Herpes blisters and malodorous discharges are sweeping like a pandemic through the IT departments of America. Spineless cretins who once did without or ordered themselves a broad from abroad out of a catalog are now shuffling out of their cubicles, trading in their WalMart khakis for tight designer jeans, and heading out to the clubs to get laid. Somehow, as if by some kind of satellite brainwashing beacon, the White race’s natural losers have become masters at the art of coaxing pathetic sluts into doing what pathetic sluts do.
While most major social movements and disease epidemics are the product of emergent conditions without a singular causation, this particular stain on America’s honor was actually orchestrated by a single evil mastermind: Roissy. A blogger. This absurd parody of a dishonorable womanizing asshole has accomplished the sociological equivalent of a physicist accidentally opening up a black hole in his lab: he has fused the blossoming field of studying human biodiversity (HBD) with the sleazy subculture of “game”.
To summarize, women are instinctively attracted to dominant men in the same way that men are instinctively attracted to fertile women. Roissy assists men in feigning dominance in a manner analogous to how women feign fertility with cosmetics. He instructs men on how to communicate in an arrogant and dismissive manner. He explains why it’s important to insult women. He also explains how to stand (like Captain Morgan), how to dress, and how to dispose of the human being once you’ve soiled it.
An essential aspect of his worldview is that there are “alpha males” and “beta males”. By his understanding, the alpha males are confident, dominant, and promiscuous while beta males are insecure, submissive, and faithful. He also mentions Omega Males, complete losers. There’s one type of male that Roissy appears to overlook entirely, the type of male who completely changes the “game”: the patriarch.
Roissy’s “alpha male” is content to merely exploit feckless, faithless, and fatherless young women. He’s deliberately barren, unabashedly degenerate, infesting the ruins of traditional society. The patriarch, by contrast, embodies restoration, faithfulness, and fertility while being more dominant than the contemporary alpha parasite could ever pretend to be. Women, even scores of women, submit to him with absolute devotion, in far more ways than mere fornication.
When the restoration comes, the patriarchs will put a stop to the “game” subculture by offering women an alternative which is both instinctively and practically preferable. Our women, our single most important possessions, will be returned to their natural and respected role. The alpha male game geeks will find less and less desirable prey and their lifestyle will be perceived as being every bit as foul as the scabs they pick.
Good info Kulaks but Henry Makow is one of the tribe and he likes to throw up smokescreens by blaming contrived social ills on the “illuminati” and Rockefellers instead of his ethnic kinsmen.
It appears rain lady sees men as sperm donors and nothing more. I do respect the fact that she isn’t a gold digger who relies on males to provide money and vacations but her worldview isn’t conducive to healthy gender relations or in sustaining civilization.
Women may be infallible in her world but I’m here to tell her that behind almost every American serial killer lies an abusive and domineering mother.
It appears rain lady sees men as sperm donors and nothing more. I do respect the fact that she isn’t a gold digger who relies on males to provide money and vacations but her worldview isn’t conducive to healthy gender relations or in sustaining civilization.
Uh, no I didn’t say that. I said women don’t HAVE to get married to have children. That’s true. Women also don’t HAVE to “be with a man long term” to have children. I didn’t say that’s preferable or condemn the other. You are reading what you want to read.
For my personal situation, yes….abandoning ANY and ALL ties to the father was the best choice for myself and my son. We were a serious couple living together for over a year and planned TOGETHER to have a child. He never showed any abusive signs until about 4 months into my pregnancy.
Long story short, I left him immediately when my son was born and never contacted him, spoke to him, or knew anything of him again and that IS the best thing in that situation.
I never said “all women should have babies by themselves” nor did I say “single parenting is best”.
I said that one good parent is better than two bad ones (or two that are fighting and abusing each other verbally all the time) and also that women CAN have families without having to marry and be with a man or rely on his money.
What’s wrong with that? If a woman is financially secure and isn’t milking some man or the government to have her children, then what business is it of yours? How does it affect you if she’s a working and tax paying citizen who chose to have children and raise them herself?
How is that something that you have any right to be concerned about, have an opinion on, or condemn when it doesn’t affect you in any way other than “damn, now I can’t lure a woman with money and security”.
The only thing that is “harmful” about women having children without men (as I said assuming that they are PAYING AND CARING for those children themselves) is that men have less options in the dating pool and cannot rely on material wealth and the offer of security.
How is that an actual “problem” other than for your personal dating tastes and your personal preference?
Sorry, but women shouldn’t have to have sex with a man or marry a man if she wants to have babies and a family. You should be very grateful that there are safe, legal, alternative means for women to obtain sperm, a surrogate mother, whatever the case to have children WITHOUT using a man’s money or “stealing a man’s sperm” (even though I don’t believe that things like that happen more than one in a million times for “average” sperm).
I don’t understand what you could find offensive about me or any other woman having babies at her own expense when she is ready financially and physically to do so. Why is that so abhorrent if she’s not lying, tricking, and using men/others to do it?
I don’t see any rational issue that could be raised about that unless you are speaking from a strictly religious perspective and nothing else.
Barb, I will in no way answer you or address you further since you have nothing but hateful, ignorant, and completely uneducated comments, attacks, accusations, and idiotic opinions about my personal mothering of which you know nothing about.
If you ARE a woman, you make us all look bad and I am ashamed to be associated with you or any woman who acts and speaks in such an uneducated and hateful manner. I sincerely hope that you do not ever have children or consider adopting any. You have spewed more hate in a couple of posts than my son will ever see in 18 years spent with me.
Please seek professional therapy and counseling. It’s clear that you hate your own gender and women so much that you are no longer capable of any lucid or rational thought. That’s very debilitating and you shouldn’t allow it to continue.
Interesting comment coming from a ‘woman’ who demands ‘equality’, and that ‘men and women’ are the same with the ’same brain’.
How hypocritical of you to stand by nurture when it is to your benefit, and then stand by nature when it suits your egotism as well.
You make many assumptions about why I say that. Women are given the final “say” in sex and reproduction, do you agree? This is something that women have no choice in, do you agree?
Men are supposed to “earn” the womb space simply because women are the ones who have to carry the product of that occupation. We don’t have a choice in the matter and since we are given the final “say” because we are born with a uterus, obviously it makes sense that men are the ones who get stuck with the “wooing” and earning.
I didn’t say it was fair nor is it really right or wrong, it’s just the way nature made us. Trust me, I’d happily give over that responsibility and power to the guys. You can have it.
There is nothing “egotistical” about pointing out that women are born with the reproductive responsibility and ultimate choice in sex, babies, birth, etc. Men are NOT given that responsibility and therefore have to in some way “convince” the women to have sex with him, make a baby with him, whatever the case….
What’s egotistical about that fact?
I’ve visited dozens of machine shops around the country and I think I’ve only seen two women who are actual machinists. I’ve worked with several female engineers over the years and while they were at least minimally competent their abilities and problem solving skills were inferior to the male engineers. Naturally there are exceptions and you might be one of them, but overall women don’t have the same cognitive skills as men. You can continue to shout girl power at the top of your lungs but women collectively or individually cannot will themselves to be CEO’s, four star generals, doctors, engineers, and high ranking politicians. Anyone who tells women that they can is doing them a disservice and setting them up for disappointment and failure.
It’s true there are about 2% of Machinists that are female in the field.
The rest of your statement I don’t understand. There ARE and have been many women who excel in the positions you mention. There is no doubt of that fact.
What you are trying to do is say that women are not capable of handling those jobs? There are a lot of women who simply lack an interest in those subjects. Why would they fight to work in them?
There are tons of men (and myself) who could care less how to make a perfect cake or how to cook a gourmet meal. Does that mean those men are “mentally incapable” of learning those things and excelling at them? Certainly not. It means they lack an interest in the subject and don’t really want to apply themselves to learning it. While of COURSE there are people/women/men who are “incapable” of certain jobs/positions, that has NOTHING to do with the intellectual capabilities of either gender. Your argument is completely false, historically and factually inaccurate and doesn’t even make surface sense.
Reality Check–
I am not the one who brought up the “accusations” and gossip about myself, the OTHER posters did. I simply answered honestly and simply. If that offends you then ask the other posters to NOT post gossip and slander as fact.
I don’t really care what you or anyone else thinks about me earning extra money through dancing. It’s legal and I’m an unmarried woman who is paying her own bills through legal employment. I have had a “regular job” my whole life and have always been a tax-paying citizen. I am the one who has to pay for my son’s upbringing and education and I would sell my soul to the devil to make sure he has all he needs. If that bothers or offends you, that’s your problem not mine. Your opinion on how I legally earn my money is none of your business.
NeoNitzshe–
I am not and have never been a radical Feminist. Second, if you have to “dominate” and “control” your partner whether you are male or female, that’s very telling of your deep insecurity issues and it’s also a quick way to make sure you have nothing but miserable and abusive relationships.
Now we are experiencing the tragedy of the common-ers, American women with “girrrl power”, who wish to fancy themselves as way, way above their station and status in reality and the real world.
That’s just stupid. So women having a job, paying taxes, and raising children is “unrealistic” and a show of “grrrrl power” (which I don’t even know what that means). My choice to raise my son with my OWN income and work in a “male field” is MY choice. So women having a choice is “way above their station”? Get a grip. I have just as much a right as you do to choose how to have a family, what job to have, how to live, and what I do and do not want in a relationship.
And most portentously, it is not enough that masculine women and feminine men, amongst other delinquents, be tolerated in an increasingly untrustworthy un-society. Science, history, and logic must thus be violated, in the attempt to create that contradiction in terms, an utterly cosmopolitan “tribe-less nation,” so that every soul may feel entitled to societal approbation, whatever the ultimate consequences to society.
There is absolutely NO SCIENCE that says what a “natural state of existence” is for men and women. There is NO “logic” that would allow one gender to wipe the other out entirely or be significantly more powerful than the other because it wouldn’t make Evolutionary sense. If men were able to “dominate” or be superior to women, it would hurt the evolutionary process and if women could do the same that would ALSO hurt evolution. No “science” supports one gender being superior or dominant.
There is no SCIENTIFIC description of what makes a woman “feminine” or what makes a man “masculine”. That’s yet another blatantly false statement you have made under the guise of big words and sweeping philosophical statements.
What may be “masculine” of a woman to do in your opinion, might be totally the opposite in another man’s opinion. There is no logic nor science NOR anthropological FACT behind ANYTHING I have read in your comments.
When I deduce them to their bare bones, you’re pissed that Liberals make everything “PC” and make everyone a victim (including races, genders, gays, etc).
Stop presenting your opinion as anything more than what it is.
“You make many assumptions about why I say that. Women are given the final “say” in sex and reproduction, do you agree? This is something that women have no choice in, do you agree?”
“Given” is the operative word here. It wasn’t too long ago when even in the Western Civilization a woman had absolutely no say in either the wooing process or reproduction. Arranged marriages were the norm and a wife was obligated to perform her duties of reproduction and in satisfying her husband. You’re mistaking privileges that have been ceded to you in an increasingly decadent matriarchal and promiscuous age for some sort of natural rights. If you want to talk “natural”, then it might be natural for men to butt heads with each other like animals do for the right to ravish the female in question. That would in fact be most “natural” since men are physically dominant and can easily overpower women and have their way with you. It’s the power we have ceded to the law which prevents this behavior, but the law today runs amok in no-fault divorce states like California in favor of women because it hasn’t yet met any determined resistance from men.
There is absolutely NO SCIENCE that says what a “natural state of existence” is for men and women.
Let’s test your notion and knowledge of science. Do you agree that there is a detectable sexual dimorphism in humans? Is this phenomenon natural, or “god-given”? If it is natural, why did it arise? Also, I note your failure to engage my original questions regarding the spontaneous origin of armies and the basis of (LR-indulgent) civilization.
There is NO “logic” that would allow one gender to wipe the other out entirely…
I suppose you mean that it makes no sense that men, collectively, would be capable of exterminating all females. But you fail to identify the agency, natural or divine, that assures that human females will survive in perpetuity despite the example of countless categories of organic entities having become extinct for various reasons. And it is telling that you think in terms of male potential for eliminating women – which thought never occurs to psychologically healthy males or females.
…or be significantly more powerful than the other because it wouldn’t make Evolutionary sense. If men were able to “dominate” or be superior to women, it would hurt the evolutionary process…
Sorry, but this statement is laughable. Unless I have missed your earth-shaking contribution to the literature of late, wherein you have identified the previously-hidden teleology of the “evolutionary process”.
…and if women could do the same that would ALSO hurt evolution. No “science” supports one gender being superior or dominant.
It is not clear whether you are arguing organic necessity or history.
If your point is in regard to history, you are simply an ignoramus in avoiding the record of the male monopoly of the instruments of “domination” since pre-historic times. If you mean to return to your teleology, as above, I suggest some remedial education in the pertinent disciplines.
There is no SCIENTIFIC description of what makes a woman “feminine” or what makes a man “masculine”.
Is taxonomy a “science”? If it is, you are mistaken.
That’s yet another blatantly false statement you have made under the guise of big words and sweeping philosophical statements.
Our analysis shows that no falsehoods were involved, so you raise the question of whether the big words and sweeping philosophical statements would have been supportable as such, had you granted the truth of their content.
What may be “masculine” of a woman to do in your opinion, might be totally the opposite in another man’s opinion. There is no logic nor science NOR anthropological FACT behind ANYTHING I have read in your comments.
Because you understandably fail to recognize that with which you are unfamiliar.
When I deduce them to their bare bones, you’re pissed that Liberals make everything “PC” and make everyone a victim (including races, genders, gays, etc).
But I am compensatorily pleased that I, a male, am demonstrably your intellectual superior in having so fluently dominated you, a mere scatter-brained female, in dealing with these issues.
Stop presenting your opinion as anything more than what it is.
That would be no fun.
…Also, I note your failure to engage my original questions regarding the spontaneous origin of armies and the basis of (LR-indulgent) civilization.
‘Rain Lady’ doesn’t engage anyone’s questions… she comes here to make egotistical, self-promoting and contradictory statements.
She seems kind of pathetic in her clumsy cry for approbation.
So I’m torn between chivalrous indulgence, such as HW has shown her – and the urge to put her in her place.
Her tone inclines me to the latter.
“Please seek professional therapy and counseling. It’s clear that you hate your own gender and women so much that you are no longer capable of any lucid or rational thought.”
That’s what the ladyraine types always do when they’re deservedly criticized for their bad choices / behavior — accuse the sane ones of insanity. Oh. And always, always, fall back to their last (woefully pathetic) defense of “IGNORANT!” “HATER!” “INSANE!” You’d really think their talking-points implanters would put just a modicum of effort into looking up some new words one of these days.
raine, I know what I need to know. And I know it because you said so. You chose to get knocked up by an abuser. You then selfishly chose to keep your son for your own gratification, rather than doing right by him and giving him up for adoption at birth to a happily married couple of a good man married to a good, nurturing mother who is available to him most hours of most of his days, so he could enjoy actually having parents who are actually concerned about what’s good for HIM.
