The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

In The Mailbox, 02.08.16

Posted on | February 9, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox, 02.08.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: The Rest Of The Story
Da Tech Guy: Barack Obama And The VW Scandal Administration
The Political Hat: Time Is A Social Construct
Michelle Malkin: Joe Wilson Proved Right – Obama Did Lie On Obamacare Coverage For Illegals
Twitchy: Marco Rubio Brings Good Tidings To Female Supporter Bound For Hell


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Millenials Heed The Siren Call Of Socialism
American Thinker: Obama May Be Ensnared In The Clinton E-Mail Scandal
Conservatives4Palin: Liz Cheney Running For Congress In Wyoming
Don Surber: If You Don’t Know Who Ron Jeremy Is, This Just Went Over Your Head
Jammie Wearing Fools: Hilarious – Bill Clinton Whining About Misogyny As Hillary Faces Humiliating Defeat In NH
Joe For America: Watch Ted Cruz Hand A Biased ABC Moderator Her A**
JustOneMinute: Is Bernie Sanders A Coward, Or Just Shrewder Than Jonah Goldberg?
Pamela Geller: American Nanny Murdered By Refujihadi Rapist In Austria
Protein Wisdom: “Welcome Super Bowl! Welcome NFL Players! Please Hand Over Your Earnings Prior To Leaving!”
Shot In The Dark: Meet The DFL’s Praetorian Guard
STUMP: More On The Chicago Schools Situation
The Gateway Pundit: Abortion Rights Group Attacks Doritos Super Bowl Ad For “Humanizing” Fetus
The Jawa Report: ISIS Savage Child Abuse Continues
The Lonely Conservative: On The Fence About Socialism? Look To Venezuela For Your Answer
This Ain’t Hell: MSRB Saves Linda Weiss From Firing By VA
Weasel Zippers: “Hanoi Jane” Fonda Claims Trump’s Comments Are Driving Young Muslims To Jihad
Megan McArdle: Obamacare’s Cadillac Tax Will Not Survive
Mark Steyn: 13 Hours


Join Amazon Kindle Unlimited 30-Day Free Trial

Category: Linkagery

Feminism, Sex and Hypocrisy

Posted on | February 8, 2016 | 62 Comments

 

Perhaps readers will recall Nian Hu (@Nian_Hu on Twitter) or you may need to be reminded that Ms. Hu is the Harvard student who declared: “I am a feminist. I believe in the equality of the sexes. For me, feminism means freedom,” and that among these freedoms was “freedom to have as many sexual partners as I want without being looked down on.”

Well, this was an invitation to mockery that I could not refuse.

What Ms. Hu was saying, really, was that other people have no right to their own opinions. Everyone is required to approve of wanton promiscuity. The feminist freedom of Harvard sluts to get drunk and screw around would be infringed if they were to be “looked down on” because of their habitual and shameless fornication.

“Let me tell you what to think” — this is the dictatorial imperative of feminism, a totalitarian regime of clever college girls who have decided the rest of us are wrong about everything. You need to be constantly lectured by angry young women, because she is oppressed and you are privileged. Therefore the only correct opinions are opinions approved by these tyrannical Ivy League brats who consider it a social injustice — “harassment!” “misogyny!” — if anyone dares to disagree with them.

 

Are there no adults at Harvard University who can explain to these impudent kids that having a high SAT score when you’re 17 is not proof that you already know everything? Or are the faculty and administration of elite universities so intimidated by their students that there is no one on the Cambridge campus who will stand up to these young fools?

Petted and pampered and repeatedly told how wonderful they are (because being admitted to an Ivy League school is proof of their superiority to mere mortals), the insolent youth at schools like Harvard arrive on campus as freshmen convinced that they are smarter than God. The faculty apparently believe their task is to confirm, rather than contradict, their students’ grandiose narcissistic self-regard. So if the girls at Harvard are all sluts and the boys are all perverts, the faculty will schedule lectures in the department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies where students will be told how awesome it is to be a slut or a pervert. The Harvard kids will of course bask in this flattery — “We’re not just smart, we’re sexy, too!” — and thus become even more deviant and immoral than they were when they arrived.

