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.

SavageHippie Podcast Episode 11 B – That’s Just What Ya Did in Rock ‘n’ Roll Back Then

ann_picture_cute_2.0

In episode 11 B of the greatest podcast of all time, Ann gets the hiccups.

Also the big teaser for this brief episode is how David Yow, lead singer for the Jesus Lizard, tried to remove Ann’s clothing onstage at one of their gigs.  In these dark, oppressive times, that type of behavior would be considered sexual assault and the national guard would be called, but in the more care free era of Generation X, that type of behavior was the order of the day… eh, maybe it wasn’t.

In addition to that, Ann answered some more questions about her book NVSQVAM (Nowhere), we also talk a lot about male/female dynamics, how feminism pretty much turned men into a bunch of pussies, how overrated Steve Albini is as a producer and how much Ann hates Slint.

Closing song is “The Diet Has Failed” by the Yesticles.

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.

 

 

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.”

 

Maybe Women Just Aren’t That Into Metal

nita_strauss

Nope, not thinking about how she looks at all!  Totally just admiring the playing of Alice Cooper’s guitarist, Ms. Nita Strauss!

What do comic books, science fiction, roll playing games, anime, video games and heavy metal all have in common?  Think really hard about it.  So, where most intelligent people, I would think accept the fact that men will outnumber women in all of these nerd intensive hobbies by default, there will still be that Social Justice parasite, that interloper that exists for the sole purpose of ruining the fun and joy that these things bring by accusing their practitioners of not being inclusive enough.

I stumbled upon this article titled “Metal’s Problem with Women Is Not Going Away Anytime Soon“, written by a Kristy Loye for the Houston Press.  With her obviously lazy research and her almost entirely complete lack of knowledge or insight, she levies some strong accusations against the metal genre and the people who listen to it.

In the article she concludes that:

Many bands either openly encourage violence against women or fail to support legitimate female fandom, but it certainly doesn’t end there. Female metal bands are rarely booked on national tours and practically ignored by the media — and worse, the ones who make it that far get ridiculed or sexualized.

In other words, as of November 11, 2015, according to the article, metal has their proverbial Jodi Fosters up against the pinball machines.  Now, how much does the article reflect reality?  Before one even gets to the actual article, there is a picture of a band called Halestrom, who feature three faggy looking guys with nice, swooping hair cuts and a hot broad with fantastic legs, wearing those hot patterned tights that do wonders for my libido.  Beneath the picture, the caption reads: “Question: how many metal bands featuring female members — besides Halestorm, shown above — can you name?”

Let’s see.  I can name Girlschool, Rock Goddess, Bitch, Bolt Thrower, White Zombie, Blood Ceremony, Kylesa, Electric Wizard, Acid King, Arch Enemy, Huntress, Demonic Christ, Triptykon, Nashville Pussy, Jucifer, Madam X, Lita Ford and, if we want to plumb the depths of shittyness, we can even dredge up nu-metal bands like Kittie and Otep just to prove this point.  But, what point are we trying to prove?  That metal music doesn’t have enough women participating in its creation?  That this in and of itself is some sort of indication that the metal genre, as a whole, is deliberately trying to keep women out?

She then continues with this “observation”:

Even metal fandom is exclusive. Women who are metal fans come under the constant scrutiny of male metal fans, and have their motives questioned. They’re either assumed to be a poser or a girlfriend, no more than a fan by association. Often they must prove their fandom to suspicious men who require authenticity. Ridiculous.

Is that how it is?  Because, this very weekend, I was at the mighty Detroit metal/hardcore/noise/whatever festival called Berserker fest, which a.) was run by Child Bite singer Shawn Knight and his wife Veronica, b.) had plenty of women at the gig, c.) had no instances that I recall where men accused women of not being “legit” and d.) involved me partying and drinking with two metal loving women, my friend Wendy and the mighty Dawnowar, former fan club operator for Manowar.  And if there’s one band a person can claim to be blatantly sexist, it’s them.  According to Dawnowar, her experience working with Manowar might have involved quite a bit of assholishness on the part of embarrassingly not-self aware bassist/spokesman Joey Demaio, but sexism and sexual harassment were not part of her experience.  And we’re talking about the band who wrote this song:

But, assuming that is the case, where women are scrutinized more heavily to see if they’re truly part of the club or not, that’s par for the course.  Metal – and we’re talking the more extreme side of metal, not mainstream hard rock bands like Def Leppard or Motley Crue – is an outsider form of music.  Outsider music, art and hobbies always attract more men than women.  Studies show this.  In fact, you’re more likely to find women who listen to extreme metal than who like the confusing, often messy sounding jazz-fusion noodlings of Frank Zappa or Captain Beefheart.  Sure, you will find women who are into these things, but, if we’re going by the law of large numbers, it’s not as likely.

