Rechercher dans ce blog

Chargement...

2010/11/09

Tu l'as voulu ... tu l'as eu!

Tu l'as voulu ... tu l'as eu!

Une histoire pour faire sourire tous les hommes ... de moins de 50 ans.

Dans un article du Daily Mail, une anglaise pleure la mort de l'Ère de la chevalerie. La geignarde se plaint que les hommes modernes sont devenus des mufles, des goujats ... des cochons.

La pôvre fâmme de carrière avait des problèmes avec la direction assistée de sa ... BMW. Elle fut obligée de s'arrêter à un pied (30 cm) du bord la route et de mettre ses feux clignotants. Vous remarquerez que la BMW n'était pas sur le coté de la route, mais bloquait la voie de gauche (les Anglais conduisent à gauche).

A l'extérieur d'un building, tout proche, un groupe d'hommes, entre 20 et 40 ans, chaudement vêtus, observèrent sa "détressante mésaventure". Elle regarda sous le capot, n'y compris rien, appela le service de route BMW et ... fondit en larmes.

Et bien, croyez le ou pas, mes chers messieurs, mais aucun de ces hommes, nul, personne, pas un, ne se précipita au secours de la Princesse en détresse. Zéro! Encore pire, trois chauffeurs de taxis lui ont montré leur poing et, l'injurièrent. Un autre frappa sa voiture, et lui cria "Maudite vache!".

Seul un sexagénaire s'est pointé ... pour lui dire que son problème était assez commun.

La Princesse féministe est en furie. Elle ne se gène pas pour en informer les lectrices du Daily Mail: le "Grand male britannique" moderne n'est qu'un vulgaire rustre.

Avant cette mésaventure, elle croyait qu'il n'y avait que son mari qui fut un goujat. En effet, au poste d'essence, celui-ci reste confortablement assis au volant de la voiture, alors que c'est elle qui doit faire le plein.

La "forte fâmme féministe" se résout à employer une tactique "classique" de la féminitude: la manipulation par la honte.

Les jeunes hommes ont perdu leur masculinité. Ils ne savent plus comment réparer les choses. Encore pire, ils ont perdus leur savoir vivre.

L'Angleterre n'a pas besoin de butors au langage ordurier, ni de porcs ignorants et grossiers. Les jeunes travailleurs britanniques devraient avoir honte!

Quel est la réaction dans la sphère masculiniste?

"Phoque ... i-ou, maudite vache!"

L'Ère de la chevalerie est morte. Elle fut trucidée ... par le fémisexisme.

"Vous l'avez voulu, vous l'avez eu!"

Après 40 ans de propagande fémisexiste sur les "fortes fâmmes féminisses", indépendantes des hommes, capables de faire le double du travail des hommes dans la moitié du temps, égales des hommes, mais tout à la fois moralement, psychologiquement et spirituellement "supérieures" aux hommes, les jeunes hommes ont finalement compris.

Dès que les fémisexistes eurent acquis assez de pouvoir politique, elles redéfinirent la conception même de l'égalité: les "fâmmes", ce n'était pas comme les hommes.

Avec l'appui du système judiciaire, corrompu jusqu'à la moelle épinière, et la collaboration des "homovagins" féministes, elles ont extorqué aux hommes leur droit constitutionnel à l'Égalité: les hommes sont coupables à moins de se prouver innocents; ils sont dépossédés de leur droits dans la procréation, discriminés dans les meilleurs emplois, extorqués de leurs biens lors du divorce unilatéral féministe, ainsi que dépossédés de leur enfants, forcés de payer pour les bâtards qu'enfante leur femme, dénigrés et humiliés par l'incessante propagande féministe, obligés de financer les mensonges féministes propagés par l'État, etc., etc., etc.

Les hommes sont forcés de financer leur esclavage; les hommes paient 80% des taxes extorquées par l'État Providence fémisexiste.

Et ces bovines stupides se demandent pourquoi les jeunes hommes ne les traitent pas comme leurs grand-pères traitaient leurs grand-mères.

Faut vraiment être imbécile .... ou, simplement, féministe!

Ah, oui! L'article du Daily Mail a un titre "classiquement" féministe:

"Y a t-il un homme de moins de 40 ans qu
i ne soit pas un porc ignorant et malappris?"

2010/10/09

Stop Looking For a Wife

Stop Looking For a Wife: You Won’t Find One

As I look back on my life, I realize that one of the biggest misconceptions I had when I was younger was that wives actually existed. Like many men, I learned the hard way that they do not, and now I realize I’d simply been scammed. Far too many men have fallen victim to this con, and it’s about time that we put some effort into eliminating it.

First, what is a wife? As many of us see it, a wife is a female who partners with a man and provides intimacy and support, and who contributes to the well-being of a family. Above all else, she is devoted to the family, and will sacrifice time, effort and even desire to hold it together. In short, she is the complementary image of a husband, with whom she cooperates in furtherance of this family ideal.

Such a naïve, flawed view of contemporary women came from a general lack of understanding about what they are, and ultimately from a projection of our own masculine attitudes about what is good and desirable in this world. This is why so many of us, as young men, had such a difficult time understanding why weddings are so important to women; to us the wedding was simply the gateway to this idealized world of the family — it was just a first step, a beginning.

For women, a wedding is not a beginning, but an end. It is a culmination of years of longing and preparation to be a bride, and marks a triumph and achievement. To understand this from a masculine perspective, think of the athlete who spends years training, dreaming and striving for victory. After all those years of struggle and discipline, practice and sweat, he finally gets the chance to compete in a stadium full of spectators. If he is the victor, he stands on the podium in front of the crowd, and is given his medal to his national anthem. This is a very emotional experience for many athletes, and a great joy. The bride standing at the altar is experiencing the same thing. It is her triumph — her wreath of laurels.

Little breeds a sense of entitlement more than victory, so marriage is tainted from the beginning by this triumphal celebration of the bride. Therefore, Western women go into marriage not as a wife, but as a conqueror. After that, to ask her to submit to – or even cooperate with – her husband would be akin to asking the triumphant athlete to resign himself to working the same dull, boring jobs his friends who never made the cut had to settle for. Some athletes may have the humility and grace to accept such a life without regret and bitterness, but obviously many will not.

But it doesn’t start there. Wives are made, not born. Just as a wild mustang colt must be broken to the saddle, so must a woman be broken to wifely duties from childhood. And how is the woman-child made into a wife? Traditionally, methods varied by class, but what they all had in common was that she was put to work or kept very busy from a young age. A farmer’s daughter would milk the cows, help her mother in the kitchen, sweep, sew, mend and tend the fire. Often, she would look after her younger siblings as well. Both her mother and father would hold her to her duties and warn her against vanity and daydreaming.

One might think that the daughters of the wealthy were spared such a regimen, but they had other matters to attend to. Thomas Jefferson, for example, outlined a very specific (and very busy) program for his 11-year-old daughter:

With respect to the distribution of your time, the following is what I should approve:

From 8. to 10. o’clock practise music.

From 10. to 1. dance one day and draw another.

From 1. to 2. draw on the day you dance, and write a letter next day.

From 3. to 4. read French.

From 4. to 5. exercise yourself in music.

From 5. till bedtime, read English, write, &c.

Not only did he make sure to occupy her time as fully as possible, he demanded regular updates as well:

I expect you will write me by every post. Inform me what books you read, what tunes you learn, and inclose me your best copy of every lesson in drawing. Write also one letter a week either to your Aunt Eppes, your Aunt Skipworth, your Aunt Carr, or the little lady from whom I now enclose a letter. . . . Take care that you never spell a word wrong. Always before you write a word, consider how it is spelt, and, if you do not remember it, turn to a dictionary. It produces great praise to a lady to spell well…

In addition to all these duties, he inculcated a sense of propriety, or, one might even say, shame:

A lady who has been seen as a sloven or slut in the morning will never efface the impression she has made, with all dress and pageantry she can afterwards involve herself in…

I do not wish you to be gayly clothed at this time of your life, but that what you wear should be fine of its kind; but above all things, and all times let your clothes be clean, whole, and properly put on…Nothing is so disgusting to our sex as a want of cleanliness and delicacy in yours.

Looks pretty harsh, doesn’t it? In fact, these letters have been taken as proof of Jefferson’s misogyny, but it may simply be that Jefferson, a very prolific letter writer, was raising his daughters according to norms of the time. Rather than being exceptionally strict, I suspect he was simply exceptionally prolific in his written correspondence, and when modern women read the reality of the time they are horrified because they can’t possibly imagine what hell it must have been to be female before being spoiled became a “right.”

It wasn’t any better for contemporaneous Virginian men, who were subjected to a great deal more physical brutality than women, and expected to sacrifice their very lives on principles of honor. Minor infractions such as soldiers filching an extra few drams of whiskey were punishable by brutal lashings, and insults often occasioned fatal duels. They were different times — times most of us are happy to leave in the past.

Perhaps women raised before the 1950s – women whose parents would have been strongly affected by Depression-era values – were still raised to be wives, but after postwar prosperity took hold the inclination waned. It was seen as unnecessary cruelty to treat girls in that manner, and while boys, whose fathers were often psychologically (and sometimes physically) scarred war veterans, still took a drubbing for some time, the natural human tendency to indulge children, and girls in particular, took hold. By the 1970s, only a few fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews were still raising their daughters to be proper wives, but these women are generally off-limits for your typical secular or lightly religious Westerner. That may be for the best, because I doubt your typical Western man would know how to handle a wife any better than he knows how to ride a horse.

However, despite the dramatic changes in society, the idea of the “wife” still persists. Although we know that the cowboy on horseback is largely a thing of the past, most of his duties replaced by trucks, feed lots and barbed wire, we still persist in this notion that there is such a thing as a wife, that they are all around us, and that they can be found easily, attracted by shining amulets of crystalline carbon, whereupon they begin magically cleaning house, preparing meals and producing children.

