Lessons from nature: Brain in a vat

January 27, 2012 By Stephen Jarosek (aka Codebuster) 171 Comments

In this somewhat tongue-in-cheek article we examine the difference in intelligence between men and women. The normal bell curve distribution is often addressed metaphorically to describe women’s distribution in parameters like intelligence as being taller and narrower, while that of men’s is flatter and wider. This essentially makes the point that men occupy a wider variation on parameters like intelligence; from incredibly dumb to incredibly smart, while women occupy a comfy medium. There is less variation in performance and abilities among women than there is among men. It turns out that, on average, the intelligence of men and women is the same.

This is all well and good, except that there is another dynamic playing out in gender differences. There is something called sexual dimorphism. [11] This is a term from the mainstream biological sciences where the male and female evolve to acquire different phenotypic traits. And in the case of intelligence, there are actually grounds to infer that provided-for women who never have to do anything except shop shop shop, text text text and dance dance dance finish up actually losing their intellectual capabilities. In their provided-for lives, without moral responsibility, their brains actually appear to rot. They do become dumber. In order to appreciate why this should be so, we need to dump the mainstream evolutionary psychology (EP) paradigm grounded in genocentrism. [5] If this offends genocentrists, then be warned. Muff your ears and cover your eyes. This article is not for you.

Habits of indulgence

Men and women value attractiveness in women. Especially within the Anglosphere, a woman’s entire worth is established almost exclusively on her physical appearance and how she packages it. The EP crowd have an explanation for the importance of female beauty. They will blather on about attractiveness as being an indicator of health, superior genes, etc. Meanwhile, the Game and PUA community worship beautiful women at the Altar of the Vag, and women who can package themselves to look attractive enjoy privileges and entitlements that are not extended to those women who either fail to pay attention to their packaging, or for whom no amount of packaging can salvage.

But there is one dimension of womanly existence that is never taken seriously, especially within our current zeitgeist, and that is a woman’s intelligence. Personality may rate to some extent…her readiness to laugh at men’s jokes, her social savvy, her ability to get drunk just like men do, her ability to establish belonging within a huge group of girls, etc. But these are aspects more related to group-think and conformity rather those deeper qualities that we associate with intelligence… such as curiosity, integrity, skill, commonsense, courage, etc. This raises a most important question. Can the disconnect between beauty and brains ever be reconciled? In terms of universal possibilities, I’m confident that it can; in terms of human life on Earth and our current trajectory, the answer is no, it cannot. Trying to reconcile the beauty-brains disconnect within the context of our zeitgeist and culture is a fool’s errand.

Atrophy of the mind

It is well established now that PUAs, as performing seals begging for fish, routinely work themselves into a lather about what women think of them, and then construct elaborate strategies to demonstrate to their objet de l’amour that they don’t care what women think of them. The extent to which women’s opinions matter is proportional to where these women rate on the attractiveness scale. The unspoken rule is that the opinions of nines and tens are weighted more than the opinions of fives and sixes, while the opinions of ones and twos are weighted probably nothing at all. There is no rational reason for this instinctive association between attractiveness and credibility. It’s a subconscious reflex, a bias.

This manner of thinking comes about because of the EP paradigm and the genocentrism on which it is based. Women who are deemed to be attractive are valued more, and so game theory extends the fantasy by rationalizing that they must also be “better” at other things, such as intelligence. These “higher quality” women demonstrate their intelligence in their social savvy. This is naught but projection, receiving its inspiration from a culture obsessed with female beauty and then attributing to it various assumptions that are unfounded.

But let’s take a closer look…What if the reverse is actually true? What if intelligence is more likely to be inversely proportional to attractiveness? There is sound reason to expect precisely this to be the more likely truth. There are various theoretical frameworks available to suggest this; whether they are grounded in religion, customs, psychology, semiotics or science, for example, and within many of these frameworks is the idea that habits play a crucial role in character formation. [6][7][8][9]

Sometimes these habits might be described in terms of “units of imitation”, and this brings us to the field of memetics and the spread of memes. [10] Where do these habits, or memes, come from? The answer is…culture. The provided-for sex has permission to be, well, provided for. These days, a woman has permission to work (if she wants) or to do nothing (if the fancy takes her). Affirmative action grants her freebies and entitlements to which men have no comparable access. And of course the prettier that a woman is, the more privileges and entitlements she can wallow in. For all her practical utility, she might as well be a brain in a vat.

Traditionally, women’s stay-at-home option was a part of the marriage contract, a division of labour that came with responsibilities, from raising and schooling children to domestic and social duties. Implicit within this contract was moral conduct. Sharing the load with her husband, these environmental pressures and the attendant division of labour between the sexes constantly tested everyone at the boundaries between self, family and environment. So imagine how intelligent…not…today’s prettiest stay-at-home must be, given that she no longer bears the onus of these responsibilities. Today’s provided-for stay-at-home must be the ultimate hippopotamus wallowing in freebies for which she does not have to account. She is a parasite sucking the lifeblood from her clod provider and as useless as a brain in a vat. A brain in a vat is not sustainable – without stimulation from the environment, it is destined to turn to mush.

Now it is true that women often derive considerable stimulation from texting, gossiping, shopping and dancing. However, these forms of stimulation are not comparable to things like fixing a car, creating a computer, composing a work of art, or working out a business strategy. So what do we notice here in the differences in the ways in which men and women think? In women, it’s the absence of decision-making. There is no outcome to decide on in the process of texting, gossiping, shopping or dancing, beyond consolidating popularity with your girlfriends or more simply: pure indulgence for its own sake. And while housework and shopping for the family have an important part to play in domestic responsibilities, decision-making is rarely as consequential for women as it is for men.

There are limited risks in deciding on one brand of hairspray over another. For women, there are no consequences for mistakes that are comparable to getting sand in your engine, or misaligning the head of your engine, or messing up a masterpiece, or creating a short circuit on a circuit board, or your opponent getting wind of your strategy. Men have to make things work… often to the extent that it can become a matter of life and death. For women, texting, gossiping, shopping and dancing are not quite as dangerous or risky. Many things that women do can be done in their pyjamas, without even having to venture beyond the front door. Women’s activities may stimulate memory and white matter (glia), but they won’t stimulate the grey matter…the neurons. Maybe that’s why women age so much quicker than men…with the limited stimulation that texting, gossiping and dancing can provide, things must get old for them very quickly.

And here we come up against an essential property of all living things. Namely, a mind that is never tested is a mind that atrophies. Use it or lose it. And it does apply as much to men as it does to women, it’s just that men’s role as utility device limits their options for being an unproductive parasite. There is evidence that the “use it or lose it” principle is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom.

Sexual dimorphism in the Angler Fish

Feminists will be delighted to read of the apparent role reversal between the male and the female Angler Fish (refer Wikipedia here). [1][2] The female Angler Fish is everything that the “you-go-grrrl” crowd could hope for. She is the embodiment of what feminists project that they notice in men. She patrols the ocean as an independent, free spirit, hunting for her food using the fleshy lure dangling in front of her mouth to attract food. She is the provider, maintaining her modest harem of clingy males in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. The differentiated sex roles of the Angler Fish is an example of sexual dimorphism. [11]

It wouldn’t be quite accurate, though, to think of her harem of clingy Angler Fish dudes as castrated. Rather, quite the opposite – it’s not their testicles that disappear, but their body. Their testicles become the most important aspects of their being. Their only value appears to be in becoming testicles. If we recall Germaine Greer’s famous quip describing women as life-support systems for wombs, well, the poor male Angler Fish’s mind and body amount to nothing more than a homing device for testicles. Once this homing device for testicles has accomplished its goal – which is to pair up with a female (much like a PUA) – the rest of his being atrophies. His brain, his digestive organs, liver, eyes – everything but his testicles – basically, “poof”…vanishes.

The reason that the human PUA does not atrophy as completely as the male Angler Fish, however, is that though his intelligence, honor and integrity are compromised in his reliance on validation from women; he is a utility device who still has to provide for himself. His somewhat diminished existence continues to be tested in the workplace. His productivity would be rather limited if all that remained of him was a pair of testicles. Now, as disappointing as the PUA is as a human being, his usefulness as a utility device will exact demands of him that will always test his existence at his boundaries. In the case of the male Angler Fish, by contrast, no comparable demands are placed on his survival, because he is fully provided for in the nutrients that he receives from his provider host – his entire identity is thus destined to atrophy, though his testicles will remain. The male Angler Fish, in contrast to the male human, can sustain his existence as a pair of testicles, once he has found true love in Angler Fish heaven.

So what can we make of this, in terms of understanding the nature of human intelligence? The nature of intelligence has always been a source of controversy. How do we measure it? We won’t attempt to answer this question in the course of this article. However, we can infer some appreciation of the nature of intelligence by considering the behavioural trajectory of the male and female Angler Fish.

The male Angler Fish, for all intents and purposes, ceases to exist once his testicles, attached to the female Angler Fish, become the last remaining vestige of his being. The female, by contrast, maintains a robust identity, with her body and brain fully developed. Attached to the end of her elongated dorsal spine is a fleshy “lure” that she is able to dangle in front of her mouth. She is thus able to provide for herself. As a provider, her conceptualisations of reality are constantly being tested, and so she maintains a fully functioning mind-body that does not atrophy. Furthermore, not only is she able to fend for herself, but she is also able to provide for her harem of clingy males (up to six at a time), who draw their sustenance from her body at the point at which they first attached themselves, back when their minds and bodies were intact as homing devices for testicles (before they became mere testicles).

So what lessons do we take away with us from the Angler Fish? Firstly, we need to incorporate a systems [12][13] view of life, and the idea that living entities self-organise in order to accommodate the choices they make (this contrasts with the evolutionary-psychology perspective that presumes that everything is accounted for in the genetic blueprint). In this context, the human brain rewires itself to accommodate the choices that a person makes – refer to Norman Doidge [3] and Gerald Edelman [4], and the idea that the brain is a kind of ecosystem comprised of neurons. Provided we accept the systems view, then the following reasoning makes perfect sense:

1) Any living entity whose existence is not tested at its boundary, atrophies. While aspects of this atrophy can be noticed over its lifetime, if the absence of environmental stimuli persists over the generations for all members of the species, then the atrophy becomes especially important to its evolutionary trajectory. If an entity’s muscles are not tested, they become flabby. If its eyes are not tested, then, over the generations, they disappear. And of course, if its conceptualizations are not tested, its synaptic connections degenerate, and its brain atrophies, both within its lifetime, and over the generations. Systems theory resonates with aspects of Lamarckism;

2) The sex that provides is constantly having its conceptualizations of reality tested at the boundary. Well-defined physical strength, mental agility, resourcefulness, agency, are resources that are essential to making decisions at the boundary (in this context, “boundary” refers to the point of equilibrium between organisational structure and environmental pressures – an organism is only as muscular or intelligent as it needs to be in order to ensure its survival);

3) The sex that is provided for also has its conceptualizations tested at the boundary, but because being provided for imposes fewer demands, atrophy in comparison to the provider is inevitable.

When pretty is ugly

So, what’s the bottom line? Intelligence might be difficult to define, especially given the current state of our life sciences. But the end points of a trajectory can be established with some amount of certainty. The mature male Angler Fish, at the end-point of his provided-for trajectory, for all intents and purposes has no brain. By inference, the mature female human, at the end-point of her provided-for trajectory, has an atrophied brain in comparison to the male. The only way that the human female can avert neural atrophy is by moral conduct, because it is only in moral conduct that her conceptualizations can be tested at any boundary that is comparable to that of the male. It is only in moral conduct that she can realize that there is a price to be paid for indulging in freebies that are not earned.

Affirmative action and the pussy pass in all matters costs men not only in terms of their rights, identity and dignity, but it also costs women in terms of their psychological and emotional development. And so it makes sense that, in immoral cultures where the most “attractive” women are the ones most likely to be provided for, they are going to have the most atrophied brains, they are most likely to find fulfilment as emotionally stunted doormats, and thus the least stimulating company…unless of course you are a PUA, who will linger on a dumb ten’s every word as the basis for his validation.

There is, however, a solution to overcoming one’s biases favouring “attractive” women. You can do this at a deeper, subconscious level. When you see a “beautiful” woman, learn to see an atrophied brain-in-a-vat. Her visage, insofar as you can extrapolate what lies beneath the makeup, is defined by a featureless topography devoid of the lines that define character. We need to revive ideas that have been practised in various world religions, from Christianity to Buddhism and Hinduism. The modern, pretty, atrophied brain-in-a-vat is a self-obsessed, vacuous, bovine creature that is unlikely to care for sharing in your adventures or hearing what you have to say.

Such is the reality of “attractive” women, at least within our zeitgeist. Men and women value physical attractiveness in women, but many of us value other dimensions of attractiveness, such as character. The idea of an attractive woman with courage, dignity and self-respect is, in the mainstream, logically incongruent. Within the contemporary zeitgeist, with its current moral decline, the combination of beauty and brains is pretty much mutually exclusive. It is a combination that is most likely to be realized only in cultures where men do not put women on pedestals.

CONCLUSION

With the impoverished state of our life sciences, the nature of intelligence has not been settled. This catastrophe is multiplied with the current state of our moral cultural decline. However, not all is lost. We can infer some things about the nature of intelligence from the developmental trajectories of other creatures, at their end points. We’ve thus been able to establish that organs, such as brains, do atrophy in the absence of stimulation from the environment. Indeed, in the example of the male Angler Fish, we have conclusively established that the atrophy can be virtually complete.

The bottom line is this. If the modern woman seems kinda dumb, well then maybe that’s because she really is.

REFERENCES

[1] Angler Fish – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglerfish

[2] Angler Fish (male) – http://theoatmeal.com/comics/angler

[3] Doidge, Norman – http://www.normandoidge.com/normandoidge/MAIN.html

[4] Edelman, Gerald – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Edelman

[5] Genocentrism – http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/05/genocentrism.html

[6] Habits – http://www.quotegarden.com/habits.html

[7] Habits – James, William – http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/prin4.htm

[8] Habits – Peirce, Charles Sanders – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce

[9] Habits – Sheldrake, Rupert – http://vimeo.com/11653660

[10] Memetics – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

[11] Sexual dimorphism – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

[12] Systems theory – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

[13] Systems theory (Ludwig von Bertalanffy) –

http://www.panarchy.org/vonbertalanffy/systems.1968.html

About the Author
Latest Articles

About Stephen Jarosek (aka Codebuster)

With his interests in science and philosophy, Codebuster's practical interpretations of theory provide fresh perspectives to contemporary problems. Necessity is the mother of invention, and Codebuster foresees that in men's rights we have the new necessity for maybe a whole new paradigm.

Gorillas in their midst - October 12, 2014
The success of feminism is the failure of science - August 21, 2014
Workplace Inequality: When One Side Has an Escape Hatch - June 16, 2014
The Misandry Behind Misogyny - May 31, 2014
What’s missing from the patriarchy discussion? It’s the matriarchy, stoopid - January 31, 2014

View All Posts

Robert Full Of Rage

I have noticed the different ways men and women view learning. You don’t have to look any further than America’s feminized education system to see the difference between female and male learning. There are simple rules you can follow if you wish to succeed in a feminized education system:

1. Show up to class on time.
2. Don’t cause any trouble in class.
3. Turn in assignment on time.
4. Most tests are multiple choice, so you can usually guess your way to a good grade.

You will usually not find students who are on a quest for knowledge or have any burning desire to make any educational/scientific breakthroughs. This type of pioneer thinking is frowned upon by some in the education system. These types of people don’t want students who think for themselves. Instead, they want students who will believe anything without questioning it.

Getting a degree does not necessarily equal intelligence. Following the educational formula mentioned earlier in my post doesn’t make you intelligent. Memorizing answers out of a book does not make you intelligent. Regurgitating the information professors shoved down your throat does not make you intelligent. Some of the most intelligent people in history are those who thought outside the box and created ideas that were considered crazy in their times. The genius ideas of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were not the creations of indoctrination centers.
- BeijaFlor
  
  Robert, I posted your “rant” from January 20th, a couple of days ago. It’s at: http://beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/guest-voice-robert-full-of-rage/
  
  Thought you might like to look it over. Thanks again!
- Codebuster
  
  Agreed. Some more buzzwords for this dumbed-down culture of our time: “Participatory learning”, “focus groups”, “change/conflict management”. It’s not only in the education system, but in the way we do business, marketing, HR management, and everything else.
- FifthElemen7
  
  Dude, I don’t know what univerisity you’ve attended, but I’m in my third year and never once have I had a multiple choice exam.
  - http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F
    
    You are one person telling relaying your one person experiences.
    
    Surely you’re not suggesting your experiences are the blueprint for everyone ?
    
    Surely not ?
BeijaFlor

Wow. What impeccable timing. I finished up an essay on “Socio(Patho)logy” and plan to post it on “Beyond The Sunset” this evening – now I can add a link to something on-target and truly erudite.

Thanks!

(PS – “Mencken’s Constant” seems to be germane, here.)
- Codebuster
  
  I had to google H.L. Mencken to find out more about him. From Wikipedia on In Defense of Women:
  
  In Defense of Women is H. L. Mencken’s 1918 book on women and the relationship between the sexes. Some laud the book as progressive while others brand it as reactionary. While Mencken did not champion women’s rights, he described women as wiser in many novel and observable ways, while demeaning average men.
  
  According to Mencken’s biographer, Fred Hobson:
  
  “Depending on the position of the reader, he was either a great defender of women’s rights or, as a critic labelled him in 1916, ‘the greatest misogynist since Schopenhauer’,’the country’s high-priest of woman-haters.'”
  
  I’ve always anticipated that my own views would be similarly interpreted in many ways, ruffling more than a few feathers. The key to understanding where I’m coming from is culture, and the extent to which personality is a product of culture. In this world view (culture), it makes no sense to interpret male sexuality/psychology separately to female sexuality/psychology. They are always connected within a logical whole (culture) – an agreed-upon understanding of how the world works.
Kimski

“If the modern woman seems kinda dumb, well then maybe that’s because she really is.”

-And if that is not the case, there’s somebody on the Oscar-committee that needs to start handing out statuettes for best female performances ever…
AntZ

As I have said before ….

I think it is counter productive for the MRM to talk about women. Reasons:

1) Female limitations are male obligations:
Women are cowards => men die in war
Women are weak => women in lifeboats, men drown
Women are dumb => men pay for lavish unfunded female entitlements (social security and medicare)

2) Talking about female problems diverts attention and resources away from men’s problems. It is bad enough that men are collectively and individually responsible for bad female choices — don’t ask me to waste time thinking about their problems.

3) It is unfair to women who defy convention and take responsibility for their own lives. How do you think Izzey, Hestia, Typhon, and Girlwriteswhat feel about being lumped into a cesspool full of entitled princesses?

I honour and respect all those who fight for equal protection for men and boys. These are my comrades in arms, regardless of their gender.
- Paul Elam
  
  It is a fair point to bring up, and the truth is I hesitated before running this.
  
  BUT.
  
  Here is the deal. While this is a men’s right website, it is not THE men’s movement. We are also a forum for a diverse group of men who make a wide range of social commentary. This article is social commentary, and a pretty well written piece of it at that.
  
  As to point number 3 of your comment I reject it entirely. I have mentioned overarching problems with men, generally speaking, over and over again in articles and comments.
  
  Saying that men are too busy pleasing women to notice their rights being destroyed is a fact, and not equating them to the many male MRA’s in our ranks.
  
  Your position is unfortunately PC in a way that says we cannot explore what we believe to be generally universal truths if it might offend a handful of people it does not apply to.
  
  I don’t think Izzey, Hestia, Typhon, GWW et al were lumped into that group any more than I lump you into the category of white knight or feminist sycophant, which I consider almost all men to be.
  
  All of us, men and women on this site, are those that have risen above what is standard for their sex. If those women have done that, and I think they have, I would be shocked if they found this piece personally insulting.
  
  Now, THAT being said, there is the concept of truthful but unimportant/counterproductive. That is a tough call. I will always maintain that we have an absolute need to critique what modern society is enabling and even pressuring women to be, in character and behavior.
  
  It is a serious problem.
  
  But where that examination becomes gratuitous we can and should have a problem.
  
  I will sleep on your words, consider them some more, and invite other readers to chime in. If we are going to change policy here about content, it must be thoughtful and in consideration to those who benefit from the articles here.
  - AntZ
    
    I understand that mine is a minority opinion. I hope that I am wrong. It may also turn out that it is a matter of quantity — in which case, AVfM is probably in the “just right” category when it comes to woman-centerred articles.
    
    My guess is that 5% of AVfM articles are primarily concerned with female behavior. Hopefully, that is the right amount. Other MRM sites feature a much higher percentage of content that primarily deals with female behaviour. This is one of the reasons I prefer AVfM.
    
    I am not interested in women’s problems. I am interested in men’s problems. Women have enough attention and resources devoted to their problems.
  - Bellator Nam Parilitas
    
    Paul,
    
    Do not change a thing. This site is a life saver. Less than a week ago I was contemplating taking my own life. I have lost my wife, (A woman I believed to be my heart and soul) my daughter and my home. The divorce was finalized in December of 2010. The entire time from the time we had separated (August of 2010) until less than a week ago I had allowed my ex-wife to convince me that everything that had happened (her infidelity, sexual abusiveness i.e. telling me she was going to cheat on me if I didn’t sleep with her, her physical abusivness, her drug problem, and the divorce) was entirely a consequence of the way that I treated her.
    
    The one thing that I did that was not placing her on a pedestal was demanding that if she was not going to work then she needed to take care of the household i.e. laundry, dishes, cooking. Unfortunately I was suckered into believing that she was right.
    
    Thanks to this site I have choked down the red pill and am ready to take a stand. I have come to the realization that my demands were not unfair. That I deserved to be treated much better than I was.
    
    In the past week I have confronted my ex-wife verbally and informed her that I will no longer be her ATM. Over the past year and a half I have been sending her over $800.00 a month. Even that is not enough. She continually demands more saying that I have no idea how much it costs to raise our daughter alone.
    
    I have since cut my payments back to $400.00 a month, which is $100.00 more than the court required amount. I have told her that she needs to seek help for her drug problem and that I will not be guilt tripped any longer. I have since hung up on her everytime she has tried to guilt trip me.
    
    This site has assisted me in regaining my pride, self esteem, independence and sense of honor.
    
    Thank you Paul and everyone that makes this site what it is!
    
    P.S. I appologize for the slight incoherence. I have not spoken of this in such a public setting before and it is still very raw for me. I do think that it got my point across.
    - Kimski
      
      “I had allowed my ex-wife to convince me that everything that had happened (her infidelity, sexual abusiveness i.e. telling me she was going to cheat on me if I didn’t sleep with her, her physical abusivness, her drug problem, and the divorce) was entirely a consequence of the way that I treated her.”
      
      Everything you have just described is a very common strategy used by women that cheat on their partner. You can read a lot more about it here:
      
      http://womensinfidelity.com/
      - Bellator Nam Parilitas
        
        Thank you Kimski,
        
        I am still trying to come to the grips with the fact that what I have been believing for over a year is not only wrong but so grossly wrong it is sickening that someone could take those kinds of actions and then project their own feelings of guilt and responsibility onto someone that they once professed to loving.
        
        I served in the U.S. Army and graduated from a psyops course that trained me in how to manipulate the enemies emotions and psychological perspectives for the betterment of the United States. With all of that knowledge I still could not see what she was doing for what it was.
        
        Kinda dissappointed in myself…LOL
      - Kimski
        
        @Bellator Nam Parilitas.
        
        Don’t be so hard on yourself. I bought it hook, line and sinker, too. I’ll bet the majority of divorced men went down that road, and you’re quite right:
        It is a sickening, disgusting behavioral pattern. But I guess it is just another side of the lack of taking responsibilty of their own actions, that has become so widespread among ‘our better halves’.
        
        Here’s an idea for the perfect use of women in the military: Train them to be captured and start mindfucking the enemy to an extent where they kill themselves and each other. They seem to have a natural talent for doing those kinds of things anyway.
      - Bellator Nam Parilitas
        
        @ Kimski
        
        Holy Crap you had me laughing so hard I almost wet myself!
      - Kimski
        
        @Bellator Nam Parilitas
        
        Sounds good.
        Mission accomplished.
      - Codebuster
        
        Interesting link, Kimski. It provides a pretty good psychological profile of what goes through a woman’s mind when she’s about to pull the plug. It also provides cause to contemplate what it is about our cultures that precipitate this kind of behavior profile.
      - Kimski
        
        @Codebuster:
        
        Go back and look at stage 1 in that psychological profiling again. It boils down to this sentence:
        
        “But they feel they should be happier.”
        
        As an example, we’ve had every tone deaf, crappy looking girl in the west growing up with a message that tells them, that they can be the next female teen idol,(-and most of them actually believe that they can). If you look at the average age of those girls, it fits right into the ‘Girl Power’-message that came along with the girlband Spice Girls. This message was hammered into them from a very early age, for a timeperiod of over 10 years, and are repeated ad nauseum in every braindead womans magazine on the market. These are the women that are in their mid 20’s to 30’s right now. Look at the present divorce rate.
        
        On top of this, we see all the other examples of unrealistic propaganda in every single media out there. As another example, it is quite literally impossible to get a good video game or a movie, where there’s not a female character involved that kicks the crap out of the bad guys, after a platoon of the meanest toughest marine corps soldiers have failed to do the same. And she is very likely alone in doing this. If you’ve ever spend time on an obstacle course and watched female soldiers go through it, I don’t have to go into details about that. Suffice to say, that it is very very hard not to laugh while it is going on. But women buy into the illusion, none the less.
        
        Another aspect of this is female politicians and CEO’s that usually doesn’t do very well, and in the case of the female CEO’s, there is a huge crash in stock value for the companies that hire these women. A stock value that bounces right back on top, as soon as she receives her golden handshake and are let go. You never hear about that side of the coin, because the media portraits them as ‘succesful empowered women in charge’, although a majority of them couldn’t find their ass in a phoneboot or handle the stress involved. Or they just make crappy decisions on a constant basis. But women buy into what the media says, and not the reality of it.
        
        It would seem as if there’s a deliberate attempt on all fronts to brainwash a completely unrealistic idea into women about what a women are supposed to be like, both when it comes to looks, abilities, and capabilities. I believe that most women buys into this crap to a certain amount, and when they reach the aforementioned age group, and one day realize that they haven’t reached the goals they were ‘supposed’ to, the husband and children are the first to suffer from it. And what is really strange is, that if they DO reach that secret goal they carry around, they’re not even happy about that either. Then they would rather have been housewives with children.
        
        In the late 60’s and early 70’s, when television reached the Inuits in the most northen parts of the globe, like the native alaskan settlements, there were a huge increase in divorces. Women that had been living happy and fullfilling lives in hunter/gatherer societies for generations, were suddenly exposed to daytime TV-programs about the ‘hardships’ of the average wealthy american family, and they wanted that shit so bad that they started divorcing their husbands, in places where divorces were quite literally unheard of before.
        
        In light of all this, I have come to the conclusion that if you want your girl to grow up and have just a tiny chance of becoming a grown up happy adult, you ‘simply’ have to keep them away from any kind of exposure to the modern way of life. And what’s more, if you want any chance of becoming a happy family man nowadays, you should go take a serious look at the divorce rate of the Quakers, or some similar religious belief. You’re much more likely to find a grown up woman that takes responsibility for herself in one of those societies, than anywhere else in the western world at present.
        Women don’t want happiness, they want all the crap that goes along with unhappiness. And they want it because that’s all they ever hear about, no matter where they turn. And most men are quite content with a happy wife.
        
        But that’s just my two cents on the subject..
    - Dannyboy
      
      Bellator,
      Sorry for your troubles.
      In reference to your courses, it appears to me that you weren’t considering an “attack” from within the “home team.”
      A mistake I believe many of us make.
      I would encourage you not blame yourself for her acts of betrayal, and it sounds like you have already started to put an end to that detrimental act.
      - Bellator Nam Parilitas
        
        Thank you Danny,
        
        I no longer blame myself for her actions. Though I am dissappointed in myself for my inability to see through the layers of irrational logic that she spun like a blackwidow’s web.
        
        Though I think that this is mostly due to an unfailing and unfaltering trust that she was a good person and wouldn’t do anything that would harm me without a justifiable reason. This train of thought led me to look within myself for the reason I would deserve such treatment rather than focus on the true problem.
        
        I have come to the realization that the reason it was so hard for me to see through the illogical and irrational actions was because I expect everyone to act by the same set of ethics and morals that I live my life by. So when people, especially those that are close to me do not act by these same morals and ethics it is very difficult for me to understand.
        
        I am working on these things and am already taking a stand against Misandry and gender based inequality wherever I see it.
    - http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis
      
      Welcome Bellator Nam Parilitas. I was thinking about this article when I was scanning through some old music yesterday. You might like this one.
- http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue
  
  @ Antz
  
  I don’t feel targeted by this article at all. In fact it’s sort of flattering to be positively compared to party girl that doesn’t make me out to be the loser.
  
  My charm is my creativity and my intelligence, both of which I work upon daily. It’s nice to be reminded there men out there who are more interested in those qualities (or want to be) then physical presentation (which I’m not very good at–I often forget to put my shirt on right side out among other things).
  - http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue
    
    “Female limitations are male obligations:”
    
    BTW, this is seriously brilliant. Can I steal?
    - AntZ
      
      “Can I steal?”
      
      Be my guest.
- keyster
  
  The Men’s Movement can’t move forward or have a chance of succeeding without women being involved, anymore than Feminism could have succeeded without men.
- http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/ Girl Writes What
  
  Please don’t concern yourself about how I feel when discussing women in general. I do not fit the mold of the typical woman, so I know that women such as myself and those like Typhon are not lumped in with the rest.
  
  Truth be told, I don’t even really see myself as a woman in the sense of belonging to a class of people called women. I’m just me, and I happen to be female. I can’t speak for Typhon or the others, but I think they would not take offense at generalizations that have a basis in reality, because there are always exceptions to those generalizations.
  
  All of that said, I think it is largely impossible to talk about men as a class without talking about women as a class. There has to be a point of comparison, right? Otherwise, how do we measure anything?
  - http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus
    
    Extremely gratifying comment, addressing a recurring point of concern raised by several commenters. This should clear up a lot.
    
    As a matter of practicality and merit, I do speak in generalizations, but am openly accountable should it ever be meaningfully inappropriate. Saying ‘99% of females’ in every statement just becomes redundant. Given the integrity and caliber of humanity displayed by the MRA’s here, my perspective is that commenting in the context of this website confers that when we speak about ‘females’ we are speaking about females ‘in general’, and ‘in general’ is not defined as ‘every last one’, rather it is defined as ‘in the majority’, that’s why it is spelled differently. In integrity, we will hold ourselves to the standard of not smearing every last female into the ‘females in general’, and we welcome sincere accountability to that standard. With that understanding we can have reasonable, meaningful dialogue without giving disproportionate address to the rarefied, and certainly good, NAWALT species.
  - keyster
    
    “Truth be told, I don’t even really see myself as a woman in the sense of belonging to a class of people called women.”
    
    That’s Red Pill stuff right there.
    May we be so bold as to consider ourselves merely human, first and foremost? There is no “class of woman” (or “class of man” for that matter). This is exactly what MRA’s are trying to get people to see.
    
    There are classes of better or worse, strong or weak, rich or poor…but delineating the sexes into two distinct (and opposing) classes of people is what feminism has done. It’s a class warfare narrative meant to divide men and women.
- Codebuster
  
  You need to define the problem properly. Your first comment is spot-on – “Female limitations are male obligations”. But I disagree absolutely with your second and third points.
  
  Feminism is a problem not of women but of culture. You don’t counter a culture-problem like feminism by way of a knee-jerk reactive men’s-rights movement. All you’re doing is recreating the same problem but from a different perspective, at the opposite swing of the pendulum. Feminists have set the terms of the debate, and an exclusively men’s-rights movement buys into the terms that were first set by feminists. You are speaking their language. You think you are defying feminism, but you are actually supporting the diseased culture that created feminism. In a roundabout way, you are supporting feminism, and giving this mestatized cancer the nourishment it needs in order to devour the whole body (culture).
  
  And how is it “unfair to women who defy convention and take responsibility for their own lives?” This is a culture problem, and both men and women need to change. How am I lumping Izzey, Hestia, Typhon, and Girlwriteswhat into a cesspool full of entitled princesses? Not at all. PE gets it. In a very real sense, we’ve yet to define what the problem is.
  - keyster
    
    Codebuster – I’m troubled by the fact I have nothing to disagree with you about on this, because I usually always find something to disagree with everyone on.
- Codebuster
  
  tb, keyster and gww also get it.
http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

Mr Codebuster thank you for this article.

I have always enjoyed your posts and certainly so your other two articles, but today sir you have crossed the line and I must take you to task on this article.

You suggest that women are in fact quite possibly dull witted or beings who’s brains are poised ready to atrophy through inactivity. You fail however, to take an intellectually honest look at the seven areas of intelligence so regarded by most scientists, and provide a closer look at remarkable examples of common application in them by females.

I will continue your article in so much present text here for you to include in your next draft as it were.

Linguistic ability:
Maisy Albridge of Rockport NJ was able to talk her way out of a speeding ticket, a restraining order and a medical bill on the very same day.

Spatial ability:
Gail Malina of Newcastle NSW knew at the exact same time where her husband’s strong box, her safe cracking kit, her shanghai and the pool boy were.

Musical ability:
Betty Lulua of Cantrbury Kent could sing so loudly and of such glass shattering precision no bar in her area would refuse serving her for free.

Body-Kinesthetic ability:
Dianne Stocktower of Noosa QLD texted, then danced into some arms, then a bed, then a wallet, then a taxi all in the very same night even though she was intoxicated.

Interpersonal ability:
Nellie Bowers of Queens NZ knew herself so well she blogged about every square inch of her naked body in a 46,000 word marathon in a single night.

Intrapersonal ability:
Nellie Bowers of Queens NZ knew others so well she asked questions in a 12,000 questionnaire to her readers about their thoughts of her naked body in a single night

Logical/Mathematical ability:
June Maybridge of Paris FR could reel off not only the numbers of all her boyfriends credit cards, but could cross match them with incriminating evidence to be used in a court of law for extortion.

So you see Mr Codebuster while I maintain your article has merit, I believe until you include my addendum here in your article and repost it I will assume that you are indeed a misogynist.
- Paul Elam
  
  Thank you for weighing in. I await codebusters response to your points.
  - http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F
    
    Yes I will be curious as to what our CB will do.
    
    By the way, what’s different about you of late ? I can’t put my finger on it and It’s almost as though you shaved your beard off or changed you Grav or somethin’.
- scatmaster
  
  hee hee
- Codebuster
  
  These are indeed impressive feets by the fairer sex. I am humbled by your astute perceptivity. Can I reference you in my forthcoming book?
  - http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F
    
    Absolutely
    - BeijaFlor
      
      You probably shouldn’t have agreed until you found out what he was going to write … JK
      - http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F
        
        It’s ok, BeijaFlor.
        
        I heard it was a cheque book with my name scribbled all over it.
        
        P.S.
        He said he’ll sign every page in it too
Paul Elam

As I already commented, I have mixed feelings about this article.

I encourage all readers to offer their opinions here, in order to help us shape future editorial policy.

AVfM is a grand experiment of sorts, forging new ground in the examination of masculine and feminine. Doing that honestly will ruffle feathers at times.

I don’t much care about offending people, but I do care about offending them for the wrong reasons with the wrong message.

The question on my mind always, particularly when critiquing modern femininity, is whether the ideas further a solution, or whether they just form an attack.

Making that call is not always easy, and it certainly wasn’t with this article, which is ultimately why I decided to run it.

Curtailing the speech of MRA’s is serious business here. We don’t make those decisions knee-jerk fashion, despite our default position of banning violence. We talk about things, openly and honestly.

This article may serve as a great tool for future use in how we screen material, if MRA’s weigh in on it thoughtfully and according to their values.
- http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F
  
  Censorship has it’s place for sure.
  
  If for example, an article speaks effectively about how to commit the perfect murder, or how best to construct a nuclear bomb disguised as a loaf of bread then yes, have it hit the editing floor.
  
  With this article be it satirical or otherwise then I’ll vote it not be barred from publication and here’s why I think this:
  
  If it’s unseen we deny the opportunity to know how others think of the issues presented, and to do this is to gaffer our own mouths not just the author’s.
  
  AVfM is an experiment like you say, and the continued responses we share and discuss are the continuing results of such an experiment. To nip in the bud non violent discourse that is unpopular is to deny us the very feedback we never see elsewhere. This in itself is perhaps one of our greatest rewards here and I for one cherish that. Where else can one go to thoughtfully express disdain for an article and know a hundred percent it will not be surgically removed ?
  
  Also, it’s the very knowledge of that which keeps our responses well crafted and in turn begets other well crafted and well expressed responses with clarity and so on.
  
  If a post is truly repugnant with it’s view then so be it, we can handle it and for that matter so can the author I’ll bet. So big deal. If it’s even more repugnant than any of us could ever dream of then it will become jetsam of it’s own volition and sink faster than a chicken leg down fat boy’s throat.
  
  Talking about how crap an article is does a few things that are great.
  
  It has us sharpen our debating skills, gives us cohesion when we read another expressing something we agree with yet never thought of, and at the very same time reminds us it’s ok to chuck stuff into the mix and see what comes back. That’s very important because when we know we are allowed, even invited to do this then it means we have the biggest pool of all sorts of ideas and therefore the biggest layer of cream to scoop from the top.
  
  An unpopular article is only at its worst the “worst” of a single person’s thinking. It’s our responses that bring out the “best” of us, and it’s our responses that remind us exactly who we are and where we are going.
  
  So Paul, I hope this gives you an idea why I for one very strongly believe that articles like this never be hidden.
  
  I applaud your posting it while you have reservations about it at the same time.
  - Codebuster
    
    I also applaud Paul’s decision to post this article
- http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM
  
  If there is one thing that I can state about you, paul, for certain it is that you care who you offend. That’s probably a good thing. I certainly understand the mixed feelings about posting it.
  
  Codebuster began the article stating that it is meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I tried to keep that in mind while reading it. if I hadn’t, I doubt I would have finished. I did get a chuckle or two out of it.
  
  First, I couldn’t help but think that what I always wanted out of life was to be nothing more than a set of male genitalia. I could imagine nothing better. Now I realize that what I really wanted is to be a male angler fish; a set of male genitalia permanently attached to a female.
  
  Second, the reason I had trouble with it is that there is something in the article to offend nearly everyone, except PUAs, unless Codebuster is wrong about them when he states that the only opinions that matter to them are those of women who also happen to be 9s or 10s. If he’s wrong they will likely be the most offended, but quickly perusing the comments so far, I haven’t seen a single PUA voicing an objection.
  
