Tag Archives: sexual politics

What’s Worse Than Dying Alone? I’ll Tell Ya.

So last night, as I slept fitfully in my fortress of bachelor solitude, in my dreams, my father came to me and he said:

“Son, I understand all this MGTOW and MRA stuff you’re doing right now, and I’m not gonna say that you’re wrong in any of your points, but my point to you is ‘What’s worse than dying alone?'”


I woke up to this, and had some deep shower thoughts about it. Ultimately, I decided that becoming my father is worse than dying alone.

Now, you gotta understand, my father’s a moderately successful man. Made good money, married well, lives on an island, in an ivory tower. We’d all be lucky to be doing as well as he has, and many of us, sadly, won’t. But he’s stated publicly, many times, that if he weren’t married, he’d give it all up, live on the swamp, in a trailer, and just go fishing all the time.


And if you had a decent career, made six figures for 20 or 30 years, that’s entirely possible. With all the principle and equity you have in 401k’s and real estate, at age 70+ you’ve probably got a million dollars, which isn’t really that much these days, but still, you could invest that smartly, and expect at least $50,000/yr interest income, live in the swamp, hunt alligators, or do an Indian motorcycle hostel tour of Europe, like you wanted to when you were young but couldn’t, because unlike the rich kids, you went to Vietnam. Or you could even put that money into a good nursing home, where they would keep you strung out on fentanyl until you died. Fentanyl is good shit, man.


But that’s not enough to keep the missus happy, so you don’t do that kinda fun stuff. Instead, you keep working, well into your 70’s, just so you can uphold a standard of living insisted upon by an old bag, who doesn’t do much for you any more. And no, I’m not referring to my mother. My mother’s a saint my father left behind, for the sake of status symbols, in the go-go Reagan 80’s. But let’s not embarrass dear old Dad and Gangy anymore than we already have…


Let’s generalize the scenario, and apply it to our own generation, which is different from the Boomers’ in key ways. Me, for instance: I just turned 36. I’m a college graduate, with ten years professional experience in the software industry. Even at the foothills of middle age, I feel that I have a bright future to anticipate. I don’t look bad, either. A girl could do a lot worse.


At my age, they say ‘all the good ones are taken’. And for the most part, they’re right…  Single women my age, best case scenario, are the victims of male sexual entitlement, having been ‘alpha-widowed’, which is to say, left behind by some high-status male like my old man, who wanted a newer trophy. I honestly believe that this scenario is more rare in my generation, because in my generation, men have more social conscience, and women, for the most part, have less. In other words, the key difference between GenX/Y and Boomers is that, due to 3rd-wave feminist empowerment, men are actually more likely to be ‘alpha-widowered’ than women. Which is exactly what has given rise to the whole modern MRA/MGTOW movement!

So here I am, 36 years old, and hormones don’t control my behavior anymore. Don’t get me wrong, when I see, through the window of a nightclub, a young, hot, 21-year-old girl dancing, as I’m walking by, on the way to the folk-music pub where everyone knows my name, I’m tempted to go in there and throw some of my disposable income at her. But I know from experience that I would be admonished as a ‘dirty old man’ for doing so, probably upset the delicate social eco-system of all the not-as-well-established guys her own age who want to fuck her (or perhaps already have), and she wouldn’t end up taking me seriously, anyway. Even if I did make it into the VIP section of her little personal club, she’d eventually rationalize pump-and-dumping me, because at their age, they’re all probably either sluts or teases. Or both, relative to different people, as the situation entices.


So I’m told to stick with women my own age. But they aren’t attractive to me. Especially the ones who’ve been left in the ‘single’ pile for awhile, often with good cause. What am I, supposed to feel sorry for them? That’s kinda difficult, seeing how I was there when, 10 or 15 years ago, they were the slutty teases dancing in clubs. And I watched them abandon many good men for superficial reasons, which they then rationalized to their friends, thus poisoning those men’s reputations with other women, in addition to breaking his heart, all to make themselves look and feel better about getting bored and wanting more varied sexual experience with that poor guy’s friends and relatives.


And if that broken-hearted guy reacted to this in any way but a good-natured ‘Thank you, sir, may I have another?’, then not only did their exes turn the community’s women against him, but they turned the males against him as well. Because when young women of primitive social ethics insist ‘he bad man’, other men eventually form a crude posse, complete with with pointy sticks and rocks, and chase the ‘bad man’ away, just so they can impress the opposite sex. We call those ‘white knights’, in my generation, and there are plenty of them. Their stock is replenished progressively in the next generation, even as it is depleted by experience-based disillusionment in the current generation. As those who peddle and exploit optimistic idealism know, there’s a sucker born every minute.


And most single women, at my age, have some bullshit like that in their background. Meanwhile, I had my head down, was graduating college and starting a career. And enduring years-long periods of social alienation that most women, with their expectations of social privilege, quite frankly, probably couldn’t survive. But now, I’m supposed to grovel for their approval, like a true southern gentleman, knowing full well how decadent, socially over-privileged, and non-committal they used to be, with their current acquiescence to ‘family values’ surely the product of some desperate survival instinct. These are known as ‘hamsters’ who have ‘hit the wall’.


And as black as their pasts may be, their futures seem to be even worse. They say the true test of love is to add fifty years or fifty pounds to the subject of your affection, and see if you still love them. Also, add to that a net financial loss from her low income that doesn’t cover her expansive tastes, frequent sabbaticals, and failed pottery studios. The hotter she is, or was, the higher maintenance, and hence, more hemorrhaging money, putting your Indian motorcycle retirement even more in jeopardy.


So, what’s worse than dying alone?

Being a slave to depreciating assets, man.


The Cultural Marxist’s Playbook


What is Cultural Marxism?  Some people define Cultural Marxism as ‘an ideology which emphasizes culture as a main cause of inequalities.‘  Others define Cultural Marxism as ‘The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, god or even family or the state.’  Still others dismiss the whole idea of Cultural Marxism as a ‘right-wing conspiracy theory’, worthy only of a footnote in a German political history text.

I hate to say that I have personally witnessed Cultural Marxism firsthand, in Austin, TX.  It’s a very politically and financially polarized college town, and I believe that Cultural Marxism is prevalent here to a degree, because this town was built to exploit in-group/out-group politics via fraternity-esque social classism, so the practices of Cultural Marxist exploiters play right into that, as well as into the ‘college liberal’ PC/SJW culture.  After all, college is the place where promising youngsters are homogenized into blank slugs for the corporate machine, so that makes it pretty easy for bad influences to hi-jack the signal, and inject their own programming.

Austin residents have actually become so paranoid about becoming the victims of Culturally Marxist local social establishments, that even the rednecks act ‘politically correct’, if only because they don’t want to be accused of ‘intersectionality‘, the irony here being that Cultural Marxism is far more institutionalized than Intersectionality, even in little old Austin, TX!  If you ask me, Intersectionality is a Dallas thing, and Cultural Marxism is an Austin thing.  I consider myself a refugee from Dallas Intersectionality who ran to Austin for some liberal empathy and compassion, only to find myself a victim of Austin Cultural Marxism.

I think it’s totally possible to be the victim of both Intersectionality AND Cultural Marxism at once, or more commonly in direct sequence: If you are a cannabis user, no matter your race, the bigoted government will rob you and confine you to an artificially low social class, and then liberal Cultural Marxists of the community will take advantage of your shitty situation, by selling you short with one compromising situation or another.


I was having a conversation with a local male feminist about Miss USA dumping Tim Tebow because he practices abstinence, and he said that the NFL star needed to be ‘reprogrammed’.  I said ‘What do you think a shrink is gonna do for this guy besides reinforce his pre-existing value system?’  People put way too much stock in shrinks in this town.  It’s a replacement that atheists use instead of religion.  Instead of confessing to a priest, you confess to a shrink. Instead of being advised by a clergyman, you are advised by a therapist. Instead of the dogma being controlled by the Vatican, it is controlled by the academic elite. Instead of Heaven and Hell, there is assimilation and commitment. Instead of a tithe there is an insurance premium. Instead of congregation there is group. Instead of communion wafers there are anti-depressants.

There is very little difference between psychology and religion. Both are for people who are too stupid or scared to think for themselves, and make their own choices.  Anyway, shrinks are professional yes-men who reaffirm whatever you want them to as long as your payments clear.  That’s why everyone thinks they are right all the time here, because they have a shrink that tells them they are right.  It’s probably the same guy telling everyone they are right, even bitter enemies with directly conflicting agendas.  His throwing up a green light in all directions makes me question whether the shrink is a psycho, actually.

Anyway, my point being that Austinites aren’t very good at living up to the stereotype of being good social liberals, tolerant of others’ cultures.  Look what happened when this guy’s Cadillac rims got badly critiqued on reddit.  Perfect example of Culturally Marxist intolerance, complete with appeal to authority in order to induce State intervention:


I don’t know what’s worse sometimes: that Austin has become too ‘Hollywood’, or that it’s the phony, overly-idealistic, snooty, spoiled liberals who hypocritically complain the loudest about Austin becoming too ‘Hollywood’.  Too many princesses, not enough people willing to be subjugated as peasants. Irrational fantasies conflict.  Douchebag photographers and Southern beauty queens manipulating eachother to a point where you can’t tell who is exploiting whom.  What’s sad is that Cultural Marxism has actually been used in extremely closed and elitist modelling communities by Machiavellian moguls who attempt to have a monopoly on beauty.

It seems like there are so many locals who have ‘gone Hollywood’: Models, photographers, SJWs, cokeheads, DJs, swingers, etc… They even had a nightclub party called ‘Damn the Paparazzi’. Yeah, there’s lots of paparazzi around here. You wish your life were that interesting.  Austin people being Hollywood is the definition of ‘pretentious’.  If you could understand the ridiculousness of Texans imitating stereotypical Hollywood culture, and then complaining when actual Californians move here trying to get away from all that, then you would understand the ridiculousness of this town.  Of course, these are the same people who use words like ‘poseur’, ‘inauthentic’, and ‘cultural misappropriation’.


As an avowed socialist, I find it important to say that Cultural Marxism is not exclusively linked to economic socialism, as some of the biggest Cultural Marxists I’ve met here were avid capitalists, people who try to exploit systemic AND inherent imbalances in order to bend the people around them to their wills.  Think of the movie ‘Trading Places’ with Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy.  The Duke brothers in that movie broke a rich white man down, and built a poor black man up using the principles of Cultural Marxism, despite the fact that they were avowed capitalists, though some may question how true Scotsmen they could possibly be, if they were willing to abandon business ethics and common sense the way they did, in order to hurt someone they knew to be good, and help someone completely random, of unknown status.  But regardless of their professed and actual politics, cultural Marxists can be easily identified by their behavior.


So what does a Cultural Marxist’s playbook of tactics and ideologies look like?

1.  In order to make someone what you want them to be, you must first break down their pre-existing identity.


After reflecting on this anti-Muslim Austin shit, I have this to say: It didn’t become obvious to me how prejudiced, xenophobic, and classist Texans are until I moved from one Texan city to another.  I mean, I had some idea, but I guess in my hometown I was somewhat on the winning end of it.  Don’t get me wrong, there were definitely people who were pretentious about being too rich, too popular, or too pretty for me in my hometown, but at the very least, I had a  place, which is more than I can say that Austin has offered me so far.  Though my hometown’s opportunities for creative people were highly limited, I was at least somewhat respected by the local establishments and institutions, because I grew up there and they could clearly trace my social lineage.

Austin has been highly different: there are plenty of opportunities for my kind of people here, but they are hoarded by a social elite of cliquey protectionists. Even as a person of relatively privileged background (I’m actually the product of a mixed-class divorce, so my background is a bit hard to define- suffice to say that I am familiar with a broad spectrum of social and financial classes), I have been exploited, oppressed, and misclassified by small-minded locals. And so often it is done by people who consider themselves ‘progressive’, often rationalized with liberal rhetoric.

Austinites will not even tolerate ‘normal’ white Judeo-Christian people from Dallas, SA, or Houston, so why do you think they would tolerate foreign national Muslims? Muslims have Christian capitalist conservative enemies here. They also have liberal atheist feminist enemies here. They want a piece of the Austin pie? It won’t come easy. I’m not endorsing that fact, just acknowledging it.  The social conflicts between varying flavors of ideological purism and cultural Marxism will tear a new-jack down in this town.  You start out young, naive idealist College Freshman, and end up jaded, hardened, wizened College Senior.


The locals see outsiders as one of two things: blank lumps of clay to be molded to the local whims, or ‘closed-minded people’, and if you have any kind of integrity or identity, the locals are not going to really respect that unless it’s compatible with their own.  Seeing how petty white, upper-middle class, Judeo-Christian capitalists are with eachother, I can only imagine how they are to a person of completely different race, religion, and nationality.

The local reaction to this Anti-Muslim incident has been blame-shifty as Hell. Conservatives have been blamed (‘Damn intolerant hicks!’).  Out-of-towners have been blamed (‘Only people who don’t understand what Austin is all about would do that’).  Of course, those pointing fingers have no justification to assume that the ‘racists’ who did this were strictly conservative. There are liberals who are bigoted and conservatives who aren’t racist. No one wants to admit that most people are at least a little prejudiced. They actually make ‘non-prejudice’ an ‘us and them’ thing. Which is ridiculously hypocritical, and only encourages socio-political polarization.

The sad reality of which I am a perfect example, is that even if you are a white, Judeo-Christian, and upper-middle-class out-of-towner, there are many Austinite locals who will still refuse to accept you in any but a subservient and assimilating role, simply because you are not from here.  They don’t recognize you as one of the people they went to one of the local high schools with, so you will always be a second-class citizen to them.  There is also quite a bit of ‘Austinite exceptionalism’ going on, where the locals get to be royalty by way of social privilege, and the transplants have to swim or sink due to lack of social capital and independent agency.  Hell, even if you share the same weirdo niche interests with the locals: socialism, environmentalism, New Ageism, atheism, recreational drug use, scene subcultures, alternative diets, polyamorism, etc, they are still going to treat you like a new-jack and make you pay dues, and by the time they finally accept you, you will resent them and no longer want to be a member of their group.

They might use the state to break you down, or your career, or your school, or your church, or whatever.  They might use the counter-culture or the underground to do it.  Whatever they have control of, from the highest office to the lowest dungeon.  Cultural Marxists exist at all levels of society.  And they aren’t just going after religious fundamentalists and conservatives, either, but a lot of them attack the subcultures as well.  Whether you are a punk, metalhead, Burner or whatever, they don’t like that and want you to be more mainstream and mass-marketable.


2.  A fish-out-of-water or newcomer will be easy to control, socially, because they have low social capital and agency, especially relative to the local establishments.


Because they don’t know anyone, trust the wrong people, don’t trust anyone, are either too open- or too closed-minded, and thus predictably manipulated.  Literally any new entrant’s social, legal, or professional status can be manipulated socially by their new community, as these are all dependent upon social class that is malleable by perception.  Remember that money, social class, etc, are all social and legal constructs, and thus can be manipulated socially and systemically by those with more pull than the intended victim.

This is what Ayn Rand would refer to as ‘the Aristocracy of Pull’, as much as I hate to quote Ayn Rand.  Basically a popular, desirable, or especially capable person could be just as socially over-privileged as someone of high financial class, and there are plenty of broke-but-popular performers who are examples of that.  This is why cultural Marxists tend to favor college town environments, because they are full of non-local residents, who are easy to manipulate, because they are young, open-minded, and socially unincorporated with the locals.  In such a town, the local establishment usually exists solely to fleece the college flock.

Because so much of what defines us as people is actually a social construct, with little to do with our intrinsic natures, cultural Marxist can use that to make people into the antithesis of themselves.  Think about it: when you say that someone is ‘classy’, is that because they intrinsically have class, or because they were raised a certain way?  In other words, is that variable internally or externally defined?  Stripped of their money and social support structures, would this person also be stripped of their ‘class’?  What if they are only ‘classy’ because they are cloistered, and haven’t had the opportunity to misbehave?

And that’s exactly how the cultural Marxists strips them of their class by convincing them of this idealistic delusion of a classless society.  You believe in that and let your behavior follow that belief, and you will eventually end up in a lower social class than you started.  Probably lower than the people who sold you down that river.  And you might notice that those people sell a lot of people down that river.

3.  You can control someone’s actions (and therefore the public’s perception of their identities) by controlling their personal circumstances.


A sure sign of prejudice is actively restricting someone from being a good person, and then blaming them for being a bad person.  This is basically just ‘why are you hitting yourself’, where people are put into a ‘damaged goods’ class and then not allowed to be anything but a victim thereafter.

Examples: deprived of money or legitimate employment, a person may turn to crime and can then be intervened upon by rationalization that they are intrinsically a criminal. Deprived of sex or other meaningful social contact, they will act in a predictably anti-social or phonily schmoozing manner, etc…  If you send some black people to consistently antagonize someone or rob them, they may develop racial complexes.  If you tell gay people to mess with them, they are going to become homophobes, etc, which brings me to my next point:

4.  Self-fulfilling social prophecies:


If you tell everyone that someone is a sexist, racist, or classist, the other races, sexes, and classes will treat them poorly, and they will eventually become what you have called them. At that point, they can be victimized in the typical way that sexists, classists, and racists will be victimized by a liberal community. The underlying principle here is that people will become what you have convinced the people around them that they are. Thus, even if you are wrong at first, they will eventually fulfill your expectations, if you put them in the right social conditions.

Note that Cultural Marxists will almost always omit the first part of that story.  The part where you were nice and open-minded when you first arrived in their environment, and one by one, their entire community ripped you off until you then became ‘closed-minded and uncool’.  What they’re gonna tell everyone is that you simply are an asshole and always were, and none of their actions or the actions of their friends had anything to do with it.

5.  Misinformation is the cultural Marxist’s bread-and-butter.


Remember, the cultural Marxist takes advantage of information deficits between you and your community.  Because your community doesn’t know much about you, an unscrupulous person can easily mischaracterize you as this or that.  They can tell lies about your private behavior, past or present.  Single and lonely?  They can create the impression that you are the biggest player in town, and thus keep people away from you by making them believe that you don’t NEED any more friends.  They can convince the world you are feasting when you are actually the victim of famine.

Cultural Marxists love to create this impression of a ‘Participation Trophy Society’, because it creates this false standard that everyone actually got a participation trophy.  The reality is that some people didn’t, and some people’s trophies were nicer than others.  A Cultural Marxist Panglosses that over.  They create the perception of privilege and stability in individuals who have never enjoyed either, just so they can continue to prop up those who have always had both!

They can perpetuate terrible situations for you, using nothing but gossip power.  The thing that they love to do most is convince people that you are the opposite of who you actually are, so that way you will be perpetually misunderstood by those around you.  Even if the well-intentioned in your community want to help you, which they probably won’t because you’ve been demonized, but they wouldn’t know how anyway, because they’ve been misled about how you actually are and what you actually need to be happy.  The misinformationists have convinced them you are a gay, meth-addicted, rapist racist, when in fact you are merely a serial monogamist who smokes pot and prefers fair-haired, pale-skinned ladies.

6.  Social ostricization is the cultural Marxist’s weapon of choice.


The idea is that, even if capitalists or the government were able to build a materially perfect world (I don’t believe this is possible, but assume for a minute), social liberals could still ruin it socially, by making everyone emotionally miserable, usually in protest for some pie-in-the-sky cause that very few people care about.  And they do it with polyamory, race-baiting, divisive echo chambers, etc…  Creating artificial social problems for someone who is otherwise healthy and normal, usually as a means of negative reinforcement, in order to manipulate the target into changing their behavior in the desired way, for the purpose of ending the negative stimulus.

Consider this: a handsome man or beautiful woman moves to town.  S/he has money and education.  Obviously, this person will be high status, and give little consideration to people and things which are ‘beneath them’.  But if you destroy their social life collectively, demonize them professionally, criminalize them systemically, that will bring them down to a lower level of society, and now they will compromise in ways they never dreamed of doing before.  Then this compromise will be fundamentally misattributed to their identity, or some aspect of their core being, rather than to the crummy situation that the community has collectively put them in.  For men, it’s usually a ploy to get to your money, your connections, or perhaps even your extraordinary capabilities.  For women, a ploy for sexual exploitation.

7.  Cultural Marxism is highly correlated with sexual and racial ambiguity. 


Hate to say it, but transgenders, with their ill-conceived notion of ‘fluid gender identity’ are extremely guilty here, as are plain old gays, bis, and polys, all of whom depend upon people with poorly defined self-concepts for ‘new recruits’.  Also, people who want to have sex with those outside of their race, or stick others with inter-racial partners.  These people can all be perverts who tend to prey upon normal people who want to ‘experiment’ in college.  Now, don’t get me wrong: transgenders, gays, and inter-racial relationship advocates don’t HAVE to be culturally Marxist, by definition, but frequently they are.

Think about it: these people can say that race is a social construct, and they can even get people to believe that, but the only way to truly eliminate race is to make everyone a mulatto with no perception of ethnic roots.  Now, I don’t have a problem with black men going after white women.  I really don’t, unless it’s the same one I want.  Some white women can only be satisfied by a black man, and that’s their prerogative.  I’ve had white women discriminate against me for reasons far pettier than skin color, ie: I wore the wrong jacket, so I figure if a black guy finds a white woman who’s into him, more power to the guy.

On the other hand, that leaves a lot of black women jilted, and who do the Cultural Marxists try to set them up with?  That’s right: beta white guy!  Beta white guy will settle for a black girl.  We’ve kept him single for years.  He must be desperate by now.  All the skinny white girls passed him up, because we called him ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’, and that’s so uncool.  Now’s his chance to prove us wrong.  Stick him with a black girl. Make sure she’s overweight, too, get some body-type acceptance going there, as well.  Basically, let’s give the beta white guy Precious.  He should be thankful he gets anyone.


Of course, once you’ve gotten the beta white guy to fuck a black chick out of desperation, you can just as easily accuse him of exploiting woman of lower social and financial class by subjecting her to a possessive and exploitative patriarchal relationship…  That’s pretty much what liberal revisionist historians did to Thomas Jefferson.  Sorry, I’d fuck a black girl, but I don’t want to be accused of being a ‘slave rapist’ 200 years from now. And the misinformationists are getting so bold that they now do that to people within their own lifetime!  Of course, I guess it all depends upon whether or not you got the girl off.  Let’s not pretend, even for a second, that there aren’t feminists out there who will, post hoc, call sex that was, at the time consensual, ‘rape’.


My point:  I can’t hate black men for liking white women, or women with paler skin than themselves.  I like white women, especially those more pale than myself.  I’m just saying that biracial romance, on a mass scale, creates logistical complications that can leave some people out if they don’t want to compromise, and still others never even get offered the opportunity to compromise!

Of course, the feminist matriarchy will always intervene to protect a woman’s right to be romantically racist, ensuring that they are never made to feel racist for maintaining racial romantic preferences, but they most certainly don’t offer men this same service.  It’s more likely they will racially ad hominem the man who prefers some races to others in dating.

8.  Cultural Marxists tend to be atheists.


Look at the bumper-sticker above.  Did a Cultural Marxist make that?  NO!  A multi-culturalist did.  A Cultural Marxist, like Stalin, doesn’t want anyone to have a religion or a culture unique to their geographical region, genetic heritage, or even their personal tastes!  Cultural Marxists are globalists, Statists, and Authoritarians.  A multi-culturalist celebrates diversity, and a Cultural Marxist wants to eliminate it altogether.  That’s the difference between the two.  Cultural Marxists aren’t the KKK, and they aren’t the Black Panthers either.  They are people who are intolerantly GREY.  They want everyone to be generic and interchangeable, with no relative strengths, weaknesses, or individually defining characteristics.

Let’s all be interchangeable Lego blocks for the Cultural Marxists.  Anyway, I’m not much of a religious person, but I do see value in spirituality, the religious component of world culture, the historical significance of figures like Christ, Buddha, etc…  That’s more tolerance than you will get from an atheist.

9.  Cultural Marxists use your desires and needs to get you to conform to their expectations.


You new in town?  Well I guess you want employment, social accommodation, food, and shelter, right?  Well, then you are going to have to do/be A, B, and C, because all the employers, landlords, and social groups around here only accept those who are A, B, and C, and they specifically hate X, Y, and Z, so you better not be those at all!

The lines you hear from Cultural Marxists are often generalizations about the local community that imply you must conform with local expectations in some way in order to fit in socially (and often by extension professionally, and even legally).  In other words: ‘No one around here hires Republicans’, or ‘Everyone around here hates Male Rights Advocates.’  Key words: no one and everyone.  I always tell those people that no one likes generalizers, but the irony is usually lost on them.

The bottom line: Cultural Marxists cock-block you, deny you employment, etc… for ‘liberal reasons’… but the end result is a stagnant or even regressive society, so you can’t really call them ‘progressives’… They may think of themselves that way, but their deliberate misapplication of liberal ideologies does not lead to a progressive society. Also, most of their ‘crusading’ behavior is entirely self-serving, but masked as altruism.

10.  Cultural Marxists are con artists who fly false flags of liberal idealism.


‘You’re not racist, are you?  That’s good, because I’m collecting for inner-city children’s basketball teams.’  You don’t want to be racist, so you give that guy your money.  He goes around the corner and spends it on crack.  You find out it was a scam later.  You feel stupid.  You stop trusting black people.  Black people pick up on that, and start calling you ‘racist’.  It’s a negative feedback loop created by liberal pettiness.

The sad truth is that liberal ideals are commonly the basis of urban scams.  Growing up in Dallas, I learned to ignore the word ‘Hey!’ when traversing the ghetto, because a zillion experiences interacting with ghetto people had taught me that if you make eye contact with that person, their next words will be, ‘You got a cigarette/dollar/ride uptown/spare kidney?’  Of course, when you ignore people in this way you are at risk of being called ‘racist’, no matter how many taxes you pay or how much you donate to local charities.  ‘There goes that racist classist who doesn’t even want to acknowledge the poor or blacks.’

Of course, these same people will not hesitate to stereotype white people via Privilege Politics, and all of the racist assumptions they entail.

11.  Cultural Marxists tend to be non-confrontational backstabbers and well-poisoners.


Think about it.  If someone called you racist, sexist, or classist to your face, you’d be able to defend yourself pretty well, right?  You could probably provide examples of past incidents where you have helped the less fortunate, express some kind of current idealism, or even produce witnesses of the female, ethnic, or financially destitute variety, who could testify on your behalf.

That’s why cultural Marxists almost NEVER confront their victims directly.  Their whole goal is to create a public misperception of you that will totally ruin your social life, without ever giving you a chance to refute or respond, by quietly gossiping about you, behind your back, taking your statements out of context, caricaturizing the negative aspects of your personality, exaggerating your problems, lying by omitting your strengths, and generally depicting you to others in a way that’s extremely biased against you, personally.

12.  Cultural Marxists are hypocritically stereotypers and misrepresenters, of both groups and individuals.


All men are sexists, all Muslims are terrorists, all Capitalist are greedy, all Republicans are bigots, all drug dealers are sexual exploiters…  Sound familiar?  ‘If so-and-so is X, then that means they are also Y’.  This is the kind of bad logic they use to alienate individuals or even entire categories of people from the community.  Basically, Cultural Marxists MISREPRESENT their enemies by speaking for them, often inaccurately or poorly, misrepresenting hyperbole as objective fact.  Note that there is a thin line between that and Hunter Thompson/Jello Biafra -esque ‘Gonzo Journalism’.

13.  Cultural Marxists blame the individual even if their environment (and those who control it) is truly to blame. 


This is called the ‘fundamental attribution error‘ or simply ‘victim-blaming‘.  And what’s ironic is that we typically think of this as a conservative misconception:  The rich blaming the poor for their shoddy circumstances in life, white people blaming black people for the consequences of racism, or misogynists blaming the female victims of rape.  Most liberals generally acknowledge this to be bad, but that doesn’t stop them from hypocritically doing it themselves, to others.  I find feminists are especially bad about this type of hypocrisy, bitching about conservative victim-blaming even as they indulge in stereotypical liberal victim-blaming, the favorite target of which is the white male, Christianity, Capitalism, etc…

Liberals victim-blame their enemies and opponents, and they do it by deliberately creating a bad social situation for someone, and then blaming them for it by saying, ‘He did it to himself’.  One example I heard of this was when someone accused me of ‘alienating myself’…  what an absurd accusation, as alienation and ostricization, by definition, are things that the group does to the individual, not vice-versa.  This accusation was literally doublethink, but it flew easily in a community where logic and critical thinking abilities are not championed or even possessed by the majority of group members.  Which brings me to my next point:

14.  Objectivity and critical thinking are the bane of Cultural Marxists. 


Check out this article accusing Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook of ‘damaging public discourse’.

The only thing Facebook has destroyed is the mainstream media’s ability to make everyone think alike. The author is not lamenting the death of consensus, she is lamenting the death of false consensus, the ability of a ‘Ministry of Information’ to force ‘consensus’ on people who don’t consent.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand the problems that misinformation poses, but those are caveats for the reader, not the publisher. We all have the right to express our subjective opinions, and if the reader gets taken in by falsehood, fantasy, or bias, that’s their own damn fault for not fact-checking. If you want to prevent the repercussions of that, teach critical thinking in public school. Oh, but liberals hate critical thinking, don’t they? It causes people to question their bullshit.

Anyway, the greatest threat to public discourse is ‘politically correct’ people and religious fanatics, both of whom insulate themselves and others into ‘echo chambers’… polarizing society by saying, ‘I’m only going to pay attention to those who agree with me, and pretend that everyone else doesn’t exist.’  Which brings me to my next point.



15.  Cultural Marxists create and employ social echo chambers in order to create and exploit divisions between people. 


These people literally FEED ON BIAS.  They also feed on social division.  If two people are not in communication with eachother, they can exploit the rift between them by perpetuating their misunderstanding of eachother.  This often relies upon completely false stories.  In the case of a rich kid in college, there are a million ways to exploit him.  Unscrupulous people could blackmail that kid for anything he might not want his parents to know, or anything that might change their image of him in a way he didn’t want.

The bad guys could also go to the kids parents’ tell him, ‘Your son has gambling debts/bangs cocktail waitresses two at a time/got my daughter pregnant’, etc, whether it happened or not, simply as a means of getting Mommy and Daddy to ‘handle it’ with money.

Exes are often exploited the same way.  ‘How’s my ex I never see anymore?’  ‘She screwed your best friend.  Now you should screw hers.’  Also, an obsolete or stereotypical understanding of a person could be used to mischaracterize them by reputation to those they haven’t seen in years or have ever met at all.  In other words, they tell you some bullshit about an individual or a group, and then try to get you to do something stupid in reaction to that.  I know a woman whose parents’ divorce made her believe that all marriages were lies, all paternity was spoofed, and she went down a pretty perverted social course after that.

The point is that people who don’t communicate with eachother are not likely to possess accurate understandings of eachother’s personalities, and Cultural Marxists use that to exploit people who are cut off from eachother.  Once a person is persona non grata in one camp, a Cultural Marxist will create a dogma about that person that gets repeated and handed down from person to person…  and because that person isn’t a member of that group, everyone just assumes that dogma is true, whether it is or not.

And they use intermediaries to do this, mostly.  You might not realize that the person who made you feel some way about someone or their category was actually being directed to do that by some disconnected third party who has taken an interest in shaping your worldview.  Multi-culturalists, on the other hand, are uniters, not dividers.


16.  Cultural Marxists tend to profess to be ‘non-judgmental’, but are actually the most judgmental of all.

They say they accept everyone, but in actuality accept no one.  They have nominally accepted you so they could dissect and diagnose you under the pretense of acceptance.  These are dangerous people to fall in with, because they sell you short by telling you to suspend your judgment, and then later victim-blame you for having ‘bad judgment’.

Those who pretend that there are no consequences to being non-judgmental are pretty easy to lose respect for when you watch their cycles of social drama play out a few times.

The ‘non-judgmental people’ act like they are these compassionate, enlightened people… the reality is that they are psychos who enjoy watching people get hurt. In not calling a whatever a whatever, they are really just setting people up for failure and selling them short, all in the name of ‘not stereotyping others’… It’s easy to get taken in by that kind of ideology when you’re young, but if you mature at all as you age, you lose respect for those emotionally detached, selfishly manipulative people acting like they are trying to help everyone get along. 

Basically, Cultural Marxists are the Spin Doctors of social perception, and based on whether they like you or not, they can use their powers for or against you.  But there is so little consistency in how they wield those powers, it is difficult to think of them as having any social or intellectual integrity.  On the forums and in theory, these people tend to be idealist who have this all-inclusive ideology that accepts everyone…  except ‘bigots’, of course.  In real-life practice, they are actually extremely socially manipulative and petty.  These are kick-banners and false-consensus-perpetuators and groupthinkers.  Of course, ‘they say it don’t be that way, but it do.’

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil2

17.  The natural enemy and polar opposite of the Cultural Marxist is the ideological purist, but that doesn’t make them right, or any better.


The conflict between ideological purism and cultural Marxism is the conflict between ‘my way is the only way’ and ‘you can’t have a definite, exclusive identity, because that offends someone’. Both are problems in America. Two extremes to avoid. Happiness lies in the middle ground, swaying to whatever side suits your current purpose.

In Austin, you have your typical Texas bigots: ‘I’m white, Christian, conservative, and capitalist, and everyone is wrong but me.’ And it goes without saying that those people are a drag. People who want to maintain the status quo, materialists, social classists, religious fundamentalists, etc…

But then you have your cultural Marxists, who are a liberal reaction to that, and they are not much better (in fact, in extreme cases they are much worse). It seems like they mostly exist to take advantage of college kids, who are geographically displaced, socially disconnected, environmentally overwhelmed, and don’t really have fully-formed identities.

Basically, what I have found is that there are two types of bigots in Texas (or anywhere): conservative bigots and liberal bigots. The conservative bigots only respect people like them, and the liberal bigots only respect people who remain nebulous about their identities… The middle ground between those is the multi-culturalist, I believe.  But while multi-culturalism is a very fine and American goal, it is often used as a false flag to mask Culturally Marxist intentions, and thus exploit naive idealism and altruism until there is none left in this world. 

Finally, the last piece of advice I can give you is to remember that no matter where you go, they will somehow try to turn you into something that you are not, in order to suit the petty agendas and biases of their particular geography and society.  But a person of integrity, who knows who they are, will always maintain their exclusive identity, no matter what situation they find themselves temporarily entangled in, rather than simply ‘going along to get along’ by ‘doing as the Romans do’.


Slut Privilege and Socio-sexual Power Structures: how sex cults and sexual collusion are used to oppress and exploit the individual

Social Capital Theory states that ‘social networks have value’, as there are ‘collective or economic benefits derived from the preferential treatment and cooperation between individuals and groups’.  How does this apply to sex?  In many ways.

Kinky Sex Makes the World Go Round‘ opined the Dead Kennedys in their final cutting-room floor compilation ‘Give Me Convenience, or Give Me Death‘.  Unfortunately, they were not far from the truth, as sexual coercion is a major behind-the-scenes motivator in much of human behavior, especially in sexually repressed societies.

Sex has been used to influence the outcomes of trials, legislation, and even elections.  Sex has won and lost wars.  Sex has made or broken celebrities.  Sex has floated or sunk major industries and businesses.

Imagine a workplace where almost everyone is having sex with eachother, except for a few isolated individuals.  Would it not stand to reason that those included in the office sex club would be treated better than those ignorant to it, left out of it, or those who willfully abstained?  Sex creates emotional bonds, making those we have had sex with seem to be crucial, whereas those with whom we share no sexual bond are considered unimportant, or expendable.

This phenomena is the underlying basis of what some have called ‘slut privilege‘.  Contrary to popular liberal stereotype, slut-shaming is not the only consequence of promiscuous behavior, nor is it an undeserved consequence.  Because, what most social liberals refuse to admit publicly, is that a promiscuous person actually has MAJOR SOCIAL ADVANTAGES over a more prudent monogamist.  These advantages could have positive effects on one’s career, finance, social life, or even systemic influence.  Which is exactly why it’s SO DIFFICULT to take complaints of slut-shaming seriously.  Even if slut-shaming could be considered bullying, the social benefits of promiscuous behavior FAR OUTWEIGH any social stigma that might be incurred via promiscuity.  Hence, I would argue that sluts SHOULD BE made to feel ashamed of themselves, as should any exploitative, oppressive, or manipulative person.

This is made obvious to most women as early as junior high: the promiscuous girls get invited to all the parties, whereas the girls who don’t ‘put out’ are often ostracized or looked down upon.  Sex has been the basis of many social networks, and as stated above, SOCIAL NETWORKS HAVE VALUE.  The woman who gets around will have more access to capital, job opportunities, and many other amenities, whereas the woman who doesn’t is often limited to her own abilities.  And the same could apply to a very attractive or desirable male.

And we’ve only so far covered one-on-one sex.  Group sex adds a whole other dimension to this social influence and privilege.  Imagine a whole network of promiscuous people working together, across borders and between businesses.  It would be easy for them to recruit new members, and add the abilities of these new members, even systemic or financial capabilities, into the repertoire of this ‘fuck mob’.  In fact, the more sexually repressed a person or society is, the easier it would be for such a sexual organization to coerce them.  The deliberate creation of taboos such as sex and drugs are often used to exploit repression.  And there’s no law against it, in fact, institutions of law often support these kinds schemes, even if unwittingly.

Most men would love to have a menage trois before they die.  It’s on the bucket list of most men, however ethically complicated this Earthly desire may be.  If a sexual organization could offer this service to a man, what would he be prepared to give up for it?  Money?  The favorable decision in a child custody case?  The suppression of a potentially damaging publication?  The falsification of scientific or medical data?  Nuclear launch codes?

That might sound laughable, but it really isn’t.  Because such organizations really have infiltrated governments and multinational corporations at high levels, influencing their behavior in ways that affect millions of people.  In the Cold War, for instance, some of the best spies were beautiful women, who used their sex appeal to gain access to privileged information in the context of industrial espionage.  Or on a pettier level, perhaps the pretty girl with big boobs gets promoted over the uglier guy who does a better job, either because she is sleeping with the boss, or maybe he just likes looking at her better.  Hence, often times, when an irrational decision is made by a stakeholder or even a governing body, it is often speculated that, in order to make such an unlikely thing happen, ‘somebody must have fucked somebody’.

Now, because these kinds of sex cults are often secret and exclusionary, herein lies the exploitation of the ‘Average Frustrated Chump’.  He doesn’t know why he isn’t getting laid, or why other people seem to miraculously have better job opportunities than him.  His existence is lonely and without help from anyone.  Meanwhile, his co-workers, bosses, police, and perhaps even legislative representatives are all in a gang-bang behind his back, and using their socio-sexual alliance to oppress and exploit him in workplace, social, and democratic contexts.  Resources, opportunities, and systemic influence is stolen from this hapless outsider by sex cults, and he often never even realizes why.

Because sex is considered taboo, these organizations say that their secrecy is necessary to avoid persecution, but in reality, the secrecy of these organizations is all about rule from the shadows, and exploitation by subterfuge.  Not only is the Average Frustrated Chump kept in the dark to these organizations, but he is secretly slandered by them, his sexual, social, and even professional value discounted by their false consensus and defamatory propaganda.  As the old adage goes, “Democrats lie together.”  And to themselves as well.  The first step in blaming the victim is refusing to acknowledge that your behavior victimizes other people.  Because the Average Frustrated Chump is deliberately alienated by society, he is less productive, and then he is blamed by that same society for this.

But these kinds of sexually-based social power structures can even be oppressive or exploitative of their membership, because they are almost always hierarchical.  In any sex gang, there are the people who have the most money, are the most beautiful, or the most ‘fresh’, and these people are often given preferential treatment over lower-ranking members of the group.  So, not only is the person left out of the group exploited by a gang that takes any available resources and opportunities for itself above outsiders, and has a high ability to do so, but the lower-ranking members are also exploited, often made to ‘make their bones’ by turning tricks for the gang.

A person of wealth, means, beauty or power is often courted by these groups, who use such an individual for their own purposes, without even revealing to this mark the existence of the over-arching sexual organization.  Which is really sick when you think about it.  A man’s money and power often make him a target of these kinds of organizations, who send their agents to mess with him, under the pretense of genuine romantic relationships.

On a more street level, organized crime often uses prostitution rings to protect drug rackets.  If a member of a drug ring is busted by police, he can often ‘take care’ of the charges against him by bribing the cop with sexual graft, if he has prostitutes under his command.  It’s not illegal to get the cops laid, cops need love, too, right?  This is why strip clubs are so often used as money-laundering and cop-appeasing facets of drug cartel type organizations.  The women who work there are on drugs such as methamphetamine or ecstasy, which drive them to promiscuous behavior, and then that promiscuous behavior is used to coerce and bribe police and financial institutions.

Now, there are many who will make the argument that polyamory is perfectly ethical.  I am not one of those.  Besides the social and emotional baggage it creates, I’ve simply seen prostitution used to corrupt far too many institutions, both public and private, and the cost is often human decency.  Cry as they might for ‘social justice’, sexual deviants are often a major source of political and financial corruption, and this is why sex in politics and business is so frowned upon.

Sex as a means of cultivating privilege at the expense of others, or dominance over others, is a perversion of human decency.  Sex should be an expression of love and affection, not power or control.  This is why monogamy is still the most ethical of sexual practices.

Body-type and Slut Acceptance: Rhetoric Commonly Used to Get People to Cheat Themselves

Two major tenets of the postmodern feminist movement are body-type acceptance and anti-slut-shaming rhetoric.  In today’s lesson, I aim to expose how this rhetoric is abused by hypocrites to get men (and women!) to cheat themselves, and settle for inferior specimens who are beneath them.  First on the chopping block:

Body-Type Acceptance:

One has to understand that Body-Type Acceptance and promiscuity tend to go hand in hand.  The higher one’s beauty, moral class, or intelligence standards are, the harder it will be for them to be promiscuous.  Because the more rigid one’s standards are, the smaller their dating pool gets.  Hence, the most promiscuous people (or, in a clinical sense, those afflicted by sex addiction) tend to suspend judgement of their sexual partners.  This usually involves viewing other people as sex objects, rather than sentient beings who are subject to moral scrutiny.  You can’t really judge an inanimate object, you can only judge sentient beings.  Hence: guns, drugs, money, etc…  these things aren’t intrinsically bad, but some people are bad about them.  I maintain that if people were objects, they would be immune from judgment, but because people are sentient, they are subject to judgment.  But liberals want to have their cake and eat it too, by saying that not only are people not objects, but they are also immune from moral judgement.

When a sex partner is seen as a generic blank, and not a unique individual, it’s easier for them to be treated as sex objects.  This is the basis of sexual communism and interchangeability.  Conversely, a hopeless romantic would see one particular person as ‘special’, hold them in higher regard than others, and use that as a basis to pursue them romantically.

I was briefly friends with a community of models in Austin.  I say ‘briefly friends’, when what I really mean is that I was auditioning them for real friendship by hanging out with them and getting to know them better.  Ultimately, they did not meet my standards.  Don’t get me wrong, they were all very beautiful people, but most of them failed to meet my ethical and intelligence standards.  It was a swingers’ club full of atheists and social liberals, and I eventually deliberately alienated myself from it, so as not to waste my time with this distraction from my quest for a true equal.

One of the social institutions of this community was a male model, who happened to be somewhat wealthy and organizationally powerful, so there was a high degree of alpha white male financial, social, AND beauty privilege associated with this person.  Given that he is a male model and a public figure, I could name him, but I won’t.  I will only destroy his rhetoric.   He championed himself an egalitarian, and would often opine very vocally about body type acceptance, everyone is beautiful, etc…  The problem with his little act, was that he was a total hypocrite, and this was quite obvious.  His main squeeze was a beautiful model, and yet he still felt entitled to more women, often frequenting strip clubs to pick up fodder for affairs and threesomes.

The situations where this colossal hypocrite would bust out the body-type acceptance rhetoric, was mostly when he was trying to pawn someone off on a lower-ranking member of his hierarchy, or an outsider.  His game basically boiled down to: “Even though I bang all the hottest chicks in this club, you should settle for this fat girl I don’t want, because body-type acceptance.”  And I think most people will find that the social institutions who run these kinds of games are all crooked and hypocritical like that.  They take the best for themselves, and try to get everyone else to hook up with the leftovers and undesirables.  The unstated, secret, inner doctrine that these people have, which should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, is that beauty belongs to the wealthy, and those of lower economic class should get stuck wit the ugly girls.

But the champions of body-type acceptance are not all male feminist douchebags.  In fact, most of them are females with a rather one-sided view of feminism.  Now, let’s just say that a woman told you: ‘I only date men who are at least 6 feet tall.’  This is her standard, and any liberal community would be expected to accept that.  Because of all of these biased double-standards about ‘consent’ (It’s legal to extract sexual consent from a man while he’s intoxicated, for example, but not from a woman), it’s not really socially acceptable to question a woman’s standards.  On the other hand, if a man said, ‘I only date natural red-heads of proper height to weight ratio’, this would most probably be labelled as ‘typical male superficiality’.

So the idea here, is that women have a right to exert a personal preference when it comes to their romantic standards, but men don’t have this right.  We are supposed to take whoever comes along and be grateful.  Where this really gets into hypocrisy is that these same people who expect the straight man to take whatever he can get are, at the same time saying, ‘Don’t hate gay men for their biologically determinant tastes.’

Many straight men have the minds of engineers and designers.  Symmetry, balance, geometry…  these are the things that excite us, in fact, most sport cars, the hallmark of the straight male, are designed to subconsciously appeal to men in a sexual way.  So it’s really bullshit to say on one hand, ‘This gay guy’s attraction to the same sex is OK because it’s inherent in his brain chemistry,’ but simultaneously, on the other hand, say, ‘That straight guy is superficial, for only being attracted to models.’

My personal stance on the issue is that everyone has their personal preference, and that’s fine.  I don’t hate gay people for wanting to hook up with their own gender.  I don’t hate straight people for finding certain physical traits, that certain members of the opposite sex may or may not have, especially attractive or unattractive.  Instead, I acknowledge that these sensibilities are inherent, or the product of life experience.  We all have different tastes because we have different genes and different life experience.  And that’s fine.

Where I draw the line when it comes to beauty and sexual entitlement, is the person who wants partners who are ‘out of their league’, or too many partners.  In my experience, any inequity in a relationship will eventually destroy it.  If she has too much baggage and he hasn’t been around, that will eventually cause issues.  If she is prettier than him, or has more social capital, that will cause issues.  My problem, as a person of high intelligence, has always been finding someone capable of relating to me on my level, and I’ve tried to compromise in that regard before, but the results were disastrous, believe me.  Attempts at compromising ethical and beauty standards have also been met with similar failures.  And just like any time a male is expected to compromise romantically, I was singularly blamed when that compromise failed.

I firmly believe that people should be looking for their equals, or partners who can match what they themselves bring to the table.  So, you have to kind of evaluate yourself in a brutally honest way, and then pursue potential romantic partners on the same level.  Of course, natural or intrinsic traits, such as beauty or intelligence, should weigh more in this consideration than temporary or artificial traits, such as legal status or finance, which can change for better or worse in a heartbeat, let me tell you.  A relationship based on artificial class will not survive the tough times, and cannot properly be considered real love.  A relationship based in genuine attraction and true love, both mental and physical, will survive bankruptcy, and even incarceration, an endurance which I think is beautiful.  Others might disagree, but I think they are classist and totalitarian to say that a beautiful woman should only marry a rich man, or that a woman should leave a man who is the victim of oppressive government polices (such as the Drug War).

Personally, I would probably rate myself as a 7 or an 8 on the beauty scale.  Not perfect, but no slouch.  Passable, in other words.  Of course, this is all relative.  As a man of slightly below average height, I may not appeal to taller women, and that’s fine, because they don’t really appeal to me either.  I happen to be a bit of an androgynous ‘pretty-boy’.  Some women like more rugged-looking, conventionally ‘masculine’ men.  It really depends on what type she likes.  And that’s fine.  I have my type, too.

Beauty standards are further complicated by the fact that, everyone likes a pretty girl, but no one likes a pretty boy. Further evidence that beauty privilege is a social phenomena confined to the female.   I had this thought as someone complimented me on my youthful appearance today. Most people don’t realize I am 34, and I still get carded to see R rated movies.

I responded to the compliment: ‘It’s a curse. You know, no one ever puts me in charge. No one wants to take orders from someone who looks young, no matter how intelligent or educated. Women my age don’t take me seriously, and the women who do take me seriously are often too young to give me the kind of relationship I want. Other men are often predatory or territorial with me, because they are insecure. If anything, my looks make me a target of exploitation and abuse.’

People often say, ‘High standards might be OK for you, but what about the overweight or not conventionally attractive?  Doesn’t your dating philosophy leave them out?’

And I would argue that no, it doesn’t.  Because everyone has an equal, or a whole class of people with a similar level of beauty, intelligence, ethics, etc.  Sometimes, people are even attracted to eachother even though they don’t ‘match’, and that’s fine, too, as long as the attraction is mutual.  Where people run into frustrations is where they want more than they can or should have, when they want a particular person who is fundamentally incompatible, or when they like someone who doesn’t like them back.

I think in terms of monogamous commitment, ‘body-type acceptance’ has a valid place in the sunset years of a marriage.  No one looks their best when they are elderly, but you owe it to the relationship to stick it out, anyway.  After all, you are aging just as quickly as your partner.  But that doesn’t mean I think skinny, good-looking guys should hook up with fat, ugly girls out of desperation and compromise, unless they have a fetish for those kinds of women, and some guys do.  I certainly wouldn’t stand in their way, because it’s one fewer attractive male I have to compete with for available females.  But I would never pressure anyone to compromise his beauty, intelligence, or ethical standards, even if he happened to be in a bad (but temporary) legal or financial situation.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am sympathetic to the plight of the less conventionally attractive person, the less ethical person, or the less intelligent person, but would I settle for one in the context of an intimate relationship?  Absolutely not!  I would hire one, frequent one’s business, value one’s opinion or friendship, etc…  But I’m not one who is amiable to giving or receiving pity sex.  Again, it’s the very idea that romantic relationships should be as equal as possible, because a relationship undertaken on uneven ground is not likely to be a positive one.

Anti-Slut Shaming:

Remember that male model I discussed earlier?  In addition to body-type acceptance, he was also a preacher of slut acceptance, or ‘don’t shame a woman for her sexuality’ rhetoric.  And, while this rhetoric certainly has its place, it can and often is abused.  In the case of the male model, he would often use this rhetoric to get people to settle for his leftovers.  ‘I fucked this girl in the past, and no longer want her, but you should accept her, even though I was all up in that at one point in time.’  Basically, this man sexually exploited young, naive women, then tried to pawn off his baggage on the rest of the community, when he got bored and felt entitled to a ‘new’ model.  He seemed to think of women as cars.  You buy them new, drive them for awhile, then pawn them off on some broke college kid in need.  That really did seem to be his philosophy on women, and I didn’t much care for it.

These types of sexual exploiters often refer to themselves as ‘sex-positive’ feminists, also known as ‘female chauvinist pigs‘.  Sex-positive feminists often like to claim an ideological monopoly on the concept of feminism, which has many interpretations to many people.  More traditional feminists tend to be less sex-positive than modern, third-wave feminists.  Sex-positive feminists, however, tend to be the least educated, most vocal, most promiscuous, and most socially despotic of all the different varieties of feminist.

Now let me just say this:  We all make mistakes when we are young, especially romantically.  I am not above this.  There is no instruction manual for love, and even if there were, it probably wouldn’t be allowed in public school.  Those who don’t have the privilege of older, wiser relatives and true friends to guide them in the matters of the heart, are doomed to figure these kinds of things out via trial and error.  And those people are not personally at fault just because no one educated them as a youth.  I say this because I am one of those people.

However, statistics don’t lie, even if they often don’t tell the full story.  The more sexual partners one has had, the less likely they will have a successful, happy marriage.  Now, this is a general rule, but it has many exceptions.  A person who is willfully promiscuous, for example, is different from someone who never had that intention, or grew out of it after adolescence.  So, someone could have a number of sexual partners in their past, that could be because they themselves had this drive to be promiscuous, OR, it could be that this person NEVER intended to be promiscuous, but, for whatever reason, kept picking or was limited to partners who screwed them over, or were deceptive towards them.  I consider myself the latter, and that can be difficult to explain.  All I can  say is that there is screwing around, and getting screwed around.  We should hold the former responsible for their own debauchery, but not victim-blame the latter.  After all, there is always the class war to consider, and some men, especially those who are the victim of class warfare, are never allowed near the kind of woman who would actually do right by them, and are instead diverted or limited to promiscuous women, or kept in a cage of involuntary celibacy.

It can be hard to get married or have one’s monogamous intentions taken seriously when one has been sexually exploited by the promiscuous.  I myself am the victim of this mentality in my community, that blames me for being the victim of slutty sociopaths in my youth, and the kind of ‘guilt-by-association’ that entails.  This is one of many reasons I slowed down a lot, sexually, in mid-life and the wake of a bad divorce, and started more carefully examining my romantic options, a practice which some might say borders on sexual paranoia, or even ‘hypocritically projective slut-shaming’.

But, I maintain that, being a sensitive person, and having been hurt before, judging potential romantic partners for their past is something I have to do, as a defense mechanism from getting hurt again, or making similar bad romantic selections to the ones I have made in the past.  The gritty truth is, if you really are a hopeless romantic and a monogamist at heart, you have to be romantically discerning, otherwise, not only will you be hurt, cheated on, jilted, unsatisfied by superficial casual sex relationships, but you may even be typecast as a slut, and restricted from better opportunities on that basis.

And once again, as these statistical realities go both ways down the gender street, no one is going to blame a woman for rejecting a man on the basis of his past willful promiscuity.  And yet, when a man employs these same standards against women, the feminists and the liberals cry ‘slut-shamer!’  The reality is, I don’t care if slutty people, male or female, are slutty together.  They aren’t my type anyway, so let them go do that with eachother.  It’s none of my business.  What I don’t like is when more romantically innocent men and women are drawn into these kinds of shenanigans via social dishonesty and subterfuge.  Because that was me at one time, I didn’t appreciate being victimized and exploited in this way, and I don’t like seeing it happen to others who share my disposition on the matter.

The truth is, for a man like me, who is sincerely a hopeless romantic and monogamist, because that’s the way my emotions work, I know damn well that there are only certain types of women who are emotionally able to provide me with the kind of relationship I want.  So to be socially coerced into settling for less than that, is unacceptable to me, and I maintain that I have every right to exert that personal preference.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that liberal communities use Anti-Slut-Shaming and Body-Type Acceptance rhetoric to rationalize forcing men, often through social subterfuge or coercion, to settle for women who are not their equals.  And when the resulting bad relationship inevitably fails, they always blame the man, even if sticking the unlikely pair together was wholly the bad idea of the community.  Don’t let this happen to you!  It is often the practice of chauvinists to instill in people a sense of insecurity and desperation from being alone too long, or kept apart from the right partner, but my advice is to rise above this, exert some willpower, and hold out for the class of partner you deserve, no more, no less.

30 Reasons Why You Should NOT Date Yet Another Feminist

Most women and even many men these days claim to be feminist, even though it’s a tired, worn-out label that carries an extremely negative connotation. A more gender-neutral term is Gender Egalitarianism, which is what classy intellectuals say. But let’s face it: most of the people, male or female, who use the word ‘feminism’ are not classy intellectuals. They are shitty people who use spurious, emotion-based ideologies to rationalize irresponsible behavior and utter lack of social conscience. The cold hard truth is that, whether you’re a hardcore feminist or a hardcore masculist, you probably belong in a loony bin.

Anyway, as an often liberal idealist, but sometimes conservative pessimist, I have dated a few feminist women, and I can pretty much tell you what you are in for if you choose to waste your time with that garbage. Their rhetoric is easy to spot. In fact, I’ve built up so many defense mechanisms against these personality types, you might even say that feminism is my trauma trigger.


1. They tend to be very biased

Think about it. The word ‘feminism’ is biased in itself. It carries a connotation of matriarchy, female chauvinism, female bias, and liberal special interest. Remember that special interests are less about egalitarian ideals, and more about ‘getting theirs’, often at the expense of a generation of white males who had nothing to do with slavery or patriarchy, and are far removed from any benefits thereof. You advocate for the power of the vagina, and you HAVE a vagina! How self-centered.

Feminists tend to see things in terms of women versus men, or how men have historically hurt women, thus, they are unlikely to recognize or value your plight and perspective as a man. And this will ultimately make your relationship with them very one-sided. They seem to have difficulty acknowledging that we are all victims, and how the unique weaknesses of both sexes are used to exploit and control them.

2. They will control you socially, behind your back

Women have a power that they don’t like to admit: social power. Many people, both male and female, admire them, and that will lead to people taking their word over yours, manipulating you on their behalf, offering them opportunities that you have never had, or helping them cover up their faults to your eyes. Women will interfere in your social and professional life by misrepresenting you to the rest of the world, via claiming to be the ultimate authority on you, by virtue of having an intimate relationship with you.

3. They will attribute any problem you have with them to your own deficiency

This is predictable via the way feminists interact with you in every day life. If you express resentment of their privilege at your expense, or their oppression of you via social powers, they will say, “Wow, you have issues.” But this is merely projection. They are the ones with issues. And when they say: “You need help”… More projection. They are the ones who need your help. They need you to shut the fuck up, unquestioningly pay their bills, and stop talking about social issues in a way that doesn’t apologetically pander to the feminist cause, because it makes them look bad. So in order to discredit your complaints, they reduce your thoughts and feelings to ‘whining’ and ‘abnormal psychology’, in the minds of your community.

4. They will blast you after the break-up

Women can be just as possessive and jealous of men as men are said to be of women. Thus, after a break-up, they will talk negatively of you, whether justified or not, for the sake of cock-blocking you from any other woman who might be interested. This is their way of crippling you, socially, via an abuse of gossip power, even while they get to ‘move on’ all over the place, often with your friends and family. Or maybe they don’t want you to be with anyone who is prettier, better off, or smarter than them! Remember that totalitarians rely upon misinformation to control the public mentality, even regarding yourself, and feminists can be extremely petty.

5. They will rationalize emotionally

Those who embrace the feminine nature wholly, in defiance of the masculine perspective, often throw logic, reason, and independent thought out the window. Expect your feminist girlfriend (or boyfriend) to be a victim of groupthink, and a slave to her community, as well as an impulsive, emotional thinker rather than a reasonable person.

6. They will hold you to many double-standards

I can’t even begin to go into feminist double-standards while maintaining a pretense of comprehensiveness. They will cheat even as you are monogamist, they will look down on your perspective even while ensconcing their own, they will expect you to contribute to privilege imbalance for their benefit, at your expense, they will hold you to traditional male gender roles even as they gleefully abandon their own.

7. They will cheat on you

Feminists consider infidelity their right. To expect fidelity from a feminist is a foolish hope. Some of them might try to justify it by offering you opportunities to screw around with other women, but most of them will go to great lengths to cover up their infidelity, in order to give you a false impression of monogamy, even as they enjoy a polysexual lifestyle without you, in order to keep you ‘clean’, while they get dirtier and dirtier.

8. They will secretly, chauvinistically, consider you inferior

Again, remember that ‘feminism’ connotates a female-centric perspective. Contrary to the doctrine which they propagate, they don’t care about the equality of the sexes. They mostly believe in dominance of the male by the female, not through explicit force, but via social subterfuge. Even if you are more competent than they in technical matters, they will laugh at and take advantage of your social ineptitude, having long since realized that social power is the power that underlies the deployment of all physical force.

9. They will socially and sexually monopolize you by making you feel as if you have no other options

Beware of false consensus effect, the projected idea that you aren’t going to find anything different out there, or that all jobs are the same, all communities are the same, all women are the same… Maybe there are better jobs, communities, and love interests out there, but you are being dragged down and held back from them, by the one you’ve trusted more than anyone else. But the truth is, there are plenty of women who aren’t feminists, and maybe you would be better off with them! Or maybe you would be better off alone than enduring yet another exploitative, abusive relationship with a woman who has a typical, cookie-cutter feminist mentality.

10. They will attempt to shift your existence and perspective to a more female one

Expect your feminist girlfriend to drag you to chick flicks, feminist activist group meetings, and yoga class, just to emasculate you, and inundate you with female perspective, often one which disrespects and defies your own. Make no mistake: your feminist girlfriend has an agenda for you, and they will push it via coercion and subterfuge, if necessary.

11. They will sell you out to other liberal special interests

You haven’t fucked a black girl? You must be racist. You haven’t considered homosexuality? You must be a homophobe. You haven’t donated enough to the poor? You must be classist. As a member of a liberal kommunity, expect your feminist girlfriend to pressure you to buy into other liberal special interests. This is the socio-political source of their power: making concessions to other special interests in order to obtain their accomplice. And if they don’t have their own resources to commit to this end, yours will suffice.

12. They will support the patriarchy even while denouncing it, and you

My ex was a self-styled ‘feminist’. She cheated on me with (among others) a veteran. So how can she ever admonish anyone for ‘supporting the patriarchy’? The military is the most patriarchal organization I know of, and the biggest whore-mongers in the world. It’s all about that ‘macho man’ sense of sexual entitlement. Don’t think your woman won’t feed into that, at your expense, just because she outwardly denounces it, and YOU, for supporting it, whether you do or not, whether you have suffered by its hands moreso than them or not. Don’t think she won’t value money, systemic authority, or popularity more than your love and devotion.

13. They will play chauvinistic ego games

Even as they admonish you for judging their baggage, they will judge yours. Even as they implore you not to judge their bodies, they will laugh at the size of your penis, or your love handles, or your receding hairline. This is all about making you insecure, desperate, and more dependent upon them for self-esteem. Or even hypocritically implying that you need a woman’s love to validate your own existence, which, if you did that to them, they would cry sexism.

14. They will victim-blame you

If something happens to you, it’s your own damn fault. Even as they admonish you for ever suggesting that a woman is the cause of her own problems, they will apply this same rhetoric to you, as a man. If you resist their playing of the victim card, they will call you a victim-blamer, even as they accuse you of having a victim complex for all the times you have resisted the expectation that you take personal responsibility for everything everyone has ever done to you.

15. They will go to great lengths to cover up their shortcomings

You see, in the mind of a politically aware and active feminist, everything is a socio-political battle for moral superiority. Thus, if she fails, she will see this failure as an invalidation of her feminist ideals, and she will try to cover up that failure the way a criminal defense attorney tries to suppress evidence of her client’s guilt in court. The lengths that women are prepared to go to in order to accomplish this cover-up is ridiculous, and often defies material sense.

16. They will imply your ignorance, even via an inferior education

You have a degree in human psychology? In their minds, it will never trump that community college class they took on women’s studies. Whether they know more or not, they will assume that they are more enlightened and sensitive than you, by virtue of being female, and nothing more.

17. Your relationship with them will always be adversarial

This betrays the ideology they were raised to believe in: that you are the attacker and they are the defender. They will never trust you completely, no matter how much you trust them. You are a man, and therefore, you are the enemy, even if you are an enemy who has something they need. If you want your relationship with your woman to be like the United States’ relationship with Saudi Arabia, go ahead and date a feminist!

18. They will always be more loyal to other women than to you

Sexually, socially, economically, and politically, feminists are members of the sisterhood first, and your significant other second. Realize that women of such loyalties are leveraged far beyond the loyalty that your relationship with them entails. And don’t take it for granted that they won’t cheat on you with OTHER WOMEN, emasculating and socially imprisoning you by doing so.

19. They will deceive you

Lacking the force of physical and analytical superiority, feminists will always fall back on social dishonesty and exploitation, in order to keep you under their thumb. They see this power as a check to your own, even if you abstain from using your powers against them, as a conscientious objector to the battle of the sexes. They consider it their right to lie to you about their history, identity, and intentions.

20. They will be over-privileged, relative to you, even as they accuse you of being over-privileged

You will be hard-pressed to find a feminist who has never been invited or attended an orgy, even if such privilege is far out of your reach. Women also have more social and employment opportunities than you, even if they are incapable of taking advantage of them. They have probably lead easier lives than you, with less hardship, less systemic oppression, and more social privilege. This won’t stop them from privilege-shaming you.

21. They will have a rose-colored outlook on life

Because feminists are over-privileged, they will perceive the world through rose-colored glasses, often admonishing you as ‘negative’ or ‘judgmental’ for holding a more realist perspective, born of hardship. And if another man comes along who is willing to tell them what they want to hear, instead of the truth, watch them run off with him, leaving you out in the cold!

22. They will blame you for the actions of other men

Whether it’s their fathers, the President, the CEO of British Petroleum, or whoever, you must share the blame in solidarity with the other men, whether you condone their actions or not. Remember, to a stereotypically-thinking feminist, you are ‘one of them’. Your masculine gender assignment over-rides any individualism you may have.

23. They will judge or rate you via petty materialistic standards

Even the most liberal of women expect you to make more money then them, drive a better car, be handsome, famous, or both, and live in fancier digs. If you don’t, there must be something wrong with you. If you have renounced such priorities as a matter of ideology, they won’t respect that.

24. They will lean on the system

All liberals are dependent upon the system. Many people agree that the poor need help. Many are even willing to pay a tax to pay for it. But no one actually wants to get their hands dirty by helping the poor. Instead, they consider themselves as having done their duty simply by voting for a detached, cold, and sterile government system to treat the lepers, so that they themselves don’t have to touch them.

And if there is ever a dispute between yourself and a feminist, watch how fast they get the law, the police, the courts, even the legislature involved! Liberals are all closet authoritarians, and often depend upon a hierarchical system to carry out their biased vision of social justice.

25. They will be leeches with delusions of independence

In a society, like America’s, that runs on privilege, independence is hard to define. Many wealthy heirs will describe themselves as ‘independently wealthy’. But they aren’t independent. They are totally dependent upon their family’s wealth. Many feminists are the same way. Thought they may parlay their sympathy privilege into a successful career or higher-than-average standard of living, they are still dependent upon the community that provides for them. Only the highly capable are truly independent. And even then, a master chef still depends upon sous chefs, busboys, waiters, and stakeholders to make their culinary visions reality. Very few people are totally self-sufficient. Most of us are just gears in a larger mechanism, even if we maintain delusions of independence from or superiority to society.

26. They will neglect their physical appearance

Shaved heads, hairy armpits, and no make-up. If that sounds attractive to you, then by all means, date a feminist! Don’t expect for them to let YOU get away with not grooming, though.

The ones that dress up, they seem to be doing it for everyone else but you. You’re the one they feel like they can be their worst around, so you see the worst of them and everyone else sees their best.

27. They will exploit you on way or another

Sexually, materially, emotionally, intellectually, and socially, feminists will take advantage of you, and take more than they give, leaving you that much more bitter and dissatisfied for the next love interest that comes along. They will take your ideas, take credit for your work, take your credibility and reputation, take your intellectual property, take your own ideals and turn them against you, take your money, take your friends, take your career, life’s ambition, destiny, take your soul. And then no one will want the hollowed-out remains of what once was a very fine young man.

28. They are mostly either sluts or teases

Which do you want: a girl who leads you on, wastes your time, energy, and money, having no intention of sleeping with you at any point, and ultimately leaving you high and dry? Or would you rather have a woman everyone has already had, and anyone can have? Because those are your options when you pull from the feminist pool.

29. They live in the past

Your past. Their past. The relationship’s past. A thousand years before either of you were born. Expect them to keep bringing it up, even as it becomes less and less relevant.

30. They are insecure

They failed to live up to the male ideal of what a female should be. They have bad karma. they have mental problems. They have physical defects. Whatever it is, they are insecure about it, and they will project that insecurity onto you, and over-compensate for their inferiority complex by dominating you somehow.


What does the female community do to men they perceive as ‘anti-social’ or ‘misogynist’? They ostracize them! Perhaps what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Don’t give these women the time of day. Maybe a little time out in the corner will change their perspective. As for male feminists, most of them are insincere, and their motivations are transparent, but their tactics are the same as the sisterhood’s.

22 Myths that Women Teach Young Men in Order to Chauvinistically Exploit the Next Generation

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that women exert a lot of influence over the course of human evolution, both biologically AND socially. As sexual gatekeepers, women basically control the process of natural selection, even if their personal samples of male genetic material are both participation and selection biased, and their social influence, especially when acting in large, coordinated numbers, cannot be denied.

Not only that, but the nature of Western society, at least traditionally, as in, the social conditions that predicated this current generation of adults, is that women raised the children while men worked to pay for everything. This applies to both stay at home moms and the predominantly female teacher roster in the public school system. As Tyler Durden famously stated in an admittedly homoerotic novel (not that there’s anything wrong with that): “We are a generation of men raised by women. Maybe another woman isn’t what we need.”

What most men, in their young adulthood and midlife, are just now figuring out, is that the education they received, about sex, romance, and women especially, had an extreme feminist bias, and was basically designed to ensure that the men of the next generation would be subservient to females and at a severe social disadvantage, until not just one, but every man woke up from this spell. Revisionist, censorship-crazy feminists are now hard at work trying to delete anything or anyone that might let this cat out of the bag, and internet social commentary regarding current events are dripping with female insecurities. They project privilege onto males, despite the fact that females enjoy a far higher standard of living in Western society, due to disproportionately high social capital, even if investing said capital poorly often leaves them feeling unsatisfied. And often on the internet, the crowd who shrieks the most shrilly is thought to be right, no matter how unreasonable.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Plenty of articles already exist which discuss the current conflict between masculism, feminism, and gender egalitarianism. What this article is meant to address, is the past. All the things that men are taught in their formative years, and how this differs from what women are taught, in order to create a systemic, instructional advantage for women, in addition to their intrinsic social advantages.

1. ‘There are no such things as whores.’

The ‘no such thing as whores’ mythology, pushed by feminists onto an entire generation of males, is one that is extremely harmful to men, as it makes them naive, idealistic, and easily exploited by materialistic, disloyal, promiscuous women. It denies men the fair warning they should have that some women are not very well-intentioned when it comes to sex and romance, and that men should guard themselves against unscrupulous females who might waste their time, ruin their lives, cause them emotional distress, or get them into trouble by being socially irresponsible, and flippant. Not that all women are like that, but many are, and they will drag you down, distract and divert you from the good girls who might actually do right by you. Not all women were conceived or raised equally, so hold out for a good one, or one that matches your background, values, and priorities, at least.

The great hypocrisy of this teaching is that girls are taught, by the same women who teach men that there are no such thing as whores, that most men are lecherous perverts who can’t be trusted. Fair warning delivered to one party of a venture and not the other creates an obvious advantage for women, and a disadvantage for males.

What obscures the matter even more, is the fact that whores, in the internet age, are not as obvious as in previous generations. Innocent girls are often idealistically in denial of the existence of whores, so bringing it up is likely to offend their naive sensibilities.

What most people don’t realize, is that hos don’t necessarily confine themselves to urban street corners, strip clubs, or even Craig’s List anymore, although you can still find the more brazen ones there. The majority of hos are in denial of the fact that they are hos, because they don’t explicitly turn tricks like that… Instead, they work jobs, which they often use as bases of social, sexual, and economic power, and are constantly out to exploit men. If she lead you on, fucked you and left when you ran out of money, and you paid for everything the whole time (or maybe even someone else paid without your knowledge), I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, SHE A HO!

And that’s an extremely common story, which is very often denied. Less common but still unfortunately true is the underground network of prostitutes linked to escort services, pimps, and madames. These are the kinds of organized crime prostitutes who do not purvey themselves to the general public, but only to those referred via private social networks. In other words, to procure their services, you have to ‘know somebody’, and as independent operators fully in charge of their own business, they reserve the right to refuse service for whatever reason. I became aware of these organizations through my work in the music business, where certain business concerns, known as ‘fixers’ are often charged with procuring drugs and female company for traveling musicians.

The prostitution business thrives on social misdirection, misinformation, the exploitation of the male sex drive, and artificial, socially-created desperation. Despite what the ‘whores as indentured servants/hapless victims’ mythologies might suggest, these women are not necessarily coerced into their careers. Most whores are independently-operating social and financial exploiters by trade, who target wealthy men, cock-blocking them from legitimate opportunities, ruining their reputations with the classy girls, and trying to drive men into phony, unhealthy relationships with ‘ladies of the evening’, who have purely selfish intentions. Sometimes they even have sham marriages, solely for the purpose of taking half!

These are all the kinds of harsh truths that don’t jibe with feminist indoctrination of males, because they are politically incorrect.

2. ‘Western women generally are under-privileged’ (relative to men)

No they aren’t. And there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that they aren’t. Maybe in Saudi Arabia, but not in Europe and America. And are those supposedly hardcore feminists storming places like Darfur, in order to fight on the battlefield for women’s rights in an environment where women are ACTUALLY oppressed? Of course not! They are sitting their happy asses in the end zone, and the most effective thing they can think of to do about the oppression of females in third world countries is ‘raise awareness’ on Tumblr, or perhaps send checks that end up misappropriated by some African warlord and used for contrary purposes than those for which they were intended.

This is all about laying the guilt trip and playing the victim card. Over the past 60 years, the liberal special interest schtick has barely changed at all. If anything, it has gotten even more aggressively vitriolic, often discrediting its own validity with hysterical melodrama. Things like ‘white man’s burden’ and ‘patriarchy’ seem less relevant the further, chronologically and historically, the present moment moves from when slavery and patriarchy WERE a reality, and yet social liberals are still pressing these same buttons, more and more now that they are less effective. If your father was a slave and my father was a slave owner, I agree that I probably owe you some reparations. But if your great grandfather was a slave, and my great grandfather was a peasant in some shitty Eastern European country at the time, I don’t feel like I owe you dick, and implications to the contrary are only going to piss me off and make me lose respect for you. My great fear is actually that sexism and racism have come full circle in the modern age, and the slayers have become the very demons they originally sought to slay, thus perpetuating a cycle of grievance and vendetta.

Now, I’m not at all trying to suggest the idea that an individual woman can’t be under-privileged, relative to a certain male, or the average male. But the same can apply vice versa. Privilege is relative and individually variable, and we shouldn’t fall victim to misleading statistics which imply things about the individual from the group. Liberals use statistics to imply that white Christian males are over-privileged, in the exact same way that Neo Nazis used statistics to imply that all Black men are criminals. But you can’t let a stereotypical understanding of the group cause you to misapply stereotypes to the individual. There could be mitigating circumstances. In the case of the supposedly over-privileged white male, that circumstance might be high capability, in the same way that in the case of the supposedly criminal black man that circumstance might be a biased legal system, systemic poverty, or historical racism.

3. ‘Don’t be superficial’, or ‘don’t have unrealistic beauty standards’

This is what women teach boys in order to ‘give the ugly girls a chance’. It leads to successful, better-than-average-looking men getting screwed around by the kind of mediocre women who are beneath them, physically, ethically, and mentally. Once again, when you teach women in middle school to have high standards and hold out for Mr. Right, then, at the same time, teach men to ‘not be superficial’, ‘be open-minded’, or even ‘take what you can get’, the ultimate effect is to make men more exploitable by women.

Most women perceive men in general as having inflated egos that need to be cut down to size. But sometimes they do too good a job, or the particular guy in question had low self-esteem in the first place. So it’s a self-defeating attitude to say, ‘I can’t get that model-hot cheerleader that everyone wants’. I was conditioned to believe such women were out of my league, and ended up giving myself away to a short string of B-grade women in my young adulthood, because I had been made to feel as though that caliber of woman was all I could get.

Most men aren’t vain or narcissistic like women, and often don’t know how attractive they really are. And this causes them to cheat themselves. My advice to men is to realistically assess your own level of handsomeness, and pursue women on the same level of beauty. Because any inequity in a relationship is going to eventually ruin it.

And don’t buy into the ‘unattractive women necessarily have good personalities’ mythology. This hasn’t been my experience. I no longer consider such women ‘safe bets’, because I’ve just been screwed around by too many of them. The sad fact is, beauty privilege is something so commonly relied upon by females, it spoils the women who have it, but it also embitters the women who DON’T have it! The beautiful woman and the less conventionally attractive woman are just as likely to be over-entitled, promiscuous, or malicious… or not! There are beautiful women who aren’t dragon ladies, too! Just as beautiful women are often spoiled by social privilege, unattractive women are often psychologically disturbed by their inability to live up to gender roles of being physically attractive.

But beware, because when you are approaching those models and beauty queens, they have learned to use the line, ‘You have unrealistic beauty standards’, just to pop the man’s balloon and send him flying away… Even if he’s perfectly handsome, but simply not her type, or maybe she doesn’t like his job, bank balance, or romantic history… Or maybe, someone else already talked to her about you, and filled her head with lies about what a terrible person you are, which she might not have questioned, as most non-judgmental people often aren’t great at critically analyzing the validity of subjective opinions and outright lies.

Most women have unique types they find attractive, unlike most males, who typically tend to agree on what an attractive woman looks like. So that’s definitely something men need to be taught, otherwise rejection will take the wind out of their sails, which is something most women, who are used to being pursued, having their egos constantly stroked, and fending off unwanted advances, simply don’t understand.

Don’t have a self-defeating attitude, like Kurt Cobain! He made like a hundred million dollars, was the most popular artist on the planet, and yet his happiness was dependent upon the whim of a used-up fuckpig, who abused and exploited him. All because he didn’t want people to think he was ‘superficial’ or ‘not a feminist’. If the cost of being perceived as an unsuperficial feminist is being in an unsatisfying relationship with a woman whom you don’t find attractive, then I guess I’d rather be Ron Jeremy combined with the Marlboro Man and Clint Eastwood.

And remember, never make the mistake of thinking that just because a woman doesn’t ‘like’ your photo on Facebook, doesn’t mean they don’t actually like your photo. If you press a woman about it, she will say that she just doesn’t want to come off as needy or thirsty, but in reality, this is a tactic much like a worker’s union strike. By making female affection artificially scarce, women have increased its value, in what is probably a very deliberate, coordinated effort. If a woman were to break rank, she would be chastised by the other women as a ‘scab’.

Finally, I will add, if you do marry, and the marriage is successful, you will both grow old together, and that’s when this lesson actually applies: If you are to truly be a man of honor, you should tolerate your lady’s aging just as she tolerates yours, even while admitting that no one looks their best when they are elderly. Long-term relationships may require compromise to succeed, but that doesn’t mean you should, out of desperation, compromise your standards in the name of getting into a relationship.

4. ‘Women are powerless, and require more assistance than men’

This is the assumption, which is highly sexist by the way, that ruins women early on in life, via an education system that weakens them by making them systemically dependent, even if their social or financial privilege, later on in life, gives them the delusions of independence. This gets into gender roles. Women generally want to abolish the gender roles they don’t like, but have no problem upholding the gender roles which benefit them. This is sexist hypocrisy.

Just remember that privilege and capability tend to have an inversely proportional relationship. The person who always has things done for them will probably not be very adept at doing things for themselves.

5. ‘There is a double standard regarding promiscuity’

Being a promiscuous male will certainly disqualify you from many romantic opportunities. One of the great fears of the prized, hard-to-get marriage material female is sleeping with a smooth-talking man-whore who ultimately won’t take her seriously, and this is the primary reason many women are so reserved, picky, and quick to flee once they perceive a red flag. They see promiscuous men as unlikely to be able to abide by commitment, in the same way that men see promiscuous females as similarly unreliable. There is just as much slut-shaming of man whores as there is of promiscuous females, and to believe otherwise is to fall victim to feminist mythology.

Just ask the guy who doesn’t sleep around and gets teased for it, both by alpha male douchebags and female chauvinists alike! And when you are done talking to him, go talk to the guy who is known for sleeping around, and ask him what his prospects are like: he may do well with the sluts, but the virgins and marriage material women of moral class won’t give him the time of day, probably rightfully so.

But beware the short sell down slut creek from the female community! The most desirable females have a feminist community that guards them: if such an alpha female has a crush on a man (or perhaps the desire is his, or even mutual) that can’t be quashed with the usual behind the back character assassination, sabotage, introducing her to a ‘better man’, or telling her she needs to experiment with women first, they will then conspire to ‘hook up’ her crush with an inferior female specimen, or a whole train of them, both as a means of diverting him, and making him less attractive to the enpedastalled female. Then, they can say they have protected an innocent woman’s purity, not emasculated the male, and aren’t slut shamers!

In fact, among extreme feminists, there is actually a similar double standard, one which they insecurely project onto men in general:

Scenario 1: You are a swinger. You have many simultaneous sexual relationships with women, with no expectation of commitment on either end.

The feminist reaction: Your sexual conquest is exploitative, manipulative, and patriarchal. You have a sense of entitlement that entails sexual access to multiple women at once.

Scenario 2: You are a (serial) monogamist. You value relationships for emotional intimacy, and expect the same monogamous commitment from your partner as you are able to give them.

The feminist reaction: You are possessive of women, seek to control their sexuality, and are driven by jealousy. You have a sense of entitlement that entails exclusivity in all of your relationships.

See how this lose-lose scenario is what allows individual women to set (or change, whimsically) the standard for each romantic relationship, exclusively on their terms. Rather than respect the fact that there are people of both types, and the only real social crime is to mix types under false pretenses, women will instead judge a man for being who he is, and living the attachment style that is right for his personal psychology. This is the kind of lose-lose scenario that takes social/relationship power out of men’s hands, and puts it into the hands of women. And since power corrupts, they will almost certainly wield this power hypocritically and inconsistently, depending upon what suits them best at the current moment, from their current partner(s).

A relationship should be based in mutually amicable terms, not the terms of one side over another.

This is in addition to several other lose-lose scenarios that women construct for men, most notably the ‘never having the perfect amount of money’ scenario: “You are either a broke scrub or an over-privileged rich guy,” and the ‘passive-aggressive’ scenario: “You are either a passive beta creep for not making enough moves and never getting laid, or an aggressive macho alpha for being too aggressive, and fucking too many women.”

6. ‘Women are generally socially honest and forthright’

Uh-uh! Women talk. Constantly. To eachother. About you. Secretly. Manipulatively. Maliciously. For all the bitching they do about marriage being ownership and jealous boyfriends trying to control their lives (and these can be legitimate concerns in some cases), they sure do exert a lot of effort to control the social lives of the men in their community, mostly via gossip and deliberately propagated misinformation. You thought you only had one mother? Silly rabbit, you have a whole community full of manipulative, controlling females who think they know what’s best for you and everyone else, and aren’t afraid to secretly pull strings, often in violation of basic social ethics, in order to keep you under their thumbs.

In fact, most of the facts and opinions expressed in this article are common knowledge among women, but not only will they never bring it up of their own volition, they will vehemently deny it, and attack the character of anyone who brings this kind of stuff up. By withholding information privilege from you, they are attempting to keep you in the dark and manipulate your life in any way they deem fit. Women, being the better communicators, are far more likely to act as ‘man in the middle’, exploiting the lines of communication in order to manipulate the course of human events in their favor.

They are also just as likely as a man to misrepresent themselves romantically, and try to appear as something they are not, in order to have relationships on false pretenses.

7. ‘Being a doormat/male feminist will make women respect you’

Once again, I bring up Kurt Cobain, the archetypical male feminist of Generation X, and one of my personal heroes. Unfortunately, he was cut down in his prime, by his own hand. But what drove him to it? Sadly, I think suicidal depression was the inevitable result of his misguided personal philosophy.


While I agree with Kurt’s sentiment (even if it appears that he too has bought into the female victim complex and obsolete rape statistics), as well as the idea that women should learn self-defense (though most don’t want to because of the self-discipline that martial arts necessarily entails), I think the less obvious subtextual point here is that women do a terrible job of supporting male feminists, and Kurt Cobain was a classic example of their neglect and outright exploitation of their male allies. No one appreciated the fact that he was a feminist, and the world was content to let him wallow in an unhealthy, co-dependent relationship with a psycho hose beast, and that ended up being a big part of the reason why he killed himself, even while he was sitting on top of the world, and could have had anything or anyone he wanted…

So, he makes a really poor apologist for feminism considering the fact that he was a battered male and a cuckold. So anything he says about feminism carries the subtext: “If you think like this, you’re going to end up getting manipulated, abused, and exploited by women who are beneath you, just like I did.”

Or worse yet, you’ll end up totally neglected by women altogether, and dying alone, because no one gives a shit about how altruistic and egalitarian you are, unless you also happen to have something they want. I know that guy well, because I used to be that guy. I take responsibility for my own bad past relationships, but it’s tempting to say that I was badly influenced by a whole generation of liberal idealist celebrities filling my head full of inapplicable, pie-in-the-sky bullshit.

What other bad relationship guy can we take a feminist blurb from? Ooh, I know! How about:

“You can totally trust your wife not to shoot you while you sleep! I do it all the time.” – Phil Hartman

For all the shit women talk behind backs and social manipulations they pull collectively, how come they can’t ever seem to coordinate getting good men healthy relationships, and quarantining all the skanks and douchebags together? What are women doing to support the men who AREN’T aggressive? It’s more likely they will socially maneuver you into a bad or unfair relationship that benefits their homegirl disproportionately, at your expense, and then blame you when the whole thing inevitably falls in on you.

Also, I think that Dave Grohl (Or maybe it was the bass player Krist, I know one of them hooked them up and the other didn’t like her, but then they both ended up not liking her), as the new drummer in the band, and the newcomer to the community built up around the band, made a lot of of these same points in real time, during Kurt and Courtney’s relationship, and everyone just thought he was kind of a d-bag to even say anything about it. Because everyone had become comfortable with the elephant in the room, and Grohl, as a bit of an outsider, was very struck by it, and wanted to solve a problem that everyone was in denial of. But after Kurt’s suicide, Kurt and Courtney’s relationship became a rock and roll parable that the rock community, which has never fully embraced extreme feminism, ended up taking to heart.

See, the thing is, men like Kurt have no ‘game’. For those not up on their street talk, ‘game’=lying. And because we aren’t willing to be romantically deceptive, we often end up alone, because we get ‘out-gamed’ by men (and women) who are willing to be more ruthless than us. But in the case of a high status male like Kurt, the community thought that him being alone while all the lying d-bags got their fill at the skank buffet, it just made them look bad. So they stuck him with leftovers. The kind of woman no one else wanted or had already had, a girl with an obvious groupie complex. Don’t let that be you! We can’t all bang supermodels, and someone has to scrub the proverbial floors, but if you are world-famous, a genuinely good person, and wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of most, for the love of God, don’t marry a Courtney Love! You deserve so much better!

8. ‘Women are more emotional and idealistic than men’

Not necessarily. There are plenty of female pragmatists, atheists, nihilists, psychopaths, and women who think hopeless romanticism and idealistic sacrifice are silly and impractical. Also, contrary to commonly accepted dogma, men have feelings too, and those feelings are valid. To be pushed into an insensitive male gender role that doesn’t really fit is to be cheated of one’s own emotional well-being, and doing that for petty material concerns is rarely healthy.

Also, women are now just as likely or more likely to cheat than men. Cheating, once assumed to be a function of male psychology, has actually been found to be a function of social power. As the balance of social power has shifted more towards women, we have observed their capacity to cheat increase significantly. Don’t assume a woman is innocent just because she is a woman. She’s a human animal who wants to be better off than the Jones’s, maybe even moreso than you, and she might be willing to stoop to even more devious means than you are to do it! They say a woman has never started a war. Of course, not, they had men do it for them! Behind every exploitative tyrant there is almost always demanding women with a ridiculous standard of living.

Also, don’t deny the existence of male intuition, or say that a male with intuition is less masculine. Many men think intuitively, including Einstein and a lot of musicians, and yet still are manly men, whose virility and heterosexuality are well-established.

9. ‘Men rule the world and always have’ (Patriarchy)

The XY chromosome, in terms of evolution, is a recent development. Before that, there were only female organisms, who can reproduce asexually via combining two X chromosomes, usually conceiving another female. The XY chromosome is a mutation that found a foothold in nature because it was and is advantageous to the organism’s survival and reproduction. Also, there have been many matriarchal societies amongst the pre-historic civilizations as well. So this whole idea of ‘Women deserve an exclusive turn at the wheel, because they have never had one’, is simply bullshit. Another case of revisionism controlling the population via mass delusion.

The truth is that the system, in its current form, cannot properly be called ‘Patriarchy’, because there are so many women on top, who have sold out to it, and so many men on bottom, who have refused to comply. Most humans are oppressed, men and women are simply oppressed in different ways, because they have different strengths, vulnerabilities, and priorities which can be exploited. The best example is Hillary Clinton, who briefly oversaw a war effort while Secretary of State. She signed orders for men to kill other men! Similarly, there are many other female authority figures, business leaders, institutional figureheads, etc…

I’ve worked for men and women in professional, salaried contexts, and they can both be good bosses, or bad bosses. It’s not the gender of my boss that makes me think s/he is a good or bad boss, it’s the way they treat me, the reasonability of their expectations, their effectiveness as administrators, their support of my career, or lack thereof.

10. ‘Women have a unified sisterhood’

Although women can exhibit typical behaviors if mutually beneficial, they are also willing to sell eachother out for personal gain. Again, let’s use the union analogy. Just because a union is unified for the purposes of a strike doesn’t mean they are all best friends or aren’t willing to betray eachother in other ways. Women exploit, oppress, and manipulate eachother, and tell the men who care about women, ‘It’s none of your business.’

11. ‘The system is biased against women’

No, it isn’t The system is biased against YOU. YOU, as a man, are so much more likely to go to prison, even if you committed the EXACT SAME CRIME as a random woman. When a woman plays the victim card in court, we say, “Oh, don’t blame the victim”. When a man does the same, he has a ‘victim complex’ and ‘shouldn’t be enabled’. Women get more money/material support from their parents, suitors, and the government than you ever have or will. Finally, women may not be strong enough to kick your ass, but there are plenty of men they can easily manipulate into doing it for them, and these men usually work in law enforcement or organized crime, which are sometimes hard to distinguish. They can use their social influence to ruin your career, love life, legal status, financial status… like THAT, if they don’t have the scruples to tell themselves that doing so is just as ethically wrong as if they pulled the trigger themselves.

12. ‘Men can’t be victims, and women can’t be victim-blamers’

See above. Women can be violent, lie, cheat, steal, and if they do so, they will most likely employ some kind of victim-blaming rationalization to make it your fault in their little minds, and since they tend to have big mouths and a hive-mind, their lies and misconceptions can be extremely contagious. If a woman fucks you over, rest assured, she’s already rationalized it to her friends somehow, and they all probably think it’s your own damn fault.

13. ‘Feminism is all about equality’

Wrong. ‘Gender Egalitarianism’ is the term for advocating the equality of the sexes and the abolishment of gender roles, goals which actually conflict with many extreme feminist ideologies. ‘Feminism’ carries a connotation of female chauvinism, female bias, matriarchy, liberal special interest, and exploitation, both materially and sexually, of males.

14. ‘There are certain duties and tasks that women simply can’t or shouldn’t be expected to perform’

Not true. Women can be soldiers, cops, bodybuilders, computer programmers, car mechanics, etc… Women can ask men out, and pay for dinner! So make them fix their own damn computer! It’s the only way they will ever learn to stop installing spyware.

15. ‘Women should be held to different or more lenient standards than men’

No they shouldn’t! Any standard that can be applied to a man, can be applied to a woman as well! Down with gender roles!

Most people don’t care about injustice until it happens to a woman. This is exactly why we should stop shielding women from all the injustices inherent in society. Only when a woman experiences a problem will that problem be prioritized to be solved by society. Otherwise, we let people suffer and assume it’s their own fault.

When the government comes for people’s sons, they will accept this. But I think it is harder for people accept when the government starts collecting their daughters and putting them in battle, poverty, prison, or other unsafe conditions. Leniency towards females is a political strategy that keeps unjust laws and bad business practices on the books.

I guess my point is simply this: there’s a sinkhole in the road. Every time a man wrecks out on it, everyone says he’s a bad driver. The first time a woman wrecks out, people say ‘we need to fix that road.’

But the big problem is that no woman will ever be subject to such a systemic problem when men are expected to drive women everywhere because ‘you know how dangerous those roads are’. In other words, ‘that should be a man’s problem to handle’, not, ‘we should fix the problem so it doesn’t happen to anyone.’

16. ‘Women are less rational than men’

I often like to tell the story of the woman who beat me and everyone else in neuroanatomy class, to prove that analytical thought is not solely the province of the male gender. Women can be just as rational as men. The problem is, they are often indulged, via social privilege, to be irrational, and maintain logically inconsistent attitudes. They become so devoted to their own personal mythologies and ideologies, they deliberately, hysterically ignore any evidence that might possibly contradict them.

See if you can get a woman to read this entire article. She will probably quit less than halfway through, because it assaults her emotionally. Much the way a delusional person will lash out when their delusions are challenged by rational discourse. I fear that the only way to combat such women is to ostracize them in the same way they will attempt to ostracize any man who speaks against them. In other words, stop indulging them in irrationality, no matter how attractive or desirable they may be! Social privilege is what keeps their nonsense afloat, in spite of better judgment.

17. ‘Offending women verbally or visually counts as “assault”‘

This definition of ‘assault’ is so ambiguous, it is an abuse in itself. When the word is cheapened like that, women create the impression that they are so over-privileged, unpleasant words or pictures on a screen are the closest thing to actual violence they have ever endured (or have committed against others). Most men are nowhere near that fortunate. Bottom line: this is yet another bad argumentative tactic they use to quash dissent, and the peaceful expression of valid male thoughts and emotions.

And I’m sorry, but when a woman blows up my Facebook feed with scantily clad photos of herself, should I really be sorry that she gets unsolicited dick pics? More hypocritical projection. How typical. The problem here is that women are always talking about how the Patriarchy is criminalizing the female body, how unjust it is that women have to wear tops, get judged for wearing slutty clothes, and like to flout society’s conventions with their dress in order to get attention, etc… But then if a man behaves similarly, he is labelled a violent sexual predator.

18. ‘Most men have a greater sense of sexual entitlement than females’

That’s strange, because, on average, women have sex more often, and with a greater number of partners over the course of a lifetime, than the average man. So if they like sex less, they certainly have a funny way of showing it.

19. ‘Women are more open-minded than men’

I suppose it depends upon your definition of the word ‘open-minded’. If you mean ‘more willing to entertain ridiculous notions and live in fantastical, persistent delusions’, then you might be right. If you mean ‘more likely to listen to your foreign perspective and give it due consideration’, you are probably wrong.

20. ‘Everyone is equal/sexual interchangeability’

Anyone who is going to sit there and say they would pay the same amount of money to fuck Barbara Walters as they would pay to fuck Faye Reagan is clearly letting their pipe dream ideology get in the way of accurately perceiving reality.

21. ‘1 in 5 women will be raped over the course of a lifetime’

This statistic is not only outdated, it was misleading in the first place. The actual rate is far lower, and getting lower all the time. You’d think that feminists would be happy about this, but it actually makes it harder to play the victim card.

22. ‘Women are paid less for the same work’

Another outdated and misleading statistic. Women take more time off, for things like child-rearing, and voluntarily choose, out of the same options a man has, to go into lower-paying fields than men do.

And keep in mind that, even as feminists teach men to be self-effacing, humble doormats, who rely on nothing but themselves and provide for everyone, this is what they are teaching little girls:

The Cycle of Romantic Victimology

It starts in high school. He’s a horny liar driven by hormones. She’s an irrational princess living in fantasy world, driven by emotions. He tells her everything she wants to hear. The fairy-tale where they ride off into the sunset and live happily ever after.

Eventually, she puts out. After awhile, he gets bored of her. All her little imperfections he ignored in the name of getting laid start to really bother him. He begins to wonder if he has cheated himself, and begins to find other people attractive. Finally, he breaks her heart by leaving her and pursuing other women she knows, possibly even her friends or family.

She spends a lot of time depressed. She feels ruined by false promises and bad sex. The next man won’t find her as desirable as when she was young and pristine. The first one’s insincerity discredits every other man who uses the same lines, even if they are sincere. But eventually, life goes on. She is still human after all, with needs and desires. She moves on. She doesn’t want to let one asshole ruin her ability to trust others and have a good time being social.

And then the victim becomes the victimizer. It’s simple transference. She’s still mad at that first guy, so she projects him onto random guys she meets, and hurts them before they get the chance to hurt her, thus giving her the feeling of having ‘won’ the relationship. She finds them in nightclubs, bars, community college. She leads them on, spends their money, loves them and leaves them, or just teases them. They’re all just douchebags anyway, at least in her mind. Whether they really are, or not. Some of them don’t become douchebags until she works them over, and just like her, her victims become victimizers. It’s all nothing but a jealousy competition.

Eventually, her lifestyle catches up to her. An unwanted pregnancy, career or scholastic failure, an STD, a substance abuse problem. She ends up in counseling. After winning her trust through empathizing with her plight, her therapist finally breaks it to her: You have a victim complex. You need to start raising your standards, taking control of your life, refusing to play the same old games everyone else is playing. No more business as usual: set your mark, and enforce it.

For the nice guy from a decent background, with a good head on his shoulders, it begins later. College, maybe. He’s been socially isolated since high school glory days, if they ever even happened for him at all, gone past. The flaw in the Golden Rule is that it assumes that everyone wants the same thing. Most women want to be left alone, so they leave him alone, to his disappointment. Most of his sexual appetites are filled by porn. Women only play bait and reel games, and he’s smart enough not to chase rabbits down their holes. Maybe he has the odd encounter with the opposite sex in college, but they aren’t ultimately very satisfying, even if he brags to his friends to pump up his own hype.

Eventually he graduates, settles into a career, and starts feeling entitled to a real relationship. Marriage, family, social stability. But dating sucks for him, like it does for most men, even the handsome and wealthy young professionals: He takes some ungrateful bitch out, only to find out she’s an idiot, and then he doesn’t even get any, nor does he even end up wanting it most of the time. He wants it from some hypothetical perfect girl, but never the flawed piece of shit to whom he has actual access. Even if he does score, it’s usually with a well-used village idiot, and he feels shame afterwards.

If he has any standards at all, he finds the women who meet them to be extremely uncooperative. He knows himself well enough to know what he likes and doesn’t like in a mate, and he always feels like he’s settling, so sometimes he just gives up, not dating or being social for months or even years at at a time. Society can’t or won’t produce an equal partner for him, so instead, what they do is keep him alone and miserable until he is older, less attractive, less well-off, and more desperate. Then they try to get him to settle for someone who is beneath him, so that men of more privileged backgrounds can take all the best opportunities for themselves.

These guys who talk about getting pussy all the time… they are either liars or rapists. They exaggerate their lifestyles to try and hype themselves and make everyone else jealous. He falls victim to the competition from other males and even females, who sabotage him and lie behind his back. If he is lucky, his career is unaffected by his lack of social capital, or the emotional instability of being single and alone in the world.

There are plenty of options he doesn’t want, but the most desirable women have all the options, all the social capital, and he is always a mere supplicant, even if over-qualified. Often times, the men women ignore completely end up better off than the ones they take some interest in… just enough interest to get his hopes up and break his heart before they move on to the next exploitable target of opportunity… He has enough of a social conscience to not want to exploit women, but sometimes it seems to him that’s what they want. And sometimes he feels exploited.

It’s sad that there are actually uglier nerds even more socially alienated him, or militant feminists, whether male or female, and they consider him ‘over-privileged’… If you consider it a ‘privilege’ to waste a bunch of time, energy, and money just to find out that she’s incompatible and you don’t get any, then yeah, maybe… He tries to explain to the betas that they aren’t missing much. There are still people who say he’s gotten more chicks than them, or more attractive women than them… But every woman he ever actually got ended up screwing him around. The emotional trauma and baggage reputation isn’t usually worth the rare sex that actually happens. Even when he has a good career, money in the bank, is relatively attractive and talented, women don’t take him that much more seriously than the guy who doesn’t have any of that going for him.

The anti-marriage atheist crowd tries to brainwash him into becoming a polyamorist, or at the very least, spend a bunch of money trying. Whores play ego games, and try to make him feel bad for not getting laid. Feminists and religious people alike tell him he is going to Hell for the little sex he has actually had. A female’s desire can make a man a target… in a bad way. In a town full of white knights trying to save women from their own bad judgment, misinformationists who either break down their social enemies or hype their social allies, people who are judgmental of eachother’s relationships (Do you really think THAT’S the right guy for her?!?!) And let’s not forget about insecurely jealous lesbians and feminists who want to sabotage any kind of healthy heterosexual relationship, which they see as ‘patriarchal’. Liberal, pretentious, big city bullshit, basically

Eventually the man develops learned helplessness. He hates being alone, but doesn’t want to settle for an unsatisfying partner, and the women to whom he is most attracted physically seem to be over-privileged, under-capable, and lacking in social conscience. When he finally meets the girl from the first part of this essay, she thinks she knows what’s wrong with him, because she assumes that this terrible thing she just learned about herself must also apply to him.

“I think you have a victim complex,” she tells him, “Grow some balls. Man up.” She’s basically projecting her victim complex onto an actual victim, which is the worst form of victim-blaming there is, because it discredits the victim even as it blames them. And in the case of women, ‘taking control of your sex life’ is ’empowerment’, but for men, ‘taking control’ is rape.

But she doesn’t realize that, even though they ended up in the same place, he took a totally different route to get there. Nobody ever wined or dined him, he paid for everything the whole time. It was either that or give up and be alone. But the women from his past were all just using him for material things, just as sure as the men from her past were using her for sex. Perhaps at the time, their social lives made them feel empowered, at least more than the average frustrated chump, but looking back, they both realize what fools they have been. Really, either one of the genders involved in this story could be the victim or the victimizer, chronologically, in that order, or both at once.