So now he lives the life of being raised by a careerist single mother employed in hard sciences, requiring far more than 40 hrs / week, no doubt. Which means he has no doubt spent the vast majority of his waking hours since birth in daycare and after-school care being “raised” by people who don’t love him, and since YOU’RE so busy working and wasting time on the internet posting manhating screeds, he’s undoubtedly spent many, many hours in toddlerhood crying because he missed his mother, but eventually gave up hope of ever, ever really having you. And the whole time, no dad, either. And his “mom” hates men — of whom he’s one.
My heart goes out to your boy.
Your son needs your father’s help. Get it for him.
him. Move back home with your mom and dad. (ASSUMING he’s a good guy.) Please.
If you’re father is as dysfunctional as the daughter he raised, then find an uncle who’s a stable, good man to live next door to, or a male teacher or coach to spend time with, or SOMEONE who can undo some of your damage.
“I don’t understand what you could find offensive about me or any other woman having babies at her own expense when she is ready financially and physically to do so.”
Fellas, what’s offensive about unmarried women making and keeping babies is the attachment disorder it causes in the offspring.
Since a daddy is nowhere to be seen in the infant’s daily life, and since “mom” is gone working (or socializing) most waking hours of the infant’s day, most days of the week, and the infant in paid daycare will be subject to multiple changes of caregivers over the course of a day or the course of his infancy and toddlerhood, leaving him without that one, stable, attachment person who’s around most hours of most days that he needs, the normal attachment phase of infancy/toddlerhood that is utterly necessary for the empathy portion of the brain to develop gets disrupted
And it’s worse for the boys than the girls, as a boy NEEDS a good male role model to learn how to be masculine without being predatory.
The attachment-disordered child frequently grows up to be a sociopathic thug, incapable of love or human empathy, who commits crime, abuses and abandons. Which leaves the REST of us with higher taxes to clean up the mess. THERE’S l.r.’s offense.
Lady,
Interest in a given subject or field doesn’t necessarily connote aptitude and excellence. There’s people that have an interest in cooking but aren’t very good at it. Same with sports. Some women love volleyball but could never make the cut on an organized team. Similarly, just because a woman holds an interest in engineering or machining isn’t a guarantee she will go on to revolutionize those fields or even be very good at either of them. The same holds true for men if you think I’m picking on women.
You act as if women are endowed with superhuman qualities and can be anything they want to be at the flip of a switch or snap of a finger. This is very delusional and the musings of a person completely out of touch with reality.
Concerning your self righteousness about your lifestyle and choice to be a single parent….all of us on this site have a right to offer our opinions. You came here of your own free will wearing your gender politics on your shirt sleeve then you don’t expect anyone to provide dissenting viewpoints? If you can’t take the heat then maybe you should stay out of this kitchen.
And I’m not sure I buy the whole abuse at four months pregnant story. Abusive men usually reveal signs of their character very early in the relationship at least according to female experts. Women either ignore the signs or get a twisted thrill out of it. There are a fair number of women who falsely claim abuse to use in divorce court or to restrict visitation rights of the father or boyfriend.
Using a man to impregnate you was much cheaper and easier than paying for artificial insemination, isn’t it? And I’m in disbelief you haven’t stuck this allegedly abusive ex with child support payments.
“Please seek professional therapy and counseling. It’s clear that you hate your own gender and women so much that you are no longer capable of any lucid or rational thought.”</em
More contradictory bullshit from the rain lady.
I work with ALL men day in and day out and I also don’t have any female friends (because I hate women and think they’re awful and boring). …
Barb, I think we all know who really hates, and is so uncomfortable with, “her” own gender.
Of course a man should have to work to earn the woman’s attention. You all claim to love tradition, well I still believe in the “no kiss until date number 3? at the MINIMUM. I mean ‘proper dates’ not “come over and bring a dvd” kind of idiocy.
—
Mmm hmm.
Do you know why (men) adore me and do things for me? Because I give them everything they’ve wanted: lots of sex, no questions, no commitment, and a woman who genuinely could care less what he does or who he’s with.
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/what-foreign-men-think-of-american-women/#comment-106233
*Well, I guess these guys don’t have to worry about bringing over a “dvd”.
Women should NOT be giving up sex until the man has earned it, earned her respect, and proven he is a hard-working, honorable, honest man worth her attentions. He cannot prove this if he acts like a PUA and just ditches out before the woman has a chance to reject him in the first place.
—
It seems like many foreign men somehow get the impression that if you sleep with them, it means you LIKE them and want to be with them!!!
They don’t seem to understand “I’ll call you when I need some dick again.” thing”
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/what-foreign-men-think-of-american-women/#comment-105974
(Well, she seems to really know what she wants.)
