The Friendzone: A Dysfunction Between Two Dysfunctional People

Like many of you, I am tired of hearing the classic “does the friend zone exist or not” argument. So, correctly assuming that nearly all straight males who have ever spoken to a female have had this experience at least once, let’s skip the debate and get down to definitions.

The Friendzone is a dysfunctional dynamic in which two people attempt to manipulate each other but only one of them succeeds. I have no idea how gay relationships work, so let’s assume that it’s a male and a female. In a Friendzone dynamic, only the female is successfully getting her needs met.

Keep in mind, the Friendzone dynamic is created when a man expresses sexual interest in a woman, and she rejects his sexuality but wants to keep him around to use for other purposes. Generally, these purposes are attention, sympathy, gifts, and/or money. In the PUA community, such men are called “orbiters”–weak males who surround the girl you’re interested in, and pose no real threat.

At first, the interaction begins honestly: the man expresses interest and the woman turns him down. So far, no Friendzone has been created. However, many men do not give up that easily, and believe that if they weasel their way into her “owing” them sex in return for favors, they can still win her body and her intimacy.

This is dysfunctional from the male perspective because it is needy, dishonest, and manipulative. The man does not want to be her “friend,” piggy bank, or emotional tampon–he wants to fuck the woman. Pretending to be her friend in order to attain sex is the root of the dysfunction, and it should be very obvious from this understanding why such men struggle to get laid in the first place. I know…I used to be one of them! Pretending to be her friend belies a lack of belief in own’s one worth as a sexual partner.

From the woman’s end, this is dysfunctional because it is also needy, dishonest, and manipulate. All women with orbiters know exactly what they’re doing, none of them believe those men are really their friends. When women are younger and naive, they may believe this until certain incidents show them what the men were really after in the first place (the exact same thing all straight men are after: her pussy).

Knowing full well that she is not, and will never be, sexually interested in the man, the woman chooses to lead him on anyway to get her non-sexual needs met (listed earlier). She knows that what she is doing is wrong, but does it anyway because the benefits are many and woman are, generally speaking, amoral creatures.

So, why do women pretend the Friendzone doesn’t exist or, worse, shriek about how it’s an oppressive concept?

Simple. If more beta males realized what the Friendzone truly is, they wouldn’t do it anymore. Dysfunctional, narcissistic women wouldn’t have their pet males to do their chores, fix their cars, pay their rent, listen to them cry, or buy them things. Most women would rather have men do everything for them than do it themselves, and don’t have the ability to regulate their own emotions and behavior. So it would be giving up too valuable a resource.

Knowing that fledgling (and even full-fledged) beta males will agree with whatever women say or claim to want, women keep up the charade on the behalf of the Sisterhood and the male labor it relies on in order to stay intact.

 

The Imminent Threat Of The Sword

There is something which, amidst mass delusion and propagandistic lies, absolutely needs to be discussed and understood. Put simply, that is the threat that Islam poses to Western Civilization, Israel and the United States in particular.

I’m not even going to discuss how the American media is currently vilifying Israel for its efforts to defend itself against genocidal barbarians. I’m not going to discuss the fact that Palestinians murder each other for not supporting anti-Semitic genocide. I’m not going to discuss how Hamas was started by Adolph Hitler’s Muslim partner-in-crime. And because I’m feeling magnanimous today, I won’t even be discussing the current Holocaust of Christians occurring in the Middle East. I do encourage you to read all of these links to get a fuller understanding of the situation.

No, my friends, today we will ignore the millenia-long history of Islamic rape, murder and beheading that has never ceased and never will.

Instead, let’s talk about Barack Hussein Obama and his connections to Islamic fundamentalism. Given how many there are, it’s somewhat difficult to choose a starting point.

Let’s begin with his half-brother, Malik Obama. In case you haven’t heard of this gem of a human being, Malik Obama is under investigation by the nation of Egypt as a Muslim Brotherhood operative and terrorist. If that wasn’t enough, Barack Hussein Obama himself described his brother’s conversion to Islam as “liberating himself from the poisoning influence of European culture.”

Read that last sentence again until you start to question and understand the true motives of your Dear Leader. If you still don’t get it, remember that he unashamedly supports Muslim terror groups.

