Intellectually Dishonest: Academia

All right, I said that I wouldn't write-and-publish stuff that struck me immediately. Here I go, doing it. So sue me.

This concerns Phillip Zimbardo, famed of the Stanford University Prison Experiment (Lord of the Flies, etc).

Now, I'm going to assume a certain amount of media distortion. (Bad News Sells/If It Bleeds It Leads.)

Zimbardo gave a TED talk in 2011 outlining the problems facing young men's social development and academic achievement, which he puts down to excessive use of porn, video games and the internet.

Here is the article which includes the short TED talk about this also (dating from 2011). Watch the 5-minute video and see if you can spot all the instances of what I will label "willful bias" (try not to cringe in the process).

Unfortunately it comes across as another "blame the men" message. Research 20,000 boys/men who prefer to associate with other men, play games, and watch porn rather than interact with girls/women, have a life, etc. There's something very wrong here. Kneejerk reaction: we will blame the internet and pornography for rewiring these men's brains.

It ends with the subtle man-up message: "But who should care? The only people who should care about this is parents with boys - and girls. Educators, gamers, filmmakers, women - who'd like a real man who they can talk to, who can dance, who can make love slowly, and contribute to the evolutionary pressures to keep our species above banana slugs. No offense to banana slug owners. Thank you."

End scene from "The Crowd Goes Wild."

Completely missing one supremely obvious question that he should have asked: "Why are 20,000 men preferring to associate with other men, play video games, and watch porn - instead of interacting with the opposite sex and being horny little shits like they should be?"

I'm not going to bother eviscerating the video and article any more. You-all have the nouse to do it yourselves.

Overall it looks like Zimbardo has the willful blindness of Academia - which I suppose is understandable, he wants to keep his job. Even if you've got tenure, if you still want to get funded to do research: you have to toe the party line, not anger the feminists and other vested interests, etc. Which further illustrates the bias behind everything which comes out of academia, even when they're supposed to be completely independent.

Ending with basically worthless talks and articles like the above for who-knows-how-much-money wasted.

It is no wonder that the West is in decline. When intellectual dishonesty from our brightest minds does not permit us to actually dig down to the actual roots of the problem, no push to fix the problem will be effective.
---edit---
I see that Uncle Bob beat me to the punch on this one. Ah well!

Female Dirty Tricks

There is one thing that I've come across again fairly recently. I wasn't going to bother with it, then realized that I'm not sure if some men are consciously aware of it - and it might cause an "ah-ha!" moment for those who haven't quite clicked to it yet.

It's the tendency of women to take advantage of a Man at his most relaxed periods:

* just woken up
* right after sex
* tired after a long day

At that point she will come up with a demand for something that she wants. Usually nominally relationship-based (spending more time together or making it more of a formal arrangement). Sometimes it can be of a more mercenary ($$$) nature (often disguised as something "romantic" that can be done as a couple).

Of course, being relaxed the man might mumble an assent out of sheer reflex.

If not then nag him. Until he acquiesces or gets extremely pissed off. If he acquiesces - hooray! If he gets pissy - drama! Either way she's won.

Because men will generally grumble yet do what they've agreed to in the heat of the moment. Even though we've been manipulated. We kinda know we have been, on some level, yet we have the grace (aka brainwashing) to still keep our word to our manipulator. Even though we might be pissy about it on the whole.

If it happens on a semi-regular basis, then things will gradually build up in his subconscious - until he finally decides that he's had enough, that he's not happy with the way things are going, and he dumps her. At which time it's an opportunity for her to indulge in more drama. The real reality is that while she may have won individual battles, she's actually lost overall.

There is another couple of situations which this can manifest in too:

* when he's horny
* when he's sick

Ever agreed to something when you're horny? If so then you know intimately what I'm meaning when I say that you just got manipulated and screwed-over. There's even a socially-acceptable situation where women take advantage of this all the time: "Buy me a drink? Thanks, bye sucker!" (There's a reason PUA's flipped the script on these grasping whores, with the old-school: "No, but you can buy me one.")

Any of this is very nasty behavior on a woman's part. Deliberately manipulating a man during these moments in life. Nagging him until he acquiesces just to get her to shut her mouth. Note that this would be the default action for most men. Not to harp on the "mangina" or "beta" or the like - most men have been trained by their mothers/sisters/school/society that saying "no" to a woman is A Bad Thing™. Reinforced by their father having to knuckle under and give mommy what she wants.

