Tag: women

The sins of the Pink Oktobrists

So, is the NFL going to fine itself for the behavior of its employees?

Several current and former National Football League TV Network employees, including former players and a former executive producer, were accused of sexually harassing a female employee, Bloomberg reported, citing an amended complaint by the woman. Jami Cantor, a former wardrobe stylist at the network, claimed ex-players including Marshall Faulk, Ike Taylor and Heath Evans allegedly groped and made sexually explicit comments at her.

The lawsuit filed Monday against NFL Enterprises in Los Angeles Superior Court also named Eric Weinberger, the former executive producer at the NFL’s TV network. Cantor, who was fired in October 2016, said Weinberger sent “several nude pictures of himself and sexually explicit texts” and told her she was “put on earth to pleasure me.” In the complaint, she also alleges Weinberger pressed his crotch against her shoulder and asked her to touch it.

While Faulk — an analyst with the network — would ask Cantor “deeply personal and invasive questions” about her sex life, Taylor sent Cantor “sexually inappropriate” pictures of himself and a video of him masturbating in the shower, Bloomberg reported, citing the filing.

Following the accusations, the network said in a statement that Faulk, Taylor, and Evans were suspended as an investigation is underway into the claims made by Cantor.

Weinberger is now president of sports commentator Bill Simmons’s media group. Simmons has praised Weinberger in the past, saying that “He’s a talented guy with an impeccable reputation, someone who is uniquely equipped to help me build an innovative multimedia company from scratch.”

Seriously, what are these guys thinking? Do such lame pickup attempts ever actually work? It’s almost as if these guys have never met nor talked to women before. And why are liberal bastions such hives of sexual harassment?

Emmitt Smith’s father’s rule about the end zone applies to women as well. “Son, show a little class. Act like you’ve been there before.”

Covering for the monsters

Inadvertently and out of good intentions, I have no doubt. But women like Claire Berlinski are covering for the monsters all the same:

We are a culture historically disposed to moral panics and sexual hysterias. Not long ago we firmly convinced ourselves that our children were being ritually raped by Satanists. In recent years, especially, we have become prone to replacing complex thought with shallow slogans. We live in times of extremism, and black-and-white thinking. We should have the self-awareness to suspect that the events of recent weeks may not be an aspect of our growing enlightenment, but rather our growing enamorment with extremism.

We should certainly realize by now that a moral panic mixed with an internet mob is a menace. When the mob descends on a target of prominence, it’s as good as a death sentence, socially and professionally. None of us lead lives so faultless that we cannot be targeted this way. “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

Your computer can be hacked. Do you want to live in the kind of paranoid society where everyone wonders—Who’s next? To whom is it safe to speak freely? What would this joke sound like in a deposition? Do you think only the men who have done something truly foul are at risk? Don’t kid yourself. Once this starts, it doesn’t stop. The Perp Walk awaits us all.

Given the events of recent weeks, we can be certain of this: From now on, men with any instinct for self-preservation will cease to speak of anything personal, anything sexual, in our presence. They will make no bawdy jokes when we are listening. They will adopt in our presence great deference to our exquisite sensitivity and frailty. Many women seem positively joyful at this prospect. The Revolution has at last been achieved! But how could this be the world we want? Isn’t this the world we escaped?

Who could blame a man who does not enjoy the company of women under these circumstances, who would just rather not have women in the workplace at all? This is a world in which the Mike Pence rule—“Never be alone with a woman”—seems eminently sensible. Such a world is not good for women, however—as many women were quick to point out when we learned of the Mike Pence rule. Our success and advancement relies upon the personal and informal relationships we have with our colleagues and supervisors. But who, in this climate, could blame a venerable Oxford don for refusing to take the risk of teaching a young woman, one-on-one, with no witnesses? Mine was the first generation of women allowed the privilege of unchaperoned tutorials with Balliol’s dons. Will mine also be the last?

Yes, and it should be the last. The grand feminist experiment in sexual equality has failed, brutally. It failed faster than communism. It failed faster than civic nationalism. It failed faster than multiculturalism. Feminism is literally the dumbest, most destructive ideology that has ever been invented, which is no surprise because it was invented by the most neurotic women history has ever known.