Next, let’s talk about Barack Hussein Obama’s advisers. His Senior Adviser, the Iranian Valerie Jarrett, has perhaps more blood on her hands and connections with radical Islam than any other person in the country. Read that link and remember: Valerie Jarrett is Obama’s Senior Adviser, his handler and puppet master.

With that out of the way, why not focus on how our military is being infiltrated by people who believe America is the “Great Satan.” Not only do we have to respect their anti-American rhetoric and build them prayer sites to do it in–while giving them weapons and combat training–but our soldiers are being forced to submit to Sharia law during Ramadan overseas. Are you guys understanding this yet?

They are slowly infiltrating every level of our government and military, while our “leader” welcomes them with open arms and facilitates the entire takeover through the instructions of his boss Valerie Jarrett.

If this isn’t insanely obvious enough for you yet, Obama decided to re-write history for his own agenda when he fucking credited Muslims with building the fabric of American society. The POTUS is the enemy of the United States, working on orders from Muslims. You cannot possibly review all the evidence and come to any other conclusion.

Get ready–they’re bringing swords.

Callie Beusman Attacks IBM, Proves Their Point

Just yesterday, Jezebel reported on an extremely indiscreet conversation in which IBM executives discussed why they don’t hire young women. It came down to their likelihood of getting pregnant, over and over again, without actually working–a complete waste of resources for the company that is addressed at no point in the article.

Since Jezebel claims to report news, I’m curious to see their figures on how often this happens at IBM. Surely they wouldn’t have reported such an “outrageous” claim without data showing that they weren’t having a simple and pragmatic discussion, right?

The first problem, of course, is that such a conversation should have had to be discreet to begin with. Our culture is so completely overwhelmed with pussy-worship that to even suggest that womens’ choices often hurt other people is an invitation to have an entire article written attacking you. Because Jezebel completely failed to mention how often this occurs at IBM, we have to assume they were discussing a commonplace occurrence that was costing the company money. Otherwise, Jezebel would simply have mentioned that it’s extremely rare.

Some woman overheard the executives speaking at a lunch, and decided to tweet her feelings about the conversation as it went on. If you click the link, you will notice that she doesn’t actually make a point at any point in her emotional tweet storm. She simply explains they are afraid of hiring young women who will get pregnant and waste company resources by leaving, then mentions sexism and feelings.

I am curious when they’re going to make a point. Jezebel, how will you demonstrate that IBM’s fear is unfounded? Alternately, will you please provide evidence that hiring young women is profitable for the long-term interests of the company? Since you’ve decided it must be sexism, I’ll assume you’ve ruled out net loss. Link to your data.

Then, mystery lunch lady explains that they will only hire “mature” women, who won’t have children. Wait, what? A moment ago this was “sexism.” However, in light of new information it appears that they’re fine with hiring women, so long as they don’t present a potential risk to the company.

How is that sexist, Jezebel? That is exactly what they do with every employee. We’re then told, “the executives listed off a number of women who are currently employed at IBM, all of whom apparently have kids, and listed the amount of time the women were expected to take off in the next few years for anticipated pregnancies.

I suppose that answers my earlier question; this has happened so often at IBM that they literally keep charts to track it. Seeing that IBM keeps careful records of which employees are most productive, Beusman referred their vigilance as “invasive and inappropriate.” Now we are getting to the heart of the matter, as I’ve mentioned before that womens’ idea of equality is doing whatever they want, whenever they want, for any reason, without consequence or accountability regardless of damage caused to others.

Beusman believes that a young woman should be hired because, and that an employer looking for red flags is inappropriate. For that to be inappropriate, the employee would have to be above the employer, on such a high pedestal that no criticism could ever reach her. This bizarre sense of narcissistic entitlement is exactly why IBM doesn’t want to hire young women. They believe they should be able to have a corporation invest time, energy and training into them, and then they can take off to pursue other projects. There is not one single thought given to the person who invested in them, because that person only existed to facilitate the woman’s agenda in the first place.