Because of this training most guys aren't gonna give her a nasty look and say: "I just woke up and you've just been a bitch and given me a shitty start to the day. Piss off." Where the reality is that any of that kind of behavior is grounds for an instant: "Get lost." For all time, never let her back into your life.

Manipulation. Deceit. Underhandedness. Nasty, cold and calculating selfishness. A real piece of work.

All the hallmarks of a greedy predator trying to get her way.

If you've just had that "ah-hah!" moment - remember it for future reference.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Masculinity and Self-Improvement

First, Roosh on Neomasculinity. I strongly suggest reading it and have the feeling that the comments will be as much of a goldmine as the meat of the original article.

Second, some of the Men over on Reddit (/r/MGTOW) are inspired by Monk Mode. Don't forget to grab the wallpaper that the Reddit Man created.

Both of which highlight a personal need to step back just a little, clear my head, refocus. Having these damn posts sprouting out from my subconscious is both handy and a pain in the ass. Mostly a pain in the ass, because I am starting to question the overall quality of the posts.

I've been aware of the personal need for some serious introspection for quite some time. Months. Between work, this blog, gym, learning a language, doing stuff around the house, climbing local peaks, and seeing various new places here in New Zealand - it's simply not happened.

Taking well-earned holidays has not happened.

Most especially: neither has there been any work on the book I've been trying to write. A serious lack of self-discipline is evident there.

Time to make time and space for introspection, reflection, and reassessment.

There are a few posts still in the pipeline. I'll work on polishing them a bit rather than tossing off and publishing whatever strikes me at the moment. If I find myself being dragged back into this willy-nilly, it might be time to simply stop for a while. We'll see how that works out.

In the meantime, enjoy yourselves. Have a beer on me.

Social Deconstruction: What Rape Culture?

It's time to roast these assholes, with their eternal paean regarding "rape culture", over a slow fire. Maybe we'll get lucky and can make them cry bitter tears of ultimate shame in the process (though they're generally shameless). Let's get started.

First, let's define the assholes involved and why I call them that:

* academics - pushing their theories out into the world (technically I am one of these)

* feminists - attempting to push their agenda and hopes of personal social relevance upon others

* feminist-indoctrinated - this is your average female who has gone to college (or watched too much TV)

* manginas and white knights - enablers and pussy-beggars ("oh you poor dears/do you want some dick?"), no you ain't getting laid

* the media - jumping on everything sensational in an effort to make $$$, rather than to fact-check and share real news

Now let's look at the feminists basic rape-claim from decades ago:

* 1 woman in 4 gets raped during her lifetime (ignoring the "eye-rape" claims of really fucked-up women)

Finally let's look at the mathematics:

* there are 322 million people in the USA (Wolfram|Alpha)
* that makes 161 million women
* that makes 40.25 million women get raped (in America)

If we define a lifetime as being between the ages of 15 and 45 (as the "rape-worthy" agespan category for all but really weird guys):

* assume that perhaps 1/3rd of women are currently in the "rape-worthy" agespan = 13.42 million women

* the agespan is 35 years * 364 days in a year = 12740 days

* that's 13.42 million women / 12740 days = 1053 women get raped every day in the USA

Time to check the newspapers. Births...deaths...marriages...where's the "rapes" section? Even if only 1% of these rapes were actually reported, that'd make a half-page to a page. After all, we *know* that bad news sells. The media even has a saying: "If it bleeds, it leads."

So what do we actually see leading? We see one rape splashed all over the front page of the newspapers. For a week or a month. Then it's back to the bloody Kardashian's or whichever stupid cunt "celebrity" who "accidentally" let her personal nudie pics out onto the interwebs for all to see.

Fucking. Bullshit. Exposed.

So, what's all this crap about a rape-culture? Hysteria. Attention-seeking. Pushing an agenda to change the social mores to make themselves feel important and relevant in the world.

The socially-irrelevant and actually-powerless, agitating to make themselves seem (and feeeeeel) more important than their actual pathetically lowly and worthless status in society. "Look at me! I've done this to help raise awareness about <bullshit feelgood garbage>!"

