Riff on This

A week ago I had a reader send me a link to this helpful list of “mother-may-I’s” and feminine-primary etiquette by Nicole Silverberg. Presently I’ve got a very in-depth essay in the works about exactly this shifting of the ‘toxic’ masculinity narrative to one that presumes all forms of masculinity are inherently toxic. However, as a prelude I guess, I think it’s impossible for the manosphere and Red Pill writers to ignore the debacle that was the Harvey Weinstein admissions of chronic sexual harassment with the up and coming starlets who (along with a long list of ‘male feminist’ celebrities) didn’t feel emboldened enough to not keep Harvey’s dirty little not-so-secret until now. This, as I predicted, was then repurposed by the Feminine Imperative to be presumptive proof that all men are prospective sexual harassers with the #metoo viral hashtag.

As I mentioned in Male Control, in the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting the Feminine Imperative took this as an opportunity to change lanes with regard to its gestalt perspective of masculinity. In previous eras, as with this one, the reflexive response to a shooting of this nature is to blame it on the accessibility of firearms in the US. That’s to be expected, but what follows this always-impotent reactions is usually some deep, ostensibly soul-searching, introspective as to the motives of the shooter. And in this the imperative always comes to the ‘angry male’ narrative.

The presumption we’re expected to come to is that it is men’s toxically masculine socialization that makes them all potentially violent. Overwhelmingly it becomes an argument about traditional masculinity and raising boys into men in a laughably clichéd, laughably anachronistic way that is always founded in social constructivism. Yes, the allusions to testosterone being the most volatile chemical on earth gets bandied about, but usually the proponents of the Feminine Imperative rely on the ridiculous lie that boys are being raised in some hyper-masculine tribal order that tells them to “toughen up” and “don’t cry, boys don’t cry”.

However, not to get ahead of myself, in this new shift it’s no longer “toxic” masculinity, it’s masculinity that is toxic. It ought to be interesting to see how the Village eels its way around men’s biological nature to get to some suitably social constructivist rationale for this shift. The difference now is that just being a man makes one a potentially violent criminal – or a potential sexual harasser.

What Weinstein and dozens of other accusation of (usually ‘male feminist’) men following in his wake has reinforced is that masculinity makes us inherently evil. So evil, in fact, that men must be reeducated by the Feminine Imperative to ensure that one’s fellow man (a prospective harasser/rapist/gunslinger) is acting in accordance with the dictates of the Great Masculine Scare of 2017.

The list below, which I intend to riff on, is one of many recent attempts of feminist writers to enlist the aid of sympathetic female-allies men (yes, the ones they say they implicitly distrust) to help police social discourse and intersexual interactions. There are lots of other ‘helpful lists’ like this, and before I dig in I’ll declare that this is a tongue in cheek response to what is really a very serious shift in the popular narrative about perspectives on masculinity.

  • Talk to your friend who is “kind of a creep” at work.

And what exactly would Nicole have us say to our creepy ‘friend’? What is it that makes a guy ‘creepy’? Rarely is ‘creepy’ ever concretely defined by women, but I’d define it as a guy who’s so socially unintelligent and sexually destitute that he’d unwittingly bet his personal life on the very low prospect of a woman responding positively to his ‘creepy’ approaches of her. I could likely write an entire essay about this ‘creepy’ dynamic (likely will), but what ‘creepy’ distills down to is a woman’s Hypergamous-level revulsion of a man believing he may be someone she would eventually have sex with. Creepy is an insult to Hypergamy.

  • Don’t talk over women.

Ah, the old mansplaining chestnut, only this is its newer cousin, men over-modulating women. Men and women communicate differently. We are different creatures and we have our own preferred forms of communication. Women place far more import on context (feeling) in conversation. Yes, this demand is presumptuous in that it presumes anything a woman would say is more important than men’s need to get to the damn point efficiently (we prioritize content/information in conversation). However, a lot of this gripe is about women’s wanting to prioritize their own communication style above that of men’s.

  • If you are asked to be on a panel/team and see that it’s all men, say something. Maybe even refuse the spot!

So, refuse a lucrative position on a work team project with the potential for advancement, greater status and maybe a higher state in the male dominance hierarchy (that attracts all the women who insist on never settling for a less than ‘equal’ pairing) all to appease what passes for women’s moral imperatives? If it ever were all men on the panel in today’s work culture I’d be thanking my cubicle Gods that we’d all get something done and have time to go home to see my wife and kids that evening.

  • When you see another guy talk over a woman, say: “Hey, she was saying something.”

This is the “lets you and him fight” social convention women are all too happy to use when there is absolutely no contingent consequence to themselves. This suggestion already appeals to Blue Pill White Knights who believe that their AMOGing at work will go appreciated and maybe get them laid for championing women at work. Ironically, it’s the ‘creepy’ Betas we’re supposed to say “something” to who are most likely to employ this if they thought it would get them in good standing with women.

On a serious note, all this convention reveals is the solipsistic self-assured certainty that anything a woman might say is, by default, worthy of undivided attention.

  • Learn to read a fucking room.

Most Red Pill aware men already know how to read socially. What this is is an appeal to Betas to know when to shut the fuck up socially.

  • Don’t call women “crazy” in a professional setting.

I would suggest not calling anyone ‘crazy’ in a professional setting, but again the intentional ambiguity of not defining what constitutes ‘professional’ is why this is disingenuous. Can I call a woman crazy if the project team is having drinks after 5 on a Friday?

  • Don’t use your “feminism” as a way to get women to trust you. Show us in your day-to-day life, not in your self-congratulatory social media.

The reason this is chaffing for Nicole is that most of the male-feminist / female-allies are usually facing sexual harassment lawsuits within months of publicly declaring they are male feminists. I get that this is just Nicole venting, but that need to vent comes from knowing that the only reason men say (or even show in their daily lives) they are feminists is because it’s a deductive form of Beta Game.

  • Don’t touch women you don’t know, and honestly, ask yourself why you feel the need to touch women in general.

Good advice, don’t touch women you don’t know; you are giving a woman the keys to your castle by doing so. In today’s workplace women are constantly looking for even a hint of impropriety they can take to HR for the next harassment suit. Better still, refuse to work in situation where just the impression of her advancement depends on your hard work and behavior around her.

Nicole, the Beta need for physical contact is a desperation born from dealing with women who think he’s creepy.

  • Do you feel that any woman on earth owes you something? She doesn’t. Even if you’re like, “Hm, but what about basic respect?” ask yourself if you’ve shown her the same.

There is a constant presupposition on the part of fempowered women to believe that men feel entitled to anything from. The real truth is that it is women who feel entitled to virtually everything in their solipsistic experience – this very extensive list is a prime example of what women believe they are owed from men.  In 2017 no man ever concerns himself with notions of being owed anything (even basic respect) from women. But what confuses men is women constant (Hypergamously incentivized) implications of a transactional nature. If you don’t want men to feel like they are owed your time, concern, respect or attention then don’t present a transactional pretense to your interactions with them.

  • Don’t send pictures of your penis unless she just asked for them.

Never send a woman dick pics, especially if she asks for them. Never send a woman dick pics, even to your wife. In 2017 this is a red herring for women who are planning to file for sexual harassment.

  • If a woman says no to a date, don’t ask her again.

Agreed. Next her, and move on. That said, no guy asks a girl for a date today. They hook up on Tinder or bump into each other at the club. It’s so quaint Nicole still thinks dating works like it did on Happy Days.

  • If a woman has not given an enthusiastic “yes” to sex, back the hell off.

Guys learn this part real easy, what they don’t learn, and what women deliberately keep ambiguous, is that even after “enthusiastic consent” is officially declared, he can still be charged with rape for touching her boobs (or anything else for that matter) the wrong way. Again, control the narrative, control the definition of the language and control what the consequences are and you can control the frame.

  • If a woman is really drunk, she cannot consent to you and she also cannot consent to your buddy who seems to be trying something. Your buddy is your responsibility, so say something and intervene.

Funny how we never see public service announcements stating that women still need consent from drunk men to have sex; but my buddy is not my responsibility, just like driving a drunk woman too hammered to drive home isn’t my responsibility. Good intentions get you put in jail today. If a woman is really drunk is she now ‘owed’ my assistance?

  • If you do the right thing, don’t expect praise or payment or a pat on the back or even a “thank you from that woman”. Congratulations, you were baseline decent.

Oh, trust me, every Red Pill aware reader I’ve ever had has come to realize that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate anything a man does for her.

  • Involve women in your creative projects, then let them have equal part in them.

Why would a woman deserve being included in any creative project I endeavor in just by virtue of being a woman? Why still would I allow her to have an equal part in a creative project I envisioned? Is it because they are owed that honor for being female?

  • Don’t punish women for witnessing your vulnerability.

But wait, I thought ‘vulnerability was sexy‘? Weakness is strength right?

Okay, sorry, I can’t possibly subject my readers to more of this inane list. You get the picture. My point is that lists like this only serve to highlight the new gender landscape that’s been brewing for years now. We now live in the “future is female” years and this is what we can expect from the Feminine Imperative that’s now comfortable in in asserting its true agenda of disempowering, disenfranchising and eradicating men and masculinity from popular discourse.

414 comments

  1. Blog Status: Just a PSA here, I’ve recently bought a new property that’s really close to the Sierra Nevada foothills here in Reno. I’m presently moving my wife and greyhounds this week, so I’m may fade in and out of the comments. I’ll be back in the saddle by November 4th.

  2. Rollo
    What is it that makes a guy ‘creepy’? Rarely is ‘creepy’ ever concretely defined by women,

    “Creepy” is “beta acting like an alpha”. YaReally’s famous line “Surprise! I have a penis!” would describe behavior that many women would call “creepy”.

    What men would call “creepy” would be the old pervs in raincoats that flash people in the park in ancient cartoons, or sad sack men who try to cop feels in crowds / on mass transit, or desperately thirsty betas who really do try to get girls drunk at parties then offer to take them home. Stuff that isn’t all that common, but does trigger alarm in girls because of loss of control to a non-Alpha.

    So I gues now “Creepy” is just “guy I decided I didn’t like” , just as “rape” now means “any sex I decided I didn’t want, even 20 years after the fact”.

    I know some conservative feminist women who are all up in arms about #metoo, but they have sons. I can lead the conversation with them right from #metoo! straight to “I hope no thot ever says my boy raped her!” in about a minute. Girls don’t really multitask, they hop from track to track.

  3. The whole list is garbage to be honest. It’s one long litany of female entitlement, hatred of men (especially creepy beta men), and the desire to restructure all social interactions around female norms. It’s a lot of nonsense, but, yes, it is also indicative of the direction in which things are heading.

  4. Rollo
    Good advice, don’t touch women you don’t know; you are giving a woman the keys to your castle by doing so. In today’s workplace women are constantly looking for even a hint of impropriety they can take to HR for the next harassment suit. Better still, refuse to work in situation where just the impression of her advancement depends on your hard work and behavior around her.

    VP Pence’s pollicy of never being alone with any woman except his wife got a lot of flak from feminists. But is is just basic self protection. Plenty of men in the real world make sure to never be alone with a woman, including on an elevator, because of the risk of false accusations. Naturally the Female Imperative doesn’t like this because it might limit a woman’s potential time with an Alpha.

    Nicole, the Beta need for physical contact is a desperation born from dealing with women who think he’s creepy.

    This reminds me of something I’ve been meaning to write for months. A while back I mentioned the fighter pilot who was Dynamic, Passionate and Authentic as fighter pilots tend to be, but also so blue pill he was nearly ultraviolet. He married an East Asian, long story short after kids she firvorced him in one of the worst divorces I ever saw where no one wound up in jail or got dead. He was very torn up emotionally, with a short fuse on his temper.

    About a year ago I was at a gathering and he was there, looking better than I’d seen in years. He’s crawling out of the emotional hole, getting red-pilled, and mostly over the anger phase. He’s seeing other women finally, but with some degree of clear sight.

    One of the things he said that helped him out was getting a regular massage. Not the “happy ending Chinese Thai Special”, just a standard deep-tissue theraputic massage. He started doing that as part of a program to lower his blood pressure so that he could keep on flying. But he found out that it calmed him down more than he expected. A lot more. I’m sure he was starved for touch, and getting even basic work done on arms, legs, back, hands, feet, etc. was good for him. He also found out in the process that he was tensing a lot of muscles in his shoulders, chest and even calves. So massage on those areas took away some more of his stress / tension, and gave him feedback to destress himself on a daily basis of the “Don’t sit like that!” kind.

    I would now urge any man being frivorced to set up a monthly, or even weekly, massage with a licensed massage therapist first to reduce stress and second to address “touch starvation”. The same goes for thirsty Betas.

  5. Do you feel that any woman on earth owes you something? She doesn’t. Even if you’re like, “Hm, but what about basic respect?” ask yourself if you’ve shown her the same.

    For sure she doesn’t actually work in any professional environment, and has never supervised anyone. When I put on a supervisor hat, a certain degree of respect and obedience is due because of that hat; it’s for the “office”, not for me.

    That said, the underlying contempt for men that this girl displays is not very well concealed. She wants men to earn her respect, but to give respect freely to her. The same old double standard that feminists have been peddling for over a generation.

  6. Look forward to your return Rollo,

    Kinda O/T but kinda not, all day long I’ve been besieged by Rose McGowan all over the airwaves ( radio, tv and satellite. good thing I had hundreds of channels to evade ) yapping up a storm bout how she was ” abused ” and tried to warn everybody, but wound up being black-balled ( he he heee ) and cast out and ignored and slut shamed.

    …. Slut Shamed… Rose… McGowan… BINGO!!! Now I remember her, but my immediate memories go directly to this –

    Hmmmm…. haven’t thought of her in ages, and the ages gave her a beat down

    The thing about the Weinstein fiasco is just like Rollo speaks of. Now this particular act performed by one particular guy will force all men to stand tall before the FI for immediate judgment and estrogen shots where applicable. Today I listened as the media machine shifted into 4th, then 5th, then 6th gear in rapid succession as every woman imaginable wanted to #MeToo their way into 15 minutes of infamy. Dozens of actresses, waitresses, bar maids, strippers, housewives and even a congresswoman all weighed in that they to had been harassed and assaulted and made uncomfortable ( ” uncomfortable “… I shit you not ) by men on various occasions.

    I’m driving along listening and I’m thinking ” well, yeah, men hit on you or asked you out or touched you ( a felony when a beta does it ) or commented on your nipples, because they could SEE your nipples.

    This is not the same thing as Weinstein, but damnit, the FI is looking hard to include everything, especially feelings into the ” man problem ” mix.

    …. uncomfortable. Jesus.

    Uncomfortable might eventually get you 5 to 10.

    Fucking Rose McGowan. Seriously?

    When I was looking for that Rose McGowan pic, I googled ” Rose McGowan sheer dress ” and was confronted by dozens of pictures of ” starlets and performers ” that were basically nude, save for some see through material draped over them. Posing for photogs and the paparazzi. Dozens. Even a couple of Weinstein accusers are in the mix.

    And it goes to illustrate just how sick this all is becoming, where a very large group of people can bend and twist situations to meet their own dumb ass agenda.

    Harrassed: Speaking to a woman. Batteries and Men not included. Unless virulent support of the FI is apparent.

    Weinstein aside, the FI backs you down, further and further until you will avert your eyes and dare not speak. Your livelihood and freedom are the price for non compliance. Eventually women will shuck clothing all together and lay in the streets naked and spread eagle, waiting for the verbal assaults.

    What a great time to have red pill knowledge.

    *** Discaimer***

    The opinions expressed are solely those of the commenter and do not reflect upon The Rational Male.

  7. Blaximus
    the FI backs you down, further and further until you will avert your eyes and dare not speak.

    Compliance with the FI proves Beta status – part of the 80% unattractive, soon to be the 90%.
    Refusing to comply, or shrugging and slyly noncomplying makes a man something else, the desired and sought after 20% soon to be 10%.

    Of course, a lot of this MeTooing is just the girl herd following the lead mares, because victimhood gets Pokemon points within the girl herd. I expect it will fade slowly, because there’s only so many men to humiliate and try to extract cash from.

    Bonus points for the picks of poor, slut-shamed Rosie. She’s not my type, but still…

  8. Tongue-in-cheek or: let’s get serious in a male space in light of recent twitter, regular news and social environment. The air is thick with masculinity is toxic. I think the tongue in cheek proceeds from male masculine defensiveness and stand-off-ishness. It stems from don’t suffer fools gladly. It stems from Judmentalism. Good on you Rollo. Excellent throw away post. Really good. Thanks for being a beacon on that article of Female lack of introspection.

    Thanks the gods I’ve always been non needy and non-creepy in my professional life of employing 7-9 women (without men around in the office) and as part of my everyday life inspecting girls without their clothes off all day long. For the last 25 years. I never fail to professionally have my medical assistants lead in a chaperoning role. The thought of of being creepy never even occurred to me. I have no need to take advantage of being a creepy guy.

    Besides only 5% of those stripped down girls are worth looking at.

    And I’m so unique (so as to be weird) in the fact that I have no need to be touched by anyone other than my wife. To seek a massage would be the last thing on earth that I would ever want. I’d pay extra not to get a massage. But I think that is me just being non-needy in an INTJ way. I’m self sufficient. And I rarely get muscle tense or have bodily aches or strains. I just don’t have bodily needs to get a massage at all.

  9. Blax

    Just whores being whores, past the sell by date. You can rest easy, the young whores are doing it proppa…

    For now… Time and tide wait for no man… errrr… sorry.

    Look, if women didn’t spoil with age, non of this would be a problem. Imagine how horrible it would be to have your worth (80%++) determined by your genetics… and know that that is perishing by the minute. could make one crazy (er)…

  10. I know no one else will believe this outside of this forum but isn’t it blindingly obvious that the Weinstein’s and Tobacks and Halperins and O’Reillys and other gross growers of the #metoo world are showing how super Gamma they are? Super Beta instead of Super Bad? That no Alpha would act like them? About as Red Pill as a pussy hat? That obviously their money did not confer Alpha status upon them, despite the myth far too many still believe that big bucks equals Alpha Dawg?

    Mike Pence is a tight assed virtue signaler, worse than any SJW. The rule he claims for himself is, as we know, the Billy Graham Rule. And Billy Graham had a goddamn good reason to impose it on himself given his calling. As a charismatic preacher he would be constantly approached by girl groupies who might or might not succeed in seducing him, or accusing him to bring him down. He’d seen other preachers fall, even in his later years. Jimmy Swaggart anyone? And he knew in his own heart he could succumb to such temptation, so he took care to put it out of reach. Of course the rule makes even more sense now in one’s professional life, since any man talking to any woman behind a closed door is grounds for HR to step in.

    The really sad outcome of all this is that the most obvious toxic manhood targets will be shy Betas trying to learn how to approach and open sets with women, at which of course they will fail at the outset as all beginners would. But now a college boy’s blown approach is to be criminalized. What in the past might result in a girl’s flat turndown or LJBF which our Beta boy might learn from, now is a potential felony assault, firing offense, or expulsion. Even if the approached woman is only mildly annoyed but not offended, a third party could stir up for her in the guise of white knighting or “speaking up”. Hence the death of dating, etc.

    I like the pilot’s deep massage idea. An arrow to put in the quiver for use when needed.

  11. “What a great time to have red pill knowledge.”

    Amen brother. Best statement ever.

    Speaking of massage, I was out to lunch with my wife today and she “opened up” about this chick crack thing called Reki massage that she went for the other day. Which I gather is not really massage at all. It is like:

    Both Reiki and massage are systems of natural healing that focus on body energy, and today Reiki massage is a common and effective treatment.

    If you’ve ever had a great massage, you understand how you can feel both relaxed and invigorated at the same time. This seeming dichotomy of emotions allows you this feeling of well being because a massage loosens muscles, increases oxygen and blood flow throughout the body, and encourages the free flow of the body’s own energies, or “Chi.”

    https://www.naturalhealers.com/massage-therapy/reiki/

    Anyway, it opened her energies up big time and she spoke of it. At lunch today. She really saw some things and felt some things. She’s got a lot of energy, but is saddled by tons of physical ailments. The Reki was total Chick Crack and un-bottled that shit. She has great spirit. It’s just all bottled up and corked. The Reki session really did a number on her and she spoke of it.

    During the discussion it gave me a turn to riff on Transurfing Reality without talking about fight club. It also allowed me to riff on un-bundling the non toxic masculinity of my son with her. You Know: young sons act with their heart when they are seven years old, start to become socialized by the Feminine Imperative and schooling and team sports when they are 14 years old and then need to act in compliance with their heart and their mind as they become adults and “be themselves “with their heart aligned and not cock-blocked by their socialized mind” when they are 22 y.o.

    I spoke of: Guys have to turn their inner desire and inner intention to outer intention and outward Action on the way to become actualized. To turn that into choosing alternatives in life that present themselves to the man. Lots of choices present themselves to you and men just might want to choose the best choices (alternatives) that present themselves to them in real time.

    The Reki was good shit for my wife. My wife saw in real time where she was cock-blocked in real life. Not letting her heart be more open. (The Reki Specialist identified this Block, vs. a couple other things that opened up. The Heart didn’t.) Heheh. Great Time to Be Red Pilled. Every thing else detected in the session was released from constraint. Except her heart. (An no doubt that reflects on me: Greater Beta Lesser Alpha.) It’s a tell. And I take it as such. Something I can work with.

    Excuse me while I go try to physically and mentally massage her.

  12. Lol. I like naked chicks. Quite a bit.

    I’ve mentioned here before that I might wind up in ” sexual harassment accusation ” hell eventually. I forget that I can’t say shit .

    I dunno, I’ve never considered myself the brightest bulb in the fixture, but I just cannot censor myself 24/7 in every situation where a female is involved.

    Ok, quick story ( that I think I already shared here before, but I’m pleading ” old man forgetfulness “)-

    Long ago I worked for a pharm company’s IT ( it was just becoming ” IT ” from computer/data processing “) I was in a contractor capacity and had a staff of 12 people that I was directly responsible for. 2 of them were women. Just my luck, 1 had a set of double D’s that she couldn’t manage to camouflage no matter how she tried. The other was a young, street smart latina that was pretty much a smoke show of Cuban and Argentinian extraction. She was hot gentlemen.

    At the time I was a smoker, and so was the smokeshow, so we’d go out for smokes together and have insanely sexual conversations. When she was in the same room with me, she always had at least 1 hand on me somewhere. One of my coworkers saw this and it seemed to drive him to distraction.

    I had attended the company mandatory Sexual Harassment Classes, and it was made very clear to me that I had to take every complaint 100% seriously and immediately escalate to HR. I also was responsible for handing out printed info and going over it with my staff and getting them to sign and acknowledgement.

    The distracted coworker, sensing the handsy vibe between me and the latina, decided he wanted to get in on the touchy feely. He was incapable of sensing that she didn’t like it, so he graduated to attempting to massage her shoulders one night. I cautioned him to cut it out before some awful shit happened to him, but I think he thought I was protecting my turf or something.

    One night, the smokeshow asked to speak to me in private. I took her into an office and she started ” X ” keeps touching me and…” and I cut her off and told her that ANYTHING she told me in that regard could not stay just between ” us “. She asked me to speak to ” X ” because she only wanted him to keep his hands off of her, and I agreed.

    So I pulled ” X ” aside and told him of all of the horrible things that would befall him if he didn’t lay off. He was upset and angry, but he complied. Until….

    The coworker with the large mamaries was questioned by ” X ” about her cup size. Repeatedly. And when he wasn’t verbalizing, he just stared. Again, I was asked to be spoken to in private, and again I stopped the conversation before any accusations spilled forth, and again, I spoke to ” X ” but this time I included his boss in on our conversation. Neither his boss nor I wanted to actually do anything to him as far as work was concerned, but let’s just say we put the fear of God in him to save him. ” X ” wasn’t a bad guy. He’d give you the shirt off of his back. But he was super horny and terribly awkward and kind of desperate. He was mad. He told me ” I saw you pulling her around the smoking area by her hair and putting her in head-locks, and I just touch her lightly and I’m the bad guy???”.

    All I could offer him was the lame ” It’s up to her ” excuse. Lame.

    A big part of my ” creepy ” theory is, trying to be a little intimate with a strange woman can creep them out. We might think that they love it because it’s soft and loving or whatever, but it’s a losing proposition. Calibration.

    And that’s what most sexual harassment ethos completely lack – calibration.

  13. Oh, prologue

    After my divorce, I tracked down my smoking buddy and banged the absolute shit out of her.

    The End.

  14. For 10 years I was in a very alpha media position. As a nice guy beta I was shocked at the hate I was getting in our workplace, particularly from the women in our sales department. They were calling me creep to my face. I never was called a creep before or after. The more popular I became the more intense their animosity towards me. It was all worth it though! So yes absolutely “creep” to a woman is a beta in a alpha position.

  15. I know no one else will believe this outside of this forum but isn’t it blindingly obvious that the Weinstein’s and Tobacks and Halperins and O’Reillys and other gross growers of the #metoo world are showing how super Gamma they are?

    Yeah, exactly, we talked about that last thread. Not. Alpha. At. All.

  16. Look forward to that suggested article on creepiness Rollo as it is a subject that interests me greatly.

    Even my girlfriend who is very much one of the women you describe as “not caring of the lyrics” can identify malevolent creeps and nice guys who creep women out (unless she’s simply playing to her audience).

    There’s a truism in soccer that the worst thing you can do when facing seemingly superior opposition is treat them with “too much respect”. This sums up a women’s attitude to creepiness for me.

  17. I feel better now. Dopamine rewarded with Pussy.

    Did the mental and the physical in front of the TV screen with Stranger Things playing in the background.

    Good Night Moon. I’m working my one Saturday a month tomorrow morning.

    Riff on.

  18. “Don’t punish women for witnessing your vulnerability.”

    Don’t retaliate against a woman(with the many different ways available) for attempting to make an example of you at work for rejecting the untenable prospect of communicating with her.

    FIFY.

  19. Blaximus

    “A big part of my ” creepy ” theory is, trying to be a little intimate with a strange woman can creep them out. We might think that they love it because it’s soft and loving or whatever, but it’s a losing proposition. Calibration.

    And that’s what most sexual harassment ethos completely lack – calibration.”

    SJF
    “And I’m so unique (so as to be weird) in the fact that I have no need to be touched by anyone other than my wife. To seek a massage would be the last thing on earth that I would ever want. I’d pay extra not to get a massage. But I think that is me just being non-needy in an INTJ way. I’m self sufficient. And I rarely get muscle tense or have bodily aches or strains. I just don’t have bodily needs to get a massage at all.”
    As long as your being touched by your wife in any way you choose.

    Anonymous Reader
    “One of the things he said that helped him out was getting a regular massage. Not the “happy ending Chinese Thai Special”, just a standard deep-tissue theraputic massage. He started doing that as part of a program to lower his blood pressure so that he could keep on flying. But he found out that it calmed him down more than he expected. A lot more. I’m sure he was starved for touch, and getting even basic work done on arms, legs, back, hands, feet, etc. was good for him. He also found out in the process that he was tensing a lot of muscles in his shoulders, chest and even calves. So massage on those areas took away some more of his stress / tension, and gave him feedback to destress himself on a daily basis of the “Don’t sit like that!” kind.

