Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Prostitots on Parade...It's Halloween!

There's been an abundance of articles in the past week or so detailing the popularity of pre-teen girl "sexy" Halloween costumes. They often question if this is a good or bad thing...

...if you have to ask, you're a moron to begin with.

What this really is, is the modern equivalent to the training bra for young girls who are going to come of age in the modern Matriarchy. After all, they are only trying to emulate their role models...

The only difference is, the type of 12 or 13 year old girl that would wear these slutty costumes are also the type who more than likely are being raised by a single mother, and his headed for early teen single motherhood herself, and end up looking like this:

...rather than this:

Happy Halloween!

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

What a Vacation!

I'm back...and I had a great time drinking my way through the UK!

I had a great two weeks, driving through the Scottish Highlands, visiting the Dalwhinnie and Talisker distilleries, visiting castles and ending the trip with a day at the Guiness Storehouse/Brewery in Dublin.

Great experiences all around...but I must say, I had an eye for evidence of just how bad the matriarchal nanny state has gotten in Britain, and I do believe MRA folks like Fred X, Eternal Bachelor and Captain Zarmband, an Irishmen Against Feminsm et al are not exaggerating.

Just watching UK TV was eye opening to how femi-centric the mass media is. And PSA ads plastered all over Buses and public transportation stations about men who abuse women and children were everywhere. Dublin was especially bad...they apparently have a campaign right now about men who drink too much, and every one of them depict a pretty, but stern looking women with a serious look on her face with the caption "I've had enough!"

The television shows were something else as well. I watched a show at Inverness called "Love in Britain" and it was an unbelievable followed the love lives of several women throughout their lives in the UK and Australia. Just about all of these women behaved like hussies and tramps in their youths, had illegitimate children from multiple men, and were portrayed as sympathetic victims of male predators and no-good womanizers.

UK television really is feminized more blatantly than American TV. I almost couldn't believe it, but it's true.

Anyhow, I still had a great time and am glad to be back! Time to check out the MRA blogosphere to see if I missed much while I was away!

Friday, October 12, 2007

Going on Vacation

I'm heading to the UK for two weeks of vacation tomorrow, so I will not be blogging at all until I get back. I plan on visiting a few Scotch distilleries and the Guiness Brewery...I may need some rehab when I get back!

To all four or you that read this blog regularly, thanks for your readership! :) I'll be back on October 30th!


Feminist Stupidity Kills

Here's an example of feminists jumping upon an unproven theory and promoting another "Informational Cascade" that ended up needlessly costing the lives of women...

Here's an article about the book "Overtreated:"

...concerning the aggressive treatment for breast cancer, Brownlee concludes (p. 141):

...insurers unwittingly made the treatment a feminist cause by refusing to pay for it. Breast cancer advocacy groups...threw their weight behind the embattled women...When transplanters like Peters testified in court that the procedure was established practice, when in fact it was not, they stoked the perception among patients that high-dose chemo offered a shot at cure.

Hope Rugo stopped performing transplants on breast cancer patients in 1999...she said, "We believed in it passionately. Now I think about all the women who died during transplant, who would have lived much longer without it."

Doctors and hospitals did not wait for clinical trial results before embracing what turned out to be an ineffective, painful, and debilitating procedure.

It's so easy to manipulate these foolish activist feminists into believing unproven theories as facts, and getting them to lobby for "solutions" that make problems worse than they were before they got involved.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

The Informational Cascade

About 3 months ago, I embarked on a lifestyle change in an effort to lose some stubborn weight that I just couldn't seem to shake from by beer belly and love handles. I began researching the available literature of body builders and nutritionists and found out that my problem was two-fold: I thought I was eating healthy, and I thought I was exercising properly to burn fat.

I quickly learned that all of my pre-conceived notions about nutrition and exercise were all wrong.

I learned that the "conventional wisdom" of weight loss being a simple equation of burn more calories than you consume was also wrong.

What is more important is not how much you eat...but WHAT you eat is most important of all. In short, I discovered that my weight problems had everything to do with consuming refined sugars, simple carbohydrates and not enough protein and good fat in my diet. I had fallen for the conventional wisdom that in order to lose fat, I had to avoid eating fat. I bought only the leanest cuts of meat. I used lean Turkey meat in place of hamburger. I bought only non-fat or low-fat dairy products, and a whole host of other fat-free/reduced fat food products. Yet I could NEVER lose even one pound despite eating like this for years.