  TDOM
  - Muk
    
    Ok, I just googled the male Angler fish
    That’s…pretty fucked up…
    
    I bet that’s EXACTLY what feminists want for male/female interactions
    
    Edit:
    Also, I DID notice what he said about PUAs. I didn’t finish reading the article yet, but what I saw of it looked pretty clumsy, and didn’t really fit into what he was talking about. It seemed like he was just adding in there just for the sake of pissing off PUAs. Personally, I don’t care enough to make a fuss over it.
    - BeijaFlor
      
      I’ve got to disagree with you on this, Muk. What feminists want is for the men to atrophy, to slough off, everything but their credit cards and bank accounts.
      - http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F
        
        …and car keys.
- Arvy
  
  I see no great harm in an occasional “tongue-in-cheek” poke at the feminist superiority nonsense that prevails throughout most of the internet and elsewhere. If it offends a few sensitivities, so what? Gawd knows they’re not shy about offending ours.
  
  However, I don’t quite see the necessity for dumping “the mainstream evolutionary psychology (EP) paradigm grounded in genocentrism” in order to speculate on additional possibilities for differentiation. They might even compliment one another if properly interpreted from a masculine perpective. ;^)
  - Codebuster
    
    If you don’t get your theory right, you won’t define the problem properly. The science behind all this is an essential part of the debate.
    - Arvy
      
      Only if one is actually engaged in a real debate with rational opponents.
      
      It was a facetious comment, CB.
- Dannyboy
  
  My two cents.
  I enjoyed the article, I took it for what is was meant to be according to Codebuster (well written CB thanks for your efforts)
  The only thing I would critique is the last sentence and I believe this is what you were talking about when you wrote about offending people for the right reasons.
  
  “….well then maybe that’s because she really is.”
  IMHO it is this last bit that leaves the bad taste. A slight modification of the wording might remove the insult aspect without changing the message.
  For ie.
  “…well then maybe that’s because society has encouraged it”
  
  In regards to the female content / commentators I believe Keyster sums it up best. Some of the writers are married to women and some are women. Same with the commentators. I believe it is the key MRM issues that need to be guarded and protected from being contaminated with feminist ideologue. Not the movement itself.
  We are demanding society recognize the injustices inflicted upon men and since society is not a homogenous sex it only stands to reason to encourage those women who get it to participate and increase the volume the MRM voice.
  The more the issues are broadcast and spread, the faster society will realize that men matter.
  Just my humble opinion.
  - Codebuster
    
    I am not saying that women are dumb at all. You misinterpret the purpose of the closing sentence. True, it is framed in a provocative manner, but its purpose is to deliberately expose feminism as a devolutionary force that harms women just as much as it harms men. It is feminism that is dumbing down women more than any other force in society… even moreso than chivalry. At least chivalry used to imply certain obligations on the part of women, in return for their entitlements.
Steve P

“It turns out that, on average, the intelligence of men and women is the same.”

That’s incorrect. Intelligence is not the same as IQ, and IQ tests are standardised by age and sex so that the average score of a cohort is *defined* as 100. A 13 year old girl who tests 100 in an IQ test has the same score as the average of all the 13 year old girls who take the test, it does not mean she scores the same as a 13 year old boy with a 100 IQ (and a 7 year old female gorilla will have an IQ of 100 if she scores the same as the average of all 7 year old female gorillas who take the test).

Since there is greater variation in intelligence amongst males than females you’d expect average male intelligence to be slightly higher overall, even if males and females start from the same biological baseline.There will be more males at the extreme low end of the scale with little or no brain function who die in the womb or in early childhood (very low intelligence is often associated with other physical disorders), thus cutting off the bottom of the distribution and pulling up the overall average for males compared to females – and indeed, child mortality is higher in boys than girls.
- dejour
  
  My understanding was that the test was designed so that both men and women score 100 on average. There are some questions that males do better on (eg. rotating objects) and others that females do better on (eg. language), and these were intentionally weighted so that on average men and women scored the same.
  
  So, I agree, you can’t really use IQ to determine who is smarter – the test was set up so that the genders would be the same.
  
  Here’s where I disagree: I believe the 13 year old girl is compared to all 13 year olds. So a boy, 13, and a girl, 13, who both submitted the same set of responses would both get the same IQ result (eg. both would score 100)
Rper1959

Ok Interesting. I’m no expert on any of the fields of study mentioned in this article, but my experience tells me that measures of intelligence are just that, measures, scores on tests. Measured intelligence (in its many domains pure cognition through to emotional intelligence) may bear little or no relationship to success or outcomes relating to how that intelligence is applied in real life to achieve an objective.

If instead we look at outcomes related to women in general and feminism is particular one must acknowledge they have been very successfully.

The leaders in women’s activism have sold their arguments to most of society, co-opted many presumably intelligent men to support them, gained control of political processes and enacted laws to support their agenda. Indeed not only have they made wise strategic use of their own intelligence, they have commandeered much of the collective intelligence of men to assist them.

The average woman further to the left of the bell curve, need do nothing more than agree with the way things are going , and vote to have it continue, just as she likes it. So it doesn’t matter how “dumb” the modern women is, her success at the expense of presumably more intelligent men is an established fact, due to the success of some of her dumb or not so dumb sisters have had engineered it to be that way.

Possibly it could be argued that the women controlling the show are exercising and developing their intelligence, with the support of your “brain atrophied” regular female drones, who require little but pavlovian desire and fulfillment to keep them in a position to do so.
keyster

Intelligence is not as much a biological imperative for woman as it is for man. EMOTIONAL intelligence, such as empathy and intention is.

It’s important that they have the intelligence to select for a mate, and be able to “read” their children’s needs and wants.

I remember when Astronaut Sally Ride, who works for more girls in STEM programs, posited that girls are very interested in math and science until about the age of 13, “…then for some reason we seem to lose them.”

It’s the feminine brain awash in hormones. The same hormones that have been informing female behavior for millenia. To succeed at mating she needs to attract the most worthy males. This isn’t done with SAT scores or even whether she can pitch a 90 mile an hour fast ball. This is done by becoming a woman. By looking like one and acting like one; the one that the highest level young man will be attracted to, the one who is the prettiest of all the girls…because they know what boys want.

Feminists HATE that young girls prioritize their physical attractiveness to boys over traditionally male pursuits. It’s their initial failure to recognize this, that prompted them to direct their scorn towards male control and disenfranchisment through government.

They couldn’t convince women to become more like men, so they targeted men to become more like women. This is the phase of the war we’re in right now.
- Tawil
  
  You make an important point – there are several kinds of intelligence and Intellectual Quotient is only one of them. Daniel Goleman back in the 90s showed in his book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, that IQ and EQ often develop at the expense of each other – if you have a high IQ you are often emotionally dumb, if you have a high EQ you are often intellectually dumb… not always, but often. He even alluded to some data showing that people with high EQ often landed the top jobs whilst people with the highest IQ often ended up working for them! So it’s not a simple picture of IQ being superior for all situations and seasons. However the high IQ guys are the inventors, philosophers, scientists and their work is rightly celebrated.
  
  When it comes to EQ, there are several components to it, including (1) ability to identify emotions in self and others, (2) the ability to physically act on emotional necessities, (3) ability to skillfully verbalize emotional issues, and (4) to use these recognition and verbal skills for social advantage. When it comes to the first one -identifying emotions- males and females are dead equal (except in one important study in which males were about 2% better at identifying emotions). Males are also better at considered physical actions in response to emotions. But then we come to points 3 and 4, in which women (generally speaking) far outshine men in their emotional intelligence skills. So women deserve some credit for having highly developed emotional intelligence on a few key factorial measures of EQ. Its important to add that females do not win on all EQ measures- males for instance are a lot better at physical, action-based responding to emotional issues… and I’m not talking primitive reflex-based reactions, but rather considered, sophisticated physical responses. You might say females are good at talking about emotions, but males are superior at action-based articulations.
  
  And why all these differences? Necessity- borne of existential privileges vs’ needs, which dictates how the individual will specialise in relation to IQ and EQ factors.
  
  Just thought i’d chuck that in to complicate matters a bit.
  - Tawil
    
    PS. one short illustration of physical vs’ verbal response to emotional issues:
    
    “A woman might ‘talk’ with her melancholic neighbor about what is worrying her in order to cheer her up; a man may invite the same melancholic neighbor to the movies; both responses -talking, or acting- serve to intelligently modulate emotions.”
    
    So often we omit to praise men’s skillful “doing” approaches to emotional issues. Doing is equally emotionally intelligent to talking.
  - justicer
    
    Very interesting indeed. But it also begs some questions.
    For example, when does this EQ begin to develop? If it develops relatively early, then boys are disadvantaged by biology, but also, possibly, by socialization which flatters and stimulates the EQ-enabled child.
    This would mean, though, that you could work backwards and provide compensating EQ stimulus to boys to help them balance EQ with IQ.
    Also, there’s the question of brain matter and how EQ decisions or responses are arrived at. On that score, there may be gender-based inevitabilities.
    - keyster
      
      It’s starts in earnest during puberty when hormones are released into the brain. Most everything to do with sex differences is hormonal, and how hormones have evolved and adapted. Socialization plays a minor role.
      
      I’ve witnessed both the male and female psyche transform before my very eyes through hormone therapy of transexuals.
  - http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus
    
    What an essential comment and informative comment this is. Thank you, Tawil.
    
    For some time now I have approached the situation thusly:
    Like it or not, through wicked and sinister hegemony, females are displacing males from roles that males have long earned.
    
    This leaves two options for men. 1) Enforce meritocracy, and 2) strategically outmaneuver females by acquiring their advantages- in short, develop emotional intelligence. It’s really not all that hard, if you think about it, emotional intelligence is largely overblown and oversold. It doesn’t add much value, but it does permit some superficial manipulative tactics that ought not be surrendered to females.
    
    Men, mount up. We didn’t ask for this war, but unfortunately it arrived on our doorsteps. We are formidable, and it is long since time to fuck off this scourge of depraved female tyranny.
    - Tawil
      
      Perseus,
      
      Good call… to mount up acquire their advantages. As an emotional imbecile, I’ve had to train myself in adult life to develop and use verbal emotional skills. It’s not hard, but naturally would be much easier to have acquired it starting from infancy (parents of baby boys take note).
      
      High emotional intelligence doesn’t guarantee goodness in an individual, on the contrary is often used advantageously to indulge narcissism and greed. Think of con-artists who acquire the language of emotional intelligence in order to manipulate and dominate others. It totally works.
      
      Your comment hit it- “..it does permit some superficial manipulative tactics that ought not be surrendered to females.”
      
      Would feminism have got anywhere without the use of emotional intelligence? Same should apply to MRA aims. Paul Elam, I would add, has a wonderful grasp of emotional language and uses it to great advantage… which begs the question -would A Voice For Men have become this successful if he hadn’t been blessed with that verbal emotional intelligence? I doub’t it.
      
      IQ, or physical articulation of emotional necessities (male specialities) are patently inadequate in this world of narrative politics. The lack of verbal emotional skill may be the single biggest reason for the failure of the MRM over the years. If we accept that as the case then it’s easy to figure out the way forward. I recommend all members here go practice your verbal emotional skills on your girlfriends and wives, and then bring your new skills back here to the battlefield.
      - http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus
        
        Thank you, Tawil, this is a great discussion.
        
        Your last paragraph there can be bronzed and mounted in the temple.
      - keyster
        
        “The lack of verbal emotional skill may be the single biggest reason for the failure of the MRM over the years.”
        
        You might be right.
        The style has been too directed towards a select audience of “radical extremists”, as MRA’s are called.
        
        Typhon, GWW and a few of the guys hit the mark, strike the chord most of the time.
        
        Stephen King isn’t a very good writer in the elitist literary sense of Chaucer or Joyce, but he’s sold a shit load of books appealing to a culture that enjoys tales of horror and suspense. He’s not even a writer; he’s a marketer that’s giving the public what they want and how they want it. He’s very conscious of this as he weaves his tales.
    - Tawil
      
      Perseus wrote: “For some time now I have approached the situation thusly: Like it or not, through wicked and sinister hegemony, females are displacing males from roles that males have long earned.”
      
      This comment has haunted me since you made it, particularly in the context of a discussion of emotional skills. Could it be that, as our manufacturing and labor industries shrink and out service industries expand, that female emotional intelligence (particularly verbal) is best suited to the dominant service industry?
      
      This possibility sends a shiver up the spine, along with the thought that we had better create a revolution in teaching young males how to be verbally emotionally intelligent. What good is it if a male knows how to fix a car but nowadays its all done now by robots and sold by emotionally intelligent women in the service industries?
- http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus
  
  Outstanding comment.
Skeptic

I have no problem at all with articles critiquing western women. I think such articles are useful to a lot of guys out there who are drunk under the coolaide of culturally manufactured glamorizing of females.
When I look closely enough the vast majority of western women I meet appear quite abhorrent.
Not only intellectually vacuous but all done out in hair-dye, high heels, make up, padding etc they appear grotesquely false.
The sum total therefore being visually deceptive, mentally dull-witted and thanks to feminism dangerously self centered.
It’s hard to think of a more unattractive package.

