What, No Thanks for the Narcissistic Supply?

lisa_langloisBefore you ask, “why are you wasting so much time writing about a person who you allegedly don’t care about?”, the reason is because my readers demand this kinda trashy stuff, and I don’t wanna disappoint ’em! You may now continue.

A former friend of mine is the stupidest, laziest and least creative narcissist I have ever known. Rather than channeling her attention whoring skills into getting a writing job at Slate, Salon or Buzzfeed or starting a youtube channel, where she could utilize her button-covered denim jacket and layers of cat-eye makeup to become the punk rock Laci Green or someone equally as annoying, she spends every waking (woke?) minute of her day on social media posting about how “outraged” she is at the “patriarchy” and “rape culture” and “manspreading” and “mansplaining” and all of the other goofy nonsense umpteenth-wave feminists invented so they could have something to feel righteous about. In fact, she’s so desperate for righteousness points, that she fails to realize that, in an effort to “raise awareness”, she causes all of the “sexist” and “racist” articles she posts to get more clicks, helping turn their authors into mini-celebrities. It’s through HER, that I first learned of Matt Forney, who I now consider a friend. So, thanks, Br(redacted).

I actually blocked this person along with everyone I used to be friends with that jumped aboard the leftist SJW bandwagon and considers Donald Trump to be Hitler/the Antichrist/etc. etc. etc. because having people like that on your Facebook friend list is a liability. You post something; that person comments on your post; you respond with anything that could be interpreted as “hate speech”; someone reports you; and you spend a month in Facebook jail, not being able to comment on people’s posts or respond to messages. You’re like Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense; people wonder if you’re ignoring them, and you’re forced to start a second, third and forth FB account to keep in touch with them and peddle your wears. On top of that, leftists/liberals/SJWs have such thin skin, that you’ll get an angry mob that doesn’t have a clue about politics attacking you as a person, rather than trying to refute any of your well thought out points. Some of my favorite responses from these people are “kill yourself”, “delete your account” and “stop talking.” This all comes from people who consider themselves adults. Interacting with them is just not worth the hassle.

But apparently there isn’t much going on in Grand Rapids these days because the person that I’m talking about in this piece decided many years after we stopped talking to broadcast my current activities to her Facebook community by posting a recent Guardian article in which I’m quoted. I know it’s not exactly secret information, but how did she stumble upon it? Is she an avid reader of The Guardian? More importantly, why did she care enough to broadcast it to her little world? And EVEN MORE importantly, why did her little community feel the need to respond so passionately? One guy said I’m a white supremacist, and one guy said that I’m not rock ‘n’ roll (SLAM). It’s definitely flattering that so many people think of me years after I stopped living there and even more flattering that people feel so disgusted at the notion that I help David Cole organize events for people in Hollywood who hold “unpopular” views that could cause them to lose jobs in the film industry; I mean, GOD FORBID you talk about balancing the budget, shrinking the size of the federal government or supporting a more sensible, less debilitating immigration policy.

So, a week or two after I learned about this through a mutual friend, I sent the person on who this piece is based a little message in an attempt to advertise the Savage Hippie podcast to her friends, while also attempting to prove that she really IS that big of an attention whore.

Can you guess what she did?!

Now, GRANTED, my message wasn’t exactly charming, cute or clever. I told her how a “little birdie” told me that she was thinking about me and my activities, and I talked about the Savage Hippie podcast, mentioning both David and Ann and what they did, and for shits and giggles, I threw in this little story about our loyal listener, David McPheeters, who is going to be doing time for shooting someone in the back five times somewhere in Jacksonville, FL.

In response, she reported me to the Zuck, claiming that I threatened her. Neither David, nor Ann, nor anybody I asked perceived my message as threatening in any way. Creepy? Maybe. Unnecessary? Well, I mean, without it, I wouldn’t be able to write this piece for you, my lovely readers. The powers that be at Facebook didn’t think it was threatening either, otherwise I’d be in FB jail right now or at least would have gotten some sort of warning; she’ll probably chalk up my not getting thrown in FB jail to the “patriarchy” not taking the complaints of women seriously.

But was reporting me to Facebook enough for her? Take a lucky guess, cowboy.

She posted my private message on her Facebook wall, blasting it into the feeds of her two and a half thousand loyal followers; and hoo boy… there were calls for my death and my beat down and plenty of vitriol to go around for 150 or so comments/responses. One former friend suggested contacting my employer. Sorry, Sarah, but my “employer”, David Cole, wants to kill me more than you do. One person was the aging goth skank I wrote about in a different piece, who gives a mighty fine performance in bed, gives a blowjob to boot and got me beat up. She said she’d punch me herself this time; please do, but only after another blowjob and romp between the sheets. And one person even posted my phone number so people could text and harass me. Apparently their outrage wasn’t THAT sincere since I only received texts from two people; one of whom called me “a ignorant pig” (it’s “a ignint pig”, thank you very much!) and one who demanded I send a private apology. All while I was watching the Melvins! Can you believe the nerve of people trying to interrupt my Melvins concert experience?! I mean they were covering “Sacrifice” by Flipper! You don’t interrupt that.

But, let’s be honest here; rather than me send HER an apology, shouldn’t she send ME a thank you message? I mean, without me, she wouldn’t have gotten ALL of this attention from her Facebook followers, many of which are men ready to do her bidding. Especially now that she’s divorced, something she felt the need to broadcast to the whole world. I’m sure ALL of those guys coming to your aid are doing so just as “friends”, and want nothing in return… even if you were willing to give it to them.

So, I’m torn. Should I send a phony apology with this piece attached, have a mutual friend send it to her or hope that she stumbles upon it? In any of these cases, I certainly hope she sees it because I wouldn’t mind the Savage Hippie blog getting a few extra clicks.

Also, can someone ask the two Johns which band they like more: Big Star or the Raspberries. I’ve been mulling it over in my mind for the past week, and I was just wondering what they thought.

Science Of Sex Differences

thinking_girl

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

Duplicating points is an important strategy because in the “sea of noise” things are read in segments.

You don’t need to make hour long recordings to analyze this fake thing called feminism per se. That’s only important to an extent. It’s often better to just leave it at the fact that it is just some fake thing. What’s much more important is discovering female nature, as well as male nature.
I take notes on this harder science becuase I’m also in the processing of refining my skill in that field, which is why I have been using a rote method of noting. The psychology & the philosophy is a bit different.

