I discovered Return of Kings on Facebook when an acquaintance shared the community beliefs on her profile. She was mocking them, as if these beliefs had no value. I commented that these beliefs were empirically supported or derived from empirically supported principles.
An army of offended females and betas was unleashed upon me. I wasn’t hoping for much from the girls, but I could only feel sad to see that many guys were naively supporting them.
Going to the research
I realized that most people have no first-hand contact with scientific knowledge. Literature on our community beliefs is not only existent, but extensive. I decided to use my academic knowledge to give support to the ROK community.
Many of the authors you will read about here are some of the most famous academics in behavioral sciences (Google scholar citations: Baron-Cohen: 96 020, Buss: 39 524, Baumeister: 87 528). I do not claim that these summaries and articles will help you in arguments. We live in some sort of ochlocracy where we risk intimidation by hordes of angry women or betas if we hold beliefs congruent with scientific evidence. I remember a feminist saying something along the lines of: ”Nothing like good old scientific facts to justify your sexism.”
This research is usually not spread too much, especially in undergraduate programs, but really informative. Let us now examine what science has to say about each point in our community beliefs list.
1. Men and women are genetically different, both physically and mentally
Sex roles evolved in all mammals. Humans are not exempt. Psychological differences between sexes have been extensively documented in biology and psychology. Many will claim that sex roles are socially constructed, but scientific evidence says that there is more about it than culture.
Testosterone exposure in the womb determines the masculinization of behavior. Some girls suffer from congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). It is a condition that alters the appearance of the genitalia of affected women, making it partially or totally masculinized due to an exposure to excessive amounts of testosterone in the womb.
Interestingly, girls affected by CAH exhibit masculinized behavior as well, showing a preference for male-stereotypical toys, play fighting more often than normal females, a preference for playing with boys and have less chances of being heterosexual later in life. It shows that androgens masculinize the brain in the womb, and as we all know boys are exposed to more androgens than normal girls.
Testosterone levels have been manipulated in rodents and in non-human primates, showing the same results: increased masculinized behavior. Prenatal testosterone correlates with athletic performance, mental toughness, optimism, less emotion-focused coping, determination, confidence, aggression and low empathy.
Here’s something funny. Many people claim that sex-stereotypical toys are preferred by boys and girls due to socialization and parental pressure. Research says that even rhesus monkeys prefer sex-stereotypical human toys. For example, male monkeys prefer toy trucks than plush toys.
2. Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them
The psychological literature refers to this concept as Sexual Economics, when referring to the investment that a male is ready to make in order to ”buy” a woman’s sexuality. Women sell sex, and men buy it. This investment varies between cultures and periods.
There was a time when years of courtship and long term financial investment were necessary to obtain sex from a woman. Not anymore. The invention of contraception multiplied the offer of sex tenfold. Women together manage the worth of sexual acts, and it might explain why women despise prostitution and pornography, and slut-shame each other. An average girl who asks a price that is too high for the sexual economy will not find a buyer.
If a woman’s sexuality has been offered a lot, the value of the offer will decrease. This means that a woman’s sexuality is non-renewable. Women will try to protect their sexual reputation and to make others believe that their sexuality is exclusive.
Paternity uncertainty has been one of our most important sexual challenges. The attraction that men feel for virgins is explainable by the fact that paternal uncertainty is the equivalent of rape for men; being denied the ability to invest in one’s chosen offspring.
Everyone benefits from paternity certainty. For example, maternal grandparents invest more in children, possibly because unlike the father’s parents, they are certain of being related to the child.
Another poor victim of the evolutionary game.
3. Past traditions and rituals that evolved alongside humanity served a clear benefit to the family unit
Until the latest decades, culture was a tool for the genes to be passed on. The maturation of humans is extremely long compared to many other species, which shows the importance of upbringing and learning the norms of a social group. Most traditional sex roles can be seen as a way to assess the best mates among men and women.
Men would benefit the gene pool by passing genes with agentic traits to lead the group to higher goals, whereas women displayed feminine qualities to display nurturing qualities to attractive males. The opposite was inconceivable because men outperform females in literally any sort of competition, and women are better at nurturing children and showing empathy. Naturally, the most successful male picked the most attractive female and both offered the finances and care a child needed. It was beneficial to the family unit, which was in turn beneficial to the continuity of the society.
Now, people are mysteriously invested in the mission of destroying gender roles, cheer on parents who crossdress their children and encourage companies to advertise toy trucks with girls. Everyone wants to eliminate gender roles but no one really knows why. Meanwhile, masculine men are still more desirable and successful and feminine women more attractive (although this relationship is a little more complicated). Women’s self-rated attractiveness is strongly linked to attraction to masculine faces, and prefer vocal masculinity. Denying these preferences will only prevent you from getting laid. Even though we are waging war against gender roles, women still apply them when choosing mates. (Interestingly, there is a negative relationship between physical self-evaluation and the number of sexual partners in women.)
While men cannot escape their contribution to society because of a permanent motivation to compete, perform and achieve before being rewarded with sexual opportunities, women are undergoing social engineering that aims to suppress their desire for children. Through contraception and social engineering, women have neglected their end of the bargain.
4. Testosterone is the biological cause for masculinity. Environmental changes that reduce the hormone’s concentration in men causes them to be weaker and more feminine.
Testosterone masculinizes both behavior and physical appearance, as stated above, and lack thereof feminizes them. However these environmental forces obviously refer to something of which I have no awareness of. Didn’t they fix the problems with plastic feeding bottles already? Or do you call ”environmental change” the emasculation of teenage boys in cathedral choirs until about a hundred years?
5. A woman’s value significantly depends on her fertility and beauty. A man’s value significantly depends on his resources, intellect, and character.
Beauty & youth vs social status
David Buss gathered data from 37 cultures with a total sample size of over 10,000 to find out about mate preferences and concluded that men preferred youth and physical attractiveness because it displays fertility and reproductive capacity, and women prefer men with a great earning potential that can provide for them in the long term.
It was the first study to assess mating preferences on such a large scale, exceeding previous studies in terms of ethnic, geographic, religious and racial diversity. To this day, the article has 3,000 Google scholar citations and is a pillar of evolutionary theory. These findings about preferences have been replicated many times, notably on dating websites.
Many progressivists believe that women’s attractiveness should also be dependent on her intellect. That is a great utopia, but unrealistic. In the end, it pretty much comes down to this: those who are not needed will go extraordinary lengths to feel accepted, and this is why men take all the biggest risks, resulting in the greatest achievements. Women take few risks (even visible in their inability to be funny, resulting in their absence in stand-up comedy) and contribute little to art or science and as a result we are making them a favor by judging them by their looks. You cannot simply opt out of your evolved preferences and characteristics.
Sex differences in risk taking. Why is this guy risking breaking his neck for no apparent reason while these girls are fulfilled simply licking ice cream?
6. Elimination of traditional sex roles and the promotion of unlimited mating choice in women unleashes their promiscuity and other negative behaviors that block family formation.
The chances of fertilization are higher in one-night stands, and men’s sperm count is higher when they are away from their long-term partner for a while. The human penis might have been shaped to remove competitor’s sperm out of the vagina. Women experience more orgasms with masculine and attractive men, who have qualities sought for short term mating. Many benefits exist to short-term matings for women, such as resources, mate switching or manipulation.
All of these examples suggest that women did not evolve a preference for monogamous, long-term relationships. Click here for evidence that women are designed for short-term mating.
It seems, however, that all this evidence is inconclusive. The general ambiguity that surrounds female sexuality and the discrepancies between sexual preferences in females across the world seem to indicate that their sexual preference might not be solidly entrenched, whereas men’s sexuality is widely understood and consistent across time, species and cultures.
Females’ sexual attitudes are mostly shaped by culture: females’ sexual preferences are more responsive to socialization than males’. In other words, women will like what they are told to like.
7. Socialism, feminism, cultural Marxism, and social justice warriorism aim to destroy the family unit, decrease the fertility rate, and impoverish the state through large welfare entitlements.
Welfare entitlements.
Complying with feminist demands is as close as a society can get to cultural and ethnic suicide. Historically, intrasexual (male) competition always benefited the group. The feminist sentiment rose to power when outcomes were not shared with the the whole group, and rich people would get rich at the expense of others without paying taxes.
Women, depending on a single provider, began experiencing the variable outcomes that men have gone through for thousands of generations. That is why they support financial entitlement measures. The benefits they could get out of their sexuality became as variable as men’s outcomes. Now, they can have the best genes by engaging in short-term mating, and their basic needs paid for by millions of anonymous working men.
Later they will fight for their right not to be judged on their sexual past, and when they will realize the hardships of a working life or just get bored and have children, they will get support from the state. Men are backing them up in every step of the way.
Cultural marxism is the greatest ideological battle of the Western world at the moment. We are paying people to fight against manspreading, or funding university research that operationalizes sexism with agreement to items like ”Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility.”
Few academic researchers would support prescriptive conclusions based on their research, even though we can use their results to justify our beliefs. Even David Buss, who studies sex differences and evolutionary psychology, calls himself a feminist and does not see sex differences and feminism as incompatible.
I don’t think anyone who believes in any form of biological determinism is compatible with the blank-slate perspective of SJWism. We don’t have popular support, but we have plenty of scientific evidence backing us up.
“An army of offended females and betas was unleashed upon me.”
Welcome to the party pal.
Betas need to be shoved into blast furnaces.
Are you a Nazi?
No, are you?
Fucking egalitarian liberal.
Didn’t we get in trouble for that the last time.
what did the furnaces do to deserve such filth?
“Testosterone is the biological cause for masculinity. Environmental changes that reduce the hormone’s concentration in men causes them to be weaker and more feminine.” yep, pretty much it. If T levels drop in a man he doesn’t really turn more feminine straight away. What happens is depression sets in, loss of muscle mass and lack of energy set in. Thing is, without it, the male body shuts/slows down because oestrogen isn’t really that compatible with the male anatomy. Put it this way, it’s like putting the wrong type of fuel into a car, it won’t work properly. Testosterone is like a spark plug for the body. It is extremely important since it sculpts a man into what he should really be.
Toda raba, Moshe!
The writer’s name is going to cause stormwatch trolls to go ballistic.
he’s jewish. its time we had a Moses to lead us to the promised land of milk and honeys
Just scrolled back up to the top to see what you was talking about…
…lol.
Who cares what a bunch of self-destructive idiots and felons think?
If Buss is both an evolutionary psychologist and a feminist I imagine he’ll be suffering from a degree of cognitive dissonance then, because feminism is difficult to explain in evolutionary terms even if psychology as a whole might explain in terms of thanatos, the death drive.
Baumeister’s research is solid and I believe he sits on the editorial board of New Male Studies, which isn’t despite what you might think a ‘progressive’ rag but a journal that is setting out to challenge the internal contradictions of nutcase feminism. But a broader appeal to the scientific literature generally can only be a good thing. Just realise you’ll be hard put to find much modern social science research that doesn’t proceed from an ideologically ‘progressive’ [marxist] point of view. The link to the ‘ambivalent sexism inventory’ article is a case in point.
On the subject of ambivalent sexism I would just like to take this opportunity to reassure any feminists who might happen upon this article that no-one here at ROK suffers from ambivalent sexism at all.
OP here. Regarding your quote ”you’ll be hard put to find much modern social science research that doesn’t proceed from an ideologically ‘progressive’ [marxist] point of view.”
I generally agree. Lots of research is aimed to achieve political goals. Some are obviously politically led (I read some references to the mighty patriarchy in academic papers), most of which indeed promote progressivism. However there’s a substantial amount of research that can support any political point of view, and it’s up to you to find the evidence you need. Researchers will not make prescriptive statements in their papers (such as: feminism is based on a lie and should be disregarded) but they will give statistical or theoretical evidence (such as: biology influences preferences that vary between the sexes, which might explain the gender gap). Research will give you the pieces but you have to make the puzzle.
Thanks for your reply. I’m sure much of it is useable, particularly where its quantitiative / mixed i.e. has a stronger link to hard science. A lot of qualitative social science / psychology though – at least where the point of departure is critical / feminist – has pretty much – and self-consciously – abandoned any real commitment to objectivity – i.e. it disputes, with some reason – the possibility of value neutrality, and t en goes mental in celebration of thefact. ‘Prescriptive statements’ may be
mostly limited to concluding remarks etc in most papers, which will still allow you to use the data, but I’ve seen some examples of overtly ideological research that simply beggar belief. Not that such examples can’t be useful in their own right perhaps
Number four is the biggest topic that is considered “controversial” by mainstream. Men need testosterone because as they age and the lifestyle we live in as well as food and environment, it’s causing us to lose testosterone. It’s natural hormone for men. I noticed a general pattern. The men who were most likely act bitchy, gossiping, backstabbing, having thin skinned, whining and always complaining were the ones most likely with low testosterone as they are also most likely to be physically weaker as well. Of course there may be outlier but I noticed this was the general case.
I wasn’t any of that above when I used to be physically weak (I was never a backstabber and never like to gossip though) but I did get offended a lot easier but as I worked out and gained physical strength and started developing muscles, I turned more calm and less offended by trivial stuff than I was before. I’m a testament to this.
Whenever I feel stressed out and I work out with heavy weights, I don’t feel so “stressed out” anymore. It makes me calm one hour after I worked out. Testosterone is a life changer and indeed a must for all men.
for men at least.
for women its life changing in a bad way
edit: I mean masculinisation wise
“Whenever I feel stressed out and I work out with heavy weights, I don’t feel so “stressed out” anymore. It makes me calm one hour after I worked out. Testosterone is a life changer and indeed a must for all men.”
My experience with the above is virtually identical. Very interesting. In fact, the difference between the level of stress I have experienced pre and post-weightlifting is extremely profound.
Seconded. After a few days without weights or some sort of testosterone boosting physical exercise I get freaking antsy and irritated.
Getting on a good routine and regularly exercising is an essential part of growth as a man. I can say with 100% certainty it was what got me out an early 20’s depressive funk and has helped me achieve everything I have earned so far.
It also makes you think clearer and more creatively. Hitting the gym a few hours before a job interview is a clutch move. Too bad our schools today teach cup-stacking as exercise. No wonder we have a glut of good thinkers today.
same here
what is missing from this article is the opportunistic and fickle nature of women… think into it logically… when it suited them to rely on men for resources because the world was a tough and nasty place, they hid at home and ‘took care of the kids’… while men got killed fending off the wolves (and other men)…. most species share the load equally or in fact leave the females to take care of the kids on their own….. now it’s relatively speaking much safer and easier… they don’t need to hide any more… they want a piece of the action… a piece of the action that men built…..
wtf? that’s the only way a self-respecting man can sit.
It’s kind of good the say that stupid thing. It shows they have no idea what it is to be a man and it proves our point. Men and women are different.