    I would now urge any man being frivorced to set up a monthly, or even weekly, massage with a licensed massage therapist first to reduce stress and second to address “touch starvation”. The same goes for thirsty Betas.”
    Touch and trauma go hand in hand… It is incredibly healing.

  20. Fred Flange, live
    Mike Pence is a tight assed virtue signaler, worse than any SJW. The rule he claims for himself is, as we know, the Billy Graham Rule.

    Yeah, ok, so? Can’t see where you have a point.

    The really sad outcome of all this is that the most obvious toxic manhood targets will be shy Betas trying to learn how to approach and open sets with women, at which of course they will fail at the outset as all beginners would. But now a college boy’s blown approach is to be criminalized.

    Yup. Women don’t get cause and effect very well. There was a case a couple of years back where some Colorado feminist who worked to pass a new raaaape law had second thoughts after her own son got slammed with it. Women want the completed man, they have no idea what it takes to create one.

    But of course, this will all have the effect of screening out the 90%.

  21. These new rules are enforced selectively and guys who lack game and social calibration are prime targets.

    Weinstein is a prime example of a beta creep: overly aggressive at the wrong moments, the everyone knew shows he lacked discretion and used his money as social proof rather than having a solid frame and inner game.

    One other lesson from all of this: white knights who call you out also serve the feminist imperative.

    Example: I told a “friend” to fuck off for undermining me and chasing a girl I was fucking.

    He apparently went around to girls in my social circle complaining about it.

    Fortunately the women saw my smv as higher and called him out as a whiner. But it’s nkt always like that. Gaslighting is now common. It’s where your enemies gang up on you for some perceive slight and make it seem like you’re the one who was in the wrong. ….until they do the exact same thing.

  22. The point is Pence doesn’t get credit for the Billy Graham Rule. Some other guy whose name it bears does. That Graham had to invent it for himself shows self awareness, since he was far more likely to be endangered if he didn’t have it. For which he deserves much respect.

  23. Haven’t heard talked about during the me too thing is how the Weinstein thing finally came public. All the now called brave actresses who kept quiet, not only the ones actually harassed, but the ones who weren’t but still didn’t say anything who are no different than Tarentino who’s being criticized for not saying anything, didn’t break it but it was a no name actress who went to the police that caused it to break.
    The ones who have the best platform to bring it all out didn’t do anything. Rose McGowan, trying to be the poster child for it, her biggest claim to stopping it is going to Amazon. You get raped or assaulted, you going to the police or you going to Amazon? But an unknown actress who I actually thought upon hearing that sound bite, was a prostitute he was trying to get up to his hotel room, is the one who went to the police. And this is after one incident as far as I know.
    But all the famous ones keep things quiet for 20 years and now they’re supposed to be heroes.

  24. Old IPod songlist in play at bedtime:

    Katy tried
    I was halfway crucified
    I was on the other side
    Of no tomorrow
    You walked in
    And my life began again
    Just when I’d spent the last piaster
    I could borrow
    All night long
    We would sing that stupid song
    And every word we sang
    I knew was true
    Are you with me Doctor Wu
    Are you really just a shadow
    Of the man that I once knew
    Are you crazy are you high
    Or just an ordinary guy
    Have you done all you can do
    Are you with me Doctor

    Don’t seem right
    I’ve been strung out here all night
    I’ve been waiting for the taste
    You said you’d bring to me
    Biscayne Bay
    Where the Cuban gentlemen sleep all day
    I went searching for the song
    You used to sing to me
    Katy lies
    You could see it in her eyes
    But imagine my surprise
    When I saw you

    Are you with me Doctor Wu
    Are you really just a shadow
    Of the man that I once knew
    She is lovely yes she’s sly
    And you’re an ordinary guy
    Has she finally got to you
    Can you hear me Doctor

    From Songfacts:

    This song seems to be about a betrayed loser lover talking to his eccentric shrink, who perhaps has stolen the guy’s girl. It features the signature Steely Dan irony: “All night long, we would sing that stupid song, and every word we sang I knew was true.”

    As to the identity of Dr. Wu, Steely Dan claims he’s a fictional character, with Donald Fagen explaining, “We change the names to protect the innocent.”
    Becker told Rolling Stone during their 2009 tour: “It’s about that uneasy relationship between the patient and doctor. People put faith in doctors, yet they abuse their power and become dangerous.”

    This title of the album comes from a line in this song: “Katy lies, you could see it in her eyes.”
    If you read a drug connection into this song, you’re on the right track. Donald Fagen describes it as “kind of a love-dope triangle,” adding, “I think usually when we do songs of a romantic nature, one or more of the participants in the alliance will come under the influence of someone else or some other way of life, and that will usually end up in either some sort of compromise or a split. In this song the girl meets somebody who leads another kind of life, and she’s attracted to it. Then she comes under the domination of someone else, and that results in the ending of the relationship or some amending of the relationship. In ‘Dr. Wu’ that someone else is a dope habit. personified as Doctor Wu.”

    We all know what’s going on here: Feminine Imperative Wise.

  25. True it’s the Graham Rule and not the Pence Rule, but either way, it’s the right rule in *most* circumstances.

    I had an “off-campus” work social event this afternoon with my group, all women by the way other than me (God I love corporate America!), and was walking out of the garage near where we were going the prettiest woman in our group was there pretty much the same time. We shared an elevator together and talked and walked to the event place together … we were alone in an elevator (scary!, per the rule, but fine if you maintain frame) and on the street and so on and lightning didn’t strike or anything, she liked me telling her which direction we needed to go, followed my lead, and on from there. Was pleasant until the rest of the group arrived, when it morphed into the corporate group event, which was fine, just recalibrated the game parameters and on you go.

    But in *general* in the office itself, I do not hold closed door meetings with women — that’s asking for trouble.

  26. Fred Flange up all night
    The point is Pence doesn’t get credit for the Billy Graham Rule.

    Ok. So is the rule a useful idea for a beta man or not?

    Some other guy whose name it bears does.

    Notice that I didn’t refer to it as “The Pence Rule”. I stated “Pence has a rule”.
    Is it a useful rule for him or not?

    That Graham had to invent it for himself shows self awareness,

    Graham named it for himself. I doubt he invented it.
    Is it useful for a beta man or not?

    since he was far more likely to be endangered if he didn’t have it. For which he deserves much respect.

    Why such a big deal?

  27. Water Cannon Boy
    Haven’t heard talked about during the me too thing is how the Weinstein thing finally came public.

    Ashley Judd as far as I can tell. Has been decides to have a twitter fit.

    Frankly, I find the whole Weinstein thing odd, because he could have been thrown to the hyenas any time in the last few years, or this could all have been papered over with some Miramax money. Can’t help wondering who decided he was not only expendable, but should be expended. Maybe there is something more unpleasant that is being kept quiet in part by throwing Weinstein out to the dogs and bitches? Like that documentary Cory Feldman says he’s going to make?

  28. Don’t touch women you don’t know, and honestly, ask yourself why you feel the need to touch women in general.

    I presume this only applies to the work place. In bars and dance studios, women frequently kino men they just met. Happened to me last night when a woman I just met and danced with made knee and hip and shoulder contact with me when we were listening to the instructor.

    I’ve written at length about a woman who did a hit and run grabass on me. If a man did that to a woman, would Nicole feel outrage?

    Why does Nicole feel allergic to the touch of men?

  29. Why does Nicole feel allergic to the touch of men?

    I had the same response as you did to that part. I don’t think she’s just talking about the workplace. She seems to think that men’s desire for women is somehow itself toxic. This is brainwashing to the nth degree … that, or she is lesbian … there are quite a few lesbians who have been prominent in feminist discourse, and when they write, they come up with things like this that almost no actually non-writer, non-activist real world women would ever come up with.

  30. @Novaseeker

    “I don’t think she’s just talking about the workplace. She seems to think that men’s desire for women is somehow itself toxic. This is brainwashing to the nth degree … that, or she is lesbian … there are quite a few lesbians who have been prominent in feminist discourse, and when they write, they come up with things like this that almost no actually non-writer, non-activist real world women would ever come up with.”

    You know, when I read that I think that even the non-feminist activists can even let that toxicity speak get into their rhetoric. I listen to Dr. Laura Schlessinger on XM radio. She’s and ardent anti-feminist, (and a Masculine/Feminine polarity advocate–non Equalist) but she still speaks in terms of the Sisterhood Uber Alles and advocates for female sexual strategy. Because she is a strong-willed Sister. In order for one’s (Masculine) strategy to be effective, the other’s (Feminine) must be compromised.

    So Power is Power and even when the woman speaker is not malevolent, the sub-communication still will prevail, that there is a war of the sexes going on here. It used to be Religion and Society defined old traditional roles but those days are water under the bridge. So be it. We got work to do to adapt to the New World Disorder.

    Even though They ( The Feminist Warriors) are trying to use a Top Down approach to employing the sisterhood, we still have a Bottoms Up approach in our dealings with women. Now mind you, I don’t think masculine/feminine relationships need to be adversarial at all. It’s just that they frequently are. My definition of a “healthy” relationship with a women is when it is non-adversarial and in each other best interest. And guess what? That takes compromise (at least for a LTR. STRs?, perhaps may the best sex win. Heh). Something both “sides” sometimes are militantly against, like the points in the Original Post.

    Reminds me of an adaptation: The Beige Phillip Show, which was condensed into some Red Pill Priciples over at Illimitable Men–

    https://illimitablemen.com/understanding-the-red-pill/game/

    The Principles (your holy scripture!)

    #01 – We are at war.
    Nothing you want to do gets in the way of your relationship, it is innately part of who you are and why the bitch fell in love with you in the first place. We are at war. You’re in situations when you think you’re in a relationship but you’re not in a relationship, you’re in battle. If you give in you’ll never get what you lost back, it’s very hard to get what you’ve lost back if you’re not a “master pimp.”

    #02 – All bitches are crazy.
    Stop trying to make sense out of nonsense, they’re out of their fucking mind. You’re trying to use logic to figure out what they’re thinking, but this is guerilla warfare – stop with the logic.

    #04 – Women fall for who you are but they try to make you something that you’re not.
    A woman falls in love with you for everything that you are. She spends the rest of the relationship trying to change you into everything that you’re not, and when she succeeds she will dump you for the guy who is what you were when she met you. You’ll get left for the guy you used to be even though she’s trying to change you. That’s why you have to set up fake rules for them to break, then they feel good without really breaking your integrity or who you are. When a woman falls in love with you and she’s attracted to you there are things she’s attracted by, don’t change those things, she’s going to ask you to change things that she finds innately attractive. This sounds fucked up because it’s an act of self-sabotage (of the relationship) but the thing is she knows other women find these things about you attractive so she tries to get rid of it so that other women don’t come at you.

    #05 – Whatever’s broke, fix it.
    Always be self-improving and upgrading wherever you can. EG: Your salary, car, personality, game, skillset (languages, martial arts, instruments), your physique (gym etc)

    #06 – Trust your gut.
    If your balls are tingling a bitch is probably gonna kick you in the balls. Don’t ignore your better instincts for a whiff of the pussy. If a bitch gives you alarm, stop the interaction, don’t argue, just leave. Guys ignore their gut because they’re in love or in lust. Compromise when you’re comfortable, do not compromise when you’re uncomfortable as when it gets thrown in your face, because you bent over too far backwards, you’re not just going to be angry at her but at yourself too because you compromised yourself.

    #07 – If anything goes wrong it’s always your fault (because she’s a reflection of you.)
    Anything that happens in a relationship that goes bad with your woman, if your woman’s a bitch, if she’s disrespectful, if she cheats on you, if she leaves you, if she takes your money – it’s your fault. The way she treats you is down to the presentation you give her. There’s no such thing as victims, just volunteers.

    #08 – Don’t assume shit.
    Common sense ain’t common, if it was common everybody would know. You can’t assume people understand things, you need to be a guy who can explain things straight so that she understands her options. Get good at giving ultimatums and laying out your boundaries by communicating them adequately, even though she may expect you to be a mind reader, you don’t have that same luxury so get good at laying it down…….

  31. @KFG

    Sour grapes, more likely raisins. How hard did you have to dig to find even one pic?

    Parts her hair on left,caught a right cross,80/40 vision and a couple of ripe ones on her chin.

    Eyes show signs of a hamster wheel about to fly of the axle.

  32. “How hard did you have to dig to find even one pic?”

    She’s a professional “media” person. Headshots are mandatory. The one I posted was neither the best, nor worst I could find:

    That last one is the one she chooses as her current Twitter headshot.

  33. @antimousse redrum:

    Not sure what we’re arguing about. Pence is a showboat about using the Graham Rule and so now it’s a running gag about him. That’s my point. Feminists laugh at him, that lets them discount the rule as a desperate gambit by a moralist tightass who thinks bitches be out to get him. Makes it look silly when we know the threat is very very real.

    I give Graham credit for discerning it 40 years before congressmen, employee liability insurers and corporate HR departments caught up to him and decided yes this is good (if regrettable) policy. Regrettable only because of how poisonous things have gotten.

    So of course it’s good policy for Betas. And as often as not it’s in writing in employer manuals. We have to do it where I work otherwise our insurance coverage is jeopardized if it’s shown that we don’t. Don’t know anyone who says it isn’t right and proper. Except maybe the Gal Power gals crying that they can’t get ahead in their careers because men refuse to mentor them one on one privately like chellovecks will still do for their droogs.

    Ain’t that a shame, as one famous New Orleans singer put it.

    A/K/A Tough titty, cupcake.

    Speaking of the death of dating, here is the brave new world of ultra intrusive dating apps, straight out of The Circle:

    https://apple.news/AFqD4U7yMQl-IJdmSh2cjqg

  34. “potential sexual harasser”

    Let’s be honest here and accept the we as men are potential rapers…it a simple biological fact and historical too. Guess what is the favourite sub-activity of men in every war: RAPE!
    This is not an excuse to hate men or call them all evil …it’s similar to hating all women because of the biological source of hypergamy.

    Most men want to fuck the shit out of 80% of women around him. As a man I feel this urge to fuck all this women I see in my daily life…can’t help it. I don’t harass/violate them because I have moral principles which hold me back. Other men I guess have no such moral inhibitions they just don’t do it because they are afraid of the law/social outcry but mostly because they don’t have the power/status to facilitate this possibility. My guess is that the harassment comes from the efforts of betas who use their power/status for access to pussy.

    Also why these women kept this fact silent for 20 years or so? These powerful men could have done the same to scores of other women in all those years she remained silent. They didn’t care about other women these powerful men could have done the same in all those years she remained silent? Why it took so long and report it after building your career? I guess Hypergamy doesn’t care….

  35. Is this not at least partial advocacy for MGTOW? Only 10 to 20% of men are even in the game. Maybe another 30% have a shot at being in the game. The lowest 50% have no other realistic choice other than MGTOW. It should be every mans default position until they start getting solid IOIs. Unless we wait for some final solution regarding toxic masculinity on behalf of the FI, the only way masculinity regains any respect in the public eye is for as many men as possible to willingly take themselves off line. That or some form of collapse of western civilization.

  36. “That last one is the one she chooses as her current Twitter headshot.”

    Looks like a coffee advertisement.

    I must be old school,as I would expect a woman to hide those photos.

    “Don’t make assumptions about a woman’s intelligence, capabilities or desires based on how she dresses.” I won’t assume she is more intelligent for not caring about how she looks.

  37. Nicole has a passing resemblance to Shulamith Firestone. Authoress of “The Dialectic of Sex”, a book that reads just as you’d expect.

  38. Don’t send pictures of your penis unless she just asked for them.

    What theguardian writer fails to see here is that asking another person to send you pics of their genitals constitutes its own sexual harassment. …But I don’t think she’s capable of seeing her own sexism. In her mind, accommodating the other sex and controlling one’s sexuality is only something that men should be doing.

  39. Fred Flange on the radio
    Not sure what we’re arguing about. Pence is a showboat about using the Graham Rule and so now it’s a running gag about him. That’s my point.

    Ok. Frankly I have not paid attention to Pence, and so his use of this rule only came to my attention when the usual FI suspects started tittering and hah-ha-hahing about it.

    Feminists laugh at him, that lets them discount the rule as a desperate gambit by a moralist tightass who thinks bitches be out to get him.

    I’m pretty sure feminists had almost the same reaction to Graham back in the 70’s, and for the same back-of-the-head reasons: public shaming / shit testing. When he got old they didn’t care.

    Pence is rather a Beta by many SMV standards, so of course feminists will scorn him and make him into a joke. Surely you don’t find this a surprise? If it wasn’t that rule they’d attack him something else. It’s mandatory for feminists to attack the Trump administration because Teh Patriarchail Repression and BadFeelze and so forth. Oh, and he’s Hitler. So I guess that makes Pence Mussolini or something.

    Say, you aren’t actually taking feminist “arguments” seriously, are you? Hope not.

    Makes it look silly when we know the threat is very very real.

    And that’s Pence’s fault? Or could it be the FI pressing instead? Which do you find more likely?

    I give Graham credit for discerning it 40 years before congressmen, employee liability insurers and corporate HR departments caught up to him and decided yes this is good (if regrettable) policy. Regrettable only because of how poisonous things have gotten.

    Except that there were congressmen, executives and others who figured out that rule back after WWII. They just didn’t make a public deal out of it, the way Graham did. Of course, those men weren’t speaking to assemblies of thousands, either. But he didn’t invent it, I have first person stories from men who followed that rule before Graham was a celebrity.

    On the other hand, I doubt that Dennis Hastert ever paid much attention to that rule, so maybe Congresscritters don’t need the Graham rule per se. Some other version that keeps them away from boys and young men, especially Congressional pages might be better.