As soon as I discovered personal trainer and nutritionist Mike Furci and his advice on foods to eat, and foods to avoid. Found in those articles were references to the Weston A. Price Foundation. From all this readings, I quickly learned just how wrong the conventional wisdom on "healthy eating" was, and I changed my diet accordingly. I now eat as much proteins and healthy fats as I want, plenty of fibrous vegetables and some fruits, and have cut out just about all refined sugars and simple carbs (bread, pasta & white rice).

I have now lost 22 lbs. and counting, and for the first time in 4 years, I feel like I'm in top shape again.

In summary, I learned that whenever you assume you know something because "everybody knows it" (aka "conventional wisdom"), you should never take such beliefs and assumptions at face value because you could be misinformed due to "The Informational Cascade."

Yesterday's New York Times had an article talking about exactly what I've already learned myself - that eating good fat is good for you, and how the conventional wisdom is proving to be wrong. The article is a good one, because it describes the process in which an "Informational Cascade" is generated, and how it leads to all sort of erroneous ideas in society, and how those ideas end up becoming legislation that cause more harm than good.

From Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus

Dr. Koop was expressing the consensus. He, like the architects of the federal “food pyramid” telling Americans what to eat, went wrong by listening to everyone else. He was caught in what social scientists call a cascade.

We like to think that people improve their judgment by putting their minds together, and sometimes they do. The studio audience at “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” usually votes for the right answer. But suppose, instead of the audience members voting silently in unison, they voted out loud one after another. And suppose the first person gets it wrong.

If the second person isn’t sure of the answer, he’s liable to go along with the first person’s guess. By then, even if the third person suspects another answer is right, she’s more liable to go along just because she assumes the first two together know more than she does. Thus begins an “informational cascade” as one person after another assumes that the rest can’t all be wrong.

Because of this effect, groups are surprisingly prone to reach mistaken conclusions even when most of the people started out knowing better, according to the economists Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer and Ivo Welch. If, say, 60 percent of a group’s members have been given information pointing them to the right answer (while the rest have information pointing to the wrong answer), there is still about a one-in-three chance that the group will cascade to a mistaken consensus.

Cascades are especially common in medicine as doctors take their cues from others, leading them to overdiagnose some faddish ailments (called bandwagon diseases) and overprescribe certain treatments (like the tonsillectomies once popular for children). Unable to keep up with the volume of research, doctors look for guidance from an expert — or at least someone who sounds confident.

In the case of fatty foods, that confident voice belonged to Ancel Keys, a prominent diet researcher a half-century ago (the K-rations in World War II were said to be named after him). He became convinced in the 1950s that Americans were suffering from a new epidemic of heart disease because they were eating more fat than their ancestors.

The article goes on to detail just how wrong Ancel Keys was, and how his research was shoddy, biased and flawed. Yet this one man with an agenda was able to influence the entire cultural paradigm in terms of what the average Western person believes about saturated fats in the diet.
He started an informational cascade and it's effects are far reaching.

When one takes a step back and looks at Western Society today, and look at the basis for much of what passes as "conventional wisdom" of the day, I'm quite sure we can find a lot of instances of "informational cascade" causing generations of people to take action on ideas they think are right, but are in fact either unproven, highly questionable or outright false.

And this is exactly why I'm posting about this topic on this MRA/Anti-Feminist blog...because afterall, we in the MRA Blogosphere are basically focused on debunking the meme's and falsehoods the feminist movements have worked to turn into conventional wisdom. We are in effect waging an uphill battle against the Informational Cascades of Feminist lies and propaganda.

And when we look at this, it is quite the cascade indeed!

  • Males commit all domestic violence.
  • Women are oppressed by Patriarchy everyday.
  • Father's are not necessary to raise children.
  • No-Fault divorce is good for society.
  • Most Divorced Fathers Are Deadbeat Dads.
  • Women make $ .72 to the Men's $1.00 because of discrimination.
  • There are not enough Female CEO's because of the "Glass Ceiling."
  • Domestic Violence incidents spike after the Superbowl and other Sporting Events.
  • It's in the best interest of children if the Women gets custody in a divorce.

Can you think of any others?

Thursday, October 4, 2007

The Ladder Theory

Sally: We are just going to be friends, OK?
Harry: Great, friends. It's the best thing...You realize, of course, that we can never be friends.
Sally: Why not?
Harry: What I'm saying is - and this is not a come-on in any way, shape, or form - is that men and women can't be friends, because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally: That's not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry: No, you don't.
Sally: Yes, I do.
Harry: No, you don't.
Sally: Yes, I do.
Harry: You only think you do.
Sally: You're saying I'm having sex with these men without my knowledge?
Harry: No, what I'm saying is they all want to have sex with you.
Sally: They do not.
Harry: Do too.
Sally: They do not.
Harry: Do too.
Sally: How do you know?
Harry: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
Sally: So you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive.
Harry: No, you pretty much want to nail them, too.
Sally: What if they don't want to have sex with you?
Harry: Doesn't matter, because the sex thing is already out there, so the friendship is ultimately doomed, and that is the end of the story.

Taken from the first page of the Ladder Theory website, this classic scene from the romantic comedy movie, When Harry Met Sally, illustrates one of the biggest differences between males and females and the way in which we view each other through the prism of the ages old mating ritual.

The ladder theory offers a pretty accurate metaphor and one everyone man and woman who is interested in truly learning how the opposite sex actually thinks. First, the author starts with the initial rating system for which Men and Women view potential future partners:

Now, once a man and a woman rates a person they first meet, they place them upon their mental ladder...however, the ladder metaphor is different for men and women:

So it should be self-evident, if you are following this at all, that the people you want to have sex with the most will be at the top of the ladder. Descending down to the bottom of the ladder we pass the following people:

1. The people we really want, who may even be out of our league, are on top.
2. Then come the people we like.
3. Moving further down we pass the people who we would fuck if we were intoxicated and would admit to doing it later.
4. At the bottom are the people we would fuck drunk, and would lie about doing it later.

Clinging to the bottom are the girls that are wolf ugly. These are women so ugly you would chew your own arm off to get away rather than fuck them. Usually fake teeth, or the loss of several hundred pounds can move a woman up from wolf ugly.

Now let's take a look at what the typical woman's ladder looks like:

The first thing to notice here is that a woman has not one ,but two ladders. This is becasue in addition the normal ladder, a woman also has a friends ladder. The friends ladder is where a woman puts guys that she considers "just friends". More to the point where she puts guys who don't get to have sex with her.

The problem arises because a woman never lets a guy know which ladder he is on. Obviously there is a huge difference, or gap between these two ladders. It is in this gap that kisses of death are delivered and intellectual whores are made. All a man can do is "go for it" and make a move on a girl; ask her out, try to kiss her, write her a love note or whatever. If he's on the good ladder fine. If he is on the friends ladder this is a case of ladder jumping. The man is trying to jump the gap from the friends ladder to the real ladder. The girl has two choices at this point: she can let him on the ladder and all is well, or, more likely, she can kick him in the head, and off the ladder. If you look you'll see that below the ladder is the Abyss(what was it Nietzsche said about a man being on a rope stretched over an Abyss?....well it's worse than he thought; there is no rope.) So the man falls into the Abyss. The Abyss isn't really as bad as it sounds. Mostly it's a period of self-loathing, embarrassment, and of course utter awkwardness with the girl in question if they are talking at all.

Excellent insight and in my opinion, an accurate metaphor.

It's a rather long website, but you really should read the whole thing.

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Why should ANY Corporation Hire Women?

In light of this recent case:

Jury believes claims, orders organization to pay $11.6 million
Associated Press

NEW YORK -- In an end to a salacious three-week trial, a jury ordered the owners of the New York Knicks to pay $11.6 million to a former team executive who endured crude insults and unwanted advances from coach Isiah Thomas.

The jury of four women and three men found Thomas and Madison Square Garden sexually harassed Anucha Browne Sanders, but it decided only MSG and chairman James Dolan should pay for harassing and firing Browne Sanders from her $260,000-a-year job out of spite.

The result: The Garden owes $6 million for condoning a hostile work environment and $2.6 million for retaliation. Dolan owes $3 million. Though Thomas is off the hook for any damages, he leaves the case with a tarnished image.

Outside court, a beaming Browne Sanders insisted her victory was more about sending a message than the money.

"What I did here, I did for every working woman in America," she said. "And that includes everyone who gets up and goes to work in the morning, everyone working in a corporate environment."

This is absolute horseshit. She didn't do this for every women in america...she did it for her own bank account and the account of her ambulance-chasing shysters.

The worst of it is, even if Isaiah Thomas did in fact "harass" her, how in holy hell is that worth millions of dollars? So a woman's "feelings" are worth multi-millions now? And why does MSG have to pay for the actions of Thomas?

So if a McDonald's Manager tells his cashier that she has nice tits, she can now turn around and sue McDonald's Corporation for millions of dollars?

Why should ANY corporation hire ANY woman in America, when they can be sued into bankruptcy simply because an employee might possibly "harass" a co-worker by hitting on her or making a rude comment to her?

Monday, October 1, 2007

The Banning of Boyhood

Today, a co-worker was playing the Michael Savage Show on the radio in my office. I normally do not listen to his show (I'm usually listening to Hawaiian Music on my PC while I work), but today I listened as he had on a guest, a columnist from the American Thinker, Selwyn Duke. Duke was reading his latest column, Banning Boyhood.

After listening to this for a bit, I decided to check out the American Thinker website and Selwyn Dukes archives...and though he writes on a wide variety of socio/economic/political topics, he has a few articles that address the folly of feminism and it's deleterious effects on society.

His latest column begins:

Huck Finn must be spinning in his literary grave. Just recently a Colorado Springs, Co., elementary school banned tag during recess, joining other schools that have prohibited this childhood pastime. Upon hearing this, I thought about the movement to ban cops and robbers, musical chairs, steal the bacon, and the kill-joys' most frequent target and this writer's favorite childhood school game, dodge ball. Then there's the more inane still, such as the decision by the Massachusetts Youth Soccer Association to prohibit keeping score in kids' tournament play.

There are many ways to describe this trend. One might say it's a result of the left's antipathy toward competition, the increasing litigiousness of the day, or the inordinate concern with self-esteem and hurt feelings. Then, if I am to speak only of my feelings, the word stupid comes to mind. Really, though, regardless of whether the motivations are good or ill or the reasoning sound or not, at the end of the day I find a conclusion inescapable. Slowly, incrementally, perversely, boyhood is being banned.

Make no mistake, the aforementioned examples are not isolated social accidents but part of a pattern.
Certainly...the pattern of feminists who are either communist collaborationists or useful idiots acting as foot soldiers in the War on Patriarchy.

One of the most effective strategies the collaborationists and useful idiots have employed is the infiltration and subsequent take over of academia. By churning out class after class of students indoctrinated in feminist propaganda and lies, generations of teachers have taken over public education in every corner of the nation, and with it, their instilled and reinforced misandry from years of "higher" education steeped in feminist ideology.

We now see the results for ourselves.

We should also realize that education has increasingly become a feminine domain. While in 1982 there were 1.4 female teachers for every male, now the figure is 2.1. This is not to imply that the fairer sex can't have a sound teaching philosophy, but the fact is that far too many young women today are in the grip of feminist dogma. Moreover, the type of women who become teachers is also an issue; for instance, let us consider graduates with degrees in Women's Studies. Such people are mostly women, and since there aren't many careers available to those with such illustrious qualifications, many of these ideologues decide to teach.

And the problem with such individuals is that -- just as an Afrocentrist views matters through the prism of race and a Jihadist through that of believers versus infidels -- they tend to see everything as a battle of the sexes. In their minds, the ever-present "patriarchy" will only be vanquished and women liberated (of course, they will never see this as having been achieved) once boys are sufficiently reprogrammed.

Put into context, I'm finding the phrase "Feminazi" more and more relevant and accurate in describing the zealous fanaticism of the misandrist matriarchs that are constantly working to subvert our society.

The liberals in question see masculine symbols and behavior and feel an aversion, in much the same way a person with a fear of heights may get a queasy feeling upon seeing airplanes or tall buildings. So, unwilling to confront their prejudices, they manufacture excuses. Dodge ball is dangerous, cops and robbers is violent, musical chairs is exclusive, tag terrorizes. If only they would be intellectually honest and reveal their true feelings: Boys are bad.

Perhaps this is why these social engineers will see a bevy of boisterous boys and want to douse their masculinity with Ritalin.

Read the whole's great to find another good source of MRA-related reading like this article written by Selwyn Duke. Also be sure and check out his articles like Extolling the Female Toungue, Abortion, Authority and Responsibility, The Dehumanizing of Men, and a part of his essay, The Tragedy of Natalee Holloway, all touch upon many of the same issues we find in the MRA Blogosphere.

Then there's the feminism factor. Because of politically—correct feminist imperatives, girls now know more about sex but less about the opposite sex. There was a time when girls were told that boys were vastly different from them, possessing stronger libidos and bodies. Girls were taught to avoid placing themselves in compromising situations; they were armed with the facts upon which good judgement rested and safety depended.

Now, though, such counsel is sacrilege. Girls' minds are filled with notions of the sameness of the sexes, with its corollary that they can go where their sisters of yore feared to tread. Why, God forbid that we should tell them that, like it or not, they are the more vulnerable sex, and that this fact of life should inform their thinking.

Not that I'm laboring under the illusion that modern girls are all sugar and spice and everything nice. Owing to feminism, which liberated the fairer sex from common—sense, morality, restraint, and chastity, quasi—harlotry now infects much of contemporary womanhood. A lady close to my heart said it best: 'Forty years ago you knew who the bad girls were; now you know who the good girls are.' And now we have a whole generation of girls—gone—wild.