Then of course the author brings up the obligatory “objectification” argument:

For many years, metal’s message to women has been one of assignment: you can be a groupie, but not a fan or serious musician. It has failed to support women in any capacity besides as live props — objects, not subjects. It’s also guilty of encouraging a Hooters-like, bikini-model, stripper-girl atmosphere in general.

Maybe that attitude was more prevalent among glam metal musicians, so she’s not even really attacking her intended target, since anyone can attest that none of what she described happens at thrash, death, doom or black metal concerts (I wish it did, though!), but, if they did, there’s two things to say about this. 1.) When women decide to strip onstage or expose their breasts while perched atop their boyfriends’ shoulders in the audience, that is their decision; the band doesn’t make them do this.  In fact, a member of the Scorpions said that it is only in North America where this occurs.  On top of that, the groupie phenomenon is another example of the genetic differences between men and women.  Women who become groupies want to be groupies.  Popularity makes a man more desirable; or as Paul Stanley of Kiss once said, “we can do in one evening what several men spend weeks or months trying to accomplish.”  But, 2.) that “objectification” alone never prevented women from participating in music.  Lemmy, the biggest hornball of them all, still backed all girl band Girlschool simply because he liked them.  While, there aren’t many women in hard rock and heavy metal dating back to the 70s, except for maybe Heart, there has been considerably more involvement since then, and I still put the onus of becoming a musician and being in a band strictly on the women.

She continues with more tripe about female bands not headlining festivals and male fans not cheering for women.  Again, while the former is true; not many women headline metal festivals, it’s not out of some alleged discrimination; there just aren’t that many female musicians in metal and no festival promoter is going to top bill a band just to fill an affirmative action quota.  As for the second case, get over it; men cheer for bands they like regardless of the genitalia of the members.  If the members are attractive, then it’s a bonus.

And then comes the argument of the lyrics, which allegedly promote rape and violence towards women.  She makes some reasonable observations, siting some pretty damn violent lyrics by Cannibal Corpse.  But, does the band harbor an anti-woman agenda?  Are they trying to get their fans to rape and murder women?  Hardly.  I saw Cannibal Corpse once and singer George “Corpsegrinder” Fisher said onstage, “this one’s for all the ladies, it’s called ‘FUCKED… WITH… A… KNIFE!!!'”  Did the male audience members start fucking all of the women with knives?  No.  Did women feel that the male audience members would go and fuck them with knives in the parking lot?  No.  Has “Fucked with a Knife” by Cannibal Corpse led to a rise in husbands fucking all of their wives with knives?  No.  I maintain, that if you’re offended by what you hear, then don’t listen.

But, because the author of the article isn’t even good at cherry picking her “evidence” of a prevailing anti-female lyrical trend – I can find a few more examples of anti-female attitudes from metal bands, like the above Manowar song or just instances of violence towards women, such as in the rape themed, “Sex, Murder, Art” by Slayer – she sites the profanity free, PG-13 lyrics of Alice Cooper?!

The problem is nobody is taking offense to these violent lyrical themes. And if they are, they’re not speaking up about it. Alice Cooper was once quoted as saying, “There’s more blood in Macbeth than in my shows, and that’s required school reading.”

Yet there’s a stark contrast between the macabre theatrics of Cooper’s guillotine and lyrics that detail physically ripping open a woman through forced sexual contact and watching her die as a result. And even if Macbeth was bloody, it was a statement on the will to power and the attraction to corruption…and did Alice Cooper just compare himself to Shakespeare?

This last part about “forced sexual contact” is a lie.  The woman was dead for crying out loud!  And, on top of that, the theatrical piece was set to “Cold Ethyl”, a song about fucking a corpse.  So, if anything, her beef should be that Alice is promoting necrophilia!  But, on top of that, she has to throw in some slick, snarky condescension.  Alice indeed compared his show to Shakespeare, which was the popular entertainment of the Elizabethan era, and also featured some tasteless humor.  Alice has also been praised by Bob Dylan as an underrated songwriter, so you can take your “intellectual” credentials and shove ’em up yer arse!

