The moral crowd

The politically correct progressive crowd knows perfectly well that non-progressives live in fear of them, censoring their own words and actions to avoid the fate of Matt Taylor or Tim Hunt (who got shafted with a lie by the way). What does it say about their character that they think this is a good thing? They think non-progressives should live in fear because we’re evil. This level of wrongheadedness is astounding.

Newsflash: if people fear you because you routinely organize pitchfork mobs to destroy people’s lives you’re not the enlightened good guy you thought you were. If your only way of expressing your moral superiority is organizing hate campaigns you’re not the enlightened good guy you thought you were. In fact an enlightened person with superior morals would be more forgiving, compassionate, empathetic, patient, understanding – none of which describes you at all. You are the polar opposite of these. Oh, you think you have these traits in spades if we’re talking about certain races or genders… Which makes you a racist and a sexist. Let’s be honest here for a second: you see whites and men as your enemies. Your general relationship with these folks is pretty much exhausted by reminding them to check their privilege and sporadically mentioning “feminism cares about men too” while chanting “you are fucking scum” to the faces of men who want to listen to a lecture about male suicide.

But of course most progressives know all this deep down, they’re just enjoying the power of terror they have. Why would they leave the mob? Then they’d have no power over their enemies and they’d also have to self-censor in fear of the progressive crowd. It’s much better to wield a pitchfork than to be on the pointy end of one.

In fact I’m thinking of joining them and becoming an authoritarian, totalitarian nazi just like them…

Just kidding. I have morals. Not superior, just the garden-variety.

Posted in Feminism, Politics | Tagged , | 2 Comments

The idiocy of opposing slut shaming

The idea behind opposing slut shaming is a misunderstanding. Feminists were never known for perfectly understanding the intricacies of sexual dynamics or the psychological differences between the sexes, so building their case against slut shaming on this misunderstanding is more or less expected.

They think men and women are generally the same, therefore men and women should hold the same standards and have the same preferences when looking for a partner. If men and women have different standards then there’s a problem with men. If males and females have two different sets of expectations then the female one is correct, and the male one is wrong. Men having a different standard means they have a double standard! And they must be cured, ie. turned into women.

It’s obvious that women generally prefer experienced men. How do I know this? Because they call the inexperienced ones losers, and they use the word “virgin” as an insult. They might deny this when pointed out but they instinctively know that a man seducing many women is successful, he is doing something that requires talent, charms, effort. On the other hand a man without conquests is a man without talent or charm. Instinctual female urges like hypergamy and preselection reward experienced men, there’s no question about that.

Men on the other hand tend to choose differently according to the role the potential partner will fill in their lives. For short sexual flings their expectations are purely aesthetic, or to put it another way: their dicks will decide. This of course means that most men don’t have any problems with sluts – they will have fun with them and move on. Only losers fall for sluts though, and that is because men who aren’t losers become a lot more pragmatic when choosing long term partners. Men generally invest a lot of emotions, energy and resources into long term relationships and they care if that investment will be worth it or not. Wasting your time and money on a slut who will leave you at the first chance of fucking someone hotter is utter foolishness. For LTRs men want women who don’t cheat or leave easily, ie. women who are able and willing to control their own sexual urges to achieve long term goals. This is of course all the more true for marriages, where the risks for men are multiplied by infinity. Choosing the wrong woman might lead to a divorce, ie. the man losing his children, home, life savings, the fruits of his labor for the next decade or two, and, ultimately, his freedom or his life. This is serious business.

How do we know if a woman is able and willing to control her sexual urges? She has a history of doing so. Anecdotal evidence, the wisdom of the ages, and actual scientific studies all prove that sluts are not good LTR material. Sorry sluts, it’s just the way it is. You might be offended by the saying “once a slut, always a slut”, but it’s statistically true. You come with an increased risk of cheating and divorce that men don’t want to take, whether you like this or not. You might say or think you’re a reformed slut who’s finished with the cock carousel, but please understand if we rather believe the statistics.

Many people will say the double standard is that men expect women to have a low partner count while they rack up theirs. Newsflash: men should fulfill women’s expectations, not their own. Why on earth would they meet their own expectations for women if that is detrimental to their chances with women, since the two standards are pretty much polar opposites? The only logical solution left is that nobody should have any expectations at all… Which, albeit an interesting thought, will never come true.

So, men and women have opposite standards when choosing long term partners, and for good reasons – but of course no reason is good enough for the ideological horde which believes that men and women must be made the same. Males must adopt female standards or else! Sluts are just as good as non-sluts, and men should not have the desire or the ability to differentiate. How dare they expect a woman to control her sexual urges? That’s placing unreasonable expectations on women! Men want to rule over women and restrict their sexuality!

