The Death of the Nice Girl

Where are all the nice girls at? Don't tell me. I already know. They are supposed to be devoutly sitting in the church pews waiting for a future husband to come along. They are supposed to be taking care of themselves concerning their health to make themselves more attractive to the opposite sex. They are supposed to be improving themselves in very fashion, so they are well-rounded individuals men can't resist and feel impelled to be at their sides.

Uh huh.

I may be going against the grain when I state this, but I do think good women are "out there." Trouble is, their exists a dearth of them that seem to be dwindling. Chances are awfully high the the good ones are either scooped up, or in the process of being in the dynamic of being with a man already. Funny how that seems like the flip side of American women's complaint of that all the good men are either married or gay. I don't exactly feel much sympathy for women who blither on like this---it's basically an excuse to stay single and bitch about their condition to their fair weather friends.

Even worse, the ratio of good men to good women is out of whack. I'm not certain about how that ratio is numerically, but I do know how it ultimately plays out for men. There's a lot of single men that are that way for a myriad of reasons, but one of the reasons is what I've stated above, and with the amount of single moms, cast iron bitches, used/washed up sluts, nutjobs, and the more gender feminist minded aren't likely candidates for the man who is more discriminating in his tastes, or serious about having a marriage and family (and children that are legitimately his) that isn't going to crash and burn. Hence, more paucity of good women: add to the fray that the women (men are wary of) overestimate their proverbial market value and shame men who don't date them with shit behavior, I can't say I blame men for not even courting women anymore after a time.

Now, I don't completely buy the traditional lines women repeat, either. I've read where apparent nice gal types have an awful time with shyness and making moves, but it seems like an excuse not to become intimate with men on more than one level. Seems like they have no problems with letting men trip over themselves in order to secure a relationship with them; of course, the responsibility lies at the men's doorstep, her work involves showing up and spending an hour and a half on her looks. You pay for dates. You ask her out. You follow up. You have to say and act in all the right ways. There's no promise that those things will iron out any of your differences or make her bond with you more. Basically, she has veto power and if you're not presenting yourself as a good catch, it's still up to her what occurs, if anything. And men have all the power? Even personally, in this situation? Will she continue the pursuit in kind? That's if she won't meet with her friends and family with any modicum of chagrin at all by being with you---even if you hit it off, your value plummets quickly if peer pressure demands you're a loser unfit to polish her shoes on a shine box.

Women will often go for what other women want, including men. Even a "good" girl will follow some of the examples of a bitchy alpha female if she feels it won't help being affable. The more dirty fighters will conspire if it requires backstabbing, cheating, lying, turning others against each other, stealing a man from his own girlfriend or wife, or even worse tactics. Yet good men still languish without a date, and if they complain about it, they are bitter whiners. But women take sexual rejection infinitely harder than their male cohorts and will even wreck havoc if thwarted. Most men, even half assed players, get used to periods where they are dateless or sexual specters on the primal landscape. Single women, even ones who don't put out easily and use sex as weapon once in a relationship, get tied in knots when they aren't attracting men like they used to.

Interesting how women use, "You should get laid/you're a loser that can't get laid."

And men are the ones obsessed with sex? What? Women aren't? With their vociferous amounts of babbling concerning their children, their asses, their boobs, their sex lives, birth control, abortion, tampons, PMS, how to give better blowjobs, or competing with other women over the slim minority of men deemed worthy, while dressing up sexy for the approval of their tenuous partnerships they developed they label as "friends?"

Christianity or any other religion holds no guarantee she internalized solid character values. Tramp stamps be damned. It's another indication of the hive mind American women either adopt or innately possess---I'll let the armchair theorists debate whether or not it's sociobiological imperatives that lead them to the habituation of such nihilistic hedonism; the ersatz rebellion of tattoos, piercings, drunken and stoned at an endless array of nights, hopping from one man to another, one club to another, in a desperate search for the next thrill at the party. Capricious in her ways, the "spiritual NOT religious" females aren't terribly different from women who feel they are the (a)moral arbitrators of those values---since they are women and feel justified in taking the tenets and either absorbing them as they see fit, or changing them in mid-stream when they work against her egocentrism.

Nice girls? Yeah, I may have gotten off the beaten track here, but you're outnumbered by the women I've outlined above. I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but I'm tried of arguing about it anymore.

Happy Father's Day

To all of the fathers out there, and the most appreciation to my own.

If this is post is brief, it's not because of lack of desire, but lack of sleep. Kudos to you all.

A Few Words about Women and Being "Taken"

In another form, a woman who'll I'll dub as KM, writes the following in regards to women and sexuality:

Oh, for Pete's sake. You guys tell yourselves whatever you want. I want to be held down. And it has nothing to do with the media or being schizo or anything. (Although I'm not ready to claim sanity yet...) It's a biological fact. And what's more, I'm willing to bet it's the woman who initiates it more often than not.

