A NY Times article, Sorority Evictions Raise Issues of Look and Bias, raises some hard questions about how college women behave.

Not really.

As if we needed any more proof that college women (and especially college women in sororities) are shallow and vindictive, the story details how a tiny sorority at a tiny college in Greencastle, Indiana — student population 2,400 — effectively kicked out all their overweight, ugly, black, Korean of Vietnamese women.

The purging, initiated by the sorority chapter’s higher-ups from Delta Zeta headquarters in Oxford, Ohio, was probably in response to an annual psychology professor’s survey that asked students to characterize the different sorority groups on campus.

While other sororities got labels like “Daddy’s little princesses” and “Offbeat hippies”, Delta Zeta claimed the prize: “socially awkward”.

Let me point out that the psychology professor, a Ms. Pam Propsom, conducted this little survey ostensibly under the guise of part of her psychology class. My question is, exactly how valuable is a survey that asks students to stereotype sorority girls?

To show the power of stereotypes? College women ought to have learned that lesson well enough in high school.

So a female psychology professor initiates a catty popularity-contest “survey” with questionable educational value, and other catty women, in charge and trying to damage control the bad PR their precious sorority is getting, swoop in from Delta Zeta headquarters, interview 35 sorority members ostensibly in the context of their “commitment” to the organization, and kick out the 25 ugliest and fattest.

And, then the NY Times picks up the story and exposes them all as silly bitches.

You really need to look at the article to see the awful justice in full light of day — the story includes photos of many of the women kicked out, and it’s true, they are not pretty, and they are overweight.

But kicking them out on these grounds and trying to cover it with a tissue-thin fantasy about their lack of commitment is just laughable.

Just more evidence to confirm what I’ve always believed: sorority women at that age are pretty sad. Even sadder are the adult ones who never grow out of the mindset. I’d say they are good for one thing only (sex), but my experience is, often they are disappointing even in bed.

Porn. Porn where they would all excel — not only would it give them an outlet for their catty, competitive energy, it would give them a paycheck for acting fake.


Redefining Seduction Reviewed

February 26, 2007

I don’t remember how I came across the website Redefining Seduction — all I knew was that, as a an avid student of human mating behavior and researcher of all the latest dating and mating theories, I had to read the book of the same name.

The draw was obvious. This book, co-written by writers and activists Donna Sheehan and Paul Reffell, promises to produce “The Joyous New Women’s Movement that Men will Love Too!”

Knowing from personal experience how difficult it is to write anything that pleases both men and women, I was interested from this angle — and also because the book promised to, among other quotes from the website:

Picking up from Darwin’s theory of Sexual Selection, Redefining Seduction is an audacious and evocative look at male and female sexuality and the mating game. The premise of women as being in the evolutionary driver’s seat will undoubtedly have huge implications for generations to come.

The premise of women being in the driver’s seat, eh? Well, obviously I can agree with that idea, to a point: I do believe women happen to be the “choosers” of their sexual partners, in one way or another, although this generalization often has limits.

But I was very curious what others had to say, especially others who billed themselves as “evolutionary behaviorists” who had plowed 5 years of research into this book.

Redefining Seduction as Scholarship
I sprung for the $10 e-book version and read it in a few days. It is a small book, at barely 100 pages (including the epilogue), and honestly, I was a bit surprised at how little new information was presented in it.

The authors claim to have spent 5 years researching the book, but honestly, I did not see evidence of 5 years’ worth of original research. The “notes” section that supports their in-text assertion has barely 20 citations.

Obviously, this depth of research did not convince me. I myself have written 100+ page research papers in under three weeks with works cited sections stretching to over 100 citations.

So how does this book stand up as a scholarly work? Not very well.

As a Seduction Manual for Women
Some of the highest praise I can give the authors of Redefining Seduction is that, in their Notes section, they say of the perennial female-seduction guide The Rules: “prolongs the myth that women can beat up on men emotionally and expect to get away with it.”

As great as that is, and as much as this book wants to break paradigms of female behavior, the only real support it offers for the efficacy of its new methods is the success of the two author’s relationships: the book opens with the story of how Donna Sheehan “seduced” Paul Reffell, and returns repeatedly to their relationship over the course of the 100-page book.