Ah, but there’s hope after all!

Believe it or not, some bands do self-correct. Some men will stand up for women and understand that women can be equal partners in artistic expression, even in death metal. We love those men.

Speaking to Andy Marsh, guitarist for Thy Art Is Murder, he makes no attempts at backpedaling or defending the lyrical content of his band’s 2008 release, Infinite Death, which contains lyrics like, “I’m inflicting bloodshed upon bitches/ just because I hate the female race…women were born to be fucked.” In fact, he agrees they were abhorrent, and his level of discomfort with the band’s previous sexism was apparent.

Abhorrent?  How about just retarded?  But, feel free to “self-correct.”  Your lyrics will emancipate all of the women from this awful patriarchal society, in which women have their clits cut and are forced to wear burqas.

Even Whitechapel, due at Houston’s Scout Bar next Monday, has followed suit. The band responsible for such lyrics as “I ripped her fucking limb from limb,” from 2006 LP Somatic Defilement (“Vicer Exciser”), has now turned away from misogynistic lyrical content. It wasn’t easy move for a band named after the area of London where Jack the Ripper murdered at least five women, but the band felt it was a necessary move. (Right on.)

Right on!  Don’t ever sing about anything unless someone with a vagina approves of it.  You will be re-educated to think like them and they will arbitrate the correct things to sing about.

Metal is not alone in its ostracism of women — its close cousin, punk rock, was completely revamped 20 years ago. Back in the ’90s, female punk fans and musicians are credited for riding the third wave of feminism and forming their very own subgenre, Riot Grrrl, with bands like Bikini Kill, Bratmobile and L7, a spirit that even surfaced in Russia a generation later with the rise of Pussy Riot. When those women wanted opportunities in the punk scene that didn’t already exist, they simply created them. Yet even that scene wasn’t created in a vacuum.

This paragraph is a complete lie and further exemplifies the ignorance of the author.  Punk rock NEVER ostracized women and, since the mid ’70s, had more women involved than metal on both of sides of the Atlantic; Siouxsie and the Banshees, X-Ray Spex, the Adverts, the Rezillos, the Slits, Vice Squad, Penetration, the Runaways, Blondie, Patti Smith, X, the Germs, the Avengers and the Bags are just a few examples; those don’t even count New York noise rockers like Sonic Youth, Pussy Galore or Boss Hog.  Hell, if she wants to find the roots of all this turbo-slut, sex-positive feminist nonsense, she would do well to look up Lydia Lunch, the adorable looking, yet repulsively acting singer for Teenage Jesus and the Jerks.  The fact that the author makes such an audacious claim, yet doesn’t even know some of the bands I mentioned, makes me wonder if she even listens to music or if she’s just trying to ruin things with her Social Justice agenda.

And, in the final section of the piece, she mentions… ugh, War on Women.

It’s not just women who need to fight misogyny in music. War On Women’s Shawna Potter encourages men to take up the battle as well.

“While women [with people of color and the LGBQT community] must fight for our rights and humanity, men must also fight,” she says. “They must [fight] against the insulting notion that they are animals have no self-control. But first, they must see it as insulting, I suppose.

So that’s the name of the hot singer for War on Women, whose gyrations made me tight in the pants.

 

 

 

Why Are Annoying Feminist Bands Not Allowed to Have Tomatoes Thrown at Them?

WaronWomen1CarlPocket

When I see the singer for the Baltimore based, feminist punk band War on Women (good fucking god), I don’t think about “smashing the patriarchy”, I think about smashing between the sheets.  Aside from those stupid, “tough grrrl” faces she makes, she’s got a good figure and made the smart choice of not doing her hair up in a punky style, letting it go all flowing and wavy. One would think a feminist punk band called War on Women would be some sort of parody, but this proselytizing, subtle as a sledge hammer nonsense is the real deal.  Watch this.

God, look at the leggings on that slut on the left.  And look at that all male rhythm section passionately bashing out a generic 4/4 pattern over which these sexy, young lasses can yell out their female rage.

