Davout

I Couldn't Have Said It Better

2011-05-06T01:28:00.005-04:00

NOW discovers a 'Teachable Moment'

2010-10-21T12:00:00.004-04:00

This happened a while back. I think Limbaugh missed an opportunity to show how the feminists tolerate WOMEN badmouthing other women but can't stand it when men do the same. The feminists demanded an apology when they thought a man called Whitman a whore but when they discovered a woman had done it, the incident was downgraded to a 'teachable moment'.

The 'No Good Men Crisis' Solved

2010-09-17T13:47:00.002-04:00

Is Christianity the Problem?

2010-09-13T20:11:00.004-04:00

Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens debate the question and related topics in a fairly enjoyable debate that I think D'Souza won, but you decide for yourselves.

Robbery Unveiled

2010-09-02T15:05:00.003-04:00

I found an interesting 2001 economic study c/o Carpe Diem which is a snapshot of ongoing generational and gender robbery.

In USA, on average over their lifetime:

A 65 year old man would receive 71,000 more in benefits than he paid in taxes.
A 65 year old woman would receive 163,000 more in benefits than she paid in taxes.
female:male benefit ratio = 2.3

As bad as that is, it gets worse

A 20 year old man would pay 312,000 more in taxes than he will receive in benefits.
A 20 year old woman would pay 92,000 more in taxes than she will receive in benefits.
female:male tax ratio = 0.3

On average, women become net gainers at 45 while men do so at 60!

I would add that women outlive men by 5 years on average so the geriatric population (65+) is majority female (4 women for every 3 men), which means that the aggregate female:male benefit ratio is not 2.3 but 2.3*1.33 = 3.1.

Two things are immediately evident: women, for reasons unknown, have always been getting significantly more benefits than men AND the older generations, men and women, screwed the younger generations over. This partially explains why the young don't respect their elders any more and also why joining the US (or for that matter any nanny state) workforce for a man should rationally only be a temporary segway to explore better options abroad.

Basics of Defending the Pro-Life Position

2010-07-06T00:27:00.003-04:00

Stand for Life details effective ways of convincing many in the pro-abortion camp that they are mistaken in their thinking.

Express Support for Amy Alkon

2009-03-18T17:21:00.003-04:00

I join Dr. Helen, Glenn Sacks and Vox Day in urging people to support Amy Alkon's column in the Orange County Register. As one sees in the Dr. Helen link, Amy Alkon is broadly on the non-feminist side of issues when it comes to domestic violence, paternity fraud, 'affirmative' action, single mothers by choice and pointless discrimination against men in general.

Non-feminist positions need all the publicity they can get.

You can do at least one of two things to help:

1. Read her columns on a regular basis

2. Send a letter of support to Life@OCRegister.com

A speech LONG overdue

2009-03-01T17:19:00.004-05:00

The CPAC masterpiece by Rush Limbaugh (11 parts~1 hour+) shows conservatives how they must speak if they are to win.

Dinesh D'Souza Gets it Right

2009-02-26T13:35:00.003-05:00

Dinesh D'Souza has written "THE ENEMY AT HOME:THE CULTURAL LEFT AND ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR 9/11". In it, he argues that American (and other) conservatives should look to build bridges with traditional Muslims in America and other countries rather than with liberal-leftists. This is because conservative Americans have considerably more in common with traditional muslims than with liberal-leftist Americans. An alliance with traditional muslims will isolate the fundamentalist Muslims and prevent them from recruiting because the wellspring of discontent directed toward the West for legitimate reasons will have dried up.

Quoting from the intro (the book was written during the Bush administration):

"To date, the Bush administration has made no serious attempt to articulate the moral case for American foreign policy to Muslims (or to anyone else). Many conservatives compound the problem by defending American decadence against the foreigners who hate and fear it. Shortly after 9/11, the Bush administration began consulting Hollywood executives and Madison Avenue executives to market “brand America” abroad. To this day the administration persists with this foolishness. Strangely enough what the administration is promoting is liberal solutions—separation of church and state, feminism and the idea of the working woman—together with the debased values of American popular culture. Of course these “solutions” only compound the problem. They further alienate traditional Muslims and push them toward the fundamentalist camp. So the liberals are correct, in a sense, that U.S. policy is “creating more terrorists,” but not for the reasons they think.
The Bush administration and the conservatives must stop promoting American popular culture because it is producing a blowback of Muslim rage. With a few exceptions, the right should not bother to defend American movies, music, and television. From the point of view of traditional values, they are indefensible. Moreover, why should the right stand up for the left’s debased values? Why should our people defend their America? Rather, American conservatives should join the Muslims and others in condemning the global moral degeneracy that is produced by liberal values.
American foreign policy should stand up for liberal values, but not for the liberal values associated with the cultural left. Rather, it must work to promote classical liberal ideas abroad. As conservatives, we should export our America. That means introducing in places in Iraq the principles of self-government, majority rule, minority rights, free enterprise, and religious toleration. But we must stop exporting the cultural left’s America. That means we should stop insisting on radical secularism, stop promoting the feminist conception of the family, stop trying to promote abortion and “sex education,” and we should try and halt the export of the vulgar and corrupting elements of our popular culture. When we cannot do these things, we should apologize to the rest of the world and make it clear that we too find a good deal in this culture to be embarrassing and disgusting.
There is no “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the West. But there are two clashes of civilizations that are shaping the world today. The first is a clash between liberal and conservative values within America. The second is a clash between traditional Islam and radical Islam, a clash within Islamic society. So realize it or not, American conservatives are fighting a two-front war. The first is a war against Islamic radicalism and fundamentalism. The second is a political struggle against the left and its pernicious political and moral influence in America and around the globe. My conclusion is that the two wars are intimately connected. In fact, we cannot win the first war without also winning the second war."

*bold = my emphasis

I support the argument in the last bolded section. It serves to sift out the fake conservatives from the real ones because it appeals to conservative principles, rather than race or some other red herring. This is a prescient argument because America and the EU are, through the UN, exporting feminism in stealth projects (microfinancing, 'family-planning' services, female-only education) to third world countries, many of whom are Islamic.

D'Souza got plenty of hell from the Right for saying what he did. My opinion is that this happened because way too many self-described 'conservative' white pundits would rather attempt to 'find common ground' with white folk who hold diametrically opposite ideals than with Muslims in other countries (or other non-whites) who hold similar ideals. For a variety of irrational reasons (elitism?, racism?, tribalism?), these pundits refuse to accept that conservative principles extend beyond race and culture. This is a big reason why blacks and Hispanics, a great many of whom have conservative ideals, don't vote Republican.

It is plainly clear that this is why the Republican party has hemorrhaged over the past several years. Moreover it helps one understand why Western feminism got as far as it did: powerful white men would rather support the counterproductive whims of a gaggle of uppity white women than the legitimate needs of the majority of black men.

Explaining the Iceland Anomaly

2009-02-24T14:28:00.023-05:00

Earlier, I mentioned that I would try to make sense of why the Icelandic girls, on average, were outperforming Icelandic boys in math when the average everywhere else is in favor of boys over girls. I dug around the web and found the PISA data for 2003 and 2006 for Iceland and a number of other countries. I also used some data from the World Economic Forum on the Gender Gap Index which is some sort of a country ranking compiled by those who assume egalitarianism is prima facie 'good'.

The figure above shows how the Icelandic PISA score distribution breaks down by proficiency level around the Icelandic mean (506). Seven proficiency levels range from sub-level 1 (the lowest at the extreme left) to proficiency level 6 (the highest at the extreme right). For 2006, the Icelandic girl mean is 508, that for boys is 503 and the overall mean is 506. I have represented all three by the thick black line. Bars for specific sex left of the black line reduce the (sex-specific and overall) mean while bars to the right increase the same. Each bar is the product of the percentage of boys or girls within a proficiency level, and the midpoint of that proficiency level. The lowest three and highest two proficiency levels have more boys than girls but the fourth and fifth prof. levels have more girls than boys. '-M' symbolizes a net score deficit for boys relative to girls at a given proficiency level. There is a greater excess of 'above average' girls compared to the excess of 'exceptional' and 'dumb' boys. The 'exceptional' and 'dumb' Icelandic boys' excesses just about cancel each other out. Thus, the 508:503 advantage for girls over boys is entirely due to the excess of 'above average' girls in proficiency levels 4 and 5.
The fact that the mean is higher for girls does not change the fact that more boys than girls are in the highest proficiency levels, even in Iceland. In a country where every effort is made to elevate the performance of girls at the expense of boys, this is further evidence that math is a intrinsically a masculine activity.

The M/F ratio in the figure above is the percent of males/percent of females in a given proficiency level. One can see that Iceland is outside 1SD of the (European & US) OECD M/F ratio averages at ALL proficiency levels. The largest differences are at the three lowest proficiency levels. At the lowest proficiency level, Iceland is more than 3SD above the OECD mean. What is worse is that Iceland, at each proficiency level, is UNDERPERFORMING compared to the OECD average. By comparison, Norway, a country with a higher 2006 Gender Gap Index (0.799) than Iceland (0.781), is within the OECD SD limits in all proficiency levels (in spite of having a substantial number of immigrants who are academic underperformers relative to the locals). I used Norway for comparison cos many Icelanders are descended from Norwegian blood, cos the societies are similar and also cos the higher GGI means that sexism can be eliminated as a cofactor.

I want to establish that the quality of math education in Iceland has deteriorated from 2003-2006 and to do this I will show the variation of the percentage of (both male and female) students as a function of proficiency level in 2003 and in 2006 in the chart below.
As can be seen, 2003 was a better year than 2006 when both sexes are taken together. When taken apart, boys suffered heavily in 2003 and 2006 (-4 relative to 2003) but girls took a big hit in 2006 (-15 relative to 2003) if one cares to look at table 6.2c in the PISA 2006 datasheet. In 2003, the male and female averages were 507 and 523 respectively which was why one heard much ballyhoo about how girls were becoming smarter than boys. In 2006, the difference of ~4 points was statistically insignificant (standard error of 3.2).

It turns out that in 2003, 11% of girls and 18% of boys were at a combined sub-level 1 and level 1. This is compared to 15.3% of girls and 18.3% of boys in 2006 at the same combined level. The percentage of boys at level 6 was 7% in 2003. In 2006, it became 2.7%. The percentage of girls decreased from 4 to 2.3%. It appears that 'medicore' Icelandic girls have become 'dumber' and that 'exceptional boys' have become 'above average' over the period 2003-2006.

I wanted to see how two feminist countries: Iceland and Norway compared in 2006 and so I constructed the chart below where I compared Icelandic[boys]:Norwegian[boys] ratios to Icelandic[girls]:Norwegian[girls] ratios within proficiency levels. The idea was to eliminate as many confounding variables as possible and see how much of an impact bad math education has.

Relative to Norway,

1. At the lowest proficiency levels, Iceland has disproportionately more boys than girls (red columns higher than blue columns).

2. At the highest four proficiency levels, Iceland has disproportionately more girls than boys.

3. The Iceland girl:boy ratio increases as proficiency level increases (difference between red and blue columns increases from level 3-6).

If Icelandic and Norwegian society are similar in general terms and both don't have the bad juju of patriarchy (GGIs for both are in the top 4 globally which means they are both very feminist), it follows that something is wrong with the dissemination and/or learning of math in either Norway or Iceland. Given that Iceland is outside the OECD average at all proficiency levels in the worst way, that math proficiency at all levels has deteriorated in Iceland from 2003 to 2006 and that Norway is within the SD limits of the OECD average, something is wrong with Iceland.

There are two conclusions that can be arrived at by looking at the charts above:

1. The negative math effects in Iceland are socially caused. Based on looking at results from PISA 2003 and 2006, there is a deficit of good math teachers in Iceland. The bad math education has demonstrably affected both girls and boys. Relative to 2003, over a 3 year period, smart boys have become less smart and mediocre girls have become dumber.

2. There is a complete failure to raise the math ability of Icelandic boys at all proficiency levels particularly at the lowest proficiency levels. Since the number of the least proficient boys has remained constant over 3 years at ~18% (@sub-level 1 and level 1), it is entirely possible that the teachers are either apathetic or incapable or unwilling to help them become better.

Vindication

2009-02-18T12:41:00.003-05:00

Several months back, I wrote a post critiquing a feminist publication that attempted to show there were no sex differences in mathematics.

Recently, La Griffe du Lion, whose initial math article I used to support my critique, has produced another article critiquing two feminist publications, one of which is the same one I lambasted.

I was glad to see that a number of problems I highlighted in my post are corroborated in his article, most notably the ACT-SAT miscomparison, the dishonesty of combining junior grade math scores with high school math scores so as to cover up the post-pubescent advantage of boys over girls and the pointlessness of judging relative gender proficiency without using complex questions. The rather incredulous feminist thought process underlying this is that if girls are equal to boys in grade 2, they should also be equal in grade 11. If they are not, then discrimination must be involved. When one points out that boys are deficient in reading compared to girls over a similar time period, the feminists invoke patriarchy=bad metaphysics to explain why only girls should get disproportionate help for math but boys shouldn't get the same for reading.

Griffe, in an important and impressive discovery (Figure 8 in his latest article), shows the impact of nurture to be negligible compared to nature when it comes to the relative proportions of girls and boys at the PISA 5 level (high math proficiency level). This strongly indicates that a genetic component is almost wholly responsible for math ability and that this component has a significant linkage with male physiology (because the ratio of men to women increases with higher math proficiency). A major part of the problem explaining this to feminists is that feminists, in most instances (being the lower IQ individuals that they are), don't possess the mathematical ability to understand, in detail, why they don't have mathematical ability. The few feminists that do are intellectually dishonest, ideologically motivated and deliberately lead the less mathematically inclined feminists on a gap-busting wild goose chase. All this would be highly amusing if people (both males and females) were not negatively affected by the fact that feminist ideology decides education policy almost everywhere in the West.

Griffe does not deal with the question of how much boys' education is stunted by feminism i.e. whether boys SAT averages or variability would be relatively higher than they currently are if feminism had been absent from schooling. It is obvious that since nurture/culture has a very small effect, relative to nature, on increasing the number of proficient girls relative to proficient boys, that the gender difference will remain regardless of feminist indoctrination at the highly proficient math level. Whether or not the same is the case at the lower proficiency levels is another question.

Griffe also mentions the outlier 'Iceland' which is the only country where, on average, girls have been getting higher scores than boys in everything including math for around a decade. He puts in a footnote to say that the reasons for why this is happening are unknown. I will try to answer the 'why' in my next post.

Female-Female Friendships Relatively more Tenuous

2009-02-14T16:01:00.007-05:00

Here's an article summarizing research that finds female-female friendships are more tenuous and fractious than male-male friendships.

It describes female friendships as "significantly less tolerant, more volatile, and likelier to degrade based on a single negative incident than male same-sex friendships".

Yet, the author feels defensive and titles her article "Women are tougher on friendships than men: Study". The reason the title is entirely misleading is because it implies that women form few but very strong female-female friendships. The reality, judging by the paraphrasing detailed in this article, seems to be that women form fragile friendships with each other (re: cue words such as 'volatile' and 'likelier to degrade').
This is further reinforced by the study conclusion that "the deep emotional investment often thought to make women’s bonds stronger is often their undoing."

Cheryl Hickey is quoted in the article: "Men can be a little bit more practical, while women, well, we can be a little bit more emotional." Statements like this are viewed as making women more 'human' than men. However, in light of the conclusion above, all it does is link impracticality to "emotionality.

"Men were far likelier than women to be satisfied with their college roommate (100 per cent versus 46 per cent), even when involved in a conflict with that person (73 per cent versus 33 per cent). In double-occupancy dorms at universities of different sizes, men were, on average, only half as likely as women to request a room change (4.2 per cent versus 8.4 per cent).

And when participants were asked to judge a single negative behaviour by an otherwise dependable (hypothetical) best friend, women downgraded the friend’s reliability significantly more so than men."

Rather than resort to the well-worn feminist theology of cultural omnipotence, the lead author uses evolutionary psychology as an explanation:

"The researchers say a lower threshold for friends’ missteps has an evolutionary component, since reproductive success is tied to physical well-being.

“It provides a constant assessment of danger and can be very helpful to us,” explains Benenson."

I'm not clear on how exactly is it helpful to women to have tenuous relationships with each other because women would tend to have higher higher stress levels, which, in turn would compromise their physical well-being and their reproductive success. However, I can understand that women would tolerate higher levels of stress if it was relatively better than the even more stressful situation of having other women seducing their mates.

Uber-mangina/ultrafeminist Michael Kimmel tries his best to cover up the fact that this study debunks much of his bullshit research (on how men should be more like women) but ends up shooting himself in the foot: "He believes the result is relationships that can withstand more crises but are “a lot less intimate” than those between women, who he says excel at “the business of friendship.”"

Sheesh... another oxymoronic term: the "business of friendship"...If women excel at the business of friendship (ala Kimmel) and female relationships are relatively more tenuous (from the study), it follows that there is something amiss with making friendship a business, something Kimmel seems to endorse. If anything, the study conclusion shows that female friendships require less intimacy and that those between men are better than those between women. Ergo, even if Kimmel is right about male relationships being 'less intimate', he is inadvertently admitting that they are, as a consequence, better relationships.

The article closes with a typically female tactic: the anecdote presented as a counterpoint to a generality.

"Indeed, MuchMusic VJ Leah Miller describes the emotional bond between herself and singer Hilary Duff — whom she says she loves “more than anything” — as resembling that of sisters.

“When you know somebody so well and they know everything about you, of course there can be conflict,” says Miller, host of So You Think You Can Dance Canada. “But now that I’m older, I don’t really fight with my girlfriends. We’re more like a support system for each other.”"

So what even if all that is true? The exception doesn't negate the rule.

Happy 2009!

2009-01-01T19:44:00.002-05:00

I wish you all the very best for the New Year!

Walter Block vs the World

2008-12-28T18:04:00.004-05:00

It sure feels like that when a premier intellect of our times dares to fire a salvo at the politically correct emasculati who dictate public policy everywhere in feminized countries. Briefly, Walter Block was accused of sexism, racism and God knows how many other maladies because he used statistics instead of rhetoric to explain the wage gap.

I've attached Block's recap of the topic at hand here and you can browse around via the 'heres' is his article to get a broader perspective. Thankfully, Block, unlike Larry Summers, is not conceding any ground on his position and likely will stand firm.

My Favourite Two and a Half Men Episode

2008-12-11T19:31:00.009-05:00

...titled: Just like Buffalo. Enjoy when you have 25 mins of spare time!

The storyline includes an alpha male guy, pussified ex-husband, ballsy ex wife, her ballbusting friends and a 15 second explanation 3:45 into the clip from a boy on the merits...cough... or lack thereof, of getting married today......

I'm in awe of the panache with which he delivered his riposte.

The kid definitely belongs in the Wiserhood!

Also, check out how the alpha male guy converts the ballbusters into lambs later on..... Absolutely BRILLIANT!

Evidence Against Global Warming

2008-12-06T17:06:00.004-05:00

Here's a link to James Inhofe's US Environment and Public Works Blog article with several studies disproving fundamental global warming beliefs.

Anthropogenic Global Warming proponents and feminists share in common a revulsion for critical thinking and a fanatical devotion to an incoherent belief system. Perhaps that is why there is a high probability, in my experience, that those who believe in one will believe in the other.

Words Apparently Break Women's Bones

2008-12-06T13:25:00.009-05:00

The National Hockey League (NHL) is desperately trying to market hockey to women and here's the latest example:

Sean Avery, a player noted for making incendiary comments and who regularly lives up to his moniker of 'Super Pest' on the ice, has recently been suspended 6 games for commenting on how common it has become for other players in the NHL to fall in love with his 'sloppy seconds':

I think the comment, albeit a bit rehearsed, was quite funny. He was referring, of course, to Elisha Cuthbert, dating Dion Phaneuf who plays for the Calgary Flames. Avery, who plays for the Stars, was supposed to play him that night and was obviously spoiling for a fight. Separately, Jarret Stoll, another player, is dating Rachel Hunter who is another ex-girlfriend of Avery's.

Avery was suspended indefinitely soon after making this 'unconscionable' comment. The league took a while to unruffle their petticoat and the suspension was finally pegged at six games.

I don't know what was so offensive about calling one's ex 'sloppy seconds' and there is definitely no reason to suspend him for even one minute for expressing his opinion. Cuthbert and Hunter are definitely Avery's seconds and he is free to term them 'sloppy seconds' as are they to respond with whatever they think of him. Players regularly get suspended fewer games for inflicting life threatening injuries on other players but Avery gets suspended 6 games because he potentially offended some women? Clearly the league and almost every hockey pundit, in calling the comments 'inappropriate', believes that
- women are children and cannot handle criticism AND/OR
- women are morally superior to men and are exempt from criticism

The term 'inappropriate' stems from opinion, not law. To make an opinion, no matter how collective, binding on a player through a suspension contravenes his right to free speech. It is tantamount to argumentum ad populum.

If feminists believe that women are adults or that women are not morally superior to men, they should be up in arms protesting against this suspension but good luck trying to see them ever opening their mouth collectively to defend a man's right to free speech when the precious sensibilities of women are offended.

The Prototypical Male Feminist

2008-12-01T15:57:00.004-05:00

Donnie Northrup is a white male (scroll to the middle of this page to see a picture) who recently tabled a motion at Carleton University to end funding to a cystic fibrosis charity because, according to him, the disease affects predominantly white males, the demographic that is the favorite liberal whipping boy around the world.

Here is the motion with the offending section bolded:

Motion to Drop Shinerama Fundraising Campaign from Orientation Week

Whereas Orientation week strives to be [as] inclusive as possible;
Whereas all orientees and volunteers should feel like their fundraising efforts will serve the their diverse communities;
And Whereas Cystic fibrosis has been recently revealed to only affect white people, and primarily men

Be it resolved that: CUSA discontinue its support of this campaign
Be it Further Resolved that the CUSA representatives on the incoming Orientation Supervisory Board work to select a new broad reaching charity for orientation week.
Moved: Donnie Northrup
Seconded: Meera Chander

Check out the names of the Carleton student body councillors who, all, with the exception of Nick Bergamini, voted for the motion to cut the funding. I suspect that quite a number of white people were there and a few of those were white males. Most voted for this motion.

Northrup is a prime example of what brainwashing can do to white males. Think he is repentant in the face of university outrage? Think again! The mirage of the moral equalitarian high ground allows Northrup to live vicariously as an honorary woman or minority, and thus redeem the ‘sin’ of being born a white male. Only when he has engaged in a sufficient amount of self-flagellation can he become sufficiently diverse...

How does one become a sex offender?

2008-11-25T11:40:00.005-05:00

Read this article to find out.

Update: I came across this on Glenn Sacks Blog.

Are Men Wearing Burkas in Our Society?

2008-11-22T14:12:00.004-05:00

Lionel Chetwynd and Roger Simon discuss the feminization of Hollywood and the dearth of the Strong Male (you will have to authorise a pop-up applet needed to view the movie clip).

Anatomy of Female Controlling Behaviour

2008-11-13T14:20:00.011-05:00

I saw the imperious conditions Madonna has levied upon Guy Ritchie under which he can see his sons at Glenn Sacks' site and just had to make a post of it.

It would seem that many women, like Madonna, in giving birth to children, think they have some sort of leverage over men that gives them the prerogative to blackmail men into kowtowing to their whims...The mainstream media takes it for granted that women can make such demands because mothers are assumed to own their children as a consequence of being born with a gestational mechanism for babies (the naturalistic fallacy). This sort of thinking has led to Roe vs. Wade whereby a woman is given total ownership of a fetus/baby but no effective responsibility for it.
Women are going to milk this inherently anti-male system until the common man rises up and cuts the fuel powering the gravy train.

Rothbard on the Relationship of Freedom and Biology

2008-11-09T15:40:00.002-05:00

The following is excerpted from Murray Rothbard's introduction to his book "Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and other essays". (The pdfed book is linked to on my side bar and I strongly encourage you to read it if you haven't already.)

"A fundamental reason and grounding for liberty are the ineluctable facts of human biology; in particular, the fact that each individual is a unique person, in many ways different from all others. If individual diversity were not the universal rule, then the argument for liberty would be weak indeed. For if individuals were as interchangeable as ants, why should anyone worry about maximizing the opportunity for every person to develop his mind and his faculties and his personality to the fullest extent possible?"

Remaking the Republican Party

2008-11-08T14:26:00.003-05:00

It goes without saying that the Republican Party doesn't have a clue as to what it should do to BROADEN ITS BASE. Every election cycle, it has focused on maximizing turnout of card carrying members rather than bring more people into the fold. The party of fiscal and social conservatism has meandered, under G.W. Bush, into traditionally Democratic territory of big spending and government intrusion.

The recent election was more interesting in terms of the various propositions being voted upon vis a vis gay marriage and affirmative action etc. Firstly, it shows that the country leans socially conservative and that the recent election of Obama is more a repudiation of Republican hypocrisy than it is an endorsement of so-called 'progressive values'. Secondly, it showed that a substantial segment of blacks who voted for Obama are also SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE, even in that cesspool of liberalism: California. The major reason the propositions failed was because 70% of blacks were against gay marriage.

I think the Republicans should focus on attracting blacks into the party instead of assuming that most will automatically vote Democrat. They should do this by playing up the social conservative angle and by planning to tailor segments of the job market to make it easier for BLACK MEN to gain employment.

I also think that MRAs should get involved in rehabilitating black men because it is this segment of male society that is the most affected by the evils of feminism. A substantial number of Hispanics are also socially conservative and the Republicans are losing out by living and dying with their 'free market' hypocrisy that outsources male heavy manufacturing jobs while protecting female-heavy service sector jobs, alienating the male base of the party. A reason Obama won was because a substantial segment of the Republicans didn't turn out to vote. If the free market is correctly implemented (WHICH IT CURRENTLY ISN'T), healthcare, welfare, education, 'affirmative action' programs and social security will ALL BE PRIVATIZED instead of receiving subsidies from the taxpayer. Imagine the furor if, under the No Child Left Behind program, teachers were shipped in from Asian countries to replace the local incompetents! So beholden are the present Republicans to the female vote that they are prepared to sacrifice the male vote in order to compete for it. This is why we need to kick out those idiots out and vote in people who don't suck up to the vagina lobby group.

Retiring at 29

2008-11-03T14:05:00.003-05:00

While luck is clearly a factor in Madison Dupaix's ability to retire before 30, notwithstanding the cushion afforded to her by her working husband, I think the general system she followed, as outlined in this article, is sound. Her family seems to be living an affluent lifestyle so her savings plan appears to have worked well.

Check out her blog.

Vote Conservative

2008-10-06T19:10:00.006-04:00

For those of you who are not Canadian, we are having our general elections on October 14 when Canada will decide whether to give Stephen Harper (PM and leader of the Conservative Party) a majority govenment or not.

Harper is likely to cut funding for various feminist parasite institutions if he gets a majority government. Although he will win again and beat that twit, Stephane Dion (leader of the opposition Liberal Party), he will be hard pressed to get a majority because Canada is only now getting swept up in the global tide of economic uncertainty, and the incumbents, rightly or wrongly, usually get blamed for economic downturns.

Nevertheless, it is a big relief that the worthless Liberals and the communist NDP will be battling it out for main opposition party. Both are attempting to frame a carbon tax as something good for Canada.

In case you were wondering who Stephane Dion is and what he is selling to the Canadian Public, the combination is well encapsulated below:

Summary of Men's Issues

2008-10-04T14:30:00.005-04:00

The arguments made in the following video are applicable to men in just about any feminized country.

Vote for John McCain

2008-08-24T11:10:00.005-04:00

...not because on any particular glowing qualities or stances he has but because the alternatives to him are actively perpetrating oppression against men and will cause even more should they get a chance to pull the strings in Washington.

IMO Barack Obama projects his resentment for not having a father onto all fathers while Joe Biden, the VP nominee, decided that getting repeatedly beaten up by his sister when he was younger meant that he should write up a bible (the Violence Against Women Act) to prevent violence against women! So you have the product of LITERALLY female dominated households standing for election, neither of whom gives a flying fuck about the abrogation of men's rights .

According to Biden, "We Biden men know it's the Biden women who really run the show."

Obama will also likely engage in Harriet Harman-like anti-male discrimination measures to funnel more cash and prizes from men to women under the 'justification' of 'reparations for past oppression'.

I was going to write up a lengthy post on why not to vote for Obama and Biden but Marc Rudov, in an excellent article, has covered everything and then some you need to know about these two manginas.

It is not acceptable to let men who plan to vote Democrat in the next election off the hook by saying they were 'misinformed' or 'misguided' or 'ignorant'. If one casts a vote, one also bears responsibility for the policies that result from casting that vote. These men will be the architects of even more GUARANTEED oppression against men in general, including themselves. The Republicans, socially, have screwed up a lot in the past eight years ('no child left behind' is an abject failure, to mention one) but the Democrats will screw over men disproportionately because the feminist lobby (no doubt a key to Obama's success) will dominate legislation coming out of Congress and the Senate, should the Democrats get substantial majorities in both.

I know that there are plenty of Ron Paul supporters who are also MRAs. I would urge them to vote for McCain instead of Bob Barr, the libertarian candidate, because protecting the rights of men should trump the need to express one's libertarian credentials. Republicans are less anti-male than the Democrats and they are the only realistic alternative to the Democrats.

No Way!

2008-08-16T17:13:00.007-04:00

Check out the video above. The man with the 'fishing' T-shirt at 3:03 gives the perfect response when asked whether he was a feminist. His response is quick, short and his tone conveys the perfect mix of aplomb and panache indicating the certainty of his decision. Watch how the chick interviewing him takes a step backward, shocked at his response.

The Indian/Sri lankan Guy who is the first to appear in the video at 0:13 and makes a second appearance at 3:09 doesn't know what feminism is and, in the second segment, doesn't subscribe to what he doesn't know about.

The guys visibly lacking self confidence and giving rambling answers were the ones most likely to agree with feminism. It appeared that they felt compelled to support feminism, in part, because they were being interviewed by girls. The girls interviewed were more nuanced in their approval of feminism: they appeared to be of the "I'm not a feminist, but..." (INAFB) variety.

The lessons learned are:

- Be cool, calm and confident when confronted on feminism related issues, especially by women. Give short, decisive answers. Give the unmistakeable impression that you do not want INAFB women in your life but only those who are decidedly non-feminist.

- In the absence of information, do not fall victim to peer pressure (argumentum ad populum). Women appear to derive some of their acceptance of feminism from the fact that many men mindlessly approve of it. Male ignorance breeds male acceptance which, in turn, breeds female acceptance. These acceptances feed off each other, intensifying the effect of peer pressure. To nip this in the bud, one needs to educate men first. Men are the ones financing feminism and men have the power to cut the fuel powering the gravy train.

The Latest in a Long Line of Bogus Excuses to Justify Male Circumcision

2008-08-13T15:07:00.010-04:00

Apparently, Uganda and other countries in Africa are promoting mass male circumcision as a tool to lower HIV transmission. This is in spite of plenty of evidence that debunks any such cause-effect relationship.

"The surgery's free. It's paid for by the US government, under President Bush's program for AIDS treatment and prevention."

Here's a chronology of shame showing 'scientists' who peddled flawed research to promote male circumcision. (check out the other excellent albeit occasionally graphic videos painfulquestioning has on this subject)

Every single one of them is MALE. The fact that men are more than willing to cause the mutilation hundreds of thousands of their own sex is yet another cogent argument against the myth of the woman-oppressing patriarchy.

The Graph Feminists Do Not Want To See

2008-07-29T20:46:00.004-04:00

Source: Management of the Infertile Woman by Helen A. Carcio and The Fertility Sourcebook by M. Sara Rosenthal

I found this graph at Babycenter.com. Women not only are fighting the likelihood of NOT getting pregnant but also the risk of infertility. Their risk of infertility roughly doubles relative to every previous 4 year timeframe. Not very good news for all the women planning on 'having it all' in their late thirties/early forties, I'm afraid.

Another Wannabe Man Reinvents the Wheel

2008-07-28T12:40:00.002-04:00

Yet another story of some career woman discovering that you can only fool yourself for so long.

Her ending sentence is the most poignant:

"....being able to show vulnerability isn't a female weakness but a sign of a woman's strength."

No Mention of Feminism

2008-07-27T18:35:00.010-04:00

Bill O'Reilly and Marc Lamont Hill engage in a debate over Obama's infamous father's day speech.

O'Reilly apparently, like many American 'conservatives', is very quick to lump all of the blame for the failure of the black family on Black Men. Hill at least brings up the issue of difficulties in paying child support but does not mention feminism as a culprit in familial disintegration. There is also no mention of the high prevalence of maternity fraud and paternity fraud perpetrated upon the black man by the black woman. It stands to reason that if fatherhood is forced upon a man via maternity fraud, he will opt out of it when he has the chance.

Until so-called conservatives don't grow a pair and tackle root issues rather than offshoots, nothing will get fixed. Bill O'Reilly's rhetoric of individual responsibility only for men under any circumstances is one of the major straw men which feminists hide behind and use to prevent black and white men from uniting.

Interview with Warren Farrell

2008-07-27T13:53:00.006-04:00

Wizardking78 has done well to save this interview on the Myth of Male Power (19 parts).

Roissy on Devlin

2008-07-27T09:21:00.002-04:00

The Master of Game presents his take on the essays of F. Roger Devlin.

The End Justifies the Means

2008-07-24T20:23:00.032-04:00

Feminist thesis: Girl must be (at least) equal to boys at math and this must be acheived by any means possible.
*************************************************************************************
Step 1: Feminize the boys with Ritalin. Suffocate them with reduced playing time and a preponderance of female teachers who penalize boys because they are not acting like girls.

Step 2: Gear the curriculum towards girls and pretend as though boys are not affected

Step 3: In high school math tests, remove all the hard questions which require students to use their spatial ability and creativity and make sure the remaining questions can be answered using a minimum of logic and a maximum of calculators.

Step 4: Collect results from these dumbed down tests and then come to the conclusion that girls and boys are equally good at math.

Step 5: If anyone asks, pretend as though Steps 1 - 3 do not exist. If someone persists, claim feminism=good because equality=good and feminism=equality. Therefore anything feminism does=good. If there are those who question the premises of feminism, deluge them with ad hominems. Avoid a debate on the impact of feminism on boys' schooling at all costs, because, ya know, it's all about the girls.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some feminists cobbled together a study claiming that girls are as capable as boys in math and published it in Science of all places (I noticed all of the 5 authors are women - a red flag for me). The authors feel completely justified in minimizing the importance of innate gender differences without considering opposing evidence. The lead author, Janet Hyde, is the prototypical 2nd wave feminist as proven by her bio picture and 'credentials'. Here are the rest of the motley crew that wrote this publication: Sara M. Lindberg, Marcia C. Linn, Amy B. Ellis & Caroline C. Williams. You can google their names and check out their feminist creds. This, my friends, is typical of the plague infesting the American education system.

They proceed to process results from a bunch of tests from grades 2-11, arrive at the conclusion that girls perform as well as boys on math (a conclusion they use to sell their equality agenda i.e. 'there should be more female mathematicians, scientists, engineers etc.') tests but then belatedly mention that they couldn't process results from level 3 and level 4 complex questions given in higher grades because the states don't use such questions to query students any more!

They say:

"Level 3 (strategic thinking) includes complex cognitive demands that require students to reason, plan, and use evidence. Level 4 (extended thinking) items require complex reasoning over an extended period of time and require students to connect ideas within or across content areas as they develop one among alternate approaches.

We computed the percentage of items at levels 3 or 4 for each state for each grade, as an index of the extent to which the test tapped complex problem-solving. The results were disappointing. For most states and most grade levels, none of the items were at levels 3 or 4. Therefore, it was impossible to determine whether there was a gender difference in performance at levels 3 and 4."
* bold = my emphasis

Thus the NCLB (no child left behind) grade results are all (easy) level 1 and 2 questions i.e. questions that girls and boys could both get right in roughly equal proportions.

To counter this allegation, the feminists contrived to introduce another system (NAEP) and glean questions from there that were allegedly (according o the feminists) level 3. However, there is admittedly no level 4. Undaunted, the feminists compared grade 8 and grade 12 results and concluded the boys had a slight edge over the girls but fail to mention the huge disparity in help the girls get in those grades over the boys. Even the feminists would be forced to admit that there has been a deterioration in the quality of education. This deterioration precludes any comparison because if one dumbs down math beyond a certain point, eventually the innate differential advantage of boys will be untapped and thus invisible. It is probable that what are considered grade 3 and 4 questions today are really the grade 2 questions of 20 years ago.....

"If the tests do not assess the sorts of reasoning that are crucial to careers in STEM disciplines, then these skills may be neglected in instruction, putting American students at a disadvantage relative to those in other countries where tests and curricula emphasize more challenging content."

Thus, they cannot make any conclusions regarding the alleged 'improvement' in girls vs. boys because the level of deterioration has affected boys MUCH more than girls.

-They do not correct for all the systematic feminization and the suffocation imposed upon boys for the past three decades because gains for girls exist in a black box for them and negative effects on boys are irrelevant to them.
-Neither do they correct for the fact that female teachers are more apt to teach in a style that benefits girls because most of the teachers are themselves women who are told to teach a feminist curriculum.
-They do not account for the fact that girls mature faster than boys before puberty and thus would be expected to score around the level or a little higher than boys for the first few grades.
-There is obviously no mention of the gap in verbal fluency because women are ahead and in feminist lingo, if women are ahead, that is equality too!
-There is also the fact that what one gets in earlier grades is no indication of what you have an aptitude for: I (and several of my school friends) got higher marks regularly in various subjects other than the one in which they eventually specialized. Grades, especially since the 1980s, are not an accurate indicator of what you want to do with your life or even how good you are intellectually. The ultimate proof of this is that even girls who get good grades in the STEM (sceince, tech, engineering, math) line are more likely to opt out of those fields later on. If they don't what to study STEM stuff, why (a) force them to get into STEM lines and (b) why deprive boys of STEM chances?

They go on, in the pdf addendum to the article, to compare the composite ACT score which includes English, mathematics, reading, and science to the SAT math score. This is clearly an inadequate comparison. In 2002, states made the ACT mandatory for all students but the SAT is taken only by students intending to go to college. This fact is used by the feminists to claim that the ACT is a better indicator of the gender gap in mathematics. While that may be true, we still await the comparison of the SAT math score with the specific ACT math score. Since we know that girls score higher than boys on English and Reading (and God forbid the feminist do anything about those), it is very likely that boys will score higher on the ACT Mathematics subsection.

The SAT is a better IMO indicator of the USEFUL M/F difference because most of the students taking the SAT will go to college while a significant percentage of the ones taking the ACT wont. Thus the ACT is essentially irrelevant to universities as a guide to recruit students.

The feminists also use the fact that there are more Asian American girls than Asian American boys in the 99th percentile of acheivement to say the following: "thus the pattern of more males than females receiving exceptional scores is not universal." Their definition of 'universal' is selective because they are compartmentalizing by race rather than considering all boys above 99 percentile vs all girls above the same.

They completely gloss over the sample size of Asians which is only 219 (compared to 3473 for whites) and also the fact that they have cherry picked Minnesota to represent the whole US. Regardless, it is unclear whether 219 refers to all those above 95% or whether 219 is the whole population of AA. I will assume it refers to the whole AA population for the following but my conclusion would be unchanged even if the sample size referred to those above 95% only because of the relative difference in the sample sizes of the white and asian populations.

1.37% of women are in the 99th percentile which equals 3 women (.0137*219). By contrast 1.25% of boys are in this percentile which equals 2.73 boys. It is not possible to have 'fractional boys' because the percentages MUST equate to exact numbers of children. Further, a sample of 5.73 children does not allow one to extrapolate to all Asians much less the general population. The allegation of non-universality can be debunked by using their own data: in the 99th percentile, if one adds the white boys to the AA boys, one gets: 64.25+2.73= 66.98 if one adds the white girls to the AA girls, one gets 31.26+3=34.26. The M/F ratio then becomes=66.98/34.26=1.96. This is a better 'universal' comparison of boys to girls above the 99th percentile than simply compartmentalizing by singular races where there is not enough of a sample size to make any definitive conclusions.

It is absolutely horrible that the media goes around bandying stories like this that present factoids in a highly selective fashion to those who are ignorant of the ravages of feminism on the schools.

Update 1: Luboš Motl Pilsen has written an excellent post on this topic and Daran at Feminist Critics has written a very insightful post on the same. Check them out.

Update 2: I have been rummaging through the Gene Expression blog archives and found this excellent article by Camilla Benbow on how the egalitarians have destroyed the US educational system (although I think her reasoning applies to any country where feminist educators hold sway).
Her article was published in 1996 and the following is written in the conclusion (red=my emphasis):
"By drawing on several lines of converging evidence, we have demonstrated that the acheivement of America's brightest students has declined over the past three decades, lagging even further behind their counterparts in other nations."