I have noticed that women who “hate other women” are usually women of great virtue and marriage material. This is especially true in this age of female power. These are women who are sympathetic to the idea of traditional families rather than being selfish witches praising single motherhood.
They also make great wives and mothers compared to their skank counterparts who are bitter, obnoxious, and repulsive. Their children usually turn out to be well adjusted citizens where their counterparts usually have children with “issues” sitting in a drug rehab centers whining about how unfair mommy was to them.
Now of course, there are always exceptions to the rule but it is very rare.
Reality Check,
Yeah she is a real piece of work. Thanks for pointing out her hypocrisy.
I adore men and whomever said I ‘have it out’ for men is really off base. You will never find a single “platonic friend”, guy I have dated, or long term boyfriend who would call me a man-hater and ESPECIALLY not a Feminist.
—
Really?
Ohhhh, I see….you’re confused. See I personally have no worries about that because no matter what I have been “charged with” legally, I have always and will always get out of anything/everything with no conviction.
That’s something that I’m glad I have available to me. I lit a guy’s car on fire and danced around it while he watched and I got nothing. No charge, nothing. There’s tons of events like that so don’t mistakenly think that I am somehow “concerned” about the Law…..lol
http://www.inmalafide.com/2010/01/14/extremely-incisive-and-incredibly-foolish-the-strange-case-of-roissy-in-dc/#comment-9507
(No further comment necessary here.)
Yeah she is a real piece of work. Thanks for pointing out her hypocrisy.
—
Your welcome, Millirone.
*BTW, all the comments that I posted above from ‘Mizz M-oral-ity’ were made approximately a full month after she was suppodedly sooooo upset that Roissy posted her son’s picture on his site (this is why she says she ‘outed’ him).
*BTW, all the comments that I posted above from ‘Mizz M-oral-ity’ were made approximately a full month–on *ROISSY’S SITE*– after she was suppodedly sooooo upset that Roissy posted her son’s picture on his site (this is why she says she ‘outed’ him).
—
Sorry, that is how it should read.
Reality check is really creating an impression here. This is a woman who has serious issues. She appears to display every bad trait known to the universe. Lying and hypocrisy seem to be her top traits. This goes way past just your typical feminist.
NeoNitzshe–
I am not and have never been a radical Feminist.
Good for you. You’ve been so virtuous as to confine yourself to the misdemeanors of radical sexual egalitarianism.
Second, if you have to “dominate” and “control” your partner whether you are male or female, that’s very telling of your deep insecurity issues…
I agree. Domination and control should be exercised as wisdom, and not neurotic need, dictate. But that facility should be present for use in a responsible man’s life.
… and it’s also a quick way to make sure you have nothing but miserable and abusive relationships.
Evidently you speak with the wisdom of experience to which I have not been subject.
The ego epidemic and how more and more of us have an inflated sense of our own fabulousness | Mail Online
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1213212/The-ego-epidemic-more-inflated-sense-fabulousness.html
Sounds awfuly similar to a ‘lady’ posting here on this thread, doesn’t it???
“Since a daddy is nowhere to be seen in the infant’s daily life, and since “mom” is gone working (or socializing) most waking hours of the infant’s day, most days of the week, and the infant in paid daycare will be subject to multiple changes of caregivers over the course of a day or the course of his infancy and toddlerhood, leaving him without that one, stable, attachment person who’s around most hours of most days that he needs, the normal attachment phase of infancy/toddlerhood that is utterly necessary for the empathy portion of the brain to develop gets disrupted” — Barb
~
Daycare Nightmare
http://shpearson.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/daycare-nightmare/
Arguing with the “ladies” is always an exercise in absolute futility.
Once again, are you gentlemen unaware that women file men into “one night stand only” and “long term potential” by many of the same things that men consider about women?
Am I supposed to be ASHAMED of being able to tell the difference between a man who is long term material…..and a man that is NOT?
Should I foolishly believe that every time I have sex it’s meaningful and telling of “how desirable” I am? Shall I live in complete delusion like those women do and think that being able to “get laid” is somehow an accomplishment as a woman? Somehow means that men will “love me”? No.
You’re pissed that I understand the difference and recognize sex for the meaningless act it is. It’s no different than going to the bathroom, having a drink of water, or eating (except that it’s totally unnecessary to live like those things and thus even LESS important).
Are you really naive that you believe women are either “always looking for Mr Right” or “always looking for just sex”? Most women who have lived normal, single lives have done both and discern between the differences just like men do. I don’t understand what your point was in quoting me.
Since a daddy is nowhere to be seen in the infant’s daily life, and since “mom” is gone working (or socializing) most waking hours of the infant’s day, most days of the week, and the infant in paid daycare will be subject to multiple changes of caregivers over the course of a day or the course of his infancy and toddlerhood, leaving him without that one, stable, attachment person who’s around most hours of most days that he needs, the normal attachment phase of infancy/toddlerhood that is utterly necessary for the empathy portion of the brain to develop gets disrupted” — Barb
My son has NEVER even been inside a daycare. He has NEVER been babysat by anyone who is NOT blood related to me. He has never been “babysat” overnight or dropped off anywhere other than his Aunt or his Grandparent’s house. Try again, sea-hag. Could you possibly be filled with more seething jealousy of women who have more options than you do? More abilities than cooking and cleaning?
Do you want me to start spelling for you slowly so you can understand, sweetie?
This is why she says she ‘outed’ him
Actually, there are many reasons I “outed” him. One being that AFTER the first post about me and my kid, he posted no less than 8 other posts dedicated to ME even though I never retaliated or posted about him. I gave him 6 months to STOP harassing me and STOP blogging about me…..he didn’t take his repeated chances to behave. Very simple.
And the other reason is “Miss X” who sent me an email neatly containing everything about Roissy that I needed. God, all I did was copy, paste, and post what someone else sent me…..doesn’t get much easier than that, does it?
(PS: Stalk much? You’re even more dedicated to stalking than Roissy was. Congrats.)
PS: And yes, Reality….I don’t relate to other women nor do I have many female friends. I simply cannot find anything they say that interests me and most of them talk about emotions a lot and that makes me really uncomfortable and unhappy. So?
However, I don’t “hate” other women….I don’t obsess about what they do and do not do…..I don’t care if a woman is a housewife or a CEO as long as she isn’t stepping on MY toes.
I hardly think that’s a suspicious attitude.
Barb, all I have seen if you making assumptions about single mothers and me personally. Such as “spending hours crying for no mother” and the daycare insults and of course the generic “daddy issues” accusation you used like ALL angry, barren, jealous women.
None of those things ever happened and I come from a home where my father worked as CEO and Vice President of a large company and my mother was ALWAYS at home with us. They had strict Christian (Lutheran) values and traditional roles. My parents have never had sex with anyone other than each other. I was raised in an upper-middle-class home in a nice town. Your shrieking fantasies about my childhood are simple “junk science” that you clearly have learned to parrot at the intellect level of a 9th Grader. Please don’t waste my time with your low IQ nonsense.
It’s clear that YOU are the one who was “abandoned” and “ignored” and shipped off somewhere because your parents didn’t love you.
You contradict yourself constantly and talk about how AWFUL I am for keeping my son and NOT giving him up for adoption (which doesn’t make sense, why would I give away a child that I was TRYING to have???) and accusing me of sending him to daycare (where he has NEVER been) and then in the same breath…..
You start raging about how “unnatural” it is for a woman to be attached to her child??? Um, yeah. You’ve got some serious issues, ma’am.
I have to assume that you are old, shriveled, and barren and are jealous of pretty much any woman who can have, keep, and raise her children. Sorry for what is obviously your personal pain coming to the surface, but displacing onto me won’t really correct those issues for you.
Z:
“She just oozes envy, malice and hate – and I emphatically do not mean this in any kind of ‘pee cee’ way. Super strange for *any kind* of woman to behave in this way.”
Regardless of whether you mean this in a ‘pee cee’ way, you are echoing the PC line here. At the core of radical feminism is the notion that women are morally superior to men, e.g., less capable of envy, malice and hatred. The corollary is that men are morally inferior to women. How can that be squared with advocacy of patriarchy?
By conceding the moral high ground to women (such as through excessive and misguided ‘chivalry’) men have tilled fertile soil for radical feminism. As long as women have this high ground men will be at a dire disadvantage in the “Battle of the Sexes.” Many racialists have helped this along by playing up notions of black men being violent and lecherous due to “testosterone poisoning,” which is much the way radical feminists portray men as a sex. Very masculine white men and white men who take androgen supplements don’t behave like black men… yet like rad fems, many racialists try to boil too much down to T.
What a petty little litany of drivelous narcissism you have provided here as an absolute refutation of what you laud in your particular case as being societally healthy generally. If our race dies, we (now that includes you) lose everything. And if our people in the main (again, that includes you) do not comport themselves in a way that is conducive to the survival of the race, yes, we lose everything. Savvy, now?
Lady Raine
None of those things ever happened and I come from a home where my father worked as CEO and Vice President of a large company and my mother was ALWAYS at home with us. They had strict Christian (Lutheran) values and traditional roles. My parents have never had sex with anyone other than each other. I was raised in an upper-middle-class home in a nice town.
Congratulations, you had wonderful parents, perfect role models to teach you what’s right, and you went out, screwed around, and had a bastard child anyway.
Good job.
Old Right–
Um, my son is White and I raise him myself. I don’t understand what you are trying to accuse me of here. No one cares for, pays for, or raises my son other than me. When I’m at work he’s either with his aunt or with my parents.
Like I said, sorry if some of you find it “offensive” that I chose to exercise my right to leave an abuser and raise my child without him. I don’t understand how that affects any of YOU.
However I have asked that question before and no one here presented any sort of answer at all other than it “pisses them off”.
Again, if a woman has the financial means and the physical ability to have a child and raise him/her/them without the aid of Child Support, Welfare, or “using” a man unjustly…..what is your issue with?
Old Right–
Yes and those same parents are the ones who rightfully encouraged their daughter to immediately leave the man who had started abusing their daughter and their grandson because he obviously is a very sick man. God, what a whorish cunt I am!!! I should have just let him beat me and my son our whole lives instead because that REALLY makes for some “quality citizens” doesn’t it? Oh, wait….that makes Serial Killers and Rapists.
That should read: “hence you AND your interests”
Lady Raine,
I’ve read a fair amount of the thread, but not all of it. Maybe I’ve missed something, so feel free to correct accordingly.
You seem to be arguing about how superfabulous you are as a single mother. Obviously, I have no idea whether or not that is true, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume it to be the case. You also seem to be throwing around a lot of the “women can do X just as well as men” sort of lines. Well, that’s demonstrably untrue in any number of ways, but of course it is true in some regards. So let’s not quibble over that sort of thing. Yawn.
My take is that you seem to be making the best of a not so great situation. That much is not a problem. Your error, and it is a serious one, is claiming (or so it seems) that it is a great situation, a desirable situation. For society at large, it is not. It is demonstrably the case that broken families – on AVERAGE – lead to all sorts of problems. The children are much more likely to be abused (as is the woman herself), poverty increases, damaging behaviors increase (children more likely to get involved in drugs, promiscuous sex, higher rates of incarceration, whatever). The list goes on, but you take the meaning.
Point is that broken families, on a societal level, lead to lots of negatives increasing, and lots of positives decreasing. There is a lot more to it, but that’ll do for a start.
Now you may counter back that none of these negatives have happened in YOUR case. You may in fact argue that you prevented some of these things from happening by leaving your “abuser.” Assuming he really was an abuser, you were correct to do so.
But, and here is where you need to leave the myopia aside, in GENERAL society is worse off with lots of broken marriages. One of the more important, but subtle, reasons is that it encourages short term thinking in people, the “What I want is what I want, and is good because I want it.” Well, the amount of rape, murder and torture has EXPLODED since the collapse of traditional society. There are real costs here as we move into the “me, me, me” culture.
On another thread here is the Toledo rape story. In my comment there, I made the point that in a healthy culture, it would have been assumed that the white woman involved was decent (it would simply be taken for granted), and that she needed direct assistance. But now? Many would assume she is just a skankish mudshark involved with the negro, acting trashily as so many people do these days. Further, in a “me,me,me” society, why should I take any risks? Sorry you got raped but…
This is a REAL act that only happened because of the change in our culture. It wouldn’t have happened otherwise. See how the big picture affects the little picture? (resisting…crude…joke)
And you sure as hell don’t help things with your “sex is meaningless” and mates mean nothing sort of arguments. That’s just the sort of poison that has led us to where we are today. Surprise surprise: more rapes, more murder, more abuse. If sex is meaningless, and mates mean nothing, this is not a surprising outcome.
See the point? There are big picture consequences to all of this, but they have REAL little picture consequences. Like hundreds of thousands of people being raped that wouldn’t have been, and thousands murdered that wouldn’t have been, and so forth. Or, more directly relevant to this blog, the destruction of our very people. This is not a joke, and it’s not just about YOU and your personal situation. The fact that you have avoided some of these outcomes doesn’t change the reality that many people don’t. Certainly, the woman in Toledo didn’t. Over the last few decades, MILLIONS of people have paid a helluva a price for the sort of nihilist, “me,me,me” attitudes that you promote.
I wouldn’t really care if it weren’t for the fact that my very people are being destroyed. Call me picky.
Anyway, where once people could leave their doors unlocked and give their children the freedom to wander with some degree of individual freedom, now everything has to be locked down and under Orwellian supervision at all times. We don’t trust one another, and for good reason. And that loss of trust, of which people bailing on the wedding vows is just one, has tremendous implications. In our society today, you get the freedom to mistreat other people. Yet you lose freedom in a million other ways.
Big picture, Lady Raine, big picture. It’s sort of like over at Roissy’s blog. Roissy advocates a pretty scummy lifestyle. However, he is smart/honest enough to realize that just because he enjoys such a lifestyle, this does not mean that it is good for society as a whole. It would be better for everybody if we treated one another honestly and fairly, if we kept our word and held to high standards. These are the sorts of behaviors that traditional Western society sought to encourage. White culture, our culture.
The fact that we no longer live in such a society, that we instead live in a dog eat dog world of manipulation and dishonesty (or brutal honesty without honor, which is not much better), is not something to be celebrated. It is not something to be overjoyed about.
Rather, it is something to be dealt with. It might make perfect sense for a man to follow the Roissy lifestyle as things currently stand. But he should not pretend that it is a great thing, or a particularly desirable thing. And, if he still has a soul, a part of him will always long to see the current order overthrown, destroyed, swept away. That his people might live, even if it costs him a little action.