Time to take women down off their collective pedestal.
justicer

I assumed that this article was a giant sendup. Isn’t it??
As a retired educator, I have an informed opinion on these matters, having had boy-students and girl-students in my courses.
If there is any sex-based difference in intelligence, it is statistically insignificant. If you take all mentally based problems and combine them, both men and women can do them.
It is true that the female brain is different and works differently– science is proving that. That produces favorable and unfavorable results and intellectual preferences. However, any theory of dumb females is bunk — especially one that claims that all women inherit the atrophying brains of suburban housewives.
- http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F
  
  Relax Justicer, he’s having a lend of us.
  - justicer
    
    Well doh! is all oy kin say…
Dazza

I don’t think codebuster was being misogynistic at all in this article. It is however, a complex topic. What is intelligence? Some believe it is measured by an IQ test or by academic grades, or by how much we can remember and recall. The dictionary on ‘google’ says that intelligence is ‘the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills’. If that is true, then I think both men and women have equal ‘ability’. Not of all us exercise that ability and I think it is true that a beautiful woman might not think it a high priority to acquire knowledge and skills if she can attract everything she needs without having to. I think codebuster was making the point that if we do not test ourselves in a particular area, then we cannot learn and grow.

The difference here may be the commitment to learning compared to desires of self indulgence through the use of a provider. It is not about gender, but about the choice on whether we will test ourselves or not.

Also, in this feminist society, woman no longer needs to develop her character or moral standard of living, because men are blamed for everything anyway, so woman might no longer feel the need to work on her character, as she can get whatever she wants regardless of her character. Codebuster did mention character as a part of intelligence and I certainly do see it as a part of wisdom.

Today’s woman may not need to acquire knowledge and skills, she may not need to develop character or moral standards, but she could if she wanted to. Meaning, she has the ability to do so.

So perhaps the issue here is laziness as opposed to stupidity.
- Codebuster
  
  Correct. This debate has nothing to do with misogyny or misandry. It is a complex topic and it has to do with culture. The question of intelligence and what it is is directly related.
by_the_sword

96% of war deaths, 93% of deaths in the workplace, 80% of suicides, if we are foolish enough to marry, our wives will initiate divorce 70% of the time and take our kids (90% of the time) and steal at least half of our shit. There is a 20% chance that each of our children was sired by another man and if we have sex with a drunk chick the authorities will deem it a “rape”.

And we are the “smart” ones?

I don’t know about you gents, but I feel like one dumb-ass mother fucker. It is only through regular and repeated doses of the Red Pill that I can maintain any semblance of intelligence. Otherwise my sense of self preservation goes out the window and I start falling for all the bullshit that I was raised and conditioned to believe. I am like some recovering heroin addict (or maybe “crack” would be a better term) where I must always fight my addiction and the siren’s song to become a beta-provider.

I only hope that other men and boys will come across sites like A Voice For Men early enough before the damage of social conditioning becomes too bad.
- by_the_sword
  
  I wish that I could warn all young men not to be like me.
  - CCRoxtar
    
    Not like you? You mean you learned the hard way? Did you get a financially ruinous divorce or false criminal accusation? I’m one of the luckier ones. I have never married & hence have never been divorced. Nor have I ever experienced a Duke Lacrosse-type sit’n. Still, I too would (if I could) send the following warning to all Western males of all ages: CAVEAT ANDRO (let the male beware)!
michael steane

“The genius ideas of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were not the creations of indoctrination centers.”

In Newton’s case, nearly all his important work came in a five year period when he was away from the influence of academic control. Had fear of the Great Plague not sent him away to his, rural home, many of his great ideas might never have seen the light of day.

(Darwin’s greatest ideas also came during a period of isolation from the mainstream; he was on a ship far away from the sanctimonious control of peer review.)

As for Einstein, the charges of plagiarism sometimes levelled against him stem from the fact that he was working in a patent office and could not check his sources since the halls of academia were closed when he was not at work.

Far from expanding minds, it seems to me that modern “education” is far better at shutting them down.
http://lifespeculiarities.blogspot.com/ Izzey

I enjoyed reading this article, and so much so, read it twice and went to all the links. I especially enjoyed reading about the damn fish.

I smiled through the metaphorically written generalizations (cliche is more like it) but took it as a very well researched (and written) parody.

It did not offend me, and I think it belongs here.
There is a fine line between satire and truth.

Unfortunately, there is a whole lot of truth here.

Well done, Codebuster.

Izzey
- http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F
  
  Good on you Izzey,
  
  I had not the slightest doubt you wouldn’t be offended. You and Typhonblue are way too wise to fall into the shallow indulgence of feminist claptrap.
  
  I tell you, I can almost hear the sound of long ladders falling against the sides of horses in the femmo camps as they read this article.
  
  It makes me wish I owned a hardware shop.
  - Codebuster
    
    I also knew that Izzey would get it, and wouldn’t be offended.
    - Bev
      
      Why should any thinking woman be offended? Feminism has crippled women who think and are willing to stand on their own feet.
http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

@by_the_sword: nice summary!

96% of war deaths, 93% of deaths in the workplace, 80% of suicides, if we are foolish enough to marry, our wives will initiate divorce 70% of the time and take our kids (90% of the time) and steal at least half of our shit. There is a 20% chance that each of our children was sired by another man and if we have sex with a drunk chick the authorities will deem it a “rape”.

@codebuster: you make some interesting points about atrophy of brain and character due to them not being needed in attractive women.

Still, women who have these qualities can land even more attractive males. Also, it seems that woman, nowadays, have lots of school and professional success. Not all of this is accounted for by female privilege.

Now you totally misrepresent evolutionary psychology.

this contrasts with the evolutionary-psychology perspective that presumes that everything is accounted for in the genetic blueprint. Exactly adaptation to environmental challenges is in the genetic blueprint, too.

This is called a straw man argument. You misrepresent evolutionary theory, and then you disprove it. Evolution made organisms, and especially humans, ADAPTIVE. This is a major design feature.

There might be some Lamarckian features to pass on fatness to the next generation. I have not heard of any mechanisms that pass on atrophy to the next generation.

I also have only heard that intelligence and attractiveness correlate positively. Certainly in men, but seems in women, too.

So you mix some interesting points with some clear scientific misconceptions. That makes the article cute to read, but easily assailed by people with different ideological background (feminists).

Category: Evolution & Darwinian Science

Here are some evolutionary primers for men’s rights:

Category: Evolutionary Psychology
- http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F
  
  I wouldn’t worry about the feminists really.
  
  They are still scratching their flat skulls over The Scopes Trial, as for them this is still a mercurial issue hot for discussion.
  
  Darwin also said once: “Light will be thrown on the origin of man” and the damned feminists still think this has something to do with a flashlight, a monkey and a snake with an apple in it’s gob.
  
  Don’t forget also that actual fisticuffs do occur sometimes when feminists from both the ‘Flat Earth Society’ and the ‘Hollow Earth Society’ accidentally meet when debating the Piltdown Man for example.
  
  Now this is human stupidity ripe for your terrific website, no ?
- Codebuster
  
  When I last read Vliet Tiptree some months ago, her basic claim (if I remember correctly) was that femaleness was biologically inherent (programmed), and not culturally conditioned. Her view, basically, is consistent with the evo psych paradigm and that because of this, women needed to be protected from men. To her credit, she does understand that a systems-theoretical perspective is damaging to feminism.
  
  The systems-theoretical perspective I discuss poses much more of a threat to feminism for the reasons I outline in my post as well as other points that I’ve raised before in discussions. For example, “children first learn violence from their primary nurturer.”
  
  Evo Psych is feminist-friendly because it prevents us from understanding what the real problem is.
http://www.newmenstime.com farzin

Mathematic is the highest level of human’s knowledge, in his most concentrate and abstract form.
It is the accumulation of men’s thoughts, experiences, learning, trying,.. across all his history.
It is the code form of all, what man learned from changing the material world, interacting with nature, thinking and elaborating what has been learned before him in any instance of time.
While mathematic is the immaterial form of his knowledge’s, electronic and computer are the practical updated level of his knowledge and intelligence.

It is purely men’s logical world, so females cannot manipulate, redirect or destroy it.
That is why his progress is awful. It is out of female’s reach.
So computers are actually representing men, and his logical system in our societies., how he thinks or how he elaborate the data, which he get them from outside world. He gained them through long period of his evolution.

Today our lives are all managed and connected to these little boxes., our daily lives, health, productions, food, dress, office heating system, Internet connections,….. All are managed, controlled, operated, modify,.and at the end they are possible because of this logical system, which is pure man’s logical system.
It can and only can work with zero female’s intuitions or emotional intelligence involve in any part of it.
So this is man’s intelligence, show me where is the woman’s one?
- justicer
  
  “So this is man’s intelligence, show me where is the woman’s one?”
  farzin, the common reply to that question is that different kinds of reasoning are performed at different places in the brain; and, that brain function is not identical in men and women. So all theories of “intellectual intelligence” should take that into account.
- Bev
  
  Not totally. While it is true that on average women do not have the spacial, logical or math skills of men. That said women can and do stand shoulder to shoulder with their male colleagues in these fields.
  I was into computers in the 1960’s as a career. The difference is (as I found) women who could didn’t, its all up to CHOICE. Why do the hard yards when particularly (in later decades) there was no need? I did find as time wore on women (feminism caused lazyness) found less need to put in the work they could get it without doing the hard yards.
Tawil

“…we need to dump the mainstream evolutionary psychology (EP) paradigm grounded in genocentrism.”

hallelujah, someone sees the light about the poverty of genocentrism and EP!

As someone who reads a lot of studies I can tell you that whilst the clinical data unearthed by EP researchers is sometimes rigorous, their summaries and conclusions are almost always flights of fancy which depart from the data – moreso than in any other field of study. Thats right, IMO its as bad as feminist conclusions and findings… I wont touch it with a ten foot pole.

As for the rest of your article I believe you just demonstrated by your own IQ the main points you made. Well done.

PS. and loved the tongue in cheek humour.

More please.
Paul Elam

OT

BLOG INVASION

We have not had one from here in a while. This one is worth it.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-01-27/new-hampshire-considering-reversal-of-domestic-violence-laws/
- http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy
  
  Note to others, when doing blog-invasions, it’s preffered that you link to the site using anonym.to, that way they can’t track where the hits are coming from.
  - Dannyboy
    
    Alek,
    Please explain “anonym.to”
    Sorry for my ignorance.
    Dan
    - http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F
      
      Dannyboy, Haw haw, god man.. don’t you know anything…?
      
      So Alek you explain it to him will ya ? Geese !
      
      (Sounds of a pen and pad being gathered.)
      - Dannyboy
        
        Dr.
        Well give me a welder, injection moulding hydraulics machine or a lathe, similar stuff like that and can do wonders.until my back injury that is. I still have like 1 large tool chest and about 3 normal size ones with a whack of tools.
        Unfortunately up until about 5 years ago re-boot meant kick it again to me ,,lol
      - http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F
        
        I’m sorry to hear you have a back injury Dannyboy, that must be a drag in the extreme. I hope it get’s better some time.
        
        Now, you do realise in my previous post I was trying to get Alek’s attention as I share your ignorance with the anonym.to what’s it as well ?
        
        I was hoping the sounds of me scrabbling about trying to find a pad and pen might not have given me away.
- http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F
  
  Ot also ,
  
  Paul I have sent you an email just now.
  - Dannyboy
    
    Dr.
    No worries.
    I know what I have an understanding of and I am aware of what I don’t know. I am always trying to increase my knowledge.
    The back injury was meh it happened sorta thing.
- http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F
  
  Those dirty swine just took my post off.
  
  You know why ? …because I was simply telling the truth about DV instigators. They juuuuust didn’t like the idea of someone telling something different to MSM caaaRAP !
  
  Hhhhmmmm.. Not im-fucking-pressed thefrisky.com(manders in swastika regalia)
  - Kimski
    
    @Dr.F:
    
    They are most likely focusing on the few times, when there’s something to it, and you’re talking about ALL of the times when it’s just BS claims.
    
    One party throws all men into the cesspool, based on the actions of the few. Second party calls them on their bigoted viewpoints.
    
    When first party refuses to take even a cursory glance in the mirror, in fear of what they might see, it’s not even the same topic you are discussing.
    If censorship could be labeled a discussion, that is.
- http://lifespeculiarities.blogspot.com/ Izzey
  
  I’m there…and this time I copied my reply.
  - http://lifespeculiarities.blogspot.com/ Izzey
    
    Oh……..and now that I’m trying to back up my reply with links….I’m “awaiting moderation”
    
    Here’s just one–
    http://hem.passagen.se/nodaddy/vald.html
    - http://lifespeculiarities.blogspot.com/ Izzey
      
      I’m going to keep bombarding them with replies.
      Bet I get blocked.
      
      They hate it when women challenge women.
      (I’m not even swearing…lol)
http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

“Trying to reconcile the beauty-brains disconnect within the context of our zeitgeist and culture is a fool’s errand.”

and,

“With the impoverished state of our life sciences, the nature of intelligence has not been settled.”

Sometimes when the erudite mind is deeply in pursuit of some scholarly aspect of our basic differences as male and female, it’s good to step back and take a slightly primal perspective, IMO. In the midst of that lengthy MENSA lecture, it’s good to look around at the brilliant assembly, then remember the dynamic that crosses all levels of human sophistication and intellects.
- Dennis
  
  RIGHT ON Ray!! I thought codebuster’s piece was more humorous than serious anyway. I think his digs at the life sciences and EP are great and long overdue.
Kimski

OT:

The new video from the False Rape Society made me want to smash my screen, when I read the comments from Catherine Comins.
That woman is one hell of a sick individual.
http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

“The new video from the False Rape Society made me want to smash my screen…”

@Kimski:

Which one? Do you have a link?
- Kimski
  
  Right upper corner, under ‘Featured Videos’.
  Brace yourself, Ray.
  - http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray
    
    I never did find the video. Did it have a name?
    