Benbow's study further buttresses the notion that educational deterioration precludes the feminists from drawing cocksure conclusions about girls progressing relative to boys especially when the deterioration has disproportionately affected the boys unless the feminists are playing a zero sum game where a decline in boys acheivements is interpreted as success for girls.

Update 3: The wheels continue to fall off the media rollercoaster as Hyde's own data is used to disprove the contention that there are no gender differences in high ability.

This is Absolutely Outrageous!

2008-07-24T14:13:00.005-04:00

File this story under Exhibit #129837 of how a man is blamed for a woman's choices.

"During the three-day trial, Shell testified that she quit a job paying $81,000 a year in Pensacola, Fla., to move back to Gainesville and be with Gibbs after he proposed in October 2006. In December he left a note in the couple’s bathroom expressing second thoughts about the marriage, and he broke off the engagement for good in March 2007. Shell, who now makes $31,000 a year working for North Georgia College & State University, sued the following June."
..........

""If you make an agreement with someone, if you cause them to rely on that agreement to their detriment, you’re responsible," Sartain said."

There is no indication anywhere in this story that Shell's quitting was not entirely voluntary.
Her decision to quit her job was HER CHOICE.

Update: The plot thickens - I have been made aware that the bride to be was in debt and the husband to be was not too intent on paying off more than $30,000 of it. While he was undoubtedly an idiot for volunteering to pay off any part of her debt, it is possible that he got engaged trusting the woman to have no debt and she pulled a bait and switch i.e. revealed her debt piecemeal along the way using sex as leverage.

Look Who Eventually Becomes Unhappier!

2008-07-24T11:24:00.004-04:00

Apparently, middle aged men are happier than middle aged women nowadays.

"Men are most miserable in their 20s, but grow more satisfied as they get older, marry and earn more money, they found.
Women on the other hand are happier than men in early adulthood, but the glow wears off with time.

...........
41: Age at which men's financial satisfaction exceeds women's financial satisfaction

48: Age at which men's overall happiness exceeds women's overall happiness

64: Age at which men's satisfaction with family life exceeds women's satisfaction

................
These findings are consistent with an earlier study by Prof Easterlin showing that recent generations are less satisfied than previous generations, despite having more."

Isn't it shocking how all that female independence doesn't quite translate into women being happier? The average women is finding out that maintaining a good lifestyle by oneself is not quite a walk in the park as the feminists made it out to be. Cry me a river, I say.

Girls and women get all the props from gynocentric institutions when they are young, get supercharged with self esteem and then enter the workforce riding high only to have the rose tinted glasses fall off after a few years. This explains why they are happier initially but unhappy later on.

Men on the other hand, get no perks of any kind simply for being men and thus are unhappier when young in part because they can see that women are profiting simply because they have vaginas. Getting married in one's twenties is tough: they have no money and women will avoid marrying men with little money. However, they find out later in life that they can accumulate FAR more money over time than women can, especially if they, in their teens and twenties, do not waste it on women who do not appreciate them. Dating for men is easier in one's thirties because men are much more likely to be able to support a traditional female lifestyle in addition to their own. Ergo, men's happiness increases with time because most men want traditional women, not the ballbusters.

Where MRAs go Wrong

2008-07-22T12:50:00.006-04:00

Apparently, there is some sort of effort by the feminists in Australia to prevent companies from penalising fathers who take paternity leave and more flex time than usual.

An MRA says that this is a good thing by assuming 'equality' if BOTH men and women get taxpayer benefits pursuant to their LIFESTYLE CHOICES (the choice to have babies).

He fails to question why women should have the benefits of tax credits and other goodies IN THE FIRST PLACE just because they made a personal choice to have children. Should I get a tax credit if I go skydiving? That is a personal choice too...

What about all the single people working? Why should they have to pay MORE TAXES to subsidize the kids of others? Why should single people have to pick up the slack when married people disappear randomly on company time? The Australian policy seems to be a move aimed at
- increasing birth rates by imposing financial burdens on single men and women and trasferring those benefits to mothers and pro-flex time dads.
- artificially justifying the inflated earning capacity of mothers by justifying the inflated earning capacity of pro-flex time fathers.

The commonality between a WRONG gender neutral policy and a WRONG gender biased policy is that they are both WRONG. There is no 'better wrong' and 'worse wrong', just wrong. To talk about shades of grey is to dodge the issue at hand. Additionally, it is has already been shown that men, by and large, don't WANT to take parental leave even when they can take it without penalty. Clearly, men do not want to spend as much time with babies as women do. This does not make men 'worser' parents than women because it is incorrect to judge men by female paradigms, just as it is incorrect to use the 'wage gap' to postulate female inferiority. Men and women are different, not inferior or superior to each other, period. The possession of different cognitive attributes and abilities from birth invalidates any group comparison between the sexes, let alone moralizing on how one sex should 'be' based on what the other sex is/does.

Feminism, however, assumes gender similarities that don't exist by using stay at home dads and career women as representative of their respective sexes, and thus exposes itself to the double standard of not considering women economically inferior but simultaneously considering men parentally inferior. Ergo, the feminists rationalize the 'wage gap' using some oppression claptrap but they interpret the parenting gap as somehow indicative of men being inferior parents.

The solution, clearly, is to completely remove taxpayer benefits for parents, not to impose more of them on single people.

Archetypal Angry Black Career Woman

2008-07-22T10:29:00.008-04:00

Behold the kind of woman both men and women hate: Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth

Here's another video of Omarosa attacking the creds of Linda Vester ON VESTER'S SHOW!

If she is this bellicose with women can you imagine how she is with men?? Oh wait... we have evidence of that too:

Who among you would like to switch place with Piers Morgan in these videos 1 & 2?? Who?

No wonder her ex-husband ran for the hills.

God help the schmuck or cat who becomes a hostage to this caustic bitch. Gaaaaaah! There is a very useful benefit she and others like her serve: they tend to catalyze the movement of women AWAY from feminist ideals.

Rosie Boycott Kowtows to the Sisterhood Rules

2008-07-21T09:46:00.005-04:00

Sisterhood to Rosie:

Article 1, clause 1: "You MUST NOT offend women by critiquing them under ANY circumstances OR going against the feminist diktat that KNOWS what women want."

Article 1, clause 2: "If you violate this rule, you must explain away what you previously said/wrote as a benefit for women (happiness) as a result of an ~~outrageous lie~~ obvious truth (women don't demand much). If possible, play zero sum games with happiness and make sure that men lose and women win. This way, women don't look stupid and/or sexist."

Aside: "We will assume the entire public is lazy and pro-feminist and will be convinced by anecdotes rather than evidence to the contrary that women have been becoming less happy since the 1960s."

College Degrees Don't Pay ANY MORE

2008-07-17T14:02:00.007-04:00

This WSJ news article is not going to be news for the few who see the causal inverse relationship between universities relaxing standards so that more women could get degrees and a resultant decline the the quality of education/preparedness that employers see degree holders possessing.

Many women today claim women are smarter/better prepared/more intelligent than men because more women than men are graduating with degrees. However, this really means nothing because all of today's degrees are worth a fraction of the ones obtained, say 40 years ago, before pussified governments felt a need to expand their workforce by shoehorning women in AND today's female degrees are worth even less than male degrees because females have received (and continue to receive) preferential treatment of all sorts.

It is no surprise that men have sought other avenues where they are appreciated as men rather than reviled as aggressors/rapists/the 'privileged' by the all too common liberal pantywaist sitting in his/her ivory tower, beholden to the progressive agenda.

Here's an update supporting the point above: Barbara Ehrenreich, a feminist, is quoted in another WSJ article as saying the following "..there are ways in which the higher education industry is becoming a racket.." and "Employers prefer college grads because they see a college degree chiefly as mark of one's ability to obey and conform."

Although the article writer disagrees with Ehrenreich, he fails to provide evidence to back it up. I agree with Ehrenreich but for different reasons: she would like to put the blame on employers but pretend as though gender affirmative action ia A-OK. I think the fault lies with the government and the educators who have dimished the value of a degree by subscribing to the egalitarian agenda.

Another Career Junkie Regrets her Decision

2008-07-16T10:41:00.006-04:00

The article's title summarises it succinctly:

I thought by having a career I was giving my daughter everything. But now she wants to know why I was never there for her

It is false to presume as Diana Appleyard did, that children will be happier if there is more money. Children don't care about whether they live in a town house as opposed to a condo. More mothering at a young age is always superior to a higher standard of living. Chances are children will see the absentee mother as preferring to work and pay a day care worker to sub for her rather than be with the children herself.

Perhaps there should be 'Regretful Career Woman Anonymous' clubs where ball busters can commiserate and engage in group hugs to make themselves feel better about the collateral damage they have caused.

Boteach vs. Prager

2008-06-25T14:56:00.006-04:00

Check out the videos below:

Boteach vs. Prager Part 1
Boteach vs. Prager Part 2
Boteach vs. Prager Part 3
Boteach vs. Prager Part 4
Boteach vs. Prager Part 5

This post is a nice followup to the previous one because you have two Jewish media luminaries, Rabbi Schmuley Boteach and Dennis Prager, debating Boteach's book "The Broken American Male" in which Boteach argues that men need to become MORE feminine. He simultaneously implies that women have little or no responsibility for the deterioration of present-day intermarital relations and absolves feminism from blame for the latter. He also states that Judaism is a feminine religion! From his logic, one must either deduce that women are 'big children' because they have de facto lesser responsibility than men within a marriage OR that women are superior to men in some aspect because they are less culpable for grievances within marriage by virtue of being 'right' more often via possession of some inherent characteristics as a result of being female. Boteach's talk is offensive on many levels to self-respecting men but sadly typical of the narrative from many leaders irrespective of what religion they adhere to.

Prager, in stark contrast, argues that men have become too feminized and disputes the notion that Judaism is feminine. He advocates a non-feminist position with which I agree for the most part. His talk centres around women denying their femininity and how feminism has caused this change within women. Importantly, he touched on the fact that male suicide rates have risen fivefold since the 1960s.

There is an aspect that both Prager and Boteach missed completely indirectly related to the last point above. A big reason men spend little time relative to women doing child rearing stuff is because men are COMPELLED via female hypergamous attitudes to earn more money in order to compete for the attention of women who would never give them the time of day if they earned below a certain level. This level has gone up since 1960 at a higher rate because women, en masse, have, for largely self serving reasons, joined the rat race and taken away jobs from men who, in many cases, were more deserving of those positions than the women. A higher paying job typically means more hours working and less time to spend at home. Less job niches per unit the same supply of men meant the supply and demand balance of available job openings tilted against men i.e. men would now:

(a) get lower salaries than they would have got had women stayed out of the career track work force en masse.

(b) be unemployed at higher rates than usual.

This is all notwithstanding the fact that men are literally paying to have their money handed over to women via welfare, tax subsidies, flex-time and social security and also to have their behaviour punished should women not find said behaviour acceptable.

This is a recipe for disaster for not just the American male but every male in a country where feminist laws hold sway. The last thing one needs is for men like Boteach to come along and blame men for the problems that women have, in large part, caused through their hypergamy.

Free Jewish Birds

2008-06-22T14:02:00.010-04:00

People continue to be amazed that men have the capacity to walk away from egalitarian bullshit regardless of what religion they belong to or what ethnicity they are. It is inconceivable to them that personal freedom is of infinitely more value to men than equality will ever be.

There is the inability or the deliberate ignorance to see the forest for the trees:

"Some Jewish leaders dispute the statistics, citing contradictory evidence, or pointing to the continuing presence of men at the helm of the biggest community organizations and synagogues."

Then there are those who consider a preponderance of women within the Jewish religious hierarchy as ‘progress’.

"Others question whether a preponderance of women is a problem, or just progress."

By that line of reasoning, more women inevitably = more ‘progress’. Of course no one mentions ~~affirmative action~~ how they got to be in positions of leadership, why the manner in which they got those positions devalues the position itself and why most men would not want to get that position in the same way.

Others want to dodge the feminist issue and hope that the problem will fix itself.

"We talk about this a lot, but there are no clear solutions yet," Bair said. "I'm sort of hoping it will correct itself."

Still others are more cognizant of what is happening and are doing something about it but the numbers are far too few and they cannot make too much of a noise for fear of being pilloried by others.

"Some suggest that in the Western world, spirituality, especially in more liberal denominations, has become associated with femininity. Others believe that men are reluctant to join organizations unless they can play leadership roles, and with the entry of large numbers of women into synagogue life, there are fewer such opportunities for men."

Until such time as the delusional fools running the show reverse feminizing policies, men will walk away and seek out venues and social gatherings that are not feminized.

Great Fathers Often Make Great Sons

2008-06-14T18:45:00.005-04:00

'Big Russ' played a significant part in the success of his son, Tim Russert, who sadly died yesterday due to a heart attack. Luke Russert, Tim's son, is a better man today because Tim conveyed to him the same ethics and values that his own father had taught him. These were the values that made Tim a success both personally and professionally as one the THE pre-eminent names in journalism.

Tim Russert is a role model every boy IMO should aspire to emulate.

Glenn Sacks has a nice post with an excerpt from Russert's book "Wisdom of Our Fathers".

Benefits of the Sexual Revolution

2008-06-10T16:54:00.003-04:00

A study by New York City Department of Health has revealed that twice as many women (36%) as men (19%) are infected with the herpes HSV2 virus in New York City.

Let’s ignore, for a moment, the fact that 1 in 3 women have an STD and focus on why two women are getting infected for every one man. This is likely happening because NYC women, rather than have sex with Johnny Reliable, would rather fuck bad boys who are more prone to getting STDs. Since the demand for bad boys exceeds supply and women are still the gatekeepers of sexuality, we have many women running after a few men. Many of these women later in life will suddenly have a religious awakening vis a vis the JRs and possibly end up passing the STDs on to them.

