Among my more controversial essays is my series on the differences in interpretations of love as specific to each gender. As I’ve elaborated before Men approach love from idealistic foundations, while due to their innate hypergamy, women’s approach to love is rooted in opportunism. The easy rebuttal to this that often comes from women is to presume that either sex’s life experiences are going to necessarily be different. Women cannot fully appreciate the male experience (much less validate it) unless they can actually become men and live in a lifetime of their experiences, their upbringing, their biology, their acculturation and societal conditioning.

Yes, I am aware that it works both ways, men cannot fully appreciate women’s existential experiences either and for the same reason, however that doesn’t excuse either gender from making an effort to better understand the other’s experience. In a social environment where the feminine perspective has primacy, it has been women who have been the arbiters of what should universally be the socially agreed upon definition of what love means to both sexes.

However, this hasn’t stopped men from trying to define love for themselves, and make efforts to make women see how they would like their love to be in idealistic terms. History is rife with examples of men, in every culture, venturing to make women understand and really grasp their idealized notion of love. From ancient love poems, to epic stories of one woman launching a thousand ships, to Romeo and Juliet, Men have attempted to educate women on how they would be loved, and how they would like to love.

As I’ve detailed before, once a man really unplugs from his feminine conditioning he becomes more sensitive to the world that’s been pulled over his eyes. Hearing common terms in conversation that belie a feminine mindset, listening to songs that drip with male self-sacrifice for women, understanding why certain themes in popular media resonate with culture is all part of this new sensitivity. One thing the red pill has has made me keenly aware over time is the difference in storytelling that applies to each gender.

It would be too easy an assumption to say that I have a better awareness as to which gender is telling a particular story, but rather, I have a keener sensitivity to which gender perspective a story is originating from now – and particularly when that story involves specific gender approaches to love. I could single out the stories of Emily Bronte and compare them with the formulaic themes of modern romance novels or romantic comedy movies, but that would be easy and expected. Any women’s studies major could tell you this. What I’m interested in is how the genders interpret each other’s idealized concepts of love.

Example 1

Titanic, 1997. Arguably one of the greatest love stories ever put on film. I can remember adult women of the time who literally were incapable of going to work or doing much of anything else the day after watching this movie. I can remember women I dealt with professionally bursting into tears because they were so wracked with vicarious imagined grief – this is the psychological impact Titanic had, don’t even get me started on the teenage girls of the time.

A lot went on in Titanic from a feminine-romanticized perspective. It’s definitely an epic fairytale, and one that has all of the formulaic elements of a classic love story. Rich beautiful girl, scrappy-poor-but-Alpha-and good looking hero who draws girl into his reality. Tragic, but sacrificial death of said hero to save her and ensure her a better life.

I’ve linked the last few minutes of Titanic here because it’s really the summation of the entire story. The former beauty, now old woman, Rose still pines for her Alpha she lost so long ago. This scene epitomizes the concept of the Alpha Widow — As the heart that was given to her by her Alpha sinks to the bottom of the ocean, we pan across photos of all of her life experiences afforded to her by Jack’s sacrifice; the beauty queen, the mother, the Amelia Earhart-esque (have it all fantasy) pilot, horseback rider and finally she can return to her Alpha in death.

Example 2

Saving Private Ryan, 1998. Released just one year later, Saving Private Ryan debuts. Also, arguably one of the greatest, heroic and epic stories put to film from an unarguably masculine perspective. Where Titanic relies on a clever retelling of classic and tested romantic themes, SPR explores distinctly male themes of honor, duty, courage, service and also sacrifice. Captain Miller’s sacrifice is of a decidedly different nature, but the premise is the same — self-sacrifice for the betterment of another individual. As Captain Miller dies his last words are “Earn this.” Merit this, be worthy of this.

Granted, more men than just Captain Miller die on Ryan’s behalf, but he’s the protagonist and the one we really care about as his death is personalized for us. In an almost analogous ending to Titanic (linked) we see the elderly Ryan contemplating his life and wondering if he’d “earned it” with what he’d done with his life. And in classic form he seeks that affirmation from a woman, his wife.

“Tell me I’ve led a good life. Tell me I’m a good man.”

We can tell there’s no connection, no familiarity of Ryan’s experience shared with his wife. Her response is just this side of a patronizing dismissal of the imagined concerns of an old man. We can presume Ryan has led a somewhat good life, he’s still married, probably has kids, but nowhere is the have it all fantasization that an elderly Rose enjoys. We still don’t know if Ryan had ‘earned it’, if his life’s performance was good enough; the pat on the cheek from his oblivious wife doesn’t confirm it, but that’s the operative difference between Ryan’s character and Rose’s — Rose’s good life was never expected to have been earned.

Almost serendipitously Mac commented on my Sorry,.. post this evening:

I was picked on as a boy and decided at a very young age to fight back by outdoing all my naysayers. All the people that tell you your not good enough, smart enough or talented enough… So I became the antithesis of their projections and surpassed all my personal goals. It’s more than just getting the girl… It’s about conquering “your” world!

Men are expected to perform. To be successful, to get the girl, to live a good life, men must do. Whether it’s riding wheelies down the street on your bicycle to get that cute girl’s attention or to get a doctorate degree to ensure your personal success and your future family’s, Men must perform. Women’s arousal, attraction, desire and love are rooted in that conditional performance. The degree to which that performance meets or exceeds expectations is certainly subjective, and the ease with which you can perform is also an issue, but perform you must.

There is one final movie that I would use as an illustration of gender-differential love approaches and that is the movie Blue Valentine. I would link some clips here but I think it’s probably best to watch it in its entirety to really understand the principle differences between men and women’s idealized love.

Filed under: Love, Positive Masculinity, Romance

Immigration advocates never seem to take into account that the putative benefits of immigration depend entirely upon the characteristics of those entering the society en masse.

In a recently published paper in PNAS Early Edition, Dobata and Kazuki Tsuji demonstrate what they believe is the first observed public goods dilemma observed in a non-human and non-microbial system.

By using the social ant Pristomyrmex punctatus, they were able to show the fitness consequences to the colony and track the shifting genetic make-up as cheaters invaded and took hold. Researchers have recently evaluated these questions in systems involving viruses and cells (where cells may secrete protective substances, or self-destruct to form a spore-dispersing stalk) but not in multicellular organisms before. Yet the results are so similar, write Dobata and Tsuji, that they believe universal principles are at play.

P. punctatus is a curious species. The queen caste, morphologically and functionally distinct in most social insects, has been secondarily lost. All workers are involved in both reproduction and cooperative tasks like foraging. There is still a division of labor, among age groups. Young workers take care of inside-nest tasks, which include asexual (thelytokous) reproduction. Older workers ease out of reproduction and shift to tasks outside the nest, like foraging.

But there is a third kind of P. punctatus. A group of cheaters, made of a single intraspecific lineage in the field, that engage in very few tasks, save for reproduction.

The researchers found when these genetic cheaters infect a colony they have better individual fitness than the workers, both in terms of survival and brood production. They reduce worker survival and reproduction, as more young workers shift to tasks outside the nest to effectively pick up the slack. Eventually, the cheater hordes take over. The authors call the cheaters a kind of  ”transmissible social cancer.”

In cheater-only colonies, more eggs are initially produced, compared to worker colonies, but they are neglected. Eggs begin to rot and the nest becomes a dirty, unhygienic place. Eventually, the nest dies. For a group, cheating is an evolutionary dead end.

Compare the global North to the global South. Then consider whether the immigrant communities of today more closely resemble meticulous productive ant nests or dirty, unhygienic places. Ants might not be able to anticipate the idiocratic consequences of allow a "transmissible social cancer" to take root in their colonies, but one would have thought that human beings could do better.

When a society's social policy is a scientifically predictable evolutionary dead end, it should invite rethink. Instead, questioning it is deemed akin to blasphemy. This is not the hallmark of a society destined for survival.

Charles Martel pointed out an article in the NY Times written by a woman who takes time to cook for her daughter because she, like so many post-feminist children, grew up in a domestic vacuum. Actually, her childhood reads like one of straight up neglect beyond that suffered by most “latchkey kids.” She hints at malnutrition and psychological scarring:

Once upon a time, I had a mother who inhabited the kitchen with care. The bliss of licking drippy, sweet things off the mixing spoon after she had stirred pudding or poured cake batter into a pan was often mine. I believed my mother loved those moments, and our entire home-based family life, as much as I did.

Yet by the time I turned 9, my brother and I lived in a post-divorce household, with Dad in a new home and Mom in full feminist revolt. Dinners of chicken cordon bleu and baked desserts gave way to oven-roasted meats that were deemed done whenever my mother could tear herself away from making art and selling it — or, when she wasn’t home, to no dinner at all, unless you counted the banana I nibbled while crouched in my closet, hoping any would-be attackers couldn’t see me through the window as darkness fell.

[...]

For my mother, the kitchen felt like a trap. When the women’s movement blossomed in the late 1960s, she was ready. She vanquished the spirit of homemaking the way Virginia Woolf had killed her “Angel in the House.”

And then a tidal wave of rage, disappointment and raw desire overtook her. I saw it in her vehemence toward my father and in the raucous consciousness-raising groups that met in our living room. I saw it in the changed contents of our dinner plates: a dried-out chicken leg, a potato collapsed inward from overbaking.

When my mother banged out work correspondence on an electric typewriter way past bedtime, my needs had no standing. On other nights I would lie awake for hours, unable to sleep until she came home at midnight.

Complaining got me nowhere. My mother was an unstoppable force, powerful, beautiful and finally happy. As her days and nights expanded to include solo shows, romance and the founding of feminist organizations, I could see in her radiant face and laughter that she was fulfilling her potential. Her red hair grew ever upward, a hood of curls that shouted out her freedom.

She had suffered and struggled. She was talented. She deserved to thrive

That last part sounds like some form of Stockholm Syndrome.

And the following portrays her mother in an almost satanic light:

But my body spoke my devastation. I went from being well fed and popular in third grade to near skeletal and often mocked in fifth. I wasn’t anorexic; I just didn’t know how to cook. I turned sallow and hollow-eyed and suffered headaches, eczema and stomach pains. On the windy playground, other children would crow, “She’s so skinny, she’s going to blow away.”

And I was lonely. On weekday afternoons I would let myself in using the key around my neck. If my mother was home, I would find her in her basement studio, wielding a torch of blue flame, shaping metal into sculpture. She wore a leather apron, elbow-high gloves, a polka-dot cap, a breathing mask and a plastic face visor. Her bushy red hair burst out the back of the cap, a sign of her uncontainable passion.

“Mom!” I would yell, keeping my distance, because even the sparks could burn you. She would look up, turn the knob to stop the gas, pull down the breathing mask and tilt back her visor, showing her freckled face.

When you’ve got a mother like that, passive resistance is the only resistance you can get away with.

If I had a plan, I told her: “I’m going to Phyllis’s house.” Or “I have homework.” But when I had social troubles at school, I wanted her company. “I’m bored,” I said. “I have nothing to do.”

“Boredom is an opportunity,” she would say. “You’ll find something.” Then she would concentrate on melting metal for another several hours. Later I would learn she was right about boredom. I got great training in being creative and alone.

But back then, on many afternoons, I would return to my bedroom, sit on my pink shag rug and cry. It seemed I mattered to no one anymore. My heart shrank into a knob of hurt and yearning.

I wonder how much therapy this woman has been through. Perhaps her return to the kitchen to cook for her daughter is a continuing form of therapy — a sort of refuge where she can go back to the comfort of her early childhood, before her mother went full-feminist.

Because of my history, I know how much the mundane care of children matters. That is why I stop work when the school day ends and greet my daughter with a hug. I may be tired, stressed out or grumpy; I may bemoan the confinement, the repetition, the career limits. But I do it anyway. I pull away from paid pursuits and open myself to the opportunity to delight in my daughter.

My delight comes freely, inspired by a leggy girl with rich brown eyes who has just come home. But our time together is about more than delight. When I hand her a snack and look into her face, seeking the stories of her day, I intend for her to feel how much she matters. She matters more to me right then than anything I could be doing without her. And we will not have these afternoons forever.

When she told me on Mother’s Day that she loves what I do in the kitchen, I realized why I love it, too. For as I stir and chop and bake while she studies, sings, draws, chatters, rides a scooter and does an exceptional job of being young, I am drinking in some of the pleasures I missed.

My husband also cooks. He is generous and competent in the kitchen. But for me, the kitchen is a place of healing. And when my daughter and I play our roles there contentedly, it is as if we have stepped into a feedback loop that sends good feelings cycling between us. We are bathing in a mutually enhancing sort of love, a larger version of the circle that breastfeeding or cuddling a baby can create: a give-and-take that affirms our value as parent and child.

This article, although carefully-worded, is a searing indictment of the monster created by radical feminism. According to feminists themselves, nothing excuses a father for not providing for his children, so what on earth could excuse a woman for failing to care for hers?

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

Modern women have a lot of choices to make, and there is one theme that runs through the decision-making process for all of them: what does she want?

Consider the debate about whether women with children should work or stay home to raise the children.  There have been a number of articles recently from stressed-out career women who quit their jobs to stay home and care for their children.  And what do they say about their reasons for doing so?  Reader Maeve sent me an interesting article, Sorry Ladies, You Can’t Even Begin To Have It All. in which a woman is quoted as saying (highlighting mine):

Among the things I discuss with my therapist is the recurring theme that sometimes I struggle with reconciling the woman I was — the career-driven, no-nonsense chick I was before bambinos — and the woman I am now, who loves being a stay-at-home mom. Do I think I’m still cool? Am I still relevant in the (male-dominated) world in which I worked so hard to be respected? Shouldn’t I continue to bedazzle my resume and build my career? The answer is: I am doing just that. Different company, more responsibilities. I’ve returned to work twice in the six years since busting into motherdom. And that gap between that hot chick in heels and that hot chick in the lunchroom is not as cavernous as you would think.

It doesn’t matter so much what decision she reached; the fact remains that what motivated her decision – and what makes her question her decision enough to need a therapist – is how the decision impacted her.  Also, consider the woman we discussed in my post Should companies encourage stressed out women to “lean back”? Feminists say yes.:

Managing a department at a web design firm and raising two kids with her husband, Katrina Alcorn thought she had the working mom routine figured out — until she had another child.

“My son was born and it all went to hell,” Alcorn, 41, recalled about the baby’s arrival in 2009.

“On the surface, I was doing everything that I was supposed to be doing and it looked like everything was fine. But inside, I was just falling apart. I was having a lot of anxiety and insomnia and there was all this stress. There was too much on my plate. I lost my appetite, I was getting depressed.”  On the way to Target to buy diapers one day, she had a breakdown, Alcorn said. She ended up quitting her job and trying to make sense of what happened.

Who was this all about?  Her son, her husband?  No, it was all about her and how she was feeling and what she wanted and what she felt was best for her.  We’ve also discussed Anne Marie Slaughter’s article Why Women Still Can’t Have It All; even the title says who this is really about.  It’s not called Why Children Still Can’t Have Mothers at Home, after all. She gives lip service to quitting her job because her teenage son needed her, but the rest of the article is a discussion of what women want, how their choices impact them, and how society (i.e. men) need to change everything to make women’s choices have nicer consequences…not for children, not for families, but for women.  When pressed, women will always say they are doing it for their husbands and family, but if you look at everything else they say, it’s always all about what women want.

And this doesn’t just apply to the issue of working mothers.  I was struck by the similarities between this and a Reuters article I read yesterday, Women seek access to traditionally male-only Mormon gathering, about a group of Mormon women trying to muscle into the priesthood and who were planning a protest:

“Women seeking priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints said they will attempt to attend a traditionally men-only leadership session of the church in Salt Lake City on Saturday, despite having been denied tickets.

The group, called Ordain Women, said it expected several hundred women from around the country to gather outside the LDS Conference Center in hopes that the Mormon church will offer them any unclaimed tickets to the priesthood session.

The group’s plans are the latest actions by Mormon women in the past year that seek to address what they say are inequalities between men and women.

Kate Kelly, a 32-year-old member of Ordain Women and a Washington human rights lawyer, said Saturday’s demonstration was intended to draw attention to their goal of ultimately “to be ordained to priesthood … and achieve complete equality – ecclesiastic, clerical, fiscal and otherwise [...]

The semi-annual priesthood session is an opportunity for church leaders to provide instruction to young men about their stewardship and responsibilities associated with the priesthood and to foster a feeling of unity among priesthood holders, said church spokesman Eric Hawkins [...]“

The purpose of the event is to train men about their responsibilities but notice what the women say is their motivation for wanting to elbow their way in - achieving complete equality.  It’s not because this is a role in which women are needed, it’s not because women want to be stewards, it’s not because women want these traditionally-male responsibilities.  It is because they mistakenly believe that these responsibilities are privileges that men are hoarding for themselves, and they want in on it.  It isn’t because women selflessly want to serve; it is because they selfishly want to be served.

It is this exact same motivation that causes Catholic women to seek to be ordained as Catholic priests:

“We women are no longer asking for permission to be priests. Instead, we have taken back our rightful God-given place ministering to Catholics as inclusive and welcoming priests.

Yes, we have challenged and broken the Church’s Canon Law 1024, an unjust law that discriminates against women. Despite what some bishops may lead the faithful to believe, our ordinations are valid because we are ordained in apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church.”

It is this exact same motivation that causes Jewish women to seek to enter the men’s section at the Wailing Wall:

“We call upon Minister of Justice Tzipi Livni to reject this plan, to demand equal rights for women to pray at the women’s section of the Western Wall. Women of the Wall is calling for a 24 hour sit-in at the Western Wall in the hopes that the government will reject this plan and support the District Court Decision in which all women can pray freely at the Western Wall.”

It is the exact same motivation that causes Protestant women to seek to become pastors:

“The denomination to which my church belongs, the Reformed Church of America, only this summer removed a clause allowing members to object to the ordination of a woman. Many churches, Catholic and Protestant, relegate women to the realms of women’s ministry or childcare, creating a segregated world of pinks and florals in which being nice is a whole lot more valued than putting your gifts to use as part of the body of Christ. These days, 90 percent of Protestant churches have men installed as senior pastor.”

and to pressure their pastors into permitting egalitarianism in both the family and the church:

“We do it for the girls.

Wiley Clarkson who blogs at www.wherethespiritleads.com told this story of what happened in a church service Sunday morning.

“In early worship this morning, the daughter of a friend asked if she could help hand out the member/visitor registration books, a job that is only offered to young men (meaning boys) in our congregation. Her mother told her that “she could not do that.” The daughter then asked “why can’t I do that”? The mother then changed the subject to “we will talk about it later”. Children don’t see the discrimination like adults but they DO feel the discrimination, even though they don’t understand it and they DO naturally ask the question that goes right to the heart of the matter—”Why can’t I do that?” Maybe some day she will be able to participate in whatever way she is gifted.”

I would like to see church leadership explain exactly why a young girl can’t hand out visitor books.  Where is that found in the Bible?  Where does it say that a young girl born in 2000 can’t hand out a visitor book to welcome visitors who have come into the worship place?”

We do it for the girls.  Will you join me in speaking out for young girls who do not know “why can’t I do that?”  Will you work for change so that they, too, can do that?”

Women don’t do it because they are needed in those roles.  They don’t do it because the Bible says they should.  They don’t do it because they want to serve.  They do it because that is what women want for themselves.  It is exactly the same reasoning that women use when deciding about working or staying home.

Women: feminism has unleashed our innate self-centeredness.  I call upon my fellow women to join me in purposefully choosing to restrain our selfish ambitions and instead choosing to place the well-being of our families, our religious communities, and our societies above our own selfish desires.

 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. (Philippians 2:3-4, NASB)

The non-author of a sting paper peer-reviewed and published by Science points out that the open access sting published by Science is conclusive proof that so-called peer review is the problem, not open access publication:

Although it comes as no surprise to anyone who is bombarded every day by solicitations from new “American” journals of such-and-such seeking papers and offering editorial positions to anyone with an email account, the formal exposure of hucksters out there looking to make a quick buck off of scientists’ desires to get their work published is valuable. It is unacceptable that there are publishers – several owned by big players in the subscription publishing world – who claim that they are carrying out peer review, and charging for it, but no doing it.

But it’s nuts to construe this as a problem unique to open access publishing, if for no other reason than the study, didn’t do the control of submitting the same paper to subscription-based publishers (UPDATE: The author, Bohannon emailed to say that, while his original intention was to look at all journals, practical constraints limited him to OA journals, and that Science played no role in this decision). We obviously don’t know what subscription journals would have done with this paper, but there is every reason to believe that a large number of them would also have accepted the paper (it has many features in common with the arsenic DNA paper afterall). Like OA journals, a lot of subscription-based journals have businesses based on accepting lots of papers with little regard to their importance or even validity. When Elsevier and other big commercial publishers pitch their “big deal”, the main thing they push is the number of papers they have in their collection. And one look at many of their journals shows that they also will accept almost anything.

None of this will stop anti-open access campaigners  (hello Scholarly Kitchen) from spinning this as a repudiation for enabling fraud. But the real story is that a fair number of journals who actually carried out peer review still accepted the paper, and the lesson people should take home from this story not that open access is bad, but that peer review is a joke. If a nakedly bogus paper is able to get through journals that actually peer reviewed it, think about how many legitimate, but deeply flawed, papers must also get through. Any scientist can quickly point to dozens of papers – including, and perhaps especially, in high impact journals – that are deeply, deeply flawed – the arsenic DNA story is one of many recent examples. As you probably know there has been a lot of smoke lately about the “reproducibility” problem in biomedical science, in which people have found that a majority of published papers report facts that turn out not to be true. This all adds up to showing that peer review simply doesn’t work.

He's referring to John Bohannan's article "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?", in which the author submitted an obviously fake paper describing the anticancer properties of a chemical extracted from a lichen that was nominally written by Ocorrafoo Cobange, a fictional biologist at the nonexistent Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara, that was accepted by 157 open access journals and rejected by only 98. As Slashdot describes it: "The article reveals a 'Wild West' landscape that's emerging in academic publishing, where journals and their editorial staffs aren't necessarily who or what they claim to be."

This sting highlights the vital difference between scientody and the scientistry which is, most of the time, a fraudulent parody of what non-scientists believe science to be. Not only are scientists mere men rather than the white-coated demigods purely devoted to science they like to believe themselves to be, but due to the extraordinarily perverse incentive system to which they are subject, they are provably less honest in their occupations than the average individual.

Keep this in mind the next time someone tells you that you cannot take intelligent design seriously because it isn't peer reviewed or that you can soon expect to cook pasta in the Atlantic because the scientific consensus is 95 percent certain that Man is causing the oceans to boil. The fact is that scientistry has become increasingly disconnected from scientody, peer review is a charade, most published science papers are not reproducible, and what passes for science is simply not what you probably believe it to be.

The irony is that the Science article is, in itself, bad scientody. Bohannan did not utilize a control group; he did not submit the fake paper to a single conventional subscription journal. He also did not send it to the majority of open access journals on the grounds that they do not require article processing charges.

Science not only is not the sole arbiter of truth, the assertions of scientists shouldn't even be taken seriously until the "science" is transformed into something that is actually reliable, which is to say, engineering.

talked to my mom the other day about the family reunions. i mentioned needing to start looking for a few acres and my going to delgado’s welding program. that i’ll be likely staying in a monthly pay hotel in metairie (i ain’t living with mom). i told mom my woman situation and that i’m honest with them and they both know i’m leaving jax in 6 months, so they’re just going with it. they know if they meet someone they see as long term, i won’t guilt trip them. they have my 100% support on the new relationship.

i told mom i really don’t expect to be in a relationship until i get settled in louisiana and mom hit me with this-

“don’t you think living on a few acres in a travel trailer will deter a woman from a relationhip with you?”

God bless her. i love my mom, i do. but being a woman, even a red-pill woman; she still has a hamster. i told her that i wasn’t concerned if a woman didn’t approve of my living arrangements.

I.AM.GOING.TO.DO.THIS.

i told my mom that my future plans don’t revolve around what a woman thinks of it. again, it’s a common subject in the Sphere: a man must have a vision, a purpose, a destination. that destination must NEVER be founded on a woman or a woman’s approval. do what you feel is best for you. when you do women will gravitate towards you.

any woman that would dismiss me based on my living situation (that i have actively sought out, not ended up in) is a woman i could give a fuck about. i’m looking forward to my retirement, i’m looking forward to my living situation. i own a home , and i HATE it. i can’t wait to get rid of my fucking house…….and it’s nice (ask uncle Mitch). but it’s too much for me.

me, Brody, a few acres in Cajun country, my trailer, my micro farm, and working a few months a year welding.

i can’t fucking wait.

a woman…pffft. whatever. they’re never in short supply. and they come and go like trains.

stay up.

I read a baffling article at Feministe yesterday entitled In the Margins: A Perspective on Sexual Assault Conversations.  You really have to read it to believe it, but here are a few excerpts:

I’m not the typical survivor you hear about in the news or hear described in the vast majority of public conversations about assault. I wasn’t at a party. I wasn’t drunk. I wasn’t drugged. I wasn’t in a dark alley. It wasn’t a violent attack. I have no scars or bruises. And I wasn’t penetrated.

…what started as a consensual act suddenly turned nonconsensual for an extended period, and then back again before the encounter quickly ended.

It’s hard to tell what happened because as is always the case with these kinds of stories, she’s very coy with the details, but it would appear that she was engaging in some kind of consensual fooling around with a man and didn’t like something he was doing to her, something which apparently involved no form of penetration or oral stimulation, which he then stopped doing and then went back to doing something else that was consensual and it’s all rather vague but we should just take her word for it: it was definitely assault.  I  can’t even understand what might have been going on, let alone how it could have been that scarring.  So, what is sexual assault, exactly, then?  She explains (highlighting mine):

…nonconsensual sexual touching is sexual assault. Whether one is touching another with or without clothing, whether one is touching another’s genitals or any other part of their body—in any and every circumstance, it will never not be sexual assault. 

So, by this definition, touching someone’s clothed arm while engaging in a consensual kiss could in fact be sexual assault if he didn’t ask first to touch her arm.  Does anyone else find this ludicrous?  This takes enthusiastic consent to the point of total absurdity.  It begs the question: is there anything that isn’t sexual assault?  Really, if a man taps a woman on the shoulder in line at Starbucks to let her know that she should look up from her phone because it’s her turn to order, that would “never not be sexual assault” by the above definition.  What would motivate a woman to write an article like this?  Actually, she explains that:

It takes effort to extend dialogue to include as many people as possible. But we need to make that effort, in order to make it clear that penetrative sexual assault is not the only kind of sexual assault, and that one is not objectively less traumatizing than another. And not just as an addendum; this needs to be an important part of the conversation. People like me need to be important parts of these conversations, just like rape survivors are.  Not getting the attention and support that others get is daunting.

Ah, other women are getting attention, but she is not getting any attention.  Hell hath no fury like a woman who isn’t getting any attention.  She just wants to enjoy the status of victim, with all the murmured You poor thing and You are so strong affirmations from the rest of the female herd.

You know, I actually do believe that she feels traumatized by the sexual activity she engaged in with the man.  I have no doubt that she is being honest about that, and my heart goes out to her and all women who keep trying to have sex with men they aren’t married to and keep feeling violated by it.  They don’t understand why they feel that way – after all, we’re all sex positive now! – so they believe that they are feeling violated because they were assaulted.  That is what they are taught by feminist propaganda, but the truth is they are feeling violated because women were not designed to be used like communal toilets for multiple men’s semen.  It doesn’t matter if you are a Christian or a Darwinist because under neither model is female promiscuity the norm.  There was no time in the pre-Christian past when females were mating with large numbers of males.

And for the men – you think hard monogamy doesn’t benefit you?  Well, how about a rape charge; would that benefit you?  When I wrote a post on campus sexual assault, I had more than one man come forward and describe being falsely accused of rape or sexual assault.  One man ended up spending tens of thousands of dollars to fight the charges.  If you have sex with a woman to whom you are not married, you are risking an assault charge.  It’s as simple as that.

Women can continue being serially promiscuous, but they’re going to continue feeling violated if they do.  Men can continue being uncommitted and promiscuous, but they’re going to continue being accused of sexual assault if they do.  Don’t kid yourself that the laws on this are going to change; they are not, and it’s not even clear that it would benefit society if they did.

Lifetime hard monogamy with no divorce for women, and lifetime fidelity and commitment (under either a monogamous or polygynous system) with no divorce for men: this is the only system that protects both men and women.

Further reading:

• Why do so many women believe they have been raped? 
• Do campus sexual assault centers and programs create the so-called “rape culture”
• Sexual bonding, microbiomes, and the physical nature of the one-flesh union.
• Consent is meaningless in the feminist dialect.
• Are all men obligated to protect all women from sexual assault?

Here's something on the Australian housing market from today's Australian newspaper:

A few weeks ago, real estate identity John McGrath sold an unremarkable house in Eastwood in Sydney's northwest for an eye-watering 77 per cent premium to its $1.35 million reserve.

The 16 registered bidders were all Chinese, based locally and offshore, with the lucky one...forking out $2.385 million.

I still can't get over this kind of thing. Housing in Australia used to be high quality and affordable. Now an unremarkable home gets sold for $2.4 million.

According to the real estate agents, this is not evidence of a property bubble. John McGrath claims that "This is just a normal period of post-financial crisis catch-up."

The cost of housing is increasing at three times the rate of wages growth. According to the Australian journalist this is something to celebrate:

Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey welcomed the big gains last Friday, and why not?

Across Australia, there are millions of homeowners who are suddenly feeling enriched, with their number vastly overwhelming the people who are penalised by the latest bout of runaway prices and eroding affordability.

I don't think it's that straightforward. If you're a homeowner you might see the value of your house increasing, but if you sell you're then faced with the problem of having to pay a large amount of stamp duty and then a high price for your new house. How then are you better off?

It's really only those people with an investment property who are likely to make money out of the current market.

