Casual Sexism

It’s not worthwhile to rant and rave over every single instance of this sort of thing — we’d never have time for anything else — but the occasional note on the casual sexism of our culture is worth making. While reading a certain pop-cultural website today (unlinked by me, but I’m sure you can find it on Google), I came across this quote:

Ender is portrayed as a tragic superman who possesses immense destructive power, but can never be held accountable for his actions. He is a victim-hero who can do evil, but remains morally unblemished because of his good intentions—a characterization that appeals to the closet fascist lurking inside every angry teenage boy.

Can you imagine an equivalent sentence applied to girls or women? More specifically, can you imagine the sputtering rage coughed up by the femtwits? The author would be out of a job before he could complete his first groveling apology. Notwithstanding this, it is perfectly acceptable in polite, bien-pensant society to hold and espouse the broadest, most virulent stereotypes … so long as they are directed at (straight, white) boys or men.

s/Jew/Beta/

He hath disgraced me, and
hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my
bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine
enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by
Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction.

Thoughts on Human Worth

Looking around the web the other day, I came across another instance of the “you’re just a loser who can’t get laid” ad hominem, delivered by a feminist to some fellow making an uncongenial argument. It occurred to me that this might expose a feminist hypocrisy when contrasted with the “fat acceptance” and/or “women shouldn’t be sexually objectified” memes — but a moment’s reflection convinced me that this was not so. On the contrary, women in general and feminists in particular are remarkably consistent in their view that a person’s worth is intimately bound up with his (or her) sexual attractiveness; they just don’t like the idea that women might have to do anything inconvenient in order to be sexually attractive.

You Can’t Get Laid (YCGL)

When you stop to think about it, YCGL is a pretty strange thing to say. It’s not an argument, and it’s not even an obviously relevant ad hominem (you’re stupid, you’re a liar, you’re corrupt, you’re a troll, &c.). It can only be understood as either a silly schoolyard taunt, or as a claim that the target has so little status/worth that he can simply be ignored. Aside from the logical problems with the latter, it reveals some things about the psychology of the accuser.

YCGL translates to “you’re worthless” if and only if a person’s worth is identical with his sexual attractiveness. When feminists seek to run down a man, they don’t instinctively call him weak, cowardly, poor, or stupid; they call him unattractive. To a man, this is pretty weird; being attractive to women is about 150th on the list of things that make a man great. But, to a woman, apparently it’s dispositive.

Judgement

The flip side of this is the feminist hatred of being judged, of men having standards, &c. To a feminist, every woman is beautiful, and only a troglodyte misogynist chauvinist evil man-animal would ever say otherwise. Fat pig? Face like a horse? Personality that can etch glass? How dare you judge her, evil man! You’re probably just a bitter loser who can’t get laid!

Why do feminists hate male standards so much? Because, to them, to call a woman unattractive is not simply to make a factual statement. To them, an unattractive woman is worthless. This can be seen in their response to male judgement: They do not dismiss it as irrelevant (“Yes, she’s ugly. So?”) — instead, they deny reality to negate that judgement (“No, she’s beautiful! All 450 pounds of her!”).

Goals

The feminist desire is not to create a world in which sexual attractiveness does not matter; it’s to create a world in which standards of sexual attractiveness are those convenient for feminists. Ideally, a world in which all women are judged to be sexually attractive, in which women need do nothing (maintain chastity, keep the pounds off, dress nicely, behave well, display virtue) to maintain their sexual value, and in which men attach extra value to those things feminists would prefer (advanced degrees, inflated title, leftist politics). And, of course, a world in which they can judge men however they wish, completely ignoring and dismissing those found unattractive.

This is, of course, a ridiculous and unattainable goal, but I claim that if you keep it in mind, you’ll be able to predict feminist behavior much more easily.

Dear 38 Year Old Woman

Dear 38 Year Old Woman,

I saw your profile on Match.com the other day. You indicate that you “definitely” want children. That’s understandable. However, you close your profile with this:

Would love to meet some new folks to explore the city with and get introduced to all SF has to offer….and hopefully create some lasting friendships as well. If something more comes of that……well even better! Tour guide anyone?

Now, I’m not going to dwell on the fact that this is of a piece with your entire profile in that it’s an endless recitation of what you want and what others can do for you. No, I want to talk about your lackadaisical “hey, let’s hang out, and maybe become friends, and maybe form something more” rap.

