Uncle Elmer On Business And The Economy

 Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments, female economic bubbles, mancession  3 Responses »
Aug 192011
 

Read what Uncle Elmer had to say about business and the economy:

Women are competing for jobs but are not creating them. Other than providing a mass market for their vanity products, they are not forging new industries or technologies. They are marginalizing that small percentage of men who passionately innovate, destroy, and create ideas and take the risks to drive them to actualization

Though men shank me and insult me, only men provide me with opportunity. Women can only insult me and deprive me of opportunity. Only men, and only a small fraction of them, take the risks that create industry and opportunity. Women can only serve as mere functionaries in man-created structures. When an organization becomes feminized, priority shifts from efficient and profitable production of goods and services to development of labarynthine rules for the comfort and security of women. Ossification and organizational death are inevitable.

Men have shanked me and kicked me in the teeth, but only men have given me opportunity and employment. No woman can or will provide me or any man employment, yet all western women feel entitled to help and opportunities from men, even as they drive men out of the workplace.

It leads to a nasty conclusion : workplace women are your enemy. They cannot help you but can and will hurt you. Do not look at them, do not talk to them. Extend your hand to men when possible and fight your male rivals honorably. If you are in a situation where you must fight a female remember that she can use any tactic and you will be crucified for merely standing your ground. Walk away from it.

Government studies that make dubious observations on gender differences are produced by self-serving feminist bureaucrats who have no concept about the reality of making a profit in the competitive business world. These imbeciles want the federal government to demolish profitable business structures that evolved over decades in the corporate shark-tank in favor of comfort and security for women and their lifestyle choices. Females want to inhabit man-created business structures as if those structures existed before man appeared on the veldt. They are clueless, and what’s more don’t care. They just want to have their cake and to eat it too. When you have pushed the last man out of the corporation it will collapse under its own dead weight.

From Antioch College To A Rent Seeking Job

 Featured Posts From Other Blogs, Videos, And Comments, female behavior and whining, mancession, Spearhead Related  3 Responses »
Mar 062011
 

My recent post at The Spearhead about the collapse of Antioch College generated some commentary elsewhere such as this post at Captain Capitalism’s blog.  Some woman posts a comment about how her daughter was in the last graduating class at Antioch College, received a “great education”, and immediately got a job in her field after graduation. The Captain guessed that the daughter’s job was working for government or a non-profit that is getting a taxpayer subsidy. It turns out he was right:

Mom of Antioch College graduate comes in and goes to bat for “Antioch College” after I link to the Spearhead’s article citing its closure, claiming her daughter got a “great” education and “immediately” found employment in her field.

I make “cynical” “evil” “republican” “nazi” predictions that her daughter majored in a worthless subject and the only reason she found “employment in her field” was because her “field” was essentially subsidized by either charity or the taxpayers. In other words, she doesn’t produce anything of economic value to society and is literally a parasite.

Readers of Cappy Cap come to bat IN STYLE and prove;

1. Her daughter works at a community theater
2. That receives money from charity
3. Most of which is from the Ohioan taxpayer

The overall lesson to learn here is that Antioch College, as well as many others, simply just produce what could be considered “economic parasites” who instead of “lowering themselves” to collecting a welfare check, engage in faux, fake “professions” or “careers” all of which are economically no different than collecting a welfare check in that it is still paid for by others. They just go through the facade of having a “job” presumably to make themselves feel better.

Just another reason to say good riddance to Antioch College.  It’s motto should have been, “We produce rent seeking parasites.”  Also, take notice that it was her daughter that the mom talked about.  The daughter has a job while men who were doing productive work lost their jobs in the mancession.  Just as Antioch College died because it refused to deal with reality so will the daughter’s “job”.

The Spearhead: Doubling Down

 female economic bubbles, mancession, socialism, the spearhead  No Responses »
Jan 282011
 

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

Terry O’Neill, the president of NOW (the National Organization for Women) had this to say about government social programs:

No, we need increases in the social programs and here’s why. First of all, the social programs at the state and local level are being decimated because states, unlike the federal government, states can’t run a deficit. The federal government can and should in order to support these social programs.

The social programs mostly benefit women – these are things like childcare and after school programs and anti-violence programs and training programs. Those things are for women but the interesting thing is a lot of them employ women. So from my point of view, we really need those social programs enhanced – not cut.

There has been much written in the manosphere about how government spending is mainly spent on women.  However, for the first time, a feminist and the president of NOW no less, has admitted.  She has also admitted that women disproportionately employed by government at all levels, another fact widely discussed in the manosphere.

In addition, this shows us that feminists will not bend to the reality of a shrinking economy and shrinking government revenues.  Instead feminists will double down (and triple down and quadruple down) and fight to the last womyn to keep governments at all levels spending on women.  The fact that the US and other countries can no longer afford (if they ever could) feminism does not matter to them.  The fact that the federal government of the US alone had a $1.4 trillion deficit in 2010 or is projected to have a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2011 does not matter to feminists.  Knowing that the federal government is running these deficits already, O’Neill has effectively demanded multi-trillion dollar deficits and doesn’t care about the myriad of problems it would cause such as hyperinflation.

The Spearhead: Dealing With The Reality On The Ground

 conservative female supremacism, Game/PUA, mancession, Manginas/White Knights, shaming language, the spearhead  2 Responses »
Dec 152010
 

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

There are lots of people who claim to be against feminism but really aren’t.  One way of figuring out if someone is seriously against feminism is asking if their critiques and solutions of feminism deal with the reality on the ground for men and boys.  Instead if they are engaging in an academic discussion mental masturbation that does not offer anything to help to reality that men and boys are dealing with, then they aren’t serious about being against feminism.  Most likely they are another form of female supremacist that agrees with 99% of feminism but has some sort of meaningless trivial disagreement with feminism.  This is even more true if they claim to be against feminism but spend lots of time attacking MRA’s or the MRM.

Look at this post from the Oz