Lest you think we jest

The SJWs, which is to say the feminist pinkshirts and their pink knight allies, really are out to destroy everything and remake it in their image:

When people think of ‘gamers,’ I want them to think of feminism." - @ChrisWarcraft

To which I responded firmly: No. Keep your politics out of our games.

Avoid the Human Black Hole

Heartiste provides some useful red flags:

Some other forms of female attention whoring are:

- Cutting into conversations with a frequency and assumed authority that could be described as pathological.

- Evincing an astounding lack of self-awareness or humility.

- An inability to listen while simultaneously demanding rapt attention from her human sounding boards.

- A facility tossing out breezy insults that stands in stark contrast to her thin-skinned pique when she perceives herself being attacked.

- A curious lack of fulfillment when she receives the attention she was goading, and a spiral of excitement when her attention seeking is ignored or cavalierly dismissed.

- A preternatural talent for getting into “scrapes” and making “scenes” where she is cast, yet again, as the wholly innocent flashpoint of the drama that magically follows her everywhere.

- Aggravating her mark to the point of exasperation or even anger. An attention whore prefers positive attention but will take negative attention if the former isn’t possible to bait.

All women appreciate and seek male attention, but there is a difference between attention-seeking, which is normal behavior, and attention-whoring, which is not. It's vital to learn the difference, because no one man is ever capable of providing an attention whore with the constant attention that she craves.

For me, the most important signifier is an inability to listen. If a woman asks you a question, then can't even manage to listen to any answer in more depth than "yes" or "no", you probably don't want to take the risk of involving yourself with her. I, personally, don't waste my time on attention whores, as there are few things on the planet less interesting than human black holes.

Invading male spaces

Is there no end to their evil? Stop Pinktober now!


Women will never be regarded as equal as long as they continue to insist on invading male spaces, thereby tacitly admitting their intrinsic dissatisfaction with inferior female and mixed-sex spaces. There is nothing that demonstrates the female belief in male superiority more clearly than their inability to stop pestering men engaged in male activities.

The interesting thing is that European men are FAR more masculine than American men in this regard, American illusions about European effeminacy notwithstanding. It would be UNTHINKABLE for a woman to intrude the post-game Friday night dinners, virtually no women even come to watch the games despite the fact that the various soccer fields where most of the athletic men over 30 are to be found.

The interesting thing is that in some European countries, you won't even see women in the restaurants on Friday nights. That's the night for the men to get together with their male friends; Saturday night is when couples go on dates.

Cancel this blog

Science declares Game has it all wrong, as social scientists have discovered that women prefer humble men to arrogant bad boys:

Cocky, bad guys may usually get the girl in the movies but the same isn't true in real life, according to new research.It showed that being humble is the key to marking yourself out as a good romantic partner while arrogance and egotism are turn-offs, it found....

The research, published in the Journal of Positive Psychology, involved three studies carried out by Dr Van Tongeren and colleagues. In the first study, 41 students created dating profiles and answered personality questions in the belief that others would see their results and they would look at other students' profiles.Both male and female participants gave significantly higher ratings to the humble person and were more likely to want them to see their own profile, give them their phone number and meet them.

The second study, involving 133 students, was similar but varied the language used to describe a potential date in the profile, rather than using numbers to rate humility. For example, the humble profile stated 'other people say I'm smart, but I don't like the attention', while the other read 'I'm a really good student and pretty smart...I guess it just comes naturally.'

Again, both men and women preferred the humble profile as a potential date to the profile that suggested arrogance.

I suspect the study would have been considerably more reliable if they had followed it up and researched precisely with whom these women who claim to be turned off by arrogance and egotism are actually having sex and what sort of men they are. As it stands, all the studies do is underline a fundamental mantra of Game: never pay any attention to what a woman tells you about female sexual preferences, including her own.

Internal inconsistencies

How, exactly, do the feminists and pinkshirts propose solving this "problem"?

Women fighting for a broader presence in the upper levels of management face at least one very personal obstacle: Most workers don’t want them there. Only one-fifth of people surveyed by Gallup this week said they preferred a female boss over a man. One-third preferred a male boss, and the rest had no preference.

The survey, which collected responses from 1,032 adults living in the U.S., found women were more likely than men to want a male boss: 39 percent of women wanted to be led by a man, compared with 26 percent of men.

In the 60 years that Gallup has conducted this survey, women have never preferred a female boss.

Women are MORE LIKELY than men to want a male boss. As ever, feminism is riven by its internal inconsistencies. If women don't want female bosses, then how can any true feminist support the idea that there should be more of them? Surely feminism can't be about forcing things they don't want on women.

To the Game-aware, there is no dichotomy. Women are intra-sex competitive and both the female boss and the female underling see the other as her rival for male attention in the office. Furthermore, it is more difficult for a female worker to secure her position under a female superior than under a male one.

That was a rhetorical question, by the way. The answer, as always, is more education to rid those women holding the wrong position of their false consciousness.

Stop telling women to smile

The fierce moral urgency of telling men when they may, and may not, speak:

I created "Stop Telling Women to Smile," a street art series, to speak back to the men who harass me. The work began as way to tell my story, but it has grown to reflect the stories of many other women.

While I think that the law has its place in helping keep women safe, I don't think this is an issue that will be solved by assigning it to the police. Because police sexually harass women, too. Some women are wary of bringing the police into their communities because of fears of brutality and profiling.

We don't want to criminalize men. We want simply to walk down the street, and live our lives without the constant verbal harassment and abuse. We want to be treated as people who are outside because we have lives to live and business to handle – not as decoration. This will happen when men acknowledge their privilege, pay heed to the realities of women and begin to police themselves.

So, some women want to criminalize men talking to women in public, while the more moderate women merely want them to voluntarily lose their voices. Meanwhile, in #GamerGate, women are angry because other men don't want anything to do with them.

It's almost as if there is no pleasing them.

I have to admit, I have never in my life told a stranger to smile. I can't imagine giving a quantum of a damn whether some woman I don't know smiles or not. For the most part, I ignore women in public entirely; in general, it has been much more common for them to approach me than the other way around. As this poor, abused gentleman found when he tried to simply walk around New York City minding his own business.

The science behind The Dunham Horror

Science is gradually confirming what anyone who pays attention to the way left-liberals live has known all along:

A wide range of brain regions contributed to the prediction of political ideology (Figure 3A), including those known from past work to be involved in the processing and interoception of disgust and other stimuli with negative affective valence, but also those involved in more basic aspects of attentive sensory processing: we found regions known to be involved in disgust recognition [17, 36, 37, 38] (e.g., insula, basal ganglia, and amygdala), perception of bodily signals [39] (e.g., insula), the experience of physical/social pain [40] or observing others in pain [41] (e.g., S2, insula, PAG, and thalamus), and emotion regulation [42] (e.g., DLPFC, insula, amygdala, and pre-SMA), along with regions involved in information integration [43] (e.g., thalamus and amygdala), attention [43, 44] (e.g., amygdala, IPL, FFG, STG/MTG), memory retrieval [44, 45] (e.g., hippocampus, amygdala, and IPL), and also inhibitory control [46] (e.g., IFG, DLPFC, and pre-SMA), perhaps to suppress innate responses. Although our results suggest that disgusting pictures evoke very different emotional processing in conservatives and liberals, it will take a range of targeted studies in the future to tease apart the separate contribution of each brain circuit.

We proposed that conservatives, compared to liberals, have greater negativity bias [13], which includes both disgusting and threatening conditions in our study. Our finding that only disgusting pictures, especially in the animal-reminder category, differentiate conservatives from liberals might be indicative of a primacy for disgust in the pantheon of human aversions, but it is also possible that this result is due to the fact that, compared to threat, disgust is much easier to evoke with visual images on a computer screen.

Translated from the jargon, what that means is that there is solid scientific grounds for believing that leftists are too stupid to understand potential threats and too filthy to be repulsed by disgusting things.

Which one hardly needs any scientific evidence to correctly conclude as simple observation of the behavior of most left-liberals is sufficient to prove the case beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt.

I had previously recommended that Lena Dunham be harpooned and processed for oil, but now I think that she may have some additional utility to science before her Innsmouth genes come to the fore and she shambles off to join the shoggoths deep under the sea. It seems to me that we could measure units of disgust in terms of a Dunham scale, similar to the Kelvin scale, with the null point absolute zero indicating a perfect Dunhamian left-liberal who is completely inert and incapable of being disgusted by anything except someone failing to toe the politically correct line du jour.