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.

Why should ANY Corporation Hire Women?

In light of this recent case:

Knicks, Thomas lose harassment lawsuit

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?

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 thing...it'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.