If someone were to tell young men that with a little pixie dust they could fly like Tinkerbell, they could hardly be making a more absurd statement than in telling them that a contemporary Western woman will, upon marriage, become a helpful, cooperative and cheerful wife, but I suppose hope springs eternal.

One could say that part of the blame lies with the amulet and dream dealers – the media and corporations who profit from the marriage industry – but that would be to miss the big picture; these people are simply taking advantage of a demand, like all businessmen. In fact, what they sell tends to reflect rather than influence society. Take two Disney movies for example: Snow White and Cinderella.

With a couple of small children under my wing, I’ve had a lot of time to catch up on old Disney movies, and they speak volumes about the times they were produced.

Snow White was released in 1937, during the Great Depression. She is a modest, but cheerful young beauty who hides when she first sees the prince. Menaced and nearly assassinated on the orders of her wicked queen stepmother, a powerful, aggressive seductress, witch and prototypical feminist who hates Snow White for her kind, tender ways and youthful beauty, she flees into the forest, where she finds the hard-working dwarves, who are bachelor miners. Needing some protection she endears herself to the little men by cheerfully cleaning, cooking, baking pies, singing, dancing, etc. Finally, she wins over even Grumpy Dwarf, the Ur MGTOW who has little use for women. Much adventure ensues, in which she is poisoned by the feminist queen, who is subsequently chased to her doom by the furious dwarves. Sad to lose their pretty little helpmeet, the dwarves construct a glass coffin so that her beauty will not be hidden, and her prince finally finds her and awakens her from her slumber with a kiss, upon which they leave to presumably go on to become husband and wife. Note that there is no wedding in the movie.

Snow White, a girl who cheerfully cooks and cleans for short, stout and bald working men and brings some feminine grace and genuine kindness into the mix as well is an example of the old ideal wife. Not every man would get a Snow White, but he could at least expect that women aspired to be somewhat like her as wives and, most importantly, were expected to be so.

Just 13 years later, after the war that changed everything, Disney released another fairytale movie: Cinderella. Like Snow White, Cinderella was the victim of a cruel stepmother who forced her to work as a maid, but her attitude shows a marked difference. Not only does she bitch and moan about housework, she even indulges the household pests, bringing them food and protecting them from the cat.

The plot in Cinderella revolves around a royal ball in which the prince must choose a wife at the insistence of his father. The ball therefore represents female competition along the lines of the modern mating ritual, where females deck themselves out in all manner of finery and compete for the alpha male’s attention. Again, here is another departure from Snow White. Rather than the modest, bashful young princess waiting for a prince to sweep her away, we have a horde of women descending on a giant dance floor competing for the prize, a desirable male who is reluctant to commit. It’s a scene one can see today in clubs in big cities.

After a catfight and some subsequent hocus pocus, Cinderella emerges victorious in the contest to win the prince’s affection, and the king tracks her down by means of one of the high-heeled shoes she left behind. A fabulous wedding in a palace ensues, and the movie is over.

Cinderella is the template upon which today’s girls structure their dreams. Their overriding goal is to win their reluctant prince and stand victorious over the other women at the altar. That’s it. Once it’s over and they are married, it’s all a big letdown. The man is no longer a groom and princely, there are screaming kids and filthy clothes and dishes, no more people are honoring her and the gown is in a box. Drudgery was never part of the bargain, and who the hell is this schlub sitting on the couch watching football to expect a princess to fix him dinner?

So there we have it: there are no more wives, only brides; no more marriages, only weddings. And this change in our society happened over half a century ago.

It’s time we took the concepts of the wife and marriage put them in a museum. Some will say that you can keep your wife and marriage if you run Game on your wife, but let’s be honest here: if you have to Game her to keep her she ain’t your wife – she’s your girlfriend at best – and you aren’t married in the real sense of the word, but shacking up.

As for the Christian preachers out there who say that all you have to do to obtain and keep a wife is provide and be godly, they are liars and fools who pervert the message of their professed religion. It is akin to a Christian saying that salvation can come from good works alone, i.e. Heresy. Their message to young men is dangerous and reprehensible, as young Christian men are no better protected than anyone else, and actually serves as justification for women looking for a convenient excuse to annihilate a family.

So, to the young men out there, I’ll say this loud and clear:

Wives and marriages are like unicorns and leprechauns. If you want to grow up and get on with your life you’d best quit looking for them. You might find a woman, maybe even a decent one, but you’ll no more find a wife than I’ll catch a mermaid in my crab pot.

Expecting the impossible is always a recipe for disaster, so I sincerely hope that young men take this lesson to heart.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/08/stop-looking-for-a-wife-you-wont-find-one/

Comment:

It is NOT totally impossible to find a wife, BUT ... you have to look OUTSIDE the Western, feminist dominated word.

Strangely enough, a good place to find a real wife are the countries that were subjugated by the left-wing "progressive"(sic) ideology: Russia, Poland, the Ukraine, etc.