Except male preferences in choosing their partners are not controlling women or restricting their actions. It’s simply a question of personal taste, much like women preferring tall men over short, rich men over poor, and so on. Preferring chaste women over sluts for LTRs does not constitute discrimination against anyone. It’s the prerogative of any one individual to choose his/her intimate partners according to any criteria s/he sees fit. Me saying that I like women with big tits, a firm ass and a low partner count does not restrict anyone’s sexuality in any way, shape or form.

So, back to the main point: feminists find fault in men having their own set of standards. It must be done away with and they must adopt female standards because… patriarchy! Or equality, or something. The desire for virtuous women is wrong because sluts find it too hard to cope with. They want high quality men with low standards and they fail to see how that’s practically an oxymoron. For them it all seems logical: if women don’t have a problem accepting partners of considerable experience, men mustn’t either.

At least this is the story they try to project, in all its hilariousness. Their epic hypocrisy becomes self-evident when one realizes that they do shame men for being succesful with women as well, hence the terms womanizer, lothario, skirt chaser, player, rake, etc. They want men to accept sluts, yet they demonize men who chase skirts because they supposedly “take advantage of women” or something. When two consenting adults are having sex, the woman is empowered and is discovering her sexuality, but the male is a lecherous villain with ulterior motives. So the woman is empowered but is also a victim… Try to make sense of that.

The only actual double standard in this picture is that feminists demand that men accept any and every form of female sexuality, while they shame and bash all forms of male sexuality. We arrived at the point where all feminist ideas meet: women are wonderful, men are evil. Actions and opinions don’t have any inherent moral value; they’re good or bad according to the genitals of the people doing or having them.

What they also miss is that slut shaming was invented by mothers and grandmothers who knew for a fact that only losers marry sluts, and who didn’t want their daughters and granddaughters to marry losers. So they told them in no uncertain terms that sleeping around is out of the question. In a weird fashion this is the western equivalent of female genital mutilation in the Middle East and Africa. The goals are the same, only we’re a bit more intelligent here in the west: we deter young women from ruining their reputation by talking to them instead of cutting off parts of their vagina.

Men generally don’t confront women openly because they know there’s nothing to gain from it. The general public treats men who confront women as garbage, regardless of who was right or who “won” the argument. Men calling women sluts openly is pretty much nonexistent. It’s women who backstab each other or knock each other down a few pegs on the social ladder by namecalling or gossip. If feminists want less slut shaming they should tell women to stop undermining each other this way.

What’s absolutely sure is that feminists attacking men thinking they’re the masterminds behind slut shaming are idiots. That, and quality men will never marry sluts, no matter how hard idiots try to shame them into it.

Posted in Feminism | Tagged | Leave a comment

About rape and consent

In the good old days the definition of rape was pretty self-explanatory: it meant forcing yourself sexually on a woman who made it clear she didn’t want your advances, or on someone who was literally unable to resist (because they were unconscious for example). To this day this is what springs to mind for most people when they hear that someone was raped.

Being drunk had nothing to do with it because people were considered responsible for their own actions even under the influence. Being vocal or enthusiastic about consent had nothing to do with it because it was understood that most women are capable adults able to express their displeasure about a situation if they want to. It was also understood that people almost always initiate sex not by asking for permission but with romantic/erotic gestures, touches, kissing. It was a given that the other party could control the pace and the direction of the encounter verbally or with their own body language. There was also an implicit understanding that any party could and would stop the encounter if it became uncomfortable. In simpler terms: the lack of rejection meant “go ahead”. Many women are shy, inexperienced, or simply just not too lively in bed – these women signal their consent by not doing anything to stop the guy. The women of yesteryear didn’t need to chant “yes” all the way through the act for it to not be rape, and that was fine.

Enter the feminists… Who infantilized women way more than teh evil patriarkee ever could. At first they took away women’s responsibility. If a woman drinks a glass o’something she’s not responsible for her own actions any more. The evil man made her do it! – cries the feminist protecting the feeble little child who’s otherwise an independent, empowered woman. Women are capable adults and the equals of men right up to the moment when they drink something – then they become fragile little puppets who have no control over themselves. This is of course total bullshit, a glaring sign that our societies treat women as a privileged class in their affairs with men. You hit someone while driving under the influence? You are still responsible for your own actions. You consented to sex under the influence? You are still responsible for your own actions – but only if you’re a man. Having a vagina means you’re not responsible for your own actions, the state will believe you when you say the man made you do it, it’s his fault! He’s the adult here, not you!

