The point of this blog is that men are for sale. Men are individuals free to make their own choices until.... a woman enters the picture. Then they are more or less toast, financially speaking. Does that sound bitter? Sound far fetched? I'm afraid it isn't.
Men having been choosing and marrying women out of their free will for centuries, and supporting them and their children, voluntarily, despite being able to abandon them and leave at any time. The "power dynamic" has shifted, whatever that means (I guess there is some kind of power struggle happening that I wasn't aware of). Women now have control of their destiny and so everything is different. Later in this post, you might recall the old adage, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
As a woman, if you date a man and have kids with him, out of wedlock, with or without his consent, you have successfully used, er, rented this man. Now you may sell (think "extort") him for monthly payments that could last the rest of your life. This is called 'child' support, even though it'll be in the thousands most likely and no child costs that much who isn't dipped in gold.
If you, as a woman, have married this man and had children with him, you have successfully bought him. Marriage doesn't happen much anymore. Why? See above. Marriage doesn't gain men much, if anything. In both cases women are legally entitled to his home, 40% of his income, and in the case of marriage, half his assets. But then, I lost half my assets and I wasn't married, so its pretty much 'anything goes.' You can close your mouth.
In either case, the moment a woman has children, her obligations, duties and responsibilities DON'T EXIST in this country. She has none. Zero. She must do nothing. She will be judged on nothing. She will be held to no standard, she must give no reason or excuse for divorce. She is not even suspected or considered a cause of the divorce. This nation has 'no fault' divorce, so there is no investigation or questions raised about fault or cause of a divorce. She can lie, cheat, steal, whatever she wants to do. Literally. It does not matter. If she's rich, the massive wealth transfer that is child support still stands. If she is poor, it still stands. If she is middle class, it still stands. If she has 10 children with 10 different men, it still stands. If she cheated on you, it still stands. If she told ten different men your baby is theirs or their baby is yours, it still stands (yes, more than one man may be legally forced to pay support for the same child. So far, just two have been forced to pay for the same child, but I'm sure we'll surpass that soon enough).
Given this license to blow out a man whenever she feels like it, and women's massive increase in education and earnings in the past forever, women have declared victory.
Good for them. High-five ladies. You are the "winners!" YES! The winners of..... of..... of.....well, what did they win, Bob?
I don't know. They won something. Money I guess. And power. And control. Now she can.... I don't know. What do women do again? Oh yes; buy a really, really nice handbag. French, no, Italian! And shoes. And dresses. And jewelry to impress your friends with. Unless your friends are married of course. Then they will pity you for being a lonely, superficial money-grubbing spinster who secretly cries herself to sleep at night. That is, unless you've rented a man after selling your first one. In which case... wait. Who in their right mind would marry a woman who totally financially crippled another man before you? Idiots I suppose (women who divorced for legitimate reasons including actual, real, abuse or who left their husband without blowing him out are exempt).
But basically, women have won. They don't need men anymore. Thank God. It was a real chore to need a man. So much work and time and what about a poor girl's career!?!? So its over now, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. They won.
So give up men. Just throw down your sword - you do have a sword don't you? This was a 'fight' of some kind, wasn't it? I mean, the women have won, so I assume there was some kind of.... competition or something.... right? A competition for.... the right to... I don't know. But I'm sure it existed. After all, there can't be a victor without a contest. Duh.
So where was I... oh yeah, Give Up Men! SHE has bested you in every category! So there. You have no role left. Ta-daaa. Once a man's role in the family is in extreme jeopardy or unnecessary, then HE is pretty much unnecessary and will, in all likelihood, give up. And you, wimpy, loser man, have lost. Your wife, er, ex-wife, makes more than you and has more education and lives in a really nice house with REALLY nice clothes. So fall to your loser knees and genuflect.
Just... stop getting married. After all, what person, man or woman, would enter into a contract, agreement, or partnership, of any kind, knowing that they will always 'lose?' A man, after all, can have all of his present AND FUTURE earnings legally stolen from him for no due cause (that is, adultery, alcoholism, abuse, etc.). And in that case, you would have to think that your wife was TOTALLY INCAPABLE of divorcing you because she met someone "better," experienced depression, mood swings, extreme selfishness, identity crisis, severe anxiety, or simply was unsure of your feelings toward her and decided to leave before she was left. And honestly, to be fair, very few human beings at all are totally incapable of those things, especially in the anxiety-filled, prozac-popping Western world.
So congratulations Ladies. You have won.... something. Do your touchdown dance. Woo Hoo.
My western brethren. Gentleman. It is time you embraced alternatives. I'm sorry. I wish this wasn't necessary. I know, I know. You fell in love. You saw her and you were sold for life. I know. She's all you ever wanted, her hair, her eyes, her creamy white skin, blah, blah, blah. But she's western, buddy. She's a western woman. West as in American, European, Canadien, etc.. She owns you the moment you have kids and/or get divorced. Your life BELONGS to her. Not in an emotional sense. IN A LEGAL/FINANCIAL sense. FOR LIFE. In divorce, well after you don't know her and don't care about her, SHE STILL OWNS YOU. And can actually DEMAND MORE OF YOUR MONEY (child support automatically goes up when kids hit 13). This may leave you penniless, depressed or even suicidal, as providing is essential to a man's self-worth. It matters not. You'll refuse to pay? The court will throw you in jail - JAIL JAIL. With hardened gangs and killers. No more life, no more anything. Do you see the kind of risk I'm talking about?
So I'm sorry, but forget all about her. It won't be an equal relationship because you hold nothing over her. The law is all on her side. It won't matter if she is the one who cheats, leaves, remarries, or makes more money than you do. So forget it. Now.
Let's talk about better options for you.
I would suggest considering 1) foreign born women, 2) remaining a permanent bachelor and dating forever (there are lots of lonely women out there), or else 3) embracing women of conservative faiths and religions who are serious about traditional marriage - see #1. Regardless of the cold stares and disgusted looks you'll receive from American women, you have no obligation to be with them and your refusal to consider them would be a big wake-up call to what women before them have done to their opportunities with American men.
But don't worry. Given you are smart, hard working and somewhat educated, YOU are in good shape. There are some truly LOVELY foreign women out there. The spanish, persians, indians, asians, greeks... simply gorgeous women. Wars have been fought over these ladies. Trust me. Plus, to them, you are not a guarantee, a slave or a puppet. You are not some guy who is going to "give her the children she is entitled to." If she wants children she is told she has to EARN them. That is what she was most likely taught, growing up. She must EARN them; that means BEING A GOOD WIFE. That includes, cooking, cleaning and keeping a good appearance for you in addition to any hobby or job she wants to do. In exchange, you must work hard, provide money and discipline for the children and routinely make love to her (yes, it will hurt her feelings if you don't). Good deal huh!?!? I thought so too. I weighed my options and decided this was the best option for me. Many men do. And for good reason - its a fair deal. And a deal's a deal. Its a deal set up to avoid divorce and keep the family intact.
Now I read articles in Western magazines asking where the "Real Men" are, I hear female coworkers and friends complain about the lack of available men with good jobs, and I read stories of college girls dancing with eachother for lack of available boys at parties, and its a pity. It really is. BUT THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM, brother. The law has decided to declare war on men at the behest of radical, bitter feminists, many of whom are quite clear in their objective to destroy and/or ruin as many men as they can. I'm very sorry that's the case, but be sure of it: THAT IS IN FACT THE CASE.
In lieu of this, I would like to congratulate you on your soon-to-be foreign born wife. And here's a tip: if she cooks good food all the time, brings you your robe and slippers and rubs your back, do not be alarmed! Do not argue! Do not stop her! This is what she was taught a good wife does! And she wants to be a good wife because.... SHE WANTS TO REMAIN MARRIED! So let her be a good wife! Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, friend! And by all means spoil her! Give her presents, massages, sex, clothes, brush her hair, and tell the kids how special their mother is! Don't worry, she's not Western! She won't see this as a sign of weakness or some kind of 'game' to be plotted against! She won't suspect you of trying to atone for cheating! She will become even more loving in return! Its a good deal, this option that I present you! Why it is a present unto itself. You could become a perma-bachelor or else celibate, or a monk or something, but I think the first option is better. Take it, sir.
Now you may have to convert to a religion that some consider radical... that is, a religion that doesn't believe young women should have reckless, drunken sex with men who will not marry them, a religion that believes killing the innocent is wrong, a religion that encourages honesty and integrity, that disavows irresponsibility, drug-use and prostitution, that believes women are sacred, powerful and beautiful, that protects children by keeping them within the sanctity of the family and which may declare non-believers to be confused, dangerous and immoral. But hey, you may believe some of those crazy ideas already, so this won't be any kind of radical adoption for you, now will it? So kiss your WASP ladies goodnight and wish them well, but tell them you just can't enter into an arrangement with them that puts you at their mercy like some kind of whipped, helpless puppy. After all, you're not a whipped, helpless puppy. You sir, are A MAN. And you'll do what you see to be fit, right and just. If the consequences are a bunch of cold, lonely, childless Western women, then so be it. Tell them not to feel bad.
After all....... they have won.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
There is a word for it....
MISUNDERSTANDING is the word you are looking for.
And its the reason why the author writes for Cracked.com and isn't practicing law.
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1758-5-things-i-learned-committing-campus-sexual-assault.html
There's another term apparently no one outside of law school knows - "mens rea," its latin. And it means you have to INTEND to commit a wrong when you do it. Its the difference between an accident and a crime.
Ever play sports? Well when you stick your elbow out when playing hockey and someone falls into it, its not a penalty. But if someone nears you and you see them and then jab them in the ribs with your elbow, intentionally, its clearly a penalty. Players who try to blur this line are called "dirty" and "scumbag."
The same rule applies in the legal system under which you live. If a man is flirting with a girl all night (slapping her butt? Not really just-friends stuff, is it?), and then later starts to take a few liberties touching her as she's LYING ON HIM, pauses, hears no rebuke, and continues, then he's not really a rapist, is he? Is he overstepping his bounds? Perhaps. But he's not trying to hurt her and I would PRESUME (call me a monster if you wish) that she has a mouth that works, right? So she can speak up AT. ANY. TIME. As women have down for 3 millenia. Or are you quiet, foolish, mousey little dolls too sweet and innocent to possibly object to the caveman you have placed yourself with?
Please.
That's an insult to women everywhere. If you can't speak up ladies, DON'T BE WITH A MAN, NOT EVER. 95% of men out there want to PLEASE you physically, not hurt you. But young men are fairly awkward in attempting this. He should've spoken up, sure, but its not uncommon for first encounters to be quite silent. Again, men have always labored under the impression that unwanted advances are met with a push, slap, harsh word, some sort of objection. Silence? Doesn't exactly say "this is horrible. stop now." I have literally been told "stop" - and it meant stop one kind of touching (but don't stop altogether), and no, I'm not confused on that, I confirmed it. This can happen. Everyone's playing the situation by ear.
In an age where women are as educated, rich, and powerful as they have ever been, why on earth would men suddenly expect them to turn into a silent mouse who can't find the right words!?!?!?!
Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me. I'm not the only one who has figured it out, as many women also blame women in these fuzzy-no-harm-intended-cases. No, these "blaming women" are not brainwashed, THEY'RE JUST NOT NAIVE. By the way that's a whole another volume of articles - the difference between naive women and innocent ones - men love innocent women, but are often astounded by how naive they are - this stark difference just adds dynamite to the sparking gas can of male-female relations.
Now in this case, the girl simply fell asleep - but she woke up, halfway through and both of them were still clothed, no one was pregnant, so no real harm was done save her embarrassment and the awkwardness of it all. Further evidence of no wrong doing - she didn't report the incident until days later. Odds are she didn't know how she felt about the whole thing. Young women can be pretty dense too. She was having fun and just ran with it. The moron guy (we're all morons at that age) did not tenderly contact her afterward and say I adore you, I want you, I need to be with you, etc. as he too was embarrassed, and missing this key declaration, the girl felt understandably used in all likelihood - not a pleasant feeling. So did she tell him he tresspassed? No. She did a far more reasonable thing - she accused him of an actual crime. Brilliant, sweetie.
Men don't continue with touching when at first it doesn't work - THEY THINK THEY MERELY NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN ORDER TO STIMULATE YOU, LADIES.
Well the crime this poor boy was accused of is bunk from moment 1 and she knows it. Because the man didn't intend to hurt her at all. He had no idea she was asleep and in fact takes responsibility and blames himself. These two are simply incredibly young and naive and didn't communicate when they needed to. He didn't hurt her at all and regrets the entire incident - not exactly the mark of a guilty mind.
He intended no harm and mostly she received no harm. Oh and what do you know, alcohol was involved.
Go figure.
And its the reason why the author writes for Cracked.com and isn't practicing law.
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1758-5-things-i-learned-committing-campus-sexual-assault.html
There's another term apparently no one outside of law school knows - "mens rea," its latin. And it means you have to INTEND to commit a wrong when you do it. Its the difference between an accident and a crime.
Ever play sports? Well when you stick your elbow out when playing hockey and someone falls into it, its not a penalty. But if someone nears you and you see them and then jab them in the ribs with your elbow, intentionally, its clearly a penalty. Players who try to blur this line are called "dirty" and "scumbag."
The same rule applies in the legal system under which you live. If a man is flirting with a girl all night (slapping her butt? Not really just-friends stuff, is it?), and then later starts to take a few liberties touching her as she's LYING ON HIM, pauses, hears no rebuke, and continues, then he's not really a rapist, is he? Is he overstepping his bounds? Perhaps. But he's not trying to hurt her and I would PRESUME (call me a monster if you wish) that she has a mouth that works, right? So she can speak up AT. ANY. TIME. As women have down for 3 millenia. Or are you quiet, foolish, mousey little dolls too sweet and innocent to possibly object to the caveman you have placed yourself with?
Please.
That's an insult to women everywhere. If you can't speak up ladies, DON'T BE WITH A MAN, NOT EVER. 95% of men out there want to PLEASE you physically, not hurt you. But young men are fairly awkward in attempting this. He should've spoken up, sure, but its not uncommon for first encounters to be quite silent. Again, men have always labored under the impression that unwanted advances are met with a push, slap, harsh word, some sort of objection. Silence? Doesn't exactly say "this is horrible. stop now." I have literally been told "stop" - and it meant stop one kind of touching (but don't stop altogether), and no, I'm not confused on that, I confirmed it. This can happen. Everyone's playing the situation by ear.
In an age where women are as educated, rich, and powerful as they have ever been, why on earth would men suddenly expect them to turn into a silent mouse who can't find the right words!?!?!?!
Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me. I'm not the only one who has figured it out, as many women also blame women in these fuzzy-no-harm-intended-cases. No, these "blaming women" are not brainwashed, THEY'RE JUST NOT NAIVE. By the way that's a whole another volume of articles - the difference between naive women and innocent ones - men love innocent women, but are often astounded by how naive they are - this stark difference just adds dynamite to the sparking gas can of male-female relations.
Now in this case, the girl simply fell asleep - but she woke up, halfway through and both of them were still clothed, no one was pregnant, so no real harm was done save her embarrassment and the awkwardness of it all. Further evidence of no wrong doing - she didn't report the incident until days later. Odds are she didn't know how she felt about the whole thing. Young women can be pretty dense too. She was having fun and just ran with it. The moron guy (we're all morons at that age) did not tenderly contact her afterward and say I adore you, I want you, I need to be with you, etc. as he too was embarrassed, and missing this key declaration, the girl felt understandably used in all likelihood - not a pleasant feeling. So did she tell him he tresspassed? No. She did a far more reasonable thing - she accused him of an actual crime. Brilliant, sweetie.
Men don't continue with touching when at first it doesn't work - THEY THINK THEY MERELY NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN ORDER TO STIMULATE YOU, LADIES.
Well the crime this poor boy was accused of is bunk from moment 1 and she knows it. Because the man didn't intend to hurt her at all. He had no idea she was asleep and in fact takes responsibility and blames himself. These two are simply incredibly young and naive and didn't communicate when they needed to. He didn't hurt her at all and regrets the entire incident - not exactly the mark of a guilty mind.
He intended no harm and mostly she received no harm. Oh and what do you know, alcohol was involved.
Go figure.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
When Alone, Feminism is Perfect and Unfallible, When Part of a Couple.....
... feminism is quickly discarded like a dirty, damp dish rag:
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/woman-gets-boyfriend-no-longer-a-feminist/
...in other words, modern feminism is nothing more than a set of (bigoted) rationalizations that can be used by women to make themselves feel better when they are alone, depressed, and looking for someone or something to blame.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/woman-gets-boyfriend-no-longer-a-feminist/
...in other words, modern feminism is nothing more than a set of (bigoted) rationalizations that can be used by women to make themselves feel better when they are alone, depressed, and looking for someone or something to blame.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Who Is Teaching Our Daughters to be Psycho Femi-nazis?
This lady:
Professor Says Fake Rape Story “Rings True” and Calls For “Men Control”
By: Laura Meyers
Its fun to attack psychotic social justice
warriors’ fallacies. But even when such claims are debunked right in
front of them, they still claim that the fake injustices are real
problems. They just make it too easy sometimes.
Last year, Rolling Stones‘
journalistic integrity took a hit when the magazine ran the rape story
as truth and permanently damaged a fraternity’s and students’
reputations when it was later learned that the allegations were false.
An independent review of the coverage was
printed in Rolling Stones’ April 2015 edition, and despite the admission
of untruth, Ashwini Tambe, a women’s studies professor from the
University of Maryland this the fake rape story “rings so true.”
Worth asking: why DID ‘Jackie”s story about #frathouserape ring so true to #RollingStone editors? Maybe bc #campusrapeculture is a thing
— Ashwini Tambe (@ashwinitambe) April 6, 2015
And the professor has had other questionable Tweets during her time as a revolutionary social media activist.
Remember that time she said we needed “men control?”
And remember that time she compared Charlie
Hebdo, the victim in the Je Suis Charlie bombing, to Rush Limbaugh? And
when she said she’d feel “uneasy” about people supporting Rush, as they
did with Charlie?
Personally I’d feel more “uneasy” about the whole bombing part, but what do I know, you know?
Oh yeah, and she wants women’s studies taught in high schools, because #rape.
What a cool gal. Arguing injustice even
when your claims are proven false shows true dedication to the cause.
Way to go, professor.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Man, unconscious, Sexullay Assaulted and then expelled
First men stopped courting women, then they stopped marrying, pretty soon ladies, men will avoid you ALTOGETHER. STOP THE MADNESS!
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/amherst-student-was-expelled-for-rape-bu
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/amherst-student-was-expelled-for-rape-bu
Thursday, June 04, 2015
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Drunk Driving Argument Twisted and Mangled by Idiot
This is normally a pretty good site, but the author fumbles this one, pretty badly.
http://libertyviral.com/graphic-some-people-think-drunk-driving-should-be-legal-heres-why-i-disagree/#
He sets up a strawman, and its a horrible strawman to boot.
He claims libertarians want drunk driving to be legal. First off, that's wrong, libertarians simply think its possible to drive safely after having a few glasses of wine and that the state-mandated .08 standard of "legally drunk," is a total joke that gets people thrown in jail who have HURT NO ONE and demonstrated NO reckless behavior of any kind. Secondly, he claims that "drunk driving" is horrible and "this video of a drunk driver slamming into a pedestrian is one of the million reason why," followed up by a horribly drunked driver (probably 1.6 intoxicated, not .08).
Who the Hell would defend a driver slamming into a pedestrian DRUNK OR NOT?!?!!?!?!
DO YOU THINK IT MATTERS TO THE PEDESTRIAN!?!?!?! Moron.
Secondly, RECKLESS driving is what the author MEANS must be outlawed, not drunk driving. He gives examples of reckless driving and then tells you that not only is that drunk driving, that is the driving of everyone who has taken a sip of alcohol and gotten behind the wheel. Its a slick move but its logical shit and he knows it; if he doesn't, he's an idiot.
There are simply bad drivers out there. We don't know who they are until they do something to reveal themselves. I'm sad this is the case, but I'm not outlawing cars for everyone or demanding everyone retake their driver's test every year to smoke out the potential accidents waiting to happen.
How about falling asleep at the wheel (and killing people) - is that EXTRA bad because sleeping is horrible and puts others at risk!?!?! Let's make it illegal to drive on less than 7 hours sleep. Cuz, hey - this is about safety; no, even better - its about the safety of children! Innocent children riding in cards demand you get 8 hours sleep or else not drive, you selfish prick. Bang. On the books. Do it.
Reckless driving is the problem. Consuming alcohol doesn't help, certainly, and I don't advise you do it, but consuming alcohol affects everyone differently (I tended bar for years), and they need to exercise judgement before driving, regardless of their alcohol consumption. Period.
The problem is that you can have a few drinks AND NOT DRIVE RECKLESSLY. You can go home perfectly safe.
Now we get on to measuring risk: "...here’s the problem with the argument that all drunk driving which doesn’t inflict harm should be legal. It doesn’t take into the factor of aggression by risk taking. It’s akin to firing a gun up in the air, which my father taught me NEVER EVER to do. Why? Because sure, even if there’s an almost zero chance that you will hurt someone, what happens when you do? It’s one thing to take risks with your own life. It’s quite another to take risks with other people’s lives."
Bullshit. The cop with a gun puts my life at risk, but he needs it to do his job, so I live with that risk. People need their cars to travel, so you live with the risk of bad drivers and those who have a beer or two; even with those that are sleepy. Texting while driving is just as dangerous as drinking and driving (more so) and so is being sleepy at the wheel. So what do you want to do Mr. Wrap-everything-in-bubblewrap!?!?!? Outlaw less than 8 hours sleep before driving? Make it a felony to possess a text message device while driving? No. Neither lack of sleep nor cell phones matter UNTIL YOUR ABUSE OF THEM CAUSE YOU TO DRIVE RECKLESSLY.
ITS THE RECKLESS DRIVING that's the problem, THE CAUSE IS IRRELEVANT. Further AGAINST his point is the fact that millions of people have a few drinks at night (and yes, blow a .08 - legally "under the influence" - oh, the state is careful not to say drunk, cuz you know, odds are you're not and they want to arrest you anyway) - and then safely drive home, making sure to swerve out of the way of text'ers and sleep-deprived college kids and truckers. They are in full control of their vehicle and their reflexes have not taken a decline or else a significant enough decline to prevent them from operating the motor vehicle safely. And no, I don't drive drunk and do not advocate anyone else do either. I also don't advocate driving sleepy or texting while driving, in case you care.
And lastly this blithering fool does not ask where his suggestions lead - as he is advocating OUTLAWING BEHAVIOR and NOT end results. It leads to the Nanny-state, the Police-infested, spying, communist nation I find myself in today. Where my own small opinions on this small little blog are most likely monitored by the FBI as "subversive" or "potentially gorilla/anarchist/anti-federal" in nature.
So pat yourself on the back Mr. "Liberty Viral," you just advocated anything but Liberty.
Moron.
-JB
http://libertyviral.com/graphic-some-people-think-drunk-driving-should-be-legal-heres-why-i-disagree/#
He sets up a strawman, and its a horrible strawman to boot.
He claims libertarians want drunk driving to be legal. First off, that's wrong, libertarians simply think its possible to drive safely after having a few glasses of wine and that the state-mandated .08 standard of "legally drunk," is a total joke that gets people thrown in jail who have HURT NO ONE and demonstrated NO reckless behavior of any kind. Secondly, he claims that "drunk driving" is horrible and "this video of a drunk driver slamming into a pedestrian is one of the million reason why," followed up by a horribly drunked driver (probably 1.6 intoxicated, not .08).
Who the Hell would defend a driver slamming into a pedestrian DRUNK OR NOT?!?!!?!?!
DO YOU THINK IT MATTERS TO THE PEDESTRIAN!?!?!?! Moron.
Secondly, RECKLESS driving is what the author MEANS must be outlawed, not drunk driving. He gives examples of reckless driving and then tells you that not only is that drunk driving, that is the driving of everyone who has taken a sip of alcohol and gotten behind the wheel. Its a slick move but its logical shit and he knows it; if he doesn't, he's an idiot.
There are simply bad drivers out there. We don't know who they are until they do something to reveal themselves. I'm sad this is the case, but I'm not outlawing cars for everyone or demanding everyone retake their driver's test every year to smoke out the potential accidents waiting to happen.
How about falling asleep at the wheel (and killing people) - is that EXTRA bad because sleeping is horrible and puts others at risk!?!?! Let's make it illegal to drive on less than 7 hours sleep. Cuz, hey - this is about safety; no, even better - its about the safety of children! Innocent children riding in cards demand you get 8 hours sleep or else not drive, you selfish prick. Bang. On the books. Do it.
Reckless driving is the problem. Consuming alcohol doesn't help, certainly, and I don't advise you do it, but consuming alcohol affects everyone differently (I tended bar for years), and they need to exercise judgement before driving, regardless of their alcohol consumption. Period.
The problem is that you can have a few drinks AND NOT DRIVE RECKLESSLY. You can go home perfectly safe.
Now we get on to measuring risk: "...here’s the problem with the argument that all drunk driving which doesn’t inflict harm should be legal. It doesn’t take into the factor of aggression by risk taking. It’s akin to firing a gun up in the air, which my father taught me NEVER EVER to do. Why? Because sure, even if there’s an almost zero chance that you will hurt someone, what happens when you do? It’s one thing to take risks with your own life. It’s quite another to take risks with other people’s lives."
Bullshit. The cop with a gun puts my life at risk, but he needs it to do his job, so I live with that risk. People need their cars to travel, so you live with the risk of bad drivers and those who have a beer or two; even with those that are sleepy. Texting while driving is just as dangerous as drinking and driving (more so) and so is being sleepy at the wheel. So what do you want to do Mr. Wrap-everything-in-bubblewrap!?!?!? Outlaw less than 8 hours sleep before driving? Make it a felony to possess a text message device while driving? No. Neither lack of sleep nor cell phones matter UNTIL YOUR ABUSE OF THEM CAUSE YOU TO DRIVE RECKLESSLY.
ITS THE RECKLESS DRIVING that's the problem, THE CAUSE IS IRRELEVANT. Further AGAINST his point is the fact that millions of people have a few drinks at night (and yes, blow a .08 - legally "under the influence" - oh, the state is careful not to say drunk, cuz you know, odds are you're not and they want to arrest you anyway) - and then safely drive home, making sure to swerve out of the way of text'ers and sleep-deprived college kids and truckers. They are in full control of their vehicle and their reflexes have not taken a decline or else a significant enough decline to prevent them from operating the motor vehicle safely. And no, I don't drive drunk and do not advocate anyone else do either. I also don't advocate driving sleepy or texting while driving, in case you care.
And lastly this blithering fool does not ask where his suggestions lead - as he is advocating OUTLAWING BEHAVIOR and NOT end results. It leads to the Nanny-state, the Police-infested, spying, communist nation I find myself in today. Where my own small opinions on this small little blog are most likely monitored by the FBI as "subversive" or "potentially gorilla/anarchist/anti-federal" in nature.
So pat yourself on the back Mr. "Liberty Viral," you just advocated anything but Liberty.
Moron.
-JB
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Rape Culture a Crock of Shit
Study that concluded 1 in 4 women have been raped was TOTALLY debunked. Facts do not get reported in the media anymore, just sensationalism.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Rolling Stone's Reputation Thrown Out with the Trash
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/10/rolling-stones-uva-rape-story-just-took
"...with Rolling Stone editor Sean Woods' initial claim that "I’m satisfied that [the perpetrators] exist and are real. We knew who they were."
[JB] So a girl who wanted some attention, fabricated a story, slandered an entire fraternity (I'm no fan of frats, either), and nearly got a quasi-fictitious man thrown in jail. Every man on campus should thank her. If she had merely picked a different name, one man on campus could be headed to jail right now or even had his reputation ruined (wouldn't be the first time). I'm guessing "Jackie" here had sex she didn't mean to have, but like so many girls, didn't know how to stop it. She was traumatized by this. Maybe she even feared for her reputation (if her partner bragged to his frat buddies), so she spread this wild story to beat him to the punch.
Then she tried to withdraw the story and Rolling Stone went with it anyway? BRILLIANT, RS! WTF were you thinking?!?!?!
Her friends, who were supposedly pricks worried about their own rep, came clean and ole' Jackie was left high and dry, surrounded by only her lies. Whups.
Its sad, because I do feel bad for Jackie, but that only goes so far. She committed slander, and libel and THOSE are actual civil offenses she should be held accountable for.
Frats, I worry, are filled with a pack of hormonal boys hellbent on sexual conquest (they're 18-21 for chrissake). Ladies, if you go to a frat, know that the guys are cruising FOR SEX ONLY. Forget any relationship bullshit. In short, stay away from them, I don't care how awesome their parties are.
Here's the timeline, according to the friends:
"...with Rolling Stone editor Sean Woods' initial claim that "I’m satisfied that [the perpetrators] exist and are real. We knew who they were."
[JB] So a girl who wanted some attention, fabricated a story, slandered an entire fraternity (I'm no fan of frats, either), and nearly got a quasi-fictitious man thrown in jail. Every man on campus should thank her. If she had merely picked a different name, one man on campus could be headed to jail right now or even had his reputation ruined (wouldn't be the first time). I'm guessing "Jackie" here had sex she didn't mean to have, but like so many girls, didn't know how to stop it. She was traumatized by this. Maybe she even feared for her reputation (if her partner bragged to his frat buddies), so she spread this wild story to beat him to the punch.
Then she tried to withdraw the story and Rolling Stone went with it anyway? BRILLIANT, RS! WTF were you thinking?!?!?!
Her friends, who were supposedly pricks worried about their own rep, came clean and ole' Jackie was left high and dry, surrounded by only her lies. Whups.
Its sad, because I do feel bad for Jackie, but that only goes so far. She committed slander, and libel and THOSE are actual civil offenses she should be held accountable for.
Frats, I worry, are filled with a pack of hormonal boys hellbent on sexual conquest (they're 18-21 for chrissake). Ladies, if you go to a frat, know that the guys are cruising FOR SEX ONLY. Forget any relationship bullshit. In short, stay away from them, I don't care how awesome their parties are.
Here's the timeline, according to the friends:
The three friends said that Jackie soon began talking about a handsome junior from chemistry class who had a crush on her and had been asking her out on dates.
Intrigued, Jackie’s friends got his phone number from her and began exchanging text messages with the mysterious upperclassman. He then raved to them about “this super smart hot,” freshman who shared his love of the band Coheed and Cambria, according to the texts, which were provided to The Post. ...
Jackie told her three friends that she accepted the upperclassman’s invitation for a dinner date on Friday Sept. 28, 2012.
Curious about Jackie’s date, the friends said that they failed to locate the student on a U-Va. database and social media. Andy, Cindy and Randall all said they never met the student in person. Before Jackie’s date, the friends said that they became suspicious that perhaps they hadn’t really been in contact with the chemistry student at all.
U-Va. officials told The Post that no student by the name Jackie provided to her friends as her date and attacker in 2012 had ever enrolled at the university. Randall provided The Post with pictures that Jackie’s purported date had sent of himself by text message in 2012.
The Post identified the person in the pictures and learned that his name does not match the one Jackie provided to friends in 2012. In an interview, the man said that he was Jackie’s high school classmate but that he “never really spoke to her.”
The man said that he was never a U-Va. student and is not a member of any fraternity. Additionally, the man said that he had not visited Charlottesville in at least six years and that he was in another state participating in an athletic event during the weekend of Sept. 28, 2012.
The Problem With Fallacious Arguments
Is that some intelligent people will notice.
#1, immigrants vote OVERWHELMINGLY for the very political party the president is a part of. So he has conducted a self-serving act for himself and his party while cutting out the other representatives elected by much of America?
#2, The President's mother immigrated from Kenya to Hawaii (in all likelihood AFTER he was born), and she had practically nothing; she and her husband had split up. Now her son says women like her should be granted, magically, full citizenship, and be given everything she might need - food stamps, shelter, health care, etc.. Its too late for that, Mr. President, and its not your singular right to go "saving the "helpless" women."
Note the video author specifically states open boarders are not the problem, open boarders PLUS a MASSIVE welfare state funded by trillions of taxpayer dollars cannot stand, as you cannot know who is coming to America to work hard and who is coming just to milk the system (live off your tax dollars). And remember, states like California are struggling with bankruptcy, in part, due to their ultra-lax attitude towards Mexicans coming into California and milking the social welfare state - and that was additionally confirmed to me by... a Mexican immigrant!
#1, immigrants vote OVERWHELMINGLY for the very political party the president is a part of. So he has conducted a self-serving act for himself and his party while cutting out the other representatives elected by much of America?
#2, The President's mother immigrated from Kenya to Hawaii (in all likelihood AFTER he was born), and she had practically nothing; she and her husband had split up. Now her son says women like her should be granted, magically, full citizenship, and be given everything she might need - food stamps, shelter, health care, etc.. Its too late for that, Mr. President, and its not your singular right to go "saving the "helpless" women."
Note the video author specifically states open boarders are not the problem, open boarders PLUS a MASSIVE welfare state funded by trillions of taxpayer dollars cannot stand, as you cannot know who is coming to America to work hard and who is coming just to milk the system (live off your tax dollars). And remember, states like California are struggling with bankruptcy, in part, due to their ultra-lax attitude towards Mexicans coming into California and milking the social welfare state - and that was additionally confirmed to me by... a Mexican immigrant!
Monday, December 08, 2014
Bill Cosby: Indicative of All Hollywood
I'm no Bill Cosby apologist, but I think people are taking away the wrong message from his scenario, which is that he basically kept a harem of young women, and many of these women went along with it, it seems. Why!?!? Because THAT IS HOW MUCH OF HOLLYWOOD FUNCTIONS.
Now, I wish that NONE of the women had gone along with it, and that they had all kicked the guy in the groin and stormed off. That said, if a big-shot, rich actor has his personal assistant get you, a young, sexy woman, a room connected to his on a long trip, and Bill is "helping your career," whilst you give him..... well nothing, what do you think is going on!?!? This man IS NOT YOUR DAD and has no responsibility to act like him. So keep your eyes open to what's going on.
Secondly, much of Hollywood is DRUNK with money, power, control, and influence. It is ANOTHER WORLD. Sex is often used as payment or compensation for others helping your career or pushing your name to the top of the list. This is DISGUSTING, and I am APPALLED. This is so pervasive in Hollywood that I'm sure Bill Cosby is a little stunned at WHY HE IS BEING SINGLED OUT for doing what so many others continue to do every day, year-round.
They key takeaway here is that Hollywood has become BIZARRO-WORLD; bent, twisted, crooked, ass-backwards liberal mecca for the rich, powerful and corrupt (Hollywood movies even hint at this culture of sexual-favor in their own movies!). There are even rumors of pedophiles (with money and positions of power) swarming to the place to take advantage of the ultra-lax lifestyle and culture while authorities look the other way with their hand out for a cut of the river of Hollywood money rolling in.... I have no problem judging Bill Cosby as a exploiter of women, but I'd rather people focused on the TWISTED, SICK CULTURE in which this is made allowable for so long.
Also, the women (their careers be damned) should've come forward MUCH SOONER and demanded he be charged with gross sexual misconduct at a BARE MINIMUM. And remember what sort of filth is being done, circulated, and covered-up in trashy, bizzaro-world Hollywood, a hangout of slaves and their twisted Masters.
Now, I wish that NONE of the women had gone along with it, and that they had all kicked the guy in the groin and stormed off. That said, if a big-shot, rich actor has his personal assistant get you, a young, sexy woman, a room connected to his on a long trip, and Bill is "helping your career," whilst you give him..... well nothing, what do you think is going on!?!? This man IS NOT YOUR DAD and has no responsibility to act like him. So keep your eyes open to what's going on.
Secondly, much of Hollywood is DRUNK with money, power, control, and influence. It is ANOTHER WORLD. Sex is often used as payment or compensation for others helping your career or pushing your name to the top of the list. This is DISGUSTING, and I am APPALLED. This is so pervasive in Hollywood that I'm sure Bill Cosby is a little stunned at WHY HE IS BEING SINGLED OUT for doing what so many others continue to do every day, year-round.
They key takeaway here is that Hollywood has become BIZARRO-WORLD; bent, twisted, crooked, ass-backwards liberal mecca for the rich, powerful and corrupt (Hollywood movies even hint at this culture of sexual-favor in their own movies!). There are even rumors of pedophiles (with money and positions of power) swarming to the place to take advantage of the ultra-lax lifestyle and culture while authorities look the other way with their hand out for a cut of the river of Hollywood money rolling in.... I have no problem judging Bill Cosby as a exploiter of women, but I'd rather people focused on the TWISTED, SICK CULTURE in which this is made allowable for so long.
Also, the women (their careers be damned) should've come forward MUCH SOONER and demanded he be charged with gross sexual misconduct at a BARE MINIMUM. And remember what sort of filth is being done, circulated, and covered-up in trashy, bizzaro-world Hollywood, a hangout of slaves and their twisted Masters.
Ultimate Comparison: Lazy Woman vs. Constructive Woman
You are responsible for your own happiness. If you are not happy, it is your responsibility to do something about it.
Best example I've ever heard of it, from both sides, here:
Also, LISTEN UP, LADIES, if you hear yourself expecting dinner, big wedding, house, car, etc., you better be prepared to give - and give and give and give. Marriage is an exchange, not male slavery.
My one difference with the author of this video is that many women only want to work hard on raising their family - tending to the kids, housework, etc., and that's fine. That IS working hard. But if that is the case, then these women need to DIAL DOWN their expectations. Its very hard these days for a man to make the salary of TWO people. So if he is doing that, you need to BEND OVER BACKWARDS for the guy because he's probably killing himself day-in, day-out to make that kind of money.... Also, spending all of that money is not your right, so quit obsessing over every little material knick-knack you find.
Best example I've ever heard of it, from both sides, here:
Also, LISTEN UP, LADIES, if you hear yourself expecting dinner, big wedding, house, car, etc., you better be prepared to give - and give and give and give. Marriage is an exchange, not male slavery.
My one difference with the author of this video is that many women only want to work hard on raising their family - tending to the kids, housework, etc., and that's fine. That IS working hard. But if that is the case, then these women need to DIAL DOWN their expectations. Its very hard these days for a man to make the salary of TWO people. So if he is doing that, you need to BEND OVER BACKWARDS for the guy because he's probably killing himself day-in, day-out to make that kind of money.... Also, spending all of that money is not your right, so quit obsessing over every little material knick-knack you find.
Thursday, December 04, 2014
The Sexodus: Why All the "Good Men" Have Gone Away
Best part of this article first:
In Part 2, we'll meet some of the men who have "checked out," given up on sex and relationships and sunk into solitary pursuits or alcohol-fuelled lad culture. And we'll discover that the real victims of modern feminism are, of course, women themselves, who have been left lonelier and less satisfied than they have ever been.
"Nobody in my generation believes they're going to get a meaningful retirement. We have a third or a quarter of the wealth previous generations had, and everyone's fleeing to higher education to stave off unemployment and poverty because there are no jobs.
"All that wouldn't be so bad if we could at least dull the pain with girls. But we're treated like paedophiles and potential rapists just for showing interest. My generation are the beautiful ones," he sighs, referring to a 1960s experiment on mice that supposedly predicted a grim future for the human race.
After overpopulation ran out of control, the female mice in John Calhoun's "mouse universe" experiment stopped breeding, and the male mice withdrew from the company of others entirely, eating, sleeping, feeding and grooming themselves but doing little else. They had shiny coats, but empty lives.
"The parallels are astounding," says Rupert.
But, for the rest of us, the sight of society breaking down, and ordinary men and women being driven into separate but equal misery, thanks to a small but highly organised group of agitators, is distressing. Particularly because, as increasing numbers of social observers are noticing, an entire generation of young people—mostly men—are being left behind in the wreckage of this social engineering project.
Social commentators, journalists, academics, scientists and young men themselves have all spotted the trend: among men of about 15 to 30 years old, ever-increasing numbers are checking out of society altogether, giving up on women, sex and relationships and retreating into pornography, sexual fetishes, chemical addictions, video games and, in some cases, boorish lad culture, all of which insulate them from a hostile, debilitating social environment created, some argue, by the modern feminist movement.
You can hardly blame them. Cruelly derided as man-children and crybabies for objecting to absurdly unfair conditions in college, bars, clubs and beyond, men are damned if they do and damned if they don't: ridiculed as basement-dwellers for avoiding aggressive, demanding women with unrealistic expectations, or called rapists and misogynists merely for expressing sexual interest.