Equality Bites

2008-06-05T13:01:00.007-04:00

It appears, in England at least, that an increasing number of breadwinning career women are not able to have their cake and eat it too. Divorce, they learn, is not exactly the cash and kids bonanza that it is for housewives. Rather, their ex-husbands are learning that if they fight for their rights, courts will award custody of the kids to them as well as give them alimony. The article this post is based on is whiny in parts but is generally resigned to the fact that some men are learning not to be the open wallets that most men are.

So long as the secondary earner and primary child carer are entitled to alimony/child support/custody, men in this situation should cash in on this heretofore female-only prerogative instead of sitting around moping or hanging on to outdated chivalrous notions.

The most amusing aspect of this is that feminists are completely unable to argue against the fact that men should be paid alimony and receive child custody: to do so they would have to contravene their own notions of equality! I guess they always presumed that men would always mulishly slave away in the rat race, unquestioningly subsidizing the entitled lives of modern women. To a substantial degree they are right in that subsidies by dim witted male taxpayers are the basis of the 'self esteem' entitlements most women enjoy in the Western hemisphere. However, as is evident, some men are wising up.

Consider whether you, the man, post-divorce, would rather pay out moolah to the primary child carer as a result of being the primary earner or whether you would rather be the recipient of monetary benefits as a result of being the primary child carer. Manufacturing jobs are chronically declining and service jobs are chronically rising. One can only expect the househusband trend to rise… and more men to cash in. Defeating feminism may very well involve a substantial increase in the numbers of men like these in order to prove that the majority of women are unwilling to support ex-spouses for even a few years in the same way that most men have supported ex-spouses over centuries.

More Evidence of Female Entitlement

2008-05-09T12:05:00.005-04:00

When the rubber meets the road, women see the real worth of men in terms of how much men earn.

"Consciously or not, plenty of women seem to have decided they would rather compete for scarce, wealthy males than move where the males are poorer but more plentiful.

Manhattan’s women may constantly grumble about the lack of marriageable men in the city, but it is their rational choice not to relocate to Alaska."

[bold: my emphasis]

The irony is that there are less high earning men directly as a result of women working, because working women do little or nothing to create jobs for men. Rather, they hole themselves up in service sector dead end jobs, middle management or cushy government sinecures and become consumers rather than producers, leaving men responsible for the job production for both men and women.

Logic is Hard for some Men too

2008-04-22T18:31:00.005-04:00

Count Brian Murphy of Yahoo Sports fame among their ranks.

The aforementioned considers the following logical:

- a is a member of group A. b is a member of group B.

- Within a common time period, a wins 5 games while competing only with members of group A. b wins 3 games while competing only with members of group B.

- Therefore, a is superior to b.

when one replaces a with Lorena Ochoa, b with Tiger Woods, A with female golfers and B with male golfers.

The simple fact that male and female golfers do not compete in the same tournaments has completely eluded Murphy. Of course, Murphy does not want to deal with what happened in the 2003 Bank of America Colonial PGA event when Annika Sorenstam, the then world's top female golfer, didn't even make the cut, finishing 96th out of 114. No no, mentioning such a situation would be 'inconvenient' to his pseudopoint. This is all notwithstanding the spectacular debacle that is Michelle Wie.

Why Yahoo Sports would employ someone who writes crap like this is beyond belief.

Yay, Danica won, Yay!

2008-04-22T12:36:00.012-04:00

I refer, of course, to Danica Patrick who just won her first IndyCar race in Japan. Is this not a turning point in history of auto racing for women as some would think?

Let's analyze the facts:

- This is her FIRST win in four years of racing in the IRL, a league which is not as competitive as NASCAR or Formula One.

- Her win came because the leader on the last lap, worried about his overall points standing, had to slow down cos of fuel problems.

- Her win came against a shrunken field of competitors

Consider that if Danica was a 'he' and 'he' had won the race in similar fashion, after four years of mediocrity, 'he' would NEVER receive as much publicity as 'race winner' Danica is currently receiving.

Update: Check out Glenn Sacks' post on Patrick's victory.

Beauvoir The Hypocrite

2008-04-12T17:47:00.004-04:00

"...And while Simone de Beauvoir preached her ideal of feminist independence and equality, eschewing such 'bourgeois' concepts as marriage and children, and claiming women should behave just like men, the truth is such a lifestyle made her bitterly unhappy and she became obsessively jealous over Sartre's countless conquests.

Despite her high-flown rhetoric, it was only for revenge and out of frustration that she embarked on affairs, always secretly hoping they would provoke Sartre to return to her.

And, astonishingly, it was her craven desire to please him that led de Beauvoir to groom young female lovers for Sartre, commonly girls she had bedded herself.

In this sordid relationship of supposed equals, he was always one step ahead of her - though it didn't start that way. "

2008 Equal Parenting Bike Trek

2008-03-27T23:42:00.006-04:00

Check it out. Spread publicity about this event in any way you can.

--------------------------------
On separate note, check out the comment made in this post from a father seeking custody and visitation to see his son.

216 Monthly Payments? Hell NO!

2008-03-21T15:15:00.006-04:00

The Pope has Big Brass Balls

2008-03-18T14:22:00.008-04:00

In recent times, there has been a shortage of anti-egalitarian priests and laymen who can LOGICALLY defend their viewpoints independently of spiritual defenses. They hesitate, dither and vacillate on topics such as abortion and feminism, allowing supporters of the latter to use this ambiguity to their own advantage. Fortunately, the Catholic Church is currently led by a courageous man who has no time for feminist bullshit. This is in stark contrast to the Archbishop of Canterbury who, in the tradition of his countryman Neville Chamberlain, prefers appeasement to confrontation on the topic of women priests.

The Vatican has cracked down on feminist interpretations of the liturgy, ruling that God must always be recognised as Our Father.

In a move designed to counter the spread of gender-neutral phrases, the Holy See said that anyone baptised using alternative terms, such as "Creator", "Redeemer" and "Sanctifier" would have to be re-baptised using the traditional ceremony.
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith said yesterday: "These variations arise from so-called feminist theology and are an attempt to avoid using the words Father and Son, which are held to be chauvinistic."

Instead, it said that the traditional form of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" had to be respected.
......

Monsignor Antonio Miralles, a professor at the Pontifical Holy Cross University, said the new baptism "subverts faith in the Trinity" because it does not make the relationship between the three persons clear. "God is eternally Father in relation to His only begotten Son, who is not eternally Son except in relation to the Father."

......

The Pope is fairly perceptive:

In his book, The Ratzinger Report, he wrote: "I am, in fact, convinced that what feminism promotes in its radical form is no longer the Christianity that we know; it is another religion."

Check out some excerpts from the 1985 Ratzinger Report. To quote the good Pope,

"Besides what I shall never tire of repeating also applies here: for the Church the language of nature (in our case, two sexes complementary to each other yet quite distinct) is also the language of morality (man and women called to equally noble destinies, both eternal, but different). It is precisely in the name of nature - it is known that the Protestant tradition and, in its wake, that of the Enlightenment mistrust this concept - that the Church raises her voice against the temptation to project persons and their destiny according to mere human plans, to strip them of individuality and, in consequence, of dignity. To respect biology is to respect God himself, hence to safeguard his creatures.

Feminine radicalism announces a liberation that is a salvation different from, if not opposed to, the Christian conception. The men and above all the women who are experiencing the fruits of this presumed post-Christian salvation must realistically ask themselves if this really signifies an increase of happiness, a greater balance, a vital synthesis, richer than the one discarded because it was deemed to be obsolete."

[all bolded items: my emphasis]

Steve Sailer on the Anti-Male Bias in Title IX

2008-03-11T11:24:00.005-04:00

Check this article out (and the sex funding ratio column in the table Sailer presents in particular) to see how much more federal funding women get compared to men in sports scholarships.

To quote Sailer (bold = my emphasis)

"..the "Sex Ratio" column understates the degree of anti-male bias because this table is based on high school team members, but there are a lot more boys than girls in high school who aren't good enough to make the school team."

Daddy Government Steps in to Bail Mommies Out

2008-03-11T10:44:00.003-04:00

Here's another story on big government (British in this case) funneling cash at a disproportionate rate from male tax payers (most of those who pay the most tax are men, even in feminized countries) to women so those women can then think they are 'equal' to men.

This is yet another example of the female choice to get pregnant being framed as an involuntary disability.

"Mothers could be offered a financial incentive to start up their own business after having children, in a Government attempt to boost the number of women entrepreneurs.
They would be given advice on how to run a firm, pitch for bank loans and prepare business plans under the enterprise strategy being launched tomorrow."

"The enterprise strategy will be aimed at women who are either young, out of a job, from an ethnic minority or eager to work after having children. Mothers using children's centres will also be targeted with business advice."

[bold= my emphasis]

At some point in the future, one can be sure to hear about all the 'successful' mommy entrepreneurs. What one will never hear is about how they got to be entrepreneurs in the first place.

Non feminists should compile lists of articles like these to show to any woman who suffers under the illusion that women and men are economically equal.

Perception is Reality, or is it?

2008-03-08T18:21:00.005-05:00

Christina Hoff Sommers sheds light on how the egalitarians seek to MAKE women SEEM equal to men by depriving men of resources.

The equation egalitarians seek to implement is inherently anti-egalitarian: women + X = Men - X where X represents the resources moved from one sex to the other as a penalty for 'past oppression/patriarchy' or whatever variation of cognitive dissonance the equalists can drum up. In practical terms, X manifests itself in reverse discrimination, job quotas, women's only funding/scholarships to name very few of the various leg-ups women have received over the past several decades.

Egalitarians seek to gloss over the anti-egalitarianism in their doctrine by redefining women and men as "Women + X" and "Men - X" respectively. Then, they seek to convince Women that they really are "Women + X" i.e. ENTITLED Women. They then hope that women will accept this and browbeat their brothers, husbands, fathers, uncles and sons into accepting that men are "Men - X" i.e. 'real men' in feminist parlance. The perverse beauty of this bullshit is that when any man makes the mistake of questioning this 'logic' by saying that he didn't oppress women, any woman can perpetually shift the blame by saying that the X is not being subtracted from him but from other men.

The key is to avoid absolving oneself personally. Absolving oneself creates the perception that you accept that a crime exists but you are not guilty of it. Never EVER accept the notion that women were oppressed by men without insisting on empirical proof. Discrimination and oppression are not interchangeable terms because there are practical grounds for the former but no grounds for the latter: IMO, it is perfectly acceptable for an employer to give preference to those who will will NOT take random leaves of absence to have babies and hope that others will pick up the slack.

Most people in Western Society today overemphasise the real worth of women while simultaneously underemphasising the real worth of men. The post-egalitarianism thought process goes like this: "If there are lesser women percentage wise[as in most very high paying jobs], it must be sexism/underrepresentation and if there are more women percentage wise [as in degree earners], it means women are more able than men." This is a win-win for women and a lose-lose for men.

This dual delusion creates the perception that women are equally able in areas where they are unequal. If women are 10% of CEOs and suddenly become 50% becaue of quota allocation, this does NOT mean women are equally able. Rather, it is proof positive that women couldn't get ahead without help.

It is a rather pathetic reflection on the White Western Male, for the most part, that he has betrayed his sex by kowtowing to the illogical demands of feminists and entitled women for no good reason.

How Many Women Are Like This One?

2008-02-28T23:36:00.006-05:00

Far too many, I think.....

Lauren Cleri went on a game show, "The Moment of Truth" and admitted to wishing she had married her ex-boyfriend rather than her present husband.

What makes it worse is that her husband sat a few feet away from her and the show was televised to a national audience. I didn't watch the show, being the gossip fest that it is, but caught Anderson Cooper, typically a politically correct individual on CNN, talking about the poor sap, in sympathetic terms no less, so I had to read up to see if the story had any truth to it. After all, when a leftist liberal stands up for a man, a story like this just has to be true. According to the NY post, there's more muck in that weather worn rut.

On Page 2 of the NY Post story, [bold: my emphasis]

The pair said they had planned to share any money she won.

But the show's executive producer, Howard Schultz, said Lauren Cleri told him later that "she doesn't want a relationship [with her ex or her husband].

"She wanted out of her marriage, and she wanted to . . . tell the truth," Schultz told The Post.
"Perhaps some of it was then, 'If I'm going to end my marriage, then if I can win a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand dollars. I can start a new life with some cash in my pocket.' "

Asked if she went on the show to get out of her marriage, Lauren yesterday said "definitely" not.

Tom Leykis did a show on her. It's titled "Moment of Truth" on the podcast website.

Kekes on Egalitarianism

2008-02-22T15:13:00.004-05:00

I cannot stress enough how important it is for all people to educate themselves on the reasoning behind the dangers of egalitarianism (one branch of which is mainstream feminism). Far too many MRAs and non-feminists fall into the trap of accepting the fundamental premise of feminism without realising it.

Currently, I am reading "The Illusions of Egalitarianism" by John Kekes and have recently found a couple of his articles which you should check out:

Dangerous Egalitarian Dreams

A Question for Egalitarians

A Superlative Article

2008-02-21T09:47:00.003-05:00

Rob Fedders, in one fell swoop, explains why men today, in general, have little or no incentive to work as hard as they did 100+ years ago.

This article should be required reading for everyone.

Bernard Chapin on the Female Voter

2008-02-18T15:25:00.006-05:00

Here's the Hirshman article Chapin refers to, in case you want to have a look at it.

The ‘White Male Domination’ of Democratic Superdelegates

2008-02-16T16:33:00.007-05:00

The election process in the US is all abuzz and the Democratic nomination for the candidate to challenge the Republican nominee (John McCain) is coming down to the wire. This means that there is a good chance that so called ‘Superdelegates’ will decide the outcome. Josephine Hearn of Politico.com has taken it upon herself to lob a grenade at the fact that “at least 46% of these delegates are white males”.

She starts off describing superdelegates:
“Representing about 20 percent of all delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the superdelegate roster is composed of members of Congress, other elected officeholders and party officials”

Indeed, Wikipedia says:

“the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials.”

So it is established that these individuals are holders of EARNED posts. These are not gifted in the way that, say, the post of ‘First Lady’ is.

Then she goes on to say:
“The percentage of white male superdelegates is disproportionate to the share of white males who make up the overall Democratic electorate. According to a January 2008 national poll by Zogby International, 28 percent of Democratic voters are white men. Women account for 55 percent of Democratic voters.”

A non sequitur and a false dilemma are wrapped together here. Whether gender or ethnicity ratios are disproportionate or not is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to whether candidates are qualified for a particular position. To advocate for de facto proportional representation is tantamount to hiring people based on ethnicity or gender instead of merit. Such is the stupidity of egalitarianism although most people today are not smart enough to figure this out for themselves. While Mzzz Hearn is essentially advocating that white men should only have 28% representation in the Democratic Party, she forgets that men in the US represent 49% of the population, in which case, any egalitarian (Hearn, presumably?) would be correct to complain that the Democratic Party does NOT represent the interests of MEN adequately. One would be right to question why Hearn prefers to draw a black box around Democratic voters and think that is representative of USA.

It is probable that she has an axe to grind with men but one fails to see where Hearn is going with her analysis. Perhaps, she is suggesting a reduction in white men equals more votes for Billary Clinton (I say Billary because she is running on the success/charisma of her husband and much of her experience was garnered in an UNEARNED position: First Lady.). Perhaps she advocates gender equality as a moral good of some kind i.e. she is a dogmatic egalitarian in which case she is trapped in a vicious circle where her conclusions and premises are inextricably tied to the following ~~bullshit~~ ‘logic’ that most feminists and other PC chumps often display:

“Equality/Diversity is ‘good’. Here is something that shows we don’t have equality. Since equality is good, it follows that inequality/non-diversity is ‘bad’, duh! We, therefore, need to change something to make things more egalitarian. Any negatives associated with any change made are subordinated to the 'goodness' of egalitarianism.”

The question of superdelegates having been voted in by women appears to have escaped Mzzz. Hearn. After all, most of the democratic voters are women anyway, so why didn’t they vote women in to the superdelegate positions? Could it be because women were and are less able to perform to a certain level of efficiency due to lifestyle choices than their male counterparts? Could it be because women themselves don’t like the idea of other women in power? These are questions conveniently dodged by the Hearnsian one.

“Among the more than 700 superdelegates named by the Democratic National Committee, Clinton leads Obama by 231 to 140.5 (the eight members of Democrats Abroad receive a half vote.). Among white men, at least 81 were supporting Clinton and at least 63 were backing Obama.”

Hearn’s article is nothing more than paranoia regarding gender bias in voting i.e. the fear that men will vote for the man based only on the fact that he is a man. However, this is destroyed by the statistic she has been good enough to cite in the excerpt above: more white men vote for the woman, Billary, than the man, Obama. I had a little spare time so I decided to check the number, using Hearn’s own stats link in the article, of women supporting Obama and Billary. It turns out that female superdelegates support Billary by a ratio of 108:43. Hearn would do well to launch an inquisition of female superdelegates and see why they are voting for Billary over Obama, especially given that both share 90% of policies in common with Obama the more liberal of the two. If one removes the female superdelegates, one still finds Billary leading 134:118.5, so there is no male conspiracy against Billary. The predominance of the superdelegate disparity between a woman and a man who share most of their policies in common is due to FEMALE SUPERDELEGATES.

Perhaps, Hearn has recognized that the majority of white male voters in the primaries and caucuses do not like Billary for one reason or another and fears that this necessarily means the dislike would also be proportionally reflected in male superdelegates. Unwittingly, she has debunked the fallacy of the patriarchy i.e. the presumption that powerful men look out for other men’s interests over female interests simply for the sake of ‘supporting one’s gender’. As one sees from her own stats, the more powerful white men voting in larger numbers for Hillary than for Obama. If anything it shows that Democratic white men are tools of women.

Quite to the contrary of Hearn’s presumptive fears, one has more justification to fear the gender bias female super delegates who inordinately lean toward Billary even though there are no substantive differences between Obama and herself. The concept of representative democracy could well reveal its true nature as a ‘dictatorship of the majority’ if more women become superdelegates.

What is even more disturbing (but not surprising given the recent history of the Democratic Party) is that Democrats themselves are openly and shamelessly complicit in this anti-meritocratic atmosphere as two Obama supporters unabashedly indicate in this article:

Obama Superdelegate: "It’s still the old guard, the white men. They always want to control the outcome,” the superdelegate said. “But this time, they won’t be able to do it."

Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.), an Obama supporter: "Obviously it’s an imperfect system. It smacks a lot of the old state legislatures electing senators, I do think you’ll see some kind of reform after this to make it binding with the majority of votes."

More Men Speak Up

2008-02-14T12:20:00.005-05:00

Check out two barnstorming articles by Kim du Toit (I've bolded items in the excerpts below).

Why Bother? [Referring to the pointlessness of marriage for men in the feminized Western World]

"The saddest part of this is that all things being equal, most men actually enjoy being married, and look forward to it. It’s nice to have someone to come home to, someone with whom you can just be yourself, and someone to share the wonderful joys of having kids. And don’t kid yourselves, the sex is great. A buddy of mine, married to his childhood sweetheart for over twenty years, put it to me this way: “A lot of the time, the sex [between longtime marrieds] is fine, or just so-so. But every once in a while, it’s fantastic, tremendous, brilliant, and better than you could ever ever get from a stranger.”
The men who are resisting being married are cutting themselves off from all this—and women should ask themselves why this is the case, without resorting to the “men are just refusing to grow up” bullshit. They’re not refusing to grow up: this is the reaction to the constant belittlement and the infantilizing treatment they’ve been exposed to all their lives."

The Pussification Of The Western Male

"Out there, there is a huge number of men who are sick of it. We’re sick of being made figures of fun and ridicule; we’re sick of having girly-men like journalists, advertising agency execs and movie stars decide on “what is a man”; we’re sick of women treating us like children, and we’re really fucking sick of girly-men politicians who pander to women by passing an ever-increasing raft of Nanny laws and regulations (the legal equivalent of public-school Ritalin), which prevent us from hunting, racing our cars and motorcycles, smoking, flirting with women at the office, getting into fistfights over women, shooting criminals and doing all the fine things which being a man entails.
When Annika Sorenstam was allowed to play in that tournament on the men’s PGA tour, all the men should have refused to play—Vijay Singh was the only one with balls to stand up for a principle, and he was absolutely excoriated for being a “chauvinist”. Bullshit. He wasn’t a chauvinist, he was being a man. All the rest of the players—Woods, Mickelson, the lot—are girls by comparison. And, needless to say, Vijay isn’t an American, nor a European, which is probably why he still has a pair hanging between his legs, and they’re not hanging on the wall as his wife’s trophy."

Male/Female Intelligence Differences

2008-02-10T12:21:00.000-05:00

J. P. Rushton: "There has been a consensus for a 100 years that men and women have the same intelligence and we're overturning that."

He empirically proves that men on average are more intelligent than women by 3.6 IQ points.

What feminists fail/refuse to realise/admit is that part of the reason why men are more intelligent is because women, as a consequence of their hypergamous nature, have selected smarter men to be their mates since time immemorial. They also fail to see that any innate advantage is not grounds for claiming inferiority or superiority because such an advantage is not earned. The policy of

(1) brainwashing girls from youth to be independent of men
(2) doctoring SAT scores to increase the proportion of women in universities
(3) imposing quotas to fill high end jobs with women

simply to fulfill some utopian fantasy of egalitarianism, a goal which feminists, by and large, assume is de facto 'good', reduces the number of desirable mates for women. Hence the tired female refrain of "There are no good men left."

Have a look at interviews he has done on his research on Male/Female intelligence differences.

Here is more on IQ sex differences with the male & female IQ bell curves. La Griffe du Lion also has some articles on these differences (1, 2, and 3), the links for which can also be found on my sidebar.

Edward Hagen - Evolutionary Psychology FAQ

2008-02-05T11:47:00.000-05:00

Check it out. Feminists can't deal with it cos evolutionary psychology does not need to proceed from the stupid assumption that equality is necessarily a moral good.

Hot, Smart and a Feminist Critic

2008-02-04T22:15:00.000-05:00

Ilana Mercer.

Check out her articles on the pity-pot religion.

The Diminishing Eggs Dilemma

2008-02-02T12:25:00.000-05:00

What's a 30-something female to do when she can't find any men to fertilize her eggs AND marry her AND adore the goddess that she undoubtedly is? Why blame those stupid man boys of course!

I still get a kick out of reading stereotypical, strong, independent female whining because it is always very amusing to see their brains continually act like force fields, repulsing any logic that dares to come within thinking distance. As Laura Nolan demonstrates throughout her screed, she is an excellent and typical exponent of cognitive dissonance, or the excuse system known as "It's not me, it's you, because I can't possibly be wrong".

Some of the female commenters are even more hilarious.

Catherine Barrett stamps her petulant feet (bold: my emphasis):
"Marriage was a Patriarchal institution created to enslave people, where women and children became possessions of men. Men were conditioned to take and take. Women were conditioned to give and give. Now, we are both waking up to the BIG LIE.!!! So, let us each do as we feel good with, and let everyone else mind their own business."

Satya makes the argument: "I didn't screw my husband, therefore other women couldn't possibly have screwed their husbands"
"Many of these replies are truly awful. Generalisations all over the place. I didn't use my charms at the age of 20, I didn't screw my husband when I divorced him (left him in the house with all the contents and negotiated a small settlement) I didn't run off and leave him for another man, or a woman . I don't want to marry a man to take away his money. I don't want to have a baby. I remain single because I can't be bothered to try right now, I like the peace and the tranquility. Sure I would love to be in love with a man right now who loves me, to laugh about childish things, to talk about the universe, to feel an arm around my waist...I have never made demands of a man or been manipulative , I simply wanted a great friend, who'd treat me with the respect I would treat him with. I sigh...... I'm not with baggage, simply worldly-wise...Please try and stop these dreadful generalisations, they are harmful to us all. I am here but I don't see me at all...."

Most of the commenting men, unfortunately for Laura Nolan, appear to have a rather negative views of feminism and career women. It is truly excellent to see the withering broadside they level at the latter two societal pustules.

James Noble sums my sentiments quite well:
"Humourless, Ageing, Jet-set Lady, Wonders Why Blaming Men For Everything, Hasn't Bagged Her A Husband." Still, very good. More of these please.

David Morrison breaks out the salt shaker:
"I suppose that one of the female revolution's greatest successes has been the freedom it delivered to men. Once for a man to have a sex-life he had to marry. Society was very clear on that principle. Following the recent decades of equality men can have a very fulfilling life without having to make any commitments at all. There is a further reason to avoid marriage and many respondents have mentioned it - the disaster that divorce visits on men. Socially men and women may be equal but in law women are more equal than men. Why should any man accept a losing game when he can continue to play a winning game? Feminism freed men - it played to men's strengths and we now enjoy all the benefits of no strings sex and all with society's approval. "

Steve reminds the author of a little point she forgot to talk about:
"I truly wish the author all the luck in the world finding the men she spat down on in her teens and 20's."

Can Feminists Evoke Humor?

2008-01-09T11:45:00.000-05:00

Amanda Marcotte:

"As a member of a group (feminists) quite unfairly characterized as humorless, I’m waiting patiently for my warm media reception because I defy the stereotype."

Dennis the Peasant seeks to help this web matriarch destroy the myth that feminists are not capable of being the source of considerable amusement. He succeeds beyond his wildest dreams. Don't you agree?

Woman suggests Tiger Woods be lynched

2008-01-08T18:07:00.000-05:00

Tilghman made a shocking comment during Friday's telecast of the PGA Tour's opening event. She said -- on the air -- that today's young players should "lynch Tiger Woods in a back alley."

The article goes on to mention that “it’s rather surprising that the apology took two days and that in the era of Don Imus, so little attention has been paid to this comment. It's hard to understand how a person who would use such a poor choice of words is in the broadcasting business.”

I am glad that the author has the good sense to draw the comparison with Imus’ comments. What he, however, fails to mention is that Tilghman suggests KILLING Tiger Woods as a means of eliminating him competitively whereas Imus’ “nappy headed ho” comment was descriptive and presumably intended to degrade black women. IMO, this makes Tilghman’s comment much worse that Imus’ comment.

The difference in the way the media has treated Imus and Tilghman (I only found out about the latter because I was browsing the web; there was no mention of this on TV, let alone anything approaching the media frenzy that followed the Imus remarks) exposes a blatant double standard: bandying 'jokes' about the disposability of black men is fine so long as white women do it. However, even making derogatory comments about black women is inexcusable if white men do it.

Will Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton threaten a rally, like they did with Imus, if the Golf Channel does not fire her?
Will NOW treat Tilghman the same way they are treating Imus?

Update: Al Sharpton has demanded Tilghman's firing and she has been suspended for two weeks.

Compliments of the Season

2007-12-24T14:55:00.000-05:00

I wish all of you a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year!

Breaking the Science

2007-11-26T13:24:00.000-05:00

Breaking the Science is a must-read site for all those folks interested in the sordid details of how feminists have doctored and continue to doctor statistics to suit their own agenda.

"Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children"

2007-11-15T10:02:00.000-05:00

Such is the advice of a prominent MRA, Stephen Baskerville, to us, young men.

"Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution. For until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage."

Baskerville reveals the fist within the velvet glove:

"Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons. First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong. Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime. Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest.
There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why they are seizing control of your children and allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you should be allowed to see your children."
...

"While property divisions and spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall comes through the children. With custody, she can then demand “child support” that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income."
...

"You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundreds dollars and be forced to move in with relatives or sleep in your car. Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a “deadbeat dad” and take you away in handcuffs. You are told you have “abandoned” your children and incarcerated without trial."

Anti-feminists and MRAs know this stuff well enough but IMO it is important to keep rehashing these points occasionally so that others who are ignorant of these realities may be a little wiser.

Remembering The Price of Freedom

2007-11-11T17:32:00.000-05:00

Exhibit A: Passchendaele, encapsulated in a moving song by one of my favourite groups. Kudos to the person who made the video too.

To all those who fought for freedom around the world, I salute you.

Guess who's back??

2007-11-09T16:34:00.000-05:00

Tis the creator of Fembot Bingo.

B..But What About Your Wife???

2007-10-29T10:58:00.000-04:00

French President Nicolas Sarkozy demonstrates that he will not stand or sit for CBS' tabloidesque policy of making the personal into the political. Hmm I wonder who recently could have come over to CBS that caused the news to be dumbed down??

IMO, he handled the situation perfectly.

This demonstrates yet another bomb for CBS: if they planned to increase their female viewership via this escapade, it failed cos Sarkozy did not indulge them. Whatever remains of the ignored CBS male demographic, meanwhile, will continue to slide until Les Moonves et al come to terms with the fact that unlike most men, most women are not hard-wired to appreciate abstract things.

Watch out for the Divisive* Feminists

2007-10-18T12:52:00.000-04:00

Literarycritic is definitely one. Her comments on the Exposing Feminism blog, particularly wrt date rape displayed the disappointing rational capacity seen in typically feminist arguments.

Update: The comments are gone, but I think it is instructive to keep this post alive to advise all readers to regard anything any alleged date rape victim says with extreme caution. NEVER let reason take a back seat to emotion.

*Update 2: I maintain ALL my basic arguments vis a vis date rape in the accompanying comment thread. However, Literarycritic's recent concessions in this comment thread lead me to believe that her divisive comments were not made in malice, although there is no doubt that she acted stupidly. Ergo, it is credible to suppose that her extreme naiveite got the better of her. Please read the comment thread to get the context.

Translating Words into Action

2007-10-14T20:09:00.001-04:00

198 different forms of non-violent protest c/o Mens Activism.

How to Argue DV and Abortion with Feminists

2007-10-14T12:50:00.000-04:00

Abortion - Joe M. vs. feminists at Alas.

DV - Mike vs. non-feminists at Heretical Sex.

Ignoring The Obvious

2007-10-03T16:14:00.000-04:00

It’s quite enjoyable to observe career women hide behind cognitive dissonance (men are immature, men are threatened by female success) to avoid confronting the obvious. The little ladies have even invented a term for this perceived male inferiority complex: “the Miranda complex”. Here’s another article, this time in the New York Times, bemoaning how those poor put-upon richer single women can’t find dates because men earn less and are thus imbued with a deep inferiority complex.

The central premise of the article is false: it assumes that single women, who make 17% more than single men, came by their wealth fairly.

Here are some facts that such women and their male cheerleaders would like to avoid confronting:

Women today are the product of a schooling system that is tailor made for girls to succeed and boys to fail. Activities inherent to boys are systematically eliminated while hapless female teachers, unable or unwilling to deal with boys’ energy, have them medicated with Ritalin. Competitiveness is replaced with 'cooperative learning' to make the classrooms more girl-friendly. Rational criticism is disallowed for fear of ‘hurting feelings’.
Self-esteem boosting groups are created specifically for the benefit of women right from the time they step into grade 1. Popular media propagate the legitimacy of male bashing and girl power, which fuels another zero-sum game by which female self-esteem is built up at the expense of that of men.
Math and science have been progressively made easier, while studies themed around verbal skills have been made harder. The net effect favors women and harms men.
Separate bursaries, scholarships and awards are created only for women.
Grades are dumbed down so as to allow those who would have in past years gotten lower grades to now get higher grades. Women, in terms of general intelligence, have numerically more mediocre representatives in the population than men do. Consequently, more mediocre women than mediocre men get inflated grades. The increase in career women can be legitimately termed as the increase in women with mediocre talents but high motivation. However, this motivation is self-serving rather than altruistic and a direct function of chronic pandering to women, initially funded mainly by chivalrous baby boomer male taxpayers at the instigation/prodding of second wave feminists.
For a few decades now, the admission cabals in hard science universities e.g. Georgia Tech. have been altering the relative importance of SAT math and verbal scores while increasing the importance of nebulous, unrelated extracurricular activities which women predominantly participate in, so as to admit more women at the expense of men.
Enforced job quotas ensure that sub-par women can get into a given position simply for being female. Women have the equivalent of rape shield laws to prohibit employers from taking retaliatory action against them for frivolous lawsuits.
Female suffrage in the US has been proven to lead to more socialist policies. The size of government inevitably balloons and many dead-end jobs are created. Several of these jobs do not involve much real work (sinecures) and are thus ideal for women planning to have children, which is why one finds many women in these white elephant jobs.
Women flock to services jobs which are government funded and rarely in shortage, if ever, while men have to depend on the ever shrinking manufacturing sector, which is taxed by the government, these taxes then being used to fund the expanding services sector aside from a legion of bureaucrats.
The selective application of equal opportunity employment allows for women to be underrepresented in seasonal or hazardous jobs and over-represented in cushy sinecures.
Female entrepreneurs receive any more benefits and subsidies than male entrepreneurs, simply for being female.
A significant number of women are able to parlay looks into promotions, which is why women do not like to work for female bosses.

Given all these factors, Western women, by and large, cannot legitimately claim to compete, or have competed, on anything remotely approaching a level playing field with men.

Having dealt with this hypocrisy, one moves on to why career women are detrimental to men. Michael Noer’s seminal article detailed several studies that showed relationships with career women should be avoided like the plague. To wit: “If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill (American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier (Institute for Social Research).” This is all aside from the fact that the same article details that career women are more likely to divorce men and more likely to cheat on men, a fact that is plainly evident predictably at the tail end of the very same NYT article that purports perplexity as to why men wont go near career women:

“The point, Professor Cunningham said, was that young professionally oriented women have no problem dating down if the man is secure, motivated in his own field and emotionally supportive.

At least, that’s what their responses are in surveys. Talk about the subject with women a bit older — those who have been out of college long enough to be more hardened — and what you hear is ambivalence, if not downright hostility, about the income disparity.

Jade Wannell, 25, a producer at a Chicago ad agency who lives in a high-rise apartment building, started dating a 29-year-old administrator at a trucking company last year. “He was really sweet,” she said. But “he didn’t work many hours and ended up hanging out at home a lot. I was bored and didn’t feel challenged. He would finish work at 3 and want to go to the bar. The college way of life is still in them at that age. All they want to do is drink with the boys on Saturday. I was like ‘Let’s go to an art gallery’ and all he wanted to do was go to the bars.””

And there you have the article’s latent thesis revealed: women pretend to not care that men make less than them but they, ultimately, are distraught that the husband’s happiness is not contingent on HIS lesser income.
They think that their higher earning capacity gives them the right to be happier than their husband. Thus, when the latter has the audacity to be happier, women cut and run. This is a direct result of the woman equating money with happiness and considering her money as her money and not their money.

The career woman’s life may be summarised as perpetual cognitive dissonance. Before getting a job, she chooses to rationalize the tripe of egalitarianism, appealing to ‘intuition’. After getting a job, she chooses to rationalize her lack of dating success under the catchall of a male inferiority complex. After getting married to a lesser earning husband, she chooses to view happiness as a zero sum game based on wealth, and seeing that her husband is happier exposes her to the glaring probability that her entire belief system is a sham. To rationalize this away, she must categorize this husband as a leech and then move on to the next victim who hopefully is, at a minimum, as rich (deserving of happiness in her terminology) as she is. The only problem is that wealthy men tend to avoid ball busters and opt for the more feminine variety of women. I'm certain that wealthy women think of these wealthy men as suckers. Observing happier, married, feminine women must be like a knife in the gut for the career woman because they already have what she probably never will.

Given that the pool of wealthy men who view career women as marriage material is shrinking while that of wealthy women is increasing, one wonders how many eggs must drop out of the hatch before career women shelve their elaborate delusions. Perhaps an increasing number will discover their inner dyke and/or alternatively stock up on Meow Mix….

Exploding Feminism's Foundational Myth

2007-09-29T16:20:00.000-04:00

Check out the links under 'Must Reads Debunking Egalitarianism' on the right.

* By 'feminism', I mean "theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" as per the Merriam-Webster Definition, which IMO unites the largest group of feminists.

The Joys of "Having It All"

2007-09-28T11:27:00.000-04:00

When women try to punch above their weight, we get the following result:

When they make the choice to repeat the same mistakes ad infinitum, the results are far less appetizing:

Women in their thirties who appear to "have it all" compared with previous generations are in fact exhausted and unhappy, a survey has claimed.
The demands of being a homemaker, mother and holding down a job is leaving them "physically and emotionally" wrecked.
Lack of sleep and eating "on the hoof" rather than sitting down to regular family meals add to the problems of trying to do too much.
Nearly half of female thirtysomethings - typified by Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones's Diary - regularly call in sick at work because they are under so much stress, the study found.
The Female Health Survey revealed that women find the 30s by far the toughest decade.
Nearly nine out of 10 said they frequently feel tired, with 59% saying they feel tired all the time, and only a quarter get enough sleep.
Eight out of 10 of women said they do not have enough time to eat properly, while 31% admitted that they snack all the time.
The result is that women in their thirties and forties regularly suffer from headaches, chest infections, heart palpitations or eczema.
Marina Crook, the editor of Top Sante magazine, which commissioned the survey, was unsurprised by the results.
"Tiredness and stress are the ailments of our age and combined with a poor diet they cause low immunity and ill-health," she said.
And she warns that the problems continue into later life, with working lives lasting longer than ever before.
"Our thirties and forties are so hectic, that by the time we reach our fifties, sixties and seventies - the time we should be more freed up to enjoy life - our health has already been seriously affected."

In another article, as the PC media and henpecked researchers would have it, however, it's men's fault for not adapting to the lifestyle changes women made when women chose to vacate their 'comfortable concentration camps' for 'greener' pastures. According to the delusional writer, David Leonhardt, who lumps all men into the stereotypical buffoon dad archetype:

"Inside of families, men still haven’t figured out how to shoulder their fair share of the household burden. Instead, we’re spending more time on the phone and in front of the television."

Paradoxically, he earlier admitted that women are doing less housework than before but not any more contented, while the study he refers to say men are doing more housework.

"Women are not actually working more than they were 30 or 40 years ago. They are instead doing different kinds of work. They’re spending more time on paid work and less on cleaning and cooking."

The outcome?

"...women have replaced housework with paid work — and, as a result, are spending almost as much time doing things they don’t enjoy as in the past. Forty years ago, a typical woman spent about 23 hours a week in an activity considered unpleasant, or 40 more minutes than a typical man. Today, with men working less, the gap is 90 minutes."

Somehow, I don't get the impression June Cleaver was running from pillar to post tearing her hair out like the thirty-something frenzied harridan archetype depicted in the first article.

Leonhardt implies that women exclusively help out with their aging parents, and that is rightly debunked by Dr. Helen.

He then trots out universal ~~totalitarianism~~ socialism to explain why women can't have their cake and eat it:

"The United States still doesn’t have universal preschool, and, in contrast to other industrialized countries, there is no guaranteed paid leave for new parents."

Obviously, one must avoid confronting the host of problems that current Nanny states have in order to keep on the blinders and resolutely keep sailing toward a Fata Morgana.

Leonhardt then clutches at straws in a desperate attempt to avoid pointing the finger at feminism:

"I imagine that the new American dustiness affects women’s happiness more than men’s."

Vox Day, in dealing with the Leonhardt article, sums the whole shebang up quite nicely:

"...today's young men have been told their entire lives that women are more capable than they are, so why should they feel any need to lift a finger? Why not let women do all the work; they've been screaming for the opportunity anyhow and HALO 3 just came out, so you might as well crack a cold one, fire up the old bong and leave them to do their thing."

* [bold=my emphasis]

Chickens Come Home to Roost

2007-09-27T19:05:00.000-04:00

Story:

Boyfriend (Chris) thinks girlfriend (Kara) of 1.5yrs is cheating on him and calls show to help him find out. Hosts call Kara's cell and boss answers. Boss says she's DEAD. Chris is devastated.

Aftermath:

Turns out Kara did not actually die. She made up the excuse with her boss to cover for their sordid escapade. Chris is even more devastated but Kara, as the hosts find out, couldn't give a shit cos he is of course the 'cry baby/puppy dog' who followed her around, and who she was too afraid to reject face to face. In typical entitled fashion, she refuses to apologize for her actions and callers give her the LEAST that she deserves.

Chris is the type of guy feminism produced by the truckload: a guy who gets railroaded and jerked around by women as a punishment for having the audacity to be nice to them. Kara is representative of the majority of Western women in her age group. It's high time that these guys value themselves more, stop thinking of women as goddesses, and learn to react like the callers above.

Captain Zarmband is Back!

2007-09-24T11:22:00.000-04:00

Check it out.

The Mary Winkler Fiasco

2007-09-23T19:20:00.000-04:00

Mike Gallagher calls the murderess and her billionaire apologist, Oprah Winfrey on their bullshit.

We need more people to like Mike Gallagher to tell it like it is.

Another One Bites the Dust

2007-09-23T13:11:00.000-04:00

Having financially hamstrung the totalitarian Status of Women, Stephen Harper, PM of Canada, has added another feather to his cap by deciding not to fund the feminist National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL).

That's $300,000 a year more that won't be spent on anti-male activities.

Crack open a couple of beers and celebrate a small victory for all fair-minded people, but a victory nonetheless.

When Uppity Feminists Make Your Case For You

2007-09-09T18:31:00.001-04:00

Argus Eyes has been making quite a stir with his excellent videos, debunking a lot of feminist rubbish. I strongly recommend you go watch them all and show them to your friends.

It seems that stalwart feminist, ‘1nceuponathyme’ took it upon herself to craft a response to Argus and defend the faith. As it turns out, she was very persuasive: I showed a female acquaintance her video too and, this acquaintance is now certifiably ‘NON-feminist’!

1nceuponathyme begins by criticizing stereotyping and alleging that criticism of ALL feminists as power-hungry, vengeful, spiteful, deceitful etc is wrong. Then, 3 minutes into the clip, she goes on to EXCUSE those feminists who do fit that bill by saying ‘I think that is what every human being on the planet does’!

She defeats her own argument AND manages to be hypocritical at the same time!

She can’t stop putting her foot in her mouth, going on to use the ‘do not judge lest you yourself be judged’ argument, another highly hypocritical and myopic position, given that prominent feminists have spent much of their existence judging and shaming men, and continue to do so. She also assumes that to criticize her is to criticize all women, notwithstanding the fact that she is apparently above being called ‘uppity’. I beg to differ, and I daresay most others will too.

In ending, she fails to recognize the considerable negative influence feminist organizations, such as NOW, have on government policy via bogus mass propaganda campaigns demonizing all men as potential rapists, universal perpetrators of DV etc. and then exhorts us all to ‘protest propaganda but leave feminism alone’. Given what she has said earlier, I think she makes a very good case for protesting feminism!

The irony is the Huxley quote she ends with: “We don’t know because we don’t want to know’ applies to her and most feminists more than she will ever know….

Update: Argus has adequately responded to 1nceuponathyme's nebulous, condescending suggestion that he should 'read more'.

Cat Ladies and Dancing Phalluses

2007-09-03T11:47:00.000-04:00

To all of you who have asked yourselves: "Where can I see a clear connection between cats, feminists and penis envy in 2 minutes or less?", I humbly submit the video below.

It's quite telling that many feminists prefer to relegate manginas to the 'pro-feminist' category rather than accept them as feminist equals, whereas several feminists, such as the lady in the clip above, quite readily bestow the title of 'super-feminist' on furballs...

Fool me once....

2007-09-02T16:55:00.000-04:00

I entered ‘career women’ in the search box of the UK Daily Mail site and found the following, just by going through the first 20 search items:

Career women have ‘baby hunger’. 9 in 10 working women want to quit and become housewives. Delaying motherhood increases the risk of getting breast cancer. Career women are twice as likely to die from stroke or heart problems than women with low-stress lives. Further, they know that taking a break to make babies means they will lose earning potential. In spite of this, they continue to live in denial about the reasons for a gender wage gap, believing instead that it is the result of wrongful discrimination, which they cannot prove. Lower cumulative earning potential generally translates into lower pensions. Further, women are less likely than men to worry about pensions in the first place and, unsurprisingly, a quarter of women pensioners live in poverty as a result.

Yet female graduates are choosing careers over babies and young British women would prefer a career to a rich man.

Anyone spot the vicious cycle here? Most career women who have been in the workforce for some time want to get out for obvious reasons, reasons that recent female college grads, intent on becoming career women, are oblivious to or stubbornly unconvinced by.

Perhaps they could learn from the folly of this famous world leader:

Work Beckons

2007-05-27T12:26:00.001-04:00

Unfortunately, I will be away for a couple of months so I won't be able to either post or comment.

Vote for Angry Harry!

2007-05-19T15:27:00.000-04:00

Angry Harry was among the very first websites I read that was brazen enough to defy the anti-male monolith that is the norm in today's Western society.

It has been nominated for 'Best Political Blog' in the Blogger's Choice Awards. As I write this, it is eighth overall in that category and has 100 votes, 54 more than when I checked yesterday evening. To all of you anti-feminists/MRAs and people generally fed up with feminism who haven't voted yet, get off your asses and vote for the good ole Godfather of Men's Rights on the internet! We are already ahead of far more prominent names like the Huffington Post (78 votes), frequently referred to on CNN, and that itself is a great achievement. However, we need to get as close as possible to Feministing.com, which has 307 votes as of now.

Dads' Parenting Style Influences Childhood Obesity

2007-05-08T13:48:00.000-04:00

The title accurately summarizes the results of an Australian study.

“The researchers found that fathers with permissive (no limits on their children) or disengaged parenting styles were more likely to have overweight or obese children, while fathers with a consistent (clear limits, following through with instructions, etc.) style were less likely to have children with a higher body mass index (BMI).”

I knew it would only be a matter of time before feminists DELIBERATELY misinterpreted this article as fathers causing kids to be fat, rather than focus on what it really said: fathers being the SOLE parental influence over the fatness or thinness of kids aged 4-5. Read both articles and observe how the original, unbiased article was morphed into the subsequent, feminized version.

Unfortunately for these very feminists, what the study really does is create a case for authoritarian fathers as indispensable parents. Consider what it said: With respect to obesity, fathers have either a positive or negative impact upon children. Authoritarian fathers have a positive impact while lackadaisical fathers have a negative impact. To quote the study authors, “There was no association between the mothers' parenting styles and children's weight.” Mothers, within this context, had either negligible or NO impact. In other words, they are NOT able to influence the behavior of kids however authoritarian or lackadaisical they may be. Does this show that mothers are NOT authority figures??? Does this not make authoritarian fathers indispensable???

My arguments above were made assuming the authors were right in presenting paternal influence as THE causal agent of childhood obesity. The following sentence
"more than 60 percent of the fathers and more than 40 percent of the mothers in the study were overweight or obese" was appended to the bottom of both write-ups, giving one the impression that parental obesity is an insignificant causal factor in childhood obesity. Apparently, at least some studies have shown that this is not the case.

Inconvenient result and conclusions such as: “Maternal obesity was the most significant predictor of childhood obesity” AND “Children who lived with single mothers were also significantly more likely to become obese…” and others of other publications dilutes the significance of the ‘daddy influences toddlers' obesity' argument anyway.

Female Presidential Candidates - Tough as Nails

2007-05-02T17:24:00.000-04:00

Nails of the acrylic variety, of course.

Royal defended the 35-hour week as a form of social progress and asked why the government of which Sarkozy was part had not gotten rid of the legislation if it was so opposed. Again, Royal cut Sarkozy off during the discussion.

"Will you let me finish?" he asked.

"No," said Royal.

"Ah," said Sarkozy

In a cynical vein, I hope France elects Royal president. Most people will only figure out the errors of their ways when confronted with the grim reality of the full blown disaster that is extensive Royalian social engineering. With any luck, she might just provide the heart attack and the matches that the proverbial multi-disease stricken French phoenix needs so that it can die quickly and rise again from its ashes, free from its erstwhile maladies.

Addendum:

"....the Socialist dwelt on her empathy for the people while Mr Sarkozy talked figures and policies.
“I want to be the president who creates a France where aggression and violence is receding..."

followed by:

Under my presidency every woman police officer will be accompanied to her home after work,” Ms Royal said."

We shall see how much the French enjoy (1) paying for more bureaucracy and (2) a woman president who is bold enough to admit that female police officers are liabilities.

Sarkozy missed catching her out on this one. Then again, I'm quite certain his solution to the problem would not appeal to the significant fraction of the French public living under the illusion of gender equality.

The Equal Parenting Bike Trek

2007-04-30T16:13:00.000-04:00

The title says it all. Hat tip to the CounterFeminist for bringing this to my attention. Please take a gander at their site: Daddy Blog: The official Blog of a Child's Right.

Spread publicity about this event as much as possible!

The Feminist Heavyweights

2007-04-30T15:26:00.000-04:00

Apparently, the woeisme brigade has been hiding a rather large sub-lobby group for its 200+ pounders from me, which is no mean accomplishment. Maybe I couldn't see the forest for the trees LOL. So, how's a man to deal with all that victimflub? I give you Al Bundy, shoe salesman extraordinaire and sworn nemesis of fatties.

According to Karen Stimson, a longtime radical supersize activist (not my words) of Largesse.net : ..."anti-diet movement begun by mostly non-fat feminists is adding strength to our numbers, radical fat feminism is coming of age, coming full circle, and coming into its own. The door is now open. It's time for us to step through."

In other words, the intrepid Stimson advocates that fatties not diet, while also daring to step through doors AND coming full circle! A challenging prospect indeed! Obviously, dieting is a repugnant, misogynistic creation by men who have committed the abominable crime of wanting nubile, fit women to bear their children. Hence, to counter this, one must not diet! So how's a galumphing gal to remain fat and proud without dieting? Methinks the lady in the video below has the answer:

What A Reasonable Woman Sounds Like

2007-04-27T15:41:00.000-04:00

Here's Glenn Sacks defending Alec Baldwin's recent tirade in the context of 6 years of Parental Alienation conducted by his ex-wife Kim Basinger. What's surprising is that a woman, Pat Lalama, also takes it to Kim Basinger! With the conservatives breeding the feminists out of existence, I expect to see an unstoppable increase in numbers of women like her.

The future is anti-feminist and the future looks good! It's up to us to make that future happen sooner rather than later.

Feminism and Family

2007-04-26T15:15:00.000-04:00

In summary to an excellent article, Allan Carlson presents six lessons to us:

(1) The family issues never change, or haven’t in a very long time, because they reflect a situation that has not changed;

(2) the identity of the “pro-family” political party does change, and has;

(3) “social engineering” can be done the right way, by supporting the breadwinner/homemaker/child-rich model of the family;

(4) even Christians have followed the cultural trend to small families;

(5) nevertheless, fertility reflects belief, and religious belief benefits society by raising it; and

(6) America is an exception to the pattern in the rest of the West, and that should give us hope.

Evolution of Feminist Thought

2007-04-20T17:02:00.000-04:00

Some women who whore themselves when young later get Religion. Others get feminism. Alexyss Tylor explains Pheenous Power and why women everywhere should be terrified of it. Her poor mum (PM) sits in trepidation, captive to a blabbering beast, wondering whether there was a baby mixup when her daughter was born.

The synopsis of video 1, as made by PM:
"I'm definitely gonna be on the watch out ....Cos I know what's out there...it'll come atch u...and from what you sain it'll come atch yu wid awll FULL FORCE... awll dis power comin atch u... then a girl aint gotta chance....so I'm gonna havta stay prayed up."

In video 2, PM opines on the clit: "dats a very small lookin thing....now how anybody gonna go there and do sum acrobats?"

Tylor breaks out the pilot costume in video 3 to establish, beyond all doubt, that she kicks azz AND is in charge of her vagina. Apparently she has a major problem with "the Nutz and the Pheenous runnin wild and runnin free doin wot they wanna do".

If you haven't wet yourself laughing yet, you may realise that many feminists actually think like Alexyss Tylor: zero responsibility for the woman, 100% responsibility for the man, cos after all he got the Pheenous, and y'all know its all-powerful.

New Links Added

2007-04-18T15:47:00.000-04:00

I've thrown on a few more excellent links on the sidebar (hat tip to Rob Fedders for letting me know how to link to the anti-SOW blogs). Check 'em out, especially if you want to know the inside scoop on Canadian gender politics.

Further, Feminist Critics is of particular mention as a blog that invites feminists for debates. The moderators and some regulars there are extremely fluent in logical debate. Even though some of the moderators take a dim view of anti-feminists and MRAs in general, they are also strongly critical of feminism. It is extremely worthwhile to read their argument threads, observe the development of rational thought and use it to refine one's own arguments.

Feminists Rip Themselves / Get Ripped

2007-04-15T15:41:00.000-04:00

Case 1. Nancy Grace is the anchor of CNN's Headline News segment. Over the past year, she made a living out of maligning the Duke lacrosse players and convicting them in her own puppet court, while scaring the bejesus out of her hapless underling.

In this segment, she spouted the 'false rape accusations are only 2-8%' MYTH when several studies have, in fact, shown them to be MUCH higher. Apparently, she wanted to use her bully pulpit to force the following feminist LIES down the throats of the unwitting public:
(a) women tell the truth about rape 92-98% of the time and
(b) since women almost never lie about rape, the Duke lacrosse players are guilty BY VIRTUE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS.

She also attacked her minion for referring to 'Colin Finnerty' as 'Colin'. Why? Because she does not want the audience to relate to the defendants. Meanwhile, Jesse Jackson's PUSH coalition was busy giving a $50,000 scholarship to the ~~victim~~ accuser, saying that he would pay for her college tuition EVEN IF HER ALLEGATIONS TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE.

Jon Stewart does a good job of showing the world what a lovable character she is.

Case 2. Michael Richards (played Kramer in Seinfeld) blundered a while back by using the N word to counter hecklers. Gloria Allred has extensive experience in using victimology to malign people who are unfortunate enough to be BORN into a 'privileged' class. She sniffed an opportunity to make money, rounded up a posse of the aggrieved hecklers and decided to sue Richards for having the audacity to use a word that only blacks are allowed to use. Adam Carolla, in a radio conversation with Allred, demonstrates that her sorry victim theory is full of equine excreta.

Many a Truth is Spoken in Jest

2007-04-11T17:03:00.000-04:00

Enjoy some clips of Chris Rock, layin the smacketh down. (One or two of the following videos require a sign in cos of 'obscene' language) .

Act I: If you like fuckin', marriage aint fer yu

Act II: Hussein vs. Rodham - the oppression competition

Act III: Married couples are fun!

Act IV: On the 51% minority

Act V: On the virtues of confidence

Act VI: Women like 'relationship' men

Act VII: On dealing with crazy women

Act VIII: Abortion

Act IX: Nice Guys