And the problem is that young local families are either being priced out of the market altogether or forced into high mortgages that will keep both spouses permanently in full-time work until they retire, without much of an opportunity to save or invest.

Update: There are pictures of the house here.

This is the second installment of a multi-part series about the evolution, or devolution, of the American woman throughout the arc of American history. Click here for the first installment here.

The Gilded Age in America followed directly on the heels of the Civil War that lasted up until the assassination of President William McKinley. It is a widely misunderstood era, as serious rumblings began with regards to the changes in society – many of it dominated by female voices. It was referred to as the Gilded Age because a thin veneer of gold lined the serious, festering problems of wider society. The 1950’s wasn’t the height of patriarchal approaches to family, leadership and society in general – it was the last gasp. The Gilded Age was the zenith of patriarchal society in America, with storm clouds slowly but surely gathering of the horizons of North America.

First off, the 1850’s were a tumultuous period in American history as the country teetered on the verge of civil war. A handful of ineffective American Presidents were elected who did little to stave off what would eventually erupt in a bloody and costly civil war. When Lincoln was elected in 1860 it all but assured Southern secession. The war ended four years later, with North winning a decisive victory; Lincoln himself was assassinated the next year. This setup of events leads to the Gilded Age – an age of unprecedented American economic growth and social transformation.

Consider the massive influx of European immigrants into the country. Irish, Italians, Brits, Germans and all manner of Scandinavian flooded the country. They did for many different reasons – mostly related to chasing wealth in the US. This was a time of rapid urbanization and immigrants flocked to the cities, looking to work for factories. Urban centers became hotbeds of disorganization, crime and poverty. Modern approaches to urban planning and policing came out of this era. Many moved West and formed communities all over the country, often taking to farming as indigenous Americans were more keen to move to urban areas. This created much racial and cultural strife, most especially for the Irish and Italians. Times were tense and two marked depressions struck the country – in 1873 and 1893. As such, issues like monetary policy and tariffs were huge political issues.

What was going on with sex relations is more fascinating than the rapid urbanization. There are two categories of female that competed against one another in this age: the “New Woman” and the Gibson girl. The “New Woman” was the literal embodiment of the primitive feminist. White, middle class and upper class and college educated, they were the founders of modern feminism. Many of them never married and never had kids. They flocked to urban areas, as there can be no feminism on a farm. They enjoyed increased employment opportunities during this era, contrary to mainstream feminist thought.

Women regularly were typists, telephone dispatchers, worked as secretaries and, in some states, worked in the civil service. They championed looser sexual mores, but were far more discreet about it than later generations. Also, understand the legal concept of coveture – whereby a woman gives up her legal rights to her husband upon marriage. If a woman remained unmarried, her right to own property and contract were maintained. Not marrying was a way of retaining legal rights that might otherwise get extinguished.

The champion of this sort of woman was Victoria Woodhull. Born into poverty, she worked her way up the ladder and became rich and engaged in a variety of activities. She married at 14 to a 28 year-old who was by all accounts a very charming doctor, but he turned out to be a raging alcoholic and a serial womanizer. As usual, a woman with serious psychological issues becomes a feminist pioneer.

She founded the first female-run Wall Street brokerage firm with her sister and they were financially successful. She was the first female candidate for the Presidency, running under the Equal Rights party. She also was the first woman to advocate for “free love” for women. Based on her experiences in her first (of three) marriages, she concluded people (women) should have the universal ability to marry, divorce and get custody of the children – with maintenance (alimony), of course. Despite her professed love for monogamy, she said people personally reserved the right to “love others exclusively” outside the marriage.

In contrast to “New Women” were Gibson girls. The term Gibson girl was coined in 1892 (towards the end of the era) by Charles Dana Gibson, as he saw the Gibson girl as emblematic of the beauty reflected in the era. She was tall, skinny with “ample bosom and buttocks.”  This woman did incorporate some of the “New Woman’s” ways while trying to maintain some sense of tradition. She was considered to be upper-class, refined, educated and sensitive. However, she broke traditional convention, as she could be seen working out in public, like biking. She typically eschewed campaigning for women’s suffrage or any political movements. She would most likely be whispering in husband’s ear about the changes she wants to see in society or starting or helping in charities, the church or just general social betterment.

She was seen as not usurping masculinity nor male roles, but carefully sought out to expand her world. She sought to be more worldly, intelligent and to help her community in roles outside her home. Part of this impetus was urbanization and the strict gender role divide that emerged. Note that in rural farming communities, a level of equality exists as there is too much work for a woman to just sit around and dust the house – she has to feed livestock, tend to the yard and all manner of other stuff. The wage earning male that leaves a woman behind to tend to the home makes her restless. Plus, considering these women had excess income to hire nannies, tutors and maids, it makes sense they could get bored. As usual, these women assumed their grievances were universal to all women.

The final important point was the development of the concept of the “domestic goddess.” These women helped play up these roles, as they wanted more and more accolades for their domestic endeavors. Further, the men (betas) of the era sought to edify these women. Common complaints about the era involved men fawning over the beauty of women, as such fawning treated women as objects. Further, there were complaints of sexism about “domestic goddess” concept. The important takeaway is that the home was seen the under the control of a “domestic goddess,” while work outside the home was seen as best under the control of a male. Pure gender role division.

However, Gibson girls emphasized propriety, marriage and refinement in women. She helped popularize the corset and started and aided in many important charities in cities across the nation. Like the above picture, they began to belittle men. They would run cartoons like this one, showing men to be weak, ineffective and impotent. They referred to themselves as equals to men and sometimes considered themselves to be the snarky sidekick to their husband. They liked to portray men as impotent fools. Their growing distaste for American men is palpable. It’s almost as if when men give women what they claim to want they immediately begin to resent the men who give into their demands.

Once again, this sort of social setup reeks of privilege. These women were fairly close to or at the apex of society. Of course, they could afford to be single and not reproduce. For the “New Women,” they depended on poor women and Gibson girls to keep up fertility rates so they didn’t have too. As for Gibson girls, they didn’t step outside the box, but backed up right against it. They flirted with stepping across the line, but ultimately did not. However, they helped pave the way for feminism to penetrate into society.

Women will always—once a degree of comfort and wealth is accumulated as a society—demand “free love” and be allowed to indulge their hypergamic impulses. It will start at the top of society and trickle down the poorest, once welfare programs are established that allow for a woman to have a husband’s income with no husband. Women will call it “helping the poor” but I think part of the impulse is helping other women achieve hamster transcendence and allow her to have two distinct men in her life – providers and alphas. Of course, she may know the provider as a husband or not, as he is just a taxpayer. In this era, there were not many federal or state programs to help women, but part of this is that women who decided to go without marriage went without children. Per usual, poor women who worked still had many children.

Notice how generous women are with men’s money. In the Gilded Era, men made the money that went to taxes. There was no federal income tax and the jobs women did often did not produce much tax revenue. Women shamelessly spent men’s money on all sorts of pet projects that allowed them to self-aggrandize. Most resources I read about these women seemed to be reverential of generosity women displayed.

A rich guy in the era founds a university? Greedy 1%er better cough up the damn money.

A rich guy’s wife founds a soup kitchen? Women really are the morally superior sex.

In sum, privileged women began to haltingly assemble the machinery of feminism. They helped alter fashion and social standards. Most importantly, they helped establish the idea of the domestic goddess and a woman’s moral superiority. This idea is very relevant to today, as this idea has seeped into any institution in which women have sought access. American women, of all ideological stripes, consider themselves morally superior to men and this era was an important step towards cementing that mindset.

Read More: The Roots Of Feminism In America

Ready to start your own business? Our October sponsor can help. Take a look at MyNewCompany.com.

I could hardly refrain from commenting on THE MOST IMPORTANT CHALLENGE FACING YOUNG WOMEN TODAY, could I?

Women used to argue that if men would have only stopped oppressing them, they would have totally written great books and advanced science and cured cancer and in general improved the world in every possible way. After all, if Man has achieved so much by utilizing only 50 percent of the population, imagine if 100 percent of the population was able to achieve its full potential!

Learn what amazing challenge the young women of today are courageously facing at Alpha Game.

Sheryl Sandberg says women need to lean in and climb that career ladder, but once they reach the pinnacle, it seems that many women are too stressed out to function and end up needing to lean back.  You see, when men are appointed to leadership positions in corporations, they work.  When women are appointed, apparently they freak out from all the pressure, quit their jobs, and write articles and books about their stressed out lives.

First there was Anne Marie Slaughter’s whine-fest Why Women Still Can’t Have It All a year and a half ago in The Atlantic, in which she explains how she ended up quitting her high-level government job because she couldn’t stand the stress of trying to balance a demanding career with a family.  She of course blames our “culture” and American companies that women get too stressed out when their demands for leadership jobs are given in to.  Now there is a new book by Katrina Alcorn (h/t Laura Wood at The Thinking Housewife) bemoaning her sad fate as an exhausted mother and corporate manager (highlighting mine):

Managing a department at a web design firm and raising two kids with her husband, Katrina Alcorn thought she had the working mom routine figured out — until she had another child.

“My son was born and it all went to hell,” Alcorn, 41, recalled about the baby’s arrival in 2009.

While women are being encouraged to “lean in” at work, Katrina Alcorn says they should be able to lean back when they need to.

“On the surface, I was doing everything that I was supposed to be doing and it looked like everything was fine. But inside, I was just falling apart. I was having a lot of anxiety and insomnia and there was all this stress. There was too much on my plate. I lost my appetite, I was getting depressed.”

On the way to Target to buy diapers one day, she had a breakdown, Alcorn said. She ended up quitting her job and trying to make sense of what happened. The result is her new book, “Maxed Out: American Moms on the Brink.”

As Laura Wood wryly notes:

I assume her husband did not have the option of quitting his job so he could write a book about how victimized he was by his job.

It makes no sense to elevate women into high level management and leadership positions and invest in their training and development if women are just going to fall apart under the stress of it.  And why should companies change what they expect of their upper level leaders just because women can’t handle the pressures?  Why should companies and the government promote women and then make sure they don’t have to work too hard once they are promoted?  That is completely nonsensical.

Yet in a recent Forbes article, Boards Remain Pale, Male And Stale — Old Boys’ Club Alive And Well, leadership expert Mike Myatt writes

U.S. companies lag many other developed nations with regard to board diversity.  As an example, in countries like Sweden and Finland women hold nearly 30% of board seats, and Norway has a quota mandating women hold 40% of board seats. Given there have been numerous studies showing company performance on diverse boards exceeds that of those boards composed of male only members, it’s no wonder other countries have changed their practices. It’s time U.S. corporations follow suit [...]

My bottom line is this – corporations cannot appropriately represent the constituencies they serve until they are representatively led by members of those same constituencies. It is impossible to understand and engage in a meaningful fashion where those deserving a voice are denied a seat at the table. I’m not advocating for selecting directors who are anything other than the best person for the job, but we should all recognize the best person for the job is not universally a 56 year old, Ivy League educated, white male.

And here’s my bottom line: no one who “deserves a voice” is being “denied a seat at the table.”  There is no systematic discrimination, nor is there any covert bias, against women climbing the corporate career ladder.  The people who get promoted are the ones who work the hardest, who show up and stay as long as they need to, who don’t fall apart under the stress, who don’t having crying fits at work a la Sheryl Sandberg – in short, the people who can actually handle performing the job.  Unsurprisingly, the best man for these stressful, high-level leadership positions is in fact usually a man, not because of bias but because they are inherently better suited to these kinds of jobs and because men are more willing to shut up and deal rather than whine and quit to write books about how hard their lives are.

Embedded in this CPA update is the story of Walt Kofski.  Because it's not obvious where it is, I've taken the liberty of highlighting the relevant sections:

The other thing you might have observed is that in spite of this
First, there just plain isn't enough economic growth to go around.  When Walt sat for the CPA exam, economic growth was averaging around 4.25%.  Today is is only 2.5%, nearly 2 full percentage points lower.  This means without new economic growth, there is no new economic opportunities for any young up and comers.  Therefore employers have to find ways to screen you.  This means -  you guessed it - progressive credentialism.
The reason why they are ultimately testing your lack of self-respect is because people with the least amount of self-respect are the cheapest.  So cheap in fact most employers know they can do away with training programs or certification programs and FORCE THE INDIVIDUAL TO PAY FOR A 4 YEAR DEGREE, MASTERS CLASSES, and FEES TO GET CERTIFIED.

Again, very few of us will ever become that

top notch accountant
elite investment banker
super accurate actuary
or top sales guy

but nearly all of us can get by on very little, enjoy stress free jobs, and give employers the proverbial finger when they tell us to waste 10 years of our youth and at our expense, jumping through hoops.

(If you liked this post please forward it to a friend or consider purchasing one of Aaron's hate-filled, rant-a-licious books.  You can also listen to Aaron's podcast located here)

the other night at work, i had a young girl as a patient for a chest x-ray. she was 15. when you have a patient of the opposite sex that’s a juvenile, it’s always a good call to have the parent come into the room. i set up the room and called the girls name for the exam. she jumped up and walked towards me.

dad stayed sitting.

i called the father and told him to come into the room with me. we got to the room and i had dad stand behind the lead shielded console. i was trying to position the girl for the exam (and a chest x-ray is the most common x-ray out there), and as i aligned her shoulder to the receptor (i was standing behind her- to her right) and she arched her butt out slightly towards me.

UNCALLED FOR.

and very inappropriate. i’ve done HUNDREDS of these exams, and NEVER had a woman do this. i jumped back immediately and told her to place her entire body against the receptor. this girl had a HUGE smile on her face during the process. i took her first picture and found out she was wearing a bra. i walked over and told her she had to remover her bra, and before could explain that i and dad would leave the room she immediately starts to lift her shirt to get to her bra.

SERIOUSLY???

i stopped her and told her me and her father would leave the room and when she was done call out and let us know. i escorted dad out of the room, and told him why we had to leave the room. he nodded in agreement. she told us she was done and as we walked back into the room, i showed dad wy i had to redo the exam; the underwire and clasps were clearly visible. this is called “artifact error”.

i told the girl to go back to placing her chest against the board and she was giggling and over doing the “yes SIIIR’s”. i was VERY uncomfortable. i know when a woman is flirting and this girl was going WAAAAAY overboard. even worse was that she was doing it in front of her father, who appeared oblivious.

i finished the exam and escorted them back to the ER. it was the first time in a long time that i had felt that uncomfortable.

we talk about the hyper-sexualization of today’s young woman but having a woman that young flirt with me was unsettling. i’m well aware of the “older man” and “young woman” thing. but c’mon……15!!!!! it bothered me so much that i talked to 3-4 women i know for an explanation to understand with this shit. all of them said the same thing.

it’s a power trip. they flirt to see how far they can take it. what can they get away with, and because…….they can.

these are women- younger than me, my age, and older. and they ALL said the same thing. and NONE of them know each other. this is why i can’t have a kid, this girl would be my daughter: cute and WELL aware of her sexuality. i’ve been cursed by SEVERAL women i know (friends and family) with this curse.

what’s worse was that dad was completely oblivious. and girl didn’t seem to care, which show’s me some disconnect here. seem’s like the kid was SCREAMING for male attention. and that’s sad. i’m so glad i don’t have kids. and this just helped me to solidify that decision.

i hope what happened the other night never happens again.

stay up.

