Friday, May 29, 2015

Yes. Next question?

Dr. Helen disagrees with my description of childless women and asks if women without kids are failures:
I don’t think men who have no children are “failures” and nor do I think women who have no children are “failures.” I think that people make choices in life that are right or seem right for them at the time. People are autonomous beings who may or may not want children. While I agree that our culture is a negative one that often mistakenly tells women to go only for careers and other pursuits rather than have children, I do think there are some women who do not want them. This choice may be wrong for some but not for all.

I had a friend in college who didn’t want kids. She is happy today many years later without them. That is her choice. It should be everyone’s to decide what is right for their own life. To call that a failure for that decision seems extreme.
I like and respect Dr. Helen, but I disagree with her here on two grounds. First, one's success or failure as a human being are not determined by whether or not one is happy. That way lies, quite literally, madness. I'm sure John Wayne Gacy was quite happy when he was raping and killing little boys, and that was his decision about what was right for his own life, but I don't think we would be well to describe him as a success as a human being.

Second, it's simply not possible to argue that a woman who is childless is not a failure at reproduction. That is a tautology; a childless woman has, by definition, failed to reproduce. Moreover, unlike men, this failure to reproduce is very seldom imposed by others, or by external circumstances. And while this doesn't make her a failure at anything else, it does mean that she has failed in her singular duty to her species, to her sub-species, and to her genetic line; she has failed to continue it.

 And as a human being, what Earthly responsibility could possibly be greater?

In our present age, young women are being actively dissuaded from fulfilling their primary role and responsibility as women and as human beings. It should be no surprise that women have never been unhappier or less fulfilled. This is a consequence of the true Female Imperative being replaced by a false one.

The only way to effectively dispute the definition is to a) claim that women have a more important purpose in life or b) to claim that women have no purpose in life at all. And the latter, I submit, is entirely more damaging and degrading to women than to suggest that they have a extraordinarily important purpose at which they can fail.

As for the former, well, what is it?

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Knowing the unknowable

It's shocking, I know, to discover that proud young women continue to be unable to successfully predict how they will feel about having children in the future:
Twelve years ago, I penned an essay for a Salon series called “To Breed or Not to Breed,” about the decision to have children or not. It began this way: “When I tell people that I’m 27, happily married and that I don’t think I ever want children, they respond one of two ways. Most of the time they smile patronizingly and say, ‘You’ll change your mind.’ Sometimes they do me the favor of taking me seriously, in which case they warn, ‘You’ll regret it.’” The series inspired an anthology titled Maybe Baby. It was divided into three parts: “No Thanks, Not for Me,” “On the Fence,” and “Taking the Leap.” My essay was the first in the “No” section.

So I felt a little sheepish, when, a year and a half ago, the writer Meghan Daum asked me if I’d be interested in contributing to the book that would become Shallow, Selfish and Self-Absorbed: Sixteen Writers on the Decision Not to Have Kids. I wrote back to tell her that I couldn’t: My son had just turned 1.

It’s embarrassing to be such a cliché, to give so many people a chance to say, “I told you so.” (And some people, I’ve learned, will say those actual words.) I fear I’ve let down other women who disavow children and who, because of my example, might face an extra smidge of condescending doubt. Worse, if I’m honest, when I hear younger women confidently describe how they’ll feel when they’re older, sometimes I feel a pinch of such condescension myself. Not because I think they’ll all necessarily want kids, or that they should have them, but because one tricky thing about your 20s is the need to make decisions for a future self whose desires are unknowable.
Most of the mothers I know used to proudly declare they never wanted to have children. Not some of them, not many of them, MOST of them. That is why the correct response to a young woman declaring that she doesn't want to have children is to laugh at her, because bearing children is the prime raison d'etre for every woman. The woman who fails to do so is, quite literally, a failure as a human being.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Women pay for Alpha

Any last remaining doubts about the reality of Game and the Socio-Sexual hierarchy should be eliminated by the behavior of female prostitute-users:
Why would a woman pay for sex when they can walk into any bar and get it for free?', is a classic male response to this topic.

Well, that’s highly contingent on how old you are, how good you look, which bar you walk into and, crucially, how fussy you are. Most females are very fussy indeed. We don’t want sex with anybody, we want sex with someone we’d like to have sex with.

Apps like Tinder are popular with women as well as men because she can see what she’s getting but they have drawbacks....

'You get what you pay for,' said one 37-year-old woman, who didn’t want to be named but has a twice monthly set appointment with the same male escort. 'Women’s sexual systems are complicated. My guy’s highly skilled at what he does. I’ve tried Tinder and the sex was rubbish. The guys haven’t the foggiest of what women need to orgasm and get offended and huffy if you dare to guide them.'

The quality of sex on offer appears to be one of the main appeals of hiring an escort - and the more ‘me sex’ is it, the better.
In other words, they'd rather pay for ALPHA sex than get BETA sex and all the associated material goodies for free.

Monday, May 25, 2015

It must be the smart women's fault, then

We are reliably informed that men prefer intelligence to large breasts or long legs in long-term relationships:
Men value intelligence in women far above large breasts and long legs, a Cambridge evolutionary biologist has claimed. Although having a large bust and never-ending pins are deemed by western culture as the epitome of femininity, when choosing a mother for their children, men look for brains first,

Professor David Bainbridge, of the University of Cambridge said that intelligence is by far the most attractive quality for men looking for a long term partner because it demonstrates that his chosen partner is likely to be a responsible parent.

It also suggests she was brought by intelligent parents and so was likely to be well fed and looked after in childhood, and so healthier. It may reveal why men like George Clooney ended up marrying human rights barrister Amal Alamuddin.
If men prefer to marry intelligence, and nearly 50 percent of women with advanced degrees remain unmarried and childless, then we can only conclude that the declining rates of marriage, particularly among the intelligent, must be entirely the fault of women.

Obviously, since we so prefer intelligence, it can't possibly be our fault that no one is marrying all those smart women.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Don't be that guy

This is about as good as life gets for a Gamma.

You can hope for more. You can do better. Don't be that guy. If you're the only man in the group and you're not involved with one or more of the women in it, you need to seriously rethink your entire approach to life.

Stop looking for female approval. You need male approval in order to become a man and you're not going to get it from women.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Schism with the Red Pill

It's an interesting history of the development of the theory of Game. "You are attacking someone who has shaped your world view." Great stuff. One thing I very much like about Roosh is his willingness to directly address his critics without resorting to dramatics.

I would bet on Roosh against the Red Pill sub-reddit as well. And frankly, I never thought much of the Matrix terminology anyhow. Neomasculinity is a much more sensible term anyhow, and as far as the distinction between it and the Red Pill Manosphere goes, I think an increased emphasis on tradition, patriarchy, and the nuclear family that is anti-socialist with more room for spirituality sounds considerably more like a philosophy I can support.

Friday, May 22, 2015

She's 37?

It's not so much the age, it's the hair:
She may be an Oscar nominated actress, but apparently there's no way she could convincingly play a 55-year-old's girlfriend. That's what 37-year-old Maggie Gyllenhaal was recently told by a casting director. The Crazy Heart star revealed in an interview with The Wrap Magazine that she was denied a role opposite a man almost 20 years her senior because she was 'too old'.

'There are things that are really disappointing about being an actress in Hollywood that surprise me all the time,' she said 'I'm 37 and I was told recently I was too old to play the lover of a man who was 55. It was astonishing to me. It made me feel bad, and then it made me feel angry, and then it made me laugh.'

To put it in context, According to this unnamed casting director, Maggie would not be a believable love interest of Val Kilmer, Kevin Spacey, Hugh Laurie, James Spader, Judd Nelson, Rupert Everett, Hugo Weaving or Jason Alexander - all of whom are 55 years old.
In fairness, Maggie Gylenhaal looks like she's going on 50 herself. I tend to suspect that this is less about sexism in Hollywood and more about how cutting her hair off makes a woman look like a frumpy, middle-aged housefrau.

Let's face it, if you look at the actors listed, the only one whose girlfriend she could convincingly portray is Jason Alexander's, given that this is James Spader's actual girlfriend.