The following paragraph, as telling as any other, reads: “According to a recent study, 52 percent of women in STEM careers drop out without returning; the top two reasons for them doing so are the “hostile macho cultures” endemic to science and tech fields and “extreme work pressures.” (The study also notes that men who want to raise families take issue with the extreme pressures, too — because, well, men enjoy spending time with their offspring as well. Shocking, I know.)

Let us not allow Beusman’s throwing a big scary number like 52 at us to distract us from the flip side: half of women stay in STEM fields. Additionally, there is no mention made of how many men fail out of STEM fields, which is another data point we would need in order for this 52% to mean anything. As usual, feminists data is presented completely out of context.

For those that can’t cut it, the top two reasons Beusman listed should read:

1. The men there didn’t change their language, behavior and thought patterns to suit female sensibilities, and

2. They couldn’t handle it.

Beusman mentions that men “take issue” with the extreme pressures as well, disingenuously suggesting that men drop out as well because of said pressure. The unspoken and obvious truth, of course, is that men feel the pressure, dislike it, and do what they have to do anyway. This is why men have always run the world and always will.

Beusman then demands that companies “remove these obstacles,” because all women ever do is demand that everything change to suit them. In one ironically fell swoop, Beusman demonstrates exactly why those women failed out of the STEM fields to begin with. To her, “remove the obstacles” means “implement Newspeak.”

Her final paragraph is the most underhanded and deceitful yet, reading: “So, IBM, why not start by making sure all your employees recognize that 1) women are people, not pregnancies-waiting-to-happen, and 2) those women who do choose to get pregnant need maternity leave — and new fathers need paternity leave, too?

Let’s dismantle this diarrhea speck by speck: Beusman first dishonestly suggests that IBM does not recognize women as people. She provides no evidence for this suggestion, and in fact it flies rather directly in the face of what we learned earlier: they’re more than happy to hire women who don’t/can’t abuse maternity leave. Beusman also presents a weird false dichotomy between “people” and “pregnancies-waiting-to-happen,” as if people can’t get pregnant?

The second part, if you put it together with the preceding question, looks like this: “IBM, why not start by making sure all your employees recognize that those women who do choose to get pregnant need maternity leave?

At no point in the article was anything said about pregnant women not getting maternity leave, so this is a completely baseless accusation. Further, it’s not about giving women maternity leave, it’s about women who abuse maternity leave by getting pregnant over and over again on the company dime. That’s actually mentioned in the tweets.

Lastly, she tacks on the “fathers need paternity leave” part because feminists have had to pump the brakes on the male hatred in recent times. Beusman believes that by adding a completely irrelevant question that includes fathers, she has done her job of acknowledging males. If she thought that line was going to save her from the Scalpel, she underestimated her opponent.

For The Ladies: A Guide To Pleasing Men

It is no secret that modern women have forgotten how to please men. I have been extremely fortunate to have found many incredible women who, via their own creativity within the relationship structure I created for them, have been able to please me in ways many men fantasize about. While the odds of creating such dynamics can be positively affected by the man’s actions, such a fling is far rarer than the dysfunctional norm (female-led relationships).

On some level, it is not womens’ fault that they have been misled. They have been lied to by sociopathic and repulsive feministswho told these women that they shouldn’t have to please men to get ahead in life.  Many such women wind up alone in middle age, perhaps with a divorce or two under their belts, wondering where all the good men went…but of course, they can’t connect these logical dots because mens’ and womens’ brains are wired differently.

As a humanitarian who seeks the greatest happiness of the many, it’s somewhat of my duty to expose feminism as the war on human happiness so that more people can live in alignment with nature. Thus, I want to give the ladies out there some tips on how to get a man to want you around for as long as possible.

I don’t know if you realize this, but many of your personalities are abrasive and/or annoying. This is why you get pumped and dumped: not because he used you, but because sex is all you bring to the table if your personality sucks. However, there are women who have learned the skill of femininity and it completely changes the interaction (just like a man who learns game).

I cannot stress this enough: Being around a ladylike woman naturally brings out the gentleman in men.

Our behavior changes. We open doors, we curse less, we lead the interaction more and from a completely different level than the norm. Being around a ladylike female is incredibly alluring and makes men feel powerful. Here are some tips that will help you get what you truly want out of life:

1. If you dress in overt displays of promiscuity and sexual availability, you will be automatically disqualified from the gentleman treatment.

Screech all you like, the truth will never care. I know that you have been told this makes you “empowered.” What it actually means is that you have no game, as it’s the female equivalent of a man walking around offering women stacks of cash. The message you are communicating to the world is that you do not believe you are good for anything but what you’ve put on display (otherwise, you would not need a display at all).

However, if you have a feminine personality this will still work for you. In that case, your sex appeal will amplify the effect. If you have a masculine personality, this will not work.

2. Don’t swear, spit, burp or fart. 

Absolutely disgusting.  You may find yourself tempted to say, “but I should be able to do whatever a man can do!” If that is the case, remember that what ‘should’ is always irrelevant to what ‘is.”

“If men can do it, so can I!” is the rallying cry of future spinsters all across the country.

3. Make good eye contact and touch me when you speak.

Women who understand the concept pick-up artists call “kino” have a hypnotic effect on men. This is how strippers operate: the good ones are trained in the art of femininity. Of course, doing what strippers do and simply grabbing dicks will not earn you the gentleman treatment either. Find the balance.

4. Do not bark orders.

Barking orders is masculine and unappealing coming from a woman. Feminine women never need to tell men what to do.

5. Be supportive.

Feminine women have a supportive effect on men. They are there when you need them, and boost you beyond where you could go by yourself. He leads, she supports. Dancing and relationships have more than a little in common.

6. Learn how to give head. 

This is another one I can’t stress enough. I can count on one hand the number of women who have been able to make me come with a blow job. I have no idea why most women are so bad at it, though I’d wager it’s connected to their total lack of desire to please men in general.

Giving good (or great) head puts you on another level and is a very effective way to climb up the ranks in a man’s harem. Use the resource I Can Give Head to learn how to do it better.

7. Deal with all drama by talking to your girlfriends about it.

Unless you are with a high-conflict man (in which case, you are a high-conflict woman), don’t try to sit us down and talk to us about things we’re doing wrong and how you feel about it. Having this kind of conversation is like listening to nails on a chalkboard for most men. You have girlfriends, they are there for your emotional support. Lean on them. Get back to us when you’re feeling pleasant again.

8. You be monogamous, let him be polyamorous.

I am fully aware that this is not fair. In fact, this is not even how I personally run my relationships (I never expect, ask for or demand monogamy, ever). That said, when I go through my memory Rolodex and talk with my friends, there is a very obvious consensus: men are happiest in relationships in which they can sleep around but the woman is monogamous. That is one reason why men should know how to handle the monogamy ultimatum.

Some women choose to be monogamous with me knowing full well I will not return the “favor.” That is their choice, and they seem to be extremely happy with it. Others choose to sleep with other men, which I usually encourage them to do. But the relationship dynamic feels most proper when the man is sleeping around and the woman is not, and the woman knows and is OK with this.

Again, not fair. But it is ideal and some guys would be surprised by how many women are more than willing to engage in these kinds of relationships behind the scenes. Remember ladies, the long-term goal of this is for you to live a happy life with a man you love who loves you back. I am simply writing this to help you facilitate that end.

One must simply accept feminism for what it truly is, find women who understand the art and learn it from them. I generally avoid promising women anything, but I promise you this: it will pay off in spades. Especially if you improve your body at the same time.

Go get ‘em tiger.

The Flensing Of Lindy West

Recently, Lindy West beached herself long enough to write yet another insane diatribe in a long tradition of endless crazy. Despite the impressive feat of avoiding all that plastic in the ocean on her way in, she was somehow unable to muster the intellectual strength to write any kind of real journalism.

She recently thwub-thwubbed an article called “Teen Girl Raped On Field Trip, Treated Horribly By Seattle High School.” Let our journey begin with the very top of the article, where it’s listed in the category “Rape Rape.” If you’re surprised at the casualness which feminists treat the very real issue of rape, then you still mistakenly believe that feminists support women. As I will demonstrate over and over in this blog, feminism is a war on human happiness that mainly uses hatred of women to accomplish its goal of making everybody miserable.

Anyway, let’s get on with it. Her article begins with this summary: “In November of 2012, a 15-year-old girl was on a two-day school trip to a national park when she was brutally raped by a classmate. She reported it. She was hospitalized. There was an investigation. Her alleged rapist returned to school. She never did.

This strikes me as the equivalent of, “A murder was investigated, and then the alleged murderer went free!” Despite having the second-largest brain of all marine mammals, Lindy West was somehow unable to to put these pieces together and realize that there was not enough evidence to prove that he attacked her. That is, after all, how the justice system works. And let’s keep in mind that they have real people who have been actually trained to investigate crimes, unlike the kangaroo courts that cause innocent male students to be expelled from college.

No, despite having real police officers, real investigators, real sheriffs and real forensic labs going over the evidence, Lindy West has decided that he raped her because Lindy West said soAgain, one would think that if feminists cared about women they would never treat a serious topic so lightly, minimizing and cheapening the experience of actual victims.

Of course, what would be the incredibly obvious case–no evidence, so he walks free–in all crimes except rape, must for some unexplained reason mean something completely different in the bizarro world of false justice the feminists have menstruated all over the rest of us.

Alas, Japan could pick up the hunt again and we can’t know if Sea Shepherd will save Lindy West in time, so let’s move on while she can still respond. She avoids addressing the lack of evidence of wrongdoing by instead linking to several other Jezebel articles about how and why feminists believe that colleges mishandle the treatment of rape cases.

She does so in order to draw attention away from her lack of real information, and emotionally prepare the reader to accept the idea that the high school cases are also handled poorly. Of course, she does not go into how these things are connected–because they aren’t–but she wants the reader to be in an emotional state of “rape cases are handled poorly” so that she can push her agenda without facts. Being “handled poorly,” needless to say for Lindy, means anything other than a 100% conviction rate based on accusation alone.

In this way, Lindy West is emotionally grooming her targets–her audience–to accept her dogma. If this sounds like the time I wondered whether feminist leader Amanda Marcotte is a sociopath who manipulates her audience, then you are correct. It seems as if all leaders of feminism hate women and emotionally manipulate them for financial profit and attention.

West continues: “The victim was raped anally, allegedly by a popular athlete. She initially told investigators that a stranger came into her bunk in the middle of the night, because she “didn’t want to get him, a friend, in trouble” (a claim that, of course, was used to discredit her later).

The first sentence is awfully telling, is it not? In the real-life version of this story, a girl pursued a popular athlete for sex, and at some point they started having anal sex. Interesting how the popular alpha male athletes, the ones all the attractive young women are going out of their way to entice into bed, keep getting accused by the hamster the following day.

From the second sentence, we learn that the girl is a liar. This is no surprise by itself, since I’ve discussed before how science proves that most women are constantly lying about everythingShe lied to police, making a story up on that spot (they’re so good at that, aren’t they?). Notice how her excuse at the time was “didn’t want to get her friend in trouble.”

Let’s stop right here. If your friend stabbed you, would you blame it on someone else to protect your friend? Or is it the case that this woman is extremely unstable, lies with ease, and can’t even keep her own lies straight? Of course you would not lie to police to protect your friend, because that person is clearly not your friend.

The last part is even more interesting. From beneath the bowels of her blubbery blowhole, West described the girl’s blatant lie as “a claim that, of course, was used to discredit her later.” The tone in which this sentence was typed suggests that Lindy West believes that you should be able to lie to the police without their growing suspicious of other things you tell them. The phrase “of course” suggests that being suspicious of liars is a common “problem.”

Lindy West, why do you believe that women who lie to the police should be believed by the police? Is your level of narcissistic entitlement really that high that you believe you should literally be allowed to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without regard for anyone else, with literally no consequences ever? Is that the feminist idea of “equality?” That would make more sense than what they claim to want but do not.

But oh my friends and lovers, I am not even close to done with my flensing. The following paragraph is even more telling than anything before it, where we learn that “The athlete’s friend and bunkmate testified that he heard her moaning. “I was never moaning,” she responded. “If I was, then it was in pain.” When asked if he heard her say “No,” her alleged assailant replied, “I did not pay attention to her that much.””

Ho ho! That last sentence is the key to this entire incident, but first let’s examine the testimony. Another person who was in the room testified to police that he heard her moaning. In response, she asserted that she was never moaning, but maybe she was moaning. In this magical mystery hypothetical scenario, if she was moaning which she was never doing, then it was out of pain. I find it interesting that in a hypothetical scenario, she can assert clearly which hypothetical emotion she would have hypothetically been feeling about something that never happened but maybe did.

This builds upon my case that the girl in question is extraordinarily troubled and possibly mentally ill, as so many modern women are. But let’s get the meat of the issue: her alleged rapist, such a close friend that she lied to police in order to defend him, wasn’t really listening to a word she said.

So with these pieces of the puzzle, let’s examine what’s probably happened so far. Young girl wants to fuck a popular athlete. Seeks him out, as many other women surely do, hoping their pussy will be the magical one that tames him and makes him their man. Is so dedicated to pleasing this man that she allows him to have anal sex with her, believing this will separate her in his mind from all those other women and make her special to him.

Meanwhile, it’s so run-of-the-mill for him that he wasn’t even really paying attention to her. Does this sound like her friend, or buyer’s remorse for banging an aloof alpha male who never called back?

We are then told that the girl in question was diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder. Besides the fact that psychiatry is a Nazi mind control scheme, this brings further illumination to my assumption that the girl was mentally unstable all along and perhaps the fact that “her friend” the popular athlete didn’t give a shit about her triggered something. Maybe it was the filing of a false report, lying to police and subsequent closer interrogation that traumatized her. Who knows?

Oh look, shortly afterward we learn that the girl was committed to a residential psychiatric facility. I used to work in a residential psychiatric facility, a lockdown with some of the most violently traumatized teenagers in the state of North Carolina. The kind of children who wind up in those facilities, generally, have undergone years and years of abuse or neglect by their parents.

Understand this clearly: The kids who wind up in residential psychiatric wards ALWAYS come from dysfunctional homes. There is something going on with this girl and her family that we are not being told, and it’s being swept under the rug so that evil feminists can spin the story for their own agenda.

Further, I must explain what kind of people wind up in a psychiatric facility. They are people who literally must be locked and supervised 24/7 because they are such a danger to themselves and others. They have long histories of lying, criminality, self-harm, assault, and a variety of other issues. They are deemed so risky and dangerous that regular therapy won’t work, but they are too young to be in jail or prison.  They are never there for just one thing, and it’s dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Lindy West hides this information (or more likely, never bothered to look it up) because she was so determined to write another post in her aforementioned “rape rape!” file. She then reports that the girl’s family, disappointed by the police investigation that didn’t find the man guilty, demanded that the school perform a kangaroo trial so the boy would get in trouble.

Now, of course I have no idea what actually occurred that evening. All I can do is look at everything, who’s reporting on it, how they’re spinning it, and try to connect the dots. What I do know is this:

–Psych facility patients always come from dysfunctional homes

–She pursued him

–She’s a liar

–She was traumatized at some point, but claims to have been thinking perfectly clearly afterward by asserting that she lied for good reason.

What happened between the incident and her being traumatized? I am guessing that feminists did what they do best–convince women that they’ve been raped for their own personal profit–probably including some friends or family. We can’t know for sure, but patterns tend to play out similarly all the time when you know which dots you should look for.

*I’ll admit, I’ve said some cruel things about Lindy West in this article. To make up for it, I’d like to give you the opportunity to Save The Lindies.

Be Pleasant If You Want My Dick

I left my gym a couple hours ago, pumped up from running and lifting. As I walked back towards my apartment, I noticed a girl on the sidewalk talking at her cell phone, holding it about eye level. From the way she was holding the phone, the situation could potentially be misconstrued as her trying to take pictures of me.

Never one to miss an opportunity, I opened with “at least give me time to flex if you’re going to take pictures of me like that.” She played along, then showed me that she was Facetiming her friend. She told me to meet her friend and turned the camera toward me, so I flexed for her friend as well before declaring that I felt objectified. I wasn’t planning on hooking up with cell phone girl, so I left her with a tingle and said I needed to go in case she was one of those perverts my mom is always warning me about. She gave my doe eyes and objectified me further as I walked away.