“Strength training increases testosterone production by forty percent
“Strength training is really a kind of hormone therapy, write researchers at the Spanish University of Extramadura in the European Journal of Applied Physiology. According to the researchers, regular weight training raises testosterone levels by forty percent.”
http://www.ergo-log.com/traintest.html
“If you do weight training over an extended period, your body starts to make more anabolic hormones and less catabolic stress hormones. Maybe that’s why people who start to train for the first time in their lives don’t notice any progress in muscle mass or strength immediately, but only after a couple of weeks. Their bodies have to adjust to the change.”
Yes. Testosterone is the teamwork hormone. Testosterone is the science hormone. Testosterone is the intelligence hormone. Testosterone is the pain relief hormone.
http://i.imgbox.com/Qst4ZjR1.jpg
http://i.imgbox.com/oNHEeX0G.jpg
Interestingly, when women get testosterone injections, they become aggressive and bitchy. Men don’t.
The reason for lower testosterone, feminism and whiteknighting may be “cunt manure”:
http://evoandproud.blogspot.ru/2012/08/what-you-dont-know-can-hurt-you.html
Estrogen also enters our environment from a source that excites much less concern. This is the estrogen that women excrete every day in their urine.
Two things have changed in recent times. One is that humans have become much more numerous, with the result that much more urine is being discharged into the environment. Another is the way it is discharged.
Before the late 19th century, urine entered the environment via privies, cesspools, and ditch sewers (Rockefeller, 1996). It was thus discharged into a warm stagnant medium rich in organic matter—ideal conditions for rapid breakdown of the estrogen molecule by nitrifying bacteria (Vader et al., 2000). These same conditions, however, increasingly became a threat to public health, particularly in the ever larger and more numerous urban centers.
And so a new disposal system was developed. Human waste was now expedited via sewers to a central facility where the liquid component would be separated and rapidly discharged into the nearest cold body of water—which often doubled as the city’s source of drinking water. It was a perfect system for discharging urinary estrogen into the environment with as little biodegradation as possible … and then bringing it back into the human organism. As for urinary androgen, it was also present in wastewater but at much lower levels because of its lower solubility in water (Tabak et al., 1981).
What about the 100-year period when most wastewater went untreated? During that time, the main sources of drinking water must have been highly contaminated with estrogen. What were the effects? The most obvious ones would have been a decline in sperm counts and a rise in male infertility. But were there others?
Women — The source of all evil?
i hadn’t seen that griffin hansbury quote till now, very interesting
I learned about ROK on a conservative political website that I have been a member of for years. Here I found out about RPT and found Reddit. I joined Red Pill and OKCupid, with the latter being where I had found my last dozen girlfriends. Holy shit when I said something “inappropriate”. The people on OKC searched my posting history found out I was also a Red Pill member, and then called me all sorts of names with “misogynist” being the general theme.
.
As far as I can tell, evolutionary psychology is not a well-respected field. That could simply be all the feminist haters clinging to their own pseudo-science.
.
Edit: Clarification that “feminist haters” are feminists who hate people, not people who hate feminists.
”We strongly criticize the scientific validity of evolutionary psychology and its findings.”
-Sociologists
Evolutionary psychology is bullshit as macroevolution is obvious bullshit, not to mention Darwin was a satanist. Anyone who makes a cursory study of Ufology can see that the preponderance of the evidence points towards extraterrestrial genetic manipulation as being responsible for the rapid acceleration of human evolution. Not to mention, this also follows the Abrahamic religions if you read between the lines.
– Guest
Well, obviously. Kiflum!!!
you do know that satanists view satan as a symbol of rebelling against a capricious, unjust god, right? And god was fine with satan’s decision: the book of Job starts out with God and Satan just chillin’ outside the pearly gates one day, and make a bet on if Job would recant if god makes his life miserable.
If i wasn’t transtheist id be a satanist.
Reading your comment I guess you just want to hate on God, but let me give you an alternate point of view anyway… in the book of Job, Satan was trying to prove to the angels around there that the only way for God to get loyalty from his creatures was through giving them blessings, that the only reason that God’s subjects would ever love Him was essentially because He “bribed” them. Should Satan be allowed to rain any misfortune on Job, he would quickly blasphem against God, for without His “bribes”, no one can ever truly love Him, Satan argued…
aaand he failed miserably in that argument…
I don’t hate “God”. I just find him superfluous. Although I do recognize what organized religion can do for people (provide support, community, etc).
I just don’t think that threatening people with eternal punishment (which is what most people think) to be nice is the best reason for people to be nice. However it does motivate people, and that is what matters. I don’t care what people believe in, so long as they are good and rational.
I checked I can’t see any evidence that darwin was a satanist, beyond the implication that his theories didn’t exactly help the church out much
Humm.. you have a point about the eternal punishment thing, it’s a horrible doctrine with many theological errors in it that drives many people away from God. That’s when I rejoice on the fact I’m an annihilationist..
“I deny the allegations and defy the alligators!”
Evolutionary psychology, for all its ambiguities, isn’t any less scientific than psychology is in general. Opposition to evolutionary psychology is purely political in nature – i.e. equalists afraid of painful realities
And besides, evolutionary psychology is far more empirical than most social sciences
Evolution is a scientific fact but natural selection is a theory, as is intelligent design. Psychology is not a science. Psychologists, for the most part, don’t implement the scientific method in a rigorous manner. Maybe some do, but most don’t.
It has always had pretensions to be a proper science, but that seems to be slipping
You say “theory” but like a layman, confuse that word with “conjecture” and “hypothesis.” Natural selection is a fact. Just as gravity, is a fact.
In 1859, Charles Darwin set out his theory of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for adaptation and speciation. He defined natural selection as the “principle by which each slight variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
You don’t know what a scientific theory is.
From wikipedia: “In modern science, the term “theory” refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support (“verify”) or empirically contradict (“falsify”) it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[5] in contrast to more common uses of the word “theory” that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word ‘hypothesis’).”
First Google hit for definition of “theory”:
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
“Darwin’s theory of evolution”
synonyms:hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation,postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition;More
You can observe evolution take place in a lab fish tank, so it’s real, it’s a fact. But saying that all of the world’s historical evolutionary improvements happened by accident is to be wilfully ignorant of the massive odds against that theory being true. It’s more likely that there is a God and His hand guided the evolutionary process through His intelligent design. Neither of us can prove our theories. Mine is just more likely than yours and Darwin’s.
You are just picking up random synonyms of the word theory which are used colloquially. But the DEFINITION OF THEORY BY SCIENCE (the only relevant definition for this discussion) is what I commented earlier.
Okay, I agree that evolution is a fact and natural selection is a scientific theory. But it’s the only theory that explains evolution so far. Intelligent design is not science, because it lacks empirical evidence (facts) and it’s not testable.
Thanks for conceding the point. Mighty mature of you. But I’m afraid I have only one thing left to say… I find your lack of faith disturbing. 😉
It depends on the type of psychology. Behaviorism is at one end while psycho-analysis is at the other. A lot of social sciences are not really empirical at all because they start with axiomatic ideologies any evidence to the contrary. If you have ever seen “Brainwashed”, that is the prevalent trope that plays out as the intrepid star bounces about between Europe and North America to interview various experts on a number of topics that largely revolve around innate differences between the sexes.
Funny how so far there aren’t any women commenting on this article. I’ll assume they agree with it.
Because it doesnt have layman terms, easily broken down paragraphs, and pictures of slutastic stuff (i.e. Colored hair, tatoos, and pseudo-hookers protesting in a marching formation) they dont want the blue pills to question.