[edit- i texted LNYC about this and laughed when i read his latest post. told you, guy's killing it.]

A recently published book by an old friend of Hitler’s called “The Young Hitler I Knew” offers amazing insight into Hitler’s personality and early life as a romantic teenager. Evidence surfaces that Hitler was (though the author never states it outright), by disposition or by experience, a beta male with a bad case of one-itis and zero game who pedestalized women.

Kubizek’s uncensored account throws a fascinating light on the fanatical mind of the future Fuhrer.

For it contains, for the first time, the full story of Hitler’s teenage obsession with a pretty girl called Stefanie Isak, whose surname has clear Jewish origins.

And although Hitler’s distinguished biographer Sir Ian Kershaw has rightly dismissed Hitler’s feelings for Stefanie as ‘a juvenile infatuation’, the passion with which Hitler stalked her and fantasised about kidnapping and committing suicide with her lets us glimpse the mentality of the person he was destined to become.

Furthermore, August Kubizek’s account reveals that Hitler was utterly unconcerned as to whether the girl after whom he lusted was Jewish or not.

Those “juvenile infatuations” are not to be underestimated in their power as origin sources of a man’s lifelong character; for from those experiences a man holds his deepest, most cherished or most regretted memories, and the shadow of their mark haunts him for life. Now let’s contemplate the evidence for Hitler’s betaness in the following account of his courtship rituals:

Kubizek dates Hitler’s infatuation with Stefanie, which lasted four years, from the beginning of his 16th year, to an evening in the spring of 1905 when they went out for a stroll in the Landstrasse in Linz: “Adolf gripped my arm and asked me excitedly what I thought of that slim, blonde girl walking along arm-in-arm with her mother. ‘You must know, I?m in love with her,’ he added resolutely.”

Kubizek recalled that Stefanie Isak, he didn’t reveal her surname during the Third Reich years when the book was published under strict censorship, for obvious reasons, was a distinguished-looking girl, tall and slim.

“Her eyes were very beautiful, bright and expressive. She was exceptionally well-dressed and her bearing indicated that she came from a good, well-to-do family.”

Yet that was all the two teenagers knew about Stefanie to begin with, so they took to standing in a nearby street every evening at five o’clock, waiting for her to walk over the bridge to the main square.

“It would have been improper to address Stefanie,” recalled Kubizek, “as neither of us had been introduced to the young lady. A glance had to take the place of a greeting. From then on, Adolf did not take his eyes off Stefanie. In that moment he was changed, no longer his own self.” For someone who despised and denounced the social conventions of the bourgeoisie, Hitler conformed to them rather meekly when it came to Stefanie, possibly out of stultifying shyness.

Hitler’s game so far: Shy glances.

The Landstrasse was a favourite place for friends to meet in Linz. “There was a lot of flirting and the young Army officers were particularly good at it,” remembered Kubizek.

It would infuriate Hitler whenever he spotted young officers talking to Stefanie. His friend sympathised: “Poor, pallid youngsters like Adolf naturally cannot compete with these lieutenants in their smart uniforms.” Instead of trying to engage her interest and attention through the exercise of charm or humour, however, Hitler simply fumed in the shadows. “Conceited blockheads,” he would say of his rivals.

Hitler the emo.

Kubizek wrote that Hitler’s hatred of them led to his “uncompromising enmity towards the officer class as a whole, and everything military in general. It annoyed him intensely that Stefanie mixed with such idlers who, he insisted, wore corsets and used scent”.

Hitler’s dislike and distrust of the officer class, especially generals, was to stay with him for the rest of his life.

Hitler the bitterboy beta. Instead of learning from his alpha male betters, he lashed out at them, much the same way our modern manboobs lash out at alpha male “douchebags” and “players”.

Fortunately, as she chatted happily with her Austrian officer beaux, the 17-year-old Stefanie, who Kubizek recalled had a “natural and open expression” as well as “a freshness and lack of affectation”, had no inkling that she was being stalked by Hitler.

Hitler the creeper.

Kubizek states: “Stefanie had no idea how deeply Adolf was in love with her; she regarded him as a somewhat shy, but nevertheless remarkably tenacious and faithful, admirer.

Hitler in the friendzone.

“When she responded with a smile to his inquiring glance, he was happy and his mood became unlike anything I had ever observed in him.

Hitler the overly hopeful beta.

“But when Stefanie, as happened just as often, coldly ignored his gaze, he was crushed and ready to destroy himself and the whole world.”

Hitler the easily discouraged beta.

Hitler soon set Kubizek to discover everything he could about Stefanie. Her mother, it turned out, was a widow and they lived in nearby Urfahr, while her brother was a law student in Vienna.

Hitler the obsessed beta.

For those four years between the ages of 16 and 20, “for Adolf, no other woman but Stefanie existed”, since for him, “Stefanie embodied the whole of femininity”.

Hitler with crippling one-itis. If CH had been around then for Hitler to read, he would know that women are interchangeable, and he would not have wasted so much time on a girl who barely knew he existed.

This enthusiasm took the form of writing “countless love poems” to Stefanie, with titles such as Hymn To The Beloved.

Ugh. As you can see, even maniacal dictators with dreams of world conquest can fall into the same horrible beta traps as your typical weepy 21st century brooding teen boy with xVideos tabbed for convenience. If only Hitler had the compiled wisdom of CH, he would remember the maxim that you do not reward a woman with your love until after she has rewarded you with her sex.

Perhaps it is fortunate they no longer exist, as Kubizek recalls Hitler reciting one to him in which “Stefanie, a high-born damsel, in a dark blue, flowing velvet gown, rode on a white steed over the flowering meadows, her loose hair falling in golden waves on her shoulders; a clear blue sky was above; everything was pure, radiant joy.”

Kubizek remembered “Adolf?s face glowing with fervent ecstasy” as he recited these verses. Yet in all the four years he worshipped Stefanie, Hitler never once plucked up the courage actually to exchange a single word with her. He insisted that once he met her, no words would be needed.

The elaborate fantasy world of the lovesick beta male. You know, a part of me feels not just pity, but even tender admiration, for young Hitler’s romantic idealism, so pure of thought and intention. This was a Hitler, however misguided, who denied a cynical world its tribute in parcels of his uncorrupted soul. How might things have turned out differently had a strong male presence — an alpha male mentor — shown him the way to fulfill his burning desire? Or at least told him to stop acting like a tool?

“For such extraordinary human beings as himself and Stefanie,” he told Kubizek, “there was no need for the usual communication by word of mouth: extraordinary human beings would understand each other by intuition.” Moreover, Hitler convinced himself not only that Stefanie knew what his views and ideas were, but also that she shared them enthusiastically. Such was the power of his crush on this unwitting girl that he even believed her capable of telepathy.

The young beta, before time and painful lessons have turned him bitter, is prone to these flights of ego-soothing fancy, whereby amorphous “connections” of the most tenuous nature with his love object become rationalizations for inaction and unrealistic expectations of a future together.

When Kubizek expressed doubt that Hitler could possibly know what Stefanie thought about anything, considering they hadn’t yet spoken, “he became furious and shouted at me: ‘You simply don’t understand, because you can’t understand the true meaning of extraordinary love’.”

Can’t you just imagine an American teenage boy, with little understanding of the nature of women, saying these exact words to his street smart buddy, or his patient father?

Hitler also somehow convinced himself that Stefanie was feigning interest in other men “as a sort of deliberate diversion to conceal her own tempestuous feelings for him”.

Nonetheless, “this attitude often gave way to fits of raging jealousy”.

We’re veering into almost omega male territory here. Can a school shooting be far behind?

What he never summoned up the courage to do was simply introduce himself to Stefanie’s mother on one of their walks and ask permission to escort them and address her daughter, which was the accepted way of effecting a meeting in those days.

To be fair to Hitler, it was a lot tougher to pick up a girl in his time. Could you picture some video gamer bro having to introduce himself to a girl’s mother to get in a word with the girl?

Hitler was disturbed when he discovered Stefanie enjoyed dancing, which was “as contrary to his nature as smoking or drinking beer in a bar”. Kubizek half-jokingly suggested he take up dancing lessons, and suddenly their walks were no longer dominated by his long diatribes about the theatre or Danubian bridges, but instead by the subject of dancing.

“Visualise a crowded ballroom,” Hitler said to Kubizek, “and imagine you are deaf. You can’t hear the music to which these people are moving, and then take a look at their senseless progress, which leads nowhere. Aren’t these people raving mad?” When Kubizek attempted to disagree, Hitler screamed at him: “No, no, never! I shall never dance! Do you understand? Once Stefanie is my wife, she won’t have the slightest desire to dance!”

Here we see another facet of the beta male mind: The strict adherence to logic and linearity, and the inability to go with the flow. A great seducer of women Hitler was not, at least not then, or he would have known that the art of courtship involves emotional tangents that can seem confusing to men, but are nourishing and necessary to women.

It was in the depression brought on by the news of Stefanie’s love of dancing that the Hitler of the future can suddenly be discerned: “He hit upon a crazy idea: he seriously considered kidnapping Stefanie. He expounded his plan to me in all its details and assigned to me my role. I had to keep the mother engaged in conversation while he seized the girl.”

This is what rejected beta males thought about doing before they had access to internet porn.

After this plot was abandoned for lack of funds to live on after their elopement, Hitler considered suicide. “He would jump into the river from the Danube bridge,” he told Kubizek, “and then it would be over and done with. But Stefanie would have to die with him”, he insisted on that.

“Once more, a plan was thought up, in all its details. Every single phase of the horrifying tragedy was minutely described.”

What’s worse than a beta male? A beta male with a psychopath’s eye for detail.

However, before any desperate plan could be carried out against Stefanie, Hitler’s mood brightened. In June 1906, at the Linz flower festival, he and Kubizek took up places in a street, the Schmiedtorstrasse, which was so narrow, the festival carriages full of girls and young ladies had to pass close to them.

“Stefanie had adorned her carriage not with roses as most of the others, but with simple wild blossoms: red poppies, white marguerites and blue cornflowers,” recalled Kubizek. “A bright glance falls on Adolf. Stefanie sends him a beaming smile and, picking a flower from her posy, throws it to him.”

The effect on Hitler was transforming. “Never again did I see Adolf as happy as at that moment.”

“She loves me!” he told his friend. “You have seen! She loves me!”

This is how beta orbiters are born and maintained in their orbital flight paths. Stefanie probably wasn’t even aware of what she was doing; she was following an unconscious evolutionary script that maximized her extraction of emotional resources from a beta swooner.

[Hitler] had an absurdly idealised view of this pretty but otherwise normal Austrian teenager, and, as Kubizek understood, “the slightest divergence from this picture would have filled him with unspeakable disappointment”.

Now you know why the archipelago of misfit manboobs, male feminists, slam poets, game denialists, and suck-up white knights are so vehemently enraged when a realtalker like yours truly comes along to put the screws to their carefully mani-pedi’ed worldview. They have too much invested in their powerlessness.

In fact, it later transpired that, despite her surname, Stefanie was not Jewish. But crucially, Hitler and Kubizek did not know this at the time, signifying that the future perpetrator of the Holocaust had no animus against Jews as a young man.

Did he therefore cynically invent his hatred of Jews as a useful vehicle for gaining power in post-Great War Germany? This explanation is even more sinister than any of the myriad others as to where and when he contracted the bacillus of anti-Semitism.

Or perhaps, even more sinisterly, Hitler became the man he did when, as a young man in the grip of hot unrequited love, his Jewish princess “rejected” him for the charming alpha males Hitler despised. What followed from that irreparable wound to his heart was an act of id vengeance that would set fire to the world. Was WWI then, the revenge of a beta male scorned?

Chateau Heartiste has written that game can save the West. Disbelievers scoff. But if this outpost of sanity had been around during Hitler’s flowering youth to enlighten him about the nature of the fairer sex, the West might very well have been saved. Saved not just from war and genocide, but from every evil — cultural Marxism, feminism, equalism, and now racial self-annihilationism — that has come after.

Filed under: Beta, The Id Monster, Ugly Truths, Vanity

University.

When you called me the biggest embarrassment in higher education, you must not have known about their bondage panel. Maybe you were tied up that evening and couldn't make it.

h/t EBD

The Twilight Zone is one of my favorite shows. It was created by Rod Serling. It is cerebral, perceptive & well-written. Unlike the hot garbage of today’s TV shows, it was and is the intellectual counterweight to vapidity in TV media.

One of my favorite episodes – second to the whimsical episode “The Hunt” – is the episode “Walking Distance.” You can watch the episode online here. Well-written, excellent acting and a beautiful score really bring this tale together. It is about a 36 year-old executive named Martin Sloan. Burnt out from the rat-race of the corporate world, he seeks to return to the idyllic world of his childhood.

One day, while driving in the country, disgruntled & frustrated, his car breaks down and while stopping to have it fixed, he wanders to the local town and finds out it is very much like his hometown. In fact, he discovers he has time-traveled to his past in his hometown.

Martin wanders around in a state of child-like wonder, revisiting his past with eyes wide-open. The people of his past regard him with suspicion. He cannot connect with his former self as a child and his parents refuse to believe his story that he is their child from the future. He comes across as insane.

The climax is when Martin confronts his former self on a carousel ride. He pursues his former self so badly that he falls off the ride, permanently disabling his leg. Martin immediately notices he has limp now, too. His father confronts him, telling him it is inappropriate to bother his former self. It is his summer, his life. You had your chance to enjoy your childhood, now let him. He suggests that nostalgia isn’t what he needs – he needs to focus on his future & search for happiness in the present.

The episode ends with a beautiful soliloquy by Rod Serling:

Martin Sloan, age thirty-six, vice-president in charge of media. Successful in most things but not in the one effort that all men try at some time in their lives—trying to go home again. And also like all men perhaps there’ll be an occasion, maybe a summer night sometime, when he’ll look up from what he’s doing and listen to the distant music of a calliope, and hear the voices and the laughter of the people and places of his past. And perhaps across his mind there’ll flit a little errant wish, that a man might not have to become old, never outgrow the parks and the merry-go-rounds of his youth. And he’ll smile then too because he’ll know it is just an errant wish, some wisp of memory not too important really, some laughing ghosts that cross a man’s mind, that are a part of the Twilight Zone.

When re-watching the episode, the episode has a kind-of dreamlike, off-kilter feel to it, like Kanye’s song “I Wonder.” It is extremely personal & might be one of the most honest episodes Serling wrote. Two themes present themselves: The soul-crushing pressure of the modern workplace and the nostalgia for youth lost.

The modern workplace is even more fraught with pressure than the 1950′s. With females now subjecting the workplace to their issues and bullshit it is even more a minefield for the average man. Longer hours, less pay and more bullshit sliding down from corporate heads. More senseless government intervention that results in people having to do mindless, soul-crushing work to slake the thirst of some bureaucratic drone.

For men, the pressures of the sexual marketplace, student loans and politically correct society do nothing to alleviate the pressure of modern society. Problems of self-delusion, obsession with video games and drug abuse make sense on some level. Not healthy, but are ways of coping with the untoward demands of society. Coupled with poor socialization of boys that leads them to be simps, men are lonelier than ever.

Which feeds into nostalgia. Like Martin, some men think that if they could just return to their youth or the past historically. The problem with that is the past is just that - the past. It belongs to someone else. Martin’s dogged insistence on getting attention in the past speaks to his loneliness & disillusionment with the present. His father recognizes this and advises him to search out for happiness in his life – it is out there if you so wish to pursue it.

Nostalgia, here, is a form of not dealing with your problems in life head-on. We all get it from time to time, but the healthiest thing to do is cherish your memories while actively seeking to better your reality. Martin, here, has to learn a very tough lesson, as he crippled himself before he came to terms with this lesson.

In a way, it is selfish and narcissistic. Unable to comprehend, at first, that this particular summer he is idolizing isn’t his reality anymore, it takes actively hurting someone – who is himself in the past – before he realized his error.

Disillusionment with reality is nothing new. However, what defines you is how you deal with it. Do you take it head-on and actively make your life better? Or do you sink into depression, medicating yourself with drugs & pornography? Like in American Beauty, the character of Lester was partially upset at himself because he was such a huge pussy for most of his life. He wasn’t a man, but a person who got life dictated to him, by his job, by his wife and even his daughter.

While I can only speculate as to Martin’s home life, it is clear he feels put upon by his professional life. However, he learns that is up to him to make his life better and not pine away for a past that is long gone.

Which is the point of the episode. You may have treasured memories in your past, but you have to treat them as such – history. I have serious blue-pill friends in my life, but I have distanced myself from them because I am bettering myself and their naivete and immaturity doesn’t rub me the right way.

It is sad as you never want to see friends leave, but sometimes it is necessary. That is a part of life which Martin exemplifies. Learning that he has to make changes in his life so he can enjoy life, he leaves a better man. His wistful smile at the shows that he realizes his nostalgia is just an errant wish, a laughing ghost that reminds him he has had good memories in his life. The smile also shows he understand that his past is in the past. It doesn’t do him any good to pine away for that – healthy men actively seek to better their lives in the present.

Read Next: The HGTV Channel Poisons Female Minds

In which I take exception to Standout Author Larry Correia's take on Cedar Fort's decision to cancel a publishing contract given to a gay writer:

So Cedar Fort really likes a book submitted to them and says that they think it will sell well. Cedar Fort gives a contract to these two authors. They write their author bios. One mentions his “partner” instead of his wife. Cedar Fort flips out and drops them.

There are two schools of thought with dealing with the Left.  Larry's is presently the dominant one among conservatives, which is that one should play by idealistic rules of ideological fair play that are observably no longer in effect. He notes, correctly, that this decision by Cedar Fort to blackball homosexuals is no different than the decision by major Manhattan publishers to blackball writers of the political Right.  He writes:

I keep seeing authors get black listed for their political opinions, and since the publishing industry is mostly in Manhattan, it is usually writers who lean right (righters?) that get blackballed. Of course, when I talk about this on the internet, proper goodthinking people tell me that’s crazy talk.

As one of the few writers who has been blackballed by both left-wing Manhattan publishers AND right-wing regional publishers, (Thomas Nelson canceled the contract for Media Whores when it discovered that I was going to address various Fox News figures in addition to the mainstream media figures they expected to be targeted), I actually think it is a positive development that these publishing biases of left and right are exposed and made more visible to the reading public.

The observable fact is that all publishing houses are ideologically biased and none of them are solely motivated by business concerns due to the fact that the editors are human, and their financial interests in the publishing houses for which they work is generally negligible.  Their bias is further compounded by the fact that none of them has any real ability to know what will, and what will not, sell well, which means that they will always be free to indulge their ideological biases with regards to every writer who does not already have an established track record of considerable success.

My opinion is that it is a serious mistake for the Right to attempt to remain above the fray and refuse to play by the rules established by the Left.  As the example of Fox News shows, as the example of Larry's own exceptional literary success shows, the Right has considerable economic power.  However, the Right has long played into the hands of the Left by being more than willing to financially sustain the Left while the Left is doing its level best to financially starve the Right. Many conservatives fall all over themselves to proclaim how eager they are to read books by gay black handicapped communist Che Guevara enthusiasts in a futile attempt to establish their cultural impartiality.

Which means that in the cultural civil war, the Left is playing the role of the ruthless Union while the Right is playing the role of a Confederacy that is too gentlemanly and refined to take the opposition seriously.  You may recall who won that war, and how.

I fully accept that no matter how many books I write, no matter how many games I sell, Tor and its filthy editors will never publish my books.  That is absolutely and entirely fine with me.  I never wanted to have anything to do with such despicable creatures, which is why I never submitted anything to them even prior to the changes in the publishing industry that are rendering the mainstream publishers less necessary than before.  I have no problem with the fact that the 4,000 daily readers of Whatever will never buy my books or with the fact that many left-wing fans of epic fantasy will prefer to wait another five years to slog through George R.R. Martin's next interminable self-parody than read A Throne of Bones.  I realize, as I expect Larry does as well, that there are thousands of SF/F readers who will never even look at The Grimnoire Chronicles because they are written by an avid gun enthusiast and published by Baen Books.

And, in like manner, left-wing writers should learn to accept that right-leaning publishers will not work with them and an increasing number of right-leaning consumers will not read their works.  The age of the uniform mass market and its ideological impartiality is over and the age of ideologically-based vertical markets is upon us. The sooner everyone on the right side of the ideological aisle embraces that fact and begins to act accordingly, the sooner we will be able to stop swimming in the moral filth, breathing in the philosophical effluvia, and wandering aimlessly throughout the creative wasteland of the Left.

Larry, I have no doubt, will disagree with my opinion.  So will a number of other writers on the Right. And that's fine, as we can disagree about this and debate this without feeling any need to excommunicate each other or rigidly enforce a dogmatic consensus because we are not rabbits of the Left.

Dovetailing from yesterday’s post, further enlightening excerpts from that most awesome 1910 game guide titled “Modern Woman and How to Manage Her“:

There are two universal theories concerning women: 1. That she is gentle and 2. That she is cruel. How have these conflicting views arisen? Why do men when in grief or difficulties so often seek the sympathy and the advice of women? Why on the other hand do men declare that women are capable of incredible cruelty? Let us attempt to explain this enigma. In those countries where marriage by capture still survives we shall find instructive evidence of that form of the antagonism of the sexes which is inseparable from the great business of love-making. In New Zealand not long ago a Maori wooer, with the consent of the girl’s parents, employed force in winning his bride. He seized the maiden and bore her away, struggling, biting, kicking. Maori girls are almost as physically strong as men and it was often a wrestling match of fairly equal combatants. We read that it was sometimes the work of hours before the captor could carry the resisting maiden a hundred yards. Thus love begins among the Maoris as among other and more advanced races with actual cruelty, strife and pain.

A Bedouin virgin makes a show of resistance to her lover by pelting him with stones which often wound the suitor. When he grapples with her she bites and uses her fists and nails even though she loves him and desires to be captured. The European woman does not as a rule display such forms of physical violence but the elements of anger, fear, and the desire to inflict pain enter more or less into most courtships. [ed: emphasis mine.]

In Spain, until the middle of the nineteenth century, women took pleasure in watching a lover flog himself until the blood flowed, and the elaborate system of courtship still observed in that country which insists that the suitor should wait for hours, day after day, beneath the maiden’s window till she deigns to smile upon him is a survival of the ancient custom of self torture as a means of winning a woman’s favour.

There are cases recorded of women who find exquisite satisfaction in the infliction of both mental and physical pain upon their lovers. Such manifestations are related to the passion of love and have a very important biological significance.

From this source springs the female instinct of teasing which is noticeable even among little girls in their play with boys. Every man can recall boyish experiences of this kind. From fourteen up to sweet seventeen and sometimes after that age girls frequently tease, snub and vex the youths of their acquaintance with much zest. The shyest boys [ed: betas] are most exposed to these lacerating snubs. No man dare be as rude as a woman. Her sex protects her from the retaliation of a retort discourteous. This love of tormenting the opposite sex reaches its height in many young girls when a young man is deeply in love with them, and the romantic and ardent types of youths are the chief sufferers from this form of feminine bullying.

I have heard a beautiful woman of this order describe with gusto the manner in which she first encouraged her lovers and then having brought them to her feet rejected them with polite disdain. The spectacle of a man grovelling for her consent caused acute pleasure.

The emotion that underlies this impulse to tease men and to excite their anger is a phase of sex antagonism, but it is very intimately associated with sexual feeling. The contempt, the coldness, and the cruelty are unconsciously directed by the woman towards an end, and they are frequently the expression of an amative nature. In its milder forms, unkindness to a lover is a very common trait among women. It is often employed to stimulate ardour and to test a man’s devotion. Women who in love first blow hot and then cold by turn are obeying a primitive instinct which has played an important part in the relationship of the sexes.

What the author, Gallichan, is describing here is known to modern seducers as the shit test.  Plus, what is also being described is possibly the first layman’s observations on what would come to be known as the Borderline Personality Disorder woman, (cf., Penelope Trunk), and the Attention Whore.

What Gallichan understands is what PUAs understand — when a woman shit tests you, i.e. when she teases and taunts you, she is in fact romantically aroused by you and her cruelty is a test of your mettle as a man. Will you remain “devoted” — aka unflustered by her theatrics — or will you wilt like a shy beta boy shrunk to hunched shame by her sharp barbs?

Read the last quoted line again. Push-pull PUA game is, like most game techniques, an arrogation by men of traditional female game. When you use a woman’s natural seductions against her, such as her instinct to “first blow hot and then cold”, you inflame her to passions the equal degree to which her beauty inflames men. Few men know to do this; fewer still execute the game skillfully. So if you can do it, you set yourself above every other man she knows, and above herself. Which is where she likes her man.

Filed under: Culture, Game

Some not so great news:

One in 10 young Australian males contemplated suicide last year, a mental wellbeing study has found.

Researcher Jane Burns said the saddening revelation, to be included in a report to be released on Monday, reflected a mental health system that was failing young males. The survey found that nearly 70 of the 700 interviewed thought about taking their own lives and one in five felt "life is hardly worth living".

Some will no doubt say that the problem is masculinity itself, that men have to learn to express emotions and seek help and so on.

You have to wonder, though, whether the current drift of society isn't making it harder for young men to find the kind of anchors in life that they once did.

I can remember as a boy in the 1970s growing up with a very positive view of manhood. Australian men took pride in a history of masculine achievement. We were to live up to the achievements of previous generations of men, to take on the mantle of a proud tradition.

But increasingly the message has shifted to the idea that men in general, and white men in particular, have had a negative role and that any traditions they are associated with are morally tainted. I can't see how this message is likely to help young men build a strong sense of self-esteem or a positive regard for their role and place in society.

And modern life can seem empty. We exist to work and to shop and to be consumers of various kinds of entertainments. We are fundamentally to see ourselves as atomised individuals and to try to make sense of life on this basis.

This doesn't call on the deeper male instincts. We weren't made for this; there is no role in this for our strengths as men. Were we given our muscularity, or our instinct to serve and to protect, or our sense of honour and loyalty, just to end up wandering around a shopping mall buying things?

We are supposed to work together for larger ends, the most important of which is to uphold the existence of the peoples we belong to. And our role within the family is supposed to be a distinctly masculine one, a role that the wellbeing of the family depends on.

Not hedonism, not individual self-interest, not abstract universalism - none of these will ultimately work as anchors. None of these ties the best of what we are as men to a meaningful role in society.

Reader “A G” gleefully proposes a psychological torture mechanism to send feminists writhing in paroxysms of hamster-rending pain.

How to destroy a Cathedral feminist’s brain with two simple questions:

1. Doesn’t it suck that racist white people, any time they see a black person walking the streets late at night, automatically fear that person because they think black people are more likely to be thugs?  Obvious manifestation of white privilege.

2. Doesn’t it suck that sexist women, any time they see a man walking the streets late at night, automatically fear that person because they think men are more likely to be rapists?  Obvious manifestation of female privilege.

Inspired by a facebook friend who literally wrote a post stating that white privilege is the reason white people often fear black people.

Masterful bait and switch. They’ll never see it coming.

On a more general note, AG illustrates one attack strategy that is effective against whiny, sophistic leftoids making appeals to empty emotion. The leftoid, as a species within which the feminist is a subspecie, has more of her ego invested in her ideology. It is her religion. This is why when leftoids and non-leftoids get in political arguments, it’s typically the non-leftoid making diplomatic half-apologies and concessions. The non-leftoid does not feel as strong an ego attachment to his ideology, because he assesses his value more broadly. The result of this personality difference is an arena of leftoids constantly on the attack, getting their way like children throwing tantrums under the weary authority of amiable parents.

A mocking shiv jab will hurt the leftoid feminist, but it will also cause her to retreat into a shell of platitudinal self-protection, and to ensconce herself in the group hug of trite-minded allies. Better is to flatter the feminist’s self-conception, and when her guard is down to rain a shivstorm of hell upon her vulnerable id. You can stab all day at the hardened ego, but a single killing blow to the id laid bare will send even the most obnoxious femcunts like Amanjaw Marcuntte slinking to dark bedrooms in silent shame and consideration of alternative life paths.

To defeat the leftoid, use their power against them. Shiv on, shiv off.

Filed under: Feminist Idiocy, Psy Ops

Back in 2003, on the Nice Guy Forums, a user by the name of Bonecrcker cranked out a series of posts talking about the true state of American women, and disappeared never to return again. The Nice Guy community quickly took notice and added the posts to their forum’s “Best Of” section (which I can no longer find), so it seems the only place where one can find a fully preserved Book of Bonecrcker is over at the NO MA’AM blog.

To call this guy influential is an understatement – he was a solid decade ahead of his time. He’s also one of the most radical writers on women I’ve ever read. More radical than Roosh or Roissy. The manosphere consists of two parts – it’s dark side and light side, where the light side is focused on self-improvement and progress and the dark side is focused on biting criticism and harsh exposure to the nature and reality of women. The light side’s biggest influences comes from Pook, but the dark side’s biggest influences come from Bonecrcker.

Without further ado, let’s examine some Bonecrcker passages. Keep in mind, I’m posting more than what you can read in just one sitting. I’m showing you a smattering of passages for you to pick and choose through right now.

—

Bonecrker #10 — Women Choosing Scum:

There are two reasons women go after scum… the one they tell themselves and the one that’s true.

The one they tell themselves has to do with the archetype of redemption. Love redeems all things. To a woman, love redeeming a bad man proves the love is real (too bad their love ain’t real, lol). Also, a man who treats everyone poorly but herself, must really love her. This is the biggest crock of bull-ony… but exploiting this sick, sad, self-deception will account for 90% of your free pussy if you live in the US.

Unfortunately, the real reason women dig bad/low quality men is they are bad/low quality themselves. These men have attitudes and behaviours that match their own.

Excitement is supposed to come from risk-taking behaviours that men like to engage in to have fun. But women find bad behavior exciting instead. It’s normal for women to be attracted to men that like sky-diving, mountain climbing, and going off on adventures at the spur of the moment. It’s abnormal for women to be attracted to men that like to beat women, have been in jail, and take drugs. But that’s exactly what’s going on today. All of the losers have all the women they can deal with (hehe, but evil people are bad for you….both ways), while all of the real men do without.

—

BoneCrcker #5 — Women Choosing Losers:

All women say they want a dominant, successful, high status man with enlightened values. It is extremely easy to identify where a man is in the pecking order; by his job, by his dress, by the way he talks and acts and by the way other men treat him. Everyone knows where a man stands.

This includes women, who could easily snap up a man like this who freely advertises if he is available or not.

The problem is that almost no women actually follow through with this behavior. Dominant, successful, high status men with enlightened values are regularly passed up for dangerous, weak, emotionally unstable drug dealers with bad BO and a rap sheet as long as my arm. The younger and more attractive a woman is, the more likely she is to ignore the good men and screw as many of the bad men as she can get her hands on. Not all women do this. Some screw as many fraternity brothers as they can handle a night, just as long as they are drunk/high and treat her like dirt. Any man who doesn’t act this way is labelled a loser, no matter how high status or macho. It’s hilarious, and deeply, deeply sick.

Then, when a woman reaches about age 25, she starts to hunt for a man who is both wealthy and weak willed. Both qualities are very important, because her sole purpose for hunting this man is to attach herself vampire-like onto him and drain him for all he is worth. They continue to screw bad men during the entire marriage. Strong willed men quickly say no to this crapola and move on to the next woman. After a while, they start to wonder if all women are vampires trying to trick them into a bad situation. Certainly they don’t meet anyone who actually cares for him and sincerely wants to be his wife.

Many of our country’s most powerful men are either unmarried, taken to the cleaners by divorce, or are stuck in a marriage that is an obvious lie, often making up for it with dishonourable behaviour. A perfect example of this is Bill Clinton. His wife is an obvious lesbian who only married him because he was going places and could further her own political ambitions (the pay off isn’t always in money, lol).

I’m tempted to say that American women are unable to recognize signs of status, power and high quality in men. But it’s not true. They know full well what the deal is and purposefully choose the weak, psychotic, scum of the earth until they want a meal ticket.

Real men are left without.

—

Bonecrcker #6 – Women Choosing Extinction:

I just downloaded the book, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make The Rules? Excellent book, BTW. It’s filled with all sorts of interesting information.

Here’s a quote that got me to thinking (originally from The Woman That Never Evolved, by Sarah Blaffer Hardy):

“The central organizing principle of primate social life is competition between females and especially female lineages… Females should be, if anything, more competitive than males, not less, although the manner in which females compete may be less direct, less boisterous, and hence, more difficult to measure.”

Normally, women compete fiercely amongst each other for men. Unlike animals, human children take a looooooong time to mature and our most powerful survival ability (our mind) takes significant effort to train and develop. Before the modern era, any woman stupid enough to take a weak, deviant man, who left after sex… died. At the very least, her child had slim to none survival value. Her lineage died out. Normally, women compete for the best men, that competition being intense when they are scarce. One thing they don’t do is willingly have sex with an inappropriate man, unless there absolutely isn’t anyone else. Men also compete for the best women. Or rather, for the status among our peers that attracts the best women. However, since we don’t actually have to bear the children, that competition isn’t as fierce. Survival of our line has less to do with who we choose and more to do with what we do. We (men) compete in who does things best. Women compete in who can get the best man. Men have the option of leaving. A woman who left usually died. That’s the way it’s always been and the way it should be.

But American women aren’t normal. They have absolutely stopped competing for good men. They go out of their way to devalue them. They freely engage in behaviors that result in the extinction of their lineage. They leave. They refuse to raise their children. They engage in infidelity. They choose disposable partners based on deviant behavior. The reason why women seem to be so scarce is not because they have made themselves unavailable but because they have ceased having any interest whatsoever in extending their female lineage to the next generation. There is a natural consequence for that… extinction. The children of these women grow up powerless and feral, with increasingly lower status. Eventually, their lines will disappear.

The question we should be asking ourselves is, are we a valuable prize that would normally be fiercely competed over? If you are healthy, strong, successful, educated and have values that would promote the well being of a family, then that answer is yes. We have been lied to, repeatedly and in a systematic manner. What is interesting is what might happen if you left our abnormal women and went someplace where the women are desperately competing with each other for the best men. Especially if most of the men who live there don’t have these traits. You might come away with a different opinion of where you are in the pecking order.

Food for thought.

—

Bonecrcker #2 – Local vs. Foreign Women:

Men and women are two sides of the same coin. Without each other, there can be no fulfillment and no peace of mind. Together, there islife. This is the way it has been since the very beginning. It is an active thing, not a passive one. It’s not enough for the people to just show up in each others lives. Each of you needs to actively love the other.

Many American men are willing to do this. Almost all American women are not. To make matters worse, these women do not value the men who are willing to love them. Instead, they value the men who couldn’t give a shit about anything. He gets laid constantly and gives nothing to anyone (even himself). Since this type of man is good for nothing and is often a criminal, the last thing he is interested in or is capable of is taking care of a woman or a family. Women are also like this themselves, but pretend they are not. That pretending often extends towards making a phoney marriage and having several children she has no intention of putting any effort into raising. Most of the time, the point of the marriage is to manipulate the system into fleecing a good man of all his possessions…..rinse, repeat, until she gets too old.

This is not normal. For whatever reason, it is a problem endemic to westernized countries but is worst in the US, where our laws seriously enable these behaviours.

What many American men are figuring out though is they don’t have to put up with this. By understanding the problem and its various aspects and, most importantly, the actual depth of the problem, he can avoid most of it, even fight back. The biggest obstacle though, is he is incomplete without a legitimate love in his life. American women use this fact as their greatest source of sinister manipulation. They will dangle the image of this in front of you constantly but never, ever give it to you. The reason is simple: they can’t. Because they can’t, they are completely unacceptable as anything but a casual sexual fling. But one that is constantly trying to do you harm, requiring extreme vigilance and protective measures. Hopping from one loser to the next, in the vain hope that the next one might not be like this is a depressing way to live. Rather than find a rare jewel, most men simply give up after a while and retire from “the game”.

Most men don’t know that this is abnormal. They think all women are like this and have always been this way. That’s a dirty lie. A lie that women in this country foster in an attempt to keep men from looking around. It turns out, that things were never like this for our grandfathers and great grandfathers. It’s a recent problem. More importantly, it’s a localized one.

In large chunks of the world, women aren’t like this. They are the way they are supposed to be. If you bond with one and then love them, they will love you back. Although this is only the bare minimumneeded for a good marriage and a good life, it changes thingsdramatically.

This means that it is a good idea to date a number of women from these places. Because you will find a jewel there eventually. No matter what, you will find a large pool of women who are sincere in their attempts to be with you. Some of these women will be sexually promiscuous. Some of them will be nuns. Most will be somewhere in between. Luckily, sincerely loving women will be common, no matter what she is like elsewise…….because it’s a seperate issue. If you want a nun or a tart, a schoolteacher, a welfare mom or a doctor, you will find someone sincere. Since you will also find the occassional evil person mixed in, you must learn to tell the difference. But the odds are stacked in your favour.

That just doesn’t exist in the US anymore (but it was once the rule, not the exception).

—

Bonecrcker #23 – Bad Boys vs. Alphas:

“Badboys” are pussies, not alpha males. The easiest way to tell if a man is alpha is to observe if he has the respect and cooperation of other men, especially other men in general (i.e. he has power and respect in society, not just socially). You very rarely see a “badboy” meet these criteria. When you do, it’s usually an alpha fooling around to get laid.

Alpha males don’t usually get the chicks. They get the best chick and she tends to stick around and beat the shit out of any other girls who come around.

The multiple sex partner thing is the omega male’s gig. You usually see all sorts of deviant behavior going on in addition to this. Although he is getting laid, he is powerless in relationships as well as every other aspect of his life. No one respects him, not even the psycho chicks who screw him.

Alpha’s get snapped up quickly. Beta males screw a lot early in life while women are competing over them, and then settle down. Omegas can’t form stable relationships. And Zeta males rarely get laid. Most people are betas.

Humans aren’t apes. We have a different mating strategy than them. Women compete for the best man they can get (at a very young age) and then stick with him for life. He sometimes cheats, but not to reproduce. She never cheats. Everyone pairs up. Whenever you see people straying from this paradigm, fucked-upness starts to happen. This is what is happening with women. They are becoming more and more omega. Their clustering around these men is not a normal thing, which is why it is so fucked up in all other ways.

—

Bonecrcker #11 – Women and Racism:

In my experience, racism plays a big part of what’s going on with American women. Several times I have met women whose attraction to men is race based… the more negatively stereotyped, the better. Behind their back, they use racial slurs, even when talking about their partner. You talk to them and it becomes clear that they have strong racist views, usually negative. They are chasing bad men and the racist views colors these men as bad. So, they go after them. It’s a complicated issue, and one that women will test you on to see if you will accept it from them.

For example, there was one stripper I knew. For awhile, she was sizing me up as a potential man. One day, out of the blue, she says this to me, “I’ve been with a lot of black boys.” “Do you think less of me?” My answer to her at the time was, “Of course not.”

But that was the wrong answer. My answer should have been yes. There are several reasons. First of all, she is testing me, not looking for reassurance of her worth. She wants to see if I will accept her in a devalued state. If the answer to that is yes, she loses interest (she did lol) and, at the same time, goes hog wild in the process of devaluing herself further. On the surface, she wants to know if I’m racist. But what she is really saying is she is racist, and a whore to boot. What’s behind her statement is several years of screwing black men, but only from the criminal class of society. She did this in exchange for money and drugs. Certainly she would have no interest in a black man in a 3-piece suit and a law degree. Part of the manipulation has to do with what she means by “black boys.” She means black men from the criminal class of society. But, phrasing it this way is a trap. If you say it devalues her, it seems like something racist (being with black guys devalues you) but, it’s the having sex with men from the criminal class that devalues her. If you say no to this sort of behavior, it implies that you are racist. You’ll see a lot of manipulation along these lines in society, especially with women. They want you to accept deviant behavior by associating it to minorities. Reject the behavior and they act as if you rejected the minority.

You will see this pattern repeatedly with American women… multiple minority partners, sometimes multiple children of mixed racial background. The big lie is that inter-racial couples are now accepted, so people feel free to get together with those they like. But the truth is that racism and fucked-upness are behind most of these relationships (white men with black women; seem to me to be the exception). Look for extreme racist views in one or both of the partners (should be the LAST thing in an inter-racial couple), a history of trading sex for money and drugs, and multiple one night stands, often resulting in children. Like any good lie, there is always a grain of truth in the center to give it credibility. There are lots of legitimate inter-racial marriages. You can tell the legitimate ones by their stability, high degree of education of both partners, and successful career the man has.

Racist views of women are a part of what’s going on.

—

Bonecrcker #94 – Evil, Not Power, Is The Defining Attribute Of Women’s Attraction Toward Deviant Men:

Women aren’t attracted to alpha males and they most certainly have no fear of men. Our society, on every level, goes out of its way to protect them. For most men, harming a woman is taboo.

What a woman wants from a man isn’t for him to be powerful. If this was true than large, strong, rich men with high IQs would be overrun with pussy. Sadly, this isn’t the case. At best, a woman looks for a man like this who is easily manipulated (a rare find) so that she can feed off him during the last stages of her self-destruction. But what women go after with zeal and verve are the losers of our society…..uneducated, drug-using, criminal scum. Are these men powerful? Absolutely not. That’s why they stab you in the back but wouldn’t dare face you man to man. It’s also why they are complete failures in life…..they are weak beyond belief. But, other than being weak these bozos have one thing in common…..they are all evil. And it is that evil that attracts women.

Evil, not power, is the defining attribute of women’s attraction toward deviant men.

—

Bonecrcker #31 – Women Are Sick

Women are sick. They are mentally ill. One of the characteristics of mental illness is stereotyping. What that means is that one woman is sick in exactly the same way as another. You see the same patterns over and over again.

Our culture is involved in a complex scam trying to cover up this situation, particularly from young men. The worst case scenario is the totally oblivious guy who gets himself into a bad situation. However, most guys know something is wrong, but just can’t put their finger on it because of the brainwashing. At first, they figure they just met some wacko and then try again. When the next one turns out just the same, they start to investigate if something is wrong with themselves (pleeeennnty of asshole relationship experts are willing to feed this). After awhile they come to the amazing conclusion that, yes, something is wrong with the entire female population. But they only know that something is wrong. And they don’t know that “something” can be mapped out and understood.

Every time we examine a case, we learn a little more about the specifics of that “something”. Understanding the nature of a thing gives you power over it. Because humans have free will and exercise it in every single facet of our existence, you can never change another. Only they can change themselves, and only by choosing to do so, with no influence possible from anyone or anything. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t get things you need from them or have to put up with their bullshit. Understanding that “something” gives you vital information on how to 1) get what you want and need from women and 2) how to prevent them from causing you undue hardship.

It’s not simple, but it is understandable, reliable and effective.

—

As you can see, Bonecrcker wrote on a wide variety of subjects related to a man’s life in America, and touches upon things that are only recently being discovered. For example, the fact that 25% of American women are mentally ill – Bonecrcker noticed this back in 2003! There are an abnormally large number of women who are dangerous and you should take steps to protect yourself from them.

Bonecrcker touches upon how American women are mostly worthless, and that a man today can only use American women for sex without seriously endangering himself in any way. He plainly states that women’s mating preferences aren’t normal, something I think most American men subconsciously understand, even if they cannot articulate it. Bonecrcker may have been one of the first to touch upon how women use ad-hominem shaming language to get men to conform.

The above work belongs to what I would call a powerful thinker. Don’t forget to read the rest of Bonecrcker here.

Read Next: The Author Who Was The Biggest Influence In The Manosphere

A Rejoinder to Mr. Price’s Rhetorical Query.

What’s wrong with men having equal custody so they can avoid child support? Nothing!

There is nothing wrong with men wanting to actually parent their children, then simply having his role reduced to nothing more than an arbitrary sum imputed from their check every payday, and perhaps some intermittent and infrequent “visits.”

So what’s stopping this? Basically, women on child support or welfare. Well, too bad for them. It would be better for the rest of us – including other women – if for once they didn’t get their way.

Of course.

Problem is, it would be better for the rest of us…but not the folks who constructed this infernal Family Court system in the first place.

They have an entirely different agenda, and “better for the rest of us” got nothing to do with it.

We can quibble about the speculative notions regarding the motives. We can also debate endlessly about WHO is responsible for creating the status quo. This, after all, goes to the heart of the differences between “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy fact.” None of that really matters when you get down to brass tacks.

Regardless of who or why, the fact remains: it is official U.S. Federal Government policy to fund a State Government level, child support collection and enforcement bureaucracy, in all 50 States.

Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, to be more precise.

For those who are not familiar with it, here’s one non-custodial parent who was forced to pay an outrageous monthly sum of family court ordered child support, who researched the act and translates the voluminous legalese into laymen’s terms:

State incentive to collect child support : Bigger piece of Federal funds pie

Yup. CSSD collects child support from the parent who “is not worthy” (words taken from pleading of Timothy Lynn, granted sole legal and physical custody of our child and $5,300 per month to be collected by CSSD for him). California then receives a bigger share of the $483,000,000+ tax-dollar pie disbursed to reward states for collecting from deadbeats…like me… who can not possibly pay the ludicrous child support ordered, and who are denied any access to their own children with no trial by jury or legal representation.

Surprise, surprise, the “deadbeat” non-custodial parent in this case is the mother. From a statistical outlook, she’s an anomaly; an outlier. The exception that proves the rule. But her outrage and sense of injustice are well placed.

The family court system is a machine, one designed specifically to chew up the nuclear family and spit out divorced spouses and children, damaged, dependent and more susceptible to State control. And it was built that way on purpose.

Why else would the Federal Government offer matching fund incentives for State bureaucracies to maximize their child support collections from non-custodial parents?

i.e. – the more they collect, the more the Federal Government gives.

Let’s take a closer look at the matching funds incentive structure for which the Federal Government pays out to the State Government Family Court and Social Services bureaucracies:

The paternity establishment performance level.

The more children born out-of-wedlock for whom a man is identified as “Father” who is then financial liable for support, the more funds the State bureaucracy will receive. In other words, from the perspective of the State bureaucracy, the more children who are born out-of-wedlock and the more men are designated as “IT,” the more matching funds they get.

The support order performance level.

The more Family Court Judges issue support order’s to non-custodial parents, the more funding the State gets from the Federal Government.

The current payment performance level.

The more payments the State’s Child Support Enforcement agency collects from non-custodial parents, the more matching funds they receive.

The arrearage payment performance level.

The more past-due child support payments they can collect from “Deadbeat” non-custodial parents, the more matching funds they receive. Note that there is no negative variable to this infernal equation – i.e. any arrearages they fail to collect – because the non-custodial simply can’t possibly meet the ordered monthly amount – has no bearing on the matching funds. This is why they have no qualms throwing you in jail and letting you rot for being a “deadbeat.” They just have to go out and find more families to destroy and more out-of-wedlock mothers to receive benefits so they can establish paternity and garnish more wages.

The cost–effectiveness performance level

The cost-effectiveness performance level for a State for a fiscal year is equal to the total amount collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part divided by the total amount expended…

That would be an incentive to collect as much child support as possible while spending as little as possible on overhead costs for running the entire Child Support Enforcement bureaucracy. This is one giant incentive to find, designate and order child support payments from as many non-custodial parents as possible.

Taken as a whole, what we have here is a Federal Government that PAYS State Governments to create as many non-custodial parents liable for child support obligations as possible.

There are no financial incentives from the Federal Government that reward State social work bureaucracies to resolve marital differences or reconcile separated couples.

There are no financial incentives from the Federal Government that reward State social work bureaucracies that restore children to two parent homes.

There are no financial incentives from the Federal Government that reward State social work bureaucracies that act with reason, temperance of compassion in reviewing the personal and financial situation of non-custodial parents charged with child support obligations . It’s pay the imputed income judgement or go to jail.

There are no financial incentives from the Federal Government that reward State social work bureaucracies for discouraging divorces, nor resolving child custody disputes.

But most of all, and in answer to our venerable site host and founder’s rhetorical question, There are no financial incentives from the Federal Government that reward State social work bureaucracies to support equal custody arrangements for which no money can be taken from a non-custodial parent and paid out to a custodial parent, so that matching funds can be paid out by the Federal Government to fund the Family Court bureaucracy.

In other words, the real answer to the question “What’s wrong with Men having equal custody to avoid child support?” is that hundreds of thousands of jobs, careers and livelihoods of the people who make up the work force of the Family Court bureaucracies and Family Law professions in all 50 States, depends on a steady supply of divorces and out-of-wedlock births so that matching funds from the Federal Government can fund the Child Support Enforcement regime.

It is a beast designed to feast and grow on the most personal level of the citizenry and the foundation of civilized society – the family.

And they’re making us all pay for it, since all those Federal matching funds come from the Federal Government budget which is either collected as taxes from we the sheeple, or borrowed from the Federal Reserve System, so that we are indebted in perpetuity to fund this ghastly leviathan designed specifically and deliberately to devour the traditional Patriarchal-modeled family.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

Long-time readers from the days of my old blog, The Woman and the Dragon, may remember Joseph of Jackson, who learned some aspects of game and then taught this information to some of the men in his church (for the purpose of finding wives, not for pick up artistry), for which he was eventually excommunicated.  I was so pleased to receive an email from him yesterday that I asked his permission to share it with my readers, which he granted.  On the topic of my last post, Why are we pedestalizing “red pill” women?,  he writes:

Mary,

Long time since we talked last. I have long ago given up commenting in the manosphere, but I wanted to include some thoughts for you that you may or may not find useful.

To begin, I need to cover human beings as a group first.

To that end, I would state that mankind is tribal by nature. We break off into small groups for protection and unless you have been raised in an environment that is centralized, people generally prefer remaining tribal. It’s all over our subconscious likes and dislikes if you know what to look for. To anyone who lives in America and enjoys the Andy Griffith Show, you are witnessing a yearning for a tribal society. One in which you know everyone, and everyone knows you. Where your specific gifts are genuinely unique because there aren’t enough people for your gifts to go to waste.

A biblical example of this is the nation of Israel. Before they begged God for a king and He tried to talk them out of it, God arranged the nation of Israel into tribes. They lasted like this with only God and His Word as their central authority for a VERY long time.

Why do I bring this up? Because Team Woman is a manifestation of this. Women inherently will be living in an environment where they will need to be able to function together with other women in spite of the fact that those same women are in competition with them for a man. I have no clue if this is a bug brought on by sin, or a feature as there was only one woman mentioned before sin.

So now to the crux of the matter. Men are looking for options in dealing with this. They are limited and (in some cases) quite disturbing to the average Christian. We as men on the internet are attempting to build a nation. This is very different from a tribe, which is our default mode. In order for there to be a nation, you have to have a governing body. A group of men who hold leadership and work together to establish guidelines that the others will follow. Simply put, this isn’t going to happen on the internet for the manosphere. The greatest strength of the manosphere, our decentralization, is also our greatest weakness. We simply cannot turn into a movement under the current conditions.

Because of this, Christian men in the manosphere simply must begin to think tribally. Take the ideas that are espoused here and go out to change the world immediately around you. Get like-minded men together and teach them to precepts that you have learned as a man. Create a tribal culture at your local church that is led by men. Because if you don’t do this, women will begin to dominate the discourse.

Women talk, a LOT. It is their tool of choice for most things. And here we are, as men, using the primary tool of women to try and enact change and we wonder why we can’t get any real traction going.

[Some men] are genuinely surprised that red pill women behave this way. They believed they had found some trustworthy women and the pedestalization phase began all over again. You can see that although they understand alpha traits, and in some cases use them, they are just as prone as any man to falling back into beta thinking. The only true defense we men have against this is a culture that will not tolerate it. If it is considered the respectable thing to do to keep women quiet and in submission then that is what men will do. We don’t have that culture online.

I have been building this culture at my local church. Eighteen men so far have joined me to learn how women work. As part of this process, they have come to trust in Christ more because that old idol of women they loved has fallen. We work together to keep each other accountable. We work like a tribe, a tribe called a church. God showed us the way back in the Old Testament.

It’s hilarious to me to watch the women in my current church now. The most attractive men tell them to be quiet and they don’t get all huffy about it. They shut up. We have begun to churn out attractive men because that is the culture we are building. One where men don’t listen to women for ANY form of guidance outside of private talking. You would be amazed. I made it clear that women who wear stripper heels are not welcome to join me and my friends for lunch. Word has begun spreading around the church that stripper heels are not going to be allowed in the future, and the deacons are voting on it in two weeks. This is how the church is supposed to function. The pastor isn’t sure what to do. The women complained on fathers day because he was speaking down to the men in his sermon. We hold all the cards in this church now. The “leadership” of the church has changed hands. The men are becoming more Christlike by the day. They refuse to put women on pedestals and require them to remain silent while in church. (Shaun actually told his girlfriend to leave the sanctuary if she wasn’t going to shut up.) The women have no choice but to comply. The men aren’t leaving them any outs.

You want to know how we can get past the pedestal as Christian men? Simple, all these Christian men who visit these blogs need to go become alpha in their churches. Once that is done, reinstate the tribe. We are the Children of Israel and we are all different tribes. If you can’t fix the problem globally, fix it where you can. I promise the women will follow. When you’re dealing with attractive, responsible, and powerful men, it’s what they do.

Thanks,

JOJ

One of the best things that the Church could do would be to require women to remain silent in the sanctuary.  It is nothing short of amazing that once the men in Joseph’s new church decided to act together to insist on constraining the women’s behavior, the women fell in line!  But it doesn’t really surprise me.  The way that women have taken over the church strikes me as one gigantic fitness test.

Women: do you want to help the cause of Christ?  You don’t need a MDiv degree.  You don’t need to “go into ministry”.  You need to obey God and your husband.  Stop prancing around in front of the congregation.  Sit down, cover your head, and shut up.

And to the men: Joseph’s story demonstrates that you have so much more power than you realize.  If Christian men would abandon Team White Knight and establish such a tribal culture as JoJ describes, feminism in the church would shrivel away.  Feminism can only thrive when men are discouraged and believe themselves to be powerless to stop it.

My gratitude to Joseph on the update.  Newer readers may want to read these three posts for more information on what Joseph has learned from his experiences.

A reader asks: Why do women reject their husbands after they have children?

A reader teaches some aspects of “game” to men in his church and now faces possible expulsion. Please pray for him.

If you challenge femDOM churchianity, the White Knights will attack: an update on Joseph of Jackson.

All that preparation for real-life scenarios down the tubes:

Months of painstaking planning had gone into the exercise, dubbed "Operation Urban Shield," meant to train dozens of detectives in the Greater Boston area to work together to thwart a terrorist threat. The hypothetical terrorist group was even given a name: Free America Citizens, a home-grown cadre of militiamen whose logo would be a metal skull wearing an Uncle Sam hat and a furious expression, according to a copy of the plans obtained by the Boston Globe.

But two months before the training exercise was to take place, the city was hit with a real terrorist attack executed in a frighteningly similar fashion. The chaos of the Boston Marathon bombings disrupted plans for the exercise...

Related.

If you are newish around here, this is a one-paragraph summary of one of the main narratives of the manosphere:

Young women want to spend their late teens and twenties messing around with a string of attractive men (alphas).  Because men will “date down” in terms of attractiveness when it’s just casual sex and not commitment, the women develop an over-inflated sense of what level of man they can attract, so they are unwilling to “settle” for men who are truly at their same level of attractiveness (assortive mating).  Once the women hit their thirties, they stop being able to attract the hottest guys and start to worry that they will never be able to get married.  Baby rabies kick in and they start earnestly looking for a man to marry.  They end up having to settle for someone who is less attractive than the men they previously had.  After the children are born, the women kick their beta provider husbands to the curb and resume their alpha chasing ways.

I accepted this narrative on faith when I first heard it, but sometimes I wondered, “Is it true?  It seems true from what I see around me, but I never hear actual confirmation of this from women, and I’m sure they would never admit it even if they had the self-awareness to realize it.”  Yet lately, it seems like modern women aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.  They really do just want to chase hot guys who won’t marry them until they hit The Wall in their thirties and then swing into a quick in-and-out marriage to get that baby, and apparently they have more self-awareness about what they are doing than I give them credit for.   The Bitter Babe explains:

I went to a ping pong party this weekend and ran into an old acquaintance of mine whom I have always liked. She is a restless spirit who never seemed to stay in one job or relationship for long, but soon after getting divorced, she married again in her late thirties and had a child. I was privy to the baby pictures over Facebook while I was living across the country, but I was puzzled at the quickie marriage.

The child is a cute toddler now, but the woman is divorced. She said the marriage was motivated by her wanting a baby, but it’s actually easier to raise the child now, because she and the father can spell each other. Oddly enough my divorced friend in L.A. told me the exact same thing. This woman is now working full-time, but despite being exhausted, doesn’t mind it. She said she preferred being at work than at home full-time when her child was an infant– that was harder for her.

The solipsism is breath-taking.  This friend of hers didn’t want a husband.  She wanted sperm.  She didn’t want to go the donor route because she wanted to have someone to “spell” her from the horribleness of actual parenting.  She apparently didn’t even want the baby per se, given that she preferred being at work to being with her child.  I guess she just wanted to check off the motherhood box and didn’t want an illegitimate child.

I wonder if her ex-husband knew what he was signing up for.  What are the odds that she told him as clearly as she told The Bitter Babe that she was only there to get pregnant and snag a co-parent?  It’s theoretically possible, I suppose, but unlikely.  The baby’s need to be raised in a two-parent home certainly didn’t factor into the equation; all that matters to her is the relief she feels in being able to ditch the kid with her ex-husband sometimes.

It’s one thing to accept the basic manosphere narrative on faith.  It’s far more disheartening to hear it confirmed from women’s own mouths.

An editorial in the UK Independent rejects the notion that different sexual mores in different times means that people shouldn’t be held to today’s standards for what they did half a century ago.

The revulsion that attended the revelation of Jimmy Savile’s six-decade career of sexual predation is, in some quarters at least, giving way to weariness, even scepticism. As Operation Yewtree proceeds – and the list of long-standing media favourites accused of “historic” offences grows ever longer – the horror over Savile is turning to talk of witch-hunts and “things being different then”.

Such complaints are as invidious as they are absurd. Not only is there no reason – legal or moral – for such crimes to “expire”, particularly given the trauma that often results. Rape, sexual assault and child abuse were just as illegal in the 1960s as they are today. The times might indeed have been more “permissive” – for which read misogynist. But while that may explain why such behaviour went unchecked, it can neither excuse nor render it less criminal.

I’m not sure that Savile was ever tried for anything, so whether his acts were criminal under today’s laws – not to mention those of the 1960s – is an open question.

The editorial dismisses the idea that there is any issue of ex post facto prosecution; that is, throwing someone in jail for something that was not a crime at the time, but is now. Naturally, this could apply to all sorts of things. Say an 85-year-old woman had spanked her kids with a wooden spoon back in the 1950s (common back then), and today we went after her for child abuse. Would that be fair?

So, if a 70-year-old man had a consensual fling with a 16-year-old girl back in the 70s when he was 30, when it was culturally tolerated, should he be prosecuted for it today? The editorial suggests that it was a crime back then, but this is unclear. Was it, really? If so, was it considered rape and punishable by imprisonment? Even if it was, is it proper to prosecute for something that happened so long ago?

The Indepedent says yes, it was a terrible crime and should be prosecuted. But we aren’t talking about genocide here, or murder, or even maiming. We’re talking about grown men behaving like pigs, to be sure, but it strikes me as the height of hypocrisy for those in power today, many of whom participated in this orgy of free love back then, often politicizing free sex in those days as a way to destroy the old order (which it did) to turn around and hold what amounts to show trials of their old sex partners to consolidate their authority.

Lest anyone forget, feminists were full participants in the free love culture of the 1960s and 70s. Gloria Steinem, for example, promoted feminism by saying that it meant men would get lots of sex. Feminists shamelessly used sex with powerful men to get ahead. Steinem slept with Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton’s affairs were given a free pass by the National Organization of Women, and promiscuity, enabled by chemical contraceptives, was said to be “liberating.”

Some feminists opposed pornography, but that’s only because they saw no profit from it — what good does it do if the men are ignoring the women around them in favor of images? And that, I suspect, is the reason for the recent change of heart about 1970s mores. The feminists in power today gain no profit from sex of any kind, because nobody wants to have sex with them any longer, so they have totally rejected the freewheeling standards of their youth. The affairs and flings they used to rely on to pry favors from older men are a thing of the past, and now must be retroactively condemned, because they are a threat to their current power. It’s time now to keep the men in line, and keep them away from tempting young things, because the women in charge today are neither young nor tempting.

There is nothing “moral” about it — it is purely cynical self-interest.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

Notice the emphasis on "reliable?"  I've written about it before, but an epiphany just dawned on me as I'm currently reading Roosh's "The Best of Roosh" and I think this epiphany holds water.

A common obseravtion or "belief" in the world o' men is that 20% of the men "trap" or "monopolize" 80% of the women.  This 80/20 rule is based on the theory that the majority of women (80%)want to date "up" and so the majority of women will only agree to date the minority (20%) of men, leaving the majority of men, womanless.  It is perhaps not a theory as I do recall a college study (that I cannot find right now)  where they lined up a group of male and female college students and found out the majority of men were willing to go out with the majority of women, but the women were much choosier, ONLY willing to settle for the top 20 or 25% of men.  Regardless, the point is one of "prohibition."  A minority of men essentially prohibit the majority of men from attracting women because the majority of women will only settle for the cream of the crop.

But as nature (or god or whatever you want to believe in) would have it, there is a built-in balance of powers giving no creature nor sex a true and absolute advantage over the other.  Enter in the attractive AND RELIABLE woman.

While the majority of college girls will only settle for the top minority of men, they do not realize that the majority of men will not settle for them.  Oh sure, they might go on a date, they may have a night of hey-hey-hey in the hay, but they will not marry them.  Not only because they don't want to, but polygamy is outlawed.  So mathematically one "top man" can only take out "one woman" and usually they're going to insist she's a top dame as well.  This still leaves the majority of women unattached.

However, while this game of attrition is happening, understand something else is happening.  A minority of women, perhaps with a little bit more foresight and maturity, are starting to size up potential marriage candidates.  And while they may like the top 20% of men, they are happy to settle for the next quintile of men in the 40-20% range who have perhaps maybe more to offer than ripped pecks.  Also other women maybe not the most beautiful of them are, are also thinking with a little foresight, snatching up the next quintile.  And before you know it the top three quintiles or 60% of men are off the market.

In short what is happening is the opposite.  A minority of women (20% ) are keeping a majority of men (80%) off the marriage market, prohibiting other women from accessing them.  How do these women do this?  Because they have one trait the majority of women don't have - they're reliable.

Understand good and great men are not going to settle for an average or poor woman.  Sure, we might date you, sure there's always the hey hey hey in the hay, but marriage?  Commitment?  Sorry, that requires adult maturity, responsibility, reliability, and truthfully the vast majority of women don't have that.  This gives that minority of women who DO have the combination of reliability AND attractiveness a HUGE advantage over their pretty, but flaky counterpart.

The girl who shows up reliably at the agreed-upon time is one step closer to capturing a guy long term.

The girl who makes dinner and doesn't spew some kind of feminist doctrine is one step closer to capturing a guy long term.

The girl who supports herself, pays her rent, and manages a positive net worth with no subsidy from daddy or the state is one step closer to capturing a guy long term.

And though anecdotal, my girlfriend, though not a 10, snatched me from the clutches of

• a GM car model
• a top notch salsa queen
• a scorching hot (and equally promiscuous) Minnesota blond
• and other various 9's and 10's

because the woman showed up on time, did what she said she was going to do, made me lasagna without me asking, and promptly obeyed when I told her to get dolled up in lingerie.

And thus, the 20% of reliable and pretty early bird women who display

responsibility
reliability
adult behavior
professionalism
and a HINT of selflessness

get 80% of the proverbial worm.

However, there is a flaw in this analogy as only ONE reliable and pretty woman can take out only ONE man on the marriage market.  THus it isn't so much an 80/20 rule as much as it is a pecking order.  A solid 7 or 8 who is on time and doesn't play games will find a quality man loooong before her drama queen entitled 9 or 10 does.  A solid 6 or 7 who doesn't flake on a date at the last minute will get a husband long before her mind-game playing 8 or 9 counterpart does.  And while these savvy and reliable women pick the best away from the 3rd and 2nd quintile of men, after a decade of pursuing the top 20% of men (but never getting one) the 80% of women now have to choose from the bottom 40%.

Ah, equilibrium.  What a wonderful natural concept.

Of course there's howls and whinings about "where have all the good men gone" and "why can't I find a maaaaaannnnn!?" but I, and most other guys, don't care.  Reliable, responsible and attractive women have already sniped us out of the market and now you can have whatever remains.  Just remember the time you shot down the guys who wanted to salsa dance.

If you Google-translate other Swedish language reports in internet-based newspaper Fria Tider ("Free Times") you'll realize that this is not satire:

...while the Stockholm riots keep spreading and intensifying, Swedish police have adopted a tactic of non-interference. "Our ambition is really to do as little as possible," Stockholm Chief of Police Mats Löfving explained to the Swedish newspaper Expressen on Tuesday.

"We go to the crime scenes, but when we get there we stand and wait," elaborated Lars Byström, the media relations officer of the Stockholm Police Department. "If we see a burning car, we let it burn if there is no risk of the fire spreading to other cars or buildings nearby. By doing so we minimize the risk of having rocks thrown at us."

h/t

Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Romans 12:15

Before beginning my career as a housewife, I used to work as a speech-language pathologist in a poor, urban school district.  One of the children on my caseload was a seven-year-old boy whom we’ll call DeShawn.  One day DeShawn did something very unwise; he brought an air pistol to school in his backpack and showed it to his friends, who immediately told the recess aid.    You can imagine what ensued.

The next day our principal, a middle-aged hispanic man with a serious no-nonsense attitude, called a meeting with the teacher, the mother (who couldn’t be bothered to show up), and the special ed staff to decide What To Do About DeShawn.  Of course, there really wasn’t much to decide.  Students who bring a weapon to school are almost always expelled for an extended period of time, but knowing what I knew about the child’s home life, I intended to advocate strongly that he not be expelled.

At the meeting I argued, I cajoled, I begged, and I pleaded, but my pleas fell on the principal’s deaf ears.  Finally, in exasperation, I burst into tears.  He was sympathetic, patting my shoulder and passing me the tissues.  I perked up a bit, hoping he’d relent, but no dice.  DeShawn was expelled for the rest of the year (for more on lessons I learned at that job, please see An anecdote supporting female disenfranchisement).

Apparently my tearful entreaties placed me in good company.    From an interview with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg by Seema Chowdhry, published in Live Mint (the Indian version of The Wall Street Journal) on Friday:

Ms. Chowdrhy: You say that it is okay to cry at work. In fact, you even mention that you have cried on Mark Zuckerberg’s shoulder at work. “Sharing emotions build deeper relationships,” but what is the cutoff point?

Mrs. Sandberg: You know I talk in the book about bringing your whole self to the work, and with that I mean that I don’t really believe that we are one type of person, Monday through Friday, 9-to-5, and then a different type of person in the nights and weekends. I think we are, all of us, emotional beings and it’s okay for us to share that emotion at work. I have also said I cry at work. Now, it’s not the best practice. I am not recommending that if anyone wants to get promoted, then go out and cry. What I am recommending is that as we think about being good colleagues, being good workers, being good employers, we ask people “how do you feel”, not just how you think because so many of our decisions are based on how we feel.

When I tried to use my feelings to make a decision at work, I was treated sympathetically by my male superior, but my feelings did not change his decision, which was a very reasonable one.  I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg’s tear-bedewed shoulder swayed his decision.

Mrs. Sandberg uses her feelings to make decisions as the COO of Facebook, and she says that is okay for all of us to do, but I think the first time a sobbing man shares his emotions at work, unless it has to do with someone’s death, he’ll be labeled creepy, strange and weak.  I am trying to imagine a male subordinate weeping on his female boss’ shoulder and having that somehow be okay with everyone involved, but I just can’t seem to.

This isn’t just my conservative, patriarchalist, traditional sex-roles bent, either.  Remember this?

Liberals made fun of Speaker Boehner relentlessly for his sniffling, so much so that finally one liberal journalist noticed that they were violating their own stated feminist beliefs that men and women are exactly the same and that men should get in touch with their feminine, emotional side.

Mrs. Sandberg is subtly encouraging women to do this because crying is one way that women manipulate men.  It makes women seem a bit helpless, and it brings out the protective side of men.

In his essay The Crying Game, Rollo Tomassi quotes one of his readers, Hero, who wrote:

A conclusion I’ve come to in the past couple years is: a woman crying gets support while a man crying gets shunned.

A woman crying is still biologically valuable. She still has a vagina and a uterus. She could still successfully carry and care for a child. Thus she is embraced and supported by the tribe.

A man crying is a liability. His crying will alert the predatory animals and invading gangs to his position. His distress is actually a problem for the tribe.

It is a blatant lie that feminism is about creating equality. We have been misled into thinking that men should emote and talk about their feelings. Very few people in a man’s life will give a sh-t when he is going through a rough time in his life.

Women are afforded vast support and provisions that men will never know.

Rollo concludes:

Also, it’s important to mention women’s preferred method of communication, that is to say covert. When a woman cries she’s moving into an overt form of communication she knows will register with men, and this is usually the result of her having exhausted all her covert utilities. When women opt for overt communication it generally means one or two things have occurred: 1) she has reached the point of exasperation using covert means to convey her message, or 2) she has reached a point of desperation in her condition and needs the visceral response men will react to in order to defend and/or empathize with her (often in spite of herself).

Sandberg tells women to cry at work but couches her suggestion in feminist-approved gender-neutral language, as if she might be speaking to men, too.  In reality, she is only speaking to women, advising them to use an age-old method employed by women to get what they want from men.  It’s one thing to get a little weepy with one’s own husband, who has more leeway in dealing with one’s emotionalism; it’s another thing entirely to turn on the waterworks at work, where employees are expected to keep their emotions from interfering with productivity.   If she can’t keep her emotions in check, a woman ought not to be there in the first place.  And if she can keep her emotions under control but chooses not to, she is engaging in manipulation along the same lines as a woman who wears a low-cut blouse and high heels in order to get ahead.

In a previous thread, I remarked:

It’s got to feel as bad for men as it does for women to continue in this feminist charade that we are all playing.

And Farm Boy responded:

You will never know…

Women hate it.  Men hate it.  Why do we keep playing?

The second wave feminism of the 1960s and 1970s was begun by a small group of highly dysfunctional and mentally unstable women; for example, both Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem have written quite a bit about being either abused or neglected as children.  Friendan’s book “The Feminine Mystique” supposedly gave voice to what millions of women were feeling – dissatisfaction with being wives and mothers and a yearning to have careers of their own.  Her book “The Second Stage” discusses the “need” for both men and women to break free from traditional sex roles.

Everyone went along with it.  Women began jumping on board slowly but surely, and yet happiness levels have declined for women as feminism has become pervasive.  The more feminism we get, the more we “free” ourselves from our God-given sex roles, the unhappier everyone is.  Women are really conflicted because they believe they should be feminists and careerists, so they play career for a little while until they can finally settle into being the traditional wives and mothers that they have always really wanted to be.  They want to claim to be feminists, but they don’t really want to have the drudgery of a full-time career for the rest of their lives.  Instead, they want to do what women have always done – care for their families – but they feel ashamed of this desire and this shame makes them behave badly.

For some men, feminism has been just peachy keen, especially third-wave sex-positive feminism.  If you are a natural alpha with no religious convictions, there has never been a better time to be alive.  You can swim in a veritable sea of willing women who have thrown all sexual restraint to the wind.  There is no requirement to get married and support a family; after all, women said they wanted to support themselves, and these men took them at their word.  And why shouldn’t they have?

I didn’t realize this until the last six months because I was operating under the apex fallacy, but for other men, the feminist destruction of traditional sex roles hasn’t been quite so fun.  These men would have preferred to find a wife and have a traditional marriage, but sex positive feminism has unleashed the inner slut in women at large by unchaining their hypergamy, turning them into thrill-addicts and rendering them nearly unable to honor a relationship commitment with an average sort of man.

For all men, the push to feminize them and socialize them to believe that their natural masculine tendencies are bad has created a generation of boys who don’t feel like society cares about them or needs them.   Feeling unnecessary and unappreciated feels horrible to anyone but is particularly poisonous to men.

Women have taken on more masculine roles, even though only a small minority of us really want to do that.  Most of us, deep down, really would prefer to be the girl in the relationship.  Despite what we hear from Sheryl Sandberg and Warren Buffet, our modern day versions of Betty Friedan, most women want to put their families before their careers.

How did we get to this point?  The Abilene paradox perfectly describes it.  For those who don’t know:

The Abilene paradox is a paradox in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of any of the individuals in the group. It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group’s and, therefore, does not raise objections.

Here is the classic story which illustrates the Abilene paradox:

On a hot afternoon visiting in Coleman, Texas, the family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a trip to Abilene [53 miles north] for dinner. The wife says, “Sounds like a great idea.” The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, “Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go.” The mother-in-law then says, “Of course I want to go. I haven’t been to Abilene in a long time.”

The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad as the drive. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted.

One of them dishonestly says, “It was a great trip, wasn’t it?” The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. The husband says, “I wasn’t delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you.” The wife says, “I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that.” The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.

The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon.

The problem is that a small group of sick women said, “Hey, we hate it here, so let’s all go to Abilene instead.”  And everyone else, who were by and large perfectly happy where they were, didn’t want to rock the boat and said, “Well…okay.  I guess.”  Unfortunately, you don’t any longer have much of a choice about going to Abilene; you pretty much have to go now, whether you want to or not.  But we need to stop saying it’s okay and that we want to go.

We don’t want to go to Abilene.  Most of us want to enjoy our natural sex roles.  We’re happy to be feminine if we are women.  We’re pleased to be masculine if we are men.  And we want to be with other people who don’t seem to hate their sex and who aren’t constantly trying to make themselves more like the opposite sex.  We need to be that voice that says No thanks! to continuing down the road to Abilene; by speaking up, we allow others to voice their desire not to go to Abilene on the feminist short bus either.