See this site for example: http://russianwomentruth.com/

Still: Caveat emptor!

2010/04/29

Feminism in its essence a liberal-capitalist revolution

According to his version of history Western Christian feudalism was best
able to repress the sexuality of the alpha male and his female customers.

Unlike the Muslims or Orientals there were no harems of females for Alpha
males. Instead there was a forced monogamy imposed on both females and alpha
males. The triumph of the beta male and his K strategy of investing in
offspring lead to the hegemony of the West. This is similar to Freud's
thesis that civilizations progress was based on the Superego's ability to
harness and control the Id.

Those disenfranchised elements of Western society were slowly integrated
into the "reverse dominance hierarchy". The last step was the integration of
females and then the beta utopia, the Ayn Randist dystopia. But according to
Roissy that was the Pandora box that unleashed the repressed Id of the alpha
male and females. And so like a Phoenix, the grey-back Gorilla was reborn
from the ashes.

Feminism in its essence a liberal-capitalist revolution. Like the English,
Dutch, American, French, 1848, revolutions it is about establishing market
contractual relations, where tradition and domination had once ruled. Now
all those revolutions have been blurred to the extent that some people
consider them anti-liberal democratic.

And it is true in all those revolutions radicals, Levelers, Seadogs, Whiskey
Rebellions, and Jacobins emerged that wanted to take the revolution beyond
the liberal market.

This is the role that the Radical Feminists of Catherine McKinnon and Andrea
Dworkin played in the feminist revolution. The feminist porn wars were their
Whiskey Rebellion against the liberals.

The libertarian feminists grew worried about the monster they had unleashed
and were willing to join forces with Hugh Hefner against the more dangerous
threat to their left. To use Murray Rothbard's left-right spectrum from
Prospects for Liberty.

The libertarian sex positive feminists were the REAL left. They were the
ones who opposed the traditional patriarchal structure of the Right. In
Rothbard's terms the radical feminists who are conventionally considered
extreme left, would actually be a confused centrist middle of the road
position that attempted to accomplish liberal ends using conservative ends.
They themselves recognized it to the extent that they allied themselves with
the Religious Right in the Porn Wars.

With the defeat of the Radicals in the Porn Wars, the libertine capitalist
free-market was established in sexual relations. According to Roissy this
has benefited Alpha males the most. There is a tacit libertarian feminist/
alpha male alliance against BOTH beta males AND the possible revived corpse
of radical feminism.

Minus a couple of quibbles, this is a pretty good stab at a philosophical
strain of Roissyanism. Feminism is, in essence, an alliance of convenience
between women and alpha males.

Women get to play the field longer and more hypergamously, and alpha males
get access to more free premarital pussy. (Not that I'm complaining!)

Beta males get the short end of the stick.

Arguably, beta females also suffer a degradation in their market value -
while pump and dumps with men normally out of their league temporarily
validate their egos and inflate their self-worth, their psyches eventually
wither under the continual churn of their pussies riding the cock carousel,
an amusement ride which never slows down to give them the love most women
deeply crave. So beta females suffer a double hit: once, to their feminine
integrity, and again to their value on the open market where sluts are
justifiably less valued as long term partners by men.

http://roissy.wordpress.com <http://roissy.wordpress.com/> /

2010/04/21

DROITE ALTERNATIVE

DROITE ALTERNATIVE - ALTERNATIVE RIGHT

I'm certainly humbled when people I admire, like John Derbyshire
<http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZThhNjM1ZjM3OGZjZjM0Mjk1Mzk1ZTdhMW
NiYmJhYWY=> and Peter Brimelow, have nice things to say about
AlternativeRight.com. But I must admit, I really get a kick out of being
attacked by the neocon smear-bund and self-appointed Thought Police. And
AltRight hadn't been online for a week before such people were shrieking
that something wicked this way came. "[R]eactionary," "extreme Right," given
to "ideas the right largely exorcised fifty years ago" were what FrumForum
<http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/left-right/attack-of-the-frumbot
s> had <http://www.frumforum.com/the-new-racist-right> to
<http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/david-fru
m-s-satanic-girliemen
> say
<http://www.frumforum.com/alternative-rights-ugly-racism> . A "community
organizer" from Chicago appeared on the Laura Ingraham Show and asserted
that AltRight is worse than the Tea Parties!

Our enemies usually get the details wrong, or just make them up
<http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/left-right/print-the-legend> ,
and I don't think they understand "radical traditionalism" in the slightest.
But I do think that these attacks mean we're doing something right.

Put simply, the Establishment expects conservative to behave. We don't.
* Mark Hackard <http://www.alternativeright.com/authors/mark-hackard>
and Srdja Trifkovic
<http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/exit-strategies/nato-rip> on
how the American Empire actually harms the West -- preposterous!
* Richard Hoste
<http://www.alternativeright.com/authors/richard-hoste> and Dennis Mangan
<http://www.alternativeright.com/authors/dennis-mangan> on how genetics and
racial differences inform culture, society, and politic -- forbidden!!
* Derek Turner <http://www.alternativeright.com/authors/derek-turner>
on Europe, Jack Donovan
<http://www.alternativeright.com/authors/jack-donovan> on the revival of
manliness, Bob Weissberg
<http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-siren-song-of-diversi
ty> on the siren song of diversity, Christian Kopff
<http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/julius-evola-radical-trad
itionalism> on Julius Evola, Jim Kalb
<http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/exit-strategies/the-mohammedan-m
ind-and-ours
> on a jihad against liberalism, Stephen McNallen
<http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/why-i-m-a-pagan> on
Europe's pagan heritage -- bad, bad, bad!!!
I can say without any hesitation that discussions like these aren't
happening within the mainstream Right -- and if it weren't for these
independent voices willing to risk career, life, and limb, they wouldn't be
happening at all.

http://www.alternativeright.com/fundraising/the-future-of-altright/

NEW feminist terminology

NEW feminist terminology

FEMBOT

FEMORRHOID

FEMITARD

FEMIBITCH

FEMIPIG (Female Chauvinist Pig)

FEMISLUT

MANGINA

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/04/20/women-discuss-rise-of-the-fembots/

2010/04/10

The Case for Open Borders; Foreign Replacements for American Women.

The new and extremely interesting conservative web site "Alternative Right"
sometimes has articles related to Men's Right, and, for lack of a better
word, to "White Nationalism".

Here is one very interesting article: The Case for Open Borders; Foreign
Replacements for American Women.
<http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-case-for-open-borders
/>

Nothing really controversial for the likes of you and me, but ... the
article is being read in the White Nationalist camp and the WN females are
NOT happy.

The proverbial excrement has hit the well-known fan.

Go read what these White Heifers have to scream: White-knight nationalists
and the decline of the white American woman
<http://www.inmalafide.com/2010/04/09/white-knight-nationalists-and-the-decl
ine-of-the-white-american-woman/
>

Here is an example:
The White Nationalist movement is always whining about the absence
of females. Gee - I wonder if snarky, snot-drenched attitudes, exemplified
by Lock socially retarded, have anything to due with this problem?
Sorry, fellas - it's not women that have to please you - you have to please,
and lure in women.
Yup. It's true. My 9 year old nephew has better social skills, than
do 90% of you.
Gee, thanks, Richard Spencer, for publishing this insulting garbage.
All this article has done is PISS OFF a lot of WN females.
Here is another one:
Many, many of the comments reveal the precise nature of the problem
- the boorishness, childishness, and social inpetitude of American males.
Once again, fellas - the onus is on YOU to please women. Not the
other way around. Ghetto Negroes have better wooing, and flirtation skills,
than so many White males. A lot of you guys are beyond pathetic.
You really have nothing to offer females of any Race. A lot of you have very
little money, and you are not as physically attractive as you flatter
yourselves to be. To many of you - not all - but many - your attitude
towards women is the most repellent aspect of your being. It's not women -
it's you.
Take a good, hard, long look in the mirror, before you denigrate and
insult females, of any Nationality. There-in the source of the problem lies.
The over-privileged "conservative" Princesses sound exactly like Feminists;
they no doubt support the Feminazi law restricting access to foreign
potential wives; forget the name of the law.
They won't give up ANY of their privileges without a fight.
Or rather, they will die fighting ... of old age, alone. (:-))
One of the rules of "Game" is to recognize, fast, these fat "losers" and
avoid them like the plague that they are.

2010/04/07

The female ego is simply way too fragile to absorb the shock of ... a brutal self-assessment.

Dating Market Value Test For Women
<http://roissy.wordpress.com/dating-market-value-test-for-women/>

A note on BMI:

I used the 1959 Met Life height-weight insurance charts as guides as they
are the most accurate (before American "grade inflation" made obese the
new normal).
A 5′10″ 140 lb woman would have a BMI of 20.1, which puts her well within
the most desirable BMI category.

If you are a woman, this test will measure your dating market value. The
higher the number, the better quality man you can catch. The lower the
number, the more likely you will find yourself surrounded by cats. Unlike
the male version
<http://roissy.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/dating-market-value/> of this test,
here I have added a sliding scale to some of the questions because this
better reflects the outsized importance that certain factors have on a
woman's total sexual value.

Guys, you may take this quiz for your girlfriends or wives to see if you
have settled for tepid sex once a week or if you always get hard looking at
her and never forget her birthday.

1. How old are you?
2. How important is makeup to your appearance?
3. What is your IQ? (This relates tangentially to your ability to connect
emotionally with a man.)
4. Your breast size is:
5. Your breasts look firm and pert when you wear:
6. How long are your legs in relation to your height?
7. What is the shape of your ass?
8. How flat is your stomach?
9. How toned are your upper arms?
10. How big are your hands?
11. Where is there hair on your body?
12. Get a tape ruler and measure around your waist and your hips. Divide
your waist number by your hip number. This ratio is:
13. What is your BMI?
(Go here <http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597> to
calculate your BMI. The scoring of female BMI varies somewhat from that of
male BMI because aesthetics, not just general health, have to be taken into
consideration.)
The next ten questions are the section of the test that measures your facial
beauty. Since so much of a woman's dating market value resides in the
appeal of her face, I have chosen to examine some traits in finer detail.
14. On a scale of 1 to 10, how pretty are you?
15. How clear is your skin?
16. Do you have any noticeable deformities?
17. How full are your lips?
18. How high is your forehead?
19. How long is your jawline from ear to chin?
20. How big is your chin?
21. How big is your nose?
22. In proportion to the size of your face, are your eyes:
23. Is the distance between your eyes?

The bottom line on female facial beauty is that as the lower half of her
face becomes smaller and more delicate, making her eyes and cheekbones
appear more prominent, the better looking she will be.

The final eleven questions measure your femininity, sexiness, and pleasing
personality traits. This is the closest to "game" that women have at
their disposal. It isn't much, which is why the scoring is lowest in this
section.

24. You frequently wear sexy lingerie, even when not prepping for a hot
date.
25. When someone gets hurt you are the first to ask if they are OK and to
deliver aid if needed.
26. You are highly competitive and often play co-ed team sports.
27. When a guy approaches you in a bar, regardless of your attraction for
him, you:
Smile and look at him: +1 point
Pretend like you don't notice him coming: 0 points
Frown and tell him you're talking to your friends before he even
gets a chance to say Hi: -1 point
28. On a first date the check arrives for dinner and drinks. You:
Offer to split the check or even pay in full: +1 point
Smile and thank the guy when he pays for the check: 0 points
Forget to thank him after he pays for your ungrateful ass: -1 point
29. You are about to have sex with a guy for the first time. He undresses
and his penis is small. Do you:
Tell him how great his cock looks and feels? +1 point
Say nothing: 0 points
Look surprised and stifle a laugh: -1 point
30. You think blowjobs are:
Great! You give them spontaneously and there's never any doubt how
much you enjoy it: +1 point
An obligation: 0 points
Gross. You gave one after your BF proposed and spit it on his
shoes: -1 point
31. Do you do anal?
Yes, and it makes me come to know how much it pleases my man: +1
point
Only when I get really drunk: 0 points
Never. It's an exit only: -1 point
32. The number of sex positions you have tried is:
3 to 10: 0 points
Missionary and doggy style only: -1 point
I'm a contortionist: +1 point
33. How often do you curse?
I think I said damn once: +1 point
I blurt out fuck and shit a few times a week: 0 points
My mouth is a gutter: -1 point
34. You'd best describe your sense of fashion as:
I'm a label whore: -1 point
I hide my body under baggy tees and ill-fitting jeans: -1 point
I wear casual clothing that flatters my figure: 0 points
I wear stylish clothing on weeknights and I can handle heels over 3
inches: +1 point
My flip flops have my foot imprint in them: -2 points

SCORING

There is a minimum of -83 points and a maximum of 64 points to earn based on
the questions asked. The reason the minimum score goes lower than the
maximum score goes high is because there are a few things, such as gross
obesity, old age, or a major facial deformity, that seriously negatively
impact a woman's overall rating to the point of market extinction.

The scoring breaks down as follows:

-83: You are proof that God does not exist, but that Satan does.

-82 to -56: You're an omega. If it makes you feel better you will have
your choice of male omegas to bang.

-55 to -40: The majority of men are disgusted by the sight of you. Your
kind will suffer most when our sexbot overlords arrive. Losers hit on you
constantly figuring they have a chance.
-39 to -20: You were born to cockblock. But you'll manage to marry a
table scrap.

-19 to -5: Lesser beta. The men you want make fun of you out of earshot.
You spend many years learning how to settle for mediocre betas.

-4 to 14: Classic beta. Your hot friends always gets hit on first, but if
you really tramp it up you can snag a slightly better than average guy to
take you home for a single night of commitment.

15 to 29: Greater beta. More than a few attractive guys will approach you.
But if your personality is flawed you risk becoming a pump and dump victim.

30 to 43: You are officially a nascent alpha female. A lot of quality guys
will hit on you and you will be able to pick and choose at your leisure.
But don't push it. You're not quite hot enough to string guys along
forever.

44 to 55: You're a bona fide hottie. Nearly every guy who meets you
agrees you are a hottie. So does every girl. This puts you in the top 1%
of worldwide womanhood. With great power comes great responsibility, so try
to limit the number of men you torture with blueballs and LJFB rejections to
fewer than 100 in your social circle. As long as you are not a complete
bitch, marriage with a top quality man will come easily to you.

56 to 63: Guys want you, girls want to be you. You are just short of
perfection, which paradoxically means you will get hit on more than the
super alpha females. You are a player's greatest challenge, and his
greatest reward, because unlike the perfect woman there is still something
human about you. Sex, love, security, commitment, easy living… you have it
all. Only your demons can defeat you.

64: Super Alpha. The world is yours. Life is an endless parade of joy and
excitement. Your power is illimitable… for now.

I hope everyone noticed what was missing from this test:

Your job.
The amount of money you make.
Your accomplishments.
Your social status and number of friends.
Your deep and profound worldview.

Unlike the men who took my Male Dating Market Value test, I do not expect
*any* women to be completely honest with themselves taking the Female Dating
Market Value test.
The female ego is simply way too fragile to absorb the shock of such a
brutal self-assessment.
Therefore, I will be mentally subtracting 10 points from every woman who
posts her score here in the comments.

http://roissy.wordpress.com/dating-market-value-test-for-women
<http://roissy.wordpress.com/dating-market-value-test-for-women/> /

The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon

The Sixteen Commandments of Poon
<http://roissy.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/>
by Roissy
I. Never say 'I Love You' first
II. Make her jealous
III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
IV. Don't play by her rules
V. Adhere to the golden ratio
VI. Keep her guessing
VII. Always keep two in the kitty
VIII. Say you're sorry only when absolutely necessary
IX. Connect with her emotions
X. Ignore her beauty
XI. Be irrationally self-confident
XII. Maximize your strengths, minimize your weaknesses
XIII. Err on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little
XIV. Fuck her good
XV. Maintain your state control
XVI. Never be afraid to lose her
http://roissy.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/

2010/03/30

Single men hire wombs in Gujarat to become fathers

Single men hire wombs in Gujarat to become fathers

 

Motherhood makes a woman complete. Now, single men too are staking claim to complete manhood by becoming a parent.

 

Surrogate capital Anand, where infertility specialist Dr Naina Patel has helped hundreds of childless couples from all over the world, is also seeing single men queuing up to father a child with the help of donated eggs and a surrogate mother.

 

Rafa, a 38-year old Spanish teacher, recently celebrated the birth of his twin boys whom he fathered through artificial reproduction and a surrogate mother. The woman delivered Rafa's twins in Anand. Of course, Rafa, as a prospective single father, had to furnish details about the sound health of his finances as well as support from his mother and other family members who will help him bring up the children.

 

But the single father, who did not want to get into a marriage to have kids, could not be happier. “I wanted to experience fatherhood and I am so glad to be seen as a parent today. The feeling cannot be told in words,” said Rafa. There are more such cases, even among Indians.

 

A 28-year old expat Gujarati, who stays in the US, met with a serious accident and was hospitalized for two years battling paraplegia. Left with a certain disability, the young man expressed his feeling that he did not want to marry as he was too conscious of his handicap but would love to become a father.

 

“His parents approached us and using his sperms a surrogate just delivered a boy. Fatherhood has given the young man a new purpose in life,” said Dr Patel. Infertility specialist Dr Falguni Bavishi of Ahmedabad has also been approached by a single man from Canada to help him become a father. He had got his sperms frozen and will get a baby with the help of a surrogate.

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/City/Ahmedabad/Single-men-hire-wombs-in-Gujarat-to-become-fathers/articleshow/4682292.cms

women's only utility as their fertility

Increasingly, I’m coming to view women’s only utility as their fertility. — Welmer

Come on now, it is grossly unfair and sexist to suggest this is the only utility of women.

Their sandwich making, beer fetching and floor mopping features can be quite useful as well!

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/03/29/uma-thurman-mommy-film-tanks-in-uk/

 

2010/03/29

They Can't Have It Both Ways

They Can’t Have It Both Ways

 

In the past I have talked about non-feminist (i.e. non-leftist) forms of female supremacism.  Something that all forms of female supremacism or misandry have is an attempt to have it both ways when it comes to women. 

 

Women are “independent” yet are dependent of men either through the state (feminism) or marriage (conservative female supremacism).

 

I found a conservative female supremacist example of this at the [Non] Thinking Housewife:

 

            I should say that I find the idea of a “men’s movement” not merely quixotic     but wrong.

 

            What is needed is a movement which places families at the heart of things

 

            The feminist attack on masculine authority is not, at bottom, about misandry. It is about misanthropy, expressed through a demonic attack on the family. Its        source is not really the desire to see men brought low, though that is necessary             if Christian civilization is to be annihilated. It is much, much easier to believe          otherwise, but I urge all men of a conservative bent to resist this self-flattering             lie! Its source is a hatred of the feminine, borne of Satan’s fear of the Blessed Virgin

 

One of the great pretty lies that conservative female supremacists promote is the idea that feminism is an attack on “families” not men.  The hordes of men sitting in jail because of the false rape industry and the hordes of men who lost their job due to the sexual harassment industry and affirmative action and all the boys who had to suffer through female supremacist teachers can explain in detail why this is wrong.  You may ask if the conservative female supremacists want to destroy feminism wouldn’t they want to play up how men are being hurt by feminism?  They don’t because that would expose themselves as being minimally different than the feminists.  Since they can’t do that, they try to have it both ways by saying, “men are getting hurt but not really since they benefit from feminism so the real problem is an attack on ‘families’”.

 

What does it mean when conservative female supremacists say that feminists are trying to destroy “families”?  They’re trying to claim that the “real victims” are women not men.  This is borne out of the fact that what conservative female supremacists are really worried about is the gravy train ending.  They’re worried that men are wising up and not going to be on the plantation anymore.  From that greedy and craven perspective, women are the victims despite the fact that it’s men who are losing their jobs, getting thrown in jail, etc.

 

Another commenter there wrote:

 

            In my view, the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) is even worse than the           feminist movement. I say this because the mainstream feminist culture does             believe in protecting and supporting women to some extent while the MRM is opposed to any support and protection of women. Indeed the MRM promotes             equality between men and women to a radical degree, more so than typical             feminists do. The MRM is very anti-family and anti-marriage, constantly         talking about and promoting “the marriage strike” and producing websites        like “Dump Your Wife Now.” They talk of how marriage is a bad deal for      men and how men should avoid marriage at all costs. They are against child           support as well; they seem to be against any imposition of responsibility upon men.

 

            If there is one thing that Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) hate more than           anything else it is chivalry. Chivalry is the great enemy of MRAs because      chivalry imposes responsibilities and duties upon men towards women

 

            I am against feminism because feminism doesn’t protect women as well as        patriarchy does. MRAs are also opposed to feminism but they are opposed to        feminism because it offers too much protection to women in their view.

 

I have for a long time said that the argument between feminists and most conservative “anti-feminists” is really about how to best extract money and resources from men (i.e. arguing about how to hold the whip over men).  Outside of a few minor issues conservative female supremacists like the one I just quoted are in total agreement with feminism.  This proves what I have said more than anything else in such stark terms that I never thought I would actually see in writing.

 

Yes, MRAs (and others) are against the imposition of “responsibilities” on men.  That’s because it has a simpler name, slavery.  This conservative female supremacist is claiming that each individual man has “responsibilities” to women, not specific women but all women by the fact of his birth.  (This is no different than feminists who have created massive transfers of wealth from men to women via the state.)  This is slavery because these men did nothing to create these “responsibilities”.  They didn’t get married to all women.  They didn’t have children with all women.  If a man doesn’t get married and doesn’t have children then he has no family “responsibilities” in the manner the person above is describing.  This person I quoted should be happy about the marriage strike since men who are a part of the marriage strike are being responsible.  However, this isn’t about responsibility.  The person I quoted is worried that more and more men are figuring out the scam and avoiding it by not getting married.

 

If any of these conservative female supremacists really wanted marriage striking men to get married, then they would address these men’s concerns, namely the existence of no-fault divorce and the corrupt “family” court system.  This would solve the problem and all of those websites this person would complain about would go away.  To you and me that seems like the logical solution.  However, since this isn’t about solving real problems, but trying to get men back on to the plantation, we instead get nonsense about “responsibility” from the conservative female supremacists.  Plus, the logical solution would expose that women including conservative and religious women are a major part of the problem.  Right now people like the person I quoted try to have it both ways by saying divorce is a sin but divorce is all the man’s fault for failing to show “leadership” or “responsibility” which is just a way to avoid placing the responsibility for divorce where it belongs, on women.  This is especially true since women file for most divorces.

 

The person I quoted also claims that women are in need of “protection”.  That brings up the question of whether women are really adults or children.  If women need “protection” then they’re children and should be treated like children.  If women are adults then they don’t need “protection” and should be held responsible for their actions.  I’m not going to argue either side of this question except to say that the person above like all female supremacists tries to have it both ways.  Either women are adults or children.  Instead what this person is promoting a hybrid that enslaves men.  That is trying to have it both ways.

 

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/03/29/they-cant-have-it-both-ways/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheSpearhead+%28The+Spearhead%29

WOMEN: They Can't Have It Both Ways

Le flope de MATERNITE

Le "flope" d'une propagande fémisexiste

 

Le film féministe "Motherhood", qui a coute $5 000 000 n'a remporté, aux USA, que $50 000 depuis le mois d'octobre.

 

A Londres, la propagande féminazie n'a gagne que 88 livres, le premier weekend et 9 livres le second weekend; c.ad. que UNE seule personne est allé voir ce torchon féminin.

 

Le début de la fin de la dictature feministe?

 

 Over its opening weekend, no more than a dozen people went to see Motherhood, a semi-autobiographical account of stressed-out Manhattan parenting written and directed by Katherine Dieckmann. The film made just £88 on the weekend of Friday 5 March. On its debut Sunday, box office takings were £9, meaning one person bought a ticket.

The disaster has now degenerated into a bitter confrontation between Metrodrome, responsible for marketing the film in the UK, and producer Jana Edelbaum, who blames the company for Motherhood's atrocious performance.

The film, thought to have cost $5m to make, earned just over £40,000 when it opened in the US last October, but Edelbaum had no idea quite how badly it had performed in the UK until contacted this week by the Guardian. "You're kidding?" she said. "We must have broken a new record for grosses."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/mar/26/uma-thurman-motherhood-flop