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.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


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.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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.


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!”).


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.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Dear 38 Year Old Woman

Dear 38 Year Old Woman,

I saw your profile on 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.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments


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.


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.


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.

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments


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.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

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.


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.


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.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments