Monday, September 1, 2014

A collapsing civilization

Sarah Hoyt laments the decline of civilization in her old Portuguese village:
It just seems that every woman my age has been divorced three times, or is shacked up with some guy half her age who is eating out her savings. Every younger woman is having kids out of wedlock starting well before seventeen. And I keep thinking: Oh, h*ll. When did everyone who grew up with me become… low class?”

Look, the village was poor as Job, and financially we were probably the wretched of the Earth. Things I remember from my childhood could fit in a documentary on “growing up in the third world.” Stuff like getting clothes stolen from the line, because there were people who genuinely couldn’t afford clothes for their kids; stuff like eating day old peasant bed fried in lard for a meal, to stretch out the grocery money of the household; things like getting the toes of my shoes cut off when I outgrew them, so I had ersatz sandals for spring. Other things, like playing with empty containers, or thinking the days the crops were irrigated (not with water!) ideal for cork boat races (disposable, thank heavens, but…)

We weren’t rich, and my family was relatively well off.

But dear Lord, we were middle class, no matter what our actually available money was....

Again, I ask you – can the roof stay up when the walls fall? Will we turn in the “middle class” standards so many found so oppressive for medieval standards that bring poverty and misery? For places where women and children are only safe while a man is willing to defend them; where the bad men aren’t looked down on by other men?

Is this what we want?

And how is it possible we came so far so fast? How did we tumble to this?
Her answer, I suggest, can be found here: "And I’m not going to lie and say that all things that went on and the established mode was the best one. It very well wasn’t. For one, it was a genuinely patriarchal society in the sense that women had almost no power."

There is her answer right there. Civilization depends entirely upon the restriction of female sexuality and the limitation of female power. It’s not the only factor, but it is a necessary one. The restrictions can be cruel and enforced primarily by men, as in the case of Islamic semi-civilization, or they can be soft and enforced primarily by women, as in the case of traditional Western civilization. Or something in between, such as she describes. But the restrictions must exist, be they self-imposed or externally imposed.

There is no equality. There never will be as long as young men are willing to build, steal, or kill for sex. Unless sex is primarily made available to young men by forcing them to jump through various hoops that help build and maintain civilization, it’s back to barbarism and grass huts for everyone. And that decivilizing process is exactly what she is describing.

The decline of civilization is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution combined with the Divorce Revolution. There were no winners and civilization lost.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

In praise of snake-hipped women

It's no secret that I have always tended to prefer slender women. Not for me the over-lush curves of the Earth Matrons and their over-stuffed brassieres with fatty flesh spilling out from them on every side. Now, if the well-fed curvy girl turns your crank, that's absolutely fine by me, but she tends to leave me, if not entirely cold, generally indifferent. But there is an additional reason to prefer the slender breed: she is not only more attractive, more fit, and more likely to retain her shape over time, she is also less likely to be a slut.
Shakira was seriously on point — hips really don’t lie. Even when it comes to a woman’s sexual history. That’s according to scientists at the University of Leeds, who report that a woman’s figure could play a crucial role in her decision to have sex. Specifically, women with wider hips are more likely to hit it and quit it, and to have more sexual partners in general. Less-hippy women, on the other hand, tend to take a more prudent approach to sex....

Women with hips wider than 14.2 inches (36 centimeters) had more sexual partners and one-night stands than those with hips narrower than 12.2 inches (31 centimeters). And women who tooted and booted it in 75 percent of their sexual relationships had hips nearly an inch (2 centimeters) wider than those who had fewer one-and-done encounters. Their less-curvy counterparts “really only had sex with people in the context of relationships, demonstrating a more cautious sexual strategy,” Hendrie said.
So it's essentially a win-win scenario for everyone but the breast men. This may also explain why slutwalks tend to be populated by hulking, wide-hipped creatures who look as if they would be best utilized by being rendered down for tallow.

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Unrestricted female sexuality

Modern women absolutely hate the fact that the restriction of female sexuality is a core foundational element of civilization. But the fact is that if their sexuality is not restricted by fathers and husbands, by men who love them, then it will be repeatedly abused by men who don't and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. Nor will the State upon which they are relying in lieu of their families. As the young women of Rotherham will bear witness:
Vicky, now 27 and training to be a paramedic, is one of the countless youngsters groomed by the predatory gangs of Pakistani men allowed to roam the South Yorkshire town with near impunity for so long.  She recalls being picked up at night in taxis in the town centre at the bottom of Ship Hill, where drunken crowds gather around takeaways and under-age white girls are seen as easy pickings.

“We would come for a night out and they would be sat around waiting in their cars,” says Vicky. “My friends had met them before me and said they had got beer and stuff like that. We would be taken to these big houses in Rotherham and Sheffield and they were always trying to give us drink and drugs. I was spiked a few times, they gave me ecstasy and cocaine. I knew what they wanted from me. I still remember being called a dirty gori [Pakistani slang for a white woman] which is what they always used to say to us.

“Once I was spiked with something and ended up in a right state. I was 15 and had tried to walk home but couldn’t get in the door. My dad threw cold coffee over me to try and wake me up.

“After that I ran away for two weeks. One of my friends went with a man to the pub and ended up being taken away for a few days and raped. She reported it to the police but nothing ever got done about it.” 
Notice that she ran away from the protection of the only man who didn't want anything from her. As civilization and Western culture wanes, all the protections that the modern woman relies upon in her unrestricted sexual freedom vanish.

If women genuinely prefer to be dirty goris rather than restricted wives, daughters and mothers, there are millions of waiting barbarians who are more than eager to drug and rape them. Of course, the fact that they have to be drugged and raped tends to indicate that it's not a choice they would knowingly make if they truly understood the consequences of choosing the protection of the indifferent state in preference to the protection of a man who loves them.

The State will not protect you. That is the message that has to be driven home to young women. The State does not care and it will not protect you.

Friday, August 29, 2014

Affirmative consent

The California legislature passes a sexual consent law based on Antioch College's much-mocked campus standard that was so ludicrous, it inspired an SNL-skit.
State lawmakers on Thursday passed a bill that would make California the first state to define when “yes means yes” while investigating sexual assaults on college campuses. The Senate unanimously passed SB967 as states and universities across the U.S. are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has not indicated his stance on the bill.
The actual law is described more clearly here.
You may have heard of this bill as the one that would require students to draft up a written sex contract before bed or constantly proclaim “yes, yes, yes!” at every slight readjustment, thereby practically redefining most sex as rape. The Fresno Bee editorial board interpreted the bill to mean that “ ‘yes’ only means ‘yes’ if it is said aloud.” The Daily Californian, the independent student newspaper of UC–Berkeley, also claimed that affirmative consent is necessarily verbal. RH Reality Check advanced the game to approvingly say that affirmative consent requires “a verbal or written yes.” If consensual sex entailed that level of consent, millions of couples would be unsuspectingly raping one another every night of the week.

But the bill doesn’t actually require those things. It calls for “an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity."* (While the bill initially warned that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding,” that language has since been stricken.) Update, June 24, 2014: As of June 18, the bill's definition reads: "'Affirmative consent' means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity."

It’s understandable that commentators would jump to the conclusion that affirmative consent requires sex partners to engage in a constant Q&A—or else a finely drawn sex contract—because the bill doesn’t define what “clear, unambiguous” consent would actually look like. Perhaps some remember Antioch College’s infamous 1991 sexual assault rules, which did require all partners to verbally request and assent to every stage of sexual activity—“body movements and non-verbal responses such as moans” didn’t cut it. But the California legislation’s language becomes clearer when it specifies which situations do not constitute consent. “Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent,” the bill reads. “The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of a past sexual relationship, shall not provide the basis for an assumption of consent. Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.” Parties can’t consent when they’re asleep or unconscious, or incapacitated from drugs or alcohol.
Well, this should TOTALLY make things less complicated for everyone. I wonder how long it will be before young women start complaining that they are being sexually harassed by men demanding signed and notarized documents before kissing them.
Male Date Rape Player #1: May I compliment you on your halter top?

Female Date Rape Player #1: Yes. You may.

Male Date Rape Player #1: It's very nice. May I kiss you on the mouth.

Female Date Rape Player #1: Yes. I would like you to kiss me on the mouth.

[ they kiss on the mouth ]

Male Date Rape Player #1: May I elevate the level of sexual intimacy by feeling your buttocks?

Female Date Rape Player #1: Yes. You have my permission.

[ Male touches Female's buttocks ]

Male Date Rape Player #1: May I raise the level yet again, and take my clothes off so that we could have intercourse?

Female Date Rape Player #1: Yes. I am granting your request to have intercourse.

[ scene ends ]

Dean Frederick Whitcomb: Contestants?

Ariel Helpern-Strauss: [ buzzes in ] Date Rape! 

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Women never lie about rape

Except, of course, when they do:
A nurse has been struck off after being jailed for falsely accusing her grandfather of rape in a bid to claim his inheritance money. Natalie Mortimer, from Aberdeen, was disciplined at a one-day standards hearing at the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) in London.

The 25-year-old was jailed for 22 months at Aberdeen Sheriff Court in January after being convicted of wasting 175 hours of police time by fabricating claims that her grandfather Gordon Ritchie sexually abused her.

Aberdeen Sheriff Court heard at the time how she had falsely accused her grandfather of raping her when she was a child so she could get her hands on inheritance money.

She eventually admitted she had made up the sex attack claims - but only after her innocent grandfather had spent time in a police cell following the allegations.
And who is surprised by this coda: During her sentencing, she showed no remorse as she left the court dock in handcuffs - smiling at her friends in the public gallery.

Women will not only lie about rape, they will do so without hesitation or remorse. In fact, most rape claims are false. I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy the teary story produced in halting whispers at 3 AM, or even decline your part as the Consoling Shoulder in the Rape Victim Kabuki Theater if that sort of thing floats your boat. Just keep in mind as you do so that the whole thing is fiction.

And do try to keep a straight face. I once cracked up when a woman told me her Terrible Rape Story, forgetting that she'd told me a different one a few months prior. But honestly, what can you do when THE MAFIA suddenly appear out of nowhere in a Terrible Rape Story?

As to why women invent historical rapes when an inheritance isn't on the line, the answer is simple. Women love drama and they love to be at the center of it. Being a Rape Victim puts a woman squarely at the center of the drama. If you think about it, it's really a credit to them as a sex that they ever talk about anything else.

Men are more abused

On Twitter, anyhow. The freaky little people upset about the Hugo awards aside, I actually take a good deal less stick on Twitter than I would have expected based on the amount of hate mail I used to get. But won't someone think of the poor men?
According to an analysis of more than 2million messages sent to celebrities, politicians and journalists - one in every 20 sent to prominent male figures was abusive compared to only one in 70 for females. 
This should have been obvious. After all, were the numbers were reversed, we'd be seeing prime time ads for STOPPING TWITTER ABUSE. And frankly, the abuse directed at Piers Morgan really shouldn't be counted. I mean, is it really abuse when it is eminently merited?

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

That would be why they don't hire women

 After reading this, does this make you think that sexism in venture capital is a serious problem that needs to be addressed? Or does it make you think that it explains very well why venture capitalists are less than enthusiastic about hiring women in the first place?
A female intern at a venture capital firm who publicly spoke out about the overt sexism that she experienced, has revealed that she was reprimanded by her employer for doing so and 'treated like a perpetrator.'... She's since revealed that the firm 'wasn’t exactly ecstatic' about her decision to blog about gender bias, and scheduled several lengthy meetings during the final week of her internship in which her bosses wanted to know why she hadn't consulted them first and how they could spin positive publicity out of the incident.

Of the 46 employees pictured on General Catalyst's website, only four are female, with just one woman on the firm's investing side.

'The fact that all of the meetings they set up about my post that last week and beyond were with men, and that the majority of our conversations revolved around bringing this topic back to a positive perspective of what the firm and its peers are doing to solve the problem, made me feel as if the core of my post, my feelings and less-than-welcoming experience, were not valued,' Miss Swallow wrote in a first-person piece for the Wall Street Journal. 'They didn’t see that I felt left out; they saw that their firm was under attack,' she added.

Miss Swallow, who graduated with a Bachelor degree from NYU’s Stern School of Business in 2009,  says that the final straw was during a 'highly constructive' conversation about diversity initiatives with her mentor at the firm, when another partner 'stormed in' and began reprimanding her.

'He said the post was misguided and anger-filled, and he was disturbed that he had received emails from LPs and portfolio founders asking how I could have done what I did. After multiple calm responses to his shouting, I couldn’t take it anymore. He had been standing and pointing furiously at me the entire time, while everyone else was seated. I stood up, tears falling from my eyes and my breath becoming uncontrollable, and said I wasn’t going to take this treatment. I hadn’t done anything wrong for speaking up about something I felt was an issue, but I was being treated like a perpetrator. I had broken their trust, they told me. And maybe I had, but I would not be silenced and belittled,' she wrote.
Notice how her priority at her INTERNSHIP was not learning how to do her job, but changing the firm to better meet with her approval. Any venture capital firm would have to be completely insane to hire a female control freak like this; the moment an INTERN mentioned the word "initiative" should have been enough to set off enough red flags, sirens and warning bells to justify her immediate termination. Holy water, a stake to the heart, and beheading might be wise as well, just in case.

The problem isn't actually with women per se, but with Social Justice Warriors, people who see themselves as activists imbued with the holy right to Fix What Is Wrong with every organization foolish enough to grant them entry. Every female SJW will make it an absolute priority to do "women's outreach", just as every black SJW considers "affirmative action" to be vital and gay SJWs inevitably believe that the most important issue concerns insufficient homosexuals in the organization.

Don't let these parasites into your church, association, or company. They are literally worse than useless. If a person proudly talks about championing this cause, leading that initiative, or launching any "effort" that involves buzzwords like diversity, outreach, inclusivity, or whatever, then you know their focus in the future will be attacking the organization, not doing their job.