Jack Rivlin is editor-in-chief of student tabloid media start-up The Tab, a runaway success whose current strap-line reads: "We'll stop writing it when you stop reading it." As the guiding intelligence behind over 30 student newspapers, Rivlin is perhaps the best-placed person in the country to observe this trend in action. And he agrees that the current generation of young men find it particularly difficult to engage with women.
"Teenage boys always have been useless with girls, but there's definitely a fear that now being well-intentioned isn't enough, and you can get into trouble just for being clumsy," he says. "For example, leaning in for a kiss might see you branded a creep, rather than just inept."
The new rules men are expected to live by are never clearly explained, says Rivlin, leaving boys clueless and neurotic about interacting with girls. "That might sound like a good thing because it encourages men to take the unromantic but practical approach of asking women how they should behave, but it causes a lot of them to just opt out of the game and retreat to the sanctuary of their groups of lads, where being rude to women gets you approval, and you can pretty much entirely avoid one-on-one socialising with the opposite sex."
"There are also a lot of blokes who ignore women because they are scared and don't know how to act. It goes without saying that boys who never spend any time alone with women are not very good at relationships."
Rivlin has noticed the increased dependence on substances, normally alcohol, that boys are using to calm their nerves. "I've heard a lot of male students boast about never having experienced sober sex," he says. "They're obviously scared, which is natural, but they would be a lot less scared and dysfunctional if they understood 'the rules.'"
The result? "A lot of nice but awkward young men are opting out of approaching women because there is no opportunity for them to make mistakes without suffering worse embarrassment than ever."
Most troublingly, this effect is felt more acutely among poorer and less well educated communities, where the package of support resources available to young men is slight. At my alma mater, the University of Cambridge, the phenomenon barely registers on the radar, according to Union society president Tim Squirrell.
"I don't think I've really noticed a change recently," he says. "This year has seen the introduction of mandatory consent workshops for freshers, which I believe is probably a good thing, and there's been a big effort by the Women's Campaign in particular to try and combat lad culture on campus.
The atmosphere here is the same as it was a year ago - mostly nerdy guys who are too afraid to approach anyone in the first place, and then a smaller percentage who are confident enough to make a move. Obviously women have agency too, and they approach men in about the same numbers as they do elsewhere. There certainly haven't been any stories in [campus newspaper] The Tab about a sex drought on campus."
"I think that people are probably having as much sex as ever," he adds. At Cambridge, of course, that may not mean much, and for a variety of socioeconomic and class-based reasons the tribes at Oxford and Cambridge are somewhat insulated from the male drop-out effect.
But even at such a prestigious university with a largely middle- and upper-class population, those patronising, mandatory "consent" classes are still being implemented. Squirrell, who admits to being a feminist with left-of-centre politics, thinks they're a good idea. But academics such as Camille Paglia have been warning for years that "rape drives" on campus put women at greater risk, if anything.
Women today are schooled in victimhood, taught to be aggressively vulnerable and convinced that the slightest of perceived infractions, approaches or clumsy misunderstandings represents "assault," "abuse" or "harassment." That may work in the safe confines of campus, where men can have their academic careers destroyed on the mere say-so of a female student.
But, according to Paglia, when that women goes out into the real world without the safety net of college rape committees, she is left totally unprepared for the sometimes violent reality of male sexuality. And the panics and fear-mongering are serving men even more poorly. All in all, education is becoming a miserable experience for boys.
One in seven American boys will be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) at some point in their school career. Millions will be prescribed a powerful mood stabiliser, such as Ritalin, for the crime of being born male. The side effects of these drugs can be hideous and include sudden death.
Meanwhile, boys are falling behind girls academically, perhaps because relentless and well-funded focus has been placed on girls' achievement in the past few decades and little to none on the boys who are now achieving lower grades, fewer honors, fewer degrees and less marketable information economy skills. Boys' literacy, in particular, is in crisis throughout the West. We've been obsessing so much over girls, we haven't noticed that boys have slipped into serious academic trouble.
So what happened to those boys who, in 2001, were falling behind girls at school, were less likely to go to college, were being given drugs they did not need and whose self-esteem and confidence issues haven't just been ignored, but have been actively ridiculed by the feminist Establishment that has such a stranglehold on teaching unions and Left-leaning political parties?
In short: they grew up, dysfunctional, under-served by society, deeply miserable and, in many cases, entirely unable to relate to the opposite sex. It is the boys who were being betrayed by the education system and by culture at large in such vast numbers between 1990 and 2010 who represent the first generation of what I call the sexodus, a large-scale exit from mainstream society by males who have decided they simply can't face, or be bothered with, forming healthy relationships and participating fully in their local communities, national democracies and other real-world social structures.
A second sexodus generation is gestating today, potentially with even greater damage being done to them by the onset of absurd, unworkable, prudish and downright misandrist laws such as California's "Yes Means Yes" legislation—and by third-wave feminism, which dominates newspapers like the Guardian and new media companies like Vox and Gawker, but which is currently enjoying a hysterical last gasp before women themselves reject it by an even greater margin than the present 4 out of 5 women who say they want nothing to do with the dreaded f-word.
"I can tell you as a heterosexual married male in management, who didn’t drop out of society, the message from the chicks is: 'It's not just preferable that you should fuck off, but imperative. You must pay for everything and make everything work; but you yourself and your preferences and needs can fuck off and die.'"
Women have been sending men mixed messages for the last few decades, leaving boys utterly confused about what they are supposed to represent to women, which perhaps explains the strong language some of them use when describing their situation. As the role of breadwinner has been taken away from them by women who earn more and do better in school, men are left to intuit what to do, trying to find a virtuous mean between what women say they want and what they actually pursue, which can be very different things.
Men say the gap between what women say and what they do has never been wider. Men are constantly told they should be delicate, sensitive fellow travellers on the feminist path. But the same women who say they want a nice, unthreatening boyfriend go home and swoon over simple-minded, giant-chested, testosterone-saturated hunks in Game of Thrones. Men know this, and, for some, this giant inconsistency makes the whole game look too much like hard work. Why bother trying to work out what a woman wants, when you can play sports, masturbate or just play video games from the comfort of your bedroom?
Jack Donovan, a writer based in Portland who has written several books on men and masculinity, each of which has become a cult hit, says the phenomenon is already endemic among the adult population. "I do see a lot of young men who would otherwise be dating and marrying giving up on women," he explains, "Or giving up on the idea of having a wife and family. This includes both the kind of men who would traditionally be a little awkward with women, and the kind of men who aren't awkward with women at all.
"They've done a cost-benefit analysis and realised it is a bad deal. They know that if they invest in a marriage and children, a woman can take all of that away from them on a whim. So they use apps like Tinder and OK Cupid to find women to have protected sex with and resign themselves to being 'players,' or when they get tired of that, 'boyfriends.'"
He goes on: "Almost all young men have attended mandatory sexual harassment and anti-rape seminars, and they know that they can be fired, expelled or arrested based more or less on the word of any woman. They know they are basically guilty until proven innocent in most situations."
Donovan lays much of the blame for the way men feel at the door of the modern feminist movement and what he sees as its disingenuousness. "The young men who are struggling the most are conflicted because they are operating under the assumption that feminists are arguing in good faith," he says, "When in fact they are engaged in a zero-sum struggle for sexual, social, political and economic status—and they're winning.
"The media now allows radical feminists to frame all debates, in part because sensationalism attracts more clicks than any sort of fair or balanced discourse. Women can basically say anything about men, no matter how denigrating, to a mix of cheers and jeers."
That has certainly been the experience of several loose coalitions of men in the media recently, whether scientists outraged by feminist denunciations of Dr Matt Taylor, or video gamers campaigning under the banner of press ethics who saw their movement smeared as a misogynistic hate group by mendacious, warring feminists and so-called "social justice warriors".
Donovan has views on why it has been so easy for feminists to triumph in media battles. "Because men instinctively want to protect women and play the hero, if a man writes even a tentative criticism of women or feminism, he's denounced by men and women alike as some kind of extremist scoundrel. The majority of "men's studies" and "men's rights" books and blogs that aren't explicitly pro-feminist are littered with apologies to women.
"Books like The Myth of Male Power and sites like A Voice for Men are favourite boogeymen of feminists, but only because they call out feminists' one-sided hypocrisy when it comes to pursing 'equality.'"