Stick a fork in 'em. Oh yeah. They're done.
--edit--
As Mindstorm points out, I messed up my calculation - the real numbers are more like:

* assume that perhaps 1/3rd of women are currently in the "rape-worthy" agespan = 13.42 million women

* the agespan is 45 - 15 = 30 years * 364 days in a year = 10950 days

* that's 13.42 million women / 10950 days = 1225 women get raped every day in the USA

Mindstorm also pointed out that the actual demographics give higher numbers of woman so I dug up some more information from Wolfram|Alpha and found that there are 62.5 million women between the ages of 15-45 in the USA:

* 62.5 million / 4 = 15.625 million rapes
* agespan 30 years * 364 days in a year = 10950 days
* so 15.625 million women / 10950 days = 1427 women get raped every day in the USA

I'm still looking for the "rapes" section in the newspaper - did somebody pinch it?

Social Deconstruction: Seeing The Darkness

Over on the post about What You Can Destroy, commentor Robert What? and I had a small discussion about the post and the woman involved. I've decided that the discussion is worth it's own post. Honorable mention to Omega Man.
-----------------

Robert What? -
At least this woman realizes that woman have to start asking themselves "what do I bring to the table?". That is more than most modern women do, even ostensibly "conservative Christian" women. Ask most young women what they bring to the table to deserve commitment from the guy of their dreams and you will likely get a blank stare. Probably the first thought would be "isn't my vagina enough"?

Black Poison Soul -
True enough, Robert.

I truly wonder though, if she has realized one thing. It requires utterly irrevocable commitment on women's part as well.

Are they willing to bring that to the table? In a non-revocable way? One which cannot, ever, be overturned in the future - for whatever reason, no matter how ostensibly-good?

Until that is a part of the package placed upon the table, in a matter utterly believable to all (including the badly-burned) men - then it is nothing more than an empty mouthing of pretty-sounding platitudes.

Robert What? -
Women have not changed. Young women have always had the instinct to be disloyal. It is in their DNA. However, for most of civilized history, society and law put a check on those instincts. Divorce and affairs had great social stigmas attached to them. (Affairs by men less so, because even a "straying" man usually supports and protects his wife and family. Abandoning them was also met with enormous social stigma.) However, divorce and affairs initiated by women now have little or no stigma attached to them and are often celebrated. So if you are waiting for women to "see the light", you'll be waiting forever. It is society that has to change, and I don't see it changing for the better anytime before the collapse. And that might not come for a hundred years.

Omega Man -
Excellent point about female behavior. Women can deny it all they want, but they are hardwired to betray.

Black Poison Soul -
Females have spent decades if not centuries deconstructing the social and legal limits upon their sex. As you say Robert, they will not be interested in "seeing the light". Which makes the entire post of hers an empty moo-ing of platitudes, designed to soothe certain sectors of men and keep them quiet.

Society will not change. Society is composed of women and those besotted with women. These vastly outnumber those who (like us) consider themselves to be capable of seeing the crap coming down the line. We can shout truth to the skies and nobody will listen, because they have a vested interest in not listening and not changing.

In her gut, every woman knows that she will survive. Even if men starve to death, she will eat. Even if men fight and kill each other, she will still be around and her genes will continue - mixed with the victor's. Since society is comprised to overwhelmingly favor women and most men have a similar mindset of favoring women, then women will continue to be coddled and protected at Men's expense. She doesn't care if the man she "bonds with" (aka marries) dies. She will still survive.

In the end there is always someone willing to fuck her even if she's butthole ugly. Even if it's just to get his rocks off when he's blind-drunk. Even if he's already got a wife and a couple of mistresses on the side (just look at Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bill Clinton).

We are in a slow decline and collapse, it will not be sudden and earthshaking. Barring some absolutely revolutionary method of education or breaking down willful barriers in the mind, I can see nothing happening in a hurry. I cannot imagine such a technology coming into existence. So things will simply continue as-is, getting worse and worse.

A while back I posted up a video by Sandman, about the collapse. He stated that he saw women in Belgrade, upping their competition for men with money. This type of thing is what will happen as the West collapses.