The Ivy League Is Decadent and Depraved, and we can say of Harvard University what Obi-Wan Kenobi said of Mos Eisley, that it is a “wretched hive of scum and villainy.” But I digress . . .

Nian Hu published a new column in the Harvard Crimson last week:

My friend scrolls through the photos of a man on Facebook. He’s white, lives in a predominantly white neighborhood, and went to a predominantly white high school. But in many of his photos, he is accompanied by Asian women.
“Yes, he has yellow fever,” my friend confirms . . . a preference for Asian women. The term is most commonly ascribed to white men who seem to only ever date Asian women.
Yellow fever is a widespread phenomenon. According to data collected from online dating sites, all men except Asians prefer to romantically pursue Asian women. In fact, there are many dating sites specifically tailored for white men looking to date Asian women. There is even a Tumblr blog that compiles messages from “creepy white guys with Asian fetishes.” Yellow fever was also depicted in Debbie Lum’s documentary, Seeking Asian Female, which takes a close look at relationships between white men and Asian women. . . .
It is egregiously misguided to assume that an entire ethnicity of women has one set of personality traits, and the fact that some men actually believe this reflects the limited experience they’ve had with real-life Asian women. Even worse, it suggests that perhaps they are viewing Asian women more as one-dimensional objects than human beings.
Objectification is already something that all women face regardless of race. . . . For Asian women in particular, objectification reduces them to infantile figures — delicate, submissive, and dutiful.
The fact that docility and submissiveness are viewed as favorable traits for Asian women is telling. It implies that non-Asian women are too loud, too opinionated, too intimidating, and that men would prefer women who keep quiet and acquiesce to their every demand. The stereotype that Asian women are meek, though blatantly untrue, nevertheless reveals that perhaps yellow fever is more than just an innocent preference based on physical appearance. . . .

You can read the whole thing, if you feel the urge to absorb another lecture about what a bigoted racist misogynist you are. Frankly, I got bored with these lectures decades ago. The Clarence Thomas hearings, the L.A.riots, the O.J. Simpson trial, Monica Lewinsky, Matthew Shepard — by the time the ’90s ended, like most American adults, I was sick and tired of listening to liberals tell us what to think about everything. Back then, of course, the liberal lectures were delivered by TV commentators and newspaper columnists whereas now, thanks to the Internet, every 19-year-old kid with a Tumblr blog is telling us what to think because, of course, teenagers know everything and grown-ups know nothing. But once again, I digress . . .

What is it about feminism that convinces young women they possess a monopoly of knowledge and virtue in regard to sexual behavior? How is it that I, who have six children — three of them older than Nian Hu — am assumed to be an ignorant bigot in need of a lecture about “Hey, objectification is bad, you guys”? Evidently, Ms. Hu disapproves of white men dating Asian women, and she has the right to her opinion. Likewise, the Nation of Islam and the Ku Klux Klan have the same right to disapprove of interracial relationships. It is not my job to tell other people what to think or say or do, so why should I let a Harvard sophomore tell me what to think, say and do? And how are we to decide whose sexual preferences should be condemned as harmful “fetishes” and “objectification,” whereas other preferences we are never allowed to criticize at all? Who has the authority to make this decision?

For example, ever since the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the category of mental illness, the question of why gay people are gay has been considered off-limits. Any speculation about the etiology of homosexuality incites activists to begin shrieking their insistence that gay people are “born that way,” and so it is impossible to research the possible developmental factors involved without being accused of malevolent homophobic intentions. Well, it’s still a free country, and I am therefore at liberty to say (a) I never believed the “born that way” argument, and (b) I don’t think most gay people actually believe it, either. Trust me. After two years of plowing through dozens of books about radical feminist gender theory, and monitoring the ongoing discourse on Feminist Tumblr blogs, I am if anything even more skeptical of the “born that way” narrative than I was before I began this research project. Because of the substantial overlap between feminism and lesbianism (which is apparent to anyone who bothers to look at Tumblr or, for that matter, Women’s Studies programs), an amateur student of feminist gender theory will invariably encounter various first-person narratives of the “How I Knew I Was Gay” genre.

