Tuesday, March 29, 2016

The Myth of Female Unity

When flooded with messages of "girl power", advertisements for "best friends forever" accessories and other feminist-based propaganda, it's easy to believe that women are better off trusting their female companions over male. However, like most feminism hype, there is an unanswered sexist root that folds to statistics and reality. Firstly, in relation to just feminism, the extreme liberal movement only has unity for the few elite that fit the emotionally fascist bill. Secondly, even in a post-feminism world there proves to be something instinctual about women not trusting each other. This is not to say that no women are able to form long-lasting relationships but rather that it is a rare treasure. In fact, half of those friendships "turn over every seven years". Although the feminism movement has dropped some extreme slogans like "women need men like a fish needs a bicycle", they still make promises yet fail to fill the void when women choose to neglect men from their life (or even be honest about the void to begin with). There is much in the mainstream media to promote that women really only need each other - Sex in the City would be a prime example - while completely failing to show the obligations needed in order for female unity to actually be successful. As mentioned in the previous Feminists or Lobbyists? blog, there is a group of "Elite Feminists" who have just the amount of power in the media and politics to successfully push against the will of the American people. They are the ones who push the myth of female unity as well as control the oppressive and exclusionary group.

Being a woman does not automatically qualify you to be eligible to enjoy female unity or feminist acknowledgement. Hillary Clinton is one of the most famous NOW-card carrying members. She is the chosen one of the Elite Feminists to pursue the highest office in the land of the USA. This would be the exact kind of power transfer that feminists have been fighting for all along. This means that these Elite Feminists will do anything to see Hillary win, even if it exposes their true colors and destroys any remaining credibility in the process. When they say they care about the "1st woman ____", they really mean the "1st elite feminist ____". It doesn't matter if a woman has character, respect or integrity to the feminists. They only care about helping "their own". This is exemplified in this clip of Madeleine Albright, who went as far as to say that "there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other", though everyone knows she really meant Hillary Clinton:

This was completely demeaning and condescending to women, shaming them into voting for someone based solely on gender. However, this of course completely excluded the fact that Hillary Clinton was NOT the only woman running for president as Carly Fiorina, on the Republican side, was running as well. This is despite the fact that Carly Fiorina was the 1st female CEO of a DOW 30 firm. Her "1st accomplishment" meant nothing to the feminists as you could "not help out" Fiorina yet still somehow not end up in that same special place in hell if you did not help out Hillary. Go figure, feminists think they can control hell.

Hillary Clinton's Contributions Compared To Carly Fiorina's

In addition, Madeleine Albright accused these women in the crowd of also being clueless and lacking in ambition, accusing them of "thinking it's done but it's not done". This woman was the 1st Secretary of State, nominated by none other than Bill Clinton himself, in 1996. She doesn't stand for "all women" and their accomplishments and progress in society. She doesn't care about all women and raising up all women for their strives and successes. Like Hillary Clinton and other Elite Feminists, she cares only about spinning a story to manipulate the emotions of women to use for her personal advantage. She cares about paying back her debt to Hillary Clinton, after the important position was bestowed upon her by Hillary's husband. They depend on bullying, shaming and fear mongering to force women to make the choices they want them to make. Looking at the contributions Hillary gets (especially compared to Republican women) shows how much NOW and other Feminist organizations care about those women who don't mimic their views.

Later, Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright both blamed their insensitive sexism on the passion for not wanting to digress backwards in society. (Please also keep in mind that these feminists completely lie about women's struggles - past and present.) They didn't catch the irony that they're the only ones trying to make women digress by forcing them to ignorantly embrace and worship, as well as conform and comply, with what the Feminist Elites choose for them, without any question or individual investigation.

Not only do feminists not show unity to all women, but they don't even show unity to other feminists. You can even still be harassed and abused by other feminists if you don't meet all of their qualifications or use your freedom of choice to speak out against feminist wrong-doing.

Erin Pizzey
is an original pioneer of the women's movement in Britain in the 1970s turned anti-feminist. She had believed feminism really did care about equality for all, then she tried to stand up for male victims of domestic abuse and found out just how wrong she was. The Elite Feminists did not appreciate the fact that Erin Pizzey was an honest woman who wanted to help men and women rather than be another sexist, willing to falsely paint women as always victims and men as always perpetrators. Not only did the feminists successfully stop her from opening a domestic shelter for men, but they continued to harass her when she chose to keep speaking the truth nonetheless. They even sent her bomb and death threats, eventually successfully terrorizing her into moving to a different country. Here are her own words:

Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist but considers herself an "equity or freedom feminist". She was also around for the beginning of the feminism movement as we know it in America in the late 60s-early 70s. In a nutshell, she is harassed and ridiculed by western feminists because she believes that western feminists have come to abuse feminism towards trivial matters while ignoring the actual gender inequalities in the west and real women's issues elsewhere in the world. She believes that women are stronger than the helpless victim narrative that feminists push, and that this takes away from the real positive progress that feminism could be making. She believes (and even personally admits that) feminism should be fighting for both genders because she has a personal connection that hinders her from the basic linguistics of the term and true intent in the origin of the movement. (She even admits that she is tempted to start an "equalism" movement but just isn't ready to give up on feminism quite yet.) This is what many feminists do and why feminism prevails despite most women rejecting mainstream feminism. Objectively, it is more progressive to push a new movement altogether (like humanism or egalitarianism) rather than try to branch off with an existing movement (in feminism).

Christina Hoff Sommers does a show called "Factual Feminist" where she corrects the facts of feminist propaganda to put it in perspective. She covers topics like women in sports, gender pay gap, sexual harassment statistics and more. Here is an example of Christina Hoff Sommers' Factual Feminist series in which she discusses some current feminist agendas that hurt women as well as the feminist reaction to her voicing such concerns:

You will notice that the feminists attack Christina Hoff Sommers' right to voice her concerns, rather than protecting and/or debating them respectfully. These feminists try to silence her because she offers a different narrative than the one approved by the Elite Feminists. The more power feminism gets, the more clear it becomes that it is an emotionally fascist movement bent on producing societies that serve the few over the many. It doesn't matter that Christina Hoff Sommers is trying to liberate and empower women. All that matters is that her sources of information are different from NOW's.

Even if you don't speak out against feminism but you don't support the right feminists (The Elite Feminists) then you will also be insulted rather than respected. This was proven by Gloria Steinem's attack on Bernie Sanders and his followers for not giving up on their own preferences and choosing Hillary Clinton. Gloria Steinem decided to attack all of Bernie's female supporters when she exposed her hypocritical nature of attacking Bernie for Hillary, despite having made him an "honorary woman" back in 1996 when she went out of her way to campaign for him. Bernie Sanders proved that even as a one of the 1st males to support the feminism movement, he would only be supported by feminists so long as he took a backseat slave position to helping them over himself:

(15:46) "Actually I'm only here today to make Bernie Sanders an honorary woman."

(1:03) "And when you're young, you're thinking where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie."

Despite the push from the Elite Feminists for women to "be who they are and do whatever they want", this is not shared as an appreciated value. This is primarily true when it comes to clothing. Take this article for example.

Courtesy of: http://jezebel.com/5863842/why-short-skirts-magically-turn-women-into-bitches
Quite predictably, the author here immediately turns to blaming men for how women treat each other. All the while he still acknowledges that "We suspect that women who appear sexually available are not perceived as ‘‘safe'' friends — they are expected to be mate poachers and they likely devalue a person's mate value (guilty by association)". In clear feminist fashion, the author completely ignores the fact that these women are fearful of what other women will do to them and instead blame the behavior only on the fear of losing a male mate. He blames the female competitiveness not on natural biology but socialization and a jab at men.

The truth is that the link between men being strong, responsible and reliable has absolutely nothing to do with their chemistry and biology. Men have a biological, chemical and psychological need for a release which means their brain is programmed to achieve the release as much and as well as possible. Subsequently, men are incredibly attracted to the female form, even if it is completely covered up! So when you add men’s health need for a sexual release (as abstinence leads to a higher risk of prostate cancer) and a woman dressed sexually and begging him to relieve himself in her, of course he is incredibly tempted because his brain and body is wired to get excited easier and quicker so he can reproduce better.

The reason why women hold other women responsible with "slut shaming" is because they are the women who have accountability and common sense. They know what affect certain clothing has on men. So when women dress that way, it is their way of disrespecting all other women by saying “I want to steal your husband [and son]’s attention away because I have no class or loyalty myself. I want all men to look at me and I don’t care if they are married or not. I deserve to be the center of attention because I think I'm better than all other women and they will just have to deal with it.That is why women hate provocatively dressed women. They are offensive and rude, exploitive and conniving. Furthermore, even if men weren't involved in the picture, women don't like the way other women make them feel about their bodies when dressed provocatively. When was the last time you've heard feminists or any women's activists complain about women dressed too modestly on TV and how it body shames them? Never, because modesty is not offensive. It is the attractive women who rely mainly on their feminine attributes that make other women so self-conscious about themselves. This is because even without trying, women have a tendency to offend each other and just not get along. This is not to say that this problem amongst women cannot be fixed but rather that it cannot be fixed with feminism.

Feminism has only served to further divide women amongst themselves, trust each other less and compete with each other more. Additionally, American feminism is a socialist system in a capitalist setting which inherently encourages women to use their femininity to get what they want and need while pretending to not be in competition with each other. This also explains why no matter how close women are, they still never want to be caught in the same dress. Women like to feel 'part of the pack' (aka the bandwagon effect) but they also are very complicated and like to be unique, at the same time. Before the feminism movement however, there was a balance of female unity which actually helped the formation of feminism to even occur. Unfortunately, women have since been reciprocated with multiple forms of division. Some divisions cannot be changed, like the division between the whore and the housewife. Other divisions encouraged by feminism on the other hand, are unnatural and unproductive. It is essential that women find a way to unite against their one true common enemy: Western feminism.

Thursday, March 24, 2016

The Core Values of Successful (Heterosexual) Dating

While dating is a very unique and personal experience, that doesn't take away from the consistencies of what works and what doesn't. Some things in life are time-tested and true while others are constantly adapting and evolving. The key to just about anything in life is balance. So here are some tips that, if followed, will help lead to a balanced and successful dating life while leaving plenty of room for respect to differences and personal decisions:

Both Genders:

Always use protection outside of marriage. Regardless of one's religion or personal beliefs, if you are going to have sex outside of marriage (as most people do) then you should do so responsibly. The best way to avoid the questions of premature parenthood, abortion and adoption are by avoiding getting pregnant in the first place. If you aren't responsible enough to handle this before children enter the picture, then chances are you're not going to be the parent that you could be when looking back in retrospect. Do right by yourself, your partner and any children involved by handling pregnancy as the serious, mature, life-altering matter that it is. Furthermore, this helps save you both from STDs.


Alcohol is a tool for sex, not dating (or legitimate boyfriend finding). If you go to an event and plan on drinking, remember that alcohol's effect on women lowers their personal gate when it comes to purely physical consent. When a man sees you drinking, he knows that the likelihood of you putting out is going to be higher, therefore the likelihood of men talking to you is higher if you drink then if you don't. This does not mean that every man who talks to you while you have a drink in your hand is singularly trying to get into your pants, it just means that it's more likely (just as it's more likely you're going to let him). In contrast, the chances that having a coffee with a man does not mean that he isn't singularly trying to get into your pants. However, it does mean he's more likely to get to know you first and treat you as a real person rather than a quick release (just as you're less likely to offer yourself as a quick release).

The more men you have sex with, the lower quality they are likely to become. This is a rule of nature not society. Just as men haven't changed their fashion styles in over 100 years, so they haven't changed their taste of class in wives. The average woman has about 4 partners in her lifetime while the average man considers a woman a slut/unmarriageable at 5 partners or more (maybe even less). Just because many women have decided to service more men and throw away the value of their own virginity, doesn't mean men don't still value it if they could actually get it. Additionally, studies find that having "multiple premarital sex partners enhance women’s risk of divorce". Just as a diamond's worth has been affected by their rarity, so does a woman's virginity (and it already started at a high value).

Do not have sex with a man on the first date. Remember that sex is very progressive and you can only stay consistent or move forward but you cannot move backwards. While premarital sex has become more common and casual, half of women still believe that they started too young in retrospect. It's common sense that once one starts to have sex, they can't really stop which is why the smartest teenagers wait longer to have sex than their peers. Likewise, this follows in a relationship so starting off with sex, statistically means failing to play catch up with all other important aspects of a relationship. (That's why they call them 'one night stands'.) Furthermore, this rule can also be applied to the "levels" of sexual activity. This means once you give a man a certain type of release, that option will always have to be available or it will become an insult and hinder your relationship.

Do not have a baby outside of marriage. This seems old-timey and seems to work for some people but statistically this ends up hurting the child even more than the parents. Yes, this is consistent with many religions but that doesn't mean it has to be limited to religion. This was a good rule for any society as it benefits the child the most, who will in turn become the deciding adults of society in the future. Every child deserves their best chance at life which means two parents raising them together and every parent who loves their children will surely want to give them their best chances. Growing up with separate homes or through a divorce can do a lot of damage to a child, especially depending on the age of separation and divided time between the parents. The Baby Boomer Generation told themselves that what was best for themselves was also best for their child, even if that meant divorce/separation, but that was a selfish delusion that proved completely false. For those who truly believe they will not be separating yet refuse to marry, the question becomes if you're not willing to legally commit to each other then why are you willing to create a life with each other that you will have to legally commit to? Again this is unfair to the child as a child does not deserve to be born as a relationship test or tool nor from a state of confusion or uncertainty.

Courtesy of: https://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/marriage/teach-your-children-about-marriage/30-years-of-research

Do not have a baby without the father's prior full consent. Having a baby without the father's consent is just cruel to the child as well as the father himself. (Not to mention that you will most likely suffer from it sooner or later as well.) A child is not a tool nor an accessory! There are some areas in America that no longer look down upon the single mother and some areas even embrace them. While this attitude might help those women feel emboldened to "be themselves", what does it do for their children? At the best, nothing at all and at the worst, it hurts them by entitling their mothers not to be accountable for the mistakes they make that affect other people. A single mother whose husband has died is a different scenario and that woman does deserve recognition. Proactively having a child with the intent of being a single mother, however, should be a crime of child abuse. This is directly neglecting the child of their necessary father and second parent. Children need both their mother and their father for their unique contributions.  A woman may feel empowered to have a child simply because she has the ability to do so, but there is a reason why it takes 2 to make a child even though it only takes 1 to give birth to it. Some women (and even some men) may not be happy with the roles that nature has given them with their bodies but this is not something to be taken out on society, the "father" or the child. Children still deserve to be an act of love, commitment, trust and partnership no matter what the year or century is.

The golden rule applies to dating: Treat men the way you want them to treat you. If you expect him to put you first then you need to be willing to put him first too. Too often nowadays women are so quick to acknowledge their requirements for how a man should treat them and make them feel without the slightest thought of how a man might want to be treated or how they can make them feel. This is objectification. A woman cannot expect a man she is dating to buy her flowers or completely sexually, monogamously commit to her if she is not willing to do something in return like cook him dinner or stay in physical shape. A relationship is about trade offs and balance, not taking without giving in return. Just because the mainstream media makes it seem acceptable to treat your date offensively, doesn't actually make it proper or appropriate to actually do so. The way you treat your date is a direct reflection of the way you treat, as well as think, of yourself.


Never pay or acknowledge a child out of wedlock without a DNA test. Since feminism fought for political incorrectness towards women (though they now reject it), let's just save time and admit that some women lie. You and the child have a right to know if the mother is a con artist. If you think a DNA test is too expensive, think about how much child support payments will cost over the next 18 years in comparison, plus medical bills throughout the pregnancy. If you think a DNA test is too offensive, think about how offensive it was that she got pregnant without your consent or even a commitment of marriage first, at least. This isn't just about being manipulated to pay for a child that isn't yours. Think about the effect it would have on you and/or the child to find out later that your biological connection is nonexistent. Think about that effect if some medical emergency were to happen and your biological connection was an essential piece of information that meant the difference between life and death. Think about that effect if you find out by the real biological father showing up unannounced. For all of the potential unknown possibilities and results, it's worth it to pay for a DNA test so you can eliminate many negative unknown consequences from the start.

Don't marry a woman unwilling to sign a prenuptial. Any woman who isn't confident enough that it will never come to that, shouldn't be getting married or has ulterior motives. Yes, many women are going to initially be offended by this. Any woman capable of logic and reason however, will respect you more for this, as she will recognize that you are not a man who allows yourself to be easily taken advantage of. A prenuptial can always be amended later anyways. The point isn't even necessarily about getting her to sign the prenuptial but at least that she's willing to sign it. If you're willing to sign a contract that you'll never leave her then why can't she sign a contract not to try and take you for all you're worth if it doesn't happen to work out? If she really loves you then she should have this attitude anyways unless she's a selfish sociopath.. In which case, why are you marrying her?

Don't settle for feminist peers who emasculate you. Remember that you get better with age; they don't. When males are younger, all of the cards are stacked against them dating-wise. They are at their most immature and sexually excited while women are at their most attractive. As time goes on however, men become more physically and personally attractive to women as they age and mature. At this same time, women are losing their attractiveness as well as time to have a child and make a lasting consistent and stable connection that results in children. So be careful when you're younger not to let a female peer get the best of you while they can, just because they can. Besides, you're more likely to have a successful marriage when dating a woman younger than you anyways. Don't wait until your second marriage to figure that out.