    Going there was far from a waste of time. I found this “rape news story,” went to the New York Post site and left numerous comments that got posted. http://tinyurl.com/85sff94
    “Greg Kelly Has “Flirtatious” Texts To Prove Sex Was Consensual”
    
    He’s the son of NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, and a local and national newscaster in his own right.
    
    I think the New York Post is about to have a flame war over that “rape story,” between MRA’s and feminists. There’s already a pretty heated exchange going on.
    - Kimski
      
      The name is ‘False Rape Claims: Fundamental Social Evils’.
      It’s on the frontpage in here, so I don’t get how you could miss it.
      - http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray
        
        Thanks for your patience. It’s a very well made, honest, and thought provoking video.
      - Kimski
        
        @Ray:
        
        NP, bro’.
        Patience is not a problem with me.
        I fish way too much for that.
http://traitorsofmen.blogspot.com forweg

Article of the freaking century. You comprehensively dissected and exposed PUAs, feminists, and the total moral and functional decay of modern society in one fell swoop.

Congratulations.
- Codebuster
  
  thumbs up!
http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

I like how you started with the bell curve description to put the differences in context. There isn’t much difference between the majority of men and women and small IQ differences aren’t even noticeable for the majority of people. It’s at the extreme ends of the curve where IQ differences are particularly noticeable with a severe under representation of women making great achievements in scientific knowledge.

I got a good chuckle on the Angler fish analogy with PUA.

I’m not fond of superficial princesses. Average women are more reasonable and can’t rely on their looks to get them through life. They’re a bit more like men, they have to work.
- Codebuster
  
  I agree with you, but “average” is not the right word. We’ve got to learn to see deeper than women’s packaging. I really don’t think that most men realize how much of female sexual allure is about the presentation and packaging.
  - http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus
    
    “I agree with you, but “average” is not the right word. We’ve got to learn to see deeper than women’s packaging. I really don’t think that most men realize how much of female sexual allure is about the presentation and packaging.”
    
    You pulled the words from my brain. I have been dwelling on this lately with some fascination. “Appearance technology” as I’ll refer to it is extreme. You really need to appreciate how expert designers have become at this. Female apparel has become amazingly detailed in its ability to sculpt otherwise very unattractive and infertile looking body parts into something resembling fertility. That men simply think one step ahead to peeling that technology off is greatly liberating from the superficial effect. Free yourself, transcend the hustle.
    - justicer
      
      Now there I entirely agree.
      Recently had a moment where a female with whom I was doing business dropped her dress-up persona and looked at me like a hungry alligator with eczema.
      Two months later, I realized she’d swindled me.
      Another moment, 6 months earlier, involved a woman neighbor who went and aged 10 years in front of my eyes, when I showed up at the door unexpectedly, and she roared at me to get lost.
      I’m afraid what you get is not what you see.
    - keyster
      
      Women have to be much more discreet in their selection process because more is at stake for them.
      
      The male attraction to the female is immediate because it’s purely physical. The female is programmed to go more indepth; as to his intentions, his status and his potential for protecting and providing. Hence the “courtship” process.
      
      The male is much less discerning, (which can lead to trouble for him later on down the line). Sex is not a commitment for him. For the female, innately (whether they want to admit it or not), it is a commitment; to the likelihood of becoming a mother for life.
      
      The Pill and abortion rights doesn’t change the biological imperative; the female’s emotional response to mating. It doesn’t make her a man psychologically. It makes her a man “socially”, that she can persue life as man might, sexually and professionally, unfettered by burdensome little ones.
      
      This is the stated goal of “women’s rights”. Give women uncontested control of reproduction, while ignoring men completely, and we have a society as it stands today, with the carnage to prove it.
      - Codebuster
        
        I’m not sure about this idea that women are more dicreet and men less discerning. I don’t think women, generally, are choosy at all (emphasis on our current zeitgeist). They get removed from the market too easily, and this shifts the supply curve to the left, creating scarcity and thus the illusion that women are choosy… when in fact they’re the opposite to choosy. Women are easily intimidated by their “ideal” man (confident, formidable), and they are inclined to the company of those men who do not intimidate or spook them. That’s why Game can often be effective, and why charisma (confidence) is so important for men. Women really don’t like receiving what they perceive to be adverse judgement from men, and knuckledragging troglodytes masquerading as exciting bad-boys can often provide the perfect compromise. A knuckledragging troglodyte can make a woman feel more relaxed and at peace with the world, and before she knows it, she’s moving in with him and having his baby. Women don’t avoid betas so much as betas make it all too hard for them, forcing them to make decisions.
    - Codebuster
      
      Every so often photographs of famous women caught without makeup make an appearance, like this one of Katherine Heigl. Men really need to learn to see beneath the cosmetics and the scaffolding. “Appearance technology” can make a huge difference, and the more skillfully applied (less obvious) it is, the more effective is the illusion. I have never encountered a woman whose illusion of “dazzling beauty” would transcend the harsh realities of a night spent over. If she’s healthy, clear skin, not overweight, there’s really not a lot more that a man can ask for with regards to her physical attributes. Women do not look all that different to one another without their makeup and clothes on. I realize that this fixation with appearances can be difficult to overcome, but men (and women) really need to do this. Men need to apply their imaginations, they need to learn to undress women with their eyes, giving them silly haircuts, clothing them in sack-cloth, and noticing the crowsfeet around the eyes and the blemished or imperfect skin beneath the makeup… and then treat them as ordinary human beings with nothing more illusory going for them than their character.
http://mensvoices.wordpress.com/ Tom Snark

Paul/all.

This may be worth a plug; certainly worth drawing attention to.

http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms

Take a look through the PDFs there. They DO NOT PULL PUNCHES when discussing feminists.
- Rper1959
  
  Yes Tom, highly recommended reading.
- CastleD
  
  Thanks for that link. I read one article so far:
  
  The Bold, Independent Woman Of Today and the “Good” Men and Boys in Her Life: A Sampling of Mainstream Media Representations
  
  A very long article but I found it fascinating and read the whole thing. It’s a thorough and in-depth examination of specific movies and books and discusses how male characters are treated as nothing but servants to women’s needs and emotions. Basically what is talked about here but he’s a good writer who mixes in a little humor as well. Recommended.
  
  If we lived in a society with less conformists and politically corrected soldiers the article (perhaps edited for brevity) would appear in mainstream publications.
  - http://mensvoices.wordpress.com/ Tom Snark
    
    “If we lived in a society with less conformists and politically corrected soldiers the article (perhaps edited for brevity) would appear in mainstream publications.”
    
    Give it a few years. We’re already significant in public discourse.
    
    And remember … print media is dying out.
    
    WE ARE THE MEDIA.
  - http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus
    
    Thank you Tom and Castle.
    
    Could we clearly distinguish needs from desires?
    
    Men are constantly berated with phrases like “meeting her emotional needs”. Emotional needs? Wtf are emotional needs for an adult anyway? We need to eat, drink and stay warm. Beyond that it’s all cream, right? The point is, the way it’s spun paints her as more human and him as more of a servant device. It’s always him who has to meet her “needs”. Why the fuck would she have more needs than him? Labeling them as needs rather than wants confers imperative and urgency which I think incites a hysteria that facilitates the charade.
keyster

I watch the game show Jeopardy often.
The male to female ratio (that passes the screening levels to reach the show), is typically about 5:1. Jeopardy champions are predominately male, about 10:1.

Is this a measure of intelligence? Not neccesarily. It’s more a measure of acquired knowledge and deductive reasoning. The women are usually academics, librarians, etc, and not very attractive…the men aren’t much better however, geekish and slight.

And why does a men’s rights website have to tippy-toe around any subjective analysis of women, while the mass media excoriates men and masculinity every chance it gets? Because we’re held to a different standard of what constitutes “hate speech”. Women are a protected class, above reproach. Don’t even mention the fact that that’s a double-standard, because that’s hate speech too.
- Dennis
  
  Steve Moxon, author of “The Woman Racket” said that men outnumber women on the IQ scale by a margin of two to one at 125, and by a margin of six to one at 155,
  - keyster
    
    Yes, he also covers Baron-Cohens research on thinking patterns; that men are more “Systems” oriented. But there are exceptions to this male patterned brain in women, such as Joni Mitchell and other women with male patterned thinking capability; the “exceptions that prove the rule”.
    
    Does an IQ test measure instinct, or logic and systems? Can an IQ test measure how someone might respond to a baby’s cry or what a child wants? Motherhood is programmed into woman to best accomodate her children through their most vulnerable period, the nurturing stage. “A mother knows” as they say.
    
    Feminism separated the mother from the woman, that she can be a woman without motherhood, because motherhood limits her in her competition to be equal to man. If women can control reproduction their goal to reach manhood is limitless…and then perhaps one day all this tedious and weak femininity stuff can go the way of the dinosaur. This is why “their work is never done”.
justicer

This brains-beauty connundrum having been deconstructed as a hoax, we can now do some speculating about it.
For example, there is the case of New Gingrich’s latest wife, Calixa; who appears to be a superannuated Stepford model, complete with a shellacked, peroxide wig, laquered lips, bleached skin, perfect teeth, and brown roots. She cannot ever have been guilty of a wrinkle, misplaced frown, or a love handle, and seems to have enjoyed a certain success.
I’d love to know if she has ever had a profession beyond seducing her married employer. Is she clever? intelligent? Has she ever spoken on her own?
Does she come with batteries (both senses of the verb) ?
http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

This is a very excellent and important piece by codebuster.

Several here are making a crucial error for lack of logical discipline, allowing emotion and chivalry to creep in.

Codebuster explicitly opens by articulating the negligible differences in intrinsic, natural male vs female potential, overall. Codebuster then goes on at satirical length to make the critical point- necessity is the mother of all invention, and nowhere can this be more true than in performance and character building. MRA’s are in the distinct position of being acutely aware of the vast, deep privileges enjoyed by females popping out of the womb with a vagina. Overwhelming sexual power, massive chivalrous tendencies of men, social favoritism certainly in modern times, etc.

It has absolutely no bearing on females to make the absolute truthful statement that we could easily imagine that trustfund babies are not as likely to excel in their performance, character building and personal development due to lack of necessity. Wtf is startling, or offensive or controversial about this self-evident statement?

Slandering a group (as femaleists perpetually do to males) would be to say that they are inferior by their nature. Codebuster cleverly and with much fun, makes the point that anyone can experience inferior development by virtue of nurture, or in the case of females, lavish privilege and spoiling. There is quite nothing new or controversial about this instinctive and ubiquitous knowledge; what is new is Codebuster’s lovely take on the matter.

So no, Paul, this piece is absolutely not of editorial concern. Quite to the contrary in this terrible PC Gestapo female supremic world, it is a necessary and excellent exposé.

Females simply are the trust-fund leisure class, despite all of their projection and feigned finger-pointing at the fabricated red-herring, ‘male privilege’.
- Codebuster
  
  I also wondered why Paul thought my post to be an editorial concern. Isn’t this sort of thing right down our alley, ftsu like never before?
  - http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus
    
    The angler fish was a brilliant theme to use, codebuster. Deeply ironic for me since I had recently discussed it with a friend.
http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

More male slandering, male scapegoating, femaleist filth parasiting off of male accomplishments by deriding them. Fucking depraved cunts, I simply will not take it any more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/the-athena-film-festival-_b_1232605.html

Let me know what you think the odds are of this comment passing moderation over at HefferPo:

You will not use my sex as a weapon and a scapegoat for your luxury.

Despite decades of “affirmative action” for women, discrimination against men, more subsidies and female favoring sexist organizations than you can count; despite the ridiculously extreme privileges females enjoy from sexual power, to males at their beck and call, still “96.4 percent of directors, 86.5 percent of writers and 78.4 percent of producers in the industry are male.” Because MEN ARE ******* AWESOME and do AWESOME SH*T. What percentage of men have the luxury option of being supported by a female just because of his appearance? What percentage of porn stars, strippers and models are male? They just “can’t get funded in these female dominated occupations”. Why do females require extra resources and subsidies to have entirely separate “sports”? Is that ******* male oppression, you moron? NO, IT’S CALLED NATURE. What percentage of Caucasians are on pro-football and basketball teams and win the 100 meter in the Olympics? Is that oppression of Caucasians by Africans?!? HOW FUCKING STUPID, DEPRAVED AND DISGUSTING ARE YOU, YOU RACIST FEMALEIST PIECE OF FILTH? Stereotyping and blaming others for your ineptitude is as disgusting as it gets. If you weren’t such a typical spoiled and privileged female, you would already know this fact.

“Women cannot get their stories funded, produced, sold, distributed and marketed in this environment.” Depraved deceit in the extreme. ..”cannot get their stories funded.. in *this* environment”, inciting the phantom bogeyman of male ‘oppression’. GIVE US A BREAK, FEMALE. WHO IS THE PHANTOM MAN WHO WOULDN’T want to make money if you were any good? WHO IS THIS UNLIKELY PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS?! POINT TO HIM. NAME HIM. I WANT SOME ******* EVIDENCE. WE ARE ENTITLED TO IT IN LIGHT OF YOUR SLANDERING AN ENTIRE SEX, “feminist”.

YOU WILL NOT USE ME AND MY SEX AS A SCAPEGOAT IN YOUR DIVISIVE, GROUP IDENTITY SEX WARFARE. CEASE AND DESIST SLANDERING AND SCAPEGOATING ME AND THOSE LIKE ME, YOU X-CHROMOSOME SUPREMACIST RACIST SCUMFUCK.
- justicer
  
  Perseus, just to add something f.y.i.
  For the cultural industries, the pendulum has swung violently towards publishing, hiring, and awarding females.
  However, up to recently, filmmaking was a relatively technical field, full of sophisticated engineering and equipment issues. That attracted men and discouraged women from the field. Today, technology has made the visual arts a user-friendly female occupation.
  We do have to acknowledge, however, a bit of history: that the home base of US filmmaking, Hollywood, was a male-dominated culture that fought the entry of women filmmakers and writers into the industry.
  
  On the other hand, people who make films have no coherent social life; they work killingly long hours, can’t be fawning over kids and driving them to daycare; fly all over the world, and their profession thus discourages the classic female concept of life.
  
  In today’s colleges, in classes that instruct new videographers and writers, the overwhelming % (depending on the field) are female, so the huffington article appears to be a stalking horse — a propaganda point meant to push these new female grads into the industry, and the current males out.
  - http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus
    
    Love the comment, justicer.
    
    However, I am inclined to reject and challenge this type of language:
    
    “We do have to acknowledge, however, a bit of history: that the home base of US filmmaking, Hollywood, was a male-dominated culture that fought the entry of women filmmakers and writers into the industry.”
    
    Please define “a male-dominated culture” and “fought off entry of women”. Those sound like phantom bogeymen of the paytreeearky. If females could do the job better for the same money, or the same for less money, economics dictate that they would have.
    - justicer
      
      Thanks for the reply, Perseus.
      (Aside; I just googled the question of Hollywood and women; there is virtually a cultural war being waged against “male” hollywood these days; not surprising, since feminization of media is a prime locus of the female take-over of society).
      
      Not being a scholar of Hollywood, I can’t justify my statement (about H.’s male culture) with an in-depth reply except to say it comes from long contact (my own) with films and by reading biographies of the industry.
      However, I think the most important observation is that films were an outgrowth of photography and were highly technical in nature, and that would not have attracted most women. So it may have been a male profession by default.
      - http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus
        
        A pleasure, Justicer, and thank you.
        
        This is very interesting, “Aside; I just googled the question of Hollywood and women; there is virtually a cultural war being waged against “male” hollywood these days; not surprising, since feminization of media is a prime locus of the female take-over of society.”
        
        To the extent that this is going on in Hollywood, Hollywood can lick my nuts. Their sniveling attempts to force female supremic subterfuge down our throats can suck on my chocolate salted balls. Before having any notion of the MRM, I instinctively could care fucking less about these P’sOS they’re putting out, Lara woopteedoo Croft Tombraider, wannabe Indiana Jones; Some psycho goth chick who’s skinny as a rail and super violent, Underworld; Xena “warrior princess” (are you fucking kidding me?); Buffy the uncoordinated hack who couldn’t perform a legitimate looking kick if her priss life depended on it; etc. etc. with the wannabe, contrived and just degenerate aggressive imposition of “female centric” media and “strong female characters” and “female super-action heroes”. It’s so artificial. Men in real life know that females in real life piss and moan if their soy latte comes wrong, they are no fucking super heroes. Men in real life, do however, do impressive shit, and thus the legitimacy of the stories. The recoil on those guns would snap Lara Crofts anorexic arms. Come on. So lame, so ridiculous. None of these abysmal ‘works’ have compelled viewing them, on a sincere and instinctive level.
        
        See female supremic Hollywood to the chocolate and the salt.
      - justicer
        
        Yep, and it’s even worse. Those fantasy kick-balls Femboids from Hollywood encourage female violence. Important reminder: a women will always locate, and use, some technical way to kill a man. Physical strength will not save our man.
      - http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus
        
        I very much liked your pointing this out, justicer. It hadn’t quite come in to focus for me yet, but you clarified it, the underlying and pervading message being disseminated by the zealot storytellers.
        
        “Yep, and it’s even worse. Those fantasy kick-balls Femboids from Hollywood encourage female violence. Important reminder: a women will always locate, and use, some technical way to kill a man. Physical strength will not save our man.”
        
        Someone remind me again why any Man ever lifted a fucking finger in defense or favor of a female, a species wholly incapable of gratitude and harboring nothing but unprovoked contempt for Men on the deepest level? I feel like I need a shower.
      - justicer
        
        My background is in the communications industry as well as other things. It’s impossible for me to ignore what mass-media does to people. Especially advertising, but all media.
        Kids are surrounded, re-enwombed is my term, by the media. Note that Womb contains the vital first syllable of Wooom-man.
        We can’t be indifferent to the Industry until it’s replaced by a Delta Star, perhaps from Mars.
    - http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus
      
      Please allow me to elaborate on my disgust with the term ‘male-dominated’. Its common use is tremendously deceitful and does tremendous harm to the achievements of males.
      
      Was woolly mammoth killing a ‘male-dominated’ occupation? Are oil drilling, coal mining, refuse collection, sewage maintenance, heavy lifting, real sports, invention, innovation and ingenuity etc. etc. etc. all lamented as ‘male-dominated’ occupations? One cannot legitimately pick and fucking choose. The deceit is in application of the term ‘dominated’. ‘Dominate’ can have two meanings, one objective, like the chess player worked really hard and was really good and so dominated the tournament. Good for them, right? Then ‘dominate’ can also have a pejorative meaning as in the case of a bully egregiously exploiting someone weaker. The current popular usage of ‘dominate’ in the term ‘male-dominated’ is to conflate the two meanings to exact harm on men where none is due, to deride their legitimate achievements, merited earnings, and deserved exaltation.
      
      To simply be greater in number is a form of domination, numerical domination, and by this definition, females have long since been the dominant force in our society. So we have long lived in a FEMALE-DOMINATED society, probably the reason why so few were compelled to work the long hours required in the film industry.
      
      Now I’ll ask the reader, is my use of ‘dominated’ in the term ‘female-dominated’ the objective form, the pejorative form, or intentionally left ambiguous to contextually coax the reader into interpreting it derisively? Femaleist ‘literature’ in a nutshell.
      - justicer
        
        Spot-on Perseus.
        Let me add one more thing. “Male-dominated field” is now read as a condemnation, based on philosophy of equity-entitlement. In other words, Affirmative Action versus merit-based promotion or talent or skill.
        So boys are no longer allowed to be proud of their inheritance, that males have “dominated” the achievement lists. In my day, as a boy, we were.
http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

I just had to bathe in the sick irony of this for a while:

“The Frisky” caption: “Love, Life, Stars, and Style”

Oh my gawd, who has a vat big enough to contain the puke? Modern females endeavor “Love, Life, Stars, and Style”, and have the cataclysmic absence of scruples to simultaneously piss and moan “oppression” .. “oh the paytreeearky”…
justicer

In 2002, Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,322652,00.html) ran a fawning article on the 3 female executives who were running half the major studios in Hollywood.
This is what the writer said about the chair of Columbia Pictures:

“[Amy] Pascal, who cultivates a disarmingly dizzy but likable persona, originally became known for “chick flicks”–with strong mainstream instincts — in the early 1990s. As a Columbia vice president, she championed such hits as Single White Female and A League of Their Own.”
Comment: Single White Female is one of the scariest depictions of female depravity ever put on film. Chick flicks, eh?
http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

OT sort of:

6-Year-Old Boy Charged With Sexual Battery Over Game Of Tag On Playground…
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/01/27/hercules-family-battles-playground-sex-assault-claim-against-6-year-old/
- Raven01
  
  Did you catch this one from the same source?
  http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/01/25/concord-woman-accused-of-suffocating-boyfriend-to-death/
  “Bennett’s long-term girlfriend, identified by police as 41-year-old Dava Alizabeth-Ann Steen, told police that Bennett had a history of health problems, and police ruled the death was from natural causes.
  The Vag Pass almost worked for this one. Well it may still when it comes to sentencing.
  
  But on Jan. 17, a witness contacted police and claimed that Steen had suffocated and killed Bennett during a fight. Police said they obtained additional evidence corroborating that story.”
  Can anyone point me to a single case where a woman is found dead and her boyfriend claims she “had a history of health problems” and without any corroboration the death is ruled “by natural causes”………. By POLICE no less, not an M.E.
  Had a witness not stepped forward the fat sow would have quite literally gotten away with murder. and of course her name was not mentioned as a murder suspect UNTIL police found corroborating evidence.
  - Dannyboy
    
    ok am gonna have nightmare over that one. Her picture reminds me of a human version of the angler fish.
    Am I the only one who sees the resemblance?
    - justicer
      
      When they execute her, for the sake of the ecosphere, I hope they use hydrochloric acid.
  - Kimski
    
    Oh, there’s more from the same site.
    
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/01/25/fresno-woman-who-killed-family-members-extremely-high-on-meth/
Tawil

At the risk of sounding flippant after praising the above article, I just had a slower read and noticed a few lines that I’d like to criticise. Firstly I’d say the article is still a provocative one that generally avoids essentialist claims, BUT there are some portrayals that skate close to the edge and there are a few thoughtless conclusions that I can’t let pass without a comment;

e.g. “women often derive considerable stimulation from texting, gossiping, shopping and dancing. However, these forms of stimulation are not comparable to things like fixing a car, creating a computer, composing a work of art, or working out a business strategy. So what do we notice here in the differences in the ways in which men and women think? In women, it’s the absence of decision-making. There is no outcome to decide on in the process of texting, gossiping, shopping or dancing, beyond consolidating popularity with your girlfriends or more simply: pure indulgence for its own sake.”

This understates what’s going on for women. There’s hell of a lot at stake if a woman chooses the wrong hairspray that makes her hair look like Sideshow Bob’s when applied (remember beauty grooming is an ‘art’ and there are ‘beauty artists’, not to mention the moral culture among women about acceptable presentation which carries high social penalties/judgments). Texting, gossiping or socializing involves the intelligent creation of, maintenance, or destruction of relationships – those are huge stakes, so it isn’t reasonable to conclude it’s pure dumb indulgence. In fact it comes across as little more than an attempt to be nasty to women, as it doesn’t adequately prove your point.

And the following came across as mean-spirited for being too general, proved little of your good hypothesis:
“The idea of an attractive woman with courage, dignity and self-respect is, in the mainstream, logically congruent… The bottom line is this. If the modern woman seems kinda dumb, well then maybe that’s because she really is.”

There’s all kinds of dumb, including those two quotes above which are dumb for not being more precise. For instance you should factor-in emotional intelligence for women with beauty, which is more likely to be encountered though admittedly this EQ may also be missing from some beauties. Socializing, texting and shopping involve intellectual strategy and money, and the latter requires mathematical budgeting skill – an IQ marker. So whilst I highly appreciated the rest of your article, you need to learn that texting, dancing, shopping and gossiping might involve at least some intelligence you have not been smart enough to recognize.
- Codebuster
  
  Texting, gossiping or socializing involves the intelligent creation of, maintenance, or destruction of relationships – those are huge stakes, so it isn’t reasonable to conclude it’s pure dumb indulgence.
  
  These play an important part in relational aggression, which is intelligent conduct. Painting it as dumb indulgence is a part of the satirical purpose of my article.
  
  In fact it comes across as little more than an attempt to be nasty to women, as it doesn’t adequately prove your point.
  
  But there is a further point that I want to make. If, in our contemporary culture, it is perfectly acceptable to slander men, then they need to be ready for the backswing of the pendulum. We too can dish back everything they give us, and then double it. These sorts of comments that I make serve as a warning, a hint of what is likely to come.
  - justicer
    
    Codebuster, satire is very hard to pull off. Just sayin’…
    - Codebuster
      
      Yes, as others have said. It’s a fine balancing act when you’ve got an important point to get across and you want your reader to continue paying attention. It pays to have a sense of humor, but you do find your conflicting objectives encroaching on one another.
http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

Thought of the day.

Females demanding males to appreciate them for what they do and not for their physical form (eyes up here bullshit) is the same as males demanding that females appreciate them not for what they do, but for their physical form.

We’ve done our part, Miss Priss, now it’s your turn. Let us revel in your integrity…
Dannyboy

OT
looking for some advice. I shut down the whole comment section ( 238 comments deleted ) of my local rag called the Hamilton Spectator with this comment:
“Hillbilly Heaven signs: Funny or off base? To those of you clicking the abuse button on 1Canadian I am killin myself laffin at you. He only c&p’d the article which is currently running in the spec by Evelyn Myrie. But lets get down to brass tacks about Ms Mommie State Myrie. She is a bigot. That’s right a bigot, she is mad because in some of the commercials for Swifter products ( not all there are some where men are depicted as dirt as well ) women are depicted as dirt. So why not be mad at all of the swifter commercials Ms Myrie or are you fine with men being stereotyped as dirt? From what I can tell about Ms Myrie she appears to be a fem-ME-ist. Which brings me to another bone to pick if fem-Me-ism is about equality why isn’t it called humanism or another sex inclusive term? I doubt she has an answer for that one and frankly most feminist don’t. Ms Myrie also mentions the U.N. oh Lord did she ever step in the bear trap on that one. See while the U.N. has plenty of organizations for women it has none for men. Recently an organization call the National Coalition for Men has petitioned 170 some odd countries to sponsor their Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Men. But hey why worry about men after all men only make up 40% of post secondary college and university population. Public health funding yup women receive a whack more funding than men. Suicide rates of about 4:1 but hey they are only disposable men. How about abused men shelters nope Canada’s government sadly lacks compassion for them as well. Anybody care to guess how many abused men’s shelters there are in Canada? 100? nope 10? nope How about 1 and it is run by a gentleman out of Alberta. I believe the gentleman’s name is Earl Silverman and he receives nothing from any government entity to run his shelter.The 8th of March is International Women’s Day And International men’s day is when? How about genital mutilation, female genital mutilation is considered criminal while circumcision for males is okey dokey fine, ooops bigot much U.N.& Ms Myrie? How about sentencing disparity for similar crimes? Yes you guessed it men routinely receive longer sentences for the same crimes as women are convicted of but hey that’s not sexist or bigoted at all is it now? Now who do we owe these sexist and discriminatory issues to? If you guessed fem-Me-ism you’re right, I again would like to hammer home this point if feminism was about equality than why does it have a gender specific name? 01/26/12 – 8:46:45 PM ”
The thread in question dealt with 2 articles written by evelyn myrie.

http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/evelyn-myrie/5/635/698
Here are the two articles:

http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/660686–swiffer-ads-demeaning-to-women

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/660388–hillbilly-heaven-signs-funny-or-off-base

I have screen caps as well but am not sure how to best use this. Also take note ms myrie is a sow ( status of women ) consultant.
Thoughts guys
Thanks
Dan
- Rper1959
  
  thanks Dan,
  
  “Comments disabled due to offensive posts.”
  
  Seems like your local rag simply can’t handle the truth!!
  
  Was your post above the “offensive” one? Really cant see anything offensive there myself.
  
  Would love to see the screen captures!
  
  We dont have swiffers here in AU but the wielder of the mop is a women in every case and there are 2 women and 2 men as “dirt” in the adds http://www.swiffer.com/media-room
  - Dannyboy
    
    Rper1959,
    Well not only did the spec shut down the commenting, they as well removed that one comment from my account there.
    Here are the screen grabs
    
    http://imgur.com/a/FiK5m
    
    Album is spec comments. The strange thing is that there was no complaints clicked on it.
- justicer
  
  Hey there Dan, nice effort!
  The Spectator, as you know, is published in the most highly unionized town in Canada, Hamilton ON. All major unions in Canada are feminist engines of advocacy, espcially the Steel and other giant unions that run Hamilton. The Spectator is owned by Torstar, holding company of the Toronto Star, which, editorially, is the farthest-left and most misandric daily in Canada.
  Local decisions in censorship will probably occur, though. The most verbal and responsive readership of media are females; those in Hamilton will tend to be supporters of the very feminist NDP party; or, will be female students at McMaster University.
  Finally, the censor might be a local copy-editor. Copyediting is an occupation, that, for reasons unknown, is wildly over-subscribed by lesbians. I ran a full-scale editorial operation; I am in a position to offer some informed opinion on that matter.
  Conclusion: One or two reader-gals pushed the button, and the local “editor” was glad to shut down the thread.
  - Dannyboy
    
    Justicer,
    Yes “Steel Town” has its unions. Local 1005, cupe, etc.
    I have come to the conclusion that the spec has a “hidden agenda” in that they are constantly deleting comments and articles which are critical of cops and their “champions” (ie ms horwath)
    Further to the point when I posted that comment within about an hour it received “2 agree” clicks, not one “disagree” or “report abuse.”
    Unfortunately I didn’t grab a screen capture of the comment at that time. Pissed about that, hindsight being 20/20 won’t make that mistake again.
    Given that the comment never received a “report abuse” hit I can only come to the conclusion that this was an internal decision.
    You will also notice in the “linkedin” url I provided that ms myrie is a freelance journalist with the spec, and a card carrying member of our infamous “S.O.W.” govt. entity. Nothing like a little vested interest to encourage bigotry and censorship.
    As for McMaster well they are about to have another flier run done in the near future. The ones I put up have been torn down, silly femtwits it takes me like 30 seconds to put one up and will guess it takes them a few minutes to peel them down.
    Given the differences in height between men and women might just jump and glue them posters at a higher level and increase the font size.
    Choke on that femtwits!
    Finally Justicer,
    How would you feel about coming out of “retirement” and teaching me some writing and grammar skills.
    Sir I need some help to become a more effective tool in this fight.
    I can comment here, I can do flier runs, I can make modest donations, but where I am lacking is in writing skills.
    My choice of trades when I left school was hands on machinery trades. (machinery is so much easier to deal with than people) Hence my lack of skill sets in writing.
    While I did go back and take some para-legal courses they were not writing courses per-se.
    I have been in contact with the Canadian Center for Abuse Awareness and they are interested in running my story however as I have pointed out above, I am lacking the required tools to accomplish this.
    - justicer
      
      Dannyboy, thanks for this terrific reply.
      All the data in your report line up against the tendencies I’ve noticed in culture and media. Our media is a caricature,mostly in the hands of proto- or crypto-misandrists.
      We need serious male media competition to this development (not just the polemical Sun empire, whose t.v. channel I rather enjoy, but which hardly touch misandry as a topic, guess why).
      With regard to gaining writing experience, it can be done, fairly quickly, fairly cheaply, by enrolling in an English-composition remedial (or first-level) course, at any institution of higher learning, including the community colleges around Hamilton. Stick with it! Writing is nothing but a mastery of the mechanics of communications. Also, keep reading books or articles that are well written, and pay attention to what works in those texts.
      If you wish, you may sign in at my private blogsite (which hasn’t been operational for awhile) and which is available here: http://rescumi.blogspot.com/ and leave me a private message.I’d be delighted to hear from you.
      OTHER NEWS:
      HALLELUJA! Breaking news: The Afghani family in Canada that killed four women, three of them their daughters, in an ‘honor killing’ in Ontario, have ALL been found guilty by the jury in Kingston.
      Included in the finding of guilt (first-degree murder) was the man’s wife. She had the added motive of having her rival, the man’s second wife, murdered alongside her own (‘dishonored’) daughters.
      They all receive life-without-parole.
      Thank god we have had gender-equal and Western justice delivered today. But watch the news: the mother’s lawyer will launch an appeal arguing she was “forced” to go along with the plot, being a woman, which was, in essence, part of her ‘defense’.
      I digress from the focus of this blogsite to stand, tearfully, to honor the memory of these wonderful young women who died at the hands of Asiatic barbarism, right inside their own family, and right inside the free and civilized country of Canada.
      - Dannyboy
        
        You have a comment sir
      - justicer
        
        Dan, I am your obleeged servant.
Ivo Vos

Codebuster,
On one hand I liked the article as a satire of a lot of so called serious reflections about the sex/gender subject. A nice repackaging of a lot of nonsense, boldly stated unproven assumptions, a lot of moral statements, emotional wording, complete with impressive looking ‘references’, and so on. It is a nice example of the bulk of feminist theorizing and would be a nice example of ‘how to become a rat in any debate in three easy steps’ as well. I had a good laugh while reading it. Especially about the new ‘proof’ of the inverse relation between ‘beauty’ and ‘intelligence’. My compliments.
On the other hand, the line between a serious article and a satire is rather thin. Personally I would have preferred it to be more ‘Monty Python’ like, a little more absurdity here and there, but that’s only my personal subjective preference.
If it was published on the Onion the context would have been more clear, and there might be a catch. There is a lot of ‘explaining away’ in the way trolls usually do, and it might attract a whole bunch of trolls. The Internet is already full of sites where everybody can troll away. Those sites are rather helpful in understanding more about human nature, but hardly useful in helping the debate on any more serious subject further. AvfM does this job quite well, and at times it takes a lot of effort to do so. If, for one reason or another, AvfM would become ‘just another’ troll infected Internet site it would probably lose a lot of it’s current attractiveness.
Klar

The article threw me for a loop and mental exercise.

Reminded me of when I was younger and came across a book by Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, which made a strong case (imo) about how our consciousness developed relatively recently.

I don’t think his theory was ever widely accepted but I don’t care; his ideas and approach were exciting and I still appreciate the case he presented and the thinking from a different angle. Still not convinced he was simply wrong – maybe off, needs more thinking…

AVfM has never been a simple site of articles – the discussions that follow absorb me even more. In a perfect world, we would be talking and listening to each other over a beer – this is the next best thing.

There are jokes about MSM stuff that lowers IQ just reading it. Spending time on sites like this sometimes had me wondering what I just did for the past couple of hours. Well, it’s become a part of my day now – exercising my mind, having my faith in mankind reinforced and having stuff to reflect on. It ups one’s IQ.

Out of any 100 things written here, the odd few things I might have a different slant on don’t matter.

Thanks, Paul, for the care and sensitivity you apply.
Codebuster

I see my post has been up for a day or so already. I just returned from the Australia-day ultra-long weekend and I’ll need a moment to gather my thoughts and reply to these interesting comments.
http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

More female supremic/misandric filth
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/cherie-blair/cherie-blair-women-mentors_b_1223481.html?just_reloaded=1

“…but some predict it will be another 100 years before women executives in the UK finally achieve equal pay.”

Comment:

“It’s over 100 years since the women’s rights movement was born, but some predict it will be another 100 years before women are [willing to perform equal work and sacrifice].”

The “pay gap” is a lie.

The Death Gap is real.

Get a life, you sniveling sexist. Economics dictate that you would be getting paid exactly what you are worth, if not for the governmental criminal injustice of “affirmative action” against men. By logical deduction, you are WAY overpaid.
Jabberwocky

Brilliant article. It is a bit of an overstatement of sorts, but most statements are when trying to make a point.
DarkByke

Woah now! You might actually let the females know how their own biomechanics work! It’s amazing that scientists and journalists still don’t cover the cold hard truth of life and our society. Yet here we are, laying it all out, and people still can’t accept the truth? We need more red pills.

Great article!
- Steve #789901a
  
  I think what we need is red bullets, pills are for people who WANT to see the truth. It is amazing what people can ignore when they don’t WANT to see the truth. It is also amazing what people will believe because they are afraid that it might be true.
  
  I wish this could be fixed peacefully, but the more I think about it, the less I think it’s going to happen that way. The worst part is that the only way I can see to stop this from happening again and again and again is to become what they accuse us of being. The irony is that if ‘The Patriarchy’ was real and was doing the things feminists accuse it of doing, they wouldn’t be able to speak out against it.
  - DarkByke
    
    Only a matter of time before it spirals out of control. I’m sort of wanting it to happen, just so people wake up. Things are falling into place, day by day, that take away people’s rights. You can sense the disturbance. People only change when it hurts bad enough.
JinnBottle

OT, a bit; “Women” seemed the best category for this, tho.

Check out this story from the Muffington Ho:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/erin-brown-faces-30-years-in-prison_n_1289555.html

…In other words, both man and woman are subject to being charged with vehicular homicide – man presumably also subject to 30 years. But don’t worry, folks, Erin is obviously a victim of all this, and from all sides’ indications, she’ll never see court – except as probably a witness against her boyfriend.

So – happy ending! The only casualties in all this are male – 2 dead (dare we call *this* sex “victims”? – nahh…); + Driver Boyfriend – who will likely get all 30 years, so incensed will be the jury at so much as *speculation* that poor innocent trusting – and incapacitated – Erin could be held accountable.
http://liberative.blogspot.com bob

The unspoken rule is that the opinions of nines and tens are weighted more than the opinions of fives and sixes, while the opinions of ones and twos are weighted probably nothing at all. There is no rational reason for this instinctive association between attractiveness and credibility. It’s a subconscious reflex, a bias.

False premise. It’s not about the credibility of the various women’s opinions. It’s just that no guy on the prowl ever gives a shit what fat, ugly women think of them.

On the other hand, the tendency of beautiful women to let their minds atrophy is undeniable. And that is because men fall over over themselves to do stuff for pretty women.
Zerbu

Very great article. I actually feel better knowing that the worthless bimbos don’t achieve anything out of life.

The thought of a woman getting gender-based special treatment but making little achievement is less discomforting than the thought of one abusing manginas to get into high status.

A Voice for Men

Humanist Counter-Theory in the Age of Misandry

Lessons from nature: Brain in a vat

Habits of indulgence

Atrophy of the mind

Sexual dimorphism in the Angler Fish

When pretty is ugly

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

About Stephen Jarosek (aka Codebuster)

Blogroll

Videoroll

Suggested Reading

Habits of indulgence

Atrophy of the mind

Sexual dimorphism in the Angler Fish

When pretty is ugly

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

About Stephen Jarosek (aka Codebuster)

Share this:

Blogroll

Videoroll

Suggested Reading