Tag: women

If you fail this one, don’t be surprised if the operation turns out to be superfluous:

It’s almost always the woman who suggests a vasectomy, says Duncan Harriss, consultant urological ­surgeon at the Park Hospital, ­Nottingham, who performs vasectomies and vasectomy reversals….. Women are used to being in control of contraception and it’s often difficult to let go of that, even when it’s their husband’s fertility, not their own, in question.

‘The number of vasectomy reversals is increasing and that’s a sign of how relationships are breaking down in this country,’ says Duncan Harriss. He sees five to ten men a week who regret their vasectomy — or, to be more precise, whose wives regret it. ‘The most common situation is that a man has had ­children, had a vasectomy in his 40s and then the relationship has broken down.

Imagine that. Now, I’m not saying that men shouldn’t have vasectomies if they want although I have been told they are much more potentially problematic than most guys tend to assume. But if your wife is demanding that you literally demasculate yourself because she is feeling insecure about the possibility that you might be able to build another family without her, then it is probably safe to go ahead and schedule a few family court appearances, a wedding, and an eventual reversal to go along with the initial operation if you are foolish enough to accede.

Any man who has even the least awareness of Game will understand the disastrous consequences that are likely to result from failing this extreme form of marital s-test.

Ann Althouse succinctly encapsulates why most women are so uninteresting:

Two divorced women went out walking, and what do you think they talked about? Philosophy?

I have to admit, that made me laugh. If there is anything less interesting than a divorcee, of either sex, going on and on about their former spouse more than 10 years post-divorce, it probably has something to do with organic chemistry. And yet I have no doubt that the new Divorce section of the Huffington Post and its aphoristic motto of “His happiness is a small price to pay for my freedom!” will find a large and appreciative female readership.

In reading Althouse’s post, another aphorism insensibly came to mind: “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.” – Eleanor Roosevelt.

Unsurprisingly, Ms Ephron’s narcissistic motto is reflective of the fundamental female miscalculation that leads to so many divorces these days. First, “unhappily married adults who divorced were no more likely to report emotional and psychological improvements than those who stayed married” according to a study entitled “Does Divorce Make People Happy?” Second, even if men don’t become happier after divorce, they are materially better off, whereas the opposite is true for women according to the Institute for Social and Economic Research. “Divorce makes men – and particularly fathers – significantly richer. When a father separates from the mother of his children, according to new research, his available income increases by around one third. Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman’s income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years.”

This is one reason why nearly three times more women are filing bankruptcy than men now. In times of investment booms and expanding wealth, everyone has an economic margin of error and can afford to do stupid things like get divorced for shallow, superficial, and ephemeral reasons. Contractionary times are considerably less forgiving and make it more important to not only have a partner upon whom you can rely, but be a reliable partner yourself as well.

On a tangential note, I suspect that many women would do well to learn from Spacebunny’s understanding that while the male mind is not wholly unconcerned with the lives of those around them, it does tend to be focused on other, more significant matters. By way of example, this morning I told her the extremely exciting news that one heroic lion of technology has ported WinApple to Android! You know what that means, that’s right, the entire Ultima series, starting with Akalabeth, on your phone. And Wizardry. And Swashbuckler. In fact, you might even be able to fit the entire Asimov achive on it! Strangely, she did not react with the celebratory glee and happy dance that one would naturally expect upon learning of such a grand leap forward in the human race’s mobile standard of living. Instead, she responded with little more than an amused smile and a complete non sequitor. “I am totally superfluous in your world.”

Now, what man could fail to love a woman who obviously knows that Call of Duty: Black Ops was released on Monday?

Do you know the story of Snow White? Then surely you remember how the seven dwarves took her in when she was homeless, provided her with food and shelter, and cared so much about her that they shed tears for her and built her a spectacular crystal pedestalbier.

And of course, you will recall that she ran off with Prince Charming at the very first opportunity.

Dwarves are Gammas. Alphas are Prince Charmings. Most men, being Betas and Deltas, fall somewhere in between and therefore face a choice about how to comport themselves in their interactions with the opposite sex. But we can draw two important conclusions from the fairy tale. One, behaving like a dwarf won’t get you the girl. Two, Prince Charming doesn’t stick around to ask twice; if Snow White doesn’t want to get on the horse right away, he rides on without her. It’s a big forest and there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.

If this woman’s lament doesn’t put an amused smile on your face today, well, you’re probably not a man under the age of fifty:

Let me tell you, dear ladies: the age of chivalry is dead.

Yesterday, I drove out of a car park in ­Kensington, London, to find the power-steering on my BMW had gone. The car wouldn’t move. Thankfully, I was in a cul de sac, not a motorway. I stopped and tried to pull over. My car was one foot from the kerb. I put my hazard lights on. Next to me was a building site full of men in fluoro ­jackets standing doing ­nothing. They could see my distress when I began ­peering under the bonnet. I got back in the car, and on my mobile phone to call the BMW breakdown ­service to get the vehicle recovered. I was in tears. Still no one ­bothered to help….

I had thought it was just my ex-husband who used to allow me to put petrol in the car while he sat warm in the passenger seat, but if my ­experience yesterday ­morning is anything to go by, it’s a generational phenomenon. As Top Gear’s James May said this week, young men have lost their masculinity, in that they can no longer fix things. And this loss of manners is far worse. Young working British men: you should be ashamed.

Be ashamed of what? The “f****** cow” is totally in the wrong here. And I wonder, were those nearby men really “doing nothing” or did she simply neither realize nor care how they were occupying themselves thanks to her female solipsism?

Women demanded legal and political equality and our great-grandfathers were foolish enough to grant it to them. So they used that equality to force the last three generations of men to spend between 12 and 16 years being drenched in feminist propaganda about how women were strong, independent, and equal to us, except of course for their intrinsic emotional and moral superiority. Once they had achieved sufficient political power, they then set about redefining the concept of equality in a successful effort to strip men of their legal rights and render them legally inferior in an extra-Constitutional court system where men are guilty until pronounced innocent. And then, after all this, they’re surprised when we don’t treat them like our great-grandfathers treated their great-grandmothers.

I am confident that I speak for many, if not most of the men of my generation in my instinctive response to this woman’s petulant demand that men be at her beck and call: F— you and fix it yourself, Ms Strong Independent Woman. It’s not my problem.

I suspect that these days, the average man is probably more likely to help a male stranger than to help women he doesn’t know. At least a man is likely to have the decency to be grateful and not take your assistance as some sort of rightful homage. As for chivalry being dead, I think it is pertinent to quote Isaac Asimov on the historical conventions of the concept.

“This is Helen as viewed through the eyes of courtly love. By the convention of the troubadours, a woman need not deserve love, she need merely be a woman.” And don’t forget, a woman’s chivalric champion was ideally supposed to be her adulterous lover. It is little wonder, then, that modern women lament chivalry’s death.
(HT: SB)

An example of how failing to keep your woman’s tongue under control can get you killed, even if you’re a Marine:

A 23-year-old Marine who lived in Metairie was fatally stabbed following an argument with a man who defamed the Marine’s wife. The suspect yelled derogatory comments at Ryan Lekosky’s wife as the couple walked about 3:30 a.m. near the intersection of Dauphine and Iberville streets in the French Quarter, police said. Lekosky tried to intervene in the altercation between his wife and the suspect. The suspect turned on Lekosky, stabbing him several times. The suspect then returned to his vehicle and drove away on Dauphine Street, toward Canal Street. Lekosky died from his wounds.

The root problem is that men haven’t really figured out what they can and cannot do in defense of women’s honor anymore. In the days of yore, the Marine could have simply killed the guy out of hand and few would have thought twice about it; back then, defaming a man’s wife was a killing offense. Now, most women would be horrified at a male companion who, at the first derogatory word directed her way, immediately pulled out a .357 and fired six shots into the offender’s face. At the same time, not considering themselves proper targets for physical violence, most women won’t hesitate to escalate a verbal situation and if a man shrugs off a verbal assault directed at a woman with him, he is often going to be attacked by her for not coming to her defense.

