The hypocrisy of the signalling Right

I lost a bet to write this because it’s the reddest of redpills. Shove it up your rectum, there’s plenty of room.

You’re probably not gonna like me for this. Stop reading if you’re easily trigg-ed (cough Forney cough).

But I call out these things wherever I see them. No penis passes. No ingrouping/No Enemies on the Right special appeals, because that is my point. You are not right wing, if we’re still going by what is likely an outdated paradigm based on behaviours, in light of identity politics, which are largely innate.

Literally most of the supposed Right Wing has a serious issue with hypocrisy. You wanna lead? #1 Be the example. Otherwise, GTFO. It’s literally the bare minimum for inclusion. If you want a stable society of smug marrieds, you need to get married or at least desire marriage if you meet your One. Don’t advise other people to do what you would not or cannot do yourself. You don’t get to ride the carousel and then complain why do carousels exist? You. You’re the consumer keeping this damaged system (SMP) in business.

Common sense, seriously.

Give up your own degeneracy THEN I’ll trust you’re opposed to it.

well leaves nope no go leaving

Otherwise, you’re an empty signalling piece of shit.
No better than the SJWs. Narcissism of small differences, it burns like your probable STDs.

The rest of us can totally see it. 20/20.
I’m finally pointing it out.

People who cannot control themselves seek to control others. This is the rule with SJWs and the people who repurpose the fashy memes seriously.  Note they don’t have the originality or sense of humour to come up with good ones themselves?
For example, these people with negative Social Intelligence come on here asking if I’m actually a man but anytime they wanna criticise me, I magically become a woman. Okay, that’s misogyny (and magical thinking) and all your claims to meritocracy fall flat when you do this. This is why feminists laugh at you, which is fine, but by extension and association (you steal our memes and terms) at people like me. The MSM loves you because you drag down us.

Minor point: I hate how being funny is now seen as a masculine thing when it’s really a gay thing. Going by pop culture. Which is actually a feminine thing, if we’re selecting a gender. I’m actually very femme in my critique. There’s nothing wrong with me. There is something wrong with expecting women to act like men (feminist programming, pornography) socially and sexually.

You think I’m bitchy? That isn’t an insult to an actual woman. I’m meant to be femme, fam.
I’m funny and I’m feminine. I don’t care if you approve or I’d camwhore on YT and sit next to Milo on panels for Old Media shekels.

Don’t like it?

well fuck off gary oldman

This isn’t a safe space for crybabies, I don’t give a damn which side you claim to be on. Know a tree by its fruit, motherfuckers and wifeswipers. If you think actual cuckoldry is funny, and Beta Bux, you aren’t really party to our level of integrity or the ideas discussed therein. We don’t actually hate other men. We critique politi-cucks because they sell out everyone and our futures, female and yes, your competition, other men. Real men. Men with a future. Manly men who don’t need to keyboard warrior themselves by slagging off the opposite sex before they cry to sleep at night, Tinder still open in their free hand.

It’s like the old people who ‘don’t get’ GIFs (cough Roosh cough). Well, you aren’t the target audience, how is that my problem? You’re acting like I should change the way I operate for your comfort.

Back to the people who judge everyone to distract from the total genetic and social failures of themselves. This doesn’t work.

They’ll bitch about Sandra Fluke slutting it up, but when they slut it up, that’s fine for society! It doesn’t increase everyone’s insurance payments, either, does it? They get real cagey about it. Why the shame? Why hide your face and name, AlphaBro5000?

I'm so vague I may as well be inhuman unless my ego catches up to me

If women were really attracted to your beliefs, why hide them IRL? It’s such a teenage fuck fantasy but coming from old men (30+, no excuse) discussing ‘swimming in pussy’ seriously it makes you wonder if the Western values can be saved. CM got to them and they don’t even know what they’re pushing. They care about being cool and would sell their souls to do it. It’s pathetic. People like that detract from our moral authority if we allow them to feed off our ideas, leech our readers and take donations (whores of Patreon) like a Church of Depravity. You know they aren’t paying taxes.

You can easily see them whining like entitled babies because they can’t find a Mummy to marry. Why? Society doesn’t owe you a whole other person, you have to earn it. Step 1: stop crying.

Their abandonment expectation pings strongly male borderline.
If you think everyone else (female) is crazy, get your own head checked, maybe.

They can’t get women because wife material aren’t lesbians. We see how bitchy and effete they are. Gay men are the original misogynists, as I’ve observed feminists point out in a rare, redpill moment.

They can’t attract women to the ideology because they try to kick us out. It’s intentional.

To quote Aurini, of all people;

Well who do they hate? They hate the original fans. All these movements, the masses show up and hate the founders. They wanna moderate the tone, make it more inclusive

The projection is strong and true. See the Alt Light. I called this months ago when they tried outgrouping the AR founders by calling us… cucks.

i don't even whatever

Oh noes, what-ever will be do?!!! Of all the insults? Are you kitten-mee?

why confused what wtf

I was aghast at the time. I mean, not bothered, they can’t stop us or our memes and they certainly can’t control us like that rant seemed to imply. We’re smarter. We have the IQ in this equation. We don’t scream into video cameras.

what ho whatwhat hello yep yes yeah we know english

On their own sites it’s worse. They censor like SJWs.

They think Ban Hammer makes them correct.

It’s the SJW paradigm. They have SJW tactics, like safe spaces, censoring and doxxing. They’ve tried to fake doxx me, which was relatively funny as a study in projection.

These people don’t wanna overturn the r-selected Sodom, they benefit from it. Watch what happens when you offer to restrict their porn to 18+. Wailing like a toddler. Is that a pro-family conservative value, people?

Here’s a tidbit of wisdom for ya.

What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. Know what this means?

If it’s good for men, it’s good for women too. This is how logic works. Either the behaviour is prosocial or antisocial.

Nothing to do with feminist equality. Feminists breathe, breathing isn’t feminist.
Quit it with the non-sequiturs.

The Muh Dicks can go to the Middle East where their culture belongs, where they’ll feel really comfy in a Taharrush or Eve Teasing setup. Because a woman in a miniskirt is the problem and showing skin is evil (ask yourselves what species of ‘Christian’ is this and did it survive the Industrial Revolution). Meanwhile, men walk around with their bitch tits out and women magically resist the temptation to rape them.

Back to the rampant sexuality, which is meant to be healthy because Darwin? These people didn’t read Darwin, clearly. He’s very stern and disapproving of bestial sexualities. It’s inhuman. He discusses breeding, not ONSs. Hence, non-human animals are not degenerate, they lack the agency and choice and birth control.
Where exactly, did Darwin say this thing about men being able to fuck whatever and wherever? Where did the biology touch you, Jerry? No place for naturalistic fallacy, the average IQ of Alt Righters is higher than your Asian anime waifu. They’ll admit objectively that culture is over-sexualised, freely, but if you dare suggest, if you dare question Internet-Alpha-Man, that he might be oversexed and it might be unhealthy if you look at the psychiatry and suicide rates…. you must be a feminist because, apparently, they follow the Biblical virtue of prudence now?

Detour: They say ‘Double Standard’ like it’s an argument? They use it like a thought-terminating cliche, like a K/O instant win of the argument. This is the poison you get corrupting us from the manosphere. That’s not an argument. It’s basic logical hypocrisy. You say human rights, that applies to all humans. You say meritocracy, that is blind to anything identity and purely based on merit. Double Standard is a fallacy when there are two sets of rules to one society. It cannot work practically. It’s a logical inconsistency. Do you understand how stupid you sound?

It’s maths, you manwhores.
Has the HPV penetrated that much of your microbiome?
We all know about the hypofrontality. It’s brain damage, reeeee.