In other words, he lives in these current conditions and has adapted to them, but he recognizes that there is a better way. If you had merely adapted to the conditions of this grotesque Kwa, and done the best with what you have, I would not have any qualm with you. I’d simply wish you the best of luck, and leave it at that. The problem, not to put too fine a point on it, is that you seem to celebrate the bullshit. You demand more of it, you’ve really gulped the Koolaid. Roissy hasn’t, you have. That’s the difference, and that’s the problem.
“Do you want me to start spelling for you slowly so you can understand, sweetie?”
Ah, I thought you promised not to address me again.
Move home with your parents, if they ARE decent people.
“I have to assume that you are old, shriveled, and barren”
Assumed wrong.
“No one cares for, pays for, or raises my son other than me. When I’m at work he’s either with his aunt or with my parents. ”
Well, LR clearly has difficulty with logic. IF (big if) she’s telling the truth that Auntie and Gramma/Grampa look after her boy when she’s at work (and at her nighttime stripping job and wasting time posting screeds on the internet, etc., etc., etc.) then someone HAS raised her son other than her– her parents. But, then again, she’s a lot like most women — weak on logic.
“You contradict yourself constantly and talk about how AWFUL I am for keeping my son and NOT giving him up for adoption (which doesn’t make sense, why would I give away a child that I was TRYING to have???)”
You are awful because you, in your selfishness, refused to give up your son at birth to a happily married couple (defined as a Dad who’s a good man and good provider and Mom who’s a good woman who’s around to BE Mom. You know, like YOU had — if you’re telling the truth) so your son could have a happy childhood. You COULD have done that for your child, as you realized at 4 mos. pregnant that the marriage (you were married, I hope?) wasn’t going to work. But INSTEAD, you indulged yourself. And your son has paid the price.
Don’t try bullshitting me. Infants and toddlers who are away from their mothers for more than a few hours CRY for their mothers. Until they, eventually, give up hope.
Gents, I know what I know from picking up the pieces of messes that working mother / baby separation leads to. I’m a former La Leche League Leader (which you cannot be if you’ve never birthed and nursed a child. So, nah, I’m not barren.) I had more than one mother tell me, “I worked in daycare. I will NEVER leave my child in daycare.” THAT means something. I’m proud to say, I have helped women figure out how to stay home with their child, including moving home with parents, figuring out how she and husband can live on less, or have a home-based business to close the gap between the husband’s earnings and the bills for necessities.
Now that I’m retired from LLL, I will freely express my scorn for floozies like lr whose chosen behaviors hurt children.
Meanwhile, ms. lr, who, ludicrously, accuses me of having a low IQ, has been busy engaging in low-IQ associated, low-class, prole behaviors like stripping and having meaningless sex with a string of men. Funny, whut?
Women have every right to “be slutty” or no be slutty like men do. There’s no Anthropological, Scientific, or Medical reason that they shouldn’t or couldn’t do the same things men do.
Presumably, the male child involved is being closely indoctrinated in this depiction of the adulthood that lies before him. In that familiar ideological reconstruction of reality, women are merely small, ball-less men – worthy of no more or less regard, qualitatively and quantitatively, than are the large and be-testicled variety.
So, aside from the difficulties in prospect that Trainspotter, et al., have nicely addressed, there is the issue of inter-personal trust and concern that he raised – but now as it pertains, in principle, to the rape episode examined here in another post.
Consider whether personal honor and community spirit demand that passers-by intervene in a street scene where two males are violently engaged. Where are these qualities at risk if a small and ball-less male happens to be one of the combatants? And what is distasteful, in extension of the principle, against affirmative action for proportionality as between the (merely trivialy distinct) sexes in battlefield deaths?
We see that society suffers on *two* fundamental accounts from this egalitarian cosmopolitanism that destructively and unmanageably reduces every transaction to impersonal commerce, and likewise to bureaucratic responsibility for all activity otherwise. (Though one suspects that LR is quite prepared to inconsiderately impose these penalties upon her son and upon our society, for the sake of her self-regard as a representative human being.)
“…distasteful…about affirmative action…”
“…distasteful, in extension of the principle, about affirmative action…”
Lady Raine
Yes and those same parents are the ones who rightfully encouraged their daughter to immediately leave the man who had started abusing their daughter and their grandson because he obviously is a very sick man.
If you hadn’t been fornicating with him that wouldn’t have been an issue. Your parents failed to teach you to keep your legs closed until marriage.
Thank you for revealing yourself as the decadent nihilist you are. Even though they hate you and you hate them, you are really no different from Roissy and the degenerate “game” enthusiasts. Two peas in a pod.
Wikitopian,
As a Jew (by the ethnic definition rather than the religious one), I’m not a regular reader of this blog and not an appreciator of most of it’s writers or audience. Whether any particular writer here wishes me harm or not, there’s little question that this is not a crowd that offers me a friendly face, regardless of my politics or social views.
I mention that only to accentuate the outside status from which I’m approaching this post that I happen to have accidentally just come across.
This post is amazing.
With an economy of words unrivaled anywhere on the subject you managed to accurately and objectively encapsulate the subject at hand and seriously offer an alternative.
Thank you for the encapsulation and the encouragement. VERY well done.
mnuez