    BTW, the Graham rule has come under fire in the church world. Churchgoing friends of mine have forwarded links from the church-sphere that are interesting: some men in parachurch orgs follow the rule carefully, and women they work with get mad about that. They take it personally, and write blog postings about what good Christian girls they are who would never ever tempt a man and blah, blah, moo, whinny, blah I’m special and not like those secular sluts so why won’t Pastor Famous ride in my car across campus or to the nex town, huh? Huh? [stamp foot]

    Feminists don’t like the Graham rule because they want fried ice. The right to eject a Beta (by force if needed), and access to an Alpha. Beta men need to get over caring about female temper tantrums.

    Except maybe the Gal Power gals crying that they can’t get ahead in their careers because men refuse to mentor them one on one privately like chellovecks will still do for their droogs.

    I’ll let you in on a big secret no one else knows: women aren’t very good at cause and effect, plus each and every one of them is always THE exception to any rule. Just like teenagers…

  40. “Don’t read a list like this and think that most of these don’t apply to you.”

    She is obviously in touch with men that normally subscribe to the guardian. As these would be the ones that this advise would apply to. Doesn’t make it good advice,only well targeted.

  41. @antimouse redditor:

    “Feminists don’t like the Graham rule because they want fried ice. The right to eject a Beta (by force if needed), and access to an Alpha. Beta men need to get over caring about female temper tantrums.”

    This be the shit right here. Yes, to this degree I take feminist arguments seriously. Beta men should hear, and disobey.

    Interesting how some churchians are the ones pushing back against the rule. I did not know that, but ok, they like fried ice too as a garnish for that Sunday-go-to-meetin’-bun.

    Assuming Mz. Nichole’s personality matches her countenance, I sense she is really a movie buff, since she is really good at Projection. As in, none of the shit she writes about ever happened to her, but if it did, by golly, she’d have sumpthin to say…

  42. “Learn to read a fucking room.”

    Good advice,I will add that if your read tells you your the most intelligent person in the room it is time to find a new room. Cancel your subscription to the Guardian now.

  43. ” . . . he didn’t invent it, I have first person stories from men who followed that rule before Graham was a celebrity.”

    Before the world wars, that was the way general society was structured, only it cut both ways. A woman who allowed herself to be alone in a room with a man would likely face accusations of impropriety as well, just on the fact of it.

    Now see the whole NeoGAF flameout:

    A woman who ostensibly had a boyfriend went on a road trip with another man, sharing a hotel room. Years later she accuses him of sexual harassment for getting in the shower with her, which she did not report, because she was afraid her boyfriend would accuse her of leading him on.

    The plot, of course, gets much thicker as the story develops.

  44. “Weinstein is a prime example of a beta creep”

    very powerful film exec fucks hot actress in hotel (she later claims full on rape). he sends her script for musical film.

    she goes to fucking audition where he (her alleged rapist) is present. she agrees to meet him (alleged rapist) in a hotel room again.

    she is escorted up to room, enters, finds her alleged rapist in room getting blowjob from some hottie

    this guy bought a best picture oscar. he presumes not just the sale, but threesomes where the women are total strangers.

    has any of these women claimed that this guy did anything remotely “beta romantic”? he never changed his approach. he never did anything special for anyone. he didn’t ever want contact after. no cuddling. no pillow talk. no fucking “how r u” texts. no fucking mcmuffins afterwards.

    beta? really? how many fucking articles did variety and the reporter do about this guy over the years. EVERYONE knows who he is. and just because all the hicks in the midwest didn’t know miramax from UA, the people on the coasts knew who the fuck he was for the last 30 years.

    or think about it this way: no one here makes the front page of every paper when they are accused of sexual harassment. so who is the fucking beta?

    has the secret service every cleared your home? just think about that for a minute.

    “Haven’t heard talked about during the me too thing is how the Weinstein thing finally came public.”

    does anyone really think he just bundles money for hilary? that his duties end with hosting 20 grand a plate dinners?

    long standing rumors of hollyweird being used as a prime money laundering scheme. lots of “investors” from lots of places. lots of money to be “lost”. complicated financing and payment deals. what exactly constitutes “profit”?. all this bullshit.

    hilary won’t go away. she was supposed to go quietly into the night and be a grandma. but she can’t.

    she wrote that stupid book no one bought. she goes on tv. she wants another crack in 20. she knows where so fucking many bodies are buried that they can’t fuck with her, but they can’t have her fucking up the progressive agenda going forward, so….

    they took out her money man using the oldest trick in the book. then they fired up a bunch of investigations into her shit all at the same time.

    weinstein thing went public to hamstring the bitch’s checkbook so she is forced to go away

  45. fleezer
    weinstein thing went public to hamstring the bitch’s checkbook so she is forced to go away

    That’s one theory. There are others. Ask Cory.

  46. By the way,

    Biggest Democratic Donors in 2016

    •S. Donald Sussman. $36.8 million.
    •Fred Eychaner. $33.1 million.
    •Robert Mercer. $21.2 million.
    •Michael Bloomberg. $20.1 million.
    •Paul Singer. $19.8 million.
    •Marilyn & James Simons. $18.5 million.
    •George Soros. $17.5 million.
    •Dustin Moskovitz & Cari Tuna. $17.3 million.

    And…

    http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-biggest-donors-in-the-2016-elections-2016-10

    Dem, repub, lol, they are all bought and paid for. There is no money ” man “.

  47. “Marta is cold but funny.”

    Ironic because I thought she was being completely serious (and she was cold because of being pissed at Silverbergs feminist ideology). And Nicole Silverberg fancies herself as a satiric, comedic writer. Whereas she may be merely just a funny-looking feminist.

    http://www.nicolesilverberg.com/about/

  48. @sjf

    “This laundry list of femderpaherpery has me wondering if this woman will a) ever date an actual male – you know, one that actually owns a functioning set of testicles – let alone get married to one and b) ever own enough cats to fill that empty space on her bed, because no guy in his right mind will occupy that space for any length of time.

    Don’t want men to make assumptions about your intelligence or capabilities? Then perhaps those twelve piercings in your nose, your bright blue asymmetric haircut shaved on one side, and a skirt so short, your cheeks are prominently hanging out at the office weren’t such a bright idea.”

    Now thats funny I don’t care who you are.

  49. That is laugh out loud funny. I should lighten up a bit in my Red Pill Studies. (….which are going great for me, by the way)

  50. We now live in the “future is female” years and this is what we can expect from the Feminine Imperative that’s now comfortable in in asserting its true agenda of disempowering, disenfranchising and eradicating men and masculinity from popular discourse.

    Let’s you and me dis-empower those guys that don’t appreciate my funny looking self and funny Guardian articles. (The original article by Nicole Silverberg was born out of her comedic satirical writings. She forgot to make it a comedy (funny). She ended up writing a non-satirical straw man piece. A pure click-bait piece with no humor. Feminist pablum–bland or insipid intellectual fare, entertainment, etc.; –something lacking solid value or substance.) Nicole forgot to leave her lack of empowerment at the door.

    Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut (a satirical and dystopian science-fiction short story):

    From Wikipedia:

    Plot

    In the year 2081, the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General’s agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear “handicaps”: masks for those who are too beautiful, loud radios that disrupt thoughts inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic.

    One April, 14-year-old Harrison Bergeron, an intelligent and athletic teenager, is taken away from his parents, George and Hazel Bergeron, by the government. They are barely aware of the tragedy, as Hazel has “average” intelligence (a euphemism for stupidity), and George has a handicap radio installed by the government to regulate his above-average intelligence.

    Hazel and George watch ballet on television. They comment on the dancers, who are weighed down to counteract their gracefulness and masked to hide their attractiveness. George’s thoughts are continually interrupted by the different noises emitted by his handicap radio, which piques Hazel’s curiosity and imagination regarding handicaps. Noticing his exhaustion, Hazel urges George to lie down and rest his “handicap bag”, 47 pounds (21 kg) of weights locked around George’s neck. She suggests taking a few of the weights out of the bag, but George resists, aware of the illegality of such an action.

    On television, a news reporter struggles to read the bulletin and hands it to the ballerina wearing the most grotesque mask and heaviest weights. She begins reading in her unacceptably natural, beautiful voice, then apologizes before switching to a more unpleasant voice. Harrison’s escape from prison is announced, and a full-body photograph of Harrison is shown, indicating that he is seven feet (2.1 m) tall and burdened by three hundred pounds (140 kg) of handicaps.

    George recognizes his son for a moment, before having the thought eliminated by his radio. Harrison himself then storms the television studio in an attempt to overthrow the government. He calls himself the Emperor and rips off all of his handicaps, along with the handicaps of a ballerina who he proclaims his “Empress”. He orders the musicians to play, promising them royalty if they do their best. Unhappy with their initial attempt, Harrison takes control for a short while, and the music improves. After listening and being moved by the music, Harrison and his Empress dance while flying to the ceiling, then pause in mid-air to kiss.

    Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, enters the studio and kills Harrison and the Empress with a ten-gauge double-barreled shotgun. She forces the musicians to put on their handicaps, and the television goes dark. George, unaware of the televised incident, returns from the kitchen and asks Hazel why she was crying, to which she replies that something sad happened on television that she cannot remember. He comforts her and they return to their average lives.

