Tag: women

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

DW has created a quiz on the male socio-sexual hierarchy. So go ahead and take it, all you precious male snowflakes, and report back on how astonishingly alphasexy you are!

I do note that lambda was somehow omitted, but I suspect most lambdas can readily figure out where they rank. For example, if your answer with regards to question four would have been You were in the mall a week ago with a bunch of friends. Are you: “The one giving/getting a hummer in the men’s room”, then it really doesn’t matter what your answers to the other questions happen to be.

I’ve been intending to put together a quiz of my own at some point in time and I’ll eventually get around to it, but this is certainly entertaining for starters.

Not to women, children, or dogs, anyhow. Roissy tells the tale of a text message written in response to a blow-off:

I begin reading his reply in a trembly voice, imitating as best I can a lovelorn beta. Paraphrased:

“Ok, I’m sorry to hear that. I was hoping we could date a few more times and see where it goes. I think you are really great, and a very special girl, and I felt we had something between us. I definitely felt we bonded on our dates together. Remember that time playing pool? That was pretty funny. But oh well, if you need some time to yourself, I understand. If you ever change your mind, you know where to email me. I’m willing to give it another try if you are. Ciao.”

Look, guys, no woman ever needs any time to herself. With very few exceptions, women are not contemplative and few can even entertain themselves for any extended period of time. The expression is merely a conflict-avoidance device utilized to communicate a lack of romantic interest. The correct translation of “time to herself” means “time with men who are not you” and by “time” she means “until the end of it”. If a woman is genuinely attracted to a man, she will make time for him even if it means abandoning her children, quitting her job, or doing without food and sleep.

But a blow-off shouldn’t inspire this cringing, lachrymose attempt to convince a woman that she has made the wrong choice. “I definitely felt we bonded”… seriously? This is classic delta and all it does is convince her that she was right to blow off the weakling when she did and make him a figure of mockery and scorn. The correct response, as numerous Chateau denizens have pointed out in the comments, is nothing. Niente. No response. To lash back at her over nothing more than legitimate rejection would be gamma; this need to ensure the rejector that there are no hard feelings on the part of the rejectee is pure delta. The omega, of course, will vow eternal vengeance (to himself) and tell his fellow rejects about the ten different terrible things that would teach his rejector a lesson she’d never forget if he ever followed through on one. Which he won’t. There is no single appropriate alpha response, as the real alpha is already involved with at least one of her friends and will feel relieved that a potentially messy problem has sorted itself out again without requiring any effort on his part.

The sigma response, of course, is “????”

Now, since there are clearly a few quasi-aspies here of the sort that regularly drive the Chateau regulars mad with their inability to understand the concept of behavioral gradations, the injunction to show no weakness is a relative one. If you are covered in blood, surrounded by headless bodies, and holding a severed head in your hand, then you can safely shed a tear or two and permit a woman to read your diary of secret doubts about your courage and masculinity. Any perceived weakness will be tend to be outweighed in her mind by your manifest ability to wreak massive havoc and that delicious sense of fear and security it inspires in her.

Please note that I am primarily speaking metaphorically here despite the literal truth of the statement. Casanova can confess his fears of rejection without concern, (although quite possibly not without sarcasm), because the woman knows that if she rejects him he can and will find a replacement for her within days, if not hours. Your average delta – and this very probably means you* – not so much. In summary, the strong man can afford to be seen as vulnerable, but the average man cannot.

*Except you, of course. You are a unique and precious sigma snowflake.

Which reminds me. Pop socio-sexual rank quiz:

Omega: You have threatened to kill yourself over a woman. But you stalked her instead.
Gamma: You have thought about killing yourself over a woman. But you wrote about how she made you feel instead.
Delta: You have taken it seriously when a woman threatened to kill herself. She did not do it.
Beta: You have listened to a woman threatening to kill herself over your best friend. With some amusement. On more than one occasion.
Alpha: A woman with whom you were involved has threatened to kill you because you also had sex with a) her roommate, b) her best friend, or c) her sister.
Sigma: A woman has asked you to kill her during sex. You thought it was hot.

UPDATE: The Dark Lord explains the optimal response to a blow-off and why it is better than the alternatives. You’ll note that it is precisely the response I recommended:

#1: No response. (Credit: Gorbachev)

90% of the time, and in 90% of situations, this will be your best option. Radio silence is a failsafe method for causing reckless hamster spin in a woman’s headspace. You have got to understand a couple of things about women and breaking up.

One, women initiate most breakups. I have read it is on the order of 75-85% of all breakups. Women also initiate 2/3rds to 3/4ths or more of all divorces.

Two, women secretly get a thrill out of the power they wield as society’s de facto hypergamous dumpers. When a woman dumps a man, she wants to know she got to him. Though she will never admit it, the act of gettting to a man is a blissful ego massage for the typical woman.