Women take great pleasure and comfort in social rapport with other women, and the feeling of solidarity that comes from reading another woman’s story — but if a woman doesn’t identify instantly and closely with Doona (who seems to be the primary and only author, despite Paul’s name being on the cover), she’s sunk.

The book doesn’t even feature the multitude of compared women’s stories that books such as He’s Just Not That Into You do.

As practical guides go, the book does suggest some really basic moves (such as “make him comfortable” and “say positive things” and “touch him lightly”) but does not present a comprehensive “system” or method that is very different or new at all.

In fact, the farthest it goes is saying “keep your eyes open for men, and start chatting them up wherever you see them, take the initiative.” That’s it. That’s pretty much Redefining Seduction in a nutshell.

So, as a seduction manual, I would say this book falls pretty short as well.

It may remind a few women that they are living in the 21st century and there is more leeway for them to take some initiative, but beyond that it really doesn’t advance knowledge or open any new doors.

Devilish Details
Even more shocking, I found this book flat-out got it wrong in key places.

It says men will share the “minutiae” of their relationship lives at the first provocation: which seems a clear case of projection (women do this often, but I haven’t met a single man who does).

In the “Sex” section, it says that “so-called vaginal orgasms result from the stimulation of the clitoris.”


It also says “the clitoris is the center of the climax.”

Wrong again.

Then it goes on to compare orgasm to winning the lottery, and attributing a woman who has an orgasm on first intercourse with a new partner as “lucky”.

What a blatant perpetuation of not only feminist tropes, but plain old downright bad anatomy!

At one point, it leaps to the hasty generalization that “men with dogs have given up on finding a woman.” Uh, actually, the majority of single men I know who have dogs have them because they know that dogs give them opportunities to meet women.

At another point in the Sex chapter, they cite a study that says fully 37% of women wanted men to wait between one and three months before trying to initiate sex.

I couldn’t help thinking, are these women over 65 years old, or what? I don’t know ANY population of women in the U.S., except maybe evangelical Christian virgins, who would want a man to wait that long to try to initiate sex.

The book further mis-characterizes men as indiscriminate breeders — “seed sprayers” — who are incapable of empathy, kindness, or making a good decision on who to sleep or partner with. This is one of the book’s greatest weaknesses, since it is not only sexist and shortsighted, but also misandrist.

Getting It Right
The book does have a few high points, where it gets the analysis of women and men right.

It says at one point that all men “want a woman who is attractive to him and others in some way, a woman who ‘resonates’.”

It DOES warn against blaming men for their actions, which is good, to a point — but on the other hand, it applies this standard of blamelessness to men in other odd situations, such as after a date (“It’s not his fault if he doesn’t call you back.”) Applying this logic to women is what leads to frustrating flakey hate-inspiring modern women, so while I am grateful to see a woman applying these same moral standards to men, I am still concerned that they exist at all — personal responsibility is a good thing.

And finally, it does advocate women be more outgoing and friendly, and not so fearful (of the ever-present threat of “rape”, right?), saying, in a great passage:

Our personal fortress in which most women, especially urbanites, hide in fear of strangers…it’s the closest a woman can come to feeling how it is for most men at all times when they are in public. These defenses are all products of…..[a]….mindset that has created the suspicious and fearful atmosphere that tyrants thrive on.

And, to it’s credit, the book does advocate safe sex.

Save your Money
At $10, I figured I couldn’t possibly waste money on this book, but I was very nearly proved wrong. The authors seem to think they can effect global change with this 100-page polemic against helpless “masked” males: here’s a snippet from the blog that accompanies the book:

Men are designed for focusing on the job at hand, creating stuff, destroying stuff and spraying seed wherever they can. Women are designed for seeing the whole picture, creating connections and creating life from raw seed. Men are not designed to choose their mates. This according to Charles Darwin and his Sexual Selection theory (read the book!).

Actually, Darwin never said men are hapless seed-sprayers incapable of choosing a mate. That’s an extrapolation that the authors have used to put words in his mouth.

Men are designed to display their best traits. Women are designed to select their mates. So, guys, that’s why so many of you have been rejected so many times when you made the first move.

No, guys get rejected because they don’t understand how to approach women in the right way, a way that will appeal to the woman.

And it’s partly why so many marriages end in divorce. Male-initiated marriages are more likely to end in divorce than female-initiated marriages. Google it sometime.

This is because women, when they initiate marriages, initiate marriages with limp-wristed Beta males who are already whipped prior to the “proposal” and are essentially the woman’s domestic and economic servant for the rest of their naturally born days.

Men don’t divorce the woman who proposed to them because the woman won’t give them permission to.

But wait, they’re just getting warmed up:

Now it’s time for women to use their biological seductive power to reclaim their true role as the civilizers of men. Women are the drivers of evolution, through their mate choices, their child-rearing, their ability to understand the bigger picture and thereby the consequences of their, and their mates’, actions. Women are the only hope for steering men away from their path to certain destruction.

Not only is this again returning to the misandristic sexist trope of “men aren’t as mentally capable as women” but it’s saying tha, in effect, women are superior, and would make better political leaders, and can single-handedly bring about a ‘taming’ of the violence of human (whoops, male) nature and save the day.

Well, let’s look at some female political leaders. Janet Reno (remember Elian Gonzales?) Condoleeza Rice. Need I say Margaret Thatcher? Right, I think women make swell political leaders.

Sorry, I don’t buy this sexist trope, and neither should you: humanity suffers because of humanity, not because of men — there are good men as well as bad, and good women as well as bad. Setting it up as a battle between evil men and good, nurturing women is completely counterproductive, given that in reality it is a battle between GOOD men and GOOD women against EVIL men and EVIL women.

And thus concludes my book review. I can’t write another word about this thing: and I cannot recommend this slim manual (I won’t call it a “book”) to anyone.

In the city I currently live in, there is a shortage of Alpha males.

Most of the men in this city are laid back, relaxed, many are effeminate or downright metro. There is a large and openly out gay population.

This is a major metropolitan area, and it is a very liberal, progressive city in a Blue state — the sort of metropolitan area Republican Presidents fear to tread in.

Although it has vibrant local art, music, food and wine scenes and is additionally very high-tech, the men here still leave something to be desired; the nature of the city and the area itself seems to draws effete men to it; and the men here who do play at being “alpha” do so in a churlish, frat-boy way. There are very, very, few of what I would call “natural alphas” that are over 27, single, attractive,  and not douchebags or assholes in some other way.

The women here, on the other hand, are VERY dominant.

Going along with the openly gay community is an open and vocal lesbian community. Women are seen walking openly hand-in-hand down the street while nearby male couple do the same thing. Openly lesbian women are appointed to prestigious teaching positions at local universities.

And that’s what cued me in; a lesbian University professor I once had who, way back then, challenged my assertion that Good Sex ought to involve Emotion.

“I can have sex just based on physical attraction,” she said. “I don’t think emotions have to come into it. And I’m a lot older than you, I think I have a little more experience.” She said this in the context of an undergraduate class in Women’s Studies.

Different place, different time, different woman, same message: I can have sex just like a man.

– I can objectify the targets of my desire;

– I can see them as nothing more than living, breathing sex-toys;

– I can fuck them without regard to their emotional lives;

– I can use them and cast them aside, and move on to the next.

Just like a man can.

And I am free to develop that masculine dominance exactly in proportion to how scarce actual masculine dominance is around here.

By now, I’ve heard this refrain from many women — all of them “dominant” women who were either openly lesbian or strongly bisexual. None of them particularly effeminate — many of them embracing traditionally masculine characteristics — short hair, androgynous clothing, male sex roles, and so forth.

None of them I considered particularly attractive.

What I’m developing here is a social theory that dominant women spring up in the absence of dominant men, and take on their sexual roles.

Or, put another way, assertive, masculine (butch) women are a product of submissive men.

When assertive, masculine, Alpha males are in short supply, women take up the natural slack and expand to fill the power-gap left by those men: they get jobs like them, harass and harangue like them, dress like them,  and try to fuck like them.

This would never happen in a region with a healthy supply of dominant, masculine males: Texas, for instance. A woman who wanted to be dominant would not only not venture to go there (because she’d get laughed right out of her butch attitude) but also, women born in those areas are LESS LIKELY to get the idea that they need or want to develop dominant, traditionally-masculine traits — they see dominant men around them, they understand the power of femininity, and they don’t see any reason to change the status quo.

To further test this theory, I have examined (in fine detail) some women from the vast rural areas outside the dense urban center.

These women are, to a one, more feminine, more attractive, and more interested in and responsive to a dominant,  man.

So now you know. Female dominance is adaptive; female submission is natural.

The Princess and the Player

February 13, 2007

In My Beef with Feminism I describe the contradictions of modern-day feminism; in Feminism’s Greatest Mistake, I point to the natural consequences of social and “emotional” liberation.

Ironically, it is the recent mis-steps by modern-day feminism that have enabled modern Western women to fall as such easy prey to “The Player”.

A “Player” is a man or woman skilled at social interaction who manipulates a woman’s emotions for some less-than-noble purpose. It may be to get sex from a girl who would otherwise refuse. It may be to suggest to her that her boyfriend has been unfaithful, and thus plant seeds of doubt that will lead to the break-up of the relationship (so the boyfriend is “available” for a rebound fuck).

The Player plays a woman’s emotions as skillfully as a concert violinist plays a Stradivarius, and wrings from her shifting patterns of labile emotionality a result that is personally beneficial. Some people also call this person an “emotional vampire”; a social predator who feeds with a delightful sense of irony on tumultuous emotions casually inspired in others by misrepresentations of the self.

Players and emotional vampires were not common before the destruction of social patterns of value, because they could not gain traction among men and women with strong basic social values, such as: keep your word, stand by your friends, don’t lie, regulate your emotions. Abdicating responsibility for your actions via your emotions creates a gaping vulnerability to manipulation by a skillful emotional player.

The dismantling of these basic conventions has constructed The Princess and the Player as two opposite but complimentary social caricatures: the Princess, flippant and emotionally labile, is selfish, petulant, demanding, inconsistent, petty, and catty — the Player, ruthless and calculating, is exploitative, egocentric, unctuous, mendacious, penetrating, and fake.

Neither is able to experience healthy attachment, so while they may come together to feed on one another for a time, and experience some measure of purely biological bliss (in sex), a deepening and strengthening bond, and the personal growth that would entail, is not truly possible.

And that is a personal tragedy with dire social and cultural implications.

Feminism’s Greatest Mistake

February 12, 2007

There is one other thing I cannot endorse about feminism.

By telling women that they have been oppressed for centuries by “The Patriarchy”, and calling them to liberate themselves by rejecting the basic social codes of the Western world, which were supposed to be constructed by men to keep them in chains (and therefore ought to be regarded as inherently destructive), feminism has effectively declared war on a number of very desirable social traits.

Consider the body of social conventions and behavioral proscriptions that feminism rails against:

– nurturing and care-giving (”sexist”, feminists say)
– moderation in words and actions
– taking compliments, thanking behavior
– kindness
– accommodation
– respect
– modesty
– decorum

Quite a collection of reprehensible, disgusting habits, no? It’s only NATURAL feminism would revolt against them! After all, they are plainly tools designed solely in the interest of enslaving women to eeeeevil forces of Patriarchy.

And this is only a partial list of values and conventions latter-day feminists have fought to destroy, to replace them with, as far as I can tell, just one overarching rule:

“Follow your feelings.”

That’s it. That’s the aggregate message of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism: “Guess what, girls! You don’t have to be nice anymore! In fact, be a BITCH! Be LOUD! Be IMMODEST! Be IMPOLITE! SLEEP AROUND! Throw off tho yoke of those patriarchical social conventions that made you so mute, dumb and boring! Have some ATTITUDE! And, above all….follow your feelings.”

“If it feels good, do it. After all, that’s what men do!”

“If it doesn’t feel right, don’t do it.”

And in that single sweep, feminism “liberated” women from decency in social conventions and enslaved them to their own shifting emotions.

You see, emotions, while a very important source of information, are not and never will be Facts; and divorcing women from Facts while encouraging them to make their decisions using Feelings is morally ruinous.

A fact, for example, might be as follows: “I said I’d come back and pick up my friends after the bars closed.”

In the old days, before feminism destroyed the “sexist social codes” that taught women things like kindness, accommodation and respect, a woman might have followed a thought process like this:

“Hmm, I told my friends I’d go back and pick them up. But I’m really tired now! And this cute boy is calling me on the phone. I really want to just stay home…..BUT, I promised them, and I have to keep my word. So I’ll call the boy back tomorrow and drive out to get them. I’ll be a good friend.”

Now, however, it’s a different story:

“Hmm, I told my friends I’d go back and pick them up. But I’m really tired now! And this cute boy is calling me on the phone. Fuck those whores, they can take care of themselves.”

This destruction of the aforementioned values in women’s minds has had an imprisoning effect, not a liberating one. Now, women are subject to their own selfish whims, rather than the social conventions of “good behavior”. And while I love my naughty girls as much as the next guy, I absolutely *cannot abide* what feminism has replaced those social niceties with:

– lying
– infidelity
– betrayal
– flakiness
– lack of integrity
– manipulation
– extreme competitiveness
– extreme jealousy
– opportunism

Women are encouraged in these behaviors. It is “throwing off the yoke of the male oppressor”. It is “getting theirs”. It is “following their feelings”.

Modern-day feminism — 2nd and 3rd wave — is, at root, an intellectual pattern of values that is seeking to free women from social constructs in favor of biological decisionmaking. Now this intellectual pattern has gone out of control, in places flatly denying biological differences between the genders — the theory of gender being “socially constructed” — and seeking through this anything-goes emotional liberation to destroy the good social rules.

Emotional decision-making is a biological process; biological processes ought to be contained and mediated by social processes. The urge to murder, or the urge to rape, are biological processes that are kept in check by a strong social process — law and order, the cop with the gun, and the court and criminal justice system.

So the problems brought on by modern-day feminism: women’s unrestrained sexual expression, ceaseless competition, physical aggression, and somatic decision-making — have been set free from their social constraints and are now resulting in a degradation of the very cultures where women are considered most politically liberated.

This is what radical Muslims are reacting to when they speak about the immorality of Western women: they are bearing witness to biological instincts being let free to dominate social and intellectual constraints. They recognize that this process is inherently immoral, since the social pattern of values that kept woman’s natural biological urges in check are what allowed the intellectual level to flourish in the first place.

The entire thing is a process of degradation and backsliding; and feminism, as a movement, needs to snap out of it before the social patterns collapse completely, taking the intellectual patterns with them, and leaving only the biological laws of the jungle, chaotic, confused, and answering to no one.

It is modern-day feminism that has proven true the statement made by Jack Nicholson’s character in the film As Good as It Gets , when asked how he writes such convincing female characters: “I think of a man. Then I take away reason and accountability.”

To follow the rabbit hole deeper, see also My Beef with Feminism and The Princess and the Player.

My Beef with Feminism

February 11, 2007

There is a contradiction living at the heart of modern-day feminism; a contradiction that most feminists refuse to acknowledge or discuss.

The contradiction concerns two assertions within feminism that cannot co-exist logically, but are both asserted as fundamental to the movement.

Until these assertions are resolved by mainstream feminism, I, and many others like me, simply cannot take the movement seriously.

Which brings me to the second of what will be a two-part critique; that feminism, as currently conceived, is a political philosophy based on an appeal to emotions, rather than to logic or morality — and that formulation must change before the movement rises to the prominence and regard it enjoyed prior to the Second Wave.

But let’s take it one thing at a time.

The Competing Feminist Assertions

1) Men and women are equal; and therefore ought to be treated as equals with respect to jobs, opportunities, wages and earnings, fashion, sexual expectations, and every other sphere of life. So far, so good: this is a basic statement of desire for “equal treatment” or enlightened egalitarianism. In fact, let’s call it the “egalitarian assertion“. It is often trotted out as feminism’s chief assertion of moral superiority. It allows feminists to start with the principle that the entire feminist movement is all about reducing the oppression of The Patriarchy and making the playing field entirely level for both men and women.

2) Women’s values are different from, and superior to, men’s values. The presumption is that the world would be BETTER OFF if more women were in charge. This is what you are hearing when you hear women attack the “Patriarchy”: a.k.a. the male-dominated world, which is painted as petty, calculating, emotionless, aggressive, power-obsessed, life-denying, and basically responsible for all the evil in the world. The assumption is that the Patriarchy must be pulled down, destroyed, abolished, so that the communitarian, affiliative nature of women can replace it with a beautiful, benign Matriarchy.

And herein lies the first contradiction. If the egalitarian assertion is right, and men and women are equal in intellect and moral standing, why would the Matriarchy be any different than the Patriarchy it seeks to supplant?

Notice that this second pillar of feminism, which we should call the female superiority argument, is a strong affirmation of sexism — which feminism purports to fight against).

Some Examples

The contradictions generated by these two competing ideas are infinite; but let’s take just a few examples, from the realms of business, social conduct, sexual conduct, and politics. Just watch as feminists lay down the female superiority argument in the same breath as the egalitarian assertion:

“Women don’t earn as much as men; that’s wrong, because they can be just as good as a man at any business. In fact businesses wouldn’t pollute or exploit their workers as much if women were in charge, because women are actually MORE caring than men.”

That doesn’t sound like a philosophy of equality to me. It sounds like the flip side of “Patriarchy”.

“Women can be just as good as men at fighting in the military or boxing, so they should be allowed to do those things. To say otherwise is sexist. At the same time, women need to be protected from male violence in the home and on the street.”

First comes the assertion that women can fight just as well as men; so keeping them out of the military is sexist and oppressive. Then comes the assertion that men are MORE violent than women, and actually, women need to be PROTECTED from this form of oppression. So which is it?

In the above example, the same woman will also say, when presented with video evidence of a woman beating up a man on the street, “He shouldn’t press charges; he probably wasn’t even hurt. Men are tougher than women.” So a man hitting a woman is illegal, because men are tougher than women; but women can fight as infantrymen alongside men, because men aren’t tougher than women. Madness!

“Vibrators and dildos are sexual liberation and expression for women; but pornography is demeaning and a hazard to women, so we should criminalize it.”

So masturbation is OK for women but not OK for men? “Men should just use their imaginations, like we do”. Women should just use their fingers, like WE do. Both vibrators and pornography are masturbation aids; to treat them unequally is sexism.

“Women and men are equal; there should be an equal number of women holding political office around the world, because women are better at dealing with people, and more caring, anyway. If we had a woman President we would have fewer wars.”

Self-explanatory. Women are just as good as men at holding political office; no, they’re actually BETTER. If the latter is true, why don’t feminists just come out and say they think women should run the world? Of course some do, and completely miss the irony of their shouting and marching for “equality”, not realizing that what they want is not actually called “equality” but “DOMINATION”.

How can it be said that men and women are EQUAL in all respects, and then go on and try to hand men (via “the Patriarchy”) an UNEQUAL share of the responsibility for the evils of the world?

Either men and women are different, and ought to be treated differently by society — or they are NOT different, and ought to be treated exactly the same, and held to the same standards.

Feminism can’t seem to make up its mind.

But it is for damn sure that it is not politically, ideologically, or intellectually honest to cite differences when doing so would advance the cause of feminism, and dismiss them in all other cases.

Equality versus Difference

I want to be clear on the issues here: I believe in equality, and I think feminism is a fine philosophy, as long as it remains about promoting equality.

I believe in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, where it is written, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal…”

That is to say that we, as a human race, ought to work together in order to form a more perfect global union, each contributing the best of what our individual talents and intellect offer to the shared goal of the greatest good for the greatest number.

Notice I did not say that people were undifferentiated. On the contrary, I happen to believe — because the evidence is right in front of my face, all day, ever day — that people are very different. Everyone is born with different skills, abilities, limitations, handicaps, and strengths: nature and nurture, their genes and their environment, are to individual people as length and height are to a field — the total person or the area of the field are incomprehensible without considering the interactive and often reciprocal effect of the both on the one.

Plenty of people make the mistake of saying that a belief in equality must also mean a belief that people are the SAME. That is absolutely not so. People are different, but they are all equal inasmuch as they are all composed of biological material, immersed in a social context, and possessing an intellectual capability (though the latter is frequently under-utilized).

People are not the same; but they ought to be treated fairly.