So, what to do? It’s hard to say and it’s somewhat of a catch-22. All we can really conclude from the limited amount of information here is that it is a very bad idea for the man to assume that because he is not party to the verbal altercation, he will not be attacked first in the escalation. Once the situation transforms into a violent altercation, an attacker can be expected to attack the potentially more dangerous opponent first, which means that interceding in a manner that leaves you open to the other guy is a bad idea. The two-fold challenge is a) how to prevent the situation from developing into a violent one without causing your wife or girlfriend to develop contempt for you simply because you’re not foolish enough to fall for the old “let’s you and him fight” game, and b) how to extricate the two of you from an escalating situation without either of you getting hurt.

All of this presumes, of course, that you’re not dumb enough to escalate a verbal situation to a violent one on the basis of your own emotional reaction.

The first thing to do is to encourage her to blow it off. What do the words of some drunk idiot with an 85 IQ have to do with her? Of course, this is probably much easier to pull off if you’re carrying; she’s unlikely to accuse you of being a coward who won’t stand up for her if you ask her how many times she would like you to shoot the guy in the skull with your .40. Faced with such an offer, she’ll likely do an immediate 180 and start trying to encourage you to move along. Women are excited by male posturing and fisticuffs, not blowback and brain matter.

However, if a woman is feisty and responds by getting in the idiot’s face, the best thing is probably to physically withdraw her while keeping her between you and the opponent and keeping your focus on him. You can explain later that you were concerned about the bad guy hurting her and so forth; it’s better that she be angry with you for forcibly extricating her from a potentially dangerous situation than be contemptuous of you for failing to act at all. And if she does get hurt, well, she’s an adult and she bears the responsibility for her decision to confront the idiot, not you. But the likelihood that she’ll be attacked in a lethal manner is quite small since she won’t be perceived as a serious threat so the worst that’s likely to happen is that she’ll get punched or slapped. Undesirable, but she’ll live.

Of course, the biggest problem is that men in general, and white knights in particular, usually respond in a pompous and unprepared manner, paying more attention to the woman than they do to the potential opponent. That’s understandable, since most of what they’re doing is a chivalrous show for the woman’s benefit anyhow, but it’s not the best strategy in the event that the other guy isn’t posturing.

Of course, it’s perhaps worth recalling that chivalry was the show knights put on for other men’s wives.

There is no way to avoid this obvious conclusion. The vast majority of women are absolutely and diametrically opposed to every form of freedom unless it happens to align with what she happens to want to do at the moment. One of the latest feminist calls to arms is this direct assault on the freedom of speech:

Whistles, catcalls and lewd come-ons from strangers are all too familiar to New York City women, who say they are harassed multiple times a day as they walk down the street. Now lawmakers are examining whether to do something to discourage it. A City Council committee heard testimony Thursday from women who said men regularly follow them, yell at them and make them feel unsafe and uncomfortable. Advocates told stories of preteens and teenagers being hounded by adult men outside city schools and pleaded for government to address the problem.

Problem? What problem? A man is merely exercising his Constitutional right to free speech in a public place that happens to make a woman feel unsafe and uncomfortable is a problem that the state must solve? I feel a lot more than a little unsafe and uncomfortable when a man is exercising his Constitutional right to free speech in a public place in order to advocate higher taxes, more bank bailouts, more gun laws, and more government intervention. If we’re going to throw out the freedom of speech and ban the dangerous sort, let’s ban that kind of talk first and then we can worry about whistles and catcalls.

Men who value human freedom must staunchly oppose all forms of equality, particularly sexual equality, for three reasons:

1. Equality does not exist in any material, legal, or spiritual form.
2. Equalitarianism is the primary reason for the material decline of the quasi-democratic West as well as its decreasing freedom.
3. Most women do not believe in equality themselves and have historically used the concept as a stalking horse for imposing statism in order to ensure privileged female status through government force. For example, consider the female opposition to DNA-based paternity testing:

“DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves…Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them. The point is that paternity was ambiguous and it was effectively up to the mother to name her child’s father, or not… Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter…in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice.”

I should be very interested in seeing anyone attempt to make a rational case for how human freedom can be expanded by ensuring that a sizable portion of the electorate is vehemently opposed to nearly every aspect of it.