Ever read a romance novel? Um....never mind. Probably not. I've only read maybe 10 in my life. The thing is, the guy in the romance novel who gets the girl isn't the one who's all solicitous to make sure she gets home unmolested. She appreciates him, of course. But it's the dark stranger, the wounded, solitary count, the viking warrior who gets the girl. And he doesn't hurt her. He is forceful, yes, but has control. Look at Dracula. Well, I guess technically Dracula does hurt them, but he has the whole eternal life, undead attraction thing going for him.

Romance novels are not written to influence women. They're written to appeal to women.


Well, friends, I couldn't help but respond. Since I have trouble with such claims, I'll tell you why, here---I'll add a few things as I go tomorrow:

Even aside from women initiating it more often than not, hell, many men haven't even met women ask them out on a fucking date once.

Men are told by women to "treat them like a lady." Well, after seeing how decidedly unladylike women can be, why should they?

The one pivotal thing you must remember is that there has to be an underlying mutual consent. The gender feminists who want men, assiduously, to keep tabs on everything. They have men merely ask like little servants begging for crumbs and don't like gray areas because they operate out of fear. The women who play dangerous games of "rapo" like shifting from wanton slut to battered victim because they are lashing out at men because they feel like they have to maintain dominance and punishment---no matter how malefic its manifestation. That one time they didn't feel like it was consensual on a whim, simply because the relationship isn't going the right way, is the day he's in deep shit.

By doing the above, it ensues there is no "equality" in the sexual dynamic. The gatekeepers can stifle the valves of libido, and despite being having more control, blame the other for misreading cues or breaking the ground rules established. How interesting---the one with more power has less responsibility, and guess who's the one with more sexual power. This is where the feminists are in denial or clearly full of shit. It is also an undertone that's evident here---women's sexuality and essence is more significant and of import than men's, vulnerabilities be damned.

Many men are not given a manual for women and the sociobiology of sexuality, and when they do get something akin to it, it's often comprised of a couple of things---it's still about benefiting women, advice from women, and a good amount of filler. It's usually up to nice guys to fill in the blanks, and since that is often from inexperience, they can trip up---and that's, of course, their fault, even if they are in the dark.

If everything was cut and dried, there would be far lesser problems. But women often tell men, "Figure me out, I'm a woman, but I won't give you all the clues, but I change when I want" to "I wish you hadn't figured me out, it's scary"---because it indicates a loss of control when men truly understand women and sexual desire. Keeping men off kilter and committing sins of omission, even with intercourse, allows women the upper hand. Even the street talk on women when men get together and start comparing notes looks quite different from the idiotic maze women use in order to filter out men that are undesirables---men aren't interested in the fodder, they are interested in what works and not getting in the doghouse with women---IF they bother at all.

There's also a dark side to that mysterious rogue character you mentioned. Women have fantasies about them and make a grave mistake that underneath it all is that guy she pined for in her blossoming sexual maturation. Hell, even one of my ex-girlfriends loved the idea of Beauty and Beast and other seemly inane fairy tales. Yet, fairy tales can have a lot to teach us---including about those who are fixated with certain figures. Women who want to lose momentary control still think that their anti-hero, an inversion of the savior motif, will protect and rescue them.

A true dark master has allegiance to no one but himself, whether he is the modern version of the black magician, or beast masquerading as human---its contemporary manifestation is the psychopath who usurps women's personal power, even if it means torturing and killing her.

This is why I just shake my head at women (which is seems to be a domain of a lot of white women, especially) reveling in fantasies about being aggressed against.

Feminist And Guilty Part One: Male Feminists

I've always had truck with mere idea of male feminists. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I find the concept oddly intriguing, and the reality of it is no where near as the facade they would don. It is like the evangelist that plays the role of the epitome of a great Christian, while living a life of deception on the side and rationalizing any discrepancies.

For one, I'm puzzled at the their incessant agreement with their female counterparts that male privilege exists despite the overwhelming evidence that men simply, on average, don't have it as good as modern day women. Many will point out how women have been oppressed for thousands of years (or whatever amount of time it supposedly is) and almost completely ignore the pitfalls, the adversities, the tedium, the inequalities men face and are expected to accept nary a complaint.

Or, if they are to be acknowledged, it is nowhere near the suffering women go through---women always have it worse. Even gay men don't have it as bad as women, despite political affilations male feminists have with them, women are the ones who are the majority of victims of any form of prejudices down the line. And any incessant and institutionalized discrimination against men is the result or negative manifestation of patriarchy, and no women at all are to blame either . . . whether or not they are complicit in the silence for no outrage against the damning of men and masculinity.

I'm sure that male feminists will have bulwarks that buffer most accusations MRAs and the politically incorrect-minded can muster. My most destructive barbs always include menacing edge that they can't shield themselves against utterly---the hallmark of the good guy badge. And promulgate a good image. Chances are that they are doing very little to clearly help women, but have no problems with expecting---even demanding---men change for women, because, of course, women have it worse and women, despite being strong and independent, need help and protection from big, bad other men.

Male feminists have much to gain by their label, but my questioning of their self-description is thus: what are they really DOING as opposed to the lipservice they give to their position? It often serves to keep them employed in a cushy job that offers no serious challenge. It gives them the attention that many skanks seek---an audience in which they are the cynosure, the counsel figure, the fake post-modern shaman and humanitarian.

But it also gives them much lavished attention from women. Male feminists will deny that their motivation as a penultimate feature; self gain, and with that self gain cock-blocking is an accusation that is supposed be laughable, but let's face it, women will often buy into a proud figure that will promote one's self, whether it is in the college classroom or dance club. "I'M better than HIM" they will boast with an undercurrent of masked self-righteousness, in order to gain favor with women and maybe even prevent access to women from other men by stigmatizing or blasting them. So they rise to the forefront, which is what they wanted, anyway.

Of course, much of them dismiss or try to criticise men's rights activists, and pinning them with a cluster of charges, ranging from approval of wife beating to unilateral misogyny, and what have you.

Male feminists state most men don't believe they want to change (and should), but when they want men to change it is in reference to women and in service to women. Women are infallible, men are flawed and need to personally reshape their social, sexual, and workplace attitudes for women. And after all, men have oppressed women for centuries, right, so it's only right and fair that men should employ adaptive strategies in order to help women. In this regard, male feminists are no different than traditional men who expect men to live up to the standards of chivalry without reward---that women still need to be protected. And men are universally responsible for conduct towards women, and owe women that to fulfill the debt allegedly spawned from "evil" oppressive patriarchy.

Of course, we will call a spade a spade here due to all of the campaigns of "men can stop rape" and such other expressed associative guilt heaped on men from feminists: it's collective bigotry. Male feminists also enjoy using this in order to flash their good guy badges and claim high moral ground.

Continually preaching that men should practice self-sacrifice in regards to women, most don't live up to it in their own life examples. This is the main reason why neither MRAs nor gender feminists, oddly enough, trust male feminists. It isn't just the thinly-veiled invidious remarks towards MRA camps---male feminists grew up not comfortable in their own skin, with other men not like themselves, and may have even lived a life of wanton abandon with women in the past, and expurge their guilt and shame on others by demanding men shape up.

The true believers---which are the most damaging because they believe in their cause---aren't dangerous because tedium of their internal hypocrisy. It is the harm they create for other men, and men who desire women without the hurdles of feminist memes and the distrust fostered between the sexes.

Upcoming policy on trolls

I am going to write a hard and fast handful of rules about posting comments on here. As of late I have had a couple of visitors which my trust level remains very low about. It is nothing against the cyberspace alliances I've made over the years, so for that crowd (including MRAs) they have nothing to worry about. If you have any questions, please feel free to PM me on the main forum I'm a mod on.

For feminists and their mangina cohorts, you will only be allowed to debate on threads I wish, and I will give a curt and main point overview of Dos and Dont's. If a thread gets out of hand, it gets closed. I will not flamebait without giving allowance to speak, but the rules outlined have to be obeyed. There will not be an enormous list here; just a cluster of things I will "lay down the tracks with" so to speak in order to deal with unruly characters, engage in male shaming language, and those who, with ulterior motives and clandestine behavior, betray my trust.


The Policies with be modified if need be, and a continual series of "Feminist and Guilty" is in the works, in part, of societal malaise I've observed.


And BTW, those I'm calling out here as trolls and backstabbing fools are proving me right; men are truly shit upon in this gynocentric culture---by gender feminist women AND mangina men.

My Review of Neil Marshall's "The Descent"

The Descent has some of basal elements that make up the so-called branch of horror, often termed survival horror. But unlike it's precursor cinematic cousins, it dives deep into its cavernous abyss and remains there, never hinting that hope and nobility will ever win out. This is not a fun flick, or a feel good movie of the summer. And in the face of all the flicks featuring women kicking ass, being all-too competent and cool, and triumphing over struggle (often at the expense of men . . . again), it delves into hysteria and the macabre.

And like many movies of its ilk, it begins with friends having a good time, laughing amongst each other and taking on one of many adventures, and quickly after which, the main character, a Scottish young woman named Sara (Shauna Macdonald) loses both her husband and young daughter in an abrupt and brutal accident that will leave her haunted and traumatized.

Fast forward a year later, where the friends gather again in order to present her with some sort of therapy, Juno (Natalie Mendoza) style, for a spelunking expedition somewhere amongst the Appalachian caverns (echoing hints of Deliverance and The Howling). Her closest friend from England, Beth (Alex Reid), is not too keen on the idea for herself or for Sara, especially considering Sara is still raw from her ordeal, but she goes along anyway because despite Juno's alpha female goading and prodding, Sara seems to be okay with it at first. And since they are professionally equipped and fairly athletic, all pretty much everything appears to be well, even though we are treated to a brief nightmare to suggest a bad omen, and Sara imbibing psychotropic drugs to remain psychologically balanced.

Gradually, over time, things start to unravel. Sara gets a bind that displays her claustrophobia wasn't merely in her head. The ever hyperactive Holly (Nora Jane Noone) breaks her leg in a zeal to find a quick exit. Rebecca (Saskia Mulder) confronts Juno's overt deception when they find out that they are not in a tourist trap, but an (allegedly) unexplored cave that yields no sign of daylight the further they press on. Accusations fly, and the young gals are often at each others throats, in anxiety, what to do next. They had been strong, independent, fun loving young women at the onset outside of damaged Sara and the weight of her tragedy. Now they are encompassed by a sense of impending doom. And worse, Sara seems to be hallucinating---at first, until the others discover to their horror---in the dank caverns they have entered a lair at their own peril---they are being stalked. And their adversaries aren't human.

What are we to make of The Descent and its characters? What is it trying to say? It's clear that the alpha female of the pack is their Captain Ahab---Juno willingly or not, sets up betrayal after betrayal, including a hint that she had an affair with Sara's late husband (Oliver Milburn). She leads them into serious danger and even death when entering a cave unlisted and unnamed for the sake of high adventure and risk taking, and even involves one of them in an unsettling accident, the only truly nurturing friend that is Sara's rock. It's that event which sets the pivotal tone for Sara's psychological crack up. In a way, The Descent unveils its dark motivations for the women just as it pits them against a primal and fierce backdrop; the women are, in the beginning, rather giddy and shallow, only to expose their other (true?) selves when adversity strikes: adulterous, backstabbing, jealous, vengeful, fearful, and panicky.



And once Rebecca's sister Sam (MyAnna Buring) discovers the nature of their predatory terror, and the rest try to take a stand with Juno in a damaged need for redemption, it is perhaps way too late---Sara becomes horror incarnate (recalling Carrie and perhaps Predator in the visuals). Call me reaching and playing the role of a pseudo-Jungian philosopher, The Descent is just as a metaphor for abysmal feminine lunacy, a trek downwards into the psyche in which Woman cannot truly escape her suffering from Pagan Earth without the archetype of The Male Principle, whether it is savior, warrior, hero, or magician. It is devolution, a one way trip into the underworld.

It has been suggested that Sara may have died in the vehicle with her family and she is in an astral Hell, or that she was engulfed by her own insanity and what we see is that made manifest. Director Neil Marshall only implies these theories, never answering the dark enigma but leaving us with our own thoughts of its onscreen violence and treachery, and while I am not certain it's what he truly intended, the largely all-female presence leaves us to speculate that a post-feminist matriarchy, as a closed circle, Western women, American, British, or what have you, would be left to their own devices . . . engaging in in-fighting in a decaying coven that would implode upon itself in the face of feral nature and predation.

Standing up for Masculinity

Voodoojock, of his own site I linked to as well as others, enjoyed this response to "I am a feminist" so I am reproducing it here.

I am masculinist because of the following:


-It was obvious that I would be subject to more violence (across the board) because I am a man, and our justice system is more protective of women and the local authorities more reticent to look out for men.

-I had to pay much of my college courses and programs out of my own pocket, and special funds for my own sex simply did not exist.

-When I woke up to the fact in high school the elitist young women, whether they were sluttish or prudes would never consider me as a love interest because of my working class male status.

-I am a masculinist because women believe they have an inherent right to demean my sexuality and masculinity without consequences, or without protest, and if I do, I am considered a misogynist by default.

-I am masculinist because the Supreme Court historically favors American women in spite of feminist propaganda claiming otherwise.

-I am pro-male because I know that false charges of DV, sexual harassment, rape, and paternity fraud possibly leveled at me women are believed even in the face of ZERO evidence, the former three of which far outweigh any ersatz charges by men.

-I am this way because I will have to work harder than any female for recognition, job security, and status, and that employers are more fearful of firing and laying off women than men. When women can take more time off OUTSIDE of just pregnancy and use sick leave as an excuse more than I can.

-I am pro-masculinity when I know that women in clubs or lounges will always believe they know me, men, and relationships despite never truly accepting me for the holistic totality of my being, and would rather dismiss me out of hand than face true intimacy.

-I am pro-men because I realize that men's health, their pain and suffering, their burdens, and their loneliness and alienation is still overlooked, ignored, or even invisible according to this culture.


I AM A MAN, Virginia . . . deal with it.