I hadn’t taken more than maybe 10 steps when I saw a cute girl with a black dress and a straw fedora coming down a ramp. Having seen the interaction between me and cell phone girl, fedora girl’s interest was piqued and she started to tell me that we knew each other. I wasn’t sure whether she was spitting game, but as we walked down the road I did recognize her as a girl one of my roommates hooked up with a few times many months ago. We flirted a little bit and she gave me the eyes as well.

As we walked towards my building, I asked if she smokes weed. She said yes, so I told her to come to my place in ten minutes and smoke with me. She showed up about three minutes later, before I’d even had time to shower or anything.

We sat outside, packed a bowl and started smoking. Within about two minutes, she was staring into her phone. Contributing nothing to the conversation, giving one-word answers and the like. I even held the bowl out to her, and she didn’t even acknowledge that my hand was in the air. She was too focused on her phone.

Not having encountered this level of rudeness in some time, I was somewhat taken aback. I just looked at her as I realized how unpleasant she planned on being. She started playing a song on her phone with a bunch of emo lyrics, and trying once more to make conversation, I asked why she had picked that song.

She proceeded to complain about “some guy she’s seeing, she’s supposed to be at his place right now but he ignores her and this and that, and people keep trying to cheer her up but she just wants to be sad for a while.”

Now gentlemen, in times past I would have pressed forward and slept with her. She was obviously shit-testing me, and I used to take pride in handling them with such grace and aplomb. I have “cheered up” more than my share of women who were sad about other men. But this time, all I could think about was how I’d been having more fun reading before she got there. Her little game to trap me into emotional validation was not worth further investing my time in just for some quick sex at the end.

Upon realizing this was her game, I simply told her I had some stuff to do. She got the hint and left. It is unfortunate that some women appear to believe that not only do they not have to contribute to the interaction, but would take advantage of my offer of my time and company by being energy vampires.

After kicking her out, I sat here reflecting on how modern woman has fallen. Instead of being charming, flirty, positive, pleasant or even tolerable to be around in a normal human capacity, this women genuinely believed that she was entitled to my time, attention, weed and sex completely regardless of her behavior. Is it really that difficult to smile, encourage, ask and hold a normal conversation?

I wish that my kicking her out for being miserable registered on some level for her, but unfortunately I know better. I suppose I’ll give cell phone girl a shot if I see her around again. Maybe she’ll even bring her friend…

All Feminism Is Radical Feminism

In the Manosphere, we occasionally distinguish between “radical feminism” and “moderate feminism.” More often, feminists bring up the division as a way of asserting NAFALT. We point out that “radical feminists” believe that all male/female sex is rape, and other feminists are fast to respond that real feminists aren’t like that.

Given such discussion, it can be tempting to fall into the trap of thinking that some feminists are “moderate” while others are “radical.” In truth, there is no such thing as “moderate” feminism; there are only varying positions on a radical spectrum.

Let’s remember what feminism is, first of all. Feminism is the belief that thousands of years of accumulated human wisdom, science, knowledge, medicine, common sense and intuition are…well, wrong. Feminists do not give any reasons to believe such a thing, nor can they refute any of the evidence over the millennia that what they call “oppression” is, in fact, the only thing that has ever worked to hold civilization together.

The idea to overthrow millennia of human wisdom is beyond radical. There can be no “moderate” form of “total destruction of all established power systems.” It is not a balanced, pick-and-choose-your-battle kind of philosophy. The idea that deeply-rooted biology and empirically demonstrated differences in preference are “social constructs” or “learned behavior” are not only radical, they’re also completely insane.

I asked you before on this blog to imagine a world in which all animals suddenly decided to shirk their natural gender roles, as a means of demonstrating just how completely toxic an ideology feminism truly is. It was a social experiment which has failed by every conceivable measure, taking credit where none was due and dismissing the concerns of more than half of the human race.

It is time we see feminism for what is truly is: a radical and insane philosophy, an endless hurricane of societal sabotage which has overstayed its welcome in our cultural narrative.