Tag: women

Solipsism as national security

Kathleen Parker offers further evidence in support of the dire need to end women’s suffrage:

Women, and by extension children, suffer what too many have come to accept as “collateral damage” in theaters of war. We hate it, of course, but what can one do? It isn’t in our strategic interest to save the women and children of the world. Or, as an anonymous senior White House official recently told The Post:

“Gender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities. There’s no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, no stranger to the importance of advancing women’s rights, promptly repudiated the comment. Even so, the anonymous spokesman’s opinion, though inartfully expressed, is hardly isolated.

But what if this is a false premise? What if saving women from cultures that treat them as chattel was in our strategic and not just moral interest? What if helping women become equal members of a society was the most reliable route to our own security?

The problem, of course, is that it is not. Parker might as reasonably have asked what if buying women rainbow-striped unicorns was in our strategic interest or if buying vibrators for Libyan women was the most reliable route to American national security. I would very much like to know who actually pays this woman for her opinion, as I’m quite confident that one could find a Labrador puppy whose columns would be a) more intelligent, b) more interesting, and c) less expensive than the gynocentric drivel Parker has on offer.

Granted, every column would concern how it is a vital national interest to feed Labradors more raw meat, or alternatively, how it is a national disgrace that Labradors are only fed 60 percent of the amount of raw meat given to Rottweilers, but how is that substantially different from what most female op/ed writers produce anyhow?

Does this moronic female seriously wish to argue that women and children suffer more than men do in times of war? They may suffer more of the collateral damage, but only because the whole purpose of the intentional damage is to kill the enemy men. How many women and children died at Salamanca or Gettysburg? The last time I read something this stupidly myopic, it was an old joke about the New York Times: “Asteroid to end all life on Earth, women, blacks to suffer most.”

But even worse than the total ignorance of military history is the idea that equality, at home or abroad, is in the American national interest. America has been lethally weakened by the equalitarian dogma; there would be no need for the 30 million immigrants that are presently dismantling the social fabric if 30 million American children murdered by their mothers had lived. “Saving” women by enforcing Western equalitarian dogma is not only not in our strategic interest, it quite clearly isn’t in our moral interest either.

Women may not be pet rocks, but Kathleen Parker is clearly less intelligent than a box of them.

180 seconds

That’s all you’ve got:

The average female spends 180 seconds sizing up a man’s looks and fashion sense as well as appraising his scent, accent and eloquence, the Daily Mail reports. Women are also quick to judge how a man interacts with her friends and whether or not he is appropriately successful or ambitious. The study found women are reluctant to change their minds about a man and are likely to believe ‘they are always right’ in their judgements.

If you’ve only got three minutes before you are judged, you had better be sure to make the most of the time allotted. And in Alpha Mail, PC asks how to educate his young daughters in a Game-informed manner.

Why women don’t want nice guys

A woman provides twelve reasons:

Not real: Nice guys are too nice. No one can always be that nice unless they’re a saint. They are busy being nice instead of being real and women instinctually don’t trust that. Bad boys “keep it real”. Nice guys don’t want to upset the apple cart.

Respect: No one respects a doormat. Nice guys don’t set boundaries or make any real demands. A bad boy doesn’t let a woman walk all over him or control him. Women can’t respect a man they can control. No respect = No attraction.

Predictable: Most people lead boring, predictable lives, so they’re attracted to people who are exciting and a bit unpredictable. Bad boys are always a challenge. Nice guys are never a challenge. Predictable + No excitement + No challenge = I prefer a bad boy.

I think there is another, more important reason that young women in particular tend to prefer bad boys that is omitted from this otherwise extensive list. When women just want to “have fun” and are not in a relationship-seeking mode, they will tend to avoid sexual relations with men they believe will be inclined to push them for a more lasting relationship. They know the bad boy won’t stick around, which is not the downside that it is usually assumed to be, but is actually a large part of his attraction for them. And better yet, the bad boy can quite convincingly be blamed for not sticking around afterwards, so that the woman is subsequently able to absolve herself of any blame for the relationship failing to go anywhere.

The amusing thing is the way in which women often attempt to hide their casual flings with the bad boys from both their female friends and the men who are potential long-term relationship material alike.

Don’t marry this woman

Women like this are really out there.

“I’ll come right out and say it: Children repulse me. They frighten me. They make me anxious. Babies all look the same, and they are all ugly. Toddlers are praised for doing ordinary things like speaking and waving. Children have a comment and a question about everything…Each stage of development brings with it new things to annoy me.

Don’t marry this one either.

A feminist defense of spanking women

Valerie Curnow argues for the female right to initiate violence:

I have to admit: I don’t think that a woman hitting a man is the same thing as a man hitting a woman. Don’t get me wrong: I’m anti-domestic violence (physical and emotional), or any violence for that matter, but I just don’t believe that if a woman hits a man, the ramifications are the same as when the reverse happens.

Now, I’m not talking about slugging your boyfriend or husband with a brass-knuckled left hook. Or smashing him over the head with a portrait painting. Or bludgeoning him with a blunt object. Obviously these acts are wrong, violent, and possibly a felony. I don’t mean pulling a Lorena Bobbitt or a Phil Hartman’s wife or a Francine Hughes in The Burning Bed (although the latter was found not guilty by a jury of her peers). I’m not talking about drawing blood, using lethal weapons, or murder. I’m talking more about smacks and slaps to the upper-body region when a gentlemen is behaving badly: Shoulders, chest, that kind of thing.

If Curnow believes that “smacks and slaps” are acceptable when an adult is behaving badly so long as no serious physical damage is delivered, then clearly she should have no problem whatsoever endorsing men administering spankings to adult women. After all, a spanking doesn’t have the same ramifications as a punch to the jaw. What Curnow is arguing, although she clearly doesn’t realize it, is that it’s okay for a man to strike a woman so long as he doesn’t do her any actually injury.

Of course, we’ll need some sort of guideline on what sort of spankings are permissible. Perhaps a limitation on the spanking rod to about the width of the man’s thumb?

A lesson in equality

In which coma girl teaches an object lesson in equality and the wisdom of not initiating physical violence:

A father-of-two accused of punching a woman so hard in a dispute over a parking space that she now she lays in a coma is claiming that she threw the first punch, and that he was acting in self-defence. The altercation took place on February 25 when 4ft 11in, 100 pound Lana Rosas, 25, was standing in the space she was saving for her boyfriend on 14th street in New York’s East Village and refused to let 35-year-old, 150-pound Oscar Fuller park there. The argument that followed left Rosas lying in the street unconscious with blood pouring from her mouth. She has been in a coma at Bellevue Hospital ever since the February 25 incident….

Manhattan prosecutors said in court papers that Fuller hit Rosas ‘with so much force that the woman flew off of her feet, was knocked unconscious and hit her head on the ground.’

Obviously, there is no way to know exactly what happened unless there is security camera footage, but if Fuller’s version of events is accurate, he deserves to be fully exonerated and Rosas should be charged with assault upon her recovery. Assuming that Fuller was, in fact, attacked by the woman and punched several times in the face, he did absolutely nothing wrong or illegal in throwing a single punch at his attacker, however hard it might have been. No one feels any sympathy for a smaller man who is dumb enough to start a fight he can’t finish and there should be absolutely none for a woman who does exactly the same thing. Conversely, if Fuller punched Rosas for simply attempting to hold the parking place, he should be found guilty of the count charged. But the fact that he is only facing a single count of second-degree assault despite the seriousness of the woman’s injuries tends to indicate that at least part of Fuller’s story is supported by the evidence.

And for all those would-be women warriors out there, notice that this was a relatively fair fight between the sexes as Fuller is a little guy who only outweighed Rosas by 50 pounds. It’s not as if he was a 250-pound construction worker; if he had been, Rosas would likely be dead already. Tough girl posturing and fantasies about female martial prowess notwithstanding, women simply are not capable of winning serious physical altercations with men, even with men who are physically smaller than they are. Ignorance has consequences and the consequences can be deadly.

The way to prevent these sorts of stupid tragedies from taking place is not to continue attempting to brainwash boys with outdated nonsense by telling them “you should never hit a girl”. All that does is to destroy adult credibility in young male eyes as boys will inevitably notice that despite all the equality talk, girls are very seldom punished for hitting them, even when unprovoked. The answer is to teach everyone, boys and girls alike, not to initiate physical violence. Both men and women must understand that no one has any right to attack another individual without the expectation of facing violent retaliation.

The more distasteful that a woman finds the idea of men beating down women in response to being attacked, the more she should be committed to telling women not to attack men. After all, how hard is it to not physically attack someone, especially someone bigger, stronger, and faster than you are? It is long past time for women to understand that they lost the privilege to be considered off-limits to retaliatory violence the moment they collectively demanded legal equality with men.

Future Cat Ladies of America

I have read that it is possible to determine if a child will end up psychopathic as early as the age of three. This video appears to suggest that spinsterhood can be detected as early as five:

The video comes by way of Susan Walsh, who wryly anticipates the need to talk some sense into the girl in 15 years, even at the risk of costing humanity some very special Powerpoint slideshows. But the soliloquy does serve as a helpful reminder of the childish nature of the idea that women can do anything more useful, special, or important than that minor matter of perpetuating the human race.

No place for cowards

Marriage is no place for cowards. No woman wants to be married to a man she can intimidate, even if she tries from time to time. Men have to realize that if they want to have a happy home, they have to be a man about facing up to conflict.

Remember the old saying, “Home is Where the Heart is?” That only applies if you relish being in your home in the first place. And that ‘aint gonna happen if you live every waking moment in your home, fearful of upsetting your wife. Lying to her to try and avoid upsetting her only makes it worse, because even if you don’t consciously realize it, you will hate yourself for living a lie.

Home is supposed to be your sanctuary. Your place to rest, relax, and recharge, so that you can get ready to go out and face the world another day…knowing you can come home and let your guard down and just enjoy the company of your family upon your return. How can you do that when you’re afraid of doing or saying something, and than having to deal with an upset tyrant of a spouse?

That is because you are not supposed to be under the dominion of her emotional state in the first place.

I understand that for many men, this is a concept that is much easier to agree with than to put into effect. But if you are under the dominion of a woman’s emotional state, you have to break free of it for her sake as well as your own. How can you be relied upon if you are constantly being blown to and fro in the winds of her emotional hurricanes? How can she feel secure with a protector who is a pushover? However, keep in mind that it’s also important not to overdo it with your reaction, as so many men and women do when they have finally resolved to act against their habitual behavioral patterns.

Remember that practice makes perfect. The man in control of himself doesn’t fear the rage of an out-of-control woman anymore than the boxer fears getting hit. He has absolutely no doubt that he can take the shot because he has taken it before. So, look for opportunities to practice facing up to your fear. The next time you find yourself tempted to shade the truth or avoid telling her something because you are afraid of her reaction, first remind yourself of the Litany Against Fear and then assume that you’re going to be busy not exacerbating the situation by giving into your own emotions for the next 15 minutes.

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me….

Then go and tell her whatever trivial thing you suspect is going to set her off and refuse to react regardless of how she emotes. Then, once the storm has blown itself out, smile and go about your business. You will almost surely find yourself thinking that it really wasn’t that bad after all. And that should give you the strength required to face up to the next emotional storm when it becomes necessary.

I love being in my home. I love being with Spacebunny. But then, I’m not afraid of her emotions.

I’m sorry, Dave

I’m afraid I can’t accept that answer:

I’m fairly responsible with finances, but my girlfriend is in a terrible financial situation with a lot of credit card debt, an expensive car payment and a big, fancy apartment. Plus, she just quit her job because she didn’t like it anymore. Now, she’s thinking about filing bankruptcy and thinks us moving in together will help solve her problems. If she can’t handle her finances on her own, what’s going to happen if we get together? Can you help?

At least Dave Ramsey advises the guy not to marry the woman or let her move in. But he doesn’t give him the proper advice, which is to ditch the financial vampire now before she can manage to get her teeth fixed any more firmly upon him. Don’t ever date a woman in debt, and don’t even allow the thought of marrying one to cross your mind for a moment. It’s more expensive and less financially prudent than playing blackjack in Vegas.

Chrissy outdoes herself

Lest you wonder why female “conservatives” and the so-called Mama Bears inspire so little confidence:

Domonique Ramirez, this year’s Miss San Antonio (preliminary to Miss Texas, Miss America) went to a photo shoot. She was supposed to wear her outfit from the San Antonio pageant. Well, it didn’t quite fit anymore, and the pageant let her know it was unacceptable…. Miss Ramirez slapped a temporary restraining order on the organization so they couldn’t take her crown away. A judge will decide whether she is fit for the crown or not. Isn’t that awesome? Seeing this kind of strength in a young woman is so refreshing. She’s fighting back and standing her ground, which I find incredibly brave. She’s becoming a role model, which is exactly what the Miss America Organization brags about.

If this pageant wants to permanently damage the youth of our country, mission accomplished. If they really want to help these girls then they need a better strategy. You don’t tell a teenage girl she’s too fat, unless you want her to have an eating disorder. If they thought she was becoming obese, sure, step in for the sake of her health. Offer her the benefits of working out if you want her to get in shape the healthy way. Tell her it helps reduce stress. They should want her mental health to be calm and collected for the nerve-racking interview. Tell her it will give her stamina to get through the long days. But never make it about her looks. That’s just crazy.

The organization threw her further under the bus by stating she has been late to appearances and has been defiant. I call that BS! It’s ludicrous to think adults would lie about a teenager just because they never could make it as Miss America themselves. They’re delusional….

Some know-nothings have argued that Domonique signed a contract. She promised to abide by these rules. Get over yourself. She’s a teenage girl, and to make any woman sign a contract like this is outrageous and unrealistic. This rule is ridiculous and shouldn’t even exist.

So apparently this is the position of the so-called conservative media these days: don’t tell fat girls they’re fat, run to a judge anytime you fail, and don’t expect women to abide by a signed contract. Now, if women can’t be held any more accountable than children by virtue of their sex, how can anyone possibly justify their right to vote?

I do wish Fox News would hurry up and hire Chatterfield already.