Unlike modern feminists, who are driving a wedge between the sexes, Men's Rights Activists "actually seem to want sexual equality," he says. But men's studies authors and male academics are constantly tip-toeing around and making sure they don't appear too radical. Their feminine counterparts have no such forbearance, of course, with what he calls "hipster feminists," such as the Guardian's Jessica Valenti parading around in t-shirts that read: "I BATHE IN MALE TEARS."
"I'm a critic of feminism," says Donovan. "But I would never walk around wearing a shirt that says, "I MAKE WOMEN CRY." I'd just look like a jerk and a bully."
It's the contention of academics, sociologists and writers like Jack Donovan that an atmosphere of relentless, jeering hostility to men from entitled middle-class media figures, plus a few confused male collaborators in the feminist project, has been at least partly responsible for a generation of boys who simply don't want to know.
In Part 2, we'll meet some of the men who have "checked out," given up on sex and relationships and sunk into solitary pursuits or alcohol-fuelled lad culture. And we'll discover that the real victims of modern feminism are, of course, women themselves, who have been left lonelier and less satisfied than they have ever been.
Some names have been changed.
In Part 2, we'll meet some of the men who have "checked out," given up on sex and relationships and sunk into solitary pursuits or alcohol-fuelled lad culture. And we'll discover that the real victims of modern feminism are, of course, women themselves, who have been left lonelier and less satisfied than they have ever been.
The Sexodus, Part 1: The Men Giving Up On Women And Checking Out Of Society
"My generation of boys is f**ked," says Rupert, a young German video game enthusiast I've been getting to know over the past few months. "Marriage is dead. Divorce means you're screwed for life. Women have given up on monogamy, which makes them uninteresting to us for any serious relationship or raising a family. That's just the way it is. Even if we take the risk, chances are the kids won't be ours. In France, we even have to pay for the kids a wife has through adulterous affairs.
"In school, boys are screwed over time and again. Schools are engineered for women. In the US, they force-feed boys Ritalin like Skittles to shut them up. And while girls are favoured to fulfil quotas, men are slipping into distant second place."Nobody in my generation believes they're going to get a meaningful retirement. We have a third or a quarter of the wealth previous generations had, and everyone's fleeing to higher education to stave off unemployment and poverty because there are no jobs.
"All that wouldn't be so bad if we could at least dull the pain with girls. But we're treated like paedophiles and potential rapists just for showing interest. My generation are the beautiful ones," he sighs, referring to a 1960s experiment on mice that supposedly predicted a grim future for the human race.
After overpopulation ran out of control, the female mice in John Calhoun's "mouse universe" experiment stopped breeding, and the male mice withdrew from the company of others entirely, eating, sleeping, feeding and grooming themselves but doing little else. They had shiny coats, but empty lives.
"The parallels are astounding," says Rupert.
*
Never before in history have
relations between the sexes been so fraught with anxiety, animosity and
misunderstanding. To radical feminists, who have been the driving force
behind many tectonic societal shifts in recent decades, that's a sign of
success: they want to tear down the institutions and power structures
that underpin society, never mind the fall-out. Nihilistic destruction
is part of their road map.But, for the rest of us, the sight of society breaking down, and ordinary men and women being driven into separate but equal misery, thanks to a small but highly organised group of agitators, is distressing. Particularly because, as increasing numbers of social observers are noticing, an entire generation of young people—mostly men—are being left behind in the wreckage of this social engineering project.
Social commentators, journalists, academics, scientists and young men themselves have all spotted the trend: among men of about 15 to 30 years old, ever-increasing numbers are checking out of society altogether, giving up on women, sex and relationships and retreating into pornography, sexual fetishes, chemical addictions, video games and, in some cases, boorish lad culture, all of which insulate them from a hostile, debilitating social environment created, some argue, by the modern feminist movement.
You can hardly blame them. Cruelly derided as man-children and crybabies for objecting to absurdly unfair conditions in college, bars, clubs and beyond, men are damned if they do and damned if they don't: ridiculed as basement-dwellers for avoiding aggressive, demanding women with unrealistic expectations, or called rapists and misogynists merely for expressing sexual interest.
Jack Rivlin is editor-in-chief of student tabloid media start-up The Tab, a runaway success whose current strap-line reads: "We'll stop writing it when you stop reading it." As the guiding intelligence behind over 30 student newspapers, Rivlin is perhaps the best-placed person in the country to observe this trend in action. And he agrees that the current generation of young men find it particularly difficult to engage with women.
"Teenage boys always have been useless with girls, but there's definitely a fear that now being well-intentioned isn't enough, and you can get into trouble just for being clumsy," he says. "For example, leaning in for a kiss might see you branded a creep, rather than just inept."
The new rules men are expected to live by are never clearly explained, says Rivlin, leaving boys clueless and neurotic about interacting with girls. "That might sound like a good thing because it encourages men to take the unromantic but practical approach of asking women how they should behave, but it causes a lot of them to just opt out of the game and retreat to the sanctuary of their groups of lads, where being rude to women gets you approval, and you can pretty much entirely avoid one-on-one socialising with the opposite sex."
"There are also a lot of blokes who ignore women because they are scared and don't know how to act. It goes without saying that boys who never spend any time alone with women are not very good at relationships."
Rivlin has noticed the increased dependence on substances, normally alcohol, that boys are using to calm their nerves. "I've heard a lot of male students boast about never having experienced sober sex," he says. "They're obviously scared, which is natural, but they would be a lot less scared and dysfunctional if they understood 'the rules.'"
The result? "A lot of nice but awkward young men are opting out of approaching women because there is no opportunity for them to make mistakes without suffering worse embarrassment than ever."
Most troublingly, this effect is felt more acutely among poorer and less well educated communities, where the package of support resources available to young men is slight. At my alma mater, the University of Cambridge, the phenomenon barely registers on the radar, according to Union society president Tim Squirrell.
"I don't think I've really noticed a change recently," he says. "This year has seen the introduction of mandatory consent workshops for freshers, which I believe is probably a good thing, and there's been a big effort by the Women's Campaign in particular to try and combat lad culture on campus.
The atmosphere here is the same as it was a year ago - mostly nerdy guys who are too afraid to approach anyone in the first place, and then a smaller percentage who are confident enough to make a move. Obviously women have agency too, and they approach men in about the same numbers as they do elsewhere. There certainly haven't been any stories in [campus newspaper] The Tab about a sex drought on campus."
"I think that people are probably having as much sex as ever," he adds. At Cambridge, of course, that may not mean much, and for a variety of socioeconomic and class-based reasons the tribes at Oxford and Cambridge are somewhat insulated from the male drop-out effect.
But even at such a prestigious university with a largely middle- and upper-class population, those patronising, mandatory "consent" classes are still being implemented. Squirrell, who admits to being a feminist with left-of-centre politics, thinks they're a good idea. But academics such as Camille Paglia have been warning for years that "rape drives" on campus put women at greater risk, if anything.
Women today are schooled in victimhood, taught to be aggressively vulnerable and convinced that the slightest of perceived infractions, approaches or clumsy misunderstandings represents "assault," "abuse" or "harassment." That may work in the safe confines of campus, where men can have their academic careers destroyed on the mere say-so of a female student.
But, according to Paglia, when that women goes out into the real world without the safety net of college rape committees, she is left totally unprepared for the sometimes violent reality of male sexuality. And the panics and fear-mongering are serving men even more poorly. All in all, education is becoming a miserable experience for boys.
*
In schools today across Britain and America, boys are relentlessly pathologised, as academics were warning as long ago as 2001.
Boyishness and boisterousness have come to be seen as
"problematic," with girls' behaviour a gold standard against which these
defective boys are measured. When they are found wanting, the solution
is often drugs.One in seven American boys will be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) at some point in their school career. Millions will be prescribed a powerful mood stabiliser, such as Ritalin, for the crime of being born male. The side effects of these drugs can be hideous and include sudden death.
Meanwhile, boys are falling behind girls academically, perhaps because relentless and well-funded focus has been placed on girls' achievement in the past few decades and little to none on the boys who are now achieving lower grades, fewer honors, fewer degrees and less marketable information economy skills. Boys' literacy, in particular, is in crisis throughout the West. We've been obsessing so much over girls, we haven't noticed that boys have slipped into serious academic trouble.
So what happened to those boys who, in 2001, were falling behind girls at school, were less likely to go to college, were being given drugs they did not need and whose self-esteem and confidence issues haven't just been ignored, but have been actively ridiculed by the feminist Establishment that has such a stranglehold on teaching unions and Left-leaning political parties?
In short: they grew up, dysfunctional, under-served by society, deeply miserable and, in many cases, entirely unable to relate to the opposite sex. It is the boys who were being betrayed by the education system and by culture at large in such vast numbers between 1990 and 2010 who represent the first generation of what I call the sexodus, a large-scale exit from mainstream society by males who have decided they simply can't face, or be bothered with, forming healthy relationships and participating fully in their local communities, national democracies and other real-world social structures.
A second sexodus generation is gestating today, potentially with even greater damage being done to them by the onset of absurd, unworkable, prudish and downright misandrist laws such as California's "Yes Means Yes" legislation—and by third-wave feminism, which dominates newspapers like the Guardian and new media companies like Vox and Gawker, but which is currently enjoying a hysterical last gasp before women themselves reject it by an even greater margin than the present 4 out of 5 women who say they want nothing to do with the dreaded f-word.
*
The sexodus didn't arrive out of nowhere, and the same pressures that
have forced so many millennials out of society exert pressure on their
parent's generation, too. One professional researcher in his late
thirties, about whom I have been conversing on this topic for some
months, puts it spicily: "For the past, at least, 25 years, I've been
told to do more and more to keep a woman. But nobody's told me what
they're doing to keep me."I can tell you as a heterosexual married male in management, who didn’t drop out of society, the message from the chicks is: 'It's not just preferable that you should fuck off, but imperative. You must pay for everything and make everything work; but you yourself and your preferences and needs can fuck off and die.'"
Women have been sending men mixed messages for the last few decades, leaving boys utterly confused about what they are supposed to represent to women, which perhaps explains the strong language some of them use when describing their situation. As the role of breadwinner has been taken away from them by women who earn more and do better in school, men are left to intuit what to do, trying to find a virtuous mean between what women say they want and what they actually pursue, which can be very different things.
Men say the gap between what women say and what they do has never been wider. Men are constantly told they should be delicate, sensitive fellow travellers on the feminist path. But the same women who say they want a nice, unthreatening boyfriend go home and swoon over simple-minded, giant-chested, testosterone-saturated hunks in Game of Thrones. Men know this, and, for some, this giant inconsistency makes the whole game look too much like hard work. Why bother trying to work out what a woman wants, when you can play sports, masturbate or just play video games from the comfort of your bedroom?
Jack Donovan, a writer based in Portland who has written several books on men and masculinity, each of which has become a cult hit, says the phenomenon is already endemic among the adult population. "I do see a lot of young men who would otherwise be dating and marrying giving up on women," he explains, "Or giving up on the idea of having a wife and family. This includes both the kind of men who would traditionally be a little awkward with women, and the kind of men who aren't awkward with women at all.
"They've done a cost-benefit analysis and realised it is a bad deal. They know that if they invest in a marriage and children, a woman can take all of that away from them on a whim. So they use apps like Tinder and OK Cupid to find women to have protected sex with and resign themselves to being 'players,' or when they get tired of that, 'boyfriends.'"
He goes on: "Almost all young men have attended mandatory sexual harassment and anti-rape seminars, and they know that they can be fired, expelled or arrested based more or less on the word of any woman. They know they are basically guilty until proven innocent in most situations."
Donovan lays much of the blame for the way men feel at the door of the modern feminist movement and what he sees as its disingenuousness. "The young men who are struggling the most are conflicted because they are operating under the assumption that feminists are arguing in good faith," he says, "When in fact they are engaged in a zero-sum struggle for sexual, social, political and economic status—and they're winning.
"The media now allows radical feminists to frame all debates, in part because sensationalism attracts more clicks than any sort of fair or balanced discourse. Women can basically say anything about men, no matter how denigrating, to a mix of cheers and jeers."
That has certainly been the experience of several loose coalitions of men in the media recently, whether scientists outraged by feminist denunciations of Dr Matt Taylor, or video gamers campaigning under the banner of press ethics who saw their movement smeared as a misogynistic hate group by mendacious, warring feminists and so-called "social justice warriors".
Donovan has views on why it has been so easy for feminists to triumph in media battles. "Because men instinctively want to protect women and play the hero, if a man writes even a tentative criticism of women or feminism, he's denounced by men and women alike as some kind of extremist scoundrel. The majority of "men's studies" and "men's rights" books and blogs that aren't explicitly pro-feminist are littered with apologies to women.
"Books like The Myth of Male Power and sites like A Voice for Men are favourite boogeymen of feminists, but only because they call out feminists' one-sided hypocrisy when it comes to pursing 'equality.'"
Unlike modern feminists, who are driving a wedge between the sexes, Men's Rights Activists "actually seem to want sexual equality," he says. But men's studies authors and male academics are constantly tip-toeing around and making sure they don't appear too radical. Their feminine counterparts have no such forbearance, of course, with what he calls "hipster feminists," such as the Guardian's Jessica Valenti parading around in t-shirts that read: "I BATHE IN MALE TEARS."
"I'm a critic of feminism," says Donovan. "But I would never walk around wearing a shirt that says, "I MAKE WOMEN CRY." I'd just look like a jerk and a bully."
It's the contention of academics, sociologists and writers like Jack Donovan that an atmosphere of relentless, jeering hostility to men from entitled middle-class media figures, plus a few confused male collaborators in the feminist project, has been at least partly responsible for a generation of boys who simply don't want to know.
In Part 2, we'll meet some of the men who have "checked out," given up on sex and relationships and sunk into solitary pursuits or alcohol-fuelled lad culture. And we'll discover that the real victims of modern feminism are, of course, women themselves, who have been left lonelier and less satisfied than they have ever been.
Some names have been changed.
I love this lady
Because she has a brain and she's using it, unlike the other 99% of female Americans.
I swear I cannot find one poor woman who can cut through all the soundbites/twisting/modern-media-bullshit like this woman can. When I ask women anything at all about rape/living as a modern woman/gender relations, I get some kind of save-the-poor-young-lambs bullshit speech that revolves around women as having zero responsibility and every man being an unstable predatory alpha-male.
Read this entire article right now:
http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/
The absolute morons over at Salon.com hate her (more like cannot comprehend her), so you know she's solid gold.
I swear I cannot find one poor woman who can cut through all the soundbites/twisting/modern-media-bullshit like this woman can. When I ask women anything at all about rape/living as a modern woman/gender relations, I get some kind of save-the-poor-young-lambs bullshit speech that revolves around women as having zero responsibility and every man being an unstable predatory alpha-male.
Read this entire article right now:
http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/
The absolute morons over at Salon.com hate her (more like cannot comprehend her), so you know she's solid gold.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Parody of Potty-Mouth Video - 5x more Likes than Dislikes
Looks like some other people noticed the psycho-feminazis' horrible use of small children. And the Likes and Dislikes tell the story here.
According to Feminists, this is a great way to use innocent children. Almost 10k responses and 5.3k were thumbs down. So 4.3k feminazis watched this video.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying women should be belittled or minimized just because they're women (does anyone ever say that?), but this is nothing more than the bitter offspring of some angry, non-stereotypical women going batshit crazy and using these innocent children who almost certainly don't understand what it is they're saying.
Want to rage against the princess stereotype?
Fine. Go ahead. But don't use children to do it.
And by the way, plenty of girls like princesses. So what does this say to them? That they're substandard jerks?!!?
Calm down feminiazis. It's ok for girls to be girly. I've got 4 buddies with daughters and every one is a girly girl - no one is apologizing for that fact and no one needs to.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying women should be belittled or minimized just because they're women (does anyone ever say that?), but this is nothing more than the bitter offspring of some angry, non-stereotypical women going batshit crazy and using these innocent children who almost certainly don't understand what it is they're saying.
Want to rage against the princess stereotype?
Fine. Go ahead. But don't use children to do it.
And by the way, plenty of girls like princesses. So what does this say to them? That they're substandard jerks?!!?
Calm down feminiazis. It's ok for girls to be girly. I've got 4 buddies with daughters and every one is a girly girl - no one is apologizing for that fact and no one needs to.
Young Black Men Doing Better? Reverse It.
Changed education to cut out corrupt, entrenched, underperforming teachers and losing classrooms?
Young, black men going to college?
Better change it then.
Young, black men going to college?
Better change it then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