You asked for it :D. Humans and other “higher” primates (chimpanzees, bonobos etc….) are the only sexually reproducing creatures that are sexually active irrespective of the female’s cycle. By that I mean, human/primate females are sexually receptive whether or not they are in estrus, and human/primate males are sexually interested in females, whether or not they are ovulating. All other mammals require the female to be in “heat” in order for sexual interest to occur in either party. What this means, is that there is a heckuva a lot of sex amongst both humans and primates that won’t result in reproduction. The theory behind this is that sexual activity amongst humans/primates also serves a social/bonding purpose. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense, since our collective young take a lot of resources and care so we all need to stick around. Some primate colonies are male dominated (chimps), and some are female dominated (bonobos). In male dominated colonies, alpha males tend to be older, tougher and proven at securing resources=their young survive. In female dominated colonies, alpha females tend to be older, tougher, and proven at securing resources=their young survive. In other words, everyone wants to reproduce with an alpha, but what defines an alpha depends on the environment. This is not to suggest that many human behaviours aren’t natural and ingrained, but reducing human sexual preferences/behaviour in general to nothing more than a biological imperative is short sighted. Human/primate sexuality (which, let’s face it, drives much of our behaviour) is a lot more complicated than that.
More complicated than what? What are you talking about? Who are you talking to?
B-But anon, this can’t be true. This professor says otherwise.
http://i.imgbox.com/usflr0Un.jpg
At first I thought the picture was photoshopped but then it’s common to see women (on the left) like that in today’s world. The girl on the right needs little more meat though. However they both need to work out. The girl on the left can do a lot more with cardio machines and eat less carb. The girl on the right needs to eat more and do squats and work on quads.
She looks fine to me, particularly if thin-ness is hereditary for her.
I’ll never get the desire of modern men for gym-buffed females. More socio-political conditioning, here’s what we’re supposed to like.
If I want muscles I’ll marry Arnold Swarzenegger.
Cheers.
Actually you’ve been socially conditioned a bit there. Most girls never get ‘gym-buffed’. That’s a very small percentage. Most girls who lift or workout just stay in decent shape. If their legs take on some muscle then it looks good anyway. But the ripped, crossfit, ab-girls are very rare, even for the gym-going set. The last thing they need is another excuse to not exercise.
Very true! Frankly, I I would not be interested in a gym buff woman. Give me a feminine and gentle woman. No need for a woman who looks like a man.
There’s a strong androgynous aspect to the whole Buffed Woman deal the past decade or so … goes along with the Empowered thing. I don’t like forced/encouraged androgyny.
I don’t think I have much ‘social conditioning’ left in me when it comes to these issues. I think that overwhelmingly, the social conditioning is in convincing feminine women to Buff Out and Be Hard … like men. And in convincing males that muscly females are attractive and ‘powerful’. I think it’s these folks who have been conditioned to want and to be something they aren’t, and shouldn’t be.
But I appreciate you looking after my delicate personal psychology! :O)
Couldn’t agree more with you about females staying in shape. I don’t think the Weight Room at the local gym is the proper place and way for this, however.
Cheers.
Well you’re right that the promotion of vascular, six packed, muscular women in pop culture is all tangled up with their other bullshit. I’m not arguing that. I just don’t think that there are that many that ever attain that at all. About one in three thousand, is my guess. It’s not nearly as simple as;
Decide to enter a weight room—emerge with the physique of Rambo III.
Weightlifting is a great exercise for women. Unless they go ape-shit with it, almost none of them will take on much of a masculine physique at all. The tiny percentage that do? Meh, so they’re unattractive. This isn’t tanning. It doesn’t just paint you up with the extreme end result upon deciding to simply undertake the activity.
Nothing better for a woman’s body than squatting.
Makes sense. You’d be much better informed in this area than moi. The Big Lifters are probly fairly rare, esp. in women, as you say.
Will add this tho. When I was a kid, gyms (like poolrooms and cardrooms) were almost exclusively for males. Guys could go to gyms partly to escape from the Fem Imp.
Typically they had dead weights, ropes, big bags, boxing rings, so forth. Men stuff, for men to improve their bodies and work off some angst. Today, I’d guess most gym memberships are sold to women, in their thirties, trying to become teenagers again. Don’t think that’s healthy, at least culturally. Add that to the whole androgynous mess, and …. not places I’d hang out anymore.
Anyway, cheers.
The white girl is perfect as is
i don’t agree with mr. brainbinge.
What they usually don’t tell you about surveys is that they’re infamously unreliable. When people are surveyed, they’ll often report their “ideal” self, instead of their true self, especially when questioned about a social taboo. This is why men and women report different numbers of sexual partners. The numbers are only similar when men and women are surveyed while being told they’re attached to a polygraph. What’s more reliable isn’t what people say, but what they do.
well said.
Bogo is diseased with the symptom of morbid obesity. Nothing good will come from that crashed metabolism nor from the mind that allows it to happen.
(Meaning: mental obesity and physical obesity are linked)
When the girl on the right turns 18, tell her to call me. I’ll need someone to record the video of when I’m fucking the woman on the left.
Make sure she ties a rope around your ankle to pull you out again.
She is a chess wiz? More like a cheese whiz. Im swiping right.
Need I say more?
Who’s survey’s, the SJW’s?
That Professor is a fucking moron. I don’t care if Ms Land Whale there has the combined IQs of Einstein, Newton and Feynman, I’d rather have sex with a tranny than with her. The woman on the right could have the intelligence of a cheese sandwich and I’d still tap her like a pony key. Sure, I like smart women, but it’s way way down on the list as far as I’m concerned.
People who believe in equality rarely believe in science, unless its “science” ambiguous enough to twist to their liking. The offended female mind takes shelter in relativism, hence the attempts at putting humanities on the same level as STEM
“Biotruth” is a fear phrase for truth
James Watson, the noble prize winning geneticist said he stopped being a leftist because the left didn’t believe in genetics.
Race is a social construct. Just ask any Liberal, Marxist or Jew.
looks like Noam Chomsky stole some black guys chicken
This man mostly agrees but disagrees on the last one. He’s a geneticist. And his work is impressive.
His politics do lie there however.
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/manosphere-community-beliefs-truths-and-nonsense/
Worth reading. His main point is that socialist northern European countries have higher birth rates. And some, like Denmark, are using those policies towards promoting fertility among their native population.
However, the critique that the rise of marxism is the rise of low fertility is still valid. I suspect old age pension schemes have a lot to do with it since it removes the primary reason for having a big family: old age care.
How much of this “higher birth rate” is due to immigrants and how much to natives? I don’t know but I think it’s a question worth asking.
He studies that so I trust he filtered it out.
“I remember a feminist saying something along the lines of: ”Nothing like good old scientific facts to justify your sexism.”
In short, her response was to state, “mansplaining”. Such emotion-based reactionism is absurd but not particularly surprising.
That quote from the feminist is cringworthy, scientific facts aren’t sexist they are reality, just because that reality clashes with some human made social policy doesn’t make them less real. Feminism is all about making emotionally driven arguments with no facts to back them up.
More of a social observation than a scientific finding: White men in the U.S. through the 1960’s kept women, blacks and gays under a lot of social control. What happened after those controls went away?
For one thing , all three groups became blatantly more promiscuous.
And blacks left to their own devices, especially, have shown deterioration in their language skills, employability, ability to form and run stable families, obedience to the law, ability to take care of their health and just their general deportment. From hindsight they really needed white men to enforce some standards on them to protect them from themselves.
Using that logic, American slavery must have been the apex of “language skills, employability, ability to form and run stable families, obedience to the law, ability to take care of their health and just their general deportment” for black people.
Thomas Sowell has pointed out for years that American blacks made progress according to objective metrics through the 1950’s, before this civil rights nonsense started and basically hit the reset button to wipe out black social capital.