Only after the collapse is basically complete will the survivors force and enforce a moral system upon their women. Will this be out of a desire for civilization? Hell no! It will be because they're jealous and brutal bastards who no-fucking-way are going to share "their" women with anyone else.

-----------------

This can be a bitter pill to choke down. I think that many amongst the MRAs willfully blind themselves to this overall dynamic. I think that the PUAs can see it, so they decide to take advantage of it. I think that we MGTOW can see it, yet can't be bothered taking advantage of it - there's nothing worthwhile in it for us.

Omega Man: Hardwired to betray? Not necessarily hardwired. Trained would be a better word. When someone has been trained and shown and validated their entire life, when the social and legal limits have been removed, it simply becomes female bad behavior. It can and will eventually be held in check once more, whether because of a system of rebuilt social disapproval or a more brutal "step out of line and you're dead, cunt".

This reminds me once more of the reversion to sex slavery in the Islamic State. The women will survive no matter what. Even if it's as a sex slave.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

A Man Betrayed

The old saying: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scored."

Cliche, with truth behind it, one which many men have taken deep wounds from.

I have a new saying for the modern age: "Purgatory has no indifference like a Man betrayed."

Modern women live in a lonely purgatory of their own making.

A purgatory of the indifference of Men. A purgatory of no trust from Men. A purgatory that gets emptier with every single betrayal perpetrated by a woman upon a Man.

Women need the validation of others: both women and men.

Women provide the "validation" of relationships, herdism, groupthink, and the joys of social networking - aka gossip, social maneuvering, and backstabbing. Men provide the "validation" of both sexual meaning and protectorship for a woman, plus providing resources for the building up and growth and protection of families.

Soon there will only be female validation of women - men's validation of women is rapidly going out the door.

No marriages. No protection. No chivalry. No support whatsoever. Only the random hands, mouths, and penises of a succession of one-night-stands. Grasping, taking, entering, leaving on the slightest stir of emotion and whim. A vibrator as she gets older and the penises become less-common.

It's a cold world for a woman when she must do it all on her own. No mountain of strength, no sheltering tree, to keep at bay the vicissitudes of a harsh world. No steady and strong arms to hold her close on a regular basis. No deep, mumbling, sleepy voice to say: "There, there...it'll be better in the morning..." as a caress reassures her.

Instead it's another lonely night for her, to pop an antidepressant, to down a bottle of wine, to cry herself to sleep in a newly-emptied bed.

Another night for me, to sip Grand Marnier in front of the fire, to enjoy a good meal, to read a good book, to try and think deeply about the world.

I wonder if she will hear us Men as we whisper to the air: "You showed us freedom, woman. Didn't you think we would reach out to make it our own?"
--------
Commentor Anonymous brings out the prefect turn of phrase to describe this situation - "betrayal fatigue":

Anonymous 

There is a thing called betrayal fatigue, and it's epidemic in men. 

Patient Zero is women.

It fits well. Thank you.

Back To Basics: What's In It For Me?

Feminists and women, start running. This will not make you feeeeel good. Let's dive into the cesspool of modern society once more and see what we can find at the bottom.

On my prior post Back To Basics: What Is Marriage For? I wrote a single little throwaway line which has made me think about another basic item of life and civilization:

To give someone skin in the game, then there must be in their opinion something worthwhile in return.

Which brings up many things that have been said, repeatedly, through the manosphere. When you think carefully about it, you can see that it drives the PUA mindset of pump'n'dump. It underlies the concepts of the Christian Red Pill blogs. It underscores the why of MGTOW and Going Ghost.

We can see it when we ask what a woman brings to the table.

It's there when we ask a woman what she thinks a good woman brings to a relationship.

We can hear it whenever a Man gets frustrated and swears about not finding a good woman.

It's potentially there when a Red Pill Woman attempts to put herself up as what we men want.

It's potentially there when we hear about born-again Churchians and women who say that they've changed, they're not like that any more.

But we're all too nicey-nicey politically-correct to overtly state it. Even amongst ourselves. Even to admit it to ourselves. Because it's not "socially acceptable" for a Man to seem to be so selfish. Hell, I was too nicey-nicey myself when I said "skin in the game". So now I'm going to put it out there, for myself and for every other Man in the world:

What's in it for me?