Then the feminists took away women’s agency. How could you expect women to express themselves without you directly asking them first? Women can’t do that, you silly! You have to explicitly ask for even the smallest of details and wait for the answers, otherwise it’s rape. Women are paradoxical, mythical creatures who intimidate men with their amazing strength and independence who are at the same time unable to say a word or lift a finger to express their displeasure at a man shoving his dick in their faces. You can’t expect women to say “no” to rapists because… why exactly?

So we had to change rape laws to accomodate the feminist view on women: infantile, indecisive, unable to express or think for themselves without men helping/allowing them to do so. Pathetic.

And we’ve reached the point where all sex is rape (mother Dvorkin is laughing hysterically in her grave), since you can be absolutely sure that no sane couple will ever exchange verbal permissions all the way during sex. Ideologically brainwashed fuckwits might try once or twice before realising that it doesn’t work. Sooner or later they must realize that taking part in something of your own volition infers consent, which makes it completely unnecessary to talk about it constantly. Not to beat a dead horse too much but I’m pretty interested in how a feminist would verbally express her consent about sucking a dick, with her mouth full… Should she stop every 10 seconds to say something or will the fact that she’s doing it suffice?

The most worrying part is that people pretend this excercise is not insane. They try to argue the finer details of how we should teach consent to school children boys not to rape, sweeping under the rug the fact that the taboo of rape is a logical extension of the taboo of hurting others, thus already an integral part of our culture. You don’t need to teach men to not kill or rob or rape – if they weren’t raised by monkeys in the jungle they already know. This is why 99% of men don’t kill, rob or rape. Only psychopaths do these things. Good luck trying to teach them out of psychopathy.

Some people say boys are confused about consent. No they’re not. They are confused about the legal and ideological shitstorm surrounding the issue. Don’t fuck a girl who doesn’t want you to. That’s the idea behind “consent” in a dozen words or less. And every boy knows this pretty much instinctually. How do you know if she wants you? She does not reject your advances. This works because, conversely, if she doesn’t want you, she will stop you, like all the women in the history of mankind did so for millions of years.

But of course stuff that worked fine for ages isn’t good enough for feminists, because they view women as retarded children at the mental age of probably 3.

The only other possibility is they simply want women to have power over men – the power to destroy them or send them to jail with a false accusation. The idea of “affirmative consent” is good for only one thing: shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. “Innocent until proven guilty” is gone now, pal. Either you present tangible proof that she said yes all the way through sex, or you’re going to jail. How could you present such proof at all? Nobody knows, not even the sponsors of these fucked up laws. It’s practically impossible.

The situation looks like this: you must acquire verbal consent, something that you cannot record and thus cannot present when asked to. You must acquire it yet it does not protect you from false accusations. Also, even if you acquire and record it, it can be retroactively invalidated and you can do nothing about it. Even if you ask for her papers beforehand, make her perform a breathalyzer test, ask her to sign a paper before a lawyer stating that she consented, she still can say she revoked her consent during sex. Fuck you, you rapist!

And feminists throw their hissyfits now, when rape is at an all time low. Disgusting shitbags.

Posted in Feminism | Tagged | 3 Comments

Dear Mark Ruffalo

You have recently said that some people don’t know what feminism is about. I must admit you were more-or-less right: most feminists seem to completely miss the point that feminism wants gender equality and nothing more. For example, would you be so kind as to tell these fuckwitted criminals what feminism is? Maybe you should give them a dictionary or something.

Posted in Feminism | Tagged | Leave a comment

The gender disparity in STEM fields explained

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Obama f_cked up bad this time

Michelle and Obama just had their 22nd anniversary, and USA Today reports that…

Obama said he spoke recently with a white guy, and warned him that it generally takes about 10 years to train a nigger properly.

“He’ll screw up a bunch,” Obama said. “Eventually we learn, but it takes us a little longer, because we’re not as smart.”

Whoa. I knew something wasn’t quite right but I never expected this much racism coming from a black guy. “We’re not as smart”… That’s harsh. Proponents of racial realism have always knew, but I wasn’t aware that this stat has already seeped into mainstream thought. What’s even more surprising is that it’s now coming from the president, who should pay heed to political correctness. Progressives might lynch him for this even if it was intended as a joke.

Oh, wait…

It was a misunderstanding. He said this about men, not blacks. That’s mighty fine. The progressives are clapping so hard their hands will fall off soon. Women are better than men, hurray for equality! Best prezident ever! Menz are dumm, wymyn must train menz or else we be dumm, haha, lol.

What a fucking disgrace.

Posted in Feminism, Manginas | Tagged | 4 Comments

The truth about ISIS

An individual without political power can’t really do much more than spread awareness. So, this is what I’m doing:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment