “child molestation,” and afterwards they need to go on the Sex Offender Registry for the rest of their lives.
  • It is apparently illegal now for adult males to befriend teenage girls. A man who does this is doing something called “grooming.”
  • A man who speaks to a teenage girl is guilty of something called “harassing a child” because the only reason a man would talk to her is if he is scheming to have sex with her.

In every case above, we previously had laws, norms and values based on Male Rule, which is the rule of Logic over Emotion. Now in all of the above cases, Male Rule or the Rule of Reason has been overthrown by women. In its place has been substituted various new laws, rules and mores based on Female Rule, which is the Rule of Emotion. In each case, flawed but rational and fair male rules, laws and mores were replaced by faulty, ridiculous and insane female rules. Society is not better as a result. Society is simply crazier and less rational.

This sort of mass chaos and idiocy is probably the typical and possibly even universal result of allowing Female Rule to supplant Male Rule in human society.

7 Comments

Filed under American, Britain, California, Crime, Culture, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Girls, Higher Education, Jailbait, Labor, Law, Left, Lolitas, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, USA, West

by | September 22, 2017 · 11:20 PM

Robert Stark Interviews Pilleater about Psychosocialism

Just listened to this. It’s from May, four months ago, but I just got around to listening to it now. Psychosocialism is not about socialism or any economic doctrine. Instead it is about Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages of development, which is similar to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs that so many are familiar with. I like Maslow’s hierarchy, and I like Erickson. This is about the psychology of human development through the lifespan. It’s not about economics.

I never could understand what Heidegger was on about with his Dasein stuff. Maybe someone can help me out here.

I have heard of Alain de Botton, but I am not sure exactly who is or what he writes about. I believe he is an author.

Paul Fussell’s book or books on the American class system are classics that ought to be read by everyone, including me, even though I haven’t gotten around to that yet. I had an ex who was really into that book. I imagine you can never understand US society well until you start to get a handle on our class system that permeates everything in our land and every moment of our existence whether we want it to or not.

I cannot recommend Roger Devlin’s short work Sexual Utopia in Power highly enough. The document I have is a pdf that’s only ~35 pages. It shows so well how feminism has ruined the West and Western women and furthermore how feminism has dramatically changed the sexual marketplace. People love to hate Game and the Game/PUA crowd, but the truth is that this movement was forced to develop the way it did due to the realities of how feminism changed the sexual marketplace, and yes, it is a marketplace, trust me on that one. So the feminists really created Game and the PUA jerks. Reap what you sow, ladies! The PUA/Game philosophy is ugly, but the point these men are making is that this nasty project is the only thing that is going to work nowadays given how feminists have turned the sexual marketplace upside down. You either learn Game and go along with at least some of its postulates or you lose out with women. The choice is that stark.

I do not know much about Andy Nowicki other than that he is one of these new writers out of Chip’s new publishing house, which also features Ann Sterzinger. I am told that both Nowicki and Sterzinger are excellent authors who have produced some fine novels, but both are associated with the Alt Right for some crazy reason.

It’s hard to imagine Ann as a racist, so I have no idea why she tied herself up in this mess. I do know that Ann hates the Left, whatever the Hell that means to her, but I have no idea why she hates it, I mean us. She blasted me recently for being a Leftist. I guess that some evil or horrible thing somehow.

Andy’s different, and his motivation may be racial, but I do not know enough about him. Andy also hates the Left and liberalism, but I have no idea what he means by that either.

Given how much Ann and Andy hate the Left, which means me (keep in mind that that Alt Left is definitely a Left movement, as odd as it may be), I am wondering if I should even bother to read them. Why read my ideological adversaries? I hear enough of that swill as it is.

A lot of people who didn’t seem very racist seem to be aligning with the Alt Right for some weird reason. These folks are mostly Gen X’ers, often embittered, cynical and nihilistic ones. Even Matt Forney, formerly pretty agnostic on the race issue, has gone over  pretty seriously to the race project of the New Right. He also ferociously hates the Left to the point of becoming a strong advocate for the Republican Party. 

I am thinking a lot of these young hipster types have gotten tied up in this Alt Right stuff simply because it is the latest groovy rebellious or even revolutionary trend. At this point, the PC/SJW Cultural Left is the Establishment, so going Alt Right is a way of rebelling against the Establishment. It’s a new counterculture, if you will. A lousy counterculture, but a counterculture nonetheless.

This is what it means to be a hipster nowadays? Support Trump and the Republican Party of all things? The mind boggles. The 1960’s is calling. They want their Revolution back. And so do I.

I like Pilleater a lot. He has been identifying himself as Alt Left for some time now, though recently he has been modifying that to Alt Center. The Alt Center is the newest political project kid on the block. I am not sure exactly what it is. It’s the Alt Left minus some of our Left views and with a lot more of the Alt Right added in instead. I suppose you could call it an ideological marriage between the Alt Left and the Alt Right. What I have seen so far is not that bad other than support for Trump. They are not particularly racist. It’s not my cup of tea at the moment, but I am not opposed to it. I have to check out this Alt Center a lot more to see what they are on about.

Here.

Robert Stark and co-host Pilleater discuss Erik Erikson’s psychosocial stages

.Topics:

Psychologist Erik Erikson’s life and philosophy.
The psychosocial stages of development.
Pilleater’s article Erik Erikson’s Psychosocialism: An Introduction.
Martin Heidegger; Who and What is Dasein?
Cultural expectations that one must achieve certain goals by stages in life.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Situational losers vs. genuine losers; “I deserve better”.
Arrested psychological development.
How Psychosocialism shapes our political, economic, and cultural system.
How won must adapt or win at Psychosocialism.
Psychosocialism as a political doctrine.
How to restructure society to solve these problems; Smart Socialism.
Does a High IQ Nearly Guarantee Riches?
Paul Fussell’s A Guide through the American Status System.
Alain de Botton: Status Anxiety.
LARPing as a psychosocial coping mechanism.
The Bobo doll experiment.
Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia In Power.
Andy Nowicki’s memoir Confessions of a Would-Be Wanker.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Racism, Republicans, Sociology, US Politics