My dear, you are thirty-eight years old. Check this shit out:

If you don’t “definitely” want kids, that’s fine, but you should update your profile. But if you do, then you’re either a liar or a moron. If you’re as motivated to get married as you ought to be, given your stated desires, then you’re at the very least being highly disingenuous with the tone of your coda. If you really “definitely” want kids, and are still futzing around at your age, then you need to grow the fuck up with a quickness.

MRA/PUA Hate

The tyranny of small differences is in full flower in the manosphere. Despite appearing all-but-indistinguishable to the feminist-indoctrinated majority, there’s a lot of internecine hate between the various tribes and cliques that have coalesced around various ideas. For instance, you have:

• The “pure” PUAs — e.g., Mystery. Often derided as crypto-feminists and/or scam artists by everyone else.
• The Anti-Gamers — e.g., Omega Virgin Revolt. Think game is a complete scam, deny that it exists. Seem as loony by everyone else.
• The HBD/PUAs — e.g., Roissy. Denounced as hedonists by tradcons and socons.
• The MRAs — e.g., The Spearhead, AVfM. Ridiculed as losers (mostly) and/or misogynists (occasionally) by other elements of the manosphere.
• The Gurls — e.g., Susan Walsh. Seen as primarily interested in manipulating men into wifing-up ex-sluts s.t. women can land a Beta after sucking off their fill of Alpha cock.
• The WNs — e.g., commenters Ryu, stonelifter. Seen as primarily interested in manipulating men into wifing-up ex-sluts s.t. white women can make white babies after sucking off their fill of Alpha cock.
• The Tradcons/Socons — e.g., Oz Conservative. Seen as primarily interested in manipulating men into wifing-up ex-sluts s.t. women can form traditional families to prop up Western civilization after sucking off their fill of Alpha cock.
• The Christian Girls — e.g., Alte. Very, very angry about anything non-biblical. Don’t really get along with anyone except The Gurls and Tradcons/Socons.
• The Other Girls — e.g., CL, LGR. Derided as doormats by all other females.
• The Other Other Girls — e.g., Haley, Grerp, and Sophia. I haven’t found anyone who hates them yet, but I probably just haven’t looked hard enough.

No offense to any sub-tribe I left out, example I didn’t cite, or to anyone who feels miscategorized.

MRAs vs. PUAs

A lot of this hate makes perfect sense to me, but I’ve always found the MRA-vs.-PUA thing (as seen in the Frost/Elam “debate”/blogwhoring) a little puzzling. Why do these two groups give a damn about one another at all? PUAs want to fuck sluts, MRAs want to reform laws — live and let live, right? What’s the problem?

I think the problem comes on two levels — the superficial and the philosophical. The superficial is probably more important. In short: MRAs and PUAs each realize and state uncomfortable truths about the other — to wit, MRAs don’t get as much tail as they’d like, and PUAs are putting the pussy on a pedestal — and this naturally engenders bad feelings. On a deeper level, PUAs are working to shield women from the consequences of feminist policies, thereby helping to perpetuate the policies that MRAs would like to overturn.

Shame

The basic charge leveled at MRAs by PUAs is that the former are whining losers of some stripe or other. This naturally gets the MRAs upset because, well, it’s sort of true. Very very few of us get as much or as good tail as we’d like … there are only so many HB10s to go around, and, as a read through “A Dead Bat in Paraguay” will show you, even the dedicated PUAs can go through long dry spells. So almost all MRAs (and — cough — PUAs) aren’t getting the quantity and quality of female affection that they’d like, and that our pornified culture suggests is readily available. Furthermore, MRAs do sort of whine. Or at least complain. Which is good and useful stuff, inasmuch as all change must come first from an idea, and then from the useful articulation of that idea — but which can sometimes look undignified.

MRAs fire back that PUAs are pedestalizing, supplicating, dancing monkeys. Which is also kind of true. It’s a bit hard to argue that you’re not overvaluing something that you study, obsess over, and work hard to acquire. PUAs might claim that they’re not overvaluing pussy because they’re “Skittles men” — this is true only if their time has no value. Since a PUA’s schtick is fundamentally reactive — figure out what women want, then give them that in the most efficient way possible — it’s also somewhat undignified and unmanly.

So, each side of the fight can unleash some hurtful truths at the other. To make matters worse, the mere existence of the other side can point out those truths. The DB PUA with the HB7 reminds the MRA that he isn’t getting as much tail as he’d like, and the MGHOW reminds the PUA that he’s devoting an awful lot of time and energy to women instead of his own interests. This sows the seeds of resentment.

