Tag: women

As I have said many times before, calling a feminist a feminazi is an insult to the German National Socialist Worker’s Party. Abortion is a global human holocaust that dwarfs the scale of the Endlosung by an order of magnitude, and it is a predominantly anti-female holocaust.

According to CASS, China in 2020 will have 30m-40m more men of this age than young women. For comparison, there are 23m boys below the age of 20 in Germany, France and Britain combined and around 40m American boys and young men…. And, as is becoming clear, the war against baby girls is not confined to China.

Parts of India have sex ratios as skewed as anything in its northern neighbour. Other East Asian countries—South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan—have peculiarly high numbers of male births. So, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, have former communist countries in the Caucasus and the western Balkans. Even subsets of America’s population are following suit, though not the population as a whole.

Abortion simply must to be banned for what it is and has always been, first-degree murder. The feminist fall-back position, protecting a woman’s right to choose so long as she chooses in an approved manner, is not only a moral monstrosity, it is a logical absurdity.

I am often falsely accused of being misogynistic because I point out the readily apparent economic and societal infelicities of the modern mythology of sexual equality as well as the way the American legal system abuses men, particularly fathers. But if I genuinely hated women, then surely I would celebrate the ongoing destruction of millions of baby girls instead of opposing it so vociferously. And it is eminently fair to ask, in return, how anyone can reasonably be considered a supporter of women’s rights when they are in favor of permitting literally millions of baby girls to be put to death around the globe.

Stay away from strong, independentpsycho women:

A 45-year-old woman, charged with ending a domestic dispute by killing her 26-year-old husband of five days, is a registered lobbyist for a group fighting domestic violence.

Oh, the irony… anyhow, sexbots are not only better than middle-aged feminists, they’re safer.

Once more, a woman attempts to shame men into not responding rationally to consequences of female actions:

There is a message to be delivered to men, and it may not be popular. We hear a lot about the injustices visited on fathers over divorce and access: for the record, I am largely on their side and dislike the thoughtless and sentimental favouring of mothers in residency disputes. We also hear a bit about the flailing ineffectiveness of the former Child Support Agency. What we do not often hear is the bald, uncompromising truth that if you father a child, you set up a non-negotiable duty.

Sorry, men, but it really is so. We may live in a shag-happy porno culture, where flings and “hotties” and zipless one-nighters are seen as the norm; we may be liberal about divorce, stepfamilies and serial cohabitation. Some of this is good, some of it bad. But none of it negates biology, or the entry-level ethical fact that when a sexual act creates a human child, that child is as much of a moral burden to its father as to its mother. Unless it is a matter of sperm donation or formal adoption with a clear contract, the man has, at the very least, a duty to monitor the child’s physical safety.

This is absolutely and utterly false under the current legal regime. It is totally unconscionable to claim that men who have been forcibly stripped of their paternal rights by the unilateral decision of the mother supported by the anti-paternal legal system have any duty whatsoever to the children that have been taken away from them. If it is the man’s decision to leave the family, then yes, his paternal responsibilities remain intact. If he fathers a child unintentionally his paternal responsibilities remain, barring the commission of intentional fraud on the part of the mother.

But if his paternal responsibilities have been stripped from him by the unholy alliance of ex-spouse and state, if he has been threatened with the full force of the law if he so much as attempts to contact them without the permission of the mother, then the onus for the children’s well-being lies with those who have assumed the full responsibility for it. It is absurd to write, as this woman does, that “men who turn aside from this duty should be looked at askance, stigmatised as dishonest weaklings.” The fact is that men who do not turn aside from this “duty” under these circumstances and this system are doing nothing more than enabling it. The writer’s real agenda is revealed in this sentence.

“Most mothers do their best but some are weak, depressed, drugged, or just lovelorn and intimidated by violent boyfriends.”

In other words, it’s the same old line that is based upon the underlying assumption that because women are children who can’t be held responsible for their actions, every female failing must ultimately be blamed on men. Clearly the logical solution is beyond her, which is to stop permitting mothers to unilaterally exclude fathers from the lives of their children. The concept is really not that hard to understand. Assuming that one considers the rule of law to be legitimate, once a man has been stripped of his status as a father by other parties, he no longer has any paternal responsibilities. They have been assumed by the parties that stripped it from him.

Since no one wants to marry forty-something women, a solution has been provided. Ban the competition!

How far out of touch with reality are women legislators anyway? That’s exactly the question being asked by citizens (women and men) regarding a proposed bill in the Maryland General Assembly, that would restrict men’s rights to use dating sites to meet foreign women and will likely spur copycat legislation in other states.

Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio, Vice President of the women’s caucus is leading 35 other delegates (all women) on a campaign for passage of HB 65, that would shockingly require Maryland men to submit their fingerprints and other background information before they can initiate communication with a foreign woman if they use an “International Marriage Broker”.

Frankly, I don’t see why they’re starting with what can’t even reasonably be described as half-measures. This is pathetically insufficient! What is the point of only making it vaguely difficult for Maryland men to talk to foreign women? Obviously the law should forbid men to date or even talk to any woman without a license specifying what strata of women is permissible for them to have contact. These strata would be set on an annual basis by a panel of women and each community would have its own panel of judges who would interview every male individual over the age of 16 decide what license would be assigned to him. Licenses would require renewal every five years, they would be color coded, and the licensed man would be required to produce it upon the request of any adult woman. And no contact of any kind with foreign women will be permitted at any time; a first violation will result in a fine, the second in the loss of a man’s license.*

The insane thing is that at least half the women who will read this will find themselves thinking, “you know, a system like that really would make society a much better place.” But they’re not fascists. No, not even a little bit. They’re just strong, independent, beautiful, intelligent snowflakes who care too much about the planet to permit those bestial American men to oppress and abuse foreign women too.