Now, look, I’m all for the XX’s picking up the geetarz and bashing and smashing away just like the dudes do – I’m a fan of Girlschool, White Zombie, X-Ray Spex, the Slits, the Fall, Sonic Youth (even though their lyrics are retarded), the Adverts and the Rezillos, bands I listen to because of their music and not because of the genitalia of one or all of their members – but, once again, as the underground scene becomes more and more indoctrinated in Cultural Marxist, politically correct nonsense, the more we’re going to see bands like this who are “smashing” an imaginary patriarchy, when, in actuality, they’ve got Beta male orbiters just pining for their attention and white knights ready to protect them from “unwanted advances” at the drop of a hat.  In a scene that’s still dominated by men, being a woman, especially one that look like the ones pictured above, gives you unprecedented levels of control over the dicks of the men involved.

All that would be fine if they were just bloody honest about it!  Instead we get bogus articles such as this one from Bitchfork about the alleged “misogyny” in noise rock, singling out the band Rectal Hygienics, who I actually saw last night at Berserker Fest in Detroit.  I tend not to take an article seriously when it includes a line like this one:

As a person living in a genderfucked body that was assigned female identity at birth and has been mostly read as female by society since, Rectal Hygenics’ lyrics are exhausting and painful in a very visceral way.

Poor baby being born a WOMAN in a Western country where you don’t have to worry about having your clitoris cut, being forced to wear a burqa or becoming the victim of an honor killing.  She makes passing references to “Prayer to God” by Shellac and “No Pussy Blues” by Grinderman and acts as if respective singers Steve Albini and Nick Cave are doing something other than singing about praying to God that someone will kill his lying, cheating whore wife and her lover and the blues because he ain’t gettin’ no pussy. She then goes on to quote the “offending” lyrics of Rectal Hygienics:

“Spoiled fuck machine/ Think you’re on easy street/ You’re a slave to man and what he puts inside of you/ Stinking pack mule/ You smell like shit,”

Now these lyrics aren’t in the best of taste and I don’t know if they’re supposed to be for shock value or have a message or, in fact, even be understood at all because, when I saw them last night, I didn’t even hear lyrics; in fact, the singer wasn’t even facing the audience.  All I heard for 30 minutes was “vrrrrroooossshhh” and “pound, pound, pound.”  She does get one thing right though; they do seem like a blatant rip-off of tasteless Swedish noise rock gods, Brainbombs, who stole all of their lyrics from sick and tasteless “transgressive” shock writer Peter Sotos.  But that’s all besides the point.  Why shouldn’t “misogynistic” lyrics be allowed?  If she really stands by the mantra of “freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism”, then why is she trying to be the arbiter of what messages are “acceptable” in any genre of music?  Besides, what could she possibly have to complain about when she’s got a mangina band like Pissed Jeans emasculating themselves in the song “Male Gaze“?

it’s when a smile becomes a stare and it starts to burn
it’s when you ask him to knock it off and he doesn’t learn
the sad routine doesn’t change if he’s broke or a millionaire
there’s no getting through, that’s how it is
he’s never had to care
it’s when you’re judged before you even get to speak a word
it’s when you make the smartest point and it goes unheard
i’m not innocent – i’m guilty
i’m not innocent – but i’m sorry
it’s just the male gaze – it’s in me i know it
i feel it all around me – i wish i could destroy it
yeah it’s the male gaze – i’ve had it forever

Whoopdy-fuckin’-do!  Men look at women when they’re attractive!  Thanks for putting down your hammer on 100,000 years of evolutionary biology, ding bat!  On the other hand, Pissed Jeans is a solid AmRep revival band and I enjoyed seeing ’em live.  There was this super cute red head with glasses at the show in Detroit, but I was too much of a chicken to talk to her even though we shared a moment, making eye-contact, air guitaring and drumming in sync.  Chances are she probably would have accused me of trying to rape her if I talked to her, though.

But, at the end of the day, there is no “war on women.”  If you’re young and attractive and live in a Western country, the world is your oyster; if you don’t make stupid decisions, there is literally nothing easier than being a woman in Western society.  As Iggy Pop pointed out in “You’re Pretty Face Is Going to Hell”, you won’t be young and attractive forever, so, instead of complaining about how it’s a burden on your existence, why don’t you celebrate your privilege and sing about cool stuff like death and Satan?

She asks, “Are we supposed to sit back an [sic] appreciate this as ‘art’ for ‘art’s sake’?”  You’re not supposed to do anything.  In the words of Alice Cooper, “you are the only censor. If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can turn me off.”

And, for the guys, grow a pair and throw on Blood, Guts & Pussy by the Dwarves!