Not angry. Not accusing. A simple, cold, selfish question that ultimately determines: in my opinion, is there something worthwhile in return for doing X?

Ironically and amusingly, women and femiwhores have been coldly and selfishly asking this question of men for decades (if not from the dawn of time) while at the same time exhorting us to be unselfish (it's that infamous female doublethink at work once more):

When she asks what you do for a living. (Subquestion how much do you make? Subsubquestion are you worth getting to know? Subsubsubentitlement I'm entitled to know so I can decide if I want to put my hand into your wallet.)

When she decides that you're no longer man enough for her.

When she impulsively fucks some guy she just met that night because he turns her on.

When she drags you around emotionally like a pet on a leash for her amusement.

When she dumps you because the sex/relationship has gotten stale.

When she causes a fight because she wants a drama fix.

When she asks you to buy her a drink.

When she browbeats you into doing something that you really don't want to do.

When she parts her legs for a PUA who has entertained her sufficiently.

Sometimes it's defensive:

Every time a PUA drops a fuck into her and then dumps her because that's all she has of any worth to offer.

Every time a MGTOW shakes his head and passes because he knows that she's going to be too much trouble.

Every time a Ghost slides through life with minimal interaction because it's just not worth the hassle.

Sometimes it's because it's personally beneficial:

Every time you go to the gym and feel satisfaction at breaking a personal record.

Every time you walk down the beach, out in the sun, filling your lungs with clean air.

Every time you do something just because you enjoy doing it.

Sometimes it's warm and fulfilling, as Keoni Galt states:

Every time you give to charity.

Every time you hug your child.

Every time you kiss your loved ones.

What's in it for me?

I look at civilization. I choose to continue with my reasonably high-income business/work because it is worth it for me. It pays for a 4 bedroom home which gives me personal space. It allows me to travel occasionally from New Zealand to other places in the world. That people hire my consultant ass is a bonus. Even so, I am thinking of changing and cutting back - there is a lot of stress involved, I have about 10 weeks of holiday-time accumulated, I'm beginning to wonder if it's actually worth that much hassle to me.

Others look at civilization. What's in it for them? So they minimize their interactions, earn less money than they're capable of, relax and enjoy their life. Perhaps it's a voluntary reduction, perhaps it's a forced reduction. Perhaps they decide to sponge off the system. Relax, enjoy the decline, enjoy the scenery, enjoy their family, enjoy other people. Develop your hobbies because you want to.

So these bring out another question along the same lines:

Is it really worth that much hassle?

This is what ultimately caused me to dump the entire dancing scene. I realized that there wasn't really enough in it for me, for it to be worth the hassle of hanging around these crazy entitled slut-whores. (Yes, slut-whores. Some used it as a dating/fucking pool. Others dated/fucked multiple guys at once. One was an actual whore. One had six guys in a single night. No other words fit. Plus, the drama and horseshit and politics and backstabbing!)

Is it really worth that much hassle?

Well? Is it?

What You Can Destroy

Uncle Bob has an interesting article up about how a century of feminism has failed women, written by Belinda Brown of The Conservative Woman. I'm going to cherrypick a few bits from the article, though I think the entire post he's put up is worth reading and thinking upon - this is simply my take on it:

Firstly, feminists may be a minority, but they are powerful. Women have real power in the family, rooted in their reproductive capability. This may, entirely through women’s individual decisions, lead to a secondary role in the public realm. Feminists have used this lower public status as a bargaining chip to pursue their own self-interest in every possible avenue of public life. Today feminists control the traffic lights and the road rules, men are only chauffeurs, even when they appear to be in the driver’s seat.
...
Secondly feminists are not amenable to rational argument. There are none so blind as those whose view has been eclipsed by ideology; ideology built on distortion, piled on top of stupidity and upon lie after lie until the truth lies buried deep beneath. Feminists are not going to turn traitor to an ideology which has not only nurtured their careers but determined crucial, life changing, and possibly life destroying, decisions in their private lives. The courage required to recognize their error would not be outweighed by the gain.
...
Feminism works well for women who want visible power and influence. But it has no strategy for social reproduction. Boys on Ritalin, internet addiction, obesity, oversexualised children, men in prison, fractured families – feminism has no long term survival strategy. These are just some examples of its scorched earth spawn.
...
You are right, Neil, that ultimately it is women, women who destroyed so much through their pursuit of self-interest, but who, because of their reproductive potential hold the key. This time round it is going to be very much harder. Men trusted us, they served us, they built our houses, fought our battles and they received our respect embodied in patriarchal structures in return. But now they have nothing. What is more they have found out that if they do give us what power they had, we deprive them of their children, we take their resources and we give them nothing, nothing in return. This time round we can’t expect them to do our bidding, as they did for so long. If we want to win back their trust and if we want them to co-operate with us, and I do, we will have to concede some of our independence and be prepared to place some dependence on them. In this, for their own security, we will have, I am afraid, to allow them to take the lead.
...
This is what the feminist century has done. By almost destroying the family it has shown us that it is the cornerstone of society. If we want self-fulfilled, happy, creative individuals, a functional, well networked society and a civilization worthy of emulation, we need strong healthy, resourceful families built on the commitment and selflessness of adults, persistence and a lot of hard work.

As I have quoted before: "If you can destroy something, you control it." - Muad'Dib, Dune

However that doesn't mean that you should destroy it. Especially for your own selfish gain. Which the author admits that feminism has done. (Note: While a lot of Men would like to destroy the feminist-centric grip on society, I am beginning to doubt that there will ever be a strong or lasting effect. There are too many white-knight manginas and assholes willing to throw all men under the bus for an opportunity to empty their nuts into a woman.)

It's interesting that the author also refers to feminism and MGTOW as Scylla and Charybdis. Two poles, steering between them safely. Unfortunately she makes one very large mistake in her thinking (given that this is a female writing the article, I cannot say that I'm surprised):

Only the steadfast women who are happy to prioritise the interests of their husbands and their children can set this process in motion. The feminists can’t, nor can the MGTOW. Women can do it, but only with the help of men. Together we can undo the damage which feminism created and rebuild a world of which can feel a little more proud.

"...only with the help of men..." - indeed.

Picture a couple together, standing shoulder-to-shoulder against the world, marching boldly and proudly into the future. A pretty and noble image.

Rah fucking rah.

The author's female entitlement mindset is such that she seems to automatically and unthinkingly expect Men as a whole to step up to the plate and help the process along. The final sentence reeks of a sub-rosa "man up" message. Fail!

A woman can shout to the world that she is happy to prioritize the interests of her husband and children. Yet we Men no longer have reason to cooperate and do our part in the process - let alone believe anything that women say.

Belief? Trust? In a woman?

Our harsh experiences have proven otherwise.

Feminism hasn't "almost" destroyed the family. Feminism has destroyed the trust between the sexes - at least, for the current generations.

With no trust, with no enforceable worthwhile marriage, there is no family.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

All The Wells Have Been Thoroughly Poisoned

Occasionally I go over and read Donal Graeme - he's a Christian Red Pill blogger who decries Churchianity and brings up some interesting stuff. I should read him more than I do, though I'm both atheist and getting busier these days. Commentor Mindstorm recently pointed me over there to a post:

A Truce ... or Victory?

Some of the comments in there are starkly illustrative of the mindset of people still trying to get men into the game-aka-war going on between the two sexes. Commentor The Shadowed Knight resists this and states:

I am not interested in a truce. I am not interested in a war, either. Women can fight; they want that drama. Every man for himself, and this man is leaving the field. For many of us, any truce will come too late to do much good. This fight left too few decent women standing, and the effort involved in finding them is too much for me. 

The Shadowed Knight

Yes indeed, he strikes right to the core. Too few of worth, too hard to find, forget it. I'm outta here, left the other slaves on the plantation, looking for a nice pleasant fishing-hole to enjoy. Want to join me? Drop your hook over there, maybe you'll get Old Mossy who hides under the tree roots.

Of course, there's the obligatory women-centric types seeming to try and shame the men back into getting involved with them. Some are obviously women, some are a bit harder to tell if it's a feminist-oriented male or someone with other skin in the game. I will quote one female commentor:

This fight left too few decent women standing, and the effort involved in finding them is too much for me. 

Even if you found one that you were convinced is one of the few decent women left, I doubt you’d fight to snap her up. Not just you though; that applies to most men these days, including those that hang around here, despite the fact that it’s hard to find one.

(Donal Graeme did give her a mild earful for coming across as a shaming-attempt. I would not have been so mild.)

People can state what they wish. People lie.

Women, as chameleon, are nothing but lies. ("I'm not like that!" When it's evident in every push-up bra, every drop of scent, every layer of makeup, every piece of slutty revealing clothing, that she is like that. Stop lying, woman.)

This is what these fucking retards never seem to grasp. Women. Faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they think that opening their mouth and saying something means that Men will take it as truth. Whether it's true or not.

Bull.

Shit.

The type of mentality which comes across - as if they're entitled to lie and sincerely expect to get away with it and that men will give them the pussy-pass if they're caught out - is both amazing and disturbing. Female entitlement to the max.

Cory Doctrow once wrote a piece on MetaCrap:

Meta-utopia is a world of reliable metadata. When poisoning the well confers benefits to the poisoners, the meta-waters get awfully toxic in short order.

To paraphrase and apply this maxim to the so-called sexual marketplace:

The sexual marketplace is a world of reliable relationships. When poisoning the sexual marketplace confers benefits to the poisoners, the sexual marketplace gets awfully toxic in short order.

Women have very thoroughly poisoned the sexual marketplace. It has been for their personal short-term gain and not for their family's nor civilization's long-term gain.

----------

Imagine a caravan of camels going through the desert. The sun burns down, the plodding pace, the feet dragging through the shifting sands. They stop at various oases and wells, trading, getting water, fresh food.

One particular village realizes that caravans are very profitable and poisons a well, luring in caravans. Those who go there die, their carcasses stripped, the bodies hidden away before the next caravan arrives. Several other villages note the prosperity of this village of robbers and decide to emulate them. The mentality spreads to yet other villages. Soon, all of the villages are doing it.

The caravan trade slacks off. Alarmed at the loss of their prosperity, the villagers get together and send out word: "We do not do these things. Come trade with us without risk."

The caravan trade picks up again. Prosperity returns to the villages in the form of more dead caravans, their corpses stripped, their bones hidden away in the endless sands.

Again, the caravan trade slacks off. Some of the villagers, deciding that they're sick of the others actions - even though they personally profited from those actions, perhaps even participated in them - split away and settle new villages.

No caravans arrive.

Surprised, they get together and have a big conflab then send out word: "We are new villages. We have absolutely nothing to do with those filthy robbers of the old villages. You can come trade with us and you will be welcome."

Still no caravans.

All the wells have been thoroughly poisoned - in the minds of the caravan-masters.
----------
Women seem to be so irrational (or entitled) that they apparently cannot grasp that men are actually rational when it comes to danger. That we see overwhelmingly common behavior. That we realize this behavior is going to be so common that we are most likely going to be subjected to it. (Is this a function of men as hunters, becoming good at recognizing danger in our surrounds and patterns of behavior in things around us?)

Plus, the whole idea of "new villages" reminds me of "born-again virgins".

Plus, the whole idea of so-called Red Pill Women stinks of the poison of personal opportunism.

A woman may not intend at all to follow this behavior.

Feelings change.

Good intentions go out the window.

Emotions take over.

You actually have the nerve to tell me you're not like that? You actually have the chutzpah to tell me you've changed? Cry me a fucking river. Woman, you lie.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

So You Still Want A Relationship

As a MGTOW I can't recommend this.

We'll assume that you've read all the warnings through the manosphere against doing it. We'll assume that you've decided that yes, you're going to give it a go. You're an adult.

So. You need to look really hard at these girls and filter through them.

Fortunately, one of the commenters over on Reddit has come up with what looks to me to be a gem of a filter. From /r/MGTOW, the post is mostly about goldiggers:

Asari_Lover 8 points 9 hours ago 

Pfft, I've got one. The answer I repetitively heard was drum roll A) Sex, B) I make you look good. 

Edit: I found a great way to sort out female "friends" worth having around and ones who are not is asking them what they think a good woman contributes to a relationship. [Emphasis mine. - BPS] Most look as though they were asked to give a lecture on quantum physics.

So. Ask her what she thinks a good woman contributes to a relationship.

I suppose that if nothing else, you'll get a few laughs from the looks on their faces. Hell, it might be worth asking your male friends as well.