How dare he!

Sex-blind hiring favors men

Dr. Helen comments on the incongruous discovery:

The trial, which was an effort to push more women in senior position jobs, revealed that removing the gender from a candidate’s application does not help boost gender equality in hiring. The trial also revealed that adding a male name to a candidate’s application made them 3.2 percent less likely to get the job while adding a female name made it 2.9 percent more likely that the candidate would be hired.

Researchers assumed that removing gender identifiers from an application would make it easier for women to obtain employment in senior positions that have traditionally been dominated by men.

“We anticipated this would have a positive impact on diversity — making it more likely that female candidates and those from ethnic minorities are selected for the shortlist,” said Professor Michael Hiscox, a Harvard academic. “We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist.”

So as anyone in the real world knows, it is less likely, not more likely these days that a man will get hired if his gender is known.

It's not a surprise. Or, at least, it shouldn't be. Women get hired for a variety of reasons. Men only get hired if they are objectively superior to every possible woman and minority available.

Sensibility is not shame

A rape victim defends a judge:

A rape victim has backed a warning by the female judge presiding over her case that drunk women are putting themselves in danger. Megan Clark, 19, was attacked by a man she met in a fast food restaurant after drinking beer and vodka during a night out in Manchester. After the attacker's trial, Judge Lindsey Kushner was criticised by campaigners for warning that potential attackers 'gravitate towards girls who have been drinking'.

Ms Clark has now dismissed claims Judge Kushner was 'victim blaming', insisting she was just warning people to be more careful. Waiving her right to anonymity, Ms Clark told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire that she took the judge's comments in a 'positive way' and she did not believe she was 'victim-blaming'.

'She was right in what she said,' Ms Clark added. Judge Kushner's comments – at the end of her final trial before retiring – prompted a storm of criticism from campaigners and charities. The judge said: 'Girls are perfectly entitled to drink themselves into the ground but should be aware people who are potential defendants to rape gravitate towards girls who have been drinking. It shouldn't be like that but it does happen and we see it time and time again.'

It's about time feminists give up stop trying to play victim on behalf of all women all the time and start accepting the obvious fact that women have agency and are responsible for the situations in which they choose to put themselves and the risks they choose to take, even though they aren't responsible for the consequences that subsequently ensue.

Forget reason and experience

It's FEELINGS that matter most. A retiring judge warns young women about putting themselves in reliably dangerous situations, and naturally, meets with criticism:

One of Britain's most senior female judges warned drunken women that they will be a target for rapists as she retired from the bench today.

Lindsey Kushner QC said all women were entitled to 'drink themselves into the ground' but she warned their 'disinhibited behaviour' put them in danger of being raped by men who 'gravitate' to drunken females.

She spoke out as she jailed a man for six years after he raped a drunken girl he met in a Burger King in Manchester city centre in July last year. But victims' charities have accused the judge of 'victim blaming' in the speech.

Clearly the old aphorism requires updating. Let reason and experience be silent when a woman's feelings gainsay their conclusions.

What women want

It's not a mystery. Just ask Amazon what books they are selling to them. If you're a wealthy Alpha Male Cowboy and she's fat, you're gold.

A Day Without A Woman

Women's March organizes a protest:

Organizers of January's Women's March have called for women to take the day off and encouraged them not to spend money to show their economic strength and impact on American society.

"A Day Without a Woman" on Wednesday is the first major action by organizers since the nationwide marches held the day after President Donald Trump's inauguration that drew millions of women into the streets in protest against misogyny, inequality and oppression. Though it is unclear how many women could participate, thousands across the country have signaled their support and interest online and to employers.

The event coincides with the U.N.-designated International Women's Day, and organizers say they want to "stand with women around the globe" who supported their efforts Jan. 21 with similar protests in cities around the world.

Spokeswoman Cassady Findlay said organizers were inspired by the recent "Day Without an Immigrant" protests held last month. She said the action is aimed at highlighting the effect of women on the country's socio-economic system and would demonstrate how the paid and unpaid work of women keeps households, communities and economies running.

I will be counterprotesting today by playing Star Control 2, Eador: Genesis, and later, watching a soccer match.

Stay strong, my brothers.

When solipsism resembles sociopathy

Among other things, this is a good example of why a man should never, ever, ask advice from women:

User PseudoDad wrote on the site: 'Since our son was conceived 2 1/2 years ago we have had sex just 5 times. Prior to this, we weren't at it like rabbits but I was very happy with twice a week.' He said he wanted to broach the subject in a way that respected his 'wonderful' wife of six years, and asked: 'When is enough enough?'

His post received hundreds of replies, with women suggesting he do more housework, consider counselling, or simply 'accept that she might just not be interested right now'.

Mumsnet user monkeysox was the first to reply when she asked him whether he was doing enough housework.  PseudoDad replied to insist he does his share, but another mum told him to 'accept that she might just not be interested right now and you have to grit your teeth until she feels she wants it again. 'You're not owed sex just because you want it,' said BravoPanda.

Actually, as a husband or wife, you quite literally are owed both sex and sexual exclusivity. Otherwise, there is absolutely no point to marriage other than legally establishing who the father of the children is.

Game-aware readers will immediately recognize the problem; the man's socio-sexual rank is too low to attract the interest of his wife. No man who does housework, worries about respecting his wife, and considers his wife to be "wonderful" when she is more frigid than the average iceberg is going to be attractive to a woman.

What the man should have done is left his wife one year ago; 18 months is more than sufficient time to determine that a man's wife is simply not committed to actually being a wife and performing the single most important function of a wife. But in a case as hapless as this, I can't imagine it doing any good.

My recommendation for a man in this situation would be to continue to play the family guy martyr as long as the wife wants to be financially supported by him, then hope for a reasonable divorce settlement when she finally tires of the pretense and decides to go in search of more interesting men.

What I find more remarkable is the average female response. It is clear that their first instinct is to justify the woman's actions and defend them, simply on the remote chance that they might one day find themselves in a similar position. This lack of empathy is solipsism, not sociopathy, but in this case, it genuinely resembles the latter.

It's her prerogative

An unexpected consequence of women in the military:

Navy Cmdr. Sarah DeGroot, commanding officer of the 420-person dock landing ship USS Rushmore, abruptly resigned Monday and walked off the job.

A commanding officer resigning voluntarily is incredibly rare. It’s not clear why DeGroot handed in her command, but she did in fact have that option, unlike in other branches of the military, where walking off the job would be met with serious punishment, Navy Times reports.

DeGroot, a native of Long Beach, Calif., informed Capt. Homer Denius, head of Amphibious Squadron 3, she was resigning, according to sources who spoke to Navy Times.

Considering that women do this in marriages and corporate careers all the time, I don't know why it would surprise anyone that it is happening in the military. It is, after all, a woman's prerogative to change her mind.

Good thing they weren't at war.

The primal cheerleader

Apparently cheerleading combatants, and responding to those cheerleaders, is literally in our genes:

A study has found that female vervet monkeys manipulate males into fighting battles by lavishing attention on brave soldiers while giving other males the cold shoulder. After scraps with rival gangs, usually over food, females would groom males that had fought hardest, while snapping at those that abstained.

Female vervet monkeys  have been seen manipulating males into fighting battles by showing active males more attention and snapping at those who sit out the fight When the next battle came along, both those singled out for attention and those aggressively shunned would participate more vigorously in combat, according to a study published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

That would certainly tend to explain the female preference for Alpha males.

Wi-fi more important than sex

Or so we are supposed to believe:

If a consistent internet connection is more important to you than having an active sex life, you wouldn't be alone. According to a new study, 4 in 10 of us identify Wi-Fi as our most important daily need, above sex, chocolate and alcohol. The study, carried about by Wi-Fi connectivity provider iPass, surveyed 1,700 working professionals across Europe and the US about their connectivity habits. It involved asking participants to rank the importance of Wi-Fi against other "human luxuries and necessities" on a scale of 1-4, with one being most important and 4 bring least important. Wi-Fi was labelled most important by 40.2% of respondents, followed by sex (36.6%), chocolate (14.3%) and alcohol, which was ranked as the number one daily essential by 8.9% of respondents.

It's a bit amusing, as the way the numbers work out, it's pretty clear that women prefer wi-fi and chocolate, whereas men prefer sex and alcohol. But I am surprised, as I would have expected television to rank higher for women than either wi-fi or chocolate.

Female readers, you may now proceed to snowflake.

Why women welcome migrants

They do it for the same reason, and in the same manner, that women have welcomed invaders and conquerors since time immemorial:

A female asylum centre worker in Denmark is alleged to have engaged sexually with underage male migrants and filmed the acts, and the staff may have known for months. According to authorities, an unnamed asylum centre worker is accused of engaging in sexual relations with several male underage migrants at the Børnecenter Tullebølle asylum home in the Langeland municipality, reports Danish radio station Radio 24syv.

In at least one case the worker was filmed giving oral sex to one of the migrants, and in another video is said to show the worker engaging in full blown intercourse with a different migrant. All residents of the home are males under 18 years old.

The municipality fired Sisi Eibye, head of its asylum programme, on Monday after evidence obtained by Radio 24syv showed that three members of staff at the asylum home had known since June that the boys at the home were being sexually abused by employees.

A police report showed that some municipal officials had suspicions that at least three of the boys were in a sexual relationship with one of the staff at the centre. In addition, it has been reported that another female staff may have also had sexual relationships with the underage migrants. Authorities have shut down the centre while police investigate the matter.

There are few things as hard-wired into the female psyche as the "don't kill me, I'll have sex with you" response to threatening strangers. That may explain a good part of the "rape fantasy" phenomenon.

Alpha Mail: it won't happen to me!

The great challenge in convincing young women that feminism is a destructive lie is their solipsism:

So the last girl I fooled around with, prior to getting remarried, had a notch count of 12 ( so she said).. She had spent her twenties living in a big metropolitan city and then traveling the world. So I multiplied it by 2 making it closer to 24. Anyway she was a cute girl, 34, and desperately wanted to get married. Red-pill me knew she was cute enough for pump/dump but not commitment. Anyway fast forward 5 years and I'm in the grocery store and look over at this young woman and think to myself "shit, that chick looks like she's one step away from being a mentally ill bag lady"

I then do a double-take and recognize her as my old fling. Went over, shot the breeze, and came to the realization that she literally had gone over the edge and become bat shit insane. The lies of feminism, unattached sex, and her age - all had collided and created a human train wreck.

How to conquer this self-destructive solipsism? I don't know, but I suspect the answer lies in convincing girls that they have agency. I suspect it lies in teaching them that their actions have consequences, that their decisions matter, and that things don't ever "just happen" for no reason.

Far too many women float through their 20s on their youthful beauty and their emotions, never grasping that they will soon be the lonely, crazy-eyed, thin-haired, over-painted 30-something they now regard with contempt if they don't decide upon one man and make a life with him.

There is nothing women ruin with such predictability as their own lives.

Never interrupt a woman

Judgy Bitch explains why if a man is interrupted six times more than a woman, that is unfair to the woman:

The mewling over Donald Trump’s ‘misogyny’ in last night’s debate has begun. Trump interrupted Hillary, you see, and if you interrupt a woman, that means you hate not just her, but all women, everywhere. When a woman speaks, men must remain silent and never correct or contradict her mid-sentence because that makes her feel intimidated and the poor, weak, timorous thing might collapse from the sheer, unparalleled hatred of it all. No one seems to mind that the moderator interrupted Trump 41 times, and Clinton just 7 times, but Trump is a man and he can take it, right? Hillary is a mere woman, and one must treat her gently.

Hillary can’t handle being interrupted, but she can handle Vladimir Putin?

How is it unfair to a woman to be interrupted 34 times less than a man? Because a woman should NEVER be interrupted. Everyone should listen respectfully to her babbling what she is saying, pretend to take it seriously listen attentively, and wait at least five seconds before saying anything when she appears to have finished just in case she forgot what she was talking about anything important.

This isn't rocket science, people.

The degree gap

Why isn't it an urgent problem requiring redress that men are now less educated than women?

Women earned more doctoral degrees than men in 2015 – the seventh year in a row this has occurred. They also earned more master's degrees and outnumber men in graduate school.

Politicians who like to mislead on the gender wage gap (more accurately referred to as an "earnings" gap due to choices men and women make in their careers) will point out that women are earning more degrees but still earning less pay. To look at the charts compiled by American Enterprise Institute Scholar Mark Perry, one would see part of the reason.

Women earned more degrees than men, and made up a majority of degrees in seven out of 11 different fields. But the fields where men outnumbered women are some of the highest-paid ones, including business, engineering, mathematics and physical sciences. Women outnumbered men in majors such as arts and humanities, education and social sciences.

One potentially high-paying field where women outnumbered men was health sciences, but one would have to look at what careers men and women went into upon graduating to see whether there was truly pay discrimination. For example, it might be the case that women in health sciences tend to go into nursing, whereas men tend to become doctors or surgeons.

Perry predicts that modern feminists and the media won't report these new findings, or, if they do, will focus solely on the sex disparity in science, technology, engineering and math fields.

"Additionally, there will be no calls for government studies or increased government funding to address the significant gender disparities favoring women in graduate schools, and nobody will refer to the gender graduate school enrollment and degree gaps favoring women as a problem or a 'crisis,'" Perry wrote.

Perry also posed the question that if female under-representation is supposedly proof of gender discrimination, wouldn't male under-representation also be proof of gender discrimination, but against men?

As Instapundit wryly noted, when these overeducated but low-paid women with useless degrees can't pay back their student loans, it will, of course, be both the fault of those less-educated men and their responsibility to fix it.

The pursuit of seriousness

I know when I think of Angelina Jolie, the first thing I think of is LSE lecturer.

No crime more hateful

The only truly serious crime a woman can commit is to be hotter than another woman and not be apologetic about it:

A woman who was body-shamed by Playboy model Dani Mathers at an LA Fitness gym has been found—and Mathers may be facing jail time for her actions, TMZ reports. The celebrity site says the LAPD located the woman, said to be in her 70s, and she's willing to help prosecutors go after Mathers. The celeb is accused of taking a photo of the naked woman as she changed in the gym's locker room and posting the pic to Snapchat with the snarky message: "If I can't unsee this then you can't either." The city attorney's office confirms that the older woman has been located, reports ABC News. The case could bring a misdemeanor charge for "dissemination of private images"—a charge that could land Mathers in jail for up to six months.

Playboy model? I'm surprised they're not calling for the death penalty.

Straining at a gnat

And missing the camel. A psychologist fails to grasp the concept of "economic incentive":

Some new data about divorce and non-marital breakups contains an unexpected finding, and I think it underscores the fact that we're in the midst of an ongoing evolution in what people want and seek in their romantic relationships. The study, based on a survey of over 2000 heterosexual couples, found that women initiated nearly 70% of all divorces. Yet there was no significant difference between the percentage of breakups initiated by women and men in non-marriage relationships.

How to explain? I find that these data are consistent with what I and others have seen clinically. When men and women seek couples therapy and then subsequently divorce; or, when either partner seeks individual therapy about a marriage conflict that ends in divorce, it’s often the woman who expresses more overt conflict and dissatisfaction about the state of the marriage. On the other hand, the man is more likely to report feeling troubled by his wife’s dissatisfaction, but pretty much “OK” with the way things are; he's content to just lope along as time passes.

The difference is that in a marital breakup, a woman gets cash and prizes. In a non-marital breakup, a woman gets nothing.

This indicates that since there are 2.3 marital breakups initiated by women for every marital breakup initiated by a man, the divorce rate could be reduced by 39.4 percent by removing the economic incentive from women.

It's not her fault, blame evolution

Now scientists are excusing female infidelity with science:

What drives women to cheat is a subject that has been long debated over the years. And now scientists are suggesting women have been programmed by evolution to pursue affairs in case they decide to leave their partners.

New research claims this 'mate switching hypothesis' particularly applies to childless women whose loved one can affect their ability to raise offspring. The theory that affairs are women's natural back-up plan challenges the accepted notion that humans are intended to be monogamous. It suggests humans have evolved to constantly be on the lookout for better long-term partners that their current ones.

David Buss, Cari Goetz and their team told the Sunday Times: 'Lifelong monogamy does not characterise the primary mating pattern of humans. 'Breaking up with one partner and re-mating with another - mate switching - may more accurately characterise the common, perhaps the primary, mating strategy of humans. For our ancestors, disease, poor diet and poor medical care meant few lived past 30 - meaning experimenting to find the most suitable partner may have been key to survival.

Scientists claim people would pick partners with the highest chance of survival, but have someone in reserve in case that person died.

That's certainly a novel excuse. "This isn't what it looks like! I'm only trying to prepare for your inevitable death!"

Of course, the reduced attractivness that is concomitant with the aging process tends to get in the way of this partner-replacement theory.

Identity defines

The heartbreak of a woman who identifies as the wife of a man to whom she is not married:

I am a cisgender heterosexual female, but I am also something more. I am the voice of the thousands whom civil rights progress has passed by and who still conceal their true identity from an exclusive society.

This is the identity closet no one wants to acknowledge, which is what makes it so devastating for those who find themselves inside. I did not even realize how hard I had been working to hide my true self until I met Mr. X, but suddenly it was as though all those awkward moments of my past came into focus and I could see the meaning of my whole life. I am—I always have been—the wife of Mr. X.

Coming out was one of the hardest decisions of my life, and at times the hatred and heartache I’ve faced have been worse than I could have imagined. Hardest of all is the rejection from Mr. X himself, who has declared publicly he has no interest in me whatsoever. But I know that no matter what anyone says, I have to be true to myself. And I know without a shadow of a doubt that my true identity is wife of Mr. X.

The real question for society is a difficult one. If this poor non-cismarried woman decides she wants a divorce, how much money should Mr. X be required to pay her?

Pull-ups are a social construct

That's the only reason that suffices to explain why women can't pass Marine fitness tests:

With the news coming out today that the sole remaining female Marine has dropped out of the Infantry Officer’s Course (CNN, Marine Corps Times*) it seems like a good time to look into why women in the military are having so much trouble meeting physical fitness requirements.  According to the CNN video below from January of 2014, the reason women lack upper body strength is women aren’t taught how to do pull ups.  Here is the relevant exchange between CNN Anchor Don Lemon and CNN Pentagon correspondent Chris Lawrence:

Chris Lawrence:  What they’re gonna do now, is… looking at better ways to train women to do these push-ups [sic].  There is a feeling that from the time they are girls, girls don’t do push-ups, even women who workout religiously and are very physically fit are not working those kind of muscles and trying to build up that bigger upper body by doing pull-ups.  So, what they want to do is go in and really teach women better ways to train to do this particular exercise.

Don Lemon:  Yeah, working the upper body that’s a guy thing, right?  And I mean, guys you see at the gym with skinny legs, big upper bodies.

Chris Lawrence:  It’s the beach muscles.  It’s the beach workout.

What I find interesting about this is the way it shows how every female failure inevitably turns into a discussion of male shortcomings.

Because no woman can ever fail at anything for any cause other than male perfidy! To admit otherwise would be to jeopardize the Narrative.