And the more we learn about (((Hollywood))) and Washington and Berkeley and London, the more it is clear that not only were those “moral panics” and “sexual hysterias” justified, they were merely scratching the surface of a diseased evil that runs much deeper and wider under the surface of society than most normal Americans realized. Consider the following passage from The Last Closet, in which one member of science-fiction fandom describes the reaction of the Berkeley science-fiction community to the public behavior of Marion Zimmer Bradley’s husband.

At first Berkeley was indifferent to Walter’s sex life. This gradually began to change. There were two main causes for this. At a GGFS meeting at the S’s, S walked into her son’s bedroom—age 13—to find him in bed with Walter with Walter’s arm around him. They were watching TV. (Walter is incredible.)  S wasn’t about to take this. She didn’t make a scene at the time, but from then on, someone else was anti-Walter. Thenceforth the S kids were under instructions to retire into their room and barricade the door with furniture whenever Walter was in the house. They did too. S wanted to ban Walter from the house entirely but Alva felt great reluctance to reject any fan.

Most people were rather amused by this incident, feeling that the kid could say “No” and even if he said “Yes” the experience probably wouldn’t hurt him any. After all, Walter is so child-like himself that it would be just as if the kid were playing around with another kid. And quite apart from the sexual connotations some people were outraged that an adult could prefer the society of children to that of adults, as Walter does.

The second cause was Walter’s sex play with 3-year old P. He had her trained up to the point where she would take off her clothes the minute she saw him. He would then “rub her down” and all that. I recall one occasion—a fairly large gathering at the Nelsons — in which he also used a pencil, rubbing the eraser back and forth in the general area of the vagina, not quite masturbating her.

What I have learned from editing Moira Greyland’s book is that where there is sulfuric smoke of this nature, there is not merely a fire, there is a raging inferno. What is really worse for women, sacrificing a few career opportunities for the evolutionary dead ends in the workplace or sacrificing women as young as three to the depraved appetites of sexual predators?

Trigger time, part two

Given how much Gamma rage was inspired by the idea that fathers might protect their daughters, I can only imagine how much will result from the latest design from Crypto.Fashion and Dark Lord Designs. Also available in a short-sleeved v-neck. And yes, we changed out the rifle for variety’s sake.

If I had more time, I’d construct a Gamma Bingo game with call-outs for “mate-guarding”, “cuckold”, “insecure”, “cheating”, and “whore”, among others. Never mind that every man with an attractive wife is well aware of the death stare she reserves for idiots who don’t respect her wedding ring or recognize her initial signal to back the fuck off.

Mailvox: throwing girls to the wolves

Rollory disapproves of men protecting their daughters. He claims Dalrock does too, although I would not be so sure of that.

This is the sort of thing Dalrock rips to shreds every chance he gets. I don’t always agree with every detail of his argument but it’s definitely worth thinking about.

The message this shirt is sending is “I belong to my daddy, not to the young man who might otherwise be interested.” It’s crazy for the young woman, it’s crazy for the father, and any young man who is sane will receive the message loud and clear and stay far away, choosing instead another girl whose father ISN’T playing the overprotective sexually jealous guardian.

An excess of suitable young grooms needing ever stricter winnowing is not at all the problem facing marriageable young women today. Again, Dalrock has covered this, and continues to do so.

Dalrock is good on many subjects, particularly on the Church and feminism, but if Rollory is correct and the message on this t-shirt is the sort of thing that Dalrock rips to shreds every chance he gets, then he doesn’t understand female psychology very well, nor would he appear to have daughters or sisters. It may help to keep in mind that this is the original context of the phrase.

  1. Take a position on high ground somewhere in the middle with clean sight lines of the entire route.
  2. Load a round into your .50 caliber rifle.
  3. Take the lens covers off the scope.
  4. Watch as your little girl walks off to school by herself.

There is nothing crazy about a father being protective of his daughters. There is nothing even remotely crazy about a young woman wanting to feel protected by her daddy. While people can, and do, go too far – and anything that is more suited for a wedding or a high school prom is going too far – there is nothing overprotective or “sexually jealous” about paternal protectiveness; anyone leaping to that conclusion is raising serious questions about their own psychosexual issues. The ironic thing about citing Dalrock in this regard is that Dalrock regularly complains about “feral” young women; he even has a category called Feral Females.

Now, where do you suppose feral young women come from, families where men protect their daughters or families where men simply throw their daughters to the vagaries of sexual selection, to fend off the predators as best they can on their own? The symbolism of the t-shirt is less about winnowing the suitable young grooms, than it is about giving the daughter the strength and the permission to say “no” to the wrong ones in the full knowledge that her father will have her back.

But as it happens, the real target of the message is not men. The t-shirt is actually status-signaling on the part of the daughter, or the wife, when that version of the t-shirt is ready. It is less a warning to young men than it is bragging to other young women that she is valued, that she is loved, and that she is worthy of protection by a man who is strong enough to provide it for her. Both Dalrock and Rollory appear to have forgotten that support and protection are the two primary male roles in every relationship with women and children, and that stable young women really do treasure those things.

I suspect a telling determinant will be who loves these shirts and who hates them. My prediction is that good girls from strong families will love the message and feminists will furiously hate it. The more interesting question, and one to which I do not have an answer, is: why do men like Dalrock and Rollory dislike it so much?

Regardless, King Edward’s motto is appropriate.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.


UPDATE: since we’re discussing the shirt, I should mention that the long-sleeve crewneck version is now available as well.

Harry and the Half-Blood Princess

I was asked for my take on the recent engagement of Prince Harry, so here it is.

The fact that the engagement of Harry Windsor to Suits actress Meghan Markle is an obvious mistake that is likely to end in disaster can be observed in the fact that every media outlet in the UK, who collectively are normally the bitchiest, most skeptical media this side of a Hollywood gossip column, is tripping all over each other in a competition to see who can coo more positively about how an English prince is marrying a divorced, mixed-race American actress who is pushing forty.

(Yes, I know they say she’s 36, but if that’s actually true, she’ll be the first actress ever known to honestly report her age. Hollywood ages are the opposite of reported NBA heights and Democratic poll shares; to get a more accurate estimate, you need to add two or three.)

Think about it. How on Earth did the British media, which has never missed a possible Harry Potter-related headline just happen to miss this one? And yes, I know she will be a duchess, not a princess, that’s not the point. The real reason the British media is so happy about Ms Markle instead of the traditional twenty-something English Rose one would have expected is that it can now anoint the couple the symbol of the New Britain, which is Not British, but Afri-Pakistani. About the only thing she is missing is being a Muslim.

The thing one has to keep in mind about all this is that Harry is, for the most part, an idiot. That’s not my word, that’s a quote from an otherwise fawning article about the man. “Harry was again mortified, more for embarrassing his grandmother again than for what he had brought on himself. Yes, he was an idiot, but Harry has always been a bit of a wild child with a tendency to party harder than most.”

Sure, it was idiotic to dress up like a Nazi or party naked in Las Vegas, but surely this time, he’s got it right with his older American actress divorcee, right? No red flags there! There was a time, not too long ago, that even a king would have to abdicate in order to marry such a creature, and given how that marriage ended, it’s more than a little remarkable that the man’s niece blithely granted her royal permission for Prince Harry to follow in his great-uncle’s footsteps. In light of her approval, one wonders what would be sufficient to cause that permission to be denied, a history of axe-murdering? Multiple arrests for DUI and prostitution?

Harry is a prime example of a situational alpha who is a low delta at heart, and a delta with some noticeable gamma strains to boot. On the one hand, he’s extremely rich, extremely famous, tall, courageous, and better-looking than the average man. On the other, he has always severely underkicked his coverage; he’s had a long tendency to involve himself with older, not-very-attractive women. One would expect a “wild child” in his position to have a track record with women that made Leonardo diCaprio’s look modest, but if the media is to be believed, Harry has mostly been involved with women who are a bit old, a bit fat, or a bit plain.

There is nothing wrong with any of that, of course, but the pattern is indicative of a deep internal insecurity where women are concerned. And if you doubt my take on the matter, consider this observation from an article about the couple’s first post-engagement appearance together.

As they walked around the garden, Meghan could be seen wrapping a protective arm around her fiancé and tenderly patting his back. ‘The dramatic thing was that she was leading him, just like a professional dancer leading the amateur on Strictly,’ says Judi. ‘She was leading the choreography rather than him, which is quite outstanding for a royal couple. She also has this trait of putting her hands on top of this. The person who does this is normally the one in control – she’s leading the game.’ 

