Women Have Value!

Yes, quite right. Only the most insecure of boys would fear being too nice to a good woman. Good men enjoy being romantic as a demonstration of masculinity. It’s quaint to appreciate people for their traits and character rather than capitalist cogs that might give you something or service a desire.

Secular Patriarchy

I remember, I believe it was in the latter part of 11th grade, a kind of ritual had developed for me; the wonderful excitement of watching my favorite girl enter into the classroom again. I was always happy to see her again, I felt reassured that now I was going to be with her (in the same room as her) for the next hour, and I was always very curious to see what kind of mood she would be in today. I had started to think to myself that maybe I should pursue her, to show her more directly and obviously that I “liked her,” to “let her know” and “make it clear” that I liked her. The idea of being more forward with her was quite intimidating, it was not how I was used to acting and I didn’t really know how she would respond. So I started to…

View original post 1,848 more words

Sarcasm is sexy

http://www.livescience.com/2633-sarcasm-evolutionary-survival-skill.html

According to Dr. Rankin, if you didn’t get the sarcastic tone of the previous sentences you must have some damage to your parahippocampal gyrus which is located in the right brain. People with dementia, or head injuries in that area, often lose the ability to pick up on sarcasm, and so they don’t respond in a socially appropriate ways.

Presumably, this is a pathology, which in turn suggests that sarcasm is part of human nature and probably an evolutionarily good thing.

How might something so, well, sarcastic as sarcasm, be part of the human social toolbox?

Evolutionary biologists claim that sociality is what has made humans such a successful species. We are masters at what anthropologists and others call “social intelligence.” We recognize and keep track of hundreds of relationships, and we easily distinguish between enemies and friends.

Women are far more sarcastic, but there’s a scale of prosocial (making friends) to antisocial (throwing shade).
Many men are too dumb to pick up on it, or the difference between sweet sarcasm and mean. That’s why we mock them, as if women are 100% serious, when ‘cattiness’ is just a spiteful term for sarcasm and they’re always telling women to get a sense of humour. And the men on the receiving end of biting sarcasm (where at least she’s talking to you) honestly think being truly vindictive back is attractive, which is yet another excuse for more playful humour at their expense, ramping it up the mean scale until they get the message. Plenty of modern men can’t take a joke, however light (the attention). It isn’t a competition and escalation’s a girly/gamma thing to do.
Yes, sarcasm is the modern coy. It’s the feminine playfulness after dark. Arch is a synonym for coy, actually. They’re complaining about getting what they want, more feminine women. They expect us to joke like men, when they acknowledge the sexes shouldn’t be acting like one another….

I guess we need to accept this has happened and it's going to get pushier
Not our fault you dunno how to react. Just laugh and move on. That’s it.

The trick is to use it sparingly. It needs to be sharp but to the point.

Sarcasm is simply humor’s dark side, and it would be just as disconcerting if a friend didn’t get your snide remarks.

http://idealist4ever.com/new-research-say-sarcastic-people-are-smarter-sexier-and-are-more-successful/

In the man’s case, as the woman’s, it’s about vulnerability. It’s a vulnerable form of taking a joke, overlapping heavily with self-deprecation.

Sarcasm is a way of proving your values by counter-signalling their opposite.

Don’t do it enough that people think you’re serious though.

Video: Kleptogamy aka the Sneaky Fucker Strategy

I would call this the Bruce Jenner strategy. Cuttlefish spring to mind, donning female pattern colours.
Trannies and gay (really bisexual) men get to spend a lot of solo time with sexually available women. Like men in theatre, cheer-leading or ballet.

This whole series, called Wild Sex, covers evolutionary biology and while moderately tame by redpill standards, it’s hard to deny most of it. I highly recommend it.

Also relevant:

This subtly answers a common manosphere question;

Q: Why are modern women androgynous?
A: Feminist-dominant society punishes them otherwise, wanting to keep the standard required from men low or neutralize the superior competition with similarity (pressure from women) AND in a free sexual marketplace, they get less unwanted attention from aggressive, rude males wanting only one thing (pressure from men). 

Maybe that’s why the question goes unanswered, the manosphere doesn’t want to believe it’s half the problem.

Did I mention I recommend it?

Is “strong, independent” the new “accomplished”?

I’ve been thinking about feminist doctrine and their bleating about being strong and independent. They seem to believe it makes them more attractive to the opposite sex. It doesn’t, as any honest straight man will say, but nonetheless they repeat it like a female meme.

I usually go back to the books on these topics and old etiquette books came up with the idea of “female accomplishment”. It was emphasized in many 19th century romances too. I believe this connection is enough to draw a distorted comparison between the two. Feminism has tried to steal the notion for itself.

Accomplishments were reserved for ladies. They had no professions and came from honourable family lines. Reputation was paramount. Reserve marked a lady as a creature of breeding. An accomplished lady was educated, as a good student, capable of learning, in contrast to the illiterate peasant class. Among these subjects were religion and a focus on virtues, including chastity, loyalty and forbearance. Manners and social grace were included in family teachings, boarding school or finishing school. This included dancing, elocution and grace, especially around men.

Practical skills useful in later life, such as entertaining children, sewing, charity work for churches and perhaps cooking were commonplace. However, a lady’s place wasn’t in the field, or dirty factories, to toil like a peasant. The adult girl model was a lady.

angelina jolie lara croft flower hair pretty stunning beauty good looking feminine

Compare this to feminism’s subtle appropriation of achievement, where the adult girl model is a rude man. Wasted youth, binging, a gutter mouth, speaking out of turn, walking, dressing and generally acting like a man and none of those practical skills or topics. In fact, they take loud pride (a vice) in their own ignorance (like a peasant). There is payment for education and a lack of learning, and certainly no scholarly humility. Standards are fake to them, as fake as those ladies. An idolatry of immaturity in every form. And they expect decent men to find this attractive? The mind boggles.

If a man desired masculinity in a partner, he’d fuck the real thing, an actual man.

Scientists can mathematically model which gender your face is

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-07-accurately-gender.html

Sure, social construct….

like stereotypes!

“There was an 86 per cent correlation between the mathematically generated gender score and human score for females, and 79 per cent for males.”

Dare them to test feminists vs. ‘bigots’ and Democrats vs. Republicans. Dare them.

Are personal pronoun pansies control freaks?

The use of the pronoun he to refer to men and women dates back to the 18th century. The Generic He is easier to pronounce and uses less ink.

They already have an alternative: it.

If you tell me you’re neither m/f, I am linguistically accurate in referring to you as an it. You are giving me no other correct option by omitting yourself from the chromosomal (read: real) categories. Even those intersex (“true hermaphrodites“) you love to bring up still fit in the binary, they happen to be both. 1+1 =/= 3

http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/Adamson.htm

Languages need no more than three terms: masculine, feminine and neuter or neutral, the Other. These are psychological terms and there can be no logical objection to them. Plenty of European languages (those I’m familiar with) have a specific assignment per word e.g. mela is Italian for apple and it is classed as feminine, hence la mela or the apple. Introducing anything beyond the miscellaneous category of neuter is asking for a squared expansion on already densely packed (here, Romance) languages.

You have enough useless liberal arts graduates in your ranks to calculate the basic impossibility of including your personal pronouns on a linguistic level. They are called personal because you have no right to control the speech of another person. They can tell you that birth sex announced by a doctor is The Sex of a mammal for its entire lifespan (as a scientist or sane, honest person would) or they can respond to your passive-aggressive ‘request’ by telling you to accept their personal pronouns (those they use, because language is for dialogue) or fuck off because you’re incapable of healthy speech with another human being.

While you’re at it, Americans especially, quit appropriating the English language for your subculture.
Normal people do not appreciate grammatically incorrect power-tripping.
You’re not oppressed, you’re unpopular. Grammar-Nazi language policing won’t help that.

Get over yourself and learn something or GTFO loser