Women are people, worthy of respect. Women are half the equation for a prosperous society.

If you disagree with that, you’re not traditional.

The West was built off the backs and blood and sweat of good women and good men. Neither is the enemy. The feminists want that Gender War to have something to do. That isn’t looking in a mirror. Anyone who wants to turn you against your natural inclination to the opposite sex is an enemy to the nuclear family, they are anti-natal.

Ask these people if they want Hook-Up Culture, State Sponsored Abortions and Free (Taxpayer) Birth Control (chemical abortifacents). If they say Yes to any of these, they are Left wing. Instead, they are deceivers, trying to subvert the right wing with the promise of Free Goodies and dopamine addiction. Same way they did with the poor black community, look at your future.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Mans-Guide-Out-Poverty/dp/1503119688

You’re just an inverted feminist, with the sexes switched out. Call yourselves MRA, you wanna rentseek and feed from the trough with the other piggies. Call yourselves MGTOW, you never actually Go, do you? You never leave women alone, especially online? You seek us out. It’s creepy. We can see you’re not doing any of the things you claim to be. We are smarter than you. You may delude yourself, other people aren’t wearing Blinders.

Men can err. Women can err. Neither sex is good or evil. Common sense.

They claim they want Patriarchy but a Patriarchy would’ve strung them up by now for corrupting their daughters and binge-drinking. Don’t get me started on the creepy pedophilia of sex tourism. They’re lying, they’re empty signalling hoping to win points from both sides.

The priors are all wrong, all the way down. Turtle logic. All the way down. The circular reasoning of It’s all female’s fault (fun fact: most women aren’t feminists) because I said so. …And? Anyone with your notch count, worse who’s proud of it, is no moral authority. This isn’t a game, this is the future of society at stake.

But women are natural conservatives, once we’ve bred and have something to protect, men are natural liberals if you look at any worker’s union, whether or not they breed. Look at the class pyramid Marx pointed out, the majority is working class and the majority of working class men vote Left, men are natural socialists because it backs up their natural provision duties. Quit projecting and look at the facts. If you look at voter trends as I have on here, men are the liberal problem. Quit applying American SJW on campus demo BS to the rest of the world. It’s a bubble. It isn’t real, look at the stats or be content in your laziness/ignorance.

It’s a class issue and SJWs will do anything to deny that, because they’re upper-middle privileged.
You don’t see working class men making bank by bitching on Youtube, do you? Too busy working to keep people like you in antibiotic shots, which thanks to people like you, are now failing.

The wages of sin used to be paid by the sinners. This was just.
These people will protect these things, this corrupt degeneracy, this ‘culture’.

After all this time, they still don’t get the Matrix references.
And these people claim to have founded us? Bich plz.

They don’t want to revolution or reform anything. They care for pleasure and being narcissists, pulling one over on conservatives by signalling as one while playing feminist to screw them too gives them extra shots of pozz dopamine.

They are parasite singles, as the Japanese correctly fingered. This is simple;

If someone claims to complain about degeneracy, they’d better not be contributing to it.

That’s the sound of a thousand body pillows being stuffed into mattresses in the distance.

Nod and back away from the crazies

The same people who never hold the male feminists and SJWs and founder of FEMEN accountable. Because Penis Pass. This is, to turn a phrase, hella dodgy.

There isn’t a separate Deadly Sins list for women and men. You’re either going to Hell in this White Christian society you claim to want, or you’re not. Simple enough reasoning, you’d think.

For pointing any of this out I get called a feminist. Really? Ad hominem doesn’t work, silly. I’m still correct and the points stand on their own merit whatever you dislike about my personality or my tone (tone policing wahey). Really, I was mean? Welcome to reality, remove the dummy from your gaping rainbow cakehole. You kiss your mama with that misogynist maw? If all women are whores, that includes your Mother. I tend to agree. Idiots cannot see their unintended consequences or unfortunate (logical) implications, but it’s funny to those of us with an IQ with digits of three.
Good luck keeping a Patriarchy when no woman will sleep with you, dipshits. You need our support and our complicity to breed. We aren’t robots that keep the babies of rape, either.

Consent requires a basic level of intelligence to know when and what to reject. [Also why if women can’t vote, fucking them would be pedophilia, legally. Either we have agency and can make such weighty decisions like reproduction or not. Pick ONE.]

Even ‘crazy’ feminists need the security of birth control before sleeping with the crazy of you, man who wants ‘no-strings’ sex like that has ever existed in the history of humanity. Sluts are damaged forever, but ignore player burnout. Why does no decent woman want me? [1]

Listen to yourselves.

I listen to myself.

Darwin doesn’t apply to sterile sex and even IF she got pregnant, you’d be the first lot to 180 your ‘principles’ (really signals) and demand an abortion OR an exemption from child support.

To quote pieces from elsewhere.

The world doesn’t owe you sex. That’s entitlement. No IFs or BUTs. That’s entitlement. Put down the porn. They’re the male Sandra Flukes expecting the rest of us to give them orgasms…. because they exist, therefore they deserve it.

Did porn tell you that?

porn cheat archer

If you think hypersexuality is a positive force for society, you’re a feminist.

The Sexual Revolution was feminist. The defining cornerstone. If you wouldn’t unwind that, you don’t want a Patriarchy. Either it existed historically, in which case the feminists are right, or it never existed like Male-Only Suffrage and you’re wrong. Again.
They have no power over men without sex, as the failed strike not to sleep with Trump supporters has proven. Turns out, most of his supporters were straight and female (women win elections in democracy by sheer force of numbers) so this is awkward. Your definitive woman-hating ideologies fail basic predictions. Congrats, you’re in the same category as global warming. Hug it out, happy non-breeder. 

They would agree with that sentiment, I think. I have no illusions where these supposedly right-wing males stand. The lays never lie. Your politics is proven by your personal life.

Women being biologically distinct from men doesn’t make us inferior. What I just described is sexual dimorphism. It’s a silly question, morality doesn’t apply in science. Feminists try to force the issue, doesn’t work. Either it’s true or it isn’t and if you choose to make spurious claims, yeah, people will think you’re full of it, because you’re hiding behind the apron strings of Science like a surrogate rhetorical Mommy. Oh, you have one study? Call Al Gore. At least he commits. Read a real book. The maximal difference is within chance level, about 5% tops. Unlike race, which you deny while using the term ‘racist’ for opponents. The modern human is androgynous too, so this is probably far less in our reality. Apply logic, remove Womb Envy (as real as Penis Envy).

Like, I’ve been here for years. Literally years. I know how this goes.

You can’t outsignal an original member.

These male entryists, these absolute antisocial degenerate losers wheedle their way into a successful cultural bandwagon (e.g. the Manosphere) and start booting out the original members that made it good (they don’t but it looks that way cos we leave). If this sounds familiar, it’s the SJW tactic that ruined Geek Culture.

Mainstream is fine. These people are cancer.

So they come up to people like me and try to outgroup me. Like Oh, it’s a shame the Alt Right has women, we don’t hate women but let’s all move to a homoerotic island for Male Supremacy.

“Let’s you and him fight” – this is the abuse tactic called triangulation.
Characteristic of gaslighters and rabbits, but I repeat myself.
Divide and conquer, like this is new? Like they invented this??

How stupid do they think we are?

Real men want a good wife and good children. They oppose anything that stands in the way of that ambition, the only real ambition if you remove contemporary culture selling you on the SATC ‘dream’ of materialism and sex blogging. They don’t get much joy out of bitching on a sausage-fest forum and crying into their hentai porn screen with the futility of someone who doesn’t deserve their fertility.

They burned down the manosphere and other associated groups and now they’re trying to do it with us.

It won’t work because we’re basing our material on reality and have smarter people naturally but if we don’t pay attention soon, removing the sin equivalent of kebab won’t be as easy. Our MSM rep will suffer. ‘Member that Vox Day (OK on other topics) claims to know what white people need to do better than we know ourselves. Why are we allowing the mystery meat to lecture us? Someone please explain the reasoning here. Isn’t this the problem in the first place, taking tips from the outgroup that hate us?

Misogyny, which does exist on the internet (as well as misandry, can’t have one without t’uther), rots any ideology that seeks to create a healthy society because men and women need each other and that’s nothing to be ashamed of. It isn’t bitchy/faggy/weak to want to breed and raise your spawn. Anyone who tries to shame you for the biological imperative to settle down and have a family is brainwashed. Essentially, if they say the nuclear family is good, they’re also claiming you’re not good enough to reproduce. Mellow on that thought.

The manosphere is the male equivalent of Carrie Bradshaw. If you find a good woman, you don’t need books on Text Games and Juicing Recipes. If you have kids, you don’t have time to give traffic views to their clickbait. You have unplugged from their system. The PUA scam relies on you being Forever Alone. Like its proponents.

If people want to let their genetics die with them, I think they should be encouraged.

These entryists burned down the manosphere with bitchy sweeping statements about all women. Sure, sure, NAWALT. But it’s true. It’s like when the feminists go on about men being rapists. It’s true that sweeping statements have no basis in reality. You’re being sexist. You are not judging the person based on their actions, but their sex, and making exemptions (a fallacy) based on a special sex. Just because you spend all your time in clubs surrounded by the worst quality people (birds of a feather) doesn’t make women in the same city like that. There’s an egregious problem with Americans projecting and trying to World Police the sexuality of the world (non-America).

You are Sodom. Sort yourself out.
You are the hub of degeneracy. No pity party for you. No limp-dick standing around Won’t Someone Do Something? You’re the Alpha Males, that means it’s your fault. Responsibility is an alien concept to r-types, even the somewhat self-aware ones for sexual manipulation (rape) purposes.

Magical White Man isn’t going to ride in and save you. You are not the victim, you are the criminal. You caused this mess. You are not Princess Peach in need of rescue from the meanies. Don’t try to Snowflake while throwing up bravado. It doesn’t work. It fools nobody. Hypoagency is a feminist lie. Men have as much self control as women. You are possibly more responsible if you believe in ‘Men should lead’ theories. Since leaders bear the brunt, logically.

Society doesn’t improve because men won’t improve.

That doesn’t mean notch counts, this isn’t Pacman.

The West won’t save itself because the men are expecting women to rescue them.

It’s simple.

Don’t be degenerate. If you ‘can’t’ do this, why do you expect your kind to do it too?

Unless you don’t expect change, which makes you a vacuous, signalling liar.

Impotent or deceptive, it can only be one.
Either way, we don’t want you. The problem is not with us.

^HINT.
After this, most obvious of signs, flashy neon, they still won’t get it.

Sure, these people masterminded the whole meme thing, right, Alt Right?

[1]  Really I should trash-compact my points less. I know.

And being nice gets you nothing. That’s called the First World standard. It’s the minimum. You aren’t special for being polite to women because women are people, the same way women aren’t entitled to a drink because they smiled at a guy.

A puppy is nice.

Nobody wants to fuck a puppy.

Have the standards for husband slipped so low?

The self-aware r-types try to win women from both sides by signalling K. Run away. They’re crazy. Leave them to the cokeheads and sluts. Let the genetic suicides get on with it and burn out their pleasure circuits. Yes, that’s what (player) burnout is.

Video: Europe (Whites) finally learning to say No after Cologne

Cologne seems to be the flashpoint for the EU’s naive populace that the MSM has been lying to them.

The screeching is palpable. What do you mean, we don’t have a right to use your land and its resources (women)?

Left: This isn’t supposed to happen??? We brainwashed them from birth! Racist! Wait, it isn’t working! Bigot! No, not that one either! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Oh phew, that still works. It’s OK guys we’re still subverting and destroying Western Civ! Good talk! Jazz hands!

Someone really needs to tell Stefan about Magic Dirt.

It’s based on the Sociologist’s Fallacy that crossing a border will induce magical whole body changes and drag a Third Worlder into the Very Model of a First World NW Europe Gentleman, genetics and all.

Wait until rations come in, won’t that be fun? Grow a Victory garden against who?

This German man needs to grow some balls. He is practically begging Stefan to give him permission to act. Many Europeans are in this tricky halfway position. They’re gathering information, unsure how to act on it.

Waiting for something.

Moving too early is as bad as moving too late.

My advice? Plan for your loved ones. That is it, you owe nothing to the people who betrayed you. Be brutal in who you include, who would die for you? Emergency fund, urgency plans if you need to flee. For the present, I’d normally say remain there, but with the new ‘shelter’ opening up, you might be targeted for your baby. However, you need that support network and so does baby. There is no exit, nowhere to escape. Move as one or fortify. Prepare.

You see little rebellions. First they say No to one sex tourist treating the cream of Europe like a brothel. And the dominoes fall. Point and shriek enough times and you’ll eventually land on a real threat.

“The Left has no facts. The Left has only verbal abuse.”

The Left has been hemorrhaging devotees as the EU blimp has trundled along, making curious noises. Nobody wants to be stuck at the end with the losers. Simply look at the consequences, they cannot be avoided any longer. There is no time.

“The Left have nothing, they can’t have reality, brain size, IQ,  biology, cultural history, inbreeding, genetics, and religious intolerance, theocracy, no separation of Church and State like all of the things that are gonna come in that are problematic.” Game recognized.

They’re hoping the Right dies fighting these guys while they are cowering playing Damsel and hide. “Let’s you and him fight.” Why, the Right ask? Why do I need to fight if I just stop him coming over here to my land?
They are manufacturing a Civil War because an Inter-European War has been a null option since all the brainwashing on WW2. They’ll come up with excuses to sit out, probably a new form of mental illness you can’t falsify. Once the currency goes kaput (sorry), these pampered little hipsters in their gated communities will need the protection of a scapegoat. Who better than literal rape culturalists?
These refugees may be the foot soldiers, but people are fingering the leaders, and they don’t like that.
Why should we fight for you, the Right ask?

They have no answer. Mumbling about we’re all human, we all bleed red.
Fine, the Right say, you go do it. Who is ‘we’, paleface? Where were you? Who are you, to order me? We are not kin. We are not ingroup. You said patriotism is evil, so you won’t desire its protections, right? “Rough men stand ready to do violence… for their own. They aren’t playing pawn to be moved around by propaganda anymore and it’s beautiful.
They wanted division based on politics, they got it. Loud and clear, signal received. In Europe, the elite have nothing to do with this, they’ll be fine. Always, they’ll pay their way into safety. This isn’t an issue about the rich. If you look at the UK media, it is overwhelmingly middle class. Who do they get a hate-on for? Marx’s pets, the poor.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/20733/how-media-became-painfully-middle-class
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/01/tv-industry-middle-class-endemol-shine-tim-hincks-diversity
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/roifield-brown/uk-media_b_4733905.html

This is a class war, and the native poor are seeing it.
One factor they have in their favour: voting bloc.
Why else would the right wing be winning recently, if not for that crucial bastion of support, traditionally belonging to the Left? But the Left sold them out. They favoured the Outgroup. Oh this poor (outgroup), anyone but the evil white men! 
Those natural conservatives (who prize country and family above all else) are finally leaving the abusive relationship and voting with their feet. To the left, this is unprecedented. An end of Left/Right they call it, because people are’t fitting into their neat little boxes anymore (vote based on class). Oh, L/R exist still, but their definitions are outdated. That’s what you get for living in an Ivory Tower instead of the Real World. The left’s response, at our last election?

