Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Don't listen to the freaks

The preachers of tolerance don't actually believe in equality. They are malformed people who erroneously believe that if they can get you to accept their depravity, it will somehow heal their shattered psychologies.
A prominent advocate for transgender and women's rights in the tech world has been charged with raping her wife, The San Francisco Examiner has learned. Dana McCallum, a senior engineer at Twitter who speaks and writes about women's and transgender-rights and technology issues, was arrested Jan. 26 and booked into County Jail on suspicion of five felonies, according to the Sheriff's Department.

McCallum, 31, who was born a male, openly identifies as a female and whose legal name is Dana Contreras, was charged Jan. 29 with five felonies, including three counts of spousal rape, one count of false imprisonment and one count of domestic violence, according to the District Attorney's Office. She has since pleaded not guilty.
As any policeman can tell you, the sexual freaks are significantly overrepresented among the criminal population. They do not behave badly because they are psychologically damaged by society's rejection, they behave badly and are socially rejected because they are intrinsically psychologically abnormal.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Alpha Mail: are gays misogynist?

 The question is asked:
Ever heard of Redstockings? They've argued precisely this, because if you're gay you're denying sexual attention to women and thus being a misogynist.

Really.

Honestly, (radical second wave and third wave) feminism has thrown gay men under the bus. Why? Feminists (of these types) argue that there is no such thing as homophobia against gay men. They argue that gay men are discriminated against because they're socially perceived as feminine... ergo, gay bashings are just the Patriarchy backfiring onto men!

Feminists really need to make up their minds... are gay men seen as women by society? Or do gay men get treated like men are and thus possess "male privilege"? Both of these statements cannot be true at the same time, yet feminists (of these kinds) simultaneously hold to both: gay men are victims of the patriarchy because they're socially perceived as and treated as women, yet apparently because of their penises they possess "male privilege."

But we don't give chivalry to gay men, and "never hit a woman" hardly saved Matthew Shepard's life. And several stereotypes of gay men may be effeminate, but several other stereotypes of gay men are in fact hypermasculine ("all gay men are sex-obsessed sexual predators" for example).

Of course feminists want to enlist gay men to fight for their cause (and take them shopping) but the simple fact is that gay men, like all kinds of gender-non-normative males (including nerdy men and camp-straight men etc.) are socially treated as a third gender.

But feminism doesn't want to accept this. If it did, its entire model of unidirectional class-based gender oppression instantly becomes untenable.

So feminism throws gay men under the bus.
All we really need to know is the First Law of the Female Imperative: do they help or hinder the free flow of resources from men to women. To which, the answer is obviously: hinder. Therefore, homosexual men are intrinsically misogynist regardless of how they regard or behave towards women.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Why N lowers MMV

This should suffice to explain to even the most thick-headed woman why men view even moderate-N women as being less marriageable:
Murdered bride Anni Dewani 'told her cousin that husband Shrien was a flop in bed' Uncle claims Anni Dewani 'sent text about honeymoon sex to cousin. It allegedly said: 'Finally did it. Not as good as my previous boyfriends'
Now, obviously there was a lot more going wrong in the Dewani household than Mr. Dewani's inability to live up to the alpha ghosts of the late Mrs. Dewani's past. But the fact that men know women are going to make those comparisons, and quite possibly sabotage their entire marital sex lives over them, presents a sufficient risk to justify nexting a woman who would otherwise be a good marital prospect.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

The cost of Grrrl Power

The GNOME foundation discovers that a devotion to the advancement of feminist propaganda can get in the way of any actual work being done:
The Foundation does not have any cash reserves right now.

Why has this happened?

The Outreach Program for Women (OPW) has proven to be extremely popular and has grown quite rapidly both in terms of the number of interns and the number of participating organizations. GNOME, as the lead organization, has been responsible for managing the finances for the entire effort. However, as the program grew, the processes did not keep up. The changes were not tracked effectively from the point when other organizations joined the OPW. This impacted not only our ability to manage the OPW administration, but also to keep up with the core financial tasks of the Foundation -- tasks which already needed the full attention of the Foundation's employees and the board.