That’s because slavery was replaced with segregation and Jim Crow, which were replaced by the very racist War on Drugs – the effect of all them is the decimation of the black progress.
Indeed. The introduction of Lyndon B. Johnson’s so-called Great Society was the beginning of their familial demise. Combine this with the drug war the results are obvious, particularly in retrospect.
Bravo! You have spoken the unspeakable — that which the gender-war feminists and their political allies want to treat as thought crimes
The next question, given that everything you’ve said here is objectively verifiable fact, is: why would anyone want to propel mankind counter to these truths? The answer is not hard to find. It’s 100% about power.
Some years ago, an underappreciated columnist named Maggie Gallagher wrote that if there is no such thing as objective truth, then all human intercourse, including every word ever spoken, is nothing but an attempt to assert power over someone. That’s a complete explanation, not merely for the assault on men and masculinity but for much else that’s wrong today. Remember it when you hear a leftist say “your truth” or “our truth.”
that’s true, but unfortunately it reflects the idea – pretty much endemic in the left but arguably deriving from Nietzsche’s idea of will to power – that knowledge is always knowledge / power (a foucauldian idea). What this has tended to involve is leftists / critical researchers trying to unveil the hidden biases or interests that researchers have – anything from a declaration of interest (being paid by a big drug company) to being white heterosexual male (occupying privilege etc). You’re quite right that the main casualty here has been truth and objectivity, and its common amongst such groups to simply reject the possibility of objectivity. Usually this is done with a view to arguing (i.e. trying to push) an ideological position, since all is discourse / all is ideology. That’s why the left can be so profoundly sneaky and dishonest in the way it goes pushing its agenda – it has to destroy the existing ideology (i.e. the one we think is common sense) in order to replace with an ideology that it sees as more egalitarian or otherwise emancipatory.
Just imagine the size of the hamster that came up with that
They really are dodgy bastards aren’t they? They try to sneak their ideology through the back door by pretending they don’t actually have one. I’m deeply suspicious of anyone who tries to push the ‘everything-is-just-ideology’ line. I responded to the last person who tried to sell this idea to me by saying that by his own ‘logic’ his ideas are pretty much worthless too etc. Suffice to say he was kind of taken back by the directness of my response. I should have just told him to get fucked really. I have little tolerance for that shit now.
Foucault had some valid insights early on in his career, but it’s hard to not see The History Of Sexuality as being an elaborate justification for his deviant lifestyle. Foucault’s factual distortions are well known by historians but they are rejected by the cultural studies mob on the grounds that critics miss the point of what he is doing. Some of his defenders have even gone as far to say that he isn’t even doing ‘real history’, thus he should not be held to the same standards as historians; yet his heuristic aids are derived from historical analysis, so if his history is wrong, chances are his analytical frameworks are wrong too.
One of the worst ideas that came from Foucault is the idea that truth claims are dangerous to society as they are generally followed rigidly, but it never occurred to him, or his followers, that a highly relativist outlook on social matters could actually produce a much worse outcome for everyone. The negative effects are perhaps more subtle, but that’s because they arise from moral indifference.
Overall I feel he was a terrible influence on the academic humanities, but he was nowhere near as bad as Derrida.
The male privilege argument is just a slightly more sophisticated variant of talk-to-the-hand.
You might be interested in the following which in a roundabout way argues that Foucault’s desire to justify his sexuality was the psychological foundation of his commitment to relativism within discourse.
http://www.jubilee-centre.org/michel-foucalt-and-postmodern-atheism-life-after-the-death-of-god-by-john-coffey/
I’ve never really looked hard at whether Foucault is a good historian but I’m not surprised he’s not. Post-modernists tends not to worry unduly about facts, something which no doubt reveals the potential here for genuine corruption.
I do think Foucault could potentially be useful though, including with regard to critiquing and showing (through genealogy) the ways in which the left is now trying to re-create people / ociety through control of discourse. Marxism for all the evil it incarnates can at least tolerate the idea of truth beyond ideology (e.g. critical realism) but Derrida etc – I can’t even be bothered to take his stuff seriously.
Many people, including academics I think are getting tired of relativism
Thanks for the link. I agree with you that Foucault is useful–unlike Derrida–but it’s difficult to use his ideas against the left because they are convinced of their absolute ‘rightness’. Foucault, despite his flaws, was self aware enough to realise the transience of most things, including ideas, thus understood that the use value of his own ideas was necessarily limited. He was very much aware of the kind of reductionism that occurs on the left, which is one of the many reasons why he eventually distanced himself from communism.
You are correct about academics getting tired of relativism. Bernard Stiegler is one of the better philosophers who is trying to think his way out of the black hole that postmodern thinkers left behind while drawing on their ideas at the same time. He actually worked under Derrida and believes that Derrida needs to be revised, but his main concern is with the relationship of technology to man/consciousness/society.
I agree, I just find myself thinking, woudn’t it be a fine think if the left could be hoist with their own petard; their own weapons used against them. They are gagging for critique
The key element in Foucault that would help such a critique, I believe, would be his understanding of the fluid nature of power relations. This is an idea that isn’t understood particularly well on the left, or about Foucault in general. Yes he did believe that certain forces were dominant and were hard to fight against, but he did not believe that power relations were as simplistic as what the SJW crowd does(i.e race=power and prejudice etc). His point is that these relations are not stable and can in fact break down and re-emerge in a number of different shapes and forms. The obvious implication here is that the more pernicious aspects of the left could be revealed as socially harmful when too much power is redistributed under the guise of social justice, thus potentially causing a new kind of imbalance that needs to be righted.
THAT is the point that needs to be developed further by the right I think.
Yes, I think Foucault definitely have said something like that. The conception of the power relations we have today is basically a marxist one based on class theory – that’s crude perhaps but broadly correct. Whether its the working class or women / lgbt the focus today tends to reflect a politics of oppressor / oppressed. One of things that is most interesting about Foucault is his conception of power as something that flows around us, rather than as something which is necessarily about ‘dominance’ – which was one of his main differences with the marxists as I understand it. Foucault would almost certainly have been for gay causes etc but he wasn’t always that predictable, and that’s consistent with his relativism. Leftists tend to like Foucault because that relativism can liquify congealed power relations they dislike but then seem to prefer their own congealed truths about the fundamentally oppressive nature of ‘patriarchy’ or capitalism or whatever – so the evil of relativism goes out the window just as soon as it is an evil that may hurt them and undermine the ‘progress’ they want to consolidate. I think we should treat Foucault in the same way – as someone who provides useful tools.
I am also of the opinion that there is an urgent need to re-think the meaning of power – the marxist and foucauldian view is outdated now. Today power is increasingly based upon manipulating perceptions of weakness and vulnerability – I think foucault might or might not have recognised that, not least because its a form of power that functions through making discursive / rhetorical claims – i.e. one where power / knowledge works without the transparency we would normally assume
HALL OF FAME ARTICLE
Agree. Very well deserved.
Many will claim that sex roles are socially constructed, but scientific evidence says that there is more about it than culture.
Of course there is more to it than culture. In species where males and females perform relatively the same duties, there is little physical difference. Musculature is similar, size is similar, etc. Mother Nature doesn’t develop differences in physiology and biology between sexes just for the hell of it. Either it serves a purpose or it’s not done.
There was a time when years of courtship and long term financial investment were necessary to obtain sex from a woman.
One of the most basic foundations of marriage is that it’s simply a trade. Men trade their excess labor capacity, and ability to work for and obtain far more resources than they need, to women in exchange for reproductive rights.
This is why slut shaming originated. Slut shaming is a female societal construct designed to reduce the supply of cheap, easy sex, and keep the value of womens’ greatest asset as high as possible. It’s why women call each other “sluts” far more often than men do, it’s far more venomous when they do say it, and it’s why women have historically hated prostitution and porn. Anything that increases the supply of sex was frowned upon, because the less sex there was avaiable, the more wealth the women could extract from men in exchange for reproduction rights.
The age of consent was originally raised above the traditional in order to prevent men from having legal access to the hottest and least “shop worn” prostitutes.
Now that has been expanded to shaming men as paedophiles for desiring these same, but sexually mature, young women.
And so it goes.
I’ve started hearing shrill broads equate a large age difference, between adults, as paedophilia and child rape now. Of course only if it is the woman who is young.
makes me want to say: you are right. i am a pedophile and a child rapist and i am proud of it. what cha gonna do?
That’s ridiculous, an adult is an adult even if their partner is older.
Watch they will pass a law where it becomes illegal to date too young (but only for men of course). If you are 40 and you date a woman who is 20, it’ll be a form of rape.
Of course cougars will be exempt. Because we live in a cuntocracy that deserves to get nuked once God or Putin decides to deliver us from this evil.
i’m 32… i have a female coworker with a gorgeous 21 year old daughter… my other female coworkers have commented to me: ‘oh you should date her daughter, if ONLY she wasn’t SO young for a man your age!’ funny how no man has ever said the second part of that sentence to me.
Theresa May in UK has already tried to introduce policy intended to criminalise forms of emotional abuse where ‘power’ is a factor – i.e. any unequal relationship where one party has more power than the other could potentially be regarded as abusive and consequently non-consential. Since women are attracted men with power, and men are unattracted by and large to women with power, guess which sex will be affected
I’d add having some scientific rather commonsensical / anecdotal evidence to back up the assertion that women are attracted to power while men are not would be very useful for countering her plans
Indeed. I recall a former co-worker who lamented the fact that other individuals were accusing her boyfriend of “pedophilia” due to the difference in their respective ages. He was his late thirties, she was in her early twenties.. In one sense such slander is also insulting to the female since they were suggesting that she was still a child and therefore incapable of choosing a man of her own free will.
I don’t know. I’ve met a guy who said 19 is too young. The guy was 24. Mangina-logue is getting men younger and younger. Saw another man, 19, martial arts black in a few styles, fully armed with tears at work when his boss tried to fire him. It was pretty painful to watch or even be around. It is the age of the civilized coward.
Been/am there. My girlfriend is 10 years younger and was 22 and when we started dating. Heard a lot of shit about it. Haters gonna hate.
Only if the broad is under 30… Over 30, it doesn’t matter… They’ll take whatever they can.. Isn’t it interesting how it all fits together with the FI?
A 40 with an under 30 broad will be illegal.. A 70 with a 40 will be celebrated.. The age difference has nothing to do with anything.. The woman being before/passed the wall is what’s at play here.. It all makes sense..
I agree it’s not about the actual age, older or uglier women don’t want to compete with younger an hotter women. A much older guy dating a post wall woman even if she’s alot younger won’t matter to them. Also older women dating much younger guys will still be allowed.
In Victoria Australia they are currently trying to do the same thing. Violence is going to be extended to include financial violence where the man has control of the majority of the families finances.
given that men usually have the money as they work 80 hours a week this will encompass all men.
and people ask me with wonder why I don’t want to get married.
As an aside, Verbal Violence is also the new thing, call someone a prick or a bitch you are committing verbal violence, interpreted on the same scale as physical violence.
This is again another example of control the language control society.
Rape/Violence – these are very powerful and emotive words that no-one can argue against and we Men are losing the language war.
I knew a guy who went full snowflake. thinks hes a lesbian now. used to be a rational and smart fellow. now he all he does is whine of facebook about how sad he is.
on the positive side, being a childhood friend of his gave me firsthand access to data relating to the development of such people. i oughta write something about it.
Physically, they are in their prime, but these days a teenager raised in the west will be literally intolerable.
These are sad times indeed. Not even sure when that became a thing but I do remember guys joking about wanting to be a lesbian. The poor loon sounds like he has an unprecedented amount of self hatred. Out of curiosity what do you think made him switch like this?
Brace yourself for a wall of text! AGH!
A myriad of things. His parents provided his brother (who is gay) and he with want of nothing, so their need for fulfillment was higher on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. At the same time his parents were neglectful -leaving the brothers alone most of the day (nightshift clerk & construction contracter)- resulting in a lack of nurturing support. Both parents were not good gender role models, resulting in a lack of emotional cues instilled into the brothers
Specifically, the poor fellow has a stint in his brain that (if I remember correctly) drains excess cerebral fluid into his digestive system resulting in weight gain. Coupled with a lack of self-confidence, he turned to a group that guaranteed support no matter what he was: LGBTQ. He probably chose estrogen over testosterone as it is the path more trod(or at least, the most vocal). The internet has led to people listening more to total strangers than their own parents. Indeed, because many parents are strangers to their children, thankfully something my siblings and I managed to avoid.
A need fulfilment higher on maslow’s heigharchy and a lack of proper gender role models seems to be present in every abnormally sexual person I encounter: friends, their siblings, Allison Bechdel (a Vermont cartoonist, to get a rough idea where I live), and the girl I fancy.
With her it is not too extreme -thank the cosmos- she just doesn’t think she’s pretty, the relationship failing and that she feels I’m too awesome for her. I’m not that awesome. Hell, it wasn’t until I discovered the manosphere (researching Game, actually) that I became happy with the man I am.
That’s the exact age difference of my parents. It works out great for everyone. My old mans best friend is 17 years older than the wife and I have never seen them be anything but happy.
But it’s acceptable for Demi Moore to marry Aston Kutcher?
Edit: But it’s acceptable for Demi Moore to moleste Aston Kutcher. He’s a victim after all.
Good grief! Now as a man waiting for someone in the waiting room is harassment.
I can relate to the whole idea of Game teaching you aspects of manhood as well as the disconnect between yourself and your parents. In a way, as a child I was naturally selfish. It is hard to counteract that with a parent who is as equally selfish with themselves. Makes it hard to find a middle ground as it were. Game, however, was a unilateral force that teaches a man one thing that is the most important thing of all to any man, how to be free. Decide your own rules. Then change them. Then change even those rules. Craft and improve while plowing through every hot woman who stands in your way.
It is funny that your story about your friend leans in that direction, as I have a working hypothesis. I do not believe one is born gay. I believe the tendency is naturally there but it has to be engineered to work that way. You have to have a low testosterone quotient. You have to have weak masculine role models operating in your favor. You have to live in an environment where your sex is overtly and covertly demonized. You have to have a fear and borderline hatred of the masculine force. At the core to be gay you must have no true notion of masculinity and relate to women as your equal. You must also have so much security your masculinity seems to be unnecessary. When these factors are in place, I believe being receptive, and even a bottom, becomes normalized as you are receptive to everything else.
sad to hear but its been a long time coming. Potentially though it opens the way for counter-arguments such as demonstrating that women use sex, manipulation etc to exert control. But we’re a long way from that still
They will also pass a law stating that if you “date” a girl for more than a year, you are now common law spouses.
When I was 32 I dated a 21 year old. One of my boys looked at me in disgust.
Part of this though is that in the US, people are treated like children for a lot longer than in other countries. So a college student is basically a child. This 21 year old woman I was dating had been working for five years and had a four year old boy.
Bro, women I date are generally 10 years younger and more than me and have been for 10 years. Thing is, it is unlikely you will meet 30 year old women because most of them are married with children.
My most recent chick was 15 years younger. When I told her my age she repeated it back in slight disbelief and then shrugged her shoulders as if to say “as you were then”.
I would’ve come back with a “so tell me why she’s too young for me if she’s a legal adult?” and proceeded with the argument.
Call them on their bullshit
You really have to wonder what’s in the water or in everything made out of plastic…..
On what grounds could a man in Victoria be found guilty of committing ‘financial violence’?
Probably trying to ban his woman from spending the rent money on whatever feminine herd mentality stuff she wants.
I think you mean financial abuse.
omg that is scary…”Verbal Violence” and yet women want to be in the military and in the Special Forces and Elite units??!!
Until almost every evil jew is dead, western white peoples and many others will be killed off by the bankers and their backers..
I’ve been told the same thing by other females when I date younger ones. The she difference is about 7-8 years.
if my bank kills me who’s going to make my monthly loan payments?
facepalm
i was listening to the news and some SJW charity boss(man)was talking about how if men soley control the finances they have the power to restrict the funds to the women and if they do this then it is a form of violence and he was advocating bringing in laws to address this
That certainly explains why college students aren’t allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
Baron-Cohen is the cousin of Ali G. Just some trivia for you.
I suspect that part of the problem, causing the femizing of men, are the estrogenic chemicals that are being continuously released into our immediate environment and the estrogenic food that boys are eating straight from the womb.
Estrogen does not feminize behavior.
Sure it does.
Just look at what a socialist government is doing in Argentina. Fortunately We have a strong Christian (most of all Catholic) tradition who helped us to survive 70 years of decadency. By the way, the article is excellent, one of the bests of 2015.
“Fortunately We have a strong Christian (most of all Catholic) tradition who helped us to survive 70 years of decadency.”
Well I hope its stronger in that respect than Ireland
I don’t think it’s that strong.
Cristina is only siding with the church because of bergoglio, the pope, but that’s it.
In the mean time, each and every day new of this stupids campaigns to stop the imaginary domestic violence and gender violence start.
In the last month, commenting about it in facebook, I was called machista, víctima de la cultura patriarcal, xenófobo, machista(otras 3 veces más) and all that because I refuse to be treated by association like a rapist and woman beater.
By the way, it’s good to see at least another commenter from here.
Good to meet a fellow countryman. Greetings from Mar del Plata.
Good to meet you too man. Greetings from Córdoba.
Hold on a minute I thought Evo Psych was all “just so stories”??!!
“Sex roles evolved in all mammals. Humans are not exempt. Psychological differences between sexes have been extensively documented in biology and psychology. Many will claim that sex roles are socially constructed, but scientific evidence says that there is more about it than culture.”
Thats evo psych. If Roosh supports this post then he’s all over the shop. He believes in biological sex roles but he doesn’t support Evolutionary Psychology? Saying there are biological sex roles IS evolutionary psychology. He’s got it as central to Neo-masculinity.
Cernovich is the same, wasn’t he banging on about the paleo diet recently? THAT IS Evo Pysch ffs.
They are both opportunistic intellectual lightweights. How much time does Roosh spend thinking through these things? It seems to me that he will use whatever he can intellectually to get to wherever his goals are, or what he likes/hates at any particular point.
He’s only bashed Evo psych in order to bash Rollo and separate himself with the great new “Neo-Masculinity” launch. His whole ideogical framework is based on Evo Pysch. What the fuck are biological roles if they aren’t based on Evolutionary Pyschology??
Let’s wait for his post explaining his position. Also my understanding is not that he completely denies evo psych, but that he thinks that it has limitations in explaining human behaviour. Imo evo psych explains the animal instincts of human beings, not their behaviour. Every man has a desire for polygamy =/= every man will do polygamy (for whatever reason.) Every woman has a desire for hypergamy =/= every woman will trade up (for whatever reason.) Evo psych describes the first half of those equations, but some guys on here make the leap to assume that instinct = behaviour because that’s how it is with all other creatures on earth except human beings. Evo-psych sometimes makes the mistake of being deterministic because many evo-psychologists don’t take into account the human capacity for free will/higher level cognitive functioning.
Favorited! Rock solid article! And a concise measurement for much of what is professed on ROK. Damn good job!
Thank you! I appreciate the feedback!
triggering, anybody?
Brilliant article. I’ll be sure to pass it about.
Dumb English Idiocracy broad, haphazardly making bastard kids with nonwhite morons, like a feral cat.
The Brits in the old days who rounded up their society’s loose women and shipped them away, out to the colonies, had an idea that we should consider reinstating during the Neoreactionary Age. If we made it the law that women born in the U.S. can stay here only as a privilege, dependent on their ability to show sexual self-control, that would go a long way towards restoring civilization in this country.
feral cats would be able to care for themselves in the wild without hand-outs.
At least you can socialize the kittens of feral cats if you can handle them early enough. You can’t turn the low IQ bastard children of the Idiocracy Mum into productive members of society, no matter what you do to them. As Steve Sailer says, childhood intervention needs to start nine months before birth.
I’m still amazed people can claim that there’s no differences between males and females an that gender is a social construct, that’s an argument that has a mountain of evidence against it.
Indeed. It is rather ironic that the same groups of individuals who insist that the differences between the sexes are merely social constructs will simultaneously insist that homosexuality is biological.
Exactly SJW types are hypocrites. They also claim transgender people are born as a ‘man in a womens body’ or vice versa, since according to them gender doesn’t exist how can you be confused as to what gender you are?
Precisely. Their cognitive dissonance is full visible here. Their views appear to be strictly politically motivated. It is what could reasonably be referred to as a secular religion, as dogmatic and fanatical as any religious cult in my opinion.
I can see why. If men and women are NOT the same, then differences in outcome between the sexes could be explained via biology rather than a grand conspiracy theory (i.e. “Patriarchy”). Feminists rely on spreading those myths in order to justifying dispossessing men of resources via taxation, and then redirecting those resources overwhelmingly towards women–especially women who are not pretty enough to bag a decent provider male.
The state of affairs in just a few simple sentences.
I get why feminists want to claim it but how can it be taken seriously by any kind of mainstream acadamia or media when it’s completely false?
Great article.
Spot on article! Well done!
Basic med school, psych school and social sciences stuff. How come most undergrads don’t even know this?
It just isn’t taught.
Excellent article. Interestingly, it kind of echoes the arguments of those who believe people should be able to choose their genders–to some extent. Girls who were exposed to extra testosterone in the womb are less likely to end up heterosexual. “Born this way” is essentially admitting to biological determinism.
This is an excellent article. Well done and thank you.
Operator. Get me dubs.
”Nothing like good old scientific facts to justify your sexism.”
Feminists are not only fighting Men, they are at War with Reality.
The best possible definition of feminism is “a war on human nature.”
Yup, their pissed off their Fantasies aren’t how the world works.
“Women sell sex, and men buy it”
I’d flip that around. Men sell lifestyle, power, and resources, and women buy it with sex.
“The day we judge women on their personality will be the day autists score with women.”
So much win.
What the hell is wrong with the lab boys if they refused to accept their own research?
As father who’s invested a lot of effort into parenting, and as a man who’s observed friends who are single fathers, I’ve decided that a man who focuses on parenting is a superior nurturer to virtually any woman.
My little girl has volunteered the opinion that she considers me and her mom’s husband to be better and more competent parents than her mother.
Many of my child’s friends come from broken families. The men, be they fathers or mom’s BF, provide most of the parenting. The moms are, as a rule, too immature, too self centered, and too emotionally unavailable to be positive influences.
The modern woman is seldom more than an incubator that completes with the children for the fathers affection, time and resources.
Don’t give women credit for being nurturing when the evidence says otherwise.
I’d like to clarify 5) A woman’s value significantly depends on her fertility and beauty
Even in today’s society, there is a shrinking, although significant, population of fertile and beautiful women. However, that does not mean I value them highly. While these are key to achieving a boner, much more important is the caring, nurturing nature, calm, pleasant feminine voice, and a submissive demeanor. Give me a 6 with those any day over a hot slutty fertile nympho.
I remember a feminist saying something along the lines of: ”Nothing like good old scientific facts to justify your sexism.”
Brilliant. She hates the mansplaining. She wants you to stop confusing the argument with your damn logic.
I warned her as graphically as I could that she was already well down the slippery slope leading to poverty and misery—that, as I knew from the experience of untold patients, she would soon have a succession of possessive, exploitative, and violent boyfriends, unless she changed her life. I told her that in the past few days, I had seen two women patients who had had their heads rammed down the lavatory, one who had had her head smashed through a window and her throat cut on the shards of glass, one who had had her arm, jaw, and skull broken, and one who had been suspended by her ankles from a tenth-floor window to the tune of, “Die, you bitch!”
“I can look after myself,” said my 17-year-old.
“But men are stronger than women,” I said. “When it comes to violence, they are at an advantage.”
“That’s a sexist thing to say,” she replied.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_1_oh_to_be.html
He makes a powerful case. He does seems to see all men as abusers and all women as victims though at least within the British underclass he’s writing about, not least because his argument is that the sexual morality and political correctness post 1960s creates male on female violence and family decline
Interestingly, Dalrymple (his pen name) also theorizes on the cause of male violence further down in that essay. He conjectures that the destruction of traditional marriage has given rise to intense jealousy (in both genders.) He theorizes that this new jealousy has caused an increase in male violence toward women (i.e. their “wives”) as never seen before, because in Dalrymple’s youth (he’s a retired psychiatrist – real name Anthony Daniels), wives were more faithful. He focuses on male violence because, as he told his 17-year-old patient, “men are stronger.” You are right though, Dalrymple is a bit of a beta wimp, but his analyses are very lucid. I believe he does talk about the massive violence in lesbian relationships in one essay, which shows he doesn’t let women off the hook completely.
I think the argument makes a lot of sense. It certainly follows that men (and women) who are increasingly insecure in their relationships are going to be more inclined towards jealousy, and the kind of violent behaviours that arise from jealousy, paranoia, fear of being deserted, cheated upon or otherwise betrayed. I think there is zero trust between men and women, qua men and women, in society at the moment, and that that is a dangerous thing for all, but particularly for women I’d say. Dalrymple’s target is quite rightly feminism / marxism and gender allies like Kinsey / Reich who’ve been so instrumental in destroying the family etc but I think he might also possibly be exaggerating the prevalence of domestic violence in order to make his case: I might be wrong though, the British working class love a good punch and judy show
This is an excellent summary of everything we know to be true.
It is also an excellent summary of all the things contemporary culture pretend is not true.
The age difference especially when the man is older tends to “upset” modern women more so if the woman is in the “left on the shelf” category. To show how “low” the modern woman has become – back in 1928 Dame Elizabeth Murdoch (newscorp empire) married her husband Sir Keith Murdoch who was 23 yrs her senior and stayed married until his death in 1952 after which she stayed single and dedicated the rest of her life to her kids and charitable causes. Could you imagine todays modern press and how a marriage of such age difference be portrayed; in 1928 it was just another high profile wedding.
for #5 what about strength,courage,mastery and fight skills since females when security and protection
This list is fine and dandy but it has no teeth, no bite to it no athority. I agree women and men are fundamentaly different but why by, who’s say so. If it’s scientific why doesn’t the scientific community agree, see I take it to the bible 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 For man is not of the women; but the women of the man. Neither was the man created for the women; but the women for the man. See science and evolution is not on the traditional family’s side. It doesn’t matter if you believe we all came from one cell or hydrogen made all the other elements over time well take the same concept throw a billion years on it and the world could evolve to where we all are same sex couples. That fundamentally isn’t on my side but now the bible says God says We where formed This way. And I like how this list doesn’t adress males roles in this, man is the natural leader never forget this, things only happen when we as males shirk responsibility. If a man gets concrete values the bible and actaully believes it these things wouldn’t happen. We can talk about females being whores but what about males who is sleeping with all these women out of wedlock who is impregnating them and not fathering there children. If you don’t have concrete values your part of the problem this site talks about women being whores then gives advice about getting with those whores aka game. If you just want to write a couple articles about women bieng stupid and on and on but never addressing the real issue which is lack of male leadership you are part of the problem. If you don’t pull athority from God you are part of the problem. because science is not on the family’s side.
I really like this breakdown of the fundamentals of neomasculinity. Great use of references too.
Check out http://www.masculineempire.com if you want to see more male-centered content.
I read an article when I was overseas (Eastern) that said ‘a boy brought up by only his mother will increase the chances of him turning gay.’
It got me thinking and all the guys I had to deal with that are “bi” or gay, were only brought up by their mother. Most of these guys are lucky to ever get laid and cause they are still little boys, this is what I believe… they end up becoming GAY men so they can get comfort and love cause they can’t get laid from a woman. It makes sense… you live your whole life not getting any love from a woman cause your a HUGE beta, and we all know betas are children that need comfort, love and attention, I’m sure they would bend over and be a bitch to get what they want at some stage of their life if they refuse to take the red pill. Just like David Futrelle.
When I google it, I found some articles from religion where a child WILL BE confused about his sexuality if he or she is only brought up by his mother and it will increase their chance of becoming gay.
I remember reading some studies that confirmed there is a much higher chance of a boy becoming gay if he was raised by a “strong-minded” single woman w/ no male in sight. Of course, it’s just another form of child abuse, really, and it’s been shown that at least 80% of homosexuals were abused as children in some fashion (sexually, physically, psychologically, etc.). Makes sense, sadly.
Agree on almost all points except point 7.The country is destroyed in the first place by a financal out of control oligarchy.That people are on wellfare has to do with the real economy being destroyed by these guys and no real jobs are left.They are on wellfare for a reason.I dont let greedy banksters off the hook on that one.The people that fund all that cultural marxism are the Rockefellers and Co. period.
Small rant coming…
Consider reading about evolution. Seriously. You don’t understand.
I have an undergraduate degree in a field that incorporates “evolutionary theory” as its foundation. Have been reading and thinking about it for more than 25 years. I used to consider myself a Darwinist many years ago. I’ve attended many conferences related to the topic and even took a trip to the Galapagos Islands. Try re-reading my post and opening your mind Moshe.
You deleted it. I think I know why.
Excellent article.
That’s what creationists say as well.
I think it’s more like the opposite. ”We don’t have scientific evidence but we have plenty of popular support backing us up.”
Great article. I like these pieces that back up neomasculinity with evolutionary psychology/ biology trail blazers like David Buss. His The Evolution of Desire is an amazing book and really helped me understand women and their strategies and manipulations a lot better.I dont have the same animosity towards them now that I know why they have evolutionary reasons for their devious and manipulative agenda when it comes to mating and locking down a man that provides “resources”. I suggest red pillers check out the book and womens shenanigans and why they do the shit they do will no longer be a mystery.
Statistics 101: In every bell curve there lies an outlier.
Logic 101: Truth is the razor’s edge between two opposing heresies. If doctrine is extreme, it is false doctrine due to its rejection of the null hypothesis (statistics 101).
To the contributors of this site: Read a book.