In the course of relating their “discovery” of their “sexuality” (like they were Pizzaro and lesbianism was the Inca Empire), these women will often talk about their family backgrounds and their early childhood in such a way that would make an old-fashioned Freudian psychoanalyst puff his pipe and say, “Tell me more about your mother.” There are certain situations and circumstances that seem especially conducive to homosexual tendencies, and there is always a backstory, usually involving a sense of alienation, a feeling of being a misfit who is different from other kids, which then manifests itself as homosexuality — or not. Some misfits manage to work through their identity crises and turn out more or less normal. Of course, we have to wonder what sort of unresolved “issues” might be lurking behind the mask of normality when we see someone like Bruce Jenner, a 65-year-old married grandfather, suddenly declare that he is a woman named “Caitlyn.”

 

What does this have to do with Nian Hu’s criticism of “yellow fever”? Perhaps more than you would think. Radical feminists describe the transgenderism of Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner as “gender fetishism.” That is to say, the so-called “dysphoria” of transpeople involves not merely a sense that they don’t fit in the body they were born in, but also a fetishistic obsession with the superficial traits and behaviors of the opposite sex. It is very easy to say Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner is just crazy, but if it’s not yet illegal to ask, why is he/she crazy? What are the components parts of his/her delusional obsession? How does someone develop such an intense identification with the opposite sex?

Well, you can believe what you want to believe, but if Bruce can be “Caitlyn” (and you’ll be condemned for transphobia if you say he/she can’t) then why is it wrong for white boys to be obsessed with Asian girls? If Ms. Hu is going to denounce “yellow fever,” what other sexual preferences will she likewise declare to be intolerable “objectification”? Do we need a Committee for Acceptable Attraction to issue official protocols of who we are and are not allowed to like? Maybe we could have a Central Bureau of Sexual Planning that will assign us sex partners on the basis of a random lottery to prevent unfair “discrimination.” If the Bureau assigns you to have sex with Danny DeVito or Rosie O’Donnell, you must comply with your assignment, comrade!

What we perceive in Nian Hu’s diatribe against the “fetishization” of Asian women is how feminism justifies hypocrisy. Twenty years ago, liberals were constantly lecturing us that we should never be “judgmental,” but now we notice that liberals are themselves quite judgmental. Everything any heterosexual white male says or does is wrong, according to the judgmental Left, and scarcely a day goes by that we don’t get some new notice of hitherto unsuspected Thought Crimes we have have committed. We are nowadays indicted and prosecuted in absentia for Thought Crimes. No evidence is required and the first we learn of our wrongdoing is when we are told we are guilty of it: “Heteronormativity!” “The male gaze!” “Rape culture!”

And who are our accusers? Only the most privileged people on the planet — arrogant brats like Nian Hu whose status as a Harvard University student qualifies her to pass judgment on everyone else. Whatever the feminist likes is good, and whatever you like is wrong, because she is a victim and you are an oppressor. In the 21st century, the claim of victimhood becomes the ultimate privilege, entitling the victim to lecture everybody else, and if any man disagrees with her, his disagreement proves that he is a misogynist. Quod erat demonstrandum.

She’s grinding these axes while enrolled at Harvard University, annual tuition $45,278. Your parents are shelling out that kind of money to send you to college and you’ve got nothing better to do with your time than to look at a guy’s Facebook pages to see if he is “fetishizing” Asian women? And yet, you little hypocrite, you insist that you should be able to “have as many sexual partners as I want without being looked down on”?

Which is it, Ms. Hu? Is private sexual behavior off-limits to criticism, or is everything to be subjected to public scrutiny to determine if our sexual choices are appropriate? Either all choices are open to criticism or no choices can be criticized, but I suspect most of us would never want to live under a regime in which some distant elite of self-appointed secular “experts” arrogate to themselves the authority to tell everybody else how we are allowed to have sex and with whom.

This is why most people despise contemporary feminism, because feminists do not deceive us with their talk of “gender,” which we understand correctly to be a way of talking about sex. Feminists want to dictate what we are allow to say about sex, so as to control what we think about sex, and thus ultimately to tell us what we are permitted to do about sex. What is the basis for feminist authority in these matters? On whose behalf do feminists claim to wield such extraordinary social, cultural and political power? And when we catch feminists engaged in deception and hypocritical sophistry — excluding their own sexual behaviors from criticism, while condemning the rest of us as guilty of sexual Thought Crimes — why are we always accused of “harassment” for having the effrontery to notice these feminist lies?

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and unless people wake up to this menace, there will come a time — and perhaps soon — when we no longer have any freedom, nor any means of resisting the feminist dictatorship, which would certainly be the cruelest tyranny the world has ever known.

What a sad page in the history books it will be that tells the tale of how a once-great nation was destroyed, and a formerly free people were enslaved, by a bunch of Crazy Cat Ladies.

BREAKING NEWS:

CONCORD, N.H. — On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the country’s first female president has encountered an unexpected problem: she is having trouble persuading women, young and old, to rally behind her cause.

Oh! What a bitter disappointment this would be to Ms. Hu!

(Hat-tip: Badger Pundit on Twitter.)

 

Category: Sex Trouble

NARAL: ‘Tactic Of Humanizing Fetuses’

Posted on | February 7, 2016 | 57 Comments

by Smitty


I realize we’re not supposed to ask “hahrd” questions, but it would be helpful if the Servants of Moloch could explain something.
Accepting for the sake of argument that humans are not continuously human from conception on through death, how DOES the fetus transition from non-human to human state? What magical chrysalis occurs, when the embryo goes from non-human to human status?
I realize that this is a key component of abortion mythology, but I’ve never heard any proponent of the fiction explain it.

Category: Abortion

Rule 5 Sunday: Super Bowl L

Posted on | February 7, 2016 | 21 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

We’ll have none of your barbaric non-Roman numerals here on our traditionalist website, buddy. This week, our appetizer is courtesy of the Carolina Panthers’ Top Cats, “…representing all regions of the Carolinas.” Indeed. As usual, please exercise discretion when clicking on the links below, many of which are to pics generally considered NSFW. The management is not responsible for any penalties called for lack of discretion in clicking, including loss of downs, loss of possession, clock resets, and/or removal from the game.

See if you can find the 40-year-old in this picture.

Goodstuff leads off this week with that marvelously plush bunny, Kirstie Alley, followed by Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Morning Mistress, Hot Pick of the Late Night Bananarama, and Girls with Guns. The Last Tradition checks in with Mileena Hayes and Sessilee Lopez, Animal Magnetism has Rule Five Campaign Speech Friday and the Super-Sized Saturday Blondepocalypse, and First Street Journal chips in with Off We Go Into The Wild Blue Yonder.

EBL’s herd of mutants and merkins begins with Angela Merkel and continues with the legendary Mud Shark, and more Carolina Panthers cheerleaders.

A View from the Beach offers Alyson Michalka, Circuit Court Strikes Down MD Gun Restrictions, Friday Swimming with Manatees, Power Glitch Kills Pennsylvania Carp yea, really, I’ve Seen Flying Fish Before . . ., New Zealand: A Nice Place Except for All the Da*n Vampires, Eat Mo’ Fish!, “Riding Shotgun Down the Avalanche”, No More Eastern Shore Nutria?, It’s Bikini Season in Poland!, To Be Fair, He Has a Point, and Now There’s a Talent!

Soylent Siberia serves up some coffee creamer, Monday Motivationer Distraction, Tuesday Titillation, Humpday Hawtness’ Lofty Asspirations, Fursday Sushi, Corset Consternation, Weekender Sabrina, and Bath Night Bingo.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Katie May, his Vintage Babe is Inger Stevens, Sex in Advertising is covered by Mrs. Tom Brady, there’s Women of PETA XLVII, and of course the obligatory NFL cheerleaders. At Dustbury, it’s Lauren Hutton and Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark.

Thanks to everyone for your linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox is midnight on Saturday, February 13.


Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

#GOPDebate Feedback: Women In Combat Is A Progressive Position

Posted on | February 7, 2016 | 105 Comments

by Smitty

The GOP debate in New Hampshire was relatively well done, once everyone got onto the stage. The one curve ball is the topic of this blog post. Sorry, Governor Christie, there is no “natural right” to serve in the military, and the overall swellness of any individual aspiration to serve is not a basis for policy or military strategy.

The proper basis for any actual veteran (that is, non-careerist, brown-lipstick-wearing senior brass tools in the Pentagon) is this: combat power of the military unit.

Had we shred #1 of intellectual honesty, we’d do a cost/benefit analysis of our decades of experience with co-ed units, and locate the sweet spot of “co-edfication” and combat effectiveness, and be willing to admit that we may very well have sacrificed the ability to win a war on the altar of Political Correctness.

Which, by the way, is not to take anything away from any of the really excellent ladies with whom I (genuinely) enjoyed serving. They rock. The point is simply that their overall rockingness is not the proper question, and, sadly, nothing short of abject ruin will trigger an honest appraisal.

War is The Evil That Men Do. I shall go to my grave unpersuaded that War Is More Awesome When Women Are Part Of The Team.

Category: Chris Christie, Republicans

Feminism Is a Synonym for ‘Shut Up’

Posted on | February 7, 2016 | 67 Comments

Feminists despise all men and never want to hear a man say a word:

“I wish all men would shut the fuck up forever honestly. I never want to hear another unsolicited male opinion in my fucking life, least of all on feminist issues. It seems that all ‘feminist’ men care about is getting nice guy points and sleeping with women, or stroking their own egos and thinking they’re soooo great because they show basic human decency to women.”

This quote from an anonymous young feminist’s Tumblr blog expresses the esoteric reality of feminism — what feminists really think, and say to each other privately — in contrast to the exoteric rhetoric feminists speak in public when trying to recruit new members and attract “mainstream” political support. In public, feminists claim to believe in equality between men and women; privately, feminists seethe with resentment toward men, dismiss men’s accomplishments as “male privilege,” denounce men as entirely useless and — as in the example above — express a wish to silence men. As I have previously explained:

Feminism is always a lecture, never a debate. Feminists have no respect for men. No feminist ever wants to hear anything a man has to say, so what’s the point of saying anything to a feminist except “good-bye”?

Meanwhile, consider this headline:

Gloria Steinem Says Young Women
Only Support Bernie Because Boys Do

The iconic feminist Hillary supporter denounces the socialist Bernie Sanders as a patriarchal conspiracy? It’s too perfect!

America Needs Hillary for President Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle.

 

Category: Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Breakdown

Posted on | February 7, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Nighthawks
Animal Magnetism
Regular Right Guy
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Feminism: A Problem, Not a Solution
Rotten Chestnuts
First Street Journal
The Daley Gator
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

Police: Louisiana Teacher and Teen Girl Had Year-Long Lesbian Relationship
Batshit Crazy News

FMJRA 2.0: Pallas Athena
The Pirate’s Cove
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

Is This Donald Trump’s Testimony?
Regular Right Guy

IOWA CAUCUS PREDICTION
Regular Right Guy
The Daily Spew
Batshit Crazy News

The Iowa Caucus Is Rape Culture
Regular Right Guy
The Lonely Conservative
Batshit Crazy News

‘Rape Culture’ in Tuscaloosa?
Regular Right Guy

In The (Rape Culture) Mailbox, 02.01.16
Regular Right Guy
Proof Positive

LIVE AT FIVE: 02.02.16
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Rape Culture: German Women Terrorized by Growing Menace of Muslim Violence
Batshit Crazy News

How @RooshV Trolled the World
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 02.03.16
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Don’t The #TrumperTantrum Gags Just Write Themselves?
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 02.04.16
The Lonely Conservative
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

‘Neo-Masculinist’ Fail? @RooshV Cancels Meetups After Feminist Threats
Batshit Crazy News

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (14)
  2.  Regular Right Guy (9)
  3.  Proof Positive (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!


I Robot

Category: FMJRA Award

When @RooshV Is Right

Posted on | February 6, 2016 | 36 Comments

Currently 3,000 words into writing a very long article about the denouement of the drama about pickup artist (PUA) Daryush “Roosh V” Valizadeh, I need to take a break and give readers something to chew on in the meantime. As a father, a husband and a Christian, of course I must frown in disapproval at the entirety of PUA discourse. On the other hand, (a) I’m old enough to remember the “swinging singles” scene of the 1970s, and (b) I was a Democrat back then, so it’s not as if I don’t know how The Game is played. Or at least, how The Game used to be played. Exactly what it’s like for a young guy on the scene in the 21st century, I can’t say and, given the toxic aspects of contemporary “hookup culture,” my advice to any young man would be: If you can find a sane woman, marry her, and stay the heck away from the singles scene.

Whether viewed from either a practical or moral perspective, the prevailing insanity of young women’s attitudes and behavior in 2016 is a strong argument against pursuing the kind of hedonistic pleasures that pickup artists seek. It seems that the more a young woman goes through the “pump-and-dump” experience of a carousel rider — a hookup here, a “friends with benefits” arrangement there, cohabiting for a few months at a time with various boyfriends, etc. — the crazier she becomes. A girl who might have been potential wife material at 16 starts bouncing around from boyfriend to boyfriend and, by the time she’s 21 or 22, she has sustained so much emotional damage she is probably doomed to become a Crazy Cat Lady, gobbling antidepressant pills and updating her Tumblr blog between appointments with her therapist.

No father would want his daughter to become a carousel rider, nor would any mother want her son to date that kind of low-self-esteem trash, and yet PUAs are chasing after these “pump-and-dump” girls? Why? Oh, wait a minute — I’m having a flashback to the summer of 1978. However, I was a Democrat then and, also, I have the right to remain silent and to have my attorney present during questioning, Sheriff. But I digress . . .

Obviously, I do know why young guys go to nightclubs in search of easy action, but with the benefit of hindsight, I recognize this as a game for losers. If a guy is really a winner, he’s got a girlfriend, and if your girlfriend is a winner, well, why not get married, settle down and make babies with her? With two parents who are winners, your kids are almost guaranteed to be winners, and the world needs more winners, right?

There are way too many losers in the world already, which explains why these losers are all reading pickup artist stuff on the Internet, trying to figure out how to win. This is not to say, however, that what Roosh V says is always wrong. In fact, a lot of what he says about male/female dynamics is very insightful, despite his bad motives and the deliberately insulting language he uses toward women. And here is one of those cases where he makes an excellent suggestion:

A man at a bar will roll his eyes at feminist talking points, but he will nonetheless persist in his pursuit of the notch. This must end. . . .
Not only must you pass on a feminist, but you must let her know why you are passing on her. It must be clear to her that a man she was considering for sex has rejected her solely for her beliefs. Examples:

Girl: “It’s too bad that men still make more than women.”
You: “Wait, are you a feminist?”
Girl: “Well yeah.”
You: “Too bad, I don’t date feminists. Have a good night.”

Girl: “Birth control should be a human right, like mobile internet access.”
You: “So you’re a feminist?”
Girl: “I think if you believe in true equality, you’re a feminist, too.”
You: “LoL. I don’t talk to feminists.” Backturn

An argument or debate is not on the table. Do not give her the chance to explain her beliefs or demand to know yours. Once she admits to being a feminist, someone who believes in female superiority at the cost of male well-being, she no longer exists in your world.

This is exactly right, or almost so. Roosh V is correct that no man should ever let himself be drawn into an argument or debate with a feminist in a casual conversation. Seriously, guys: Once she identifies herself as a feminist, or exhibits the kind of hostile attitude that is typical of feminists, this is your cue to walk away, even if (a) she looks good, and (b) she’s otherwise giving you green-light signals. What you must realize is this: Feminists consider men their inferiors, and if a feminist signals sexual interest toward you, the question is, why?

Feminism attracts selfish, cruel and dishonest women by offering them a political rationale for their sadistic revenge fantasies. The only reason a feminist is ever interested in any man is because she craves the opportunity to humiliate him, thus to prove her own superiority to him. Jessica Valenti married Andrew Golis in 2009 and has been publicly humiliating him ever since, a shame that Golis (five years younger than his Vindictive Man-Hating Boss Lady wife) is required to endure in his assigned role as The Good Liberal Man, the Ice Queen’s sperm-donor/roommate/babysitter in their loveless sham of a marriage.

Only a masochist with zero self-respect could be interested in a relationship with such a heartless monster as Jessica Valenti, and this is what any pickup artist must consider if he encounters a woman who calls herself a “feminist.” Clearly, Roosh is correct that snubbing her — and making sure she knows why you’re snubbing her — is the smart play.

Do not argue or debate with her. Feminism is always a lecture, never a debate. Feminists have no respect for men. No feminist ever wants to hear anything a man has to say, so what’s the point of saying anything to a feminist except “good-bye”?

Heed my wisdom, young man: Nine times out of 10, the only reason a woman like that ever flirts with a man is to prove to herself that she could get him if she wanted him. Feminism is the political rationalization of neurotic women’s psychological deficits, you see. The feminist has self-esteem issues which she reverses into a grandiose narcissistic projection of herself as a Heroic Crusader for Social Justice. If you find yourself in a situation where such a woman is giving you green-light signals, therefore, this question is always why? And the answer is that she wants you to  make a move (thus validating her sense of herself as sexually desirable), so that she can have the sadistic pleasure of rejecting you, thereby demonstrating her superiority to you.

This is certainly not The Game a smart player would ever play, and so Roosh is right: Walk away. Of course, an unscrupulous cynic could probably think of alternative ways to play that scenario, but this would require (a) a genuinely wicked imagination and (b) master-level skills. Since I hung up the spurs when I married my wife in 1989, there are probably very few young riders in the carousel rodeo with the necessary combination of skills and attitude to execute the old Triple-Burn Play, and I’d be a fool to give away that kind of strategy, even if it eweren’t for my Christian moral objections to sinful fornication. Besides, if I waive my Miranda rights, anything I say can and will be used against me, and therefore I’ll invoke my right to remain silent, Sheriff.

The Game is a bad game, boys. “For the wages of sin is death,” and you can believe what you want to believe, but there is such a thing as justice in this world, and what goes around comes around sooner or later. Sinners usually learn that lesson the hard way, and a wise man would never play The Game rather than to risk becoming an Andrew Golis.

God must really hate that poor fool for some reason.

ADDENDUM: Let me add, while it’s on my mind, a further thought about PUAs. The median age at first marriage in 1959 (the year I was born) was about 20 for women, and 23 for men. It is now about 26 for women and 28 for men. What this trend represents is the decline of marriage, and if you haven’t studied this demographic trend as a historical phenomenon, you should. However, what the would-be pickup artist needs to think about when considering this trend is his exit strategy from The Game. By the time a guy is in his mid-20s, about half the women his age are already married. We may suppose that the woman who marries in her early 20s is more tradition-minded and also probably more attractive than the woman is still single at age 27 or 28. Remember what I said about carousel riders and emotional damage? How many times can a girl get burned in bad relationships before she’s psychologically broken beyond repair?

OK, so you are a college-age nerd who can’t succeed with the ladies, and you turn to the PUA community seeking to improve your chances. The key thing I wish to emphasize here is, don’t let The Game become your Afghanistan war. A young player — the guy who’s 21 or 22 and scoring regularly — may be tempted to believe he can keep playing The Game forever. If you pay attention, though, you’ll notice guys who stay in The Game too long, and it’s a sad sight to see a dude in his 30s hanging around bars trying to hit on girls 10 years younger than him. See, guys, there is ultimately no future in The Game, and the only way to win The Game is to quit The Game. And your chances of getting out of carousel rodeo, to exit The Game as a winner, are best if you find someone to marry before you get to the point that you’re picking through the culls and rejects that other guys didn’t consider keepers.

 

Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »