Regular readers of my blog might be under the impression that I have it in for the wymens. They would be right. I abhor the collective socialist mindset that compels the majority of women to run with the idea that they should support each other in a professional sense because of their common genitalia. Shared genitalia is an extremely poor motivator to pick and choose one’s friends and enemies in a professional sense.
This is not because genitalia is a poor indicator of potential performance. It is due to the fact that genitalia is indeed an excellent indicator of potential performance, but not in the way the wymens imagine. The wymens band together not out of solidarity, but out of weakness.
That is because, in general, women absolutely suck in the workplace, which is why women prefer having a male boss to a female one.
. . . . .
Men don’t go around the workplace identifying themselves as being male. There is no need because they just are, and anyway if they did choose to do so it would not only not give them a comparative advantage, it would render unto them a disadvantage. This is real and actual discrimination, not the fairy make believe that the wymens trot out whenever an internal HR decision doesn’t go their own way.
Males cooperate to further the higher needs of the task to which they are assigned. Women only cooperate insomuch as furthering the upward progress of their own careers. The two biological behaviors are mutually exclusive. There is a place for women in general in the workplace; in roles where they can not do much damage and are a help rather than a hindrance.
Memes are the propaganda of modern times. But more than that, memes are propaganda that the ordinary citizen is able to employ without even leaving their home. Memes were used by patriots in the run up to the American revolution, but they had to print the posters and then travel around the country putting them up while running the very real risk of being strung up.
The most effective meme of the last few years has been ‘cuck’ which is short for ‘cuckservative’, a cuckservative being a supposedly conservative individual who supports progressive values such as immigration or feminism.
The term cuck has become so effective at enraging the left that they are now attempting to make it an epithet of pride.
From CNN comes the article, Cuckholding can be positive for some couples, study says.
In our current political climate, the term “cuck” — short for “cuckservative” — has become an insult of the so-called alt-right, aimed at men they view as spineless and emasculated. The slur has its roots in the concept of cuckolding, or having an adulterous partner.
But, according to a recent study by David Ley, Justin Lehmiller and the writer Dan Savage, acting on cuckolding fantasies can be a largely positive experience for many couples, and hardly a sign of weakness.
If you have game then this shouldn’t have to be spelled out for you. Guys who ‘just get it’ understand that girls just want to have fun. Seduction isn’t meant to be serious. This is why if you can make a girl laugh you are most of the way there …
But not all of the way there. It is crucial to keep that sense of fun and playfulness all the way through the seduction. Plenty of guys are good at making girls laugh but when it comes time to close the deal they suddenly start to act with great seriousness.
Being serious is a game killer. Betas are serious. Betas incorrectly assume that seduction has to be serious because they have to demonstrate to the girl that they are taking her seduction seriously and with great respect. There is nothing that will kill a girl’s voracious sexual hunger for you quicker than this. Girls want you to do the seducing so they can feel good about themselves the next day, and they want it to be fun. Why are you going to risk waking up feeling like a whore if it wasn’t a fun night?
I discovered this site via Adam’s Friday Hawt Chicks & Links. I’ve only read a bit but so far I’m impressed.
If we find it necessary to call 911, it means the party is in progress and it’s bad.
You will probably not be going home safe at the end of your shift.
And you know what? If it gets to that point, I really don’t give a shit. I don’t give a shit if you get smoked. I don’t give a shit if you fall under a tree. I don’t give a shit if you get shot at.
Because at that point, I’ve done everything I can with that same circumstance, and run out of resources.
If my concern was “you going home safe,” then I’d just fucking hunker down and die. Because I wouldn’t want that poor responder to endanger himself.
Except…that’s what I pay taxes for, and that’s what you signed up for.
Just like I signed up to walk into a potential nuke war in Germany and hold off the Soviets, and did walk into the Middle East and prepare to take fire while keeping expensive equipment functioning so our shooters could keep shooting.
There’s not a single set of orders I got that said my primary job was to “Come home safe.” They said it was to “support the mission” or “complete the objective.” Coming home safe was the ideal outcome, but entirely secondary to “supporting” or “completing.” Nor, once that started, did I get a choice to quit. Once in, all in.
The crucial detail — the one that often trips up those accustomed to years of quaffing ego-assuaging platitudes — is the one embodied in the deepest, truest desires of men and women. These desires aren’t the same, and at the critical mate assessment junctures can be said to be contradictory and competing:
Men desire sex, women desire commitment.
Commitment is a euphemism for resources and protection, and love is the feeling women lean on as assurance they have secured a man’s commitment.
Women desire sex and men desire commitment, too, but these are secondary to the primary impulses which guide each sex, and guide them at especially important times, when life-changing choices are carefully deliberated or acted upon impulsively.
Women want an experienced man, and they project this want of theirs onto men who, for their part, want women willing to go all the way right away regardless of experience or, if the woman under carnal consideration is of exceptional beauty and modesty, want her to have a relatively unsullied sexual history and to at least have the sense to avoid bragging about the numbers of past lovers to whom she lays claim. To a man, a woman’s discretion is the better part of her allure.
Forty percent of Americans under the age of 40 have at least one tattoo. Yet survey and experimental evidence suggests that the tattooed are viewed negatively and may face discrimination in the labor market and in commercial transactions. In view of the potentially adverse economic consequences of a tattoo, the decision to get one may be regarded as short-sighted and impulsive.
We collect numerous measures of time preferences and impulsivity of tattooed and non-tattooed subjects and find broad-ranging and robust evidence that those with tattoos, especially visible ones, are more short-sighted and impulsive than the non-tattooed.
Almost nothing mitigates these results, neither the motive for the tattoo, nor the time contemplated before getting tattooed, nor the time elapsed since the most recent tattoo. Even the expressed intention to get a(nother) tattoo predicts increased short-sightedness and helps to pin down the direction of causality between tattoos and short-sightedness.
Tattoos are therefore a slut tell, because sluts are short-sighted and impulsive.
A girl who’s impulsive in one domain is sure as Bartholin’s life-giving lube to be impulsive in other domains. And the more visible her tattoo, the more likely that hipsteress you have your eye on will go up to your apartment on the first date, let you finger fuck her mouth, give you a blowjob, and then complain about feeling “uncomfortable” in a long-winded solipsistic article written for “The Babe” or whatever menstrual rag is the current pit stop for butthurt feminists lamenting their inability to be wined and dined like the chaste ladies they aren’t.