    Characters:

    Harrison Bergeron is the fourteen-year-old son, who is 7 feet (2.1 m) tall, a genius, and an extraordinarily handsome, athletic, strong, and brave person. He wants to live as an unimpeded human being and does not want to obey the laws of the government, which has taken on the responsibility of creating equality for the whole American society. He has been jailed by the Handicapper General’s office for planning to overthrow the government. To eliminate any “unfair advantages”, the Handicapper General forces him to wear the most extreme handicaps reflecting his extraordinary attributes: huge earphones and spectacles intended to make him half blind and give him tremendous headaches, disfiguring makeup in the form of blackened teeth and a red rubber nose to mask his extraordinary looks, and so many weights to compensate his prodigious strength that they make him look more like a junk yard than a man. When he escapes from jail, the government describes him as “a genius and an athlete” and tells people that he should be regarded as extremely dangerous. When Harrison enters the television studio, he is convinced that he can overthrow the government and declares “I am the Emperor! … Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!”. In addition to this talent and egotism, he also possesses artistic and romantic characteristics. He sings and dances with his Empress, defying gravity while doing so. Despite Harrison’s superior physical prowess and intellectual faculties, he is stopped when the Handicapper General, Diana Moon Glampers, shoots him and his Empress down with a shotgun.

    George Bergeron is Harrison’s father and Hazel’s husband. A very smart and sensitive character, he is handicapped artificially by the government. Like his son, he has to wear mental handicap earphones in his ears to keep him from thinking intensely and analytically. Because he is stronger than average, he has to wear weights around his neck. When his wife Hazel suggests that he could take these weights off for a while to relax, he rejects the idea. He wants to obey the laws and is unwilling to risk punishment for a little comfort. He believes that the situation in 2081 is better than it had been back in the days when fierce competition reigned in society. He has much respect for the rules and represents the common passive citizen who does not critique a government that manipulates individuals. Obeying the rules, he is even incapable of recognizing the tragic situation when his son has been shot to death – a harsh critique of passiveness towards authority.

    Hazel Bergeron is Harrison’s mother and George’s wife. Hazel has what is described as perfectly average intelligence, which means that she cannot think deeply about anything. However, she is a well-intentioned character, a loving wife and mother, who tries to comfort her husband by suggesting he removes his handicap weights. She cries when she sees what happens to her son but due to her impaired faculties quickly forgets the subject of her sorrow. In the end all her kindness counts for nothing as her stupidity outruns her good intentions. Hazel has much in common with the Handicapper General, Diana Moon Glampers.

    Ballerina, a beautiful dancer who was burdened with an especially ugly mask and excessive weights (“as big as those worn by two hundred pound men”), as she is the fairest, most beautiful and most graceful of the dancers. She reads an announcement card after the stammering announcer is unable to. It is likely, but not stated, that she is the same dancer who Harrison Bergeron takes as his Empress, who is later shot by Diana Moon Glampers for not wearing her handicaps, and dancing with Harrison Bergeron.

    Diana Moon Glampers, despite appearing in person for only four sentences, represents the oppressive government and enforces the handicapping policies of the government. It is mentioned early on that Hazel resembles Diana, and Hazel mentions improvements she would make to Diana’s handicap regulations. She appears ruthless when she kills Harrison and his Empress without warning, and threatens the musicians with a similar fate before the broadcast is interrupted, leaving their future ambiguous. Diana’s first and middle names are possibly a reference to Diana, the Roman huntress, virgin goddess of the moon.

  51. “In the year 2081, the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else.”

    Lol. Fiction.

  52. January 2009 was quite the time of Fiction turning into fact. With Obummer, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, et al.

    ‘Atlas Shrugged’: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years
    By Stephen Moore
    Jan. 9, 2009 11:59 p.m. ET

    Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read “Atlas Shrugged” a “virgin.” Being conversant in Ayn Rand’s classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only “Atlas” were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I’m confident that we’d get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

    Many of us who know Rand’s work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that “Atlas Shrugged” parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

    Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated “Atlas” as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

    For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises — that in most cases they themselves created — by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

    In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as “the looters and their laws.” Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the “Anti-Greed Act” to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel’s promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the “Equalization of Opportunity Act” to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the “Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act,” aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn’t Hank Paulson think of that?

    These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act” and the “Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.” Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.” This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion — in roughly his first 100 days in office.

    The current economic strategy is right out of “Atlas Shrugged”: The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That’s the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies — while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to “calm the markets,” another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as “Atlas” grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate “windfalls.”

    When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated — always in the public interest — into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to “Atlas,” a Wall Street Journal headline blared: “Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices.”

    In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal — stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in “the public good.” The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

    The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in “the public interest.”

    Ultimately, “Atlas Shrugged” is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand’s political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear — leaving everyone the poorer.

    One memorable moment in “Atlas” occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

    Galt: “You want me to be Economic Dictator?”

    Mr. Thompson: “Yes!”

    “And you’ll obey any order I give?”

    “Implicitly!”

    “Then start by abolishing all income taxes.”

    “Oh no!” screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. “We couldn’t do that . . . How would we pay government employees?”

    “Fire your government employees.”

    “Oh, no!”

    Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax “for purposes of fairness” as Barack Obama puts it.

    David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand’s ideas, explains that “the older the book gets, the more timely its message.” He tells me that there are plans to make “Atlas Shrugged” into a major motion picture — it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. “We don’t need to make a movie out of the book,” Mr. Kelley jokes. “We are living it right now.”

  53. Yeah, its all Obama. He fucked up the economy. He got us into our longest war to date…. Oh wait, he waged war while cutting taxes on the wealthy… Oh wait. He went to his ranch and a concert while an American city drowned…. Oh wait. When he won election, Mitch McConnell pledged to work with him to get shit done… Oh wait ( opposite happened ) and congress has double digit approval ratings because they worked so hard and got so much done…. Oh wait. The housing crash and accompanying bailouts…. Oh wait. He destroyed the surplus and replaced it with massive debt….oh wait. He told CIA director when informed that alquaeda was determined to strike America using aircraft, ” okay, you covered your ass “, and did nothing…. Oh wait. Osama dead… For real.

    Bias is as bias does, but Jesus, facts are still relevant and stubborn things.

    Obama was hated by a select group of people before he ever set 1 foot in the Whitehouse because ” he ” would never be acceptable as President, even if he cured fucking cancer. I’ve been watching how ” my great country ” reacted, and I just observe. Even now I normally ignore it when someone pulls the Obama sucks routine, but tonight I just felt like calling out the misguided hypocrisy for once before I go back to ignoring it.

    Enjoy trump. Lol.

  54. I guess the concept of ‘sleeping her way to the top’ is unfamiliar here. Pence is very talented, a natural if you will, and in this case his chaperone rule trolls the hell out of the thirsty female social climbers who just want some regular one-on-one time with him and her low-cut top. But they have already thoroughly shit in that pool, haven’t they? So I applaud him, and think more men, all men, should do the same in the workplace.

    OK, maybe not all men. I was a few years ago told about one now multinational company president who was, in his lesser days as the CEO of a lesser multinational, famous for banging his way through all the women execs, secretaries, marketers, etc in the org. That would probably be a career suicide mission these days, but if you can do it, you have clearance to skip the Pence rule. You will probably end up shot down on mission 1, like that Boeing CEO, but godspeed.

    And for others, be reminded that NBA players apparently bring chaperones to their hotel room so that the object of his tender affections of the night can’t cry rape or steal sperm or otherwise try to affect a ghetto jackpot.

  55. Pence is a natural because

    * Before becoming VP, electrocutes gays to cure them.
    * As VP, institutes Pence rule, entire offices of ambitious feminists freak out.
    * Shows up at Hamilton and leaves, entire cast of GRIDS zombies freak out.
    * Shows up at Colts game and leaves, kneelers freak out.

    What will he do next?

    Bonus:
    * Has older brother, who looks just like him, running for Governor of Indiana, just like he did.

  56. “Nicole Silverberg” eh, lol. Maybe I shouldn’t go there but take this in a lighthearted spirit, ancient friends.

    Hey Jews, what are you planning to do better? Because you need to do better, Tikkun Olam! Here are ideas on how you should treat goyim better.

    Talk to your Jewish friend who is “kind of a creep” at work.

    Don’t talk over goyim.

    If you are asked to work in a law firm/bank/media company/The Federal Reserve and see that it’s all Jews, say something. Maybe even refuse the spot!

    When you see another Jew talk over a goyim, say: “Hey, the goy was saying something.”

    Learn to read a fucking room.

    Don’t call the goyim “crazy” in a professional setting.

    Don’t use your “whiteness” as a way to get goyim to trust you. Show us in your day-to-day life, not in your self-congratulatory social media.

  57. – “Don’t punish women for witnessing your vulnerability”

    Can someone please explain to me what the f*** she’s saying here? The others are pretty obvious but that one is truly baffling. What does that even MEAN…?

  58. @ Yollo

    The trope that somehow Obama ” divided ” the nation is disingenuous at best. Obama became President, and then nation divided itself. But my take is that yapping heads like Shapiro know exactly what they are doing and saying his not rational or logical or even true, but ” for some reason ” they are compelled to call out the ” unworthiness ” of Obama, yet were silent about Bush, and are weak on trump.

