Friday, May 22, 2015

She's 37?

It's not so much the age, it's the hair:
She may be an Oscar nominated actress, but apparently there's no way she could convincingly play a 55-year-old's girlfriend. That's what 37-year-old Maggie Gyllenhaal was recently told by a casting director. The Crazy Heart star revealed in an interview with The Wrap Magazine that she was denied a role opposite a man almost 20 years her senior because she was 'too old'.

'There are things that are really disappointing about being an actress in Hollywood that surprise me all the time,' she said 'I'm 37 and I was told recently I was too old to play the lover of a man who was 55. It was astonishing to me. It made me feel bad, and then it made me feel angry, and then it made me laugh.'

To put it in context, According to this unnamed casting director, Maggie would not be a believable love interest of Val Kilmer, Kevin Spacey, Hugh Laurie, James Spader, Judd Nelson, Rupert Everett, Hugo Weaving or Jason Alexander - all of whom are 55 years old.
In fairness, Maggie Gylenhaal looks like she's going on 50 herself. I tend to suspect that this is less about sexism in Hollywood and more about how cutting her hair off makes a woman look like a frumpy, middle-aged housefrau.

Let's face it, if you look at the actors listed, the only one whose girlfriend she could convincingly portray is Jason Alexander's, given that this is James Spader's actual girlfriend.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Who is your favorite Thronette?

I'm just curious who the men here find most attractive of the various female A Game of Thrones characters. I'm wondering if there might be any connection to socio-sexual rank.

Cersei Lannister
Daenerys Targaryen
Catelyn Stark
Sansa Stark
Margaery Tyrell
Lady Melisandre
Talisa Stark
Ygritte the Wilding
Brienne of Tarth
Ros the Prostitute
Shae the Prostitute

Or any of the various other characters. As for me, Myranda is easily my favorite.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

A "rape" too far

It's always fascinating to discover where feminists draw their weird little lines. As one might expect, it's always at a point that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Redheaded Addiction wryly observes the recent outrage over the "rape" of Sansa Stark is a little strange considering Lord Bolton's previous actions:
    Ramsay: *violates Theon's trust*
    Ramsay: *violates Theon's body*
    Ramsay: *violates Theon's sense of self*
    Ramsay: *violates Theon emotionally with sexual overtones*
    Audience: *yawns*

    Ramsay: *violates Sansa sexually*
Furthermore, where is the violation in the first place? Sansa consented to the marriage and it was duly consummated. She didn't say no at any point; she didn't even resist. True, Ramsay's insistence on having a witness was a little unusual, although hardly unheard of in medieval times.

"Testimony of witnesses at Catherine's later trial for divorce from Henry VIII described the Couple as escorted to their bedchamber, undressed, put to bed together and the curtains around the bed drawn, while the witnesses (male and female) waited the night in the room." 

Let's face it, making Theon watch while he concluded the marital process isn't even in the top ten most sadistic things Ramsay Bolton has done on the show. And where was the outrage when Khal Drogo was sealing the deal on his marriage? Ah, but then, Khal Drogo is more attractive than Ramsay Bolton.

Monday, May 18, 2015

The temptation of MGTOW

Somehow, a discussion of SJW paranoia turned into a debate concerning MGTOW. I don't support the concept, although I do understand the temptation it holds for men in an environment of readily available sex, high-quality pornography, and viciously anti-male legal regimes.

There was one useful attempt to define a distinction between the two primary types of MGTOW from a critic of the movement:
Maybe we can say there's the strong MGTOW position and the weak MGTOW position. The strong position are those people, as Cail said, "accusing every man less stridently anti-marriage than himself to be a fool or a feminist." They're like some coward running through camp before a battle screaming "we're all gonna die! The enemy is invincible!"

Just shoot them as a traitor before they cause any more damage.

Then there's the weak position, the guys who have just given up on marriage or civilization. If they've given up after making a fair try at it, if they've been knocked down and gotten back up, but they just finally got knocked down one too many times and they're just going to quietly sit the rest out, I've got no problem with them.
If they haven't even tried though...
And then there was this clarification from a man who does not even qualify for the weak MGTOW camp.
Now, I'm single, childless, and no immediate prospects for marriage. Guess how much shit I get for it? None. (Except rarely from Vox.) Because I'm not flying my loser flag. THAT is what causes all the contempt in fathers with intact families who have invested their lives in raising the next generation as pro-civilization. Taking actual pride in doing nothing.

Let's put it like this: As a soldier, do you run into a battle you know you will lose, just because it is a battle? No. That would be the single mom / alpha widow option.

But, do you then lie in your bunk in the base, bragging about how you're not in any danger? No, you don't do that either. That will not go over well with the men who are actually in battles.

Rather, you wait for the battle you can win, and do preparations for it as best you can. If it never happens, fine. But you DO NOT BRAG about doing nothing.
MGTOW is an understandable temptation that needs to be manfully resisted. Because it is, ultimately, as barren, dyscivic, and parasitical as feminism itself. Yes, we are in a civilizational war. Yes, you might be one of the casualties. But that is not sufficient justification for hiding in the barracks refusing to take risks.

You don't win by fighting stupid. But you don't win by not fighting either.

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Alpha Mail: answering the re-ask

BT repeats a question:
While I appreciate the post itself, I find myself ticked off at the comments section and how quickly it spiraled downhill, with the exception of Cail, Cataline, and Corvinus who at least addressed the kino/physical part I was curious about.

Since Doom basically hijacked it and made it about himself, I figured I might as well re-ask the question that got ignored:

I do remember reading something a long while ago about alternating Alpha/Beta (Beta in the sense of how the rest of the manosphere uses it) depending on how the LTR is. If DHV is needed, then Alpha, but if reassurance is needed and it's not a shit test, then Beta. So if I'm remembering that right, should Mate-guarding hand ever come out and used as a tool of reassurance?

At least with you, you can give a personal example of "I've never needed to do that at all" or "I've used it sometimes".
I think the "Mate-Guarding Hand" should never be brought out in a defensive capacity when the threat posed is one presented by another male. I think I can say honestly that I've never used it beyond some immature public "see, I have a girlfriend and she's real" posturing with my first two girlfriends.

That tends to point towards part of the problem with the Mate-Guarding Hand; if it makes you look like a junior high boy who is primarily concerned with demonstrating that he is too good enough to get a girl, it's not a good move for a grown man. If you feel the need to send a message, a simple swat on the ass will convey ownership in a much more dominant way.

But you should feel any such need. Public attention from another man when you are there is a straightforward loyalty test. You should welcome the information it provides, because she isn't likely to behave any better when you're not around. If she shows insufficient loyalty, next her without hesitation or explanation. Don't try to "guard her" against her own inclinations, because that's her responsibility, not yours, just as your behavior is your own responsibility.

The only time I can remember someone trying to move in on SB in front of me was when the bassist from a popular local band literally tried to position himself in between the two of us in order to block me out of the conversation. I didn't mate-guard her, I simply tapped him on the shoulder and made a "step aside" gesture with my hand. He looked at me, at which point SB introduced me as her fiance and he promptly backed away.

Give your girl the chance to prove her loyalty, don't take it away from her. This doesn't mean you can't ever put your arm around her in public, or physically reassure her if she's feeling threatened by female interest in you, but then, such actions are not mate-guarding by definition. The question isn't really her reassurance is needed, then obviously it isn't mate-guarding. The problem is when you are trying to reassure yourself through your own actions.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Alpha Mail: The Hand of Gamma

BT asks if he's overdoing the hovering:
I hadn't realized The Mate-Guarding Hand was a thing, or even that it was a tell of... insecurity I guess? I'm a kinesthetic learner, and generally a touchy-feely kind of guy.  I also have a bit of possessiveness, I think.  I'm inclined to think that those aren't necessarily Gamma/lower Delta things, but I'm unsure.

Am I missing something essential in regards to the whole 'Mate-Guarding Hand' thing, or is that a part of my personality I need to work on?
Because Man is a rationalizing animal, we need to be careful about what actions we justify and how we justify them. "I think my bad habits aren't necessarily bad habits because they are mine" is not an effective approach to life.

Being possessive and touch-feely are intrinsically Gamma attributes. The fact that they come naturally to BT is as irrelevant as the fact that cowardice or lack of height comes naturally to other men. It just means that BT has to work harder to overcome those particular instincts than other men.

Mate-guarding is fearful and insecure behavior. Being touchy-feely is feminine behavior. Being possessive is antithetical to the Alpha's abundance mentality. The Alpha doesn't guard his mate(s), he dares them to leave because he knows, and they know, that he can replace them with someone as good or better in short order.

Far from standing there with his hand possessively guarding her, the Alpha is on the other side of the room, talking to a younger, hotter girl; in a properly ordered relationship, the woman mate-guards the man.

Friday, May 15, 2015

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

First feminists create the problem, then they attack the solution:
It's no secret that Congress is dominated by men, but as women work to make inroads in the congressional boys club, some female staffers face a huge impediment to moving up: They're not allowed to spend one-on-one time with their male bosses.

In an anonymous survey of female staffers conducted by National Journal in order to gather information on the difficulties they face in a male-dominated industry, several female aides reported that they have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.

Follow-up interviews with other Hill aides make clear that these policies, while not prevalent, exist in multiple offices—and they may well run afoul of employment discrimination laws, experts say. Because of the sensitivity of the issue, and the fear of retribution, many of these women and some of their male counterparts spoke with National Journal on the condition of anonymity and declined to publicly name their bosses.

"Even though my boss is like a second dad to me, our office was always worried about any negative assumptions that might be made. This has made and makes my job significantly harder to do," one female staffer told National Journal.

Another reported that in twelve years working for her previous boss, he "never took a closed door meeting with me. … This made sensitive and strategic discussions extremely difficult."
What madman who is familiar with a legal system that imprisons men on nothing more than the sole word of a woman is about to let himself be put completely at the mercy of any woman, let alone the ambitious, self-promoting sharks that fill Congressional offices?

It's abundantly clear that one of the major objectives of feminists is to ensure that no man has the ability to defend himself against women under any circumstances.