Interpretation: Harry is a Mama’s boy who lost his mother at a young age and has never recovered from the loss. His sociosexual rank is completely out of whack as a result, as he combines elite social rank with infantile sexuality that is desperate for the Lost Mommy. Unless she possesses acute foresight and iron-clad self-discipline, this older actress is most likely going to eat the prince alive and control his life to an extent that will become distasteful to his family, to the public, and eventually, to Harry himself.

That doesn’t mean the marriage won’t work out. There are stranger combinations that have made true love matches and successfully paired-off for life. It simply means that the odds against that happening are formidable. I would give a 10 percent chance that it doesn’t ultimately end in divorce.

And, of course, this doesn’t even get into the fact that due to FATCA, as the spouse of an American, Harry Windsor will now have to file an annual tax return with the IRS as a non-resident alien, and any future children with Ms Markle will be Americans subject to the US tax regime. Forget Queen Elizabeth’s approval; I can’t believe his accountant let him marry the woman.

Take away their feminist cards

The women of SNL sell-out their sisters on behalf of Senator Fish Lips Frankengroper:

SNL Women Offer Solidarity  in Support of Al Franken

We feel compelled to stand up for Al Franken, whom we have all had the pleasure of working with over the years on Saturday Night Live (SNL).  What Al did was stupid and foolish, and we think it was appropriate for him to apologize to Ms Tweeden, and to the public. In our experience, we know Al as a devoted and dedicated family man, a wonderful comedic performer, and an honorable public servant. That is why we are moved to quickly and directly affirm that after years of working with him, we would like to acknowledge that not one of us ever experienced any inappropriate behavior; and mention our sincere appreciation that he treated each of us with the utmost respect and regard.

We send our support and gratitude to Al and his family this Thanksgiving and holiday season.

SIGNED BY
1.Jill Baylor, Production Assistant,1991-92
2.Shannon Gaughan Bowman, Writer, 1988-89
3.Beth Einhorn, Script PA,1987-1988
4.Cindy Caponera, Writer, 1995-98
5.Jane Curtin, Not Ready for Prime Time Player, original cast, 1975-80
6.Tracy Cooper Drippe, Script PA/ Script Supervisor,1986-1991
7.Suzy Drasnin, Production Staff/Photographer,1986-90
8.Juli Pari Frankel, Script PA, 1984-1985
9.Julia Fraser, Script Supervisor, 1978-1985
10.Tara Gardner, Writers Assistant, 1990-95
11.Iris March Gross, Broadway Video/SNL 1977-1985
12.Marcy Hardart, Assistant to Lorne Michaels, 1987-1990
13.Lori Jo Hoekstra, Writer’s Assistant/Weekend Update Producer, 1990-1998
14.Sheila Kehoe, Costume Dept, 1976-82
15.Marci Klein, Co-Producer, 1989-2014
16.Franne Lee, Costume Designer, 1975-80
17.Laila Nabulsi, Schiller’s Reel 1975-79; Associate Producer, 1985-1986
18.Laraine Newman, Not Ready for Prime Time Player, original cast, 1975-80
19.Mary Ellen Mathews, Show Photographer, 1993- present
20.Cristina McGinniss, Assistant to Lorne Michaels (25 years);Broadway Video,1979 – present
21.Marilyn Suzanne Miller, Writer, 1975 -1994 (intermittently)
22.Dinah Minot, Associate Producer,1985-1989; Co-Producer, Broadway Pictures,1989-96
23.Evie Murray, Assistant to Lorne Michaels & consultant, 1983-1994
24.Sarah Paley, Writer, 1979-80 (& The New Show 1981-82)
25.Sandra Restrepo Considine, Script Supervisor/PA – 1987-1993
26.Suzanne Rosenberg, Coordinating Producer/Weekend Update, 1983-2003
27.Suzanne Ross, Script PA, 1991-1993
28.Karen Roston, Costume Designer, 1975-1983
29.Mary Salter, Film Producer, 1977-1987
30.Claire Shirey, Script Coordinator, 1982-present
31.Rosie Shuster, Writer, 1975-1980;1984-88
32.Kiki Kazanas Steele, Script PA/Script Supervisor, 1985-1990
33.Pam Thomas, Consultant, 1980s
34.Bonnie Turner, Writer, 1986-1993
35.Christine Zander, Writer,1987-1993
36.Liz Welch, Talent Coordinator,1981-89

Truly pathetic. One would think that the fact that they were following in the Dunham Horror’s footsteps would have been sufficient to give them pause. It’s an interesting line of defense too. Perhaps the next bank robber charged with robbing a bank should consider requesting letters of support from all the banks he didn’t rob.