    The truth of the matter is that the govt had already inserted itself into the gay marriage clusterfuck by trying to pass various ” marriage ” acts before Obama was ever selected. If Shapiro is so smart and so correct, he must already know this.
    Yup, politicians should have steered clear of that stuff, but they did not.

    Then he takes a jab at blacks and ” crime ” as somehow being related to ” equality “, but he has to know that he’s putting forth a massive strawman. Why do that? Reasonable people can see what he’s actually doing, right? Lol.

    It’s like the whole NFL kneeling thing. Some people have strenuously pushed a false narrative about protest being disrespectful to the flag and the military, and refuse to grasp, listen or hear that it is not or that neither is it intended to be, but that it has specific reasons. All this while the flag code itself is being broken every time the flag is displayed horizontally on the field, and people en mass go to bet beer and hot dogs, and go to the bathroom and laugh and talk and all kinds of shit while the anthem plays. 1st amendment much? But the sickest, most twisted part,nisnthat the president that’s sworn to uphold the constitution not the United States, calls for the firing of anyone protesting during the anthem, and even States that you MUST Be ” respectful “.
    Honest and reasonable men should be able to see how misguided this all is, or they are only operating on pure selfish emotion. Just like feminism. Feelings. Fears.

    I’m still waiting for trump to be called a shitty president by the same crew that relentlessly called out Obama. Hypocrisy, its obviously what’s for breakfast. Force fed.

    OK, enough of this ot shit from me.there is no solution or point in it. Everybody is dug in stubbornly. Like feminist…. Lol.

    My point in the end, is that there is more than one red pill. Men fight all of them with the same enthusiasm. They want to believe what they like and want to be reality and ignore ugly truths. In guess that’s the nature of men somehow, but one should never lie to oneself. Ever.

    No more from me. Promise.

  59. @Fallow Way

    – “Don’t punish women for witnessing your vulnerability”

    Can someone please explain to me what the f*** she’s saying here? The others are pretty obvious but that one is truly baffling. What does that even MEAN…?”

    My take is that at some point she has pointed at a mans weak spot or chink in his armor,then taken advantage and been punished for it. Most likely emotionally.

  60. Lol.

    “I’m still waiting for trump to be called a shitty president by the same crew that relentlessly called out Obama. ”

    You mean like GOP politicians? Romney? #nevertrumpers? Bush? Corker? McCain?

  61. @Fallow Way

    The question is how does a boy get into a relationship with someone like Nicole in the first place?

    Not having any first hand experience,only observation. The first thing he does is listen to women’s advice about what they want or how to treat them. Then follow her instructions into
    blue pill beta orbit, catering to her every whim and fancy,white knighting all the way. Next invent some grievance against the “evil patriarchy” achieving victim status soul bonding on a superficial level (having a common enemy),they have nothing else in common. He can make that bond even stronger by bringing up some slight towards her by his own patriarchal enemies.

    In this game he has set himself up for some “great starfish sex” and much compliance pressure as she has the keys to his sex and emotions. He will find himself paying the bills, doing the dishes,cooking the food and cleaning the house while she sits on her ass and complains louder to more and more people about how men are stupid.

    At some point retaliation from him is inevitable.

    Sounds crazy but this shit really happens.

  62. @Fallow Way

    – “Don’t punish women for witnessing your vulnerability”

    Stuffinbox “My take is that at some point she has pointed at a mans weak spot or chink in his armor,then taken advantage and been punished for it. Most likely emotionally.”

    Good point Stuffinbox

    Silverberg is implying her evolutionarily given ‘right to manipulate a man’ when she sees chinks in his armor. With chinks in his armor, she has more power and demands to right to use it (for her safety and the safety of her babies all the way down). She wants to not just witness a man’s vulnerability, but use it to her advantage.

    Reference: https://therationalmale.com/2016/02/28/assurances/comment-page-4/#comment-143613

    Partial explanation of The Female Stages of Manipulation: (In the linked piece, the stages are explained.)

    “We believe that manipulation is an instinctual behavior deeply rooted within female biology. Manipulation is also a learned behavior, due to one’s need for survival. From a biological point of view there is not too much of a difference between biologically-rooted and learned behavior. In fact, from the point of view of both modem neurobiology and evolutionary psychology, behaviors repeated and learned over time become deeply rooted in the neurological patterns within the brain, to the point where the behavior becomes largely unconscious. As individuals are prone to choose behaviors which support survival, manipulation has certainly been selected as a desirable survival skill.

    Manipulation can be defined as the attempt to influence another person’s mind to achieve a certain outcome. Manipulation is very often seen as a negative thing. We, however, are not judgmental about manipulation, and actually consider it a positive feature, which has been designed to keep life continuing on this planet.

    In order to best manage relationships with women, the Modern Man should understand that there are various stages of manipulation that a woman will go through during the course of a relationship with a man.

    On the biological level, the female of our species is programmed to:

    1. Elicit a strong sexual attraction in one or more strong males.

    2. Feel a strong sexual attraction for such males.

    3. Become impregnated by her choice of male.

    4. Have a male to provide materially for both her and her infant child.

    5. Afterwards, she will subconsciously tend to operate in such a way so as to have her sexual attraction for that male decrease.

    6. Wash, rinse, repeat: she will tend to have more sexual intercourse and more children with other strong males.

    We call this process betaization, where the strong, alpha male is rendered beta — which means “secondary” or “subservient” — within the relationship, over a period of time. Quite often, this process occurs gradually and almost imperceptibly to both parties.

    Manipulation is widely used by women to achieve:

    • Safety and comfort for her and her children, with their survival being the primary purpose.

    • To thereby influence the man’s mind in such a way that he will feel compelled to protect her and her children, especially before pregnancy, during the pregnancy and throughout the children’s early developmental years.

    Female manipulation can be either creative or destructive, depending on the desired outcome. From the point of view of the man, female manipulation can be considered “good” when it supports life and the man’s interests and “bad” when it destroys life and/or damages the man’s interests.

    Succinctly, the more manipulation is used by a woman, the more it becomes natural and unconscious to her. It is like learning to play a musical instrument: at first it is difficult and one needs to pay conscious attention to each note being played, Then, as mastery is gradually achieved, manipulation becomes more and more unconscious.

    Behaviors are slow to develop and also slow to be unlearned. In the modem woman of the industrialized countries, the way instincts are expressed has changed slightly with time, due to less-demanding survival conditions. However, the influence of the female’s primal instincts on her behavior remains evident.

    It is important for you to learn to recognize manipulation. In fact for a woman’s sexuality to be satisfied, it is important that her manipulation attempts against her man not be too effective. You must learn to observe female behavior and give the right responses, with the goal of making her happy on the emotional level, as opposed to responding to manipulation attempts on a logical level.

    Learning to respond appropriately requires knowing the various stages of female manipulation…..

    Of course, this describes a solitary female’s approach to manipulating a man in relationship with her and her children. It is a universal mechanism.

    What some feminists like N. Silverberg are trying to do on the Top Down SJW level is to make this a social convention, so the bulk of men in society are ham-strung by their vulnerabilities as much as possible. That way the women feminists that can’t get the Hypergamous optimum that their heart wants, have more power over a Betatized Nation of Men and male orbiters (and that includes politicians writing more beneficial laws for the Sisterhood and single mothers whose Alpha or Beta man slipped away from them). The more men flip to Beta, the more Feminism wins.

    It’s a current social convention: Feminine Supremacism. The only way to counter this is: Stay Alpha as possible my friend and be Red Pill aware. Adapt and have Game for your situation and your Purpose. It does not by any means imply: Avoid Women.

  63. “In fact for a woman’s sexuality to be satisfied, it is important that her manipulation attempts against her man not be too effective.”

    This is where a lot of women screw up in their efforts. And why a lot of women move on (esp. Divorce). ‘Cause compromising in their manipulatory efforts would take effort to change their evil ways–it’s easier to move on.

    Once that individual woman has power over their betatized man, or collectively in society SJW feminists “feel” ideologically that they have power over the collected Beta men–then my friend, they don’t want to give it up. And the SJW feminists want more, more, more because they are going to need it to optimized their strategy. That goes to motive for N. Siverberg’s Guardian piece.

  64. “Succinctly, the more manipulation is used by a woman, the more it becomes natural and unconscious to her. It is like learning to play a musical instrument: at first it is difficult and one needs to pay conscious attention to each note being played, Then, as mastery is gradually achieved, manipulation becomes more and more unconscious.”

    She will be more attracted to a man that cannot be manipulated, but will never admit it.

  65. “My take is that at some point she has pointed at a mans weak spot or chink in his armor,then taken advantage and been punished for it. Most likely emotionally.”

    That’s a possibility, but it’s more likely a man called her out on some bullshit, which she interprets as lashing out with violence because she wounded his fragile ego.

    Remember that her brain lives in Bizarro World, where speech is violence (if you do it), violence is speech (if she does it) and having to curl up in a corner to cry is a sign of her emotional strength, and thus the person who made her feel like crying (by standing firm and asserting himself) is emotionally weak.

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s