Biology/nature precedes culture. Any cultural shifting of that nature is dependent of that nature.
There is no rat culture, & that’s why it is valid to employ scientific research based on zoology without the distractions of the cultural acts.
This type of science is much too important to review innaccurately because there is an even larger amount of cultural info. inconsistent & lazy to realism, partly because it’s much faster & easier to make interpretations based on short-sight then it is to actually prepare all of the requirements of science. For instance: I’ve even recieved from the new-age community of the concept of the “right brain being feminine” & “left brain being masculine”. Some such people of the latter simplification have even held lectures. You can’t simplify something like neuroscience just like that. You don’t do cultural interpretations first & then try to apply it to science. You have to do it the other way around; you seek science first, then derive other analysis from that science. That’s why a precise reporting is needed.
There are sub-categories of sex differences factoring of hormonal levels, which is translated to gender, i.e., a male can still be highly effeminate – homosexual, bisexual, or still a heterosexual with very low testosterone. However, even though testosterone is a major factor of “masculinizing” the brain, to what degree it affects gender is still not completely certain. Gender can also be more of a feeling. The concept of gender, however, is not applied in the same way that biological scientists would by people with anti-realist agendas. Gender is strategically misappropriated, with no understanding of biological probabilism, by feminists & the like to try to evade the entire reality of sex differences as a means of steering the narrative away from critiques of female nature – you-can’t-criticize-a-woman. They don’t even care for the science of gender itself, but is merely used as a spanning tactic to pause appositional debating. There are sometimes some males who can still be biologically highly masculine & still act feminine – showmanship/”cartoon-characters”/metrosexuals, etc., these are usally just some trendy phases, which is often what feminists & the like use because they’re still stuck on the level of mainstream iconography. You can not attribute psychological condition for gender, but that is essentially the cultural – non-scientific – interpretations; a male who has had some horrible experience; seeing horrors in a war, then becoming depressed, then the culture making lose associations – “effeminate” due to passive depression. It doesn’t work like that. There is seriously stuff regarding sex differences, & it’s other derivative – gender – on that level of interpretation.
Sexual distinctions of the male & female brain is caused by activity of sex hormones in early postnatal & fetal life, although current evidence of genes on either the X or Y chromosome suggests probable contribution to it. Scientists have found statistically and biologically significant differences between the brains of men and women that are similar to sex differences found in experimental animals. These include differences in the size and shape of brain structures in the hypothalamus and the arrangement of neurons in the cortex and hippocampus. Sex differences go well beyond sexual behavior and reproduction and affect many brain regions and functions, ranging from mechanisms for perceiving pain and dealing with stress to strategies for solving cognitive problems.
During development, many biological events eventualizes that distinctly modifys females & males. Particularly, sex definitive genes that are caused by the sex-chromosome complex installs augmentation that formalizes a morphon’s sex, adding to conduction of the dissimilitude of phsyiology in sex-categorical forms. Such processes serves to numerous particular sex distinctions, among even susceptibility to some diseases. Albeit it prevailed that sex hormones exclusievly demarcated the body & brain, there’s more fact-finding transpiring that genes are also a direct factor. Upon further reading, there is a review with also a report on the use of a unique mouse model that divides the results of gonadal hormones & sex chromosomes. Excogitation of mental & physical health can be applied to advancement when understanding of male & female, & how the roles that hormones and genes play in sex differences, evolve with genetic technology.
The information of sexes is a quarrelsome one. Ignoring them can cause taxing discordance. Pointedly, there’s various organic shifts which specifically modifys the sexes, exempli gratia, the lack or occupancy of the Y-chromosome & the staging of gonadal hormones, even prior to birth into culture. During life, continual situations will eventualize which are seperate to each sex. Ergo, health related issues are segmented by female & male distinctive experiences.
Of selective concern for this review are sex distinctions of the brain credited to genetics. Even though in the past greater neurochemical & neuranatomical contrast were imputed to gonadal hormones, that is, estrogens & androgens, emerging data refers categorical genetic consequences on sex distinctions of the brain even earlier to the extention of gonadal hormones.
In most species, distinguishable differences of the sexes are readily discernable due to ammased physical formation & the characteristically gaudy, such as vivid feathers, etc.. Also, distinctions of size of brain features & waist-to-hip comparisons. There’s much more than just observable anatomy, such as cognition & sexuality.
From general physiological details, typical characteristics are developed: The sexes considerably differ on their consolidating of carnality, males being significantly more interested in organic, vital, & plasmic sex, as well as visual stimuli – graphic erotica, film, physical models, etc. – & variations of females, although females do indulge in their own version of pornography, more often literature, & there’s also been a study stating that Asiatic females tend to view male/visual based erotica more so than any other type of female. Female sexuality is a bit different than male sexuality; as males emphasize more visual enhancement & body parts, females are interested in more politicized sex, hence why it is more commonly found in the dramatic art of writing. According to the reports, females place more importance on foreplay & are more interested after sex. Makes sense with females stating “I’m dumping him becuase he doesn’t know what to do”. Females’ conceptional volition is very limited to materialism & sex & things directly related to it. This source excluded other factors, such as male psychological factors – rational fear/cause-&-effect thinking of future terms in conjunction to female nature, etc., & the other societal factor of the practice of male genital mutilation takeing away stronger passion. Females’ sexual desires & interests often shifts in accordance to their menstrual cycle.
Some argue differences are due to environmental factors versus innate. To smaller degrees, that’s true, but the external units are only versions of the innate. Therefore, females & males being receptive to “carving” means innate predispositions. Cross-cultural & multinational studies have found significant distinctions in sexual attitudes & behaviours. Sex differences were found regarding sociosexuality bounding 53 nations. Several twin studies have also found differences of sexuality are more influenced by biology rather than environment, & some genetic studies proposed candidate genes for sexual behaviour. The biology is the predominating factor, then the cultural aspects does some of its part. Most of all, genetic & cross national analysis of sex differences of context to sociosexuality concludes biological basis, as well as cognitive abilities & more.
Controlling nature & strategising with more options is an aspect of male cognition which drastically differentiates our biology from the female. We can either chose to strive to the latter in utilizing our different set of cognition, or we can conform ourselves to the traditional selection set from females’ primal cognition & biology which was more appropriately suited for hundreds to thousands of years ago. It’s not “emasculation”, etc., to be analytical & form new strategies by that. I’m not defending from insecurity. It’s an issue of realizing that that shaming language is a feminine-bourn trend which quite litterally has it’s roots in barbaric times that allowed females to take advantage to their usuary of masculinity. Scientists are willing to state, with their elaborate conductions, that male & female biological psychology is different, but their not willing to tell you that male cognition is excelling because those scientists are still persuaded & domesticated by feelings, particularly gynocentric, on some level, & that is a detached, scientific fact.
Even more controversial than sex differences of context to sociosexuality are sex differences in cognitivition & mental processes. A variety of distinctions on each sexes’ ability on how they perform on cognitive abilities have been proven. Two reoccurring reports of sex differences are in mental rotation task – involving spatial & mathematical processing – generally masculine – & verbal fluency – generally feminine. Tone, pronounciation is a major concern for females. It accounts for their tendency of causing reversals with their syndrome of illogical assesment of plain approaches as “creepy”, bad, poor, etc., while unnoticing of bad traits of others if they have authority presented stylishly. It’s their tendency to notice topical things which actually makes them neglectful of noticing the expansive, largely also due to the fact that females are wired for communion of baby-reading. Silent “awkwardness” is inflated because of the fact that females just don’t know how to turn it off. I believe it was Einstein who once stated: If you can’t simplify it in a formula, then you probably don’t understand it well enough. (Which is how I’ve condensed the science given from an entire book into a summary.) It’s theoretically possible that females’ tendency for disorganized, rumor level communication is due to the fact that, by history, males were vulnerable to making quick decisions – lazy & incompleletely reported as: “males as the bane of wars”, etc., doing the actual hard work, females cultivated commentary & manipulation, then narratives of females having more “emotional intelligence”, etc., manifested. J.K. Rowling, your stories are amusing, but you didn’t ultimately create that. Males created the factories & also the distribution methods, you just decorated. (Which, as a side note, the latter type of inflated female are much more masculine women. )
It’s well-known that of the rudimentary model of primates, who, due to less complex systems, don’t have “rigid gender roles,” choice for toys and activities parallel studies of human children – male monkeys chosing toy trucks. On humans, researchers found that sex distinctions of visuo-spatial faculties were natural even when those nations were more liberal of gender roles. Magnetic resonance imaging research have confirmed sex differences of cerebral blood flow patterns with cognitive tasks – results similar to studies on monkeys.
Research continues on the biological realities of cogntition & behaviour of sex differences. Factors are affected by interaction of culture & biological factors – both nature & nurture, however, biology is & was rudimentary, therefore, science is the standard to answer to how behaviour manifests in a given culture. How organisms recieves or accustoms itself to situations confirms propensity. With the aid of science & logic, we can answer how it is that females are more prone to tending, influencing, & manipulation – a large influence of the sektor of the “nurturing” cultural aspect, who tries to impinge, like children, on realism with a-logical inducement of entertainment, inflated opinions, into bureaucratic services, & give appeasement & distractions, therefore, a natural process. They want to impinge slogans of raise-your-daughter-to-be-a-warrior, etc., becuase that bombardment of communal expansiveness is itself a natural occurrance. By science, we can also confirm the various representations of male organization & assertiveness, not just crude charicatures, etc., of the cultural interpretations.
The general public believes that sex is purely based on external genitalia. There’s actually seven biological parameters that defines sex:
1. Sex chromosomes – involved in concluding the sex of an organism. Of humans, consisting of the Y- & X-chromosome.
2. Sex-determining genes- involved in development of female-typical & male-typical phenotypes – Wnt-4, Sox9, & Sry.
3. Gonads: – Organs producing gametes – overies & testes.
4. Gonadal hormones – Produced by ovaries & testes, sex steroids, estrogen & androgen, involved in first & secondary sex characteristics
5. Internal reprodcutive structures – system of connected organs involved in reproduction, such as, Mullerian ducts & wilffian ducts.
6. External reproductive structures – genitals.
7. Brain sex – The presence of sex-specific neuroanatomical parameters that are often the result of circulating gonadal hormones. Brain Sex can also define a masculine or effeminate mind, e.g., a woman can sometimes have a more masculine mind than a male.
Two significant occurences of embryogenesis advances the creation of sex-specific phenotypes. The first one is sex certainty as the undetermined gonads become either ovaries or testes. Human gonad maturing happens ~eight weeks post concieving, even though the certainty of how the gonads will mature happens during conception, that is, whether the zygote paternally recieved an x or y-chromosome. Secondly, it is sex differentiation & it is of the process of internal & external procreative networks. If an embryo creates testes, then it will start to create 3 significant biomolecules: insulin-like peptide 3, anti-mullerian hormone, & testosterone. Testosterone will cause the process of of male-typical internal reproductive tract, such as, seminal vesicles, epididymis, & vas deferens, & external reproductive matter – genitals. Mullerian-inhibiting substance, a.k.a.: Anti-Mullerian Hormone, will deconstruct what would have created the internal reproductive tract for a female. Previously termed relaxin-like factor, Insulin-like 3 causes the lowering of the testes from abdomen to scrotum. Contrastingly, if an embryo creates ovaries, it will negate those 3 biomolecules. Absence of testosterone makes decomposition of the male-specific internal reproductive tract & the external reproductive matter will manifest the labia & clitoris. Lack of Anti-Mullerian hormone causes female-typical interior procreative tract to operate, such as, upper portion of vagina & fallopian tubes. Lack of insulin peptice 3 will keep developing ovaries within abdoman.
 Radical interuptions to the process of sex determination will cause novel variations.
The classical understanding of sex distinctions, via from decades of research demonstrating the effects of gonadal hormones of vertabrates, is, historically, thought that gonads – namely testes – were the total factors of creating whole somatic sexual dimorphisms of mammals. Gonadal hormones have 2 main effects: Regulatory effects, which are irreversible & permanent during development that structures into female-typical or male-typical arrangements. The other is: activational effects. They are short term changes happening as particular hormones are present in body & frequently reliant on prior structural effects. Other than the pre-typed alterations to the reproductive structure, it was beleived that testosterone was the sole “masculinizer” of the fetus’s brain. When embryogenesis occurs, testosterone produced by the testes goes to brain during important phases of the earliest of ontogenesis where it is transfmormed to estradiol by the enzyme aromatase. The estradiol then operates on the estrogen receptor, which masculinizes particular brain zones, exempli gratia, the hypothalamus. Adding, estradiol strongly boosts the elaboration of male-typical neurocircuitry & restrains elaboration of female-typical neurocircuitry. Even though ovaries make estrogens midst female elaboration, estradiol in female fetuses is restricted from accessing the brain by a compound termed alpha-fetoprotein. Still, research on the aromatization factor of testosterone in masculinizing the brain have only been [reported: 2010] done on zoological models. Thus, it’s less assured what if any role estradiol does in making the huma brain masculine.
Comprehensively, the classical understanding on gonadal hormones translates numerous of the sex distinctions in the elaboration of the reproductive tract and the brain. However, proceeding studies has discovered that sex differences are not limited to gonadal hormones.
Proceeding research of the later half of the 20th century challeneged the once dominating classical understanding on sex differences. One case: some studies were that male rat embryos were heavier tha female ones before sex definition. Others discovered scrotal convexity of the tammar wallaby prior to sex definition.
 By 1991, it was reported that sex distinctions of the brain could be discerned before the process of sex differentiation. From mesencephalic & diencephalic cell cultures of rat embryos two weeks after conception – before surge of gonadal hormones. In these in vitro cultures, sectional distinctions were studied of the definition of tyrosine hydroxylase-immunoreactive cells where females had more neurons than males, inferring that the distinction of dopaminergic neurons was independent of the ecistence of gonadal hormones. Studies on zebra finches furthered ideas of factors other than gonadal hormones as factors that could be in conjunction to development of sex distinctions. Female zebra finches do not sing a unique courtship song that males do, which is due to brain regions significantly larger of male ones. Although it was reckoned that such distinctions were present because of gonadal hormones, neither by trial.
Although it was believed that such differences existed because of gonadal hormones, neither experimentally managing hormones, such as, conducting female zebra finches with estradiol to bring “masculinization” of brain, nor making productions of cross-sex gonads, such as bringing production of ovaries in a male, chiefly modified song actions…. Further, the dissection of a gynadromorphic zebra finch – phenotypically & genotypically female on one side of body, & phenotypically & genotypically male on other side of body – indicated that only one brain hemisphere was masculinized even though both hemispheres would’ve been involved with same flowing gonadal hormones. A similar study was reported in three lateral gynandromorph chickens.
As many derived to believe that the sex-chromosome counterpart with the cell was involved in a role in sex differences, the task then became studying causative involvement. The specific challenge was separating the consequences by the sex-chromosome complement from those by gonadal sex.
A modern 2 x 2 mouse model termed: four-core genotypes mouse model, has been invented to sort the consequences of the sex chromosomes from the consequences of gonadal hormones. To use this model, scientists wield the absence or presence of the Sry gene in XY & XX mice. Sry is occupied on the Y-chromosome, & it helps testes elaborating. The mouse will cultivate testes , if Sry is infused into an XX mouse’s genome (symbolized XXSry), however, XXSry mouse are unfertile for there are particular genes on the Y-chromosome required for sperm creation. If Sry is deleted from an XY mouse (symbolized as XY-), then it won’t develop testes, instead processing as a fertile female. If Sry is eliminated from the Y-chromosome of an XY mouse & then reinserted into one of its autosomes (symbolized XY – Sry), due to presence of the Y-chromosome, the mouse will still develop as a completely fertile male.
Some investigations have employed the FCG model to analyze the direct result of gonadal hormones & sex chromosomes on sex distinctions. For whatever trait, if mice with Sry considerably diverge from mice without it, the difference can be traced to gonadal hormones. However, if mice including a Y-chromosome differ from mice without it, the dissimilarity can be connected to the counterpat of sex chromosomes. The FCG illustration can further ascertain whatever interaction that might result among gonadal hormones & sex chromosomes.
The FCG representation can be utilised to exclude the factor of gonadal hormones in sex distinctions; women & men differ of the intensity & severity to which each sense particular pain-related disorders – Raynaud’s disease, Carpal Tunnel Syndrom, & migraine headaches. They discovered that XX mice were quicker to respond to pain than to the contrasting mice when using the FCG regardless of their gonadal sex, indicating that genes on the sex chromosomes had an explicit consequence on sex distinctions in intense nociception that wasn’t mediated by gonadal hormones. FCG also shows direct effect of varying behavior of chromosomal sex of environmental reward or stimulus. Case, males are more pronet to trial & abuse of substances un-permitted by authority. Females though indicate to be more controlled by effects of such substances. By the FCG model, scientists discovered that XX & XXSry mice more rapidly gained unhealthy consumption customs for sucrose set to XY- & XYSry mice. One discovered the addiction formation in the obverse: XY- & XY-Sry mice more rapdily gained compulsive thirst addiction compared to XX & XXSry mice when substance consumed was alchohol. Therefore, although the FCG model can indicate direct effect of chromosomal sex on sexually distinctive behaviors, it can also indicate that the direct effect of sex-chromosome set is reliant on the exhibition or type of reinforcer – alcohol vs. sucrose – that organisms meet.
The FCG standard can be employed to discover any transfer effects the joined effect of doubled sex chromosomes & gonadal hormones. Males have aggression & commit violent crimes reportedly by larger frequency than females. However, there’s a seperate article that female aggression is much different than male & less reported. Psychologist: Seth Meyers, Psy. D stated his regualar trainings cites by experts that the number of female psychopaths is actually higher than documented. Relational aggression is more of a female type – damaging someone’s social status, using proxy violence, & ruining others’ relationships. The way the judicial system is operated is to prioritize femalehood, so less documented female criminals, as well as obliging to false allegations by females. With temperament by female psycopaths being a distinctly different type of comfort, arrogance, & non-domineering, it is not an “aggression” society can recognize easily, or even cares to acknowledge.[Source: Seth Meyers Psy. D., Aug. 10 , 2015. Your Field Guide To The Female Psychopath (& why we rarely see her coming.)] Not everything is documented. With the FCG standard, it was researched that there was a reciprocal effect between chromosomal sex & gonadal sex on aggression: with 3 other types of FCG mice, XX mice with ovaries had least amount of aggression. Parenting behavior was also different that showed an interaction effect. Of most species, females oblige more parenting than males. “Pup retrieval” is one instance; actively retrieving offspring removed or fallen from nest. XX mice with ovaries were more prone to persistent response to retrieving pups compared to the other three types of FCG mice. unique discoveries as these suggests how absence or presence of the Y-chromosome or gonadal secretions could influence sex specific traits.
The FCG mouse model is very good to understand the factor of sex chromosomes & gonadal hormones. Still, if an explicit corrollary of sex chromosomes is discovered, it the unique aspect of the sex specific sex chromosome summarized: Is the recognized absolute consequence due absence or presence of the y-chromosome? Or is it due to the reality of two x-chromosomes rather than one x-chromosomes? To confirm this problem, scientists can better the model to investigate the core effect of the Y- & X-chromosome. As with the original FCG model, the role of the existence of the Y-chromosome by camparing columns of the 2×2 model can be solved. Reversed, there can be a detection of the direct effect of having two X-chromosomes by comparing rows of this reduced representative. The consequences of this standard can answer the scientist as to which sex chromosome to analyze. BY comparing XO females to XX females, it’s conceivable to ascertain an effect of the number of X chromosomes. One more model that can be used if it’s definitive that the X-chromosome is the cause of the effect. Of the subsequent reformation, the source of causation for the x-chromosome is contemplated. Pointedly, is it significant if the X-chromosome is paternally transmitted – Xp0 symbolized – or maternally imparted – Xm0 symbolized? comparable tests have been done, though they didn’t proceed via the FCG mouse model. It was discovered that XmO women displayed more communal ruination – lacking awareness of own behaviour with others, onconsolable when uncomfortable, & lacking empathy – compared to Xp0. Next, a new maternally signified candidate gene – Xlr3b – affecting cognition was discovered in XmO mice. Comprehensively, the three patterns of the FCG model can help scientists investigate specific genetic systems affecting behavioral features.
Apart from the FCG mouse model, scientists can try to discover particular genes that differentiates sexes directly via the brain. Anatomizing brains of mouse embryos 10.5 days post conception-prior to the flow of gonadal hormones with association with sex terminus. 50 genes were labeled that were differently embodied between female & male, furthering the idea that genes likely have a direct effect on specific brain parts, which induces sex distinctions. Infra, it was disclosed that the Sry gene directly affected the biochemical properties in the substantia nigra causing a decrease in tyrosine hydroxylase expression-an enzyme that is a factor in the biosynthesis of dopamin. Apperantly, certain sex-specific assets of the dopaminergic neurons are controlled by genes listless of gonadal hormones.
Conclusively, many sex differences – both psychological & biological – exist with female & male. Gonadal hormones is one major facor of such differences. Accumulating research though states that not all differences are reliant on amount & presence of estrogns & androgens; sex chromosomes & genes are also a factor. What has been reviewed:The model of sex determination & differentiation is mainly directed by lack or presence of testes. The 2×2 four-core genotype mouse model is increasingly applied to disclose the role of sex chromosomes & gonadal hormones of sex differences. There was also a proposal of some refinements for scientists to use if they determine that sex chromosomes activate a more important effect than gonadal hormones. Lastly, the only known neuromolecular report on the direct effect of a specific gene involved in sex determination was presented. As sex differences being a role of welfare & health becomes critical, theres several science questions; how might inherited epigenetic mechanisms, such as histone modifications & DNA methylation, influence sex differences of the brain? Which workingscontrol sex biased gene definition of women & men, & how do they give to sex-specific diseases, like Alzeimer’s disease & Huntington’s disease? Can info. of molecular pathways be applied to tailor patiens? What degree do epigentic modification maintain & establish sex differences?

Many will resist science on sex differences, but, considering it is madentory for physiologists in application to medicine, it’s obviously an important science.

Citations: Sex Differences In The Human Brain, Their Underpinnings & Implications by Ivanka Savic. PAGES: 65 – 73.

On Anti-science

women_scam

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

As always, the motto of my philosophy: It’s not supposed to be “interesting,” “stylish”, etc.. That’s not how it works.  It’s supposed to be informative.

I REALIZE THAT HIS MATERIAL IS VERY OLD, & SOME WILL SAY “OH, THAT’S JUST OUTDATED NONSENSE”, HOWEVER, WE ARE LIVING NOW IN TIMES WHERE THERE IS AN INFORMATION WAR HAPPENING. ANYONE WHO DOESN’T BELIEVE THIS IS EITHER NOT VERY INTELLIGENT OR IS TOO BUISY TO BE AWARE. WE HAVE NOW AN EXCESS OF POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT & OTHER FORMS OF DISTRACTION TO OBFUSCATE TRUTH. IN TIMES OF MOBIUS – BEFORE THERE WAS MUCH OF THIS BOMBARDMENT – PEOPLE COULD BE PERCEPTIVE TO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS REALITIES OF PEOPLE & SEXES. IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN POLITE TO SPEAK OF IT IN SOCIAL CIRCLES, BUT PEOPLE AT LEAST UNDERSTOOD THESE RUDIMENTARY ASPECTS TO BE A REALITY.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS DIFFICULT TO TRACK DOWN SOME OF THIS SCIENTIST’S MATERIAL, ESPECIALLY IN ENGLISH. I ATTEMPTED TO TRANSLATE WORD-FOR-WORD VIA AN ONLINE TRANSLATOR HIS BOOK: ‘UBER DEN PHYSIOLOGISCHEN SCWACHSINN DES WEIBES’, WHICH ROUGHLY TRANSLATES TO: ON THE PHYSIOLOGICAL IMBECILITY OF THE WOMAN, BUT WHEN I DID THIS, BECAUSE ONLINE TRANSLATERS AREN’T VERY RELIABLE, WHAT RESULTED WAS AN INCOHERENT MESS OF SORT OF BACKWARDS & REVERSED SYNTAX, & SOME OF THE GERMAN WORDS COULDN’T EVEN BE TRANSLATED AT ALL. SO, I WILL HAVE TO LEARN GERMAN COMPLETELY FLUENTLY TO READ THIS BOOK. BUT, THERE WAS ONE EXERPT FROM THIS BOOK THAT I COULD DECIPHER JUST TO A VERY GENERAL LEVEL THAT IS RENDERED TO A PARAPHRASE OF:

The female weapon is usually resorted to the sheep level of the tongue & crying;

Cheap Insults, slander , anonymous Letters. The tongue is the sword of woman over,

Because their body weakness prevents them from physically striking. their weaknesses leaves women with the reality of turning the sport of civilized argumentation to a paradise of childish amusement for the woman.

It can be thought to the chase of animals. The cat chases mice down & exhausts himself of energy.

The woman has a calculating way with verbally selecting speech, & lieing is the naturally suited weapon of women.

What comes to mind upon reading the above transcription is the commonality of females attempting to detract one’s argument by harbingering unrelated or only slightly related concepts into the debate, or often resorting to striking in that of which is the most vulnerable when she feels insulted – rather than corroberating with rationality, attacking emotions instead. As Arthur Schopenhauer put it, “THE FEMALE HAS NO SENSE OF JUSTICE”. When a male feels insulted, he at least has the decency of perhaps, at worst, physically beat you, which then you can recover from within 2 weeks to 2 months. Females, on the other hand, will find vulnerable insecurities to strike, which can taint one for many years.

‘SLUTWALK’ IS ONE OF THESE OCCURENCES OF FEMINISTS’ INJECTION OF DISTRACTION. IT’S NOT ONLY A SUBCONSCIOUS GROUP EXPRESSION OF STATING WHO HAS THE POWER, IT’S ALSO A WAY FOR FEMINISTS TO CREATE MORE DISTRACTIONS BY HARBINGERING UNRELATED & NON IMPORTANT CONCEPTS, & IT’S ALSO AN ATTEMPT TO INDUCE EMOTIONALISM INTO REAL ARGUMENTS BY THE APPOSITION, IN ADDITION TO RUINING TAFFIC OUT OF MEGALOMANIA.

In other news: Recent information I have stumbled upon from an audio interview stated that psychopathy could actually be the next stage in “evolution” due to feminine selection; because females often select for arrogant males that tend to act on impulse, which is akin to traits of psychopathy.

So here’s an idea: study before assuming.

I usually don’t wish to pay credence to the mainstream media, but a particular story has raised my brow.

The mainstream “information” sources are spouted from people with no integrity who have the nerve to call themselves “journalists”. speak to you as you would a baby. They are pawns.The mainstream media is nothing but advertisement, pacification, & agitprop from puerility.

As cliche as it it is pronounced, blind collectivism is often a sickness & a form of dullness. Many initial maneuvers towards evolution have been brought by innovative & avant-garde thinking, either by wolves in sheep’s clothing or done by completely peculiar people

Simply put: How can you actually take the mainstream media seriously? Anyone who takes “information” from the mainstream media – the mechanism in which truth is often obfuscated & then further obfuscated by the perennial sloganeering minions because in such a case it is quantity of consensus that is important rather than the minutest of details – without questioning the tangibleness of it or considering the motives behind such dissemination is quite stupid.

As much as it frustrates me that M.R.A.s waste their time out of naively thinking they can have “productive” debates with manipulative feminists & related, still, I sympathize with them in their efforts to represent themselves as reasonable.

An M.R.A. named Paul Elam attempted just this recently when he was “interviewed” by a mainstream series called ’20/20′. The actual interview itself never aired because Paul Elam did, in fact, represent himself as logical & civilized. It was reported after wards that the producers, rather than airing the episode, probably due to deciding not to by proxy sponsor to the masses such ideals, wrote articles instead by taking Paul Elam’s words out of context & conflated the story. No surprise at all.

Funny how people can hijack things they’re not involved in & claim to “know” things.

Part of this mainstream bombardment into matters it does not belong are these disgusting groups of “women against feminism”. If you are perplexed, I will reassure you that these imposters are just “anti-feminism” because they don’t like other females being loud examples that exposes the secrets of female psychology to oblivious males. These “w.a.f.” cunts are just trying to preserve their secrets in order to maintain total mind control of males. They have no genuine concern for masculine perspectives.

I will abide by my stance that those who have a license to mercenaries are protected by no stigma; it is often the case (The proof of this statement is in the fact that many who would stumble on this statement would have their thinking process stall when trying to recognize such people with that kind of power.) that those who have power, politicians for example, can get away with many crimes or ill behaviour, while those who retain no power symbols could never get away with the same behaviour, or can even be looked upon as defective or criminal just for even uttering words. (I know this from my own experience.) Most people are generally like this: they overlook crimes, abuse, or bad characteristics of those who have power & they allow themselves to be moulded by whatever group happens to be in a position of authority to dictate imaginary laws, & females especially do this, so I do not fall for the illusion when “intellectual” poseurs, such as feminists, or their stupid suave counterparts, make their little critiques consisting of 10 sentences with added decorations, or smirk alongside a little shoddy reference point they can parrot, or whatever, that is mostly or all opinions & feelings, & then , of course, attend to things that are so far removed from anything cerebral in the aftermath. Going-with-the-flow is what feminists/females are good at, not intellectual discipline.

With the shootings done by Eliot Roger, Feminists, along with many poseurs & average idiots with an opinion who think they’re smart just because they have internet access, which is a good example of how in some instances the internet can actually make people dumber, have taken advantage of this incident, like the cheap liars that they are, & are trying to use this isolated, minority case as an example to try to conflate that all people involved in the “masculinist”, or whatever you want to call it, movement are representative of this sort of thing.

The mainstream is really good at reducing reports to the most simplistic level for an anti-intellectual mass.

The M.R.A. & related issues are actually a lot more complex than just “jealous/bitter guys who can’t get laid”.

I can not recall her name, but the feminist who represented ‘s.c.u.m.’ manifesto & attempted to shoot a prominent male in society was largely overlooked, along with most radical feminists who emphasize genocide of males.

It’s typical feminine callousness once again to make assumptions & accusations based on guilt by association & then to also try to manipulate information.

He had nearly nothing to do with M.R.A.s. I know this because I frequent M.R.A. spaces myself & there is a wealth of this confirmation within such spaces. Funny how people can just hijack things there not involved in & claim to “know” things. A minority case like Eliot Roger gets amplified by these fucking pedestrian morons who have the nerve to try to insinuate to “be suspicious of those nerdy guys” while simultaneously hijacking a nerdy platform themselves, while women cutting mens’ penises off is laughed at by mainstream culture & gets largely unnoticed. (Perplexed? Hence my point.)

Part of what being scientific is: the ability to discern reality for what it is without allowing feelings to influence that discernment. Some of the most basic truisms that don’t require technical analysis isn’t even readily apparent by mass culture. It’s scary that these unacknowledged plain truths are overpowered by the predominating instinctive culture that will inevitably weed out the real truth.

Science can be dis-balanced when it excessively dissects analyses only to create more gloss. This is the importance of being able to discern what is obvious & why I am emphasizing it in this. No gloss or care for tone found here. Just elementary, blunt truth.

Weeding of truth is by a desire to maintain what is emotionally gratifying for their ego preservations.

It’s safe to say that females take part in this ego preservation the most. Females love to maintain false images. That’s anti-science. Case: In terms of asking what they want, amongst many confused replies with rare honest answers, you’d get inconsonant answers ranging from statements to the affect of, & this is just cursory examples out of many: “men are too sexual, too nice, too domineering, too much like little boys, too busy”.Apparently they can’t be conclusive; if you’re overtly sexual, “you must’ve been molested”, or something. If you’re not readily sexual, “you must be sexually insecure”. This is the inconsistency & anti-science of females.One of my favorite ones is how they call certain guys “creepy” because of a diffident or even modest approach, yet don’t consider belligerent & impulsive approaches to be.They often insinuate males who “put them on a pedestal” to be “mentally ill”. You would think that females who are purported to be endowed with being more in tuned with “emotional intelligence” would understand that such males are in love & that is part of the natural process. Of course, it’s definitely healthy for males to be assertive with tough love when it’s needed, but someday, especially shown in the divorce rates almost always initiated by females, they won’t like the tough love anymore. What then? “Oops, I changed my mind”.

Females pull males in with false images, exploit them, & then discard them just like a black hole. Sure, the judicial systems are ran by males, but when the divorce industry abuses males all this does is test female character & reveals it. No one enforces these women with a gun to their heads. It happens often from womans’ boredom. Men could save themselves an average of 20 years of wasted time if they remain scientific firstly – a masculine trait, rather than complying with women’s absurd certification of “masculinity” as a combination of stupid & dangerous. Women will insinuate “you’re incompetent” if you don’t take risks/handle their idiocy. Women place demands on their terms first, which situates disorders in society.

My mother hates my father for concluding him as a “wuss”. She married him due to practical instincts, then takes out her frustration, because she hates being reminded of how often she makes errors, out on him even though it was her fault for marrying a docile man, who is, interestingly enough, like that because he was conditioned to always be passive because he was raised by a feel-good single mother. You understand my point now of how females perpetuate cycles of anti-science. This one he was married to would always play disgusting mantras of ‘The Beetles’ of “let’s all be happy & not think about things”. It’s the occurence of hating the argument because it’s anti-feel-good & then afterwards hating the non-debater because it’s “wimpy”. It doesn’t make any fucking sense, & the problem is monumental when the anti-science of females is in conjunction to the anti science of society.

Even the more logical females who will confine relational matters to practicality to only opt for the most successful, although their definitions of “successful” are often quite disgusting, of males for the greater love of their progeny than their husbands will try to emphasize that they should be treated like princesses with more consideration than prostitutes, but if we examine conventional female nature in general & the definition of a prostitute without any of the cultural emotional baggage to taint our rational, they are a type of prostitute.

We have to evade ideas of how females should be catered to. Think of how much of these problems would be controlled if we regarded them as what they are – objects for procreation/subsistence. Broadly, how to define masculinity is logic, & how to define femininity is subsistence. When either sex departs from these definitions, there is a dis-balance.

It’s addiction to the farce of feelings as good friends that leads astray.

Onto another important matter. I don’t like to gossip about other people because I’d rather talk about science & philosophy, but there is a point to this. You are possibly aware of the famous f.m.r.a. blogger Karen Straughen, a.k.a. Girlwriteswhat. I sent her my ‘Introducing Phallocentrism’ as to why phallocentrism is a much better impetus than either gynocentrism or traditionalism. Because she took offense that I heavily criticize female sexuality as artistically receptive, rather than rational, in it, she put a taint on my content in her “vlog” entitled ‘Feminist Shaming Tactics’ by insinuating that I was some sort of covert Feminist by stating that Feminists like to call art “faggy”. Nothing could be further from the truth considering how feminists love postmodern idiots. It just proves the whole point of this note entirely & shows that she can’t be trusted & that female nature is female nature.

What will bring scientific – masculine – impetus is for such mentalities to snap from complacency by, paradoxically, utilizing passion & hatred in a methodologically controlled manner. Hatred can be a healthy emotion if used properly. The scientific temperament is so detached that it puts them in a state of not caring about being exploited, which is poor logic.

One day you will be fatigued. When this happens, they will likely leave you. From an average of 4 – 40 years, females basically passively “nod” then flee due to something to the affect of boredom, leaving you stupefied & even more fatigued, or, in the average case: apathetic.

The term is hypergamy. It originates from India’s assigned marital system based on caste, but can be applied to a broader context. Meaning: she will always be ready surrender you for the next deal she intuits to be better. To paraphrase Carol Rhodes, author of ‘Friend of The Court Enemy of The Family’: we have to accept the cold fact that women start most divorces. Straight from the fucking “horse’s mouth” since she’s a women & works in the legal profession. Go buy the book & see for yourself. It’s an extremely easy read. ¶

Don’t get angry at females’ misbehaviour, & you will be interpreted as “pathetic”. Do get angry at females’ misbehaviour, & you’ll be perceived as a “bad guy”.

Only stupid males are not mistrustful of females.

Females will usually try to say that they like these males they can call “intense” because such males “show that they can stand up for themselves”, & they might even believe that due to delusion, but the real reason is because females can derive entertainment/histrionics from such types because females are so pathetically bored due to poor imagination. There’s no reason a male should show that he “can stand up for himself” in our more civilized society. He can simply walk away.

They are also anti-science & philosophy because females are naturally collectivists, which is then further habituated through generation when the trophy of courting is sought after in multitudes.

It must be understood hat what is alarming about the human female is that it is not what is observable that matters as much; it’s what is latent that actually matters the most. If every single male was a millionaire, you’d see more males being exploited mercilessly & drained of all resources with females making extra effort to get much more. It’s the latency that needs to be scrutinized. Gynocentrism’s latency does not create an exactness of what the core of female psyche would absolutely create; there’s the better half called men. Regardless, there are corollaries. If females could opt for more evil males, they would, but, because males are generally better than females, moralistically, intellectually, & otherwise, what remains is mostly respectable males being exploited.

Just like how they rearrange decorations, females have a tendency to rearrange things around in order to make themselves more comfortable. Real definitions get rearranged, such as: logic is “gay”, or something stupid like that.

There are 2 types of people, at least that I’ve noticed. The type that regards pleasure to be of ultimate value, who can be prone to conflict with others when their pleasure is threatened, & the type that regards truth to be of higher value, who could also be prone to conflict, although generally done in a much more civilized manner, with others if their truth is threatened. When the former is confronted with the latter type, since pleasure is of most concern, the latter is then described as one who is “too passive to get one’s pleasure”, then comes the iconographic assumptions that one is sentimental. No, it’s logical.

Most would state that I’m just “sensitive” & that’s why I “can’t get laid”. No, most people are sensitive because they need those distractions to keep them away from the thoughts that would ruin the warm little feeling.

In other news: I have gained some psychology info. – neuro linguistic programming – that stated that one of the most “important” strategies for success for the male in terms of approaching is something that was termed as “preselection”, meaning: the male had to show high value by emphasizing that other females regarded him as a commodity fetish. This makes perfect sense because of my own anecdote to share; when I was younger & still caught in the illusion & still meddled with these stupid animals, I remember my extremely attractive companion made other females, some random females, & some females I had known but just regarded me as some lone loser before, stare at me, approach me, & show respect for me, even doing favors for me without my request. Very little logic with them, mostly instincts.
This is linked to how females feel insulted when males find something for themselves to be preoccupied with that doesn’t include them, females’ ochlocracy, superficial symbolism, & inclination to seek validation from other females: “I’m going to start this project, what do you think about that guys?”; “You go girl.”

PRIVILEGE ACCUMULATES FROM ASSOCIATIVE DISCIPLINE & ALSO HOW THE MAJORITY CONSENSUS RUIN DEFINITIONS

brain_sex

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

SERVICING THE WORLD BY ATTEMPTING TO BUILD & ORGANIZE SOCIETIES IS A SACRIFICE. DUE TO THE EXPERIMENTAL NATURE OF THE HISTORY OF “ORDER OUT OF CHAOS”, IF YOU WILL, THERE WILL INEVITIBALLY BE SOME ACCIDENTS & SOME SHODDY STRATEGIZING, WHICH WILL VARY IN DEGREE FROM CULTURE TO CULTURE. OF COURSE, THERE WILL BE THOSE LESS CAPABLE TO ALWAYS SIT BACK & YELL “OPPRESSION”

FEMALES & FEMINISTS TEND TO FIXATE ON THE SECONDARY SIDE PRODUCT HORRORS OF WHAT MALE LEADERSHIP BRINGS, WHILE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE MUCH LARGER BENEFITS MALE SACRIFICE/SERVICE HAS BROUGHT.

THE NEARLY MYTHICAL, ANCIENT FEMALE FRONTED “AMAZONIAN” SOCIETY HAS BEEN REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY VIOLENT, & THIS IS PROBABLY WHY IT WAS RELEGATED TO ITS OBSCURITY – PROBABLE SELF DESTRUCTION.

DEFINITIONS BY THE POPULAR ARE NOT ACCURATE. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WHEN LIVING IN AN ICONOGRAPHIC SOCIETY FULL OF TOO MUCH UNDESERVED EGO, WHICH IS THEN ONLY REINFORCED BY ITS OWN ASSERTED SELF AGGRANDIZEMENT, WHO IS CONCERNED SO MUCH WITH WHAT SEEMS TO BE. LET ME HIGHLIGHT & REPEA AGAIN: THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF LIVING IN AN ICONOGRAPHIC SOCIETY WHO IS CONCERNED SO MUCH WITH WHAT SEEMS TO BE, RATHER THAN INVESTIGATING FOR THEMSELVES WHAT ACTUALITY IS, & WHO PLACE TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON APPEARANCE & WHAT FEELS TO BE ACCURATE.

WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY IS A BIT SHOCKING, & IT IS NOT JUST CLEVER WORD PLAY OR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY, ETC. THERE ARE CITATIONS IN THIS. YOU CAN CONFIRM THIS FOR YOURSELF FROM SCIENTIFIC SOURCES.

THIS IS NOT WHAT MANY WOULD CLAIM AS STEMMING FROM AN “INFERIORITY COMPLEX”. THIS IS SOMETHING CALLED SCIENCE.

THIS IS MAINLY MEANT TO, FIRSTLY, REFUTE A CLAIM HELD BY THE MASS CULTURE WHO TEND TO MISTAKE PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE FOR GENDER CHARACTERISTIC, & ,SECONDLY, REFUTE THE DEFINITION FROM HIJACKERS WHEN THEY LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT MINDLESS MACHISMO IS WHAT DEFINES MASCULINITY, WHEN, IN FACT, THAT DEFINITION HAS ONLY BEEN GIVEN TO THEM BY OTHER FEMALES. THEY ARE NOT BEING THEMSELVES. THEY ARE ACTING A CERTAIN WAY IN ORDER TO BE APPROVED BY FEMALES. KEEP IN MIND THAT FEMALES HAVE A NATURAL PROPENSITY TO COLLECTIVIZE.

THE LATTER IS DERIVED FROM PHENOTYPE, HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING IS PURELY BIOLOGICAL.

NOW, BEAR IN MIND THAT WHEN SPEAKING OF A SUBJECT SUCH AS SEXUAL DIMORPHISM, OR ANY INTELLECTUAL SUBJECT FOR THAT MATTER, ON A MEDIUMS THAT IS FREQUENTED BY HORDES OF AVERAGE PEOPLE, IT IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO ELUCIDATE.

THE PHENOMENA OF MASCULINE FEMALES, WHICH IN SLANG TERMS IS CALLED “TOM BOYS” – FEMALES WHO CARRY MORE MASCULINE TRAITS LIKE BEING MORE LOGICAL, BLUNT, & HAVING MORE MALE FRIENDS WITHOUT SEXUAL TENSION BECAUSE THEY WERE EXPOSED TO MORE TESTOSTERONE VIA PRE-BIRTH, WHILE IN SCIENTIFIC JARGON IS CALLED SEXUAL DIMORPHISM, THIS PHENOMENA ALSO APPLIES TO MALES. UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE WE DON’T LIVE IN A WORLD THAT GLORIFIES TRUE SCIENCE, THE CONCEPT OF “TOM GIRLS” IS NOT WELL KNOWN, NOR IS IT ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE.

I READ THIS STUFF FROM SCIENCE, SO I KNOW TO BE SURE OF MYSELF. I DON’T JUST RECEIVE SOURCES FROM RANDOM PEOPLE AT BUS STOPS OR ONLY “VLOGGERS” ETC..

IN THE BOOK: ‘THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE’ BY NEUROSCIENTIST SIMON BARON COHEN, WHICH IS WRITTEN FOR THE LAYMAN BECAUSE TECHNICAL SCIENTIFIC JARGON IS NOT SUITED FOR THE POPULACE, ALONG WITH THE PARALLELING: ‘BRAIN SEX’ BY GENETICIST ANNE MOIR, IT IS SANELY CONCLUDED THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF ULTIMATE MASCULINITY, WITHOUT THE “TOMGIRL” ASPECT, IS FOUND IN MUCH MORE CIRCUMSPECT, LOGICAL MALES WHO ARE MUCH MORE CONCERNED WITH OBJECTS, WHILE MALES WHO ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH RELATING/SOCIALIZING, ESPECIALLY ON AN EMOTIONAL LEVEL, WITH OTHERS ARE MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF “TOM GIRLS”. ‘BRAIN SEX’ IS EXCELLENT, HOWEVER, THESE DIPLOMATIC WORKS OF SCIENCE CONTAINS EXTRA COMMENTARY. I JUST TAKE THE ORGANIC SCIENCE.

THE IDEAL OF MASCULINITY IS CONFUSED IN SOCIETY BECAUSE THE NOTION OF THE ARCHETYPAL DARING, BARBARIC MAN HAS BEEN HABITUATED. THE LATTER NOTION IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT IS HABITUATED THAT JUST BECAUSE MANY FEMALES ARE RECEPTIVE TO SUCH MALES, THAN IT IS ASSUMED THAT IT IS THE TRUE REPRESENTATIVE. IT IS WRONG.

IT IS A PLAIN FACT THAT THOSE WHO HAVE BUILT & ORGANIZED ARE MALES, BUT THIS MASCULINE CHARACTERISTIC IS NOT RECOGNIZED BECAUSE, NOT ONLY IS THIS DETACHED MASCULINE CHARACTERISTIC FREE OF PRONOUNCED VANITY, BUT ALSO BECAUSE SOCIETY WOULD RATHER BE MUCH MORE CONCERNED WITH THE LATEST MOVIE THAN SHOW INTEREST IN WHO PUT THOSE ELECTRICAL CABLES AROUND.

SO, YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT THOSE “NERDY” MALES ARE “EFFEMINATE”, “FAGGY”, “WHIMPY” OR WHATEVER FROM THE INCULCATION OF THE POPULACE, BUT TRUTH REMAINS THAT ULTIMATE FORMS OF MASCULINITY IS GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH INTROVERSION & CLINICAL LOGIC OS SOME DEGREES.

NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT FEMALES’ BRAINS ARE WIRED IN A WAY THAT GIVES THEM MORE & QUICKER ACCESS TO VERBAL COMMUNICATION, HOWEVER, THAT JUST MEANS THAT FEMALES ARE MORE TALKATIVE. IT DOESN’T ENTAIL THAT THEY ARE MORE LOGICAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

FEMINISTS LIKE TO USE THIS THIS LITTLE FACTOID TO TRY TO STATE THAT FEMALES ARE AS SMART OR SMARTER THAN MALES, WHICH, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, JUST PROVES THE ULTIMATE FINDING THAT THIS TALKATIVENESS IS OFTEN USED FOR MANIPULATION OR UNHARNESSED VERBOSITY, BUT THEY COMPLETELY DISREGARD THAT THIS FINDING MEANS NOTHING OF WHAT THEY ASSUME.

IN FACT, IN ‘THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE’ SIMON BARON COHEN REVEALS THAT FEMALES’ BRAINS ARE WIRED TO BE SYMPATHETIC, AT LEAST VAINLY SYMPATHETIC ANYWAY, & THIS “SYMPATHY”, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT, IN CONJUNCTION TO THEIR TALKATIVENESS IS EXEMPLIFIED IN CASES OF FEMALES PASSIVELY “AGREEING” BY DEFAULT WITH THE MALE APPROACH/COMMUNICATION.

SO MALES’ COMMUNICATION IS LESS FREQUENT BUT MORE MEANINGFUL & HONEST, WHICH IN ‘THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES’ EXPLAINS THAT MALE RATIONAL IS DUE TO THE MALE BRAIN’S INNATE MEANS OF SYSTEMATIZING, WHILE FEMALES’ IS MORE FREQUENT BUT LESS MEANINGFUL & UNGENUINE.

AS THE OLD SAYING GOES: FACT IS MUCH STRANGER THAN FICTION.

♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂

IN CONJUNCTION TO THE FACT THAT FEMALES ARE GENERALLY COLLECTIVIST, THEIR OBVIOUS ANTI-SCIENCE MAKES THEM ANTI-MASCULINE

PHILOSOPHY GAVE BIRTH TO SCIENCE, SCIENCE GAVE BIRTH TO CIVILIZATION. SCIENCE WAS CREATED BY “BETA” MALES, IF WE WANT TO USE THOSE DEFINITIONS, WHICH I DON’T LIKE TO BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY CAST BY GYNOCENTRISM, OF “ALPHA” & “BETA”.

SOME LOVE TO INSINUATE THAT IT WAS OVER BOLDNESS THAT CREATED SOCIETY, BUT THIS WAS ONLY USED SECONDARILY FOR STRATEGIES OF WARFARE & RELATED, WHICH WAS OFTEN DONE TO MAINTAIN RANK TO IMPRESS DUE TO GREED. CONGRATULATIONS ON PROCLAIMING TO BE SO TOUGH, BUT WHO’S REALLY THE TOUGH ONE WHEN IT IS SURGEONS WHO HAVE TO REMAIN DETACHED WHEN OPERATING? DETACHMENT IS THE ULTIMATE FORM OF TOUGHNESS. OTHERS JUST INDULGE. THE MAIN THING THAT OTHERS  HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO SOCIETY IS GENE REPLICATION & SUPPORTING ECONOMICS.

MASCULINITY IS NOT ONLY JUST SIMPLIFIED TO HORMONAL FACTORS; THERE ARE NEUROLOGICAL FACTORS AS WELL. HYPER RATIONALISM = HYPER-MASCULINITY.

IT IS OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD THAT LOGICAL ONES ARE “SENSITIVE”, BUT, ACTUALLY, SUCH TYPES EXHIBIT EXTREME STRESS LEVELS THAT OTHERS CAN NOT PROCURE. THAT IS A MUCH BROADER MEANING OF “MALE DISPOSABILITY”; IT’S NOT JUST WHEN A WOMEN DESTROYS A MAN OR WASTES HIS TIME, IT’S THE FACT THAT WE AS A SOCIETY HAVE VERY LITTLE REGARD FOR THOSE WHO TRULY SUCCOR.  I BELIEVE FEMALES HAVE MUCH MORE OF SHALLOW EMOTIONS, WHICH RESULTS IN SPOILING THEM DUE TO MISLEAD CONCEPTS OF THEM BEING “MORE IN TUNED WITH NATURE” ETC., BUT MALES HAVE LESS FREQUENT YET MUCH DEEPER EMOTIONS. THERE’S A DIFFERENCE. WHEN MEN HAVE THEIR OCCASIONAL EMOTIONAL OUTBURSTS OF CRYING OR WHATEVER, WE REGARD IT AS “PATHETIC” OR “EMBARRASSING”OR WHATEVER, BUT FEMALES’ MORE FREQUENT OUTBURSTS OVER TRIVIALITIES IS SEEN AS SOME SORT OF “FEMININE MYSTIQUE”.

WE NEED TO BE MORE ATTENTIVE TO MALE EXPERIENCE & THOUGHT PROCESSES RATHER THAN WASTING IT ON FEMALES.

Always look to science & true philosophy, especially to understand sex differences. What is generally required to understand the female mind is a masculine mind because the female mind is mostly shameless – generally not self aware. Females’ narcissism is often mistaken for being “more introspective”. Most that is true about females has been written by males. The mainstream culture’s falsehood is inculcated by females. Don’t look for deep truth there or any practical idiot telling you “what you need to do” to “understand” females.

What ultimately led man to achievement today was not being physically stronger or meaner than all other animals. It wasn’t the testosterone laced risk-taking behavior that cost many men their lives. It was intelligence. Physically, we are one of the weakest animals on this planet. But intelligence allowed us to side-step biology. We didn’t have to be the strongest animal, we just needed to know how to kill the strongest animal in the most proficient way from a safe distance. And it was not just risk taking that allowed us to advance as a species, it was calculated risk. Being intelligent enough to know when and when not to take on those often fatal liabilities.

The whole “Alpha male” facade is just a ploy to commercialize the desire other males have who want to be like them that has been molded by bad logic of females. Just as females have an inherent drive to see themselves as valuable and males as disposable in contrast, some males desire to see themselves as the one who is different – one of the few males who females actually value. It is as instinctive to men as gynocentrism is to both men and women together. This is where the brutal “alpha” aesthetic comes from that tries to compensate for their lesser intelligence & lesser achievement by pretending he is special with less merit & acting meaner to boast “worthy” of the prized vagina. Because a man dominating others historically attracted women, that is what appeals to these males, & many powerful males are going to capitalize on this desire men have to be the “Alpha”. The source of this “alpha” attitude to be mean, subtly or explicitly, comes from the females’ position to select the tools. One instance of a female being attracted to a perceived “intruder” will only cause these “alpha” primitives to react meanly or skeptically – the de-valueing of another innocent male for “getting out of line”, which females often do as well if such a male offends her. This is sometimes referred to as a “sigma” male – a male who appears “alpha” momentarily because his approach from the “zeta” position that does not fit pronounces his image. Intelligent males are realizing this stupidity & they don’t want play the “tool” game that is set by her judgement anymore. They don’t want to expend energy catering to the female while she passively places her demands.

Important Cognitive Axioms of Neuro-Science

phallocentrism

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

As a sort of little corrective warning before some could become unthinkingly reactive, as often the case with my articles, I will place the gist of it firstly: Linguistics can overlap with logic, but the entirety of it is not completely. Mathematics is a form of logic. Emanating from such logic are branches that are related to it, which can be also in linguistic format & various symbols. Linguistics is not necessarily truthful. You can be an intellectual & use lots of words yet not be intelligent.
This is not proclaiming to be a technical article. It’s quite the opposite actually. The point is to use essential condensed generalities from a technical source – a means of bringing what is too hard in a transliterated way – to simplify for those not versed in sciences to reduce confusion, that is the common narrative of the popular. You can talk about what the trends & projections of what the common dictates all you want, but until you actually start to establish the organic cores, you won’t have a real understanding, & that’s why there’s so many confused memes being circulated – complicated, but not in a good way, & femininity has a tendency to present itself in this same way of making their complexities seem sophisticated. It’s not that kind of complexity. It’s the kind of a thousand yarns tied in knots in a vacuum cleaner’s dust bag. There’s a lot of politics & opinions, etc., that sounds & appears better, but it’s just poor.

One of the most important figures of neuroscience is V.S. Ramachandran. I will emphasize the importance of his science in conjunction to the war realists have with the opposition, like feminists, & even people proclaiming anti-feminism yet still ruining realism, with a great short quote of his:
“Denial is a very common phenomena in human nature. You know that half the human race is in denial about their stupidity?” – V.S. Ramachandran. Source: from a recorded lecture he gave entitled: ‘40/40 Vision Lecture: Neurology & The Passion For Art’. Just click forward to 1:18:40.
His editor-ship in chief of ‘The Encyclopedia Of The Human Brain’ marks it as an essential tool for anyone seriously concerned with using the core of realism to fend deceptions & unreliable aspects. From page 301 of that encyclopedia, there is a section on sex differences in cognition, which concludes in a general duality, which is, emphatic, much needed to base the more abstract analysis, that males do better on tests of visuo-spatial skills & mathematical reasoning. Females generally score better on language tests. The opposition doesn’t even have the plain generalities, so it’s mostly incoherent due to nothing to use as a base from. This lack of rudimentary facts is a major problem when you consider that feminists & the like, being driven by this cunning tendency of articulation, will steer the narrative with a massive amount of lies, opinions, & just spanned narrative to degrade truth. I have even been shamed before from the opposition, I joke you not, that I resemble more of a “whimp” – that is a natural tactic of the feminine – because I’m, due to adopting methods to defeat the enemy by knowing my enemy, skilled in verbosity. Because females are more clever with language, with their fake intelligence, they miss the point of plainer language of males, sometimes even just purposely playing dumb, & try to alter the dialogue by fixating on detail of less importance, or by being relentless to a minor imprecision.
Now that the base is supportive, the following is the abstractions, or what they would call internalized misogyny – trying to make a vogue conclusion sound more sophisticated with “internalized” – in terse, blunt, masculine wording, rather than excessive, feminine poetry:
It’s intrinsic that males are visual creatures. Consider the pornography males indulge in: Videos & photographs, hence it being more fetishistic. Females place more emphasis on erotica in novels. There’s also a common misconception that a fetish & a fantasy are basically the same. They’re not. Fetishes, which are generally masculine, involve body parts, posing, & objects, while fantasies, generally feminine, involve more role-playing & extra drama. Don’t listen to what females will tell you about what male sexuality is because it will only be a subjective extrapolation. Males have a tendency to seek objects & treat them like a muse. When his female companion requests: “Honey, take me to the sale”. A similar scenario is: “But there’s a car modeling show on at 3:00 p.m..” Males are quite literally objectifying, & there’s nothing wrong with that, especially in comparison to females’ tendency to cause what is unnecessary. Simon Baron Cohen’s ‘The Essential Differences’ defines that a “more masculine brain”, or what is often influenced by feminine interpretations to be described as a “man-child’, means that you probably have a large collection of baseball cards.
Females are very crafty with language. Paul Julius Mobius – an 1800th century neurologist – already knew that females lie, take statements out of context, gossip, use ad hominems, manipulate, conspire, use plausible deniability, use decorative dialogue, use cognitive dissonance, opine, & have a lack of far-ranging, profound conclusions – just “cocaine” infused attention grabbing, at a time when those understandings were not influenced by the fact that females will write something for a t.v. show to insinuate a feminist agenda. They’ll write word-mazes, but they won’t produce dictionaries.
Unfortunately, with a lot of science, you get a lot of “synthetic” analysis, so, yes, it’s superior to much amateur info. or the info. given by the humanities & liberal arts, but science is a very rigorous thing. It’s a process. That’s the price you pay for absolute truth – a lengthening of time that requires much patients & diligence, which is what the feminine verbosity, which is a large sector that influences the humanities departments, tends to ruin. Males sacrifice & remain objective to make the world more functional, as stated in their inclination for mathematical type of reasoning, hence technology, etc.. Mathematics does not give entertainment. It’s boring. Linguistics does though, & females instinctively take advantage of these ideations. While the humble cognition of males lacks the same kind of “power” over others, females have just lounged & complained throughout history with their “better” mind control.
In summation: masculinity is defined by a characteristic of humble logic, from the most basic aspects of logic, all the way to the higher technicalities, generally, while femininity is generally defined by a characteristic of drama, & that drama influencing the humble logic of masculinity. Sure, females are often more “philosophical”, if you’ll allow me to degrade that word, but it doesn’t derive truth. It’s not insightful, logical, or coherent. It’s just “small” (too big) talk, kind of like in the way that some will hype themselves by being belligerent & fashion experts.
Males implemented language methodologically. Females warped it.
Thank you science via masculinity for fixing after the “storm” of femininity by setting the fundamentals for what is obvious & often on many peoples’ minds but do not say.
Do not mistake me for trying to persuade females to become more rational. That only has detrimental effects. What we should do is the apposite – keep them as simple & pleasant as pleasant as possible.
If you’re a male seriously pursuing something meaningful, of course, a great strategy is to economize how you pursue those tasks by having a companion do other things in alliance with you.

Some Origins Of Sadomasochism

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

more_you_know

I always try to re-word so that points are not forgotten. Key concept: Gynocentrism/”patriarchy”, etc., is just obscurintist & glamorized self abuse by masculinity because society drives itself to the feminine checking of the inaccuracies of weak-or-strong, too-nice-or-dominant, etc.. Women like being secretaries for bullies & other idiots. Consider the extreme invasion by the religion of Is***. Who called for that policy? It was a female politician. The other argument is: “Well, that’s because it was control by J***”. The point is though is that females are actually receptive to being controlled by such.

First, there needs to be a differentiation of contexts of emotional states: The feelings of masculinity that actually does matter that is useful for alarming – an aspect of logic, often signifies as something “wrong” to gynocentrism. The normative kind of emotional state to be automatic is the kind that is a detriment to masculinity. The latter type is what I mean when stating that emotions are bad, not the former.

WARNING: I do not wish to cause misery to other males – strictly educational. This is regarding a sensitive subject – the realities of male genital mutilation, generally hidden & continued to be accepted, even by vastly males as a means of obliterating the pain. That too is traditionalism. Subordination inhibits the need to know. It’s a subordination to traditional instincts. The reality of circumcision is so disagreeable that it is usually avoided consciously or subconsciously, & this answers why those who are not in denial are labeled as just anecdotes. Repression & denial is the means of what is happening. It is difficult to make empirical evidence of denial because it is evidence itself that is altered or denied.
I any case, anecdotes do sometimes matter because some can notice what others can’t.

This is not “disgruntled extremism”. In fact, it’s a calling for the apposite of it. This is going to confuse many, but if you actually read all of it &/or try to make an effort in understanding female mate bias of context to the prearranging harsh history – selecting for mostly action, not intellect, which its repository of instinct has actualized into the modern tributary of that female mate bias, it’ll be understood better. Females have much more sanctioning power than they realize, & it’s due to their primal “filtering.” It’s a custom that has morphed from the female extracting, stretching to the “patriarchal” modernity. That’s right, I blame female nature for such contingency.
All the past times of attempted civilized debates of feminism, male-&-female biology, gender, sex differences of cognition, etc., have been reduced by the apposition of the juvenile: “you’re-a-pussy”/”you-have-problems-with-not-being-able-to-increase-confidence”, etc., or even try to give me advice on how I can become “better” for their stupid registration – completely missing the points. You know why that is? It’s because all those reoccurring patterns are translations of their core nature of having the opportunity to exercise filtering.
It’s time for truly rational males to exercise filtering for our registration.

Disclaimer: I do not 100% endorse, completely, every single author & every single thing I derive from. My research is of an eclectic one. Being detached & objective means accumulating many facets, then connecting & finding missing links.

A study by a cognitive psychologist from the University of Southern California & co-author of a paper featuring some of it’s findings in the Oct. 6, 2010 issue of the Journal NeuroReport found that when men under stress saw angry faces, they seemed to not want to engage. There’s that masculine rational fear deemed by mass society as “bad” or some kind of “illness”. Contrastingly, as usual, females were more insistent. This neurological basis signalizes females’, of varying degrees, amorality/hybristophilia – the attraction to extrinsic commotion, villains & wrath – lazily described as “sympathy” by most.
Specializing in a given field reduces completion of other integration, hence why it’s called “sympathy”. Greater interest in synthetic formulas & components does not necessarily guarantee fuller exactitude.

~3,500 cuttings are performed every day [1997] in the U.S., one every twenty-five seconds.
33% of American pediatricians & obstetricians oppose, yet don’t necessarily disclose, it. Some nurses & doctors refuse to do it.
Financial incentive is one motivating factor as to why it is done.

Parents continue ignorance by confusing benign intentions with effects; believing that non-intended harm equals no harm to occur.

Pavlovian, along with most psychology, conditioned reflexes is a field that interests me. The following are some unpopular aspects of it.

Psychologists have known for a long time that trauma sets, often hidden from awareness, long term effects. You could be psychologically damaged & not even know it, or not know how it happened.
An infant’s eyes tightly close during circumcision.
Levels of cortisol – hormone release as response to stress – are high during circumcision.
Increase of excessive heart beats, even over baseline, per minute have been recorded. This level of pain would not be tolerated by older patients.
Infants tremble, cry vigorously, & in some cases become mildly cyanotic – lividness or blueness of skin caused by pressure of skin due to prolonged crying. It is an abnormal type of crying.

By the late 1800s & early 1900s, it was believed that a baby had similar level of consciousness to a vegetable. By the mid 1940s there were changing understandings of infants. Pediatrician Benjamin Spock (yes, real last name. You can check the sources on end.) reported in 1946 that infants are more cognizant.
Infants can generally distinguish between the vowels i & a on the next day following birth.
Infants require attendance to proper sensory responses. For one, infants’ deeper breathing in response to tactile sensation gives more oxygen to tissue. Stroking causes better alertness.
Infants do have their own set of well-developed thinking. It’s just of a different type.

From the Journal Of Sex Research, Davison & Money of the John Hopkins University School of Medicine reported that changes includes drastic diminished penile sensitivity. With relatively little effect of arousal, it can be described like callused fingers a guitar player receives.
I have even read from an independent research article a long time ago without a citation that the procedure actually takes away a chemical occurrence that would otherwise happen between a male & female to be much more committed to each other. It’s believable, & there’s tons of research one can do on it.

Extreme pain, bahavioural modifications, risk of complications, & loss of protective, sensitive tissue, resulting in diminished gratification – “But none of this could be true.” “We were too busy paying attention to that new style, or the comedy-skit, or score from the team of the west-coast, etc..” People have close to no idea of what’s really happening. Facts are naturally altered or withheld because of feelings. More damage is then done due to concealing rather than disclosing truth. The authentic & benign hyper-sexuality of masculinity has actually been regressed as those who were “sexually molested” or “free-loading” males when that sexuality would make the male-to-female interaction more of an actual friendship than sports & mostly business contracts. There’s been reports, which I have reduced for the sake of convenience, one can confirm from the cited source on the end of this article, that adult males could compare effects before the practice & after, & that after it was done, it was similar to being incapable of holding something normally with hand due to wearing a glove. I think this could possibly contribute to females’ mass perception of genuine intense attraction called “put-on-a-pedestal”. As an intact male, it’s been my experience that my more passionate & intensified sexual interest was interpreted by many females as an exaggerated, fake act by me, either that or that I had something “wrong” with me for having my passions more grand. This is a common reoccurrence: males honestly show how much they like a female, she then sees that as “too needy”, “weakness”, or something stupid. This is not an issue of semantics, so please save the retorts of: “females love attention”. Like vampires, they lead astray to traps & waste time, even including for “alphas”, because they lack persistence, & often just use that attention for entertainment with plausible deniability.
We live in a very juvenile world because females don’t respect male intellect, & then they opt for other males stuck on their level.
The police is one case of such males stuck on their level. I’m not a hippy, so I believe they’re a necessary force, but they have major problems with believing the fact that they often shouldn’t believe females. Not to brag, I don’t live an average life. I’ve had some critical periods. I’ve been incarcerated before shortly due to having aspects of my philosophy “cock-blocked”, if you’ll allow me to use that ridiculous analogy, by the chivalry of police officers when they allowed females to take advantage of freedom of speech & abuse it by lying after I’ve given “extremist” dialogue in public. All I did was harmless commentary. I then heard other inmates speak of getting arrested after restraining their female partners who had knives & other violence, etc.. Even some that called the police for their safety were blamed on the males by police & then arrested. I’d also advise to not even publicly debate with them. Present all content on the other formats. Even if you were to make a report to police that they did something to you, you’re more likely to get arrested because the police prioritize females’ claims.
What I type as results of gynocentrism were not originally intentionally planned. That is my point; gynocentrism causes & enhances accidents because of the fact that females are bad planners, & their nature also monopolizes social structures. It was a process of embracing stupid or mediocre men, replicating genes of stupid or mediocre men, & then following those stupid or mediocre men.
Most of actual importance was created by rationalizing males mostly undesirable to females – division by females of the meme replicators from the gene replicators, combining their characteristics with the latter.
Contrary to what the deconstructed author of the book believes, which I think is due to that he’s more of a specialist on medicine, this is not a result of suppressed feelings. Instead, this practice is feelings carried on a systematic level with utensils. It requires a longer, thoughtful process to devise other methods of treatment than relying on methods of foreordained instincts to nullify, especially when confronted with the annoying task of examining genitals maturely. Instinctual activity has often such a direction that it persuades one as an efficient means for the avoidance of more options requiring patience. Preference of quicker practicality & emotions is consistent with the general difficulty of being aware of & expressing intellect. Cultural, derived from historical instincts, over-reliance on emotions has caused inclination to adopt practicality as the great arbiter between fiction & fact so that quick feelings of convenience can be liked.
I do not call for hysterically, “reversed Feminism”, or for something fanatical, such as FGM – clitoridectomy or excision of its hood, apart of culture of the Persian Gulf, which overlaps with MGM, & neighboring regions. Those actions are just another subset of the preordained instincts. Instead, disallow the value of intuition over intellect that has promoted weeding of a rationalist renaissance – masculine monopoly. It is not the scientific-method. It is anti-intellectual intuition as a hasty vagary to get-it-over-with, & even monetary desires, infused by habitual drives, posing as the scientific-method.
Simplistic interpretations of the “patriarchy” lacks accuracy.
In this game of status-forging, healthy only limited to certain extant, with females watching & selecting & upgrading for other deals by ambiguous commitment, it’s going to be a “juggle” by masculinity with mistakes & even some spontaneous self-abuse. It’s the way it’s been by natural history & it’s the way it is recently. The varying displays of “machismo” are largely unnoticably controlled by femalehood’s inculcated intuition. Though males can seek such displays of status, it’s not enough. Females seek connections with others to gain & use status. Male, determined by gynocentrism, status-forging has a price; it is incompatible with understanding & creating a disciplined principles/true rationalism – “weakness” – by patience.
Females with apparent inflated egos are only threatening to males because these males subconsciously know it’s going to be extra competition to gain rank to her inflated self. Males have somewhat of a method to try to stay away from this; opting for females on mainly the level of a limiting physical attraction – good choice. Male fear of female sexuality can be if that female sexuality is pronounced, & if that is pronounced, female lack of integrity is also pronounced.
Concern with being a bland-minded acquirer of capital undermines concern for cultivating masculinity – better standards, promoting better self-esteem. The self esteem of males has already been ruined by circumcision.

There are several types of memory. Painful experiences in neonates can lead to psychological sequelae. Remembering, for instance, something you saw two hours ago requires a different type of memory than knowing how to tie a knot or recalling a place you’ve been associated with heightened sensation. Memory is not limited to only intellect, but body & emotion also. Long term memory has been demonstrated behaviorally in various mammals & other animals. Considering simpler animals have long term memory, it’s about 99.9% likely that infants have it also.
From neurological & developmental analysis, newborn infants can have trauma & retain memory of it. A sector of society has projected their inability to consciously remember that time on the infant. We store memories of that time, just generally don’t have access to them immediately. According to a psychological survey, the majority confirmed that forgetting was due to retrieving problems & not loss of info. from memory storage.
A mother explained that her child of 6 years old crawled through a tunnel & said to her: “This feels like when I was born”. Similarly, birth Primal can be studied by simulation. Psychiatrist Nandor Fodor was the first to propose accessing trauma memories by simulation.
Many types of psychopathology are connected to the birth experience – “vibrations” reverberating. Can you believe it?
The DSM IV classifies PTSD, & not limited to, as resulting from extreme traumatic stressor beyond routine life of a given average maturation. Responses include intense fear. Instances of which are torture, etc.. According to the DSM IV, PTSD includes symptoms of impulsive & self destructive behaviour, etc.. By definition, in conjunction to other facts cited, circumcision is traumatic. Like other traumas, it is repressed. Psychological problems increase as age of child decreases. Adult males with such experiences have adverse behaviour responses, mainly undetected by society. The revelation is that we have a society of unhealthy males, continuing instinctive self abuse. Just a personal anecdote: The level of “machoness” preordained by gynocentric instincts has alienated & maladjusted me, who never had this procedure done to me. What is considered normal is the society we have. It’s completely normal to have a bad society of varying degrees of exaggerated gallantry & just indifference/nihilism.
Symptoms of PTSD vary. The hidden – long term effects generally not of awareness but evident in behaviour – PTSD of circumcision has a contributing factor of violence as just one of those varients. Violence can also be exhibited in different ways, which may not even be capable of classification of crime statistics.
Subsequent distrust & aggression is connected. The systematic practice teaches to be angry or accept loss. Trust is a prerequisite for setting discipline of commitment. Disruption of development of better communication to females for future is impaired. It is very strange that the artificial mold of masculinity is what females admire mostly. Although these artificial moldings of masculinity are external forces reinforcing females’ malleability, the admiration by females reveals innateness of themselves. Gynocentrism is much older than such clinical practices. Originally, gynocentrism monopolized by females reinforced artificial displays of masculinity, &, coequally, artificial molds of masculinity reinforced further monopolization of gynocentrism by female-hood, &, as typed further, females also have a collectivist hive-mind by which they check of an anti-intellectual binary classification. If you know about such, etc., or type about such, very hypocrytical, you are an archetypal “creep” or “serial-killer” to them, even though those traits of harmless typing & thinking are the antithesis of the accidents of the intuition of gynocentric gathering.
To specify though, I’m not typing that intellectual males should present themselves as offers of “take me, please”, but, rather, especially to eliminate potential usurpation from supposed “intellectual” females – high rate of potential traps, always maintain a female on the incommensurable level for masculine self-preservation of rationalism.

Dissociation – erasing associated pain from traumatic experience, both physical & humiliation – results from trauma. Dissociation is a response of a psychological survival mechanism analogous to numbing a part of ones body to inhibit extreme pain. A boy actually makes himself believe it didn’t happen, thus actually altering himself. Based on clinical neurological research, traumatic & painful experience can actually cause long-term physiological changes in the neurochemical & central nervous system. Brain-imaging studies conducted on adults with histories of sexual abuse of childhood were reported to have reduced size of hippocampus, which is a zone of the brain associated with memory. Also, low scores of adults who had been abused were reported on another test of verbal short-term memory. Circumcision actually alters brain development. Presence of high level of the stress hormone cortisol, which is increased 3-4xs in the blood stream correlates with deep memory imprinting.

Connections to sadomasochistic behavior & child-hood injuries has been noted in psychology. Common elements of S-M behavior & circumcision include pain, struggling, bondage, & a loosely, originally unwanted, associated sexual context.
Not “minor anecdote” – trivialized report: One man reported to have S-M fantasies since he could remember. Further claiming it’s not normal to have S-M fantasies by age 4.
There are other factors to the phenomena & “normalcy” of severe S-M, since females also have an interest in it, but genital male mutilation is a major contributor. Some intact men also participate in it, although much less to the same seriousness of buying leather, & living-the-lifestyle, etc., but that’s just mostly from cultural introduction.
But what exactly caused such a barbaric practice to be normalized? One has to go back even further to the natural history by a context of evolutionary psychology.
When I type about this, I’m not referring to a generic slap on the buttocks, loud cursing, hair-pulling, etc. – fast & hard sex. I’m referring to an entire practice of b.d.s.m. – the type that females tend to be much more interested in, both as a sex act, as well as a simplistic rating instinct they treat males with.
B.D.S.M. has it’s origins in the practice of circumcision, but such practices itself were by-products of the origins in feminine weeding – “vibrational” gynocentrism monopolized by femalehood altering phenotype – mostly done by intuition – barely recognized. Anyone who has a serious understanding of evo.-psych. & Darwinian science knows that females are attracted to mostly authority. Do not confuse rationalism with authority. They’re 2 separate things, which only occasionally overlaps. The feminist & cultural idea that sex-is-about-power is also manifested from the b.d.s.m. mentality of female nature. Yes, I’m sure there’s some aspects about sex being linked to power, such as procreation to expand more legacy, etc., but it is not directly synonymous. Sex as power is a feminine projection because they aren’t necessarily interested in forming a friendship with benefits of sex, romance, or whatever you wish to call it. To be thorough, I’m not typing about it as a generic, or fast, etc., sex. I refer to b.d.s.m. as an entire mentality that females superficially employ, & not just in-the-bedroom – a feminine mentality, not just physically, much more intrinsic to them; “Humble, intelligent males are possibly useful, “creepy”, “pathetic”, & frustrating, which is funny because males of the apposite of humble & intelligent are by definition creepy. Females are attracted to or ordain to be instinctive males, hence why society is docile & even stupid. For the reactionary is the natural selection of females, & why we need to learn to control nature.
Culture is not a friend, & it perpetuates false selves.
Don’t believe it when females state they are “pan-sexual”. There is nothing “pan” about the various transliterated binaries of slave-or-master, bashful-or-not, instant-failure-or-instant-upgrade, “autistic”-or-fun. Different males think differently. If you are different from that binary, you are a “freak”. Their evaluation methods is just insufficient & outmoded. Most products of merit have been due to different, thinking-outside-the-box.

A study by researchers affiliated with University of Montreal presented 1,516 adults with a list of 55 different sexual fantasies ranging from sex with multiple people to sex with objects and animals, and more. The participants ranked the intensity of each fantasy and described their favorite ones in detail. Nearly 65 percent of women reported fantasies about sexual submission. Specifically, more than 52 percent of women said bondage revs them up, 36 percent fancy spanking, and 28.9 fantasize about being forced to have sex. (For the record, a significant number of men were turned on by the same things — even though guys were more likely to fantasize about oral sex, group sex, & ejaculating on their partners.) What that reporting of the questionnaire directed to males omits is, firstly, significant number does not specify same or more frequency, &, secondly, there’s no specification as to whether some of the overlap of female sexuality is innate to masculinity when the questionnaire disregards the conditioning effects of circumcision, &, thirdly, there was no specification of the rating of intensity of overlapping sexuality. The study also stated that these females enjoy such sexuality, but don’t necessarily want it to come true. Translated from masks of femininity, meaning: they’re waiting for it.
(The source of that study was delivered to me by e-mail from a Cosmopolitan article. Exact date & page of it was not specified.)
the rape-fantasy is so popular with females because it takes away the burden of actually having integrity. Most of what females do is by intuition-by-nature. They have bad planning methods, poor communication predicated on the baby-communication level of body language/facial expressions/tone, etc., so they have no or little discipline & lack of commitment. The truth is is that female nature is actually “macho”. The intellect has an effect of cuckolding males by feminine rating. Narcissists are drawn to other narcissists – a fake or minor aspect of masculinity that females have ordained or selected from their “solipsistic” schema – & that’s the nature of gynocentric monopoly – feminine sexual selection.
The culture of b.d.s.m./ taming the dumb animal, which requires becoming the lower animal to “top” the dumb female animal, again, not just as a generic fast/hard sex, etc., but an entire practice, emphatically, actually has it’s roots in male genital mutilation/self abuse, which, by “coincidence”, for a lack of a better description, females have a kinship to. M.G.M. interferes with male sexuality & corroborates with female psychology innate to it’s selective bias hundreds to thousands of years ago – a non-consensual practice done by the system that females accidentally enhanced by instinct.

Rather than more cooperation by females, what results is more implicit demands by females because of the impulsiveness associated with it, & females also have dichotomous preferences of males for two different reasons – one for desire, the other for usury, which will be read in a separate article.
So females want monetary symbols to discern provision for birth. Ok males, be literal & just provide for that. You don’t have to show other symbols. Females are quite capable as well.

The so called “rape culture” that feminists complain about is a fantasy retained by a vast percentage of females, including feminists, but you can not explain all of what is typed to them, or even just the general public, because they have absolutely no, or poor, understanding of evolutionary psychology, conditioned reflexes, how statistics works, Charles Darwin, or just plain psychology. It is natural for narcissists to deject what they can’t understand. Because of the limited understanding, they try to contrive definitions to make easier cohesion out of something too hard for them, so then using the quickest assumptions or trivialities; “sad loser who can’t work on himself & change for a woman”, “disorganized text/lifestyle”, etc.. Feminism is just mostly highly inflated opinions, assumptions, & a very simplistic interpretation of history – all not scientific. History is not categorized in the pyramid of knowledge as an actual science. They will claim this a “veil of semantics” because they just can’t understand it, & they are more concerned with what provides for a basis of confidence. Females have a “rythmic”, if you will, registration, none of which is encased in this.

This is the most essential point of this article: Our fight-or-flight beginnings were of the-survival-of-the-fittest, so now in our modern civilized times, when those instincts are no longer mandatory, it is morphed derivatives of that. I will repeat: THIS WASN’T ORIGINALLY PLANNED, & THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT; GYNOCENTRISM & FEMALE’S MONOPOLIZATION OF IT CAUSES ACCIDENTS & INSTINCTS. It’s not their fault. Well, it is largely their fault, just not intentional. Tautologically: the environmental influences, particularly circumcision, alters masculinity, & the environmental influences were already caused by pre-selection by females. Halting the cycles of gynocentric intuition that reinforces feminine estimations requires different & newer strategies. Such strategies would be conceived by males not for associative female recognition, but by incitement of a modified, learned masculinity via leadership of dissuaded males with concentrated options.

It’s a very mind boggling issue, but this is how it manifested: Our beginning climates were situated for females to have a sexual preference for reactionary males, not intellectual. They claim it’s mostly for hygienic purposes, (more complicated than that) but had females selected for intellectual males originally, we would have devised other methods of hygiene. Females have a higher rate of urinary tract infection than males, not that I’m advocating contrasting treatment, yet no procedure for them. Now, because gynocentrism is still monopolized, the notion is varying degrees of humble & intellectual males being “creepy”, “pathetic”, frustrating, or possibly useful. It wasn’t planned by females; it was just simply a natural accidental result of the instincts they ordain.
So, yes, females are basically choosing toxic forms of masculinity by a cyclic process such as this: There is the implicit offerings. Some males are used for mainly resourceful reasons, some males are desired for their impulse. Since female consciousness is limited, they don’t know how to take other males, they can’t revolutionize opting. More traits of docile characteristics & reactionary are promoted. End result: Commonality of the population makes intellectual males a minority.
Inhibition of female monopolization of gynocentrism would alter production of toxic masculinity. That’s why this kind of info. needs to be applied as a protocol to masculinity for the rationalist proprietorship of policies of approach – minimized accidents, stupidity, mediocrity, & checked feminine appraising & feminine sexual selection.

Females chose what they could understand, or, rather, allowed them to not understand. Rationalism has not been respected by female nature. When has it been commonly the case of females respecting males for who they are? It’s always about giving to females.
Unlike the female m.r.a. – “bipolar” poseurs with a sloppy judge of character, which is why they can’t understand the denser processes of male-female interaction, & this is going to offend many, there is a class of barbaric, stupid, inauthentic males, but these males critiqued by the feminine are the result of their own will. Rationalism then gets blamed for the bad representation of masculinity. The female m.r.a.s. love to talk more about feminism than judge themselves. In the ‘Look Out, It’s A Nice Guy. Let’s Destroy Him’ video. The commentator only critiqued how feminists call nice-guys “evil”, a.k.a., creepy, then only once admitted that “we think their pathetic”. That itself is just as bad as calling them evil. “Patriarchy” is not synonymous with rationalism. It’s synonymous with female nature. “Patriarchy” is a product of the semi-consciousness/impulse of femininity. The “patriarchy” enhanced by female fraternization indicates more about female nature than it does about male. Consider Isl**** culture where harsh treatment is done to females, as well as males. But this is a result of “karma”, not to use mystically; meaning: cause & effect; their mindless intuition selects, so mindlessness begets. In the hip-hop song: ‘My Neck, My Back’, Khia Shamone tells-it-like-it-is, rude & made easy: “The best comes from a thug…. You might have cheese (money), but fuck that nigga, get on yo knees….” That is a naked representation. You can learn a lot of underlying truths from endemic communities. Much of Isl**** culture is more agrarian, but with that, different translations. “Patriarchy” = obscurantist self abuse by males glamorized, & if you abuse yourself, you abuse surroundings.

Anecdote: Yes, I know it’s just an anecdote, but many males will identify with this: My father was a friendly, hard-working, successful male. He just wanted to humbly come home to eat hot-dogs & watch action movies ( &, interestingly, he’s also intact.). He had some pretty obvious high testosterone levels, & yet again, his wife eventually concluded him as a “wuss” because he never actually wanted to show any displays of defeating in petty argumentation.
Also, during my adolescence, because I never had this practice done to me, I reduced much of the ritualized associations so common with others’ sexuality influenced by the practice. Because of my personal reduction, other females didn’t like me as much.

What Mr. Goldman is missing is a more integral understanding of Darwinian science & female sexual selection, as typed in the first 2 introductory paragraphs.
As Buddhist purists know, although not explicitly because they do not welcome politics from intruders, of female nature – “the daughters of Mara” – is that they are of a demonic nature which leads to unconsciousness – cuckolding the intellect. This is not a theological analysis. This is one of patterns in many diverse, far-ranging fields. Paralleling the Darwinian science, Buddhist understanding is basically that female consciousness selects or ordains for sin-fullness of varying degrees. You might get from someone like the Dalai Lama that females are “good”, “wonderful,” etc., but it’s just a way to fend what they don’t want away. Females started the cycle. A Buddhist had predicted that allowing women in would cause his teachings to survive only half as long – 500 years instead of 1,000. Some such ancient declarations have been eliminated from texts. Your turn – Happy-hunting!

Obscuring info. also has some of its origins in gynocentrism, which can be analyzed in a bluntly-put sequential pattern; transcending gynocentric socialization by analysis; “extremism” is labeled by pleasure/females; frustration sometimes occurs to slandered analyzer; observation then is further slandered as “hysteria/”criminal”, etc.; “comedy”, etc., of male argumentation from pop. culture.

To paraphrase the stand-up comedian Bill Burr: You can’t criticize women because men are busy trying to have sex with them.
Female sexuality – political, dramatic, & crafty – is completely excusable, yet there’s frequently some beta males & females denigrating, compared to a ratio, the bodily/visuo male sexuality as “low”, “immature”, “trashy”, etc.. The reality is is that female sexuality is much more detrimental. Beta bureaucrats are willing to sometimes defend & apply legal measures with the feminine critiques of pornographers recording females dressed playfully with pigtails, vomiting on phalluses, or other images of slimy gapes, etc., & that we should be cautious of this sort of thing, yet why can’t we apply critiques on b.d.s.m. themes much more common & innate to female psychology? I’ve even criticized females in public of their varying versions of hybristophilia, & they look at me like I’m the wrong one. The former – an issue of choice of bodily juxtapositions & functions, while the latter – an issue of rationalizing & even the integrity of the future of the species.
There’s the other argument that beta males & the like will try to use to defend hybristophilia of female-hood; that it’s these females having a noble cause to try to change such bad men for the better, but why would you defend that when those females could apply that desire to build something beneficial with more rational males?
Associated physiological responses are evident. “Adrenaline shoots through me”, states one outcast, again, as typed firstly, masculine rational fear is interpreted as “bad”, a “sickness”, etc.. The general lack of curiosity as a defense mechanism about such a practice is strong. There is an aversion to learning potentially ego-threatening new info.. If you consider the defenses maintained by the vast popular to guard a lack of curiosity on just that single issue, consider other experiences males have, often blamed on those males, of being psychologically destroyed also declined. This is an anti-/a-objective culture where you’re here to be “macho”, entertaining, or automatic. “So, that’s just anecdotal when that one states adrenaline shoots through him”. Correction: To reiterate: there is a general lack of curiosity as defense mechanisms & mass cognitive dissonance as well as forgetting. Do people want to know about something as common as the interwork of slaughterhouses, just as an example, not a debate on veganism, & other things of that nature? Male disposability, not just in terms of divorce & male-female relational problems, is not a strong meme because, by even claiming that, males are already type-casted as non-entities.

Source: ‘Circumcision – The Hidden Trauma’ By Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., pgs.: 1, 7, 10, 11, 20, 31, 56, 75, 87, 89, 98. 117 & 118.
Not an excellent book, but has some good facts & is better than nothing on this highly riddled issue. Some truth & some fallacies. The author fails to make the connection that the practice is not a product of rationalism, but, in fact, it’s actually a product of instincts-by-nature. There’s also too much favoring of feminine emotions & claiming that masculinity is the main source of such reactions, but, in fact, it’s gynocentrism that leads to instincts/intuition.

Book Review: Who Stole Feminism?

who_stole_feminism_2.0

IronCrossIronCrossIronCrosshalf_ironcrossVery good!

Author: Christina Hoff Sommers

Publisher: Simon & Schuster

CH Sommers’ classic, anti-feminist tome is to gender relations what Jared Taylor’s Paved with Good Intentions was to race relations; pointing out what many non-indoctrinated people are thinking, but won’t say aloud for fear of ostracism.  In addition to the fact that gender is a considerably less controversial topic than race, Sommers has a pass to write this kind of book because she’s a woman and calls herself a feminist.  But she’s made the distinction that she is an “equity feminist”, rather than a “gender feminist”, and it is the gender feminists that are the problem.

Let’s be clear; Sommers may call herself a feminist, as one of my good lady friends does, but both of them consider themselves feminists strictly in the 1920, suffragette sense; meaning that they agree with the notion that women can vote, own property and compete in a world that was essentially invented by men.  I don’t call this a feminist, and I don’t see why they would want to either, especially since the hard line feminists that Sommers wonderfully takes down don’t distinguish themselves as “gender feminists”,  but just feminists.  That and one other reason, which I’ll get to later, are why I lop off half an iron cross in my final grading.  The whole, “that’s not a real feminist, this is” argument is an example of the “no true Scotsman fallacy.”

One other thing I want to mention before getting to the nitty gritty is how there is another parallel between Who Stole Feminism? and Jared Taylor’s Paved with Good Intentions.  In the rape chapter, the one where Sommers talks about how rape hysteria, that 1 in 4 women will be raped on a college campus myth, bogus “you were raped if you had one drop of alcohol and then had sex” surveys have caused government agencies to allocate rape prevention funds to college campuses, rather than to the inner cities, where women are far more likely to be raped.  Of course, when Sommers says it’s more likely to happen in the inner city, she neglects to mention who the majority of these rapists are.  Hey, you wouldn’t either if you didn’t want to lose a book deal.

In Who Stole Feminism?, Sommers breaks down chapter by chapter how the radical women’s (womyn’s?) movement, in typical Marxist fashion, sought to subvert academic and government institutions for the sole purpose of putting envious narcissists into power.  The shocking thing about their endeavor is how easy it was to accomplish, how all of these organizations, such as the American Advancement of University Women (AAUW), had to do was release a few sensational reports about how women are starving themselves to death to be thin or how women are overwhelmingly victims of domestic abuse, especially on Superbowl Sunday, or how women’s self esteem drops when they enter high school or how 1 in 4 – actually the count dropped to 1 in 5, and then again to 1 in 7 – women are likely to raped at universities, and well meaning government officials will vote to allocate funds to “battle” these “societal ills.”

The fact that people still believe that there is a gender pay gap disparity shows how well these apparatCHICKS (heh, heh) managed to push their agenda.  For the record, to my leftist friends, the reason women make $0.77 for every man’s dollar is because incomes are tallied for men and women in EVERY profession, ranging from janitor to rocket scientist and then are added up and averaged for both genders.  That means that a 74 year old grandmother, who has nothing to do with her time and decides to get a fast food job, is compared with a male doctor.  Women tend to work less hours, take less stressful and less dangerous jobs and go into less lucrative majors like sociology or English literature.  That’s it.

Unfortunately Sommers neglects to mention how biology might drive some of these choices that women make and even implies that a bit of adjustment might need to be made in the way tenure is done at universities to accommodate women who have children, rather than let the free market do its thang.  This is the other reason I chopped half an iron cross in the final grade of the book, but that’s such small part of the book, that it doesn’t undermine the rest of it.

Sommers goes on to describe how university classrooms have become less about education, and more about indoctrination.  One student complained about how she went to an English writing class, but rather than learning how to write, was bombarded with feminist pedagogy.  She further explains how many feminist activists are trying to eliminate objective truth and knowledge, claiming that objectivity is a “male creation”, and want to substitute it for a subjective, “all inclusive”, gynocentric viewpoint.

The most ridiculous examples of this, which would be laugh out loud funny if it wasn’t actually taken seriously, is Peggy McIntosh’s five phase approach to teaching method.  Phase one, the good one, the one that she hates, the “hierarchical” one, is the “malecentric” one, the one where 2+2 is always going to be 4.  Phase five is the one where 2+2 is whatever a woman wants it to be.  I’m not kidding!

What would a curriculum that offers an inclusive vision of human experience and that attends as carefully to difference and genuine pluralism as to sameness and generalization actually look like?

Pretty damn stupid is how it would look like, and we’re finding out just how stupid every single day.

Sommers name drops some of the most important names in feminism; Naomi Wolf, Betty Friedan, Susan Faludi and a bunch of others who I’m too lazy to research, along with siting the important – and I mean important for the changes they caused, not because they did any particular good – studies, which fundamentally changed much of the educational structure.  Keep in mind this book was first published in 1994, the year that the awesome movie PCU came out, back when people were making fun of this stuff.  Now it’s all but accepted by students, faculty and much of the general populace.

In the introduction, Sommers says that her son persuaded her against making corny jokes, and this is a good thing.  The entire book takes such a straight-forward, dry and academic tone, that it makes the material that much funnier; or at least as funny as it can be before you realize that people take this crap seriously.  In other words, the fact that Sommers maintains a poker face while describing how the “vertical approach” to teaching – and I’m not kidding – 1 + 3 +5 to a young girl who had trouble adding would require her to “think vertically, thereby undermining her self-esteem and causing her to become discouraged.  She [McIntosh] urged the Brookline teachers to find ways to ‘put… [students] off the right-wrong axis, the win-lose axis.'”  Wow.

To answer Sommers question, nobody stole “feminism.”  If you don’t want a completely outdated movement, one which accomplished every single goal it was intended to, to be ruined by annoying harpies who want to fundamentally change how America functions in order to increase their narcissistic supply, maybe it’s best to dissociate with “feminism”, and start going by a different term.  How about “equalitarian” or just not a retard.

 

 

Braving the Slut Mine of OKCupid

okc_profile_pic_3.0What a stud!  With the weather warming up, my shedding a few pounds, and women shedding a few layers of clothing, it’s time to get back into the dating game.  Since I’m a tech tard, and I don’t have a tinder account, and since I don’t really have enough patience for pickup artistry, yet I want to guarantee that I’ll be able to sleep next to a warm body more than once every three months, I don’t typically go to bars with the hope of picking up ladies; after all, with the flowing booze, mixed signals that women send, and the cost of liquor, it can really be a liability. Don’t get me wrong; I HAVE picked up women at the bar before, but the “going out and seeing if I can get laid” investment seems to have hit the point of diminishing returns. Therefore, it seems like the only practical choice is braving the slut mine of OKC in spite the fact that it seems to have all but entirely been picked clean of anything worth picking.

And because I’ve become the expert at OKC dating with a reasonably high success rate, I’ve come up with this handy guide on how to work OKC for maximum results.

Your entire purpose of getting onto OKC is to convince a complete stranger to meet up with you so that the two of you can fornicate; I actually have to thank many of the ladies who haven’t been spooked by all of this rape hysteria out of letting me pick them up at their homes.  One thing is clear, though; if a woman doesn’t sleep with you the first night, she absolutely is not interested.  Even if she DOES sleep with you the first night, that’s no guarantee that she’ll be interested.  So, let’s just say, the whole purpose of getting onto OKC is for you to find someone who wants to fornicate the night you meet her; all you have to do is not give her a reason not to.  You can worry about what happens between the two of you later; that’s not what OKC is for.

Next, you have to get it out of your mind that you’re looking for anyone in particular.  Getting a girl from OKC or getting a girl in general these days is less contingent upon what mutual interests you have and more based on whether or not you’ll feel disgusted with yourself after waking up next to her the following morning.  In other words, if you message three girls because you see that they’re all huge Magma fans or they’ve seen all of John Cassavetes’ films and you think you’ve found the love of your life, you will rarely if ever get a message back.  In the dating market and basically in every other aspect of life, women have the upper hand.  The market is saturated with lonely and horny guys, so you have to be open minded even if she is a Harry Potter fan.

You have to have an iron will.  Your hunt for women has to be completely emotionless and based purely on your desire to find someone who will let you put your penis inside her, and you have to send out message after message after message to God knows how many women before any respond.  Getting pussy is like looking for a job.  You don’t send out two resumes to your favorite jobs and hope one of them bites.

Best bet is to have a template that you have saved, so you don’t have to keep typing the same stupid message over and over again.  For example:

“I see that you’re a big fan of _____.  What do you think of _____?  I’m actually a really big fan of _____.  Do you have any thoughts on that?”

If you see she’s a fan of horses, you can write:

“I see that you’re a big fan of horses.  What do you think of saddle sores?  I’m actually a really big fan of Freddie Got Fingered.  Do you have any thoughts on that?”

Or, if she’s a collector of old lawnmowers:

“I see that you’re a big fan of lawn mowers.  What do you think of riding mowers?  I’m actually a really big fan of hiring illegal immigrants to do my yard work.  Do you have any thoughts on that?”

Or, she comes from a family of taxidermists:

“I see that you’re a big fan of taxidermy.  What do you think of having your own body stuffed when you die and having someone put it on display for people to commemorate your life?  I’m actually a really big fan of filling dead cats up with lard.  Do you have any thoughts on that?”

That shows that you have read the profile so you’re not JUST going off of what she looks like.  Unfortunately some women have so little imagination that they put things like “hanging with my friends”, as if you assumed that she doesn’t have any friends.  Also, most women these days claim that they’re “sarcastic” or that they’re really good at “sarcasm.”  What that really means is they have carte blanche to say any disgusting, obnoxious or unpleasant thing they want and, if you want some sugar that night, you had better put up with it, bub!  I talked to one women who said that, if she didn’t like me, she would pretend to go to the bathroom and leave me.  Oh, that is SO funny and totally not indicative of something she actually does.  I did, in fact, tell her that that “joke” was quite the turn off and cancelled the date.  See, ladies, men can be put off by things that YOU say as well, and we’re not the ones buying all the Prozac.  So maybe learn some manners, k?

Make sure to say enough about yourself in your profile so you legitimately seem like an interesting person that a woman would want to hang out with, and make sure you look cool in your pictures.  Get a female friend to snap a few good shots for you.  Some tips I have are don’t smile in any of them and make sure to have at least one where you’re actually doing something so girls think you’re an active person.  Oh and, if you can’t figure out NOT to put something like “all you women are looking for is a good time with my money, why am I always friend zoned, wah wah wah” or “why do you bitches always go with the the assholes when I’m such a nice guy” on your profile, then you probably should have your internet taken away from you and be forced to interact with real people.

The girls on OKC can be broken down into three basic categories; attention whores, horny trollops without children and horny trollops with children.  Let’s expand on these:

Attention Whores: Basically, if a girl is super, fuckin’ hot, like an eight through a ten, and she’s on a dating site, she’s an attention whore.  There’s literally no reason for her to be on OKCupid other than to continue to feed her narcissism.  She never responds to messages but always “complains” about how her inbox is full, and she’s got tons of little satellite men who are more than willing to be friend zoned by her to catch a whiff of her anal vapors.  Yet she doesn’t go out with ANY of them because none of them have been truly able to scratch that itch.  You have to be like someone super important, like the creme de la cock to be with this type.  In other words, she’s the most chaste person ever until a popular indie rock band comes to town.

Horny Trollops Without Kids: Believe it or not, these ladies actually might want a relationship.  The highest level of attractiveness any of these ladies ever reaches is a seven, but since when was a slightly overweight, curvey seven, who is also really pretty, that bad or shameful to be with?  Or a girl with a hot body, but has the face of ET?  Especially in the age where better than average looking guys have to settle for less and less.  My only tip on how to get these ladies is just learn to be fun and sociable, learn a tiny modicum of game (like, I mean, don’t be a pussy and go for the kiss) and don’t unload your spergy, in depth knowledge of every Hawkwind album on her unless her OKC profile explicitly says that she’s a huge Hawkwind fan, and you’ll be in like sin.  I’m not kidding; when I put the work in, I can nail someone about every other week to once a month and, if one doesn’t work out, I just go for another.  The only exception is during the cold months.  Then women tend to flake more often, either not answering your texts or coming up with bogus excuses to not meet up with you, since they’d prefer to snuggle by themselves under a blanket, than go out for a couple hours and end up snuggling with another human being.  And once they break the date, don’t try to reschedule because, if a woman is “too sick” to go out that night, she just isn’t interested.  At least she spent 20 seconds to come up with an excuse and didn’t just stop responding!  Don’t take it personally.  Women can’t even stay loyal to their own friends, let alone someone they’ve never met in person.  It’s pretty tough these days for me to take what a woman says at face value unless she’s giving me directions or something trivial like that.

Horny Trollops With Kids: You might think that, because a woman is a single mother, she would want a man in the house to help take care of and raise the kids, ya know, so the kids are raised by a complete family.  You would be wrong.  You just have to ask yourself where the actual father is and why she didn’t stay with him.  The answer: what difference does it make where he is as long has his check arrives on the scheduled date and he can play babysitter every other Saturday?  Believe me: single moms LOVE this arrangement.  They get to play act at being moms – i.e. be “heroic” –  a few days a week, then get to slut it up on the weekends.  The last thing they need is a long term relationship to screw up that arrangement.  But at least you get laid!  Too bad these mothers are raising a generation of neurotic freaks.  Also, they tend to flake a bit more; ya know, “couldn’t find a babysitter.”

You’ve been advised about how to OKC, you’ve been given the crash course on how to start a conversation and you’ve seen the three types of women you’ll meet.  The rest is up to you.

Here are three, final tips before I depart:

  1. Be EXTREMELY wary of a woman who looks surprisingly good, yet is overly eager to go out on a date with you.  She’s either aged severely or put on weight since the pictures on her profile were taken and assumes that once you’ve had enough alcohol or weed in your system, that you’ll overlook these minor details.  DON’T BE TRICKED!!!
  2. Although this seems obvious, overly eager guys, of which I’ve been at times, seem to forget; if a woman ONLY takes closeups of herself and doesn’t have a single full body shot, she is fat.
  3. Although your level of tolerance might be higher than mine, I’d highly suggest avoiding women who use words like “polyamorous”, “pansexual”, “non-binary”, “cis-gendered” or “heteronormative.”  They’re just fancy ways of saying, “daddy didn’t love me, and now I’m getting back at him by being a slut.”  Obviously avoid feminists.

And there you have it.  If you’re willing to put in the work, you should soon be having sex with moderately attractive women, some of whom have real jobs and real concerns, who you’ll be able to maintain a relationship with for at least a few weeks.

 

Super Hot Anti-Feminist Launches #theTriggering

lauren-southern-the-triggering-defend-free-speech

Gorgeous – and yes, it’s absolutely essential to bring attention to how a woman looks before she expresses her opinion about something – Libertarian Commentator and anti-feminist activist Lauren Southern has launched a hilarious and hilariously juvenile movement designed to attack Social Justice Warrior crybabies, who have taken an unprecedented level of control of the dialogue in this and other Western countries.  The movement, set to launch on March 9th and 10th is called #theTriggering, and the concept, from my understanding is pretty simple: to be as offensive as possible in order to drive crybaby SJW’s off the internet or just totally insane as sort of a way to tell them that it’s time for them to stop policing every word that comes out of a person’s mouth, especially if that person happens to be white, straight and male.

And the concept is as beautiful as Lauren Southern’s smile.  Not everyone feels exactly like everyone else – the fact remains kiddies that there are people who don’t like blacks, people who don’t like gays, people who feel the white race is the best race, people who don’t like Muslims and prefer they’d leave that evil death cult before becoming a U.S. citizen, people who don’t like Jews, people who want to see every illegal immigrant kicked out of the U.S., people who want to see our borders shut completely, people who feel women should be in the kitchen making sandwiches and, if we live in a truly democratic society, we acknowledge that, as unpleasant as some views may be, we can’t simply shut people up who have them.

Unfortunately, the only thing SJWs want to do is shut people up.  How DARE you not agree with every single thing they think?  Don’t you realize that blacks were slaves 150 years ago and the residue of that slavery can be felt any time a white person so much as questions the effectiveness of affirmative action?  Don’t you realize women couldn’t vote until 1920 and that, any time you question why women overwhelmingly vote for bigger government, you might as well go back in time and sabotage the suffragette movement?  Don’t you realize that, if you have a view that is not in complete concert with theirs, you’re a sexist, racist, homophobe and, now I guess Islamophobe even though Muslims are about as sexist, racist and homophobic as they get, but we give ’em the pass because… WHY?!

I’m not here to discuss Islam; I do plenty of Muslim bashing in other articles, so I’ll stick to SJWs.  If feminist harpies or BlackLivesMatter activists were just derelicts that yelled at you on the street and people just ignored them, then that would be one thing.  However that is not the case.  The fact of the matter is that these people have turned Universities into a joke; they have forced professors to resign; they think it’s acceptable to take down pictures of historical figures because those figures held beliefs that were common then, but would be considered hateful now.  And the establishment is balking!  In no other time in history would two feminist activists be invited to the U.N. to discuss how to censor any criticism of their bogus attack on the video game industry.  Yet, it happened!

But, there’s a catch to all of this.  There is no safety net or safe space for your beliefs.  In other words, when someone points out that Jews control 61% of the Hollywood studio system and try to drive a narrative, such as with what looks like the absolutely retarded (And yes, I’m judging it even though I haven’t seen it nor plan on it) new movie Race, about 1936 Olympic runner Jackie Owens as some sort of struggle on his part against the prejudice of the Nazis, you have to, at very least, not take it as a personal affront.

free_speech.jpg

PC is the work of the devil… no, not the devil, because then it would make it something kinda cool… it’s actually the work of cultural Marxist engineers, who, after realizing that their Marxist, egalitarian society didn’t work in industrialized countries, where people could buy cool shit, had to invent the notion that there was an oppressor and an oppressed, while completely ignoring the history of the rest of the world.  Then, the government could come in and “equalize” everything, whether it be with affirmative action quotas or forcing the military to lower its standards to allow the weaker gender to participate, all while influencing the media to blame the shortcomings of the so called oppressed groups on straight, white men.

So, here we are in 2016 on the verge of complete social and cultural collapse.  In 1967 American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell spoke at UCLA.  Can you fathom that happening in 2016?  To have a David Duke or Tom Metzger speak at a university?  I’m not saying these are people whose views I agree with or espouse; I’m saying, in a truly free society, you let them have a chance to voice their opinions and allow people to decide if they agree with them or not.

Some may argue that we “shitlords” are nothing but overweight, annoying losers who are home on a Friday night, chomping down Dorritoes and wouldn’t be bothering with this nonsense if we had a woman as hot as Lauren Southern to take out.  On one hand, they have a point; pissing people off is a whole heck of a lot of fun, like when I teased the fuck out of these feminists who got all angry about the band Black Pussy last May.  But, there really is a point to this.  Well, for one, I’m not overweight and two, it’s not a Friday night; it’s a Wednesday night and that Jew fag Josh hasn’t contacted me to go to the local sports bar, where we can ogle the girls that have the big booties and wear the black tights.

But, there’s an even bigger point to this: whether your economic views are right, left or center, your social views should always be towards allowing an open dialogue no matter how offensive or “triggering” that dialogue may be.  Political correctness is not just a roadblock for comedians to have fun at the expense of the less fortunate; it’s quite literally the death knell of the ability to discuss actual problems with any sense of honesty, to address the elephant in the room, to tell your fat female friend that the reason men pump and dump her is not because of the color of her hair or the way she laughs, but because she is fat.

 

 

How I Stopped Being an Elitist

sportsball_meme

I was a bit surprised when, in both Bernard Chapin’s video review and Matt Forney’s online review for Aaron Clarey’s latest book, The Curse of the High IQ, they mention how Clarey refers to sports entertainment as “sportsball”, a popular colloquialism that is typically used to describe sports as entertainment for the plebes.  I was under the impression a person like that would have a less cavalier attitude towards people who love sports and other popular entertainment, and that it is people on the left who judge people and call things “sportsball”; not to mention calling the people who enjoy it “dumb bros.”

Let’s get one thing straight; I may have tattoos, I may listen to weird underground music that nobody’s ever heard of, I may watch a bunch of cult films that nobody’s ever seen, but, when I go out, I would rather hang out at my local sports bar, watch sports on the TV, drink a stout, scarf down chicken wings and have said beer and wings served to me by a hot waitress, who wears black tights and a low cut tank top.  I’m over the era of my life where I want to sit in a dimly lit quasi dive populated by arty hipsters.  The fact that said bar will have a jukebox filled with the music of hip bands like Can, Captain Beefheart and the Fall DOES NOT MATTER to me AT ALL.  I literally DO NOT CARE if other people share my taste in music, and chances are these same people probably wouldn’t jam out to ZZ Top, Aerosmith, AC/DC, Ted Nugent, UFO, the Scorpions or Deep Purple, bands I like just as much as the approved “cool” bands in the post-punk, post-hardcore, kraut-rock and noisy indie rock genres.

Furthermore, I do not care if a girl I sleep with/date is a total “sportsball” loving, reality TV show watching bimbo, a military history buff who shoots guns, a tattooed metal chick with an Acid Bath patch on her denim vest or a glasses-wearing book nerd.  I’ve had all of these varieties and realized that the only things that matter to me are whether the girl is attractive and fun to be around.

So, where am I going with all of this?

I realize that, at age 31, I was smarter, cooler, funner and more accepting of people when I was in high school, than during my college years when, all of a sudden, I attempted to be an elite “cultured” person.

I was reading a negative review on Netflix of Luis Buñuel’s 1972 classic The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and, while I believe whoever reviewed the film had the wrong idea that it was explicitly meant to diss the “bourgeoisie”, I believe that a good amount of younger people who are fans of the film believe that it is in fact supposed to be Buñuel’s “fuck you” to the rich, rather than just a charming series of surreal vignettes.

Y’see, arty hipstery people are leftists and they hate the rich, the 98%, yet, at the same time, fail to realize that the average working Joe would prefer to watch a super hero, CGI-filled Hollywood blockbuster rather than The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, and that, in effect, would make the very people leftists are allegedly trying to help the target of their ridicule; in other words, the rank ‘n’ file are all idiots who would rather watch that “sportsball”, yet we want to help them.

And, sadly, though I was never a full on leftist, I had a similar view of people who I went to college with that didn’t share my tastes; people who didn’t watch countless hours of films by Godard, Truffaut, Fellini, Tarkovsky, Passolini, Bergman, Herzog and Bresson or read thousands of pages of Faulkner, Hemmingway, Doestoevsky, Proust, Joyce, Camus or Balzac or didn’t spend thousands of hours filling their ears with the sounds of Can, Kraftwerk, Neu!, Faust, Public Image Ltd., the Fall, Devo, Miles Davis, the Birthday Party, Einstürzende Neubauten or Captain Beefheart (ya know, smart people music).

On top of that, I convinced myself that I had to date “smart”, arty hipster chicks who wore the black rim glasses, had a pixie cut and wore skinny jeans and T. Rex t-shirts.  I cannot believe how hot the girl I was dating back in 2007 was.  If I could turn back the hands of time and do it over again, I would have been waaay more grateful for what the arbiters of sex had given me; a hot, blonde, boob enhanced ex-stripper, who wore a super short, denim skirt that revealed killer, worked out legs to boot.  She had the comforting personality of a stripper, the kind where she puts her hand on your knee and leans in to talk to you, sending shivers up and down your spine even though she only means it as a friendly gesture most of the time.  And she was like the ultimate bedroom slut.  Without getting too graphic, virtually nothing was off limits.  And she was ready to bang ANY time!

But, at the time, I thought I was above dating a blonde, former stripper airhead – just so you get an idea of how much of an airhead she was, she did fill-in puzzles, crosswords puzzles where they just give you the words, in her spare time and virtually knew nothing about politics, history or what was going on in the world – so, I didn’t take it seriously, just biding my time, while secretly feeling I should be with that kinda cute, nerdy looking hipster chick.

BOY, would do that over!

And then, after I left school, I began to realize how stupid all of that was.  Well not right away; what really helped me realize that I was being an elitist mangina was when I lived with Chris in Ypsilanti.  He took being an elitist, hipster, feminist pandering mangina to whole new heights that I did not think were possible.  At an age where I decided that the Bergman and Fellini can rest alongside the John Carptenter and Wes Craven, that I can be a fan of Can and Public Image Ltd. along with Slayer and Metallica, Chris, who is several years older than me, would still make snarky comments about my musical taste and try really hard to appease some of the local feminist hipster bitches.  On top of that, he would try to make me look stupid for having a sex drive!  Once he was talking about going to a “burlesque” show, a form of entertainment that allows manginas to look at naked women with impunity, since there’s an “arty” context behind it; burlesque shows have old time-y clothes, old time-y jokes, old time-y music and the women do an old time-y strip tease, rather than the pole dancing and dick riding that goes on at Deja Vu’s.  I say to Chris, “oh cool, do we get to see Amy naked?” and he responds with, “you’re into that sorta thing, aren’t you?”  Like, aren’t you, dude?  Last time I checked you are a heterosexual?  I know this because I actually played matchmaker in one case.

But, I digress.  The point is that people like that make you realize how dumb it is to look down on people who have different tastes from you.  I actually respect people who can nerd out on sports statistics the way that I can nerd out on bands or movies.  Although I made the point in an another article that, given the law of large numbers, you should judge a book by its cover, you might be surprised by what different people can show or teach you if you have an open mind and quit judging people by their tastes in music, movies, literature, women or their love for “sportsball.”