Philosophy

At a deeper level, the goals of MRAs and PUAs are, if not directly opposed, at least somewhat at odds. MRAs want to overturn a legal and cultural regime that promotes the interests of women at the expense of men — including in the area of sexual choice. An important component of this is transferring some of the costs of that regime back on to women. To the extent that the suppression of men robs women of sexy mates, and therefore starves their hypergamy, MRAs see this side effect as a good thing: Unhappy women are more likely to support changes to the policies that are making them unhappy.

PUAs, on the other hand, not only directly benefit from the sexual liberation of women (for obvious reasons) but predicate their entire approach on insulating women from the romantic downsides of the feminist regime. PUAs pride themselves on giving women the experience of a dominant asshole at the lowest possible cost to themselves, but a consequence of this is that they are giving women all the tingle-inducing benefits of being with a dominant man without requiring those women to give up any of their state-supported power (VAWA, false-DV, false-rape, no-fault, CS) over their “partner”.

Roissy once compared a world in which all men learned game to one in which all women dropped 20 pounds and started dressing like women again — who would really benefit in either case? Seen in this light, PUA/Game is all about sustaining a feminist utopia in which women get everything their own way, and men not only pay for it all, but make the little dearies’ panties wet as well.

In Conclusion

These are not groups that are really going to get along.

Fortunately, as TFH says, most men are incapable of understanding game, and there are deeper structural problems with a society and economy that marginalizes its men.

Sexism

Men and women are different. They have different strengths, different weaknesses, and different preferences. They flourish in different environments.

The feminist project is a concerted attempt to transform all aspects of life to be more hospitable to the feminine. Inevitably, this is identical with making them less hospitable to the masculine. The pernicious element of this movement is the insidious idea that feminine preferences are objectively better, and that there is no downside to the feminists’ agenda. In fact, there are several.

1. Injustice. There must be proper consideration given to the needs of both the masculine and the feminine. There seems to be no limit to the degree of one-sidedness a feminist will push for, even unto the overturning of the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminalization of unwanted speech, and the eradication of the rule of law itself.
2. Impracticality. Reality has a masculine bias; Society did not evolve with a masculine character because men were interested in oppressing women, but because the masculine character is needed to confront the world as it is, whether in the spiritual, physical, or intellectual realms. The eradication of the masculine from institutions will render those institutions incapable of useful function.
3. Alienation. It is the nature of men to venture forth when they find themselves unable to prosper in their native lands. The feminist project, to the extent that it succeeds in creating a feminine culture hostile to men, will alienate those men without which no culture, country, or people can endure. Whether the culture drives them away ideologically or physically, it’s just as dead.

Feminism is a hateful ideology. It is also a dead end. (The beauty is that, as feminist societies die, they are unlikely to understand what exactly is killing them.) On the other hand, a society that wishes to endure and thrive would be well advised to ask itself how it can attend to the needs of the masculine. “What do men want?” is a question that our culture needs to study with a quickness.

Engineering vs. Law

As a Western man, it’s important to never lose sight of the fact that your culture hates you. Consider the question of male/female representation in various fields of study.

Law School

From an interview with Edward Tom, of Boalt Law School:

TLS: Boalt has a very high percentage of female students, such as 58% recently. Does gender play any role in admission?

Dean Tom: “57% of this year’s entering class are women. We have had more women than men in recent entering classes, that’s right. But you know, 209 says that we can’t take sex into account either.”

TLS: Well, women generally do better in college.

Dean Tom: “I have read a lot of articles in major newspapers about how, in general, there are more women than men in college these days, and that they are doing better than men in college. So, I’m expecting this trend to continue.”

In other words: Women are doing better in college, so they’re doing better at Boalt. All is as it should be. Nothing to see here.

Engineering

What about engineering? Well, consider this article, detailing some Harvey Mudd cunt’s efforts to feminize engineering:

In the U.S., women hold less than 25 percent of jobs in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, according to the Commerce Dept. Klawe has “actually moved the numbers,” says Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of Facebook. “In the midst of what is a very serious employment issue in the country, there’s a field here that’s dying for more very well qualified people.”

In other words: Men are doing better in the STEM fields, so that needs to be changed.