How dare these poor people be so selfish.

Seriously, that was the best they could come up with. The mind boggles.

Who made these people poor? They’re looking into it now. This was the first election the media tried to rig by controlling the information flow – and failed. Almost a year later, they have nothing, they refuse to admit trashing the economy (like Brown selling off all our gold for pittance) or screwing over the workers for foreign labour with immigration, despite unemployment/underemployment. Like SJWs (their leadership since Blair), they’ve doubled down. Did we vote in the immigrant Jewish rich bloke who never worked a real job in his life? No.

We’d rather have the posh, rich closeted gay pig-fucker. Dwell on this. It’s the Principle.
Look at the suffrage post and who voted in the Left for a long period (men) and this becomes apparent. The poor, white men are on strike from social justice warriors. Their wives too and this female vote finally turning up to the polls, angry enough, was the crucial deciding point (the ‘Mum vote’) in landing it for the Tories.

Did you see the pink Labour van? It was like Monty Python. The conversations over the kitchen table? Wow.

This is a trend. We are at Stop. Wait……

It carries on….

No. Not now. Never. Never again. I’m gonna give you to the count of three to get off my land before we rearrange your face into a Picasso. The police have been called and your trial date confirmed. The State will escort you to The Wall now. Secret Police: We’ll deport you to Hell personally. Who needs that much paperwork?

Watching it in real-time is like;

I guess we need to accept this has happened and it's going to get pushier

Knowing it’s going to get worse with the economy. But since I am white and belong here, also like;

Our elders are criticizing us because we see past their BS.

It’s a strange two-minds situation.
You want to limit damage but you wonder if that would just prolong the problem.
There is a beauty in the justice of sitting back and watching the Left’s high time preference destroy their ideology. They won’t get back in once this is over.

The Left’s lies about sex and gender

This has been requested for a while but I think it’s such a simple case of provable linguistic (written evidence!) fraud I hadn’t bothered. Until I saw what they’re using it for.

dis gonna be good anticipation pull up a chair listen watch

Inspired by this new form of child grooming: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3420203/Are-gender-fluid-demi-girl-intersex.html that outright lies about the basic meaning of words and asks intimate questions of minors that would get anyone else arrested.

The form of gender they use applies to grammar (words, objects), not people. 

e.g.  la baguette, une baguette

https://frenchsanstears.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/gender-issues/

Even then, this refers to masculine or feminine pronouns.

It comes from ‘genus’, a biological taxonomic classification, causing some confusion with sex.

genderorigin

To make medical documents more polite, gender slowly replaced sex (noun) in many parts of the West, especially America. It also prevented those idiots who write in things like ‘yes, please’.

Hence in America, you see a new definition added, which is the same as sex.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

Considering who English really belongs to (the English people), the American terms do not have definitive supremacy, that would be cultural appropriation, although culturally they are considered relevant (to deconstruct in debate and ignore).

Note how, even in the MW dictionary, this novel form is the secondary meaning.

Compare with the English definition of the English word.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gender

This is the dictionary that recently included emoji. They cave.

Yet we see an interesting pushback by the etymologists.

Grammar is pushed down (as it’s less frequently used in this manner) and it reads “Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex.” An acknowledgement that they are not, in fact, synonymous. The use is social, not factual.

It is only considered comparable, by definition, in sum (as a mass or count noun). As in, gender taken as male or female cannot apply to individuals.

We see another guideline for this colloquial usage (casual, informal) in “typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones”, a snide passing reference to its use in psychology (generally true) and sociology (generally bollocks).

Many people are unaware of this but all sciences (and soft sciences) have their own dictionaries. These are not the true or common meanings, they are niche and limited to discussion within the field itself. Hence the importance before any debate or academic discussion of Defining One’s Terms.

Let’s keep this above board, shall we? Gold standard.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534067.001.0001/acref-9780199534067

Under ‘gender’:
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534067.001.0001/acref-9780199534067-e-3412?rskey=gJ0Epo&result=1

“Non-technically, a synonym for sex” – the psychological definition of gender.

What does it means then, technically? As a variable?
Gender is simply the degree to which one is masculine or feminine. That is it, in psychology. That is 100% true and I’ve never seen anyone dispute it.
Bem’s Gender Role Inventory: http://personality-testing.info/tests/OSRI/
The confusion began with the fraud Kinsey, who conflated it with sexuality in his methodology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
Yet sexuality is a behaviour, under sexology, and gender is innate (lack of gender is impossible) mode of cognition with the slightest fluctuations over lifespan.

Under ‘sex’, for clarification:
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534067.001.0001/acref-9780199534067-e-7553?rskey=q6fcIS&result=1

“Either of the categories of male and female or the sum total of biological attributes” – the psychological definition of sex.

Let’s summarize.

Psychology: sex = male or female. Physiological. Based on anatomy and biology (chromosomes).
Psychology: gender = masculine or feminine. Psychological. Based on cognition (motivation) and behaviour.

I’m more willing to trust the psychologists on matters psychological, aren’t you?

As the APA admits despite the pressure to cave to sociology in ‘gender’, sex is strictly biological.
https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf

Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. These are the psychological definitions of psychological constructs.

Onto the murky unfalsifiable (unscientific) world of sociology.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199533008.001.0001/acref-9780199533008

Under ‘gender’. When I searched, no less than eight pages came up, most nothing to do with the word. It’s like they’re trying to hide something…
It doesn’t actually have a clean, given definition of gender, which isn’t alarming at all considering how often they use it for rentseeking. This is the closest thing it has.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/search?source=%2F10.1093%2Facref%2F9780199533008.001.0001%2Facref-9780199533008&q=gender

The definition, if it exists, lives behind a paywall.

Under ‘sex’, this is the closest.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199533008.001.0001/acref-9780199533008-e-2075?rskey=APqgzF&result=4

Apparently, in sociology, sex actually means sexuality. Kinsey, it seems, was a sociologist.

Fine, I’ll give them one more chance.

Blackwell. http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/

The closest I can find to either, among the fog of gender bias, gender oppression and the like, is this.
http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/tocnode?query=gender&widen=1&result_number=9&from=search&id=g9781405124331_yr2015_chunk_g978140512433125_ss1-81&type=std&fuzzy=0&slop=1
An opinion piece.

Often confused or used as if the terms were the same, sex and gender are in actuality different designations of human behavior based on physical capabilities and social expectations.

Fine so far… not (external) expectations, it’s endogenous cognition, but okay…
Unless you wanna argue that monkeys and other non-human primates, that exhibit the same gender differences, have verbal expectations and Patriarchy: http://animalwise.org/2012/01/26/born-this-way-gender-based-toy-preferences-in-primates/

Sex is related to the biological distinctions between males and females primarily found in relation to the reproductive functions of their bodies.

Implicit admission of non-gonadal sex differences.
Wait for it…

Biological sex is usually stated as if there are two, and only two, distinct bodies: male and female. But, in fact, there are gradations between male and female accounting for at least five sexes.

There it is.
That’s why psychologists laugh at sociologists and get offended (fairly) if you confuse the two. Why not four? Why not six? Opinion. Pure, contrived, subjective bullshit.

It goes on in such an embarrassing way a small child could call their bluff.

Sex is not a clear-cut matter of chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia that produce females and males. All humans have hormones, such as estrogen and testosterone, but they are found in varying and changing levels ( Fausto-Sterling 1999 ; Kimmel 2004 ). Men as well as women have breasts. Some men have bigger breasts than some women and some men get breast cancer….

I think the medical field would dispute. This is an irrational definition.
That’s like saying, chickens have legs, you have legs, you are a chicken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)#Affirming_the_consequent

If you stay on the SJW haven of wikipedia:

Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.

The pedophile who forced two brothers to engage in sex play and kept photographs.
The academic ‘authority’ for the type of ‘campaign’ above.

go on moss popcorn

Gender was seen as a role because behaviour is easier to measure and harder to fake, it isn’t all of what gender entails, but the final product of the motivation and thought process that leads to decision making and external action, and takes after behaviourism, which was popular at the time. Nowadays, we can watch that thought process in real time, synapse to synapse, yet these people cling to their nonsense words like Christians to the Holy Spirit. Gender is their Ghost of Patriarchy.

It is easy to fake what kind of special snowflake one is. Pink? Purple? Blue? Tri/bi/a/fluid? Cultural Marxism wages a battle of acceptance in popular culture for these linguistic falsehoods, contrary to reality but believed in fervently by its worshipers. At least Christians aren’t claiming the Holy Ghost is a science and bleeding the taxpayer.

However, Money’s meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender.

You can actually blame the feminists themselves for making it up. Their supposed support for their word definitions are… themselves. It’s circular reasoning at its ugliest.

The psychological definition of gender has historical eminence, as noted:

However, examples of the use of gender to refer to masculinity and femininity as types are found throughout the history of Modern English (from about the 14th century).

Why would they do this? Why would they lie?

The definition of a nuclear family becomes amenable to distortions.

All this talk of sex and sexuality is bluster, a ruse to prevent discussion and even definition and scientific study of masculinity and femininity. Feminists (sociology’s nu!gender theorists) are deliberately failing to cover masculinity unless preceded by the word ‘toxic’ but it is the word femininity which goes unspoken like Lord Voldemort. Femininity, that they fear to even discuss, that they shroud even in their dictionaries and insular definitions.

Try to take solace in the echo chambers because one day their wifi will die

Here is something I have done you might want to try if you don’t believe me.

Homework: when confronted with a (3rd wave) feminist, let them finish, let them wind down and look serious and concerned. With a grave expression, say something like “I have a question, since you’re a feminist, you must be an expert… What makes a feminist, feminine?

*mic drop, as they twist themselves into a pretzel of logical fallacies*

When they desperately ask you a question on a tangent or to change the subject, ask the very simple question again, emphasis how simple it is and watch them trigger themselves into an amygdala hijacking rage. They don’t know. They don’t know what femininity is. This is their weakness, publicly exposed. That’s why they chose to call it that, hoping nobody would ever ask. They claimed the ground they feared others would use to strengthen the hearth of the nuclear family. 

It’s been a pleasure shitposting with you.

Women’s suffrage is a feminist frame, actually universal

Trigger warning: maths. Stat-heavy post.

As far as England and the wider UK are concerned, suffrage was universal. Women’s suffrage is a category error.

Women were not explicitly banned from voting in Great Britain until the 1832 Reform Act and the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act.

Ah. Can you hear Orwell laughing?

READ A HISTORY BOOK. Property (class) and location (class) were factors. …Class.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/history/democracy/changes/revision/1/

They’re trying to make it about sex when it was really based on societal contribution aka merit.

The suffragettes protested that they had no decision-making ability over how their taxes were spent, yet they still had to pay taxes like a man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Tax_Resistance_League

Plenty of men couldn’t vote either. Including many of those who died in WW1.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11509811/Why-has-everyone-forgotten-about-male-suffrage.html

1918: The rotten repressive male Establishment voted 7-1 in favour of votes for some women (restricted at that point by age and property qualifications) and all men over the age of 21. In the 1928 Act, the franchise was extended to women on equal terms with men.

It really was a simple case of balancing out what was newly handed to men (no qualification).
Sometimes qualification was quite literal. “From 1918–1928, women could vote at 30 with property qualifications or as graduates of UK universities, while men could vote at 21 with no qualification.”

Hence all the petty squabbles over land law and inheritance for centuries, including male assertions of the rights of youngest sons. Suck on that, MRAs.

Why am I going into this? Isn’t it obvious?

You’d think so, wouldn’t you?

Sample comments I have seen;

It’s not as much fun to place the blame where it belongs..on those men who allowed women’s suffrage.

Actually we were on strike until we got it. That’s why we got it. Same as the men.

Suffrage doomed us. We’re just coasting now, on fire, crankshaft broken, heading over the cliff.

A lot of the new MGTOW are trying to conceal their misogyny very poorly by blaming all women the way neo-Nazis with nothing going for them blame all Jews. They’re saying unironically that women’s suffrage was the reason everything about the West is ruined, all the PC dogma and Marxism (invented by a man) was the fault of women, ignorant of knowledge of ancient societies (which allowed female political power and leaders, golden eras led by Queens) and basically most things beyond America. As if men aren’t at the top of this degenerate pyramid, from Soros to the founder of FEMEN. Men are in political power, men are the sex responsible for PC politics.

For lolz, let’s look at the voting statistics anyway, eh? Since women are so bad at maths according to these dimwits (unless you have the intellectual curiosity to look up the data and see boys perform worse).

Historically, the widely held view is that males outperform females in tests of mathematical ability (Halpern, 1986; Hill, Corbett, & St Rose, 2010; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990). Early reviews of empirical research in this field concluded this was a “robust” finding (Halpern, 1986, p. 57) or, at least, it was one of several “fairly well-established” gender differences (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974, p. 352). Although subsequent formal analyses of these data indicated that gender differences in mathematical ability were often small in size (Hyde et al., 1990), recent research continues to show some differences but they vary according to certain factors, including level of mathematical ability, type of mathematical ability and examination format.

Those are called extraneous variables as non-sex factors so no, they don’t count in support of the original, disproven finding.

There is little evidence of a male advantage in high school mathematics tests in either the US or the UK. In the US, “trivial differences” between boys’ and girls’ mathematics results have been found in all school years between Grade 2 (7–8 year olds) and Grade 11 (16–17 year olds) (Hyde, Lindberg, Linn, Ellis, & Williams, 2008).

But sure, women are bad at maths… BRING ON THE STATS.

Evidence exists of women voting when it was on the law books during that brief window of British history, which isn’t the basis for anything since it was more of a trial period that failed the test.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9933592/Women-voted-75-years-before-they-were-legally-allowed-to-in-1918.html

But, at a stroke, it provided me with tangible proof that Victorian women were not only eligible to vote, but actually exercised that right, some 75 years before they received the parliamentary franchise in 1918.

Although I knew that in theory women retained the right to vote for some local officials in the nineteenth century, I had never seen any evidence of them doing so in practice. This lack of evidence had led me, and many other historians, to assume that voting was entirely a male prerogative before the twentieth century.

eyeroll jessica jones omg wtf shut up

Yet, it has prompted a need to re-write the history books by providing the first substantial proof that women were able to vote long before they received the parliamentary or municipal franchise.

There are as many conservative women as men in the general population, I reject your specious argument that women must vote red.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/How-Britain-voted-in-2015.aspx?view=wide

It’s Left vs. Right, that’s the only division and anyone claiming otherwise is an identity politics shill.

Where population demographics are concerned, race, age group (life phase) and class (including property ownership) are more predictive than sex. Shall we restrict suffrage based on those things? No? Oh, you wouldn’t like somebody questioning your right to vote based on something beyond your control? How about more stats?

In America alone, more women turn up to the polls than men. Whose fault is that?
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womencensus1.html

63.7% Percentage of female citizens 18 and older who reported voting in the 2012 presidential election. By comparison, 59.7 percent of their male counterparts reported voting.

There is a famous Gender Gap in voting, true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_gender_gap

Recently in Europe it closed but prior to this (pre-1990s), women were more likely to vote conservative.

http://ips.sagepub.com/content/21/4/441.abstract

Suck on that.
Back to America:
https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0028/twps0028.html

Leighley and Nagler (1992) tested whether demographic factors, like race and gender, are more important than socioeconomic factors like education in predicting voter turnout, and found that while it is important to include measures of demographic factors, education is a much stronger predictor of voter turnout. Likewise, Wolfinger and Rosenstone (1980) document the lower voter turnout among Blacks and Hispanics, but attribute this lower rate of voter turnout to lower educational levels and higher proportions of young and poor among minorities. Other results suggest that women are also more likely to register and vote (Jennings 1985, 1989, 1993).

Education = IQ.
I have covered previously why IQ testing to qualify voting ability would hurt men and help women (women have higher average intelligence that the test is normalized by, men have more retards). Sure, advocate for it, see if I’m wrong.

In the UK, voter turnout has dropped among both sexes, but especially women, either failing to register or turn up at the booths.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11333915/British-women-general-election-voters-shun-the-polling-booths.html

Turnout has declined across both genders. But the drop is most significant in women. According to statistics compiled for the British Election Study – which were analysed by the Commons Library – the number of ‘missing’ female voters has risen by 79 per cent since 1992.

Aka you can’t blame the Labour Governments on women (1997-early 2010).

Between 1992 and 2010, the number of women voters in general elections fell by 18 per cent.

However, a Telegraph poll in October last year found that just 12 per cent of female voters think the Labour leader would make a good prime minister, compared with 31 per cent who backed Cameron.

2.6:1 in favour of the conservative. Hmm.
I’ve covered previously that political party identification is genetic, especially for liberalism. AKA clean your own house and muck out your own stables of Red Men before crying to us.

Look at how stable voting preferences are in light of demographics (in support of the genetic hypothesis). If sex for example were so important, you’d see a sharp divide, yet all differences are accountable by rounding error.


Source: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/

OH LOOK SUCH A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE.

Think of the stereotype of trolling - white straight male aka Patriarchy. Did they appropriate the term?

 

Are you new to the Manosphere?

Allow me to instruct you. See that link you came from? Run. Run back as fast as you can. It’s dead. It’s over. The cancer is malignant.

It’s become a scam.

It’s like the anti-lifestyle blog for hipster depressives. My pain isn’t like your pain!

We’re special because we see the truth!

The world is awful and hates us, we haven’t made any stupid decisions!

It’s like the sad male answer to Oprah. It tells you everything you wanna hear. There are many feminist analogues, and that’s why they hate them so much, the similarity smarts their fragile ego e.g. ROK is the male Jezebel. Prove me wrong.

You know the name is ironic?

I have never met a man in the manosphere.

Plenty of entitled shrill nags bitter about other’s happiness. Their dream is to make other people as hopeless as they are. They’ll dissemble and twist to do it. They want you to stop trying. They tell you it’s impossible. Whatever plans you had, the Big Bad is keeping you down. Be miserable and give them money. It’s such a con. Few provide value. It’s the internet equivalent of subprime – they don’t believe in what they’re selling and they don’t believe in anything. They wear their apathy and nihilism with pride. They’re full of pride and hollow of accomplishment. Hedonism is the only thing that can touch them, past the Mommy Issues and blunted affect. Their vision for the future is bleak, their fallacies predictable and notably, success is a joke to them. They mock you for believing in it. They tell you it will never happen, whatever you wanted.

Tell them about a happy marriage. They’ll laugh.

Tell them about true love. They’ll deride you.

Tell them about a stable family life. They’ll probably try and gaslight you into thinking your wife has been cheating with the milkman.

Oh, they don’t believe it. They hope they’re right or you destroy their precious worldview. The one where they’re unhappy because they fucked up, repeatedly. You can’t improve your life until you admit you did something wrong with it. They’re insecure and cannot be saved from themselves. They need a shrink. They don’t laugh at other people, not really, they’re so self-loathing they project out to other people what they hate and laugh at themselves, twisting it into proof of their own superiority. You’re married? Lol they’re single and loving it. You’re single? Lol they’re covered in women, so alpha. You’re seeing someone? Lol they know she’s gonna ruin you.

You cannot win.

You know what they say about women? Anytime a woman is happy, they complain. It hurts them to see a woman happy, whatever the cause. That’s how you know they’re misogynists and have issues with their mother. Btw, they often resort to childish psychodynamic explanations of people they dislike, often involving rape, despite holding no qualifications on the subject, clearly. Mental illness isn’t an insult but they disgustingly use it like one. They will twist anything good into something evil.

A woman has no job? Parasite. A woman is a mother? Shrew. A woman is part-time? Bad mother. A woman is in a low wage job helping to pay the bills? Emasculating her husband. A woman gets welfare? Thief. A woman has a high wage job? She’s ‘stolen’ it from men. A woman contributes to society with her intelligence? That doesn’t prove anything, but she probably slept her way to the top.

We cannot win.

Note: they will play the slut! accusation card regardless of overwhelming evidence against this. That’s why they’re cunts. Women don’t need a second, thanks.

These people are toxic. Some are sociopaths controlling the others, but mainly they’re spergs looking for a system to explain away their self-created pain. If you act stupid, bad things happen. If you insult women, you’ll repel them. They’re collectively too dumb to ever realize this, let alone acknowledge it openly and self-correct.

Know why?

All the real ones have left, long ago. We’re left with the broken rejects. You see, the manosphere should be a stop along the road. Like a convenience store, you get in, you get exactly what you need and you get out. You aren’t supposed to hang around at the bar pontificating on your failure as an adult in the easiest century ever (and using your sex as an excuse, how cheap). Past a certain age (20, the age is 20) you have to stop blaming other people. They’re full of contradictions ruining their lives e.g.

Men are the best and naturally good at everything.
Women somehow have the power and intelligence to keep us down.

or

We need more traditional women to improve society and boost fertility.
Women are useless inferior bothers who ruin your life and intelligence/creativity are sex-exclusive because fuck neurological proof to the contrary.

Women are crazy.
Men keep killing themselves and practically everyone else and this is evil and women’s fault.

Women are the sex without sexual self control. A man needs to cheat – in his marriage. Ignore the Ashley Madison data on male cheats. Also, women are prudes with broken libido. A woman who won’t have sex with us is a whore. 

and the increasingly shrill refrain recently

hur derp Women never invented anything and having babies [note: pro-creation, the ultimate creation] is all they’re good for.
We should reinforce the ban on letting women go to University again, they aren’t dumb as we lied about, they’re actually making us look bad.

Don’t bother pointing this out, I already explained the IQ thing for voting if they bothered to pick up a bloody book. The average female IQ is actually higher than the average male,as tested and admitted by a male researcher but don’t bother trying to show them real data. They’re in a sex supremacy movement, just like the feminists. That is why they fail. They don’t get, it isn’t a competition. If a woman contributes to society in STEM then everybody wins! (There are many women in STEM actually, if they bothered to go to a convention instead of whining about muh Tesla online like IFLSers they could meet us, see footnote).

Can you read this? It means if we went back to a merit based system, one based on IQ, then women would control elections, as more men would be disqualified. As for one based on property, women live longer aka we inherit, bitches!

They’re dumb enough to look up to psychopaths. The same guys often dead or in jail before 40.

