Archive for July, 2012

The Great Femitheist Hoax

Posted in Uncategorized on July 29, 2012 by A♠

I’ve seen this get more attention than it warrants already so here’s to the hope I’ll put the final nail in the coffin and we’ll all move onward.

 

 

Do I have definitive proof it’s a hoax/never happened?

No.

Do you have definitive proof it occurred?

Proof is only required to assert  something exists

Not if something doesn’t.

 

Regardless, I’ll point out a few things:

1} When a young (20ish), pretty blonde girl dies, suicide or not, the media is all over it. Women just love to hear about female suffering – especially if the suffering women are attractive; an exGF of mine used to say how every Lifetime Channel movie was about rape or abuse. The media loves to feed that need for easy money. Yet there’s no reports at all of such a thing in the area from which they claim her to be.

2} It’s been said she shot herself. The odds of a woman shooting herself are less than her being struck by lightning. Now, if it were said that she poisoned herself, intentionally overdosed or slit her wrists,  I’d be slightly inclined to believe it. But shoot herself? No. A woman attempts suicide as a cry for help far more often than she does to legitimately off herself. Plus, she very, very rarely chooses a way which would mar her appearance.

3} Have you ever met a woman that’s “seen the light”? A woman that’s had an epiphany? A woman that takes complete responsibility for all her actions, admits how harmful and toxic they were to herself and all those in her life? Yeah, me neither. But this “farewell” letter happened because her hamster finally gave up  and not only surrendered but sought redemption? As the saying goes:  Only in the movies. Most of us can’t even get women  to admit they’re attracted to “bad boys” yet this militant feminist does a 180º turn? Not buying it for an instant.

More than likely, this was thought up by a few guys (males, definitely as a woman would have never come up with shooting herself) on 4chan to troll the feminists.

However, they eventually either 1} got bored or 2} saw that there were actually people that bought into what they were saying and supported it.

It short, it was funny for a while but the perpetrators eventually realized that the joke was starting to be on them.

So they killed her off in a cinematic fashion to dig themselves out of the hole they found forming around them and, of course…

For the “lulz”.

Ω

Advertisements

Things women say in online dating profiles…

Posted in Uncategorized on July 27, 2012 by A♠

that they really shouldn’t.

And my replies beneath each:

 

1} I don’t want to play games.

If you said that 10-15 years ago, you wouldn’t in such a shitty romantic situation now.

 

2} I’ve had my fun, now I’m looking to settle down.

So all the other guys get the party favors and I get the mop.

No thanks.

 

3} I have a sense of humor since I like to make people laugh. I’m sarcastic.

That’s not a sense of humor.

A sense of humor is actually a defense mechanism against the trials/tribulations of life.

What you’re doing is utilizing a specific comedic style to gain approval/attention.

As an important point of relevance: It’s a style that takes little talent to use but a great deal of talent to use well.

 

4} If you can’t handle me at my worst, you don’t deserve me at my best!

If you don’t give me your best I want nothing to do with your worst.

 

5} I’m a writer/I want to be a writer.

Some famous author, whose name escapes me, once said:

Everyone thinks they’re good at three things – fucking, driving and writing.

Most folks aren’t good at one of them, let alone more

 

6} I deserve the best and I won’t settle for anything less!

So if a restaurant bathroom doesn’t have a softest tissue, you won’t wipe your ass?

It’s called “life”.

And it makes adults learn how frequently important it is to be happy with what they get.

 

7} I only date guys x tall.

But if I say I only date women in a certain weight range I’m an asshole?

Biology Update – Your ability to lose weight is far greater than my ability to legitimately become 4 inches taller

 

8} My kids are my everything.

From what I can ascertain by the preponderance of the information provided, I conclude that you hate their dad and they were conceived by accident.

If this is indeed the case and the result is your “everything”, then you’re either lazy as shit or set the bar dreadfully low.

(They are not mutually exclusive.)

 

9} I want a man to treat me like a princess.

So you’re asking a man to force you to marry someone in whom you have no interest and, very likely, you have never met in order to foster peaceful relations between his country and another which is diplomatically at odds with it?

Because that’s how princesses were treated historically.

In the real world.

Not in Florida’s “Magic Kingdom”.

 

10} I’m blunt, strong and sassy. If you can’t handle that, move on.

Gladly.

Ω

So many great moments

Posted in Uncategorized on July 27, 2012 by A♠

This is brilliant satire:

 

 

 

Ω

Whetstones

Posted in Uncategorized on July 24, 2012 by A♠

Linanati writes:

“A man’s fat 2am booty call isn’t someone he’ll marry, but she could end up having his child.”

It seems to be the experience of the majority of the manosphere that, if a man is able to even get such a thing, it’s more likely she’ll be at least of average appearance if not greater than such.

Linanati also writes:

“Our system today that forces men to pay for illegitimate children isn’t good for women – at least, not all women. It’s good for the fat, ugly, or otherwise undesirable women who offer easy sex then lie about being on birth control or poke a hole in the condom to get pregnant by a higher-quality man.”

It’s here you fall into the logical fallacy of “No True Scotsman”.

As if “good girls” don’t do such things.

We are all capable of misdeeds and, as the saying goes:

No man is as bad as the worst thing he’s done.

While I confess my response is anecdotal, I see it as no less valid than the – also seemingly anecdotal –  point which it answers:

Without exception, every woman I have ever known that has spawned bastards has been very, very physically attractive (prior to their poor choice, of course).

I’m curious to know the experience of  male readers in this.

Please leave a comment.

Ω

Outcome

Posted in Uncategorized on July 24, 2012 by A♠

Linanati writes:

“In more primitive times, when life was a lot more dangerous, impregnating a lot of women might not have had a greater chance of success than staying with and protecting your children and their mother.”

Overall, I agree with that.

But that’s the whole point of the manosphere.

Stating how things have changed and men must adapt to the new circumstances.

 

 

Nowadays, with healthcare, schools, police and firefighters men don’t really need to protect their children to have them survive.

Other men will gladly do it for them.

So why should they bother?

The stark, cruel but brutal Truth is:

They shouldn’t.

Which is exactly why we’ve seen the numbers of single-mothers quadruple over the past 50 years.

 

 

The new “best” male reproductive strategy became simply spawning bastards and leave others to hold the bag.

Repeat as enjoyable.

However, women have finally caught on to the new tactics being utilized.

 

 

As in all wars, they’ve adjusted their strategy accordingly.

“The best course for men would be to do both, except that today the government will make you provide for illegitimate children.”

The “best” course for males living more than 50 years ago may have been that, I certainly concede.

But with the change in divorce/custody laws, marriage is a far cry from any guarantee he’ll even be permitted to protect his own offspring.

So men simply spawned bastards.

 

 

Again, women have caught on, so now they’re making the government serve their needs – as opposed to simply changing their own behavior.

Therefore, after this fascinating and spirited debate, I’m forced to admit the “best” strategy for men until things somehow change is:

Have no children.

Or spawn bastards with women that can’t/won’t bring the State to bear against them.

 

 

To be clear, this does not make me happy.

Merely informed.

Ω

A Spirited Debate

Posted in Uncategorized on July 24, 2012 by A♠

[Note to the INTJ Forum:

The Link you want is this – http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/deference/#comments

I believe Catzmeow commented under the name “Original Trouble”.]

A♠:

Riffing darkly here but…

Considering a man willingly dying in defense of women is not only taking himself out of the gene-pool but is also making the ultimate (albeit tacit) admission of his inferior genetic value when compared in the harshest light – does it make anyone think that this “protection meme” is yet another “shit test”?

In support of this (admittedly terrible and depressing) idea, studies have shown the Dark Triad is attractive to women, imprisoned murders get sent marriage proposals and women whose men die in their defense eventually have children with men that do not.

Thoughts?

Linanati

/  July 24, 2012

A,

That’s assuming the man doesn’t already have children. If my husband died defending me so I was able to get away to safety, I would have survived to raise our children, who each have half his genes. That’s what a man’s protective instincts are for – to defend his wife and children, which means his genes are carried on to the next generation.

Sometimes the man’s protective instincts are activated in defense of someone who has not had his child(ren), which could remove him from the gene pool if he is killed. On the other hand, it’s possible one of the girlfriends of the men who died for them could be pregnant and not know it yet. That’s less likely now than in the days before reliable birth control, but his body doesn’t know that. A man’s instincts are to protect the woman he has been putting his sperm in, even if she hasn’t borne his children yet, because she might be pregnant with his baby.

It’s an evolutionary advantage in that the offspring of men who protect their women and children are more likely to survive. That’s why it’s so widespread, and not that surprising, that men do put themselves between a bullet and their wife/girlfriend and/or children.

A♠:

I believe the strongest part of your viewpoint is here:

That’s less likely now than in the days before reliable birth control, but his body doesn’t know that. A man’s instincts are to protect the woman he has been putting his sperm in, even if she hasn’t borne his children yet, because she might be pregnant with his baby.

However, in all of these discussions of gender-relations, the bandying about of evo-psych ideas always misses the largest, most important fact:

The goal of all life – without exception – is twofold –

1} Survive

2} Reproduce

What’s at the top there?

Exactly.

Parents and women like to stress the importance of reproduction for their own benefit (which could be anything from justifying their choices to getting more out of relationships, etc).

And it’s almost always successful because reproduction is certainly the penultimate goal of all life – therefore it does speak to us on a deep level.

However, when one’s life is in danger, everything changes.

I was in law enforcement for almost 10 years and was almost killed 3 times.

You would be amazed at what the desire to survive will cause one to do.

Now, I’m not saying either of us is wrong or right; I’m simply enjoying a debate (not an argument – those waste my time) on the matter.

Which was the clearly stated point of the comment to which you replied.

Linanati

/  July 24, 2012

Personal survival isn’t always at the top. If it were, men wouldn’t put themselves between their wives or girlfriends and a bullet, and parents wouldn’t give their lives for their children. Sometimes survival of a person’s genes trumps personal survival.

Now, the person making the sacrifice isn’t thinking, “I’m doing this to increase the chances my genes will make it into the next generation.” They’re sincerely doing it out of love or, in the case of a stranger, a deep-seated instinct to protect someone weaker than themselves.

But why do they have those protective urges to begin with?

The children of people who are capable of that kind of self-sacrifice are more likely to survive. Those children are also more likely to have, and pass on to their children, that protective instinct.

A♠:

@ Linanati,

“Personal survival isn’t always at the top. If it were, men wouldn’t put themselves between their wives or girlfriends and a bullet, and parents wouldn’t give their lives for their children. Sometimes survival of a person’s genes trumps personal survival.”

I didn’t say personal survival was.

You’re getting wrapped up in the wrong place.

I was asking if this deference was a “shit test”

Now, the person making the sacrifice isn’t thinking, “I’m doing this to increase the chances my genes will make it into the next generation.” They’re sincerely doing it out of love or, in the case of a stranger, a deep-seated instinct to protect someone weaker than themselves.

Part of that is correct.

They are not thinking.

They have no time for it.

But if they are dying for their children or potential children they are defaulting to survival – albeit, as you say, not necessarily personal survival.

But why do they have those protective urges to begin with?

Now you’re getting back to my original question:

Is that protective behavior instinct or is it a societal inculcation?

The children of people who are capable of that kind of self-sacrifice are more likely to survive. Those children are also more likely to have, and pass on to their children, that protective instinct.

You’re correct – from the female reproductive strategist’s viewpoint.

Reproduction for women is a long and costly effort.

For men, it’s a minute or two.

Therefore, the course you state would be best for females.

It better serves a male perspective to simply live on and keep impregnating women.

Admittedly, what I’m saying is bleak and soul-shaking.

But as Mr. Kurtz told me with his dying words:

“The horrors; the horrors.”

In more primitive times, when life was a lot more dangerous, impregnating a lot of women might not have had a greater chance of success than staying with and protecting your children and their mother.

Although certainly, from a male POV, there are benefits to both methods. Many men throughout history, as well as some today, have had legitimate children they provided for and protected (who would have had better odds of survival, as well as a better chance in life), plus illegitimate children who often were left to the mother’s meager resources and protection (thus being less likely to survive, and the survivors usually having a poorer quality of life). You could argue that a married man with bastards was hedging his bets.

The best course for men would be to do both, except that today the government will make you provide for illegitimate children. So nowadays illegitimate children pull resources from legitimate children – the only thing they don’t get is the father’s physical protection. You might as well only produce the children you are going to protect and give the best chance in life, because each illegitimate baby is only going to make you poorer, thereby reducing your own quality of life.

A♠:

  • “The best course for men would be to do both, except that today the government will make you provide for illegitimate children. So nowadays illegitimate children pull resources from legitimate children – the only thing they don’t get is the father’s physical protection. You might as well only produce the children you are going to protect and give the best chance in life, because each illegitimate baby is only going to make you poorer, thereby reducing your own quality of life.”

    I believe you’ve just proven my long view of things.

    The deck has been stacked – by women – in favor of the female reproductive strategy.

    This is tacit admission they know, at the core, what strategy is best for men:

    Thus they remove the option.

    Thank you for a very enlightening conversation.

Ω

“She’ll make the stars applaud when she sits back down…”

Posted in Uncategorized on July 21, 2012 by A♠

The following study was briefly a topic of conversation in our little corner of the internet:

The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

Now, I’ve heard plenty of thoughts and conjecture as to the reason for the decline.

But I’ve yet to see someone get it right.

Care to take a shot?

Go ahead…

“Because men aren’t ‘manning up’.”

Nope.

“Because the economy is rapidly draining the pool of desirable (Alpha) men.”

Wrong.

“Because the “self-esteem” and “empowerment” trends have caused women to price themselves out of the market.”

Strike 3; you’re out.

Here’s the answer:

It’s because women have stopped trying to please men in favor of trying to please women.

And they’re learning just how impossible a task that is.

See, men (or should I say “Men”) have known not to bother trying to please women.

It’s a Sisyphean endevour.

Men learned that women want one thing and one thing only.

That is, to quote The Rude Guy:

“More.”

Like so many things I say, it dovetails with Game concepts such as:

Never cater to women.

Never try to please them.

Always put your own needs first and make them the priority.

Make your life your own and let women visit, it now and then.

Women were happier back then simply because the “job” they had was relatively easy to accomplish.

They’ve since traded it for an impossibility.

So, good luck with that stone, Ladies.

It’s heavy as Hell.

And I mean that literally.

Ω