Besides, it’s not going to save him.

CBS Fires Rose.

The kind of girl you want to marry

This young woman pretty much defines it. She’s not only cute and relaxed about the unanticipated, but has genuine love in her heart.

The dog was coaxed back outside by guests, and with order now restored, the ceremony went forward with the actual bride in place. But as the couple read their vows, the furry wedding crasher returned.

“The dog entered and laid down to sleep on my veil,” Marília said. This time, no one had the heart to turn the dog back out into the storm — certainly not Marília. She was more than happy to share the spotlight, and a bit of her gown, with the sweet pup. “It was a very pleasant surprise for me, because I love animals,” she said. “I liked it very much.”

“We decided to adopt him because he is a street dog,” Marília said. “It took us a long time to find him again, but yesterday, we were contacted and told his whereabouts.” Before long, the couple reencountered the dog, whom they’ve named Snoop: “He came home, and I showered him,” Marília said. “He played a lot, ate, drank water. He is very happy and slept super good the first night.”

It’s always a good sign when a woman loves dogs and says things like “super good.” It is a fairly reliable sign that she’s both grounded and positive. One of reasons Spacebunny and I hit it off immediately was because we both had dogs. Most of our initial dates involved taking them for walks through the forests near one of our homes. Looking at her, surrounded by all the colors of the autumn leaves, calling after one dog or the other, I always felt as if I had somehow found myself in an Eddie Bauer ad.

That was fast

Six years after women are permitted on British submarines, the top two officers on a sub have been cashiered, along with two female officers:

Five officers on board the submarine have threatened to quit amid the reports Stuart Armstrong, 41, commanding officer of the Vanguard-class submarine HMS Vigilant, was sexually involved with an officer. The incident came to light after a member of the crew alerted senior officials at the vessel’s base in Faslane, near Glasgow, and Armstrong has since been relieved of his duties.

The allegations sparked anger among crew members and when their boat completed its patrol and docked in the US, a source told The Times a handful wanted to hand in their notice.

Armstrong’s second-in-command Lieutenant Commander Michael Seal has also been suspended amid the claims, according to The Sun, who also named Sub-Lieutenant Edwards – Assistant Weapons Engineering Officer on HMS Vigilant – as one of the women involved.

HMS Vigilant is one of four British nuclear-armed Vanguard submarines on active patrol which provide protection to the UK in case of a nuclear war…. It was only six years ago that a ban preventing female officers serving on submarines was lifted.

As I mentioned in my interview with Cerno Media last night, permitting women entry destroys the integrity, the quality, and the status of every male institution. It doesn’t matter if it is academia, the church, the military, gaming guilds, comics, science fiction awards, or the Boy Scouts. In the immortal words of Bill Simmons, “the lesson, as always, is this: ‘women ruin everything.’”

If you don’t guard your borders, you will be overrun. It plays out the same way every single time. The main problem is not with the women, who are simply doing what women do and seeking out the alpha men – it’s not a coincidence that the two men involved are the Commander and the Lieutenant Commander – but rather, with the low-status white knights who are excited to have women around on a daily basis because they hope that they might improve their poor odds.

Defending the home

A wise woman chooses the known and defends her home over the dubious promise of the unknown and the unlikely:

I’ve earned those rewards. There is no way I want to jeopardize where I end up and how I live because I didn’t have the courage or willingness to pursue my marriage and family with integrity now. Before the hurricanes and menopausal tornadoes.

See, to be blunt, we don’t fare well in the re-marriage market as only 25{fb3a76c107ed8c3c77e3185bbb6287afee78a52023d85b1deb746f5c7c504d3b} of women who are divorced in their 30’s-40’s actually remarry. Men will generally marry at a rate closer to 50{fb3a76c107ed8c3c77e3185bbb6287afee78a52023d85b1deb746f5c7c504d3b} but, even then, they aren’t looking at our Match.Com profiles. They tend to marry women far younger than themselves the second time and, well, that rather gives a raspberry to both our aging marketability and our chances at second time marital bliss.

Seriously. 25{fb3a76c107ed8c3c77e3185bbb6287afee78a52023d85b1deb746f5c7c504d3b}.  I don’t like those odds.

Have you seen the dating market for women our age? Have you seen the dudes interested in us? How many of those men would want a ready-made family and a whole set of busted up luggage? How many of those men would you want around your 14-year-old daughter or raising your little boys?

Hollywood says women can do anything and have anything no matter what they look like or what mess they’ve made of their lives. But Hollywood also uses CGI to make dead people talk so we know they’re a bunch of liars anyway.

When it all boils down and we are left with the goop in the bottom of the pain, it seems wiser to just hang on to the 41{fb3a76c107ed8c3c77e3185bbb6287afee78a52023d85b1deb746f5c7c504d3b} chance that I get to be one of the women who can hold on to her husband and intact family for the long haul. At least as much as it is in my power to do so.

One seldom sees a statistics-based anti-divorce article from women, so it is good to see that there are some women who are beginning to embrace reality and acknowledge that muddling through the ups and downs of marriage with determination is a much preferable option to either you-go-girl divorce or the eat-pray-love-lesbian cycle.

Too clever for love

This, in a nutshell, illustrates why pushing women into higher education is a waste of human talent, a net producer of human misery, and unnatural selection for a less intelligent population:

We’re just too clever to find a boyfriend! It may sound insufferably smug, but these women say their high intellect means they struggle to meet someone. Natasha Hooper, 22, says men do not know how to deal with educated women. She is worried about not finding love because of a shortage of educated men. Becca Porter, 23, says a man factory worker turned her down for being too clever. She says the sense of achievement derived from learning is alien to most men. Andrea Gould, 41, believes her intellect has prevented her from finding love. ‘I get the impression they’d rather date a girl without a degree, said Andrea.

The issue, she explains, is the calibre of men she attracts. ‘I’m not claiming to be Albert Einstein, but I can’t seem to meet a man I find intellectually stimulating,’ she says. Nor is she the only well-educated young woman who says she is too clever to find love. Indeed, she is one of a growing breed of women who fear — perhaps with good reason — they will be left on the proverbial shelf because of a shortage of educated men.

Recent figures from the university admissions service UCAS showed that 30,000 more women than men are starting degree courses in the UK. On A-level results day last month, 133,280 British women aged 18 secured a university place compared with 103,800 men of the same age. The effects of this carry over into the workplace, where women aged from 22 to 29 typically now earn £1,111 more a year than their male peers.

This is what happens when Man attempts to outwit Mother Nature. Speaking as a man who is, statistically speaking, more intelligent than 99.9 percent of the species, I can attest that I don’t particularly value female intelligence. The cognitive differences between a normal smart girl and an average girl is virtually undetectable to me, and the most noticeable difference is that the former tends to behave in a much more challenging manner, which is the real reason that men “would rather date a girl without a degree”.

It’s not about about the intelligence, the cleverness, or the credentials, but rather, the attitude that tends to come with it. Men know perfectly well how to deal with educated women: they avoid them. They do so because they want an attractive and pleasant companion, not an argumentative opponent trained by her professors to regard every conversational interaction as a formal debate.

The essential problem is that the combination of female solipsism with female hypergamy means that too many women now desire the logically impossible and the statistically improbable. Women are attracted to men who possess qualities of size, earning potential, education, and, yes, intelligence, that are superior to their own. That’s fine, but the problem is when they believe that men are attracted to the same thing.

And it’s a damn good thing we’re not, because if we were, no couple would ever pair off and get together, because if X > Y for Z, then Y !> X for Z. Mutual attraction would be logically impossible. These women, both young and not-so-young, have subscribed to a false and incoherent philosophy of romance that quite literally cannot exist and has rendered both their intelligences and their educations moot. Furthermore, as believe I was the first to point out more than a decade ago, the rising F/M ratio of women at institutions of higher learning mean that at least one-third of all college graduates cannot ever marry a man with equivalent or better academic credentials.

So, it should come as no surprise that these intelligent, educated women have found neither romance nor love, have not married, and most likely, have inadvertently removed themselves from the gene pool.