* Yes, there is an obvious logical flaw in this plan. But keep in mind that it wouldn’t be proper central planning if the legislation didn’t autodefeat its primary justification.

Happy Valentine’s Day! This hs to be one of the great radio live calls of all time. The woman’s cri de coeur is hilarious.

“What kind of people are you?”

Even an award-winning cruelty artist has no choice but to take off his hat to the hosts. They played it PERFECTLY.

If the goal is to put men off marriage, then this sort of non-stop, ribald hilarity would appear to be an excellent way to go about it:

Let’s face it: Even the best husbands need a little punishment every now and then, even if it is just to get him to treat you like the princess you really are. In her hilarious book, 101 Ways to Torture Your Husband, Maria Garcia-Kalb talks us through some clever tactics to help us learn how to make him beg for mercy….

10. Bribe him with sex , then don’t pay up

Sex is great, but the monotony of marriage tends to stifle it, so that’s why men can be lured but the bribing manoeuvre so easily, First, withhold intimacy for two weeks. Your husband will be on a “sex fast”, he’ll be thrilled by the prospect of ‘getting some’, which is when you make your offer.

“Okay honey. We can have sex tonight if you do the washing or mow the lawn (or whatever if might be that you want him to do).”

Your man will immediately agree and get the chore done. When he comes around to “collect” his reward, tell him that the office is closed and he will have to come back tomorrow. Lick it up a notch by wearing racy underwear in bed but sleeping all night long.

The book is obviously supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but I don’t see what is so tremendously hilarious about stating the inescapably obvious. It’s not as if men don’t know that women are unreliable when it comes to paying their debts; they are disproportionately likely to file for bankruptcy and lose their properties in foreclosure after all. This failure to understand the appeal of the unexpected is why most comediennes suck. Because they don’t actually have a sense of humor, seeing them try to tell jokes and relate amusing anecdotes is rather like watching a dog try to ride a bicycle. They just don’t seem to understand that it’s not the complaining itself that is the funny part. Now, I’m not saying this book quote isn’t funny because I find it offensive in any way, I am merely pointing out that there is nothing even remotely amusing about it. I mean, how is a woman welshing on a promise of sex any different than her telling a woman who is unemployed that she’ll pay her to clean the house for a month, followed by a subsequent refusal to pay the woman? HA HA HA HA HA! (wipes eyes) Oh dear, when you put it that way, I suppose it really IS a good one….

Now, despite the lame foundation there is a way to make it at least vaguely humorous. You see, the next morning, when our lingerie-clad princess-protagonist asks her long-suffering husband why he is so unaccountably relaxed about her failure to deliver on the promised erotic acrobatics the evening before, he shrugs and replies laconically.

“I was sorry to hear that your office was closed, but fortunately your sister’s offers 24-7 delivery.”

Of course, any man who is dumb enough to fall for the blitheringly transparent “I find it sexy when men do [insert unpleasant task that woman doesn’t want to do]” routine is a hopeless Gamma who eminently deserves whatever hell the women in his life are going to put him through.

And the female descent into invisibility. An aging British woman laments the inevitable:

As every woman of a certain age comes to learn, there is a point when you become invisible. People stop paying you attention. No doubt evolutionary biologists have explanations for this. But we know, unless we choose to ignore it, that there is all too much truth in the words of the old song: keep young and beautiful if you want to be loved and — which is part of the same thing — if you want to hold on to whatever power you had in your prime.

This female invisibility is nothing more than the natural and obvious consequence of completely failing to develop an attractive personality or interests outside of yourself. It’s also something for which no man is likely to feel the even the slightest bit of sympathy, since only the Alphas don’t know what it’s like to have been invisible to the opposite sex and they’re not inclined to be overly concerned about how an old woman not worth bagging happens to feel. As we can also see from what Roissy describes as The Wall, female invisibility actually proceeds in stages; what Ms Marrin is describing is merely the final stage in a long process which begins when the average woman hits her peak beauty somewhere between 25-27. How quickly the decline takes place depends upon the individual woman’s genetics, commitment to fitness, and diet, but it’s a natural and unavoidable process.

Of course, all this does is place the older woman on an equal footing with virtually all men, wherein she must earn social visibility through merit. However, it is difficult for those who have never had to develop their personalities or their minds, but have gotten by on their superficial attributes instead, to begin to do so after a lifetime of neglect. I once asked one of my philandering friends why he can’t seem to be content for long with any of the very beautiful women with whom he is always involved. (He’s a smart and very successful guy, definite Alpha.) His answer was that once the novelty of the new wore off, he inevitably discovered they never had anything interesting to say, which caused them to first become boring, and then downright burdensome.

But beauty does not necessarily preclude being interesting. My recommendation to women who don’t want to gradually decline into invisibility is to develop a genuine interest in things outside one’s self and one’s social circle. The fading of the superficialities may be inevitable, but the concomitant social invisibility doesn’t have to be. Just as the male athlete has to accept that his time in the spotlight is one day going to come to an end and his fans will turn their attention to younger, more capable performers, the attractive woman has to accept that the enjoyable experience of basking in the immediate arousal of the men around her will also cease in time.

What a woman does about this, either in anticipation or in response, depends entirely upon what a woman wants out of life. There is no correct answer. I’m not saying that a woman shouldn’t enjoy her moment in the sun while it lasts anymore than an athlete shouldn’t exert himself to the utmost of his potential. But I am saying that the sun will go down on your beauty, usually sooner than later, and graceless denial of the inevitable is never attractive to anyone.