Now, you might ask: “Doesn’t Sandberg (an excellent reason to kill your FB account, BTW) have a point? Aren’t more engineers good? Well, maybe. But is the Harvey Mudd cunt actually recruiting more women or just displacing men? We need not labor in ignorance, friends! Here’s the chart:

Bitch has just been feminizing the dep’t. There aren’t any more engineers, just more engineers with tits.

Takeaway

The rule in this society is: Male overperformance is a problem to be solved, female overperformance (however arrived at) is something to be celebrated.

This society can go fuck itself.

Serial Marriage Isn’t

Over at Dalrock’s, there’s a wide-ranging discussion going on about the moral distinctions (if any) between hookup culture, serial LTRs, serial marriages, lifelong marriage, &c.

One particular comment caught my eye:

I see marriage as coming together for mainly two purposes – spiritual union and/or physical union – over a significant time-period. I don’t see why “until death parts us” is a necessary quantifier.

Because I am a lightworker, and desire only the edification of my fellow man, let me explain why “’till death do us part” is indeed a necessary part of the marriage bond.

Asset Division

Consider what happens when a marriage dissolves. Yes, there’s heartbreak, a storm of recriminations, anger, damage piled onto children, money handed over to lawyers, and, occasionally, a murder.

But, more importantly, there’s stuff to divide. Everything owned by either the man or his wife is now up for grabs, and everything that was once “theirs” must now become either “his” or “hers”. The fact that the marriage may end this way colors the entire enterprise.

Consider what happens if a marriage dissolves in which labor was divided along traditional lines: The man ventured forth into the world and earned money, and his wife tended to the home and children. There are only two real possibilities on dissolution: The man keeps everything (under the theory that he earned it) and the wife is left destitute, or half of everything he earned is turned over to his wife (under the theory of community property).

The problem is that neither outcome, in prospect, is compatible with the couple undertaking the traditional arrangement. If the wife is likely to be left with nothing (the rarely-realized feminist boogyman) she will be very unlikely to be willing to devote herself to home and hearth. On the other hand, if the man is at risk of losing half of everything he has earned to his ex (the “find a woman I don’t like and buy her a house” theory of marriage) he is unlikely to want his wife to stay home.

Division of Labor

In other words, once you redefine marriage as anything other than a lifetime bond, you create massive disincentives for couples to pursue the traditional arrangement. (Might this have been the feminist plan all along? Discuss amongst yourselves.)

Ok, you might say. So what? What’s so special about the model of the breadwinner man and the housewife? Well, what’s special about it is that it’s the only economic model of marriage that makes much sense.

Division of labor is a really, really big deal. It is vastly more efficient for men to specialize in their trades and then to combine their efforts to produce a final product, than it is for each man to attempt to make all things for himself. This applies at the micro level to the manufacture of a single product, and at the macro level to the organization of an economy. It also applies the family and the household.

When a man takes a wife and starts a family, a little enterprise is created. The only significant reason that this enterprise is more efficient and productive than its two members would be on their own is the division of labor. If the man and wife have a modern, feminist, equalist, “50/50” marriage, there’s (essentially) no gain in efficiency; each might as well be living alone.

Unwinding

So: If you remove permanence from the definition of marriage, you destroy the incentive structure that permits division of labor. Absent division of labor, marriage lacks any economic justification. Sooner or later, whether they realize it or not, people stop doing things that aren’t rewarded.

If it’s not forever, it’s not marriage.

Don’t Drop Out

A word to any men feeling demoralized by a society that clearly hates them: Don’t drop out. Stand in, work hard, accumulate capital, and then let the motherfucker burn.

The Beta: Backbone of Society

It’s a generally accepted truth in the manosphere that civilization was built by the Beta male, incentivized by novel social customs (monogamy) that granted him a wife and family of his very own in defiance of the natural order of male polygyny and female hypergamy. Absent those incentives, as in the distant past, and ever more so in the present, Betas throttle back their efforts to the bare minimum necessary for their own survival and amusement. Such a minimum level of output is not compatible with a functioning society.

Feminism Kills the Goose

With the advent of feminism, female hypergamy was once again unleashed through the normalization of serial monogamy, and the stealthy abolition of marriage via the introduction of unilateral no-fault divorce, community property, and de-facto default mother custody. As a “family” increasing came to be defined as “a mother and her children”, men became less and less interested in assuming the traditional burdens of adulthood. This latter phenomenon has been the subject of much recent caterwauling, as (many) women begin to bemoan the shortage of sexy, successful, single men for them to marry, and (a few) perceptive souls begin to wonder how a society that is already aging its way into a demographic crisis can cope with the additional problem of a generation of slackers.

Reactions

The manosphere reactions to all this can be placed into three rough categories:

1. Shake it off, and MAN UP! (Trad Cons)
2. LOL! How you like it now, bitches?! (Vengeful balls of rage)
3. Enjoy the decline! (Hedonists)

While I fully support the notion that a man owes nothing to a society that wishes to reduce him to a beast of burden, let me gently suggest that you still might want to consider forgoing the pussy, xbox, booze, and pot for a bit, and instead get your nose to the grindstone.

Power

The reality is that money, to a great extent, is power and freedom. Money lets you travel the world, and live how and where you want. (For instance: Did you know the US basically sells green cards for $500K a pop? Other countries offer similar programs, usually at a considerable discount.) Money lets you solve problems that would otherwise cause you great inconvenience. And money lets you buy influence, and gives you the time to exploit it.

Roosh wrote the other day that:

There are organized movements in Western nations to eradicate gender, particularly masculinity. Losing this war will make it all but impossible for you to find a feminine woman who wants to serve your needs.

Don’t you want to hit these sons of bitches back? Well, to do that, you’ll need a weapon. Money is a very good (though hardly the only) weapon.

I don’t encourage you to work hard for the good of society, or out of any sense of responsibility. I encourage you to work hard, spend little, and pile up capital for your own good. Make hay while the sun shines.

Practical Advice

I recommend that you turn your attention to the STEM fields. These are the least feminized parts of our economy, and therefore the least repugnant to a man; they are also reasonably remunerative, relatively cheap to enter, and of practical value in any soon-to-come Mad Max future.

Medicine is practical, but expensive to enter, heavily regulated, and somewhat feminized. Law and banking are expensive to enter, heavily regulated, somewhat feminized, and not all that remunerative in the average case. The military sucks ass, but can give you a leg up on your career as an aspiring warlord.

The trades (e.g. electricians, plumbers) are not to be overlooked.

Try to spend only 40% of what you bring home. In 16 years (assuming 5% returns, and a 40% tax rate) you’ll earn enough interest to not have to work at all. 16 years might seem like a long time — and it sort of is — but it’s only a part of your life. And afterwards, you’ll be as free as any man can be.

Absent property, you’re at the mercy of people who hate you. Don’t drop out. Take what’s yours, then leave.

Rape

One of the most mystifying feminist lies is that rape is “motivated by hostility and dislike for the opposite sex“. Just to puncture that in two little words: “prison rape“.

Root Causes

Rape is an aberration, and almost certainly triggered by a number of things. At bottom, however, we’ll find simple horniness, just as simple covetousness underlies robbery. Don’t believe me? Well, have a look at 2008 victimization rates for “rape/sexual assault” from the DOJ (Table 3):

12-15	1.6
16-19	2.2
20-24	2.1
25-34	0.7
35-49	0.8
50-64	0.2
65+	0.2

It’s sort of eerie how that curve mirrors female sexual attractiveness, isn’t it?

Lying

Why, in defiance of Occam’s Razor, do feminists insist on peddling their absurd lie? I think that there are two reasons. The less interesting one is that feminists are wedded to the idea that no woman should ever be held accountable for the negative consequences of her actions. If rape is fundamentally triggered by sexual arousal, then a woman who behaves in a sexually provocative manner is contributing, practically if not morally, to her own victimization. In other words, there are negative consequences for dressing and acting like a slut, and such a reality is repugnant to the feminist mindset. So: deny, deny, deny.

The more interesting reason for the feminist lie is that they don’t realize that they’re lying. For women, male dominance, sexual arousal, and sexual intercourse really are all tangled up into one big moist ball. Consider this report, helpfully summarized by our friend Roissy thusly:

62%. That’s a majority, folks. A majority of women fantasize on average four times per year about being forcefully and nonconsensually penetrated. Nearly two out of ten women fantasize about rape at least once a week. If that doesn’t convince you of the animal nature of women’s sexuality and their deepest desire to submit to a more powerful lover, nothing will.

In other words, the reason that feminists say this particular stupid thing is that, from their perspective, it’s true. When they think about rape (and they do!), the appeal (and it’s there!) isn’t the sex, it’s the domination, hostility, and contempt.

Never underestimate the explanatory power of female solipsism.