As a result of these issues, we have only just now finalized our 2014 budget. In the meantime, we made assumptions based on previous years' incomes and expenditures, and we authorized expenditures for this year based on those assumptions. Those assumptions proved to be more optimistic than reality. In addition, while our outgoing payments to interns must be strictly timed, the incoming payments from sponsoring organizations are very fluid, thus we have had to front the costs of OPW. Fronting these costs has resulted in a budget shortfall.
Well, I think we can all agree that reaching out to girls who don't have any real interest in programming is more important than whatever it is the GNOME foundation was formed to do. Why not simply continue the vital work of the Outreach Program for Woman with their sole compensation being the ability to bask in the approval of all right-thinking individuals?

It would be unfortunate if the Open Source movement was strangled by its misguided insistence on getting more women involved. In fact, one almost wonders if Microsoft might not behind it somehow....

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Society goes to the dogs

Literally, it appears:
If you’re wondering why playgrounds around the city are so quiet and dog runs are packed, a new report has an answer: More and more US women are forgoing motherhood and getting their maternal kicks by owning handbag-size canines. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that a big drop in the number of babies born to women ages 15 to 29 corresponds with a huge increase in the number of tiny pooches owned by young US women, reports the business-news site Quartz.

Dog-crazy New York ladies told The Post that they aren’t surprised by the findings — and that they happily gave up diaper changes, temper tantrums and college funds for the easy affection of their doggy “child.”

“I’d rather have a dog over a kid,” declared Sara Foster, 30, a Chelsea equities trader who says her French bulldog, Maddie, brings her more joy than a child. “It’s just less work and, honestly, I have more time to go out. You . . . don’t have to get a baby sitter.”

The federal data behind the report show that over the past seven years, the number of live births per 1,000 women between ages 15 and 29 in America has plunged 9 percent. At the same time, research by the American Pet Products Association shows the number of small dogs — under 25 pounds — in the United States has skyrocketed, from 34. 1 million in 2008 to 40.8 million in 2012.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely these small dogs will be able to take much care of these women in their old age. I suppose that's what cats are for.  Perhaps that's what will demarcate female middle-age in the future: the exchange of a woman's toy dog for her first cat.

Friday, April 11, 2014

The power of the Female Imperative

And the boundless horror of the female fear of public humiliation. It's amazing what women can manage to achieve together when they go into a prohibition-frenzy:
A controversial Facebook group which invites commuters to post photos of women eating on the Tube has been shut down.The group entitled Women Who Eat On Tubes was created in 2011, but recently hit the headlines after Transport for London said that those that feel threatened should contact the British Transport Police. The group, which has more than 21,000 members, asks users to provide information including what the person was eating, what time the photo was taken and on what line.
The idea that Facebook, of all companies, should shut down a group due to the posting of legal photos deemed intrusive, is indeed ironic. Although it does point to a potentially effective strategy for Westerners who hope to challenge the surveillance society.

"Privacy campaign Big Brother Watch called for the law to be changed to deter people from taking photos of strangers in cases where they intend to publish them."

The only question is if more women are afraid of being embarrassed by being seen stuffing their faces than they are of crime.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Learning, but not fast enough

Some Generation X mothers appear to have learned from the mistakes of their mothers:
After decades of decline, the share of mothers who stay home with their children has steadily risen over the last several years, a new report has found. In 2012, 29% of all mothers with children under age 18 stayed at home, a figure that has steadily risen since 1999 when 23% of mothers were stay-at-home, the Pew Research Center reported Tuesday. The share of stay-at-home moms had been dropping since 1967, when about half of all moms stayed home.
I don't think it is an accident that the first generation of mothers to grow up without mothers in the home have concluded that the grand social experiment was a disaster. Now if they will only abandon the rest of the equalitarian program, there may be some hope for the future of the West.