The ‘naturals’ as they call them, in spite of self-improvement work common to everyone, those guys don’t sit around angrily typing on keyboards about what a man really is like a conspiracy nut or what a woman should be if only XYZ. No. They’re out there being it. They’re out there living it. They’re doing things to improve the world. Blogging is navel-gazing narcissism, no better morally than women talking at a coffee shop, we all know that. They aren’t pushing a product and they certainly aren’t pushing themselves, these manboys are like makeup bloggers who believe in personal branding to excuse their narcissism. It’s such a gamma thing to go around correcting everyone when your moral authority is zero and strutting around with your cognitive distortions carefully crafted to make you feel better while calling everybody else deluded.

The frequent voices of the manosphere are the archetype of modern Peter Pan. The r-type’s ideal. They will say and do anything to avoid responsibility. Hence, manboys. They dispute male duties even exist (laughably trying to dub that sexist, well yeah…, but also they say they believe in gender roles, I know) because that’s dressed in overalls and looks like work. But oh, they’ll make some bitchy comment about better men who worked in the mines or died in a war so they can denigrate the grand-daughters of those men or have some legally questionable bad sex with them. They look like men but they don’t think, feel or act like one. There isn’t a moral compass. Utterly useless to any real society and their social lives match, they’re often the dregs that enjoy going to clubs, ffs. Who primarily socializes in a place too dark to see, too loud to hear and with such terrible music?

Test: You know will know an r-type by his positive, victimless attitude to promiscuity. 

Bonus: And they’re bizarrely quiet on the subject of cheats. Cliff notes: If a man cheats, good, because I am man and free after holy vows. If a woman cheats, evil, because woman is my property as it says in the vows. 

If you want to know whether to trust a man look at his personal history. Look at what he made out of his life. If he’s what, 30+ and still a loser? You want to take advice from this person, seriously? Don’t listen to what he says until you like what he’s done. It’s all theory to him and he’ll chuck it out as soon as it makes him feel bad about himself. He’s in a little bubble like a weeaboo. You don’t take marriage advice from the guy who thinks it’s a prison, the gamophobe. You don’t take advice on women from a man who has never kept one beyond the honeymoon period. If a man says all women are trash, what does it say that they were attracted to him? You don’t take career advice from a blogger. This should all be common sense.

It’s a stream of outrage porn and a long string of self-pitying weak-willed excuses to remain a loser. My, so many girls must be begging to lock down that bundle of issues! I bet he wants you to fold his underpants and cut his crusts too, just like Mommy did. Because marrying your Mother to look after you and being sexually attracted to that image isn’t creepy whatsoever.

I cannot think of a single man in the usual swirl of the manosphere and it’s drama that would make a drag queen diva blush, who is qualified to give traditional advice. None of them have lived it. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude it is generally a scam. Think about it this way: if it’s so obvious or they’re so kind-hearted, why must you keep opening your wallet? Lovebombing.

It’s a personality cult. There, I said it.

……………………

Footnote: STEM is fine!

“None of those things are observable,” Hira says. “In fact, they’re operating in the opposite way.”
Read it and weep. http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth

You have been replaced. You were inferior to the new team, that’s capitalism. You let yourself be replaced. That’s a personal failure and rather humiliating.

Name ONE decent male inventor of the past century and I’ll let you play the Tesla card. He’s your version of Jezebel’s Lovelace card but at least her code worked.

Video: Observe wife entitlement

“We got robbed.”

hmm uhuh o rlly really ah sure thing

Actual quote. Wow. Just wow fam.

captainnemo

Above: A MGTOW I respect. You don’t contribute to the decline? Enjoy however you want, friend.

You make your bed, be an adult and lie in it.

One way to recognize narcissism, both covert and overt, is the Have It All entitlement.
They seem to believe they can both have their cake and eat it. Contrary to all logic.

Because they’re so damn special… exceptions must be made.

An ignorance of social history I could abide if he didn’t feel the need to reference something incorrect as fact.  That is not how it worked. Ever. Point me to it. Find me it. Go on. Where’s the certain proof, if it was so common with regular (aka not blue blood) people? You can’t because it didn’t work like that, social history is not like the regular kind. It’s more of a balancing act, as people and cultures are so different. He’s outright lying.

IF you came from a good FAMILY, that was WEALTHY, without obvious disease (including something like neurosyphilis), and had the long upbringing of a gentleman, much like a finishing school for ladies, you could probably be married off whatever you did. Your odds were good because they looked at the overall profile of the candidate (the parents) much like hiring for a job today.

They would overlook it, the wife too, as long as it stopped post-marriage, or you’d dishonour the House. And your children could only marry down because reputation is of great import. The cycle continues until penury.

You had to earn Husband Material status. Most of it was parental arranged, like schooling, so basically the (seemingly excessive) moral instruction emphasis was “Don’t screw up. It’s bad for all of us” That’s the one thing young men had to do. ONE thing.

Btw, brothels were an expensive habit. They often included gambling tables. Sex has never been cheaper than it is now.

Here, he not only said You must screw up, and for as long as possible (implied) but nothing about earning your way with an entirely alien type of woman, building respect (the women who file for divorce have one thing in common – they don’t respect their husband). He had no moral compunctions about ruining otherwise marriageable women, but now he expects that, having gorged himself on a buffet of lusts, there will be an untouched corner somewhere he can take all for himself, a pure little corner of natural Paradise untainted by the destruction he had personally caused, mentally dissociated from the way he scorned such habits (settling down) as beneath him before (‘beta’).

It’s disconnected from reality. It’s insane.

No guilt, no shame, let alone no attempt to improve (you can’t fix what you’ve done until you admit you did something wrong). They expect all women have the low standards of bar skanks. Really? When good women are rarer than ever before, he expects he is special.

HAVE IT ALL, ladies and gents. Take a good long look.

In women, we’re supposed to call out this behaviour and laugh. Certainly I do.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/eskil-svitjod/2014/05/guess-what-girls-you-dont-deserve-shit/

Switch out the pronouns and they’d call it feminist propaganda. They can’t stand to criticize themselves (some red pill) or hold themselves to the same standards as they do others. Not even better, the bloody same. A double standard is a silly term for hypocrisy. It’s all about how the individual conducts themselves. Fine, be a shitty person, but don’t act like a saint when it suits, okay? Like the priest pedophile, what you say can never erase what you do, your choices and history. These guys will soon learn that but they’ll be very lonely old men when, with better guidance, they didn’t have to be. Men past a certain age require women to live, they become aimless and dejected and if their wife dies, they usually die shortly afterward. On a timeline of months. You don’t hear these truths in the manosphere because it’s largely run by overgrown boys trying to out-macho one another.

(Women, however, can live decades without men. I leave you to your deductions on who really needs who, where the sexes are concerned).

Back to the Have it All entitlement. I said in Who do these guys think they are? the moral side of things. Look there I won’t repeat myself. In women, they sneer at us in classic projection, like the pajamas boys who sneer at the men lifting weights in the gym. What does society do with male entitlement? Male immaturity? Cos that’s what it is, really.

In men… what? They aren’t victims. That’s bullshit. It’s worse when men do it, what excuse do they have? Listening to them extol the virtues of men and vices of women (unnecessary but thanks), they should all be Hercules. There is not a single excuse to hold water. Man good. Woman bad. When man behave badly, suddenly ….. it’s woman’s fault!

……………….. you’re kidding. You must be joking.

Either women have that power over you or we don’t. You can’t have it both- ah, you can’t have it both ways, narcissists.

You may deserve an object. Fair enough. A coffee after a long shift, new boots, whatever. A person is not an object. You do not deserve another living being, even a pet. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is probably a sociopath (they see people as objects).

For all the manosphere bitching about carousel riders who want to hop off when they feel the cold breath of the Wall on the back of their neck, they fail to see that this is a behaviour. An unacceptable spoiled behaviour that manipulates good people into trusting a bad person (using them timely for personal ends). Men do it too and don’t get a free pass. Men are supposed to set the moral standard, but the double standards they hold to themselves? No wonder women have lost hope.

Oh, those women exist, Roosh. We stay well away from the likes of you.

You see, there is no discussion of the social rewards.

The social reward of the Bad Girl is fun and popularity.

The social reward of the Good Girl is respect and security. 

The same applies to men, actually.

AKA they do not entertain the class clown. Who respects a clown? Who would marry a clown? Women lie and say we value GSOH. We do not. We never have but now there is an arms race where the men try to be funny and we laugh at their stupid jokes because we like them anyway. Why did we say GSOH, then? The opposite is anger. A man who can laugh off a conflict (gent) is better husband material than one who gets angry. Parenthood requires a SOH.

Note: nowhere does this require dirty humour. Common misconception. And that type of signalling draws in the tramps while repelling the ladies. I’m not surprised he can’t find one…

Although I will admit, this American presumption of whorishness without shame or apology is so offensive to the few ladies in existence, if he met one, he wouldn’t be able to tell.  Maybe wrote them off as feminists for being offended at being spoken to worse than a hooker back in the 19th century. If you read about their come-ons, nowadays it’s practically PG (look up hairy-fordshire).

As I wrote a long time ago, with the sexes inverse;

If you expect a lady, you must have been a gentleman.

You say good men marry the ho. It’s rare, like marrying an abuser in women. They are trying to absolve themselves of responsibility for their relationships. Your male opinion of desirability to the opposite sex is meaningless. Null and void. Women don’t look at the same traits as you and a man who behaves badly could never be good in our eyes. If you want to test a man, give him freedom. Generally, we select people of the same moral level. This conflicts with religion in studies so it’s hard to test. If your friend, this ‘nice guy’ keeps picking out bitches? Keeps having marital problems when she was fine before? The problem is him. You have only been his friend, he might be a good friend and a terrible boyfriend. You can’t know unless you’ve been in a relationship with him. If he can only attract the bad ones? He deserves a bad one. He is himself a bad one.

You’re not a player. You’ve been played. Society has milked you for clothes and club money. Settling down isn’t an option anymore. The window closed. You are burned out. What do you have to offer? Well? Something a younger man does not? You don’t even want such a thing for its virtues, but for novelty. Like a greedy fat kid.

Reproductively, few men have ever reproduced (hatefact) and you wasted your best years to attract the wife material instead developing your ‘skill’ in attracting her polar opposite (and on the flipside, repelling her kind, did you never figure that out?). If she existed back then? She’s already married someone else. She’s gone. Off the market. The bar skanks were attracted to you because you were spending …your MMV. Like they were spending their SMV.

If you hate the idea of marriage, you don’t deserve one

Let alone a happy one.

red dwarf useless insult condom machine vatican

And they expect the rest of us to convince them to leap in the gene pool?this is awkward

Who wants them there? They’re like a vegan at a steakhouse.

They’re like the new vegans. Rant rant rant rant rant – to the omnivores. They bore one another so must seek out the rest of us. I’ve even heard them try to argue against the Bible, because it tells you to marry repeatedly, but with God…

“Perfect love casteth out all fear.”1 John 4:18

As I noted briefly in Who do these guys think they are? there has been a new trend to start randomly pontificating at women on traditional matters by wholly modern men with no moral authority. An egregious example of this are the basement-dwelling losers with MGTOW somewhere in their screen-name who go on female issue websites and start bitching about us, to us, for attention. They aren’t even trolling, they’re probably retarded.

white male opinions do the creep

It’s quite literally mansplaining, quite by accident. A genetic suicide has no valid opinions on childrearing, male or female. Imagine if I kept blogging about how great it is to be a man, that isn’t even an opinion, it’s a delusion. A vegan has no valid opinions on the preparation of Thanksgiving turkey. It isn’t that they don’t have the right to an opinion, theoretically, but the basic conditions of merely having an opinion do not hold. They have no skin in the game. I don’t mind if they go off to their precious male-only spaces, please do go. But this new barrage of intrusion to the exact group (traditional women) you’re whining doesn’t exist? It makes all men look bad.

outgenepool

Nobody is going to tell people so actively hostile to a stable base to have kids. Even people on the fence with that stuff shouldn’t have kids. It’s the biggest of responsibilities. You can’t half-arse it. You need to go in expecting to do half the work, because there’ll be a lot more than you could ever expect, that’s called ‘parental investment’. Nobody is oppressing you, it’s the hardest job and has been for all time, whatever your sex. You’re never off the clock once you become a parent. It’s a 20 year to life investment, like a prison term, but these guys would balk at signing a two year employment contract. They are literally afraid of commitment, whatever the context. If you aren’t mature enough for that, fine, at least be mature enough not to brag about how childish you still are.

Here’s the inner monologue of everyone who hears these people;

You don’t want kids? Why should I care?
I am entirely neutral on this piece of information.

nothavingkids

Or worse;

You’re never having kids? Thank God.

The two main groups, the no-life teenage losers and on the shelf Boomers, feed one another in their hatred like a human centipede of misogynist shit (you know they think men are blameless innocent little victims on a pedestal for every count) and they wonder why they put off any sane women, to the extent they say there are no good women – sound familiar?

Bitterness is never attractive. The system isn’t against them, they could theoretically have a nuclear family. They don’t want to put in any work. They dream that a Patriarchy would just hand them a wife with no effort, like a slave driver. Since they cannot get a woman by persuasion. It’s Affirmative Action for boys who refuse to become men. Never in human history has marriage worked like that, the family unit cannot excel while one party is a user, what all abusers have in common. It’s an r-type scam, they cannot compete reproductively, so they’re trying to convince other men to simply give up. They’re jealous of Patriarchs. The future belongs to those who show up for it and that requires…?

All this complaining is convincing themselves that they don’t need to put in the work, because their dream is impossible.

Imagine a scrawny pajama boy bitching on a weightlifting forum about how weightlifting doesn’t work. You’d wanna wring the little bitch’s neck too.

A couple of choice examples I have read.

“Give a benefit of marriage/ traditionalism that I don’t have already then I will consider it”

This isn’t a business transaction. There aren’t spreadsheets to look over. Aspies are already at high odds of dying alone because they seem to think it’s a contract for their soul. There isn’t any guarantee in human relationships, in ties to people. Why are we wasting time listening to these losers when they can’t keep a girlfriend more than a matter of months? Why do you think women ask how long your longest relationship was? It’s to see if your pair bonding ability is broken.

“MGTOW is the new way.”

Cult alert. Cult alert. Cult alert.

If you go into a marriage cold, you deserve to get divorced.
If you think it’s you vs. them, it’s over. It’s dead. It was never a true bond. Monogamy is pair bonding. If you can’t pair bond, you are incapable of being monogamous. If you can’t pair bond with your chosen spouse, you are incapable of a marriage with them.
They don’t even like the idea of being loyal within a marriage, as if that isn’t the entire point. Their imaginary Ideal isn’t even good enough not to cheat on…
If you can’t trust the person you’re marrying, or trust any member of the opposite sex, you are barred from marriage. Oh, you might have the paperwork, for a wedding, but you don’t have a marriage. That takes work and dedication. If you’re busy thinking of the end before you have a beginning, if you go in without the love, the fault lies with you.
If you allow the failures of your sex to turn you bitter and cynical and jaded, you are no better than the lowliest feminist.
If you spend all your time telling people how much you don’t care about something, you may as well be a goth. At least they’re honest about it.

If you give up on women, that means you give up on talking to women online or discussing women’s issues online.

After all, it isn’t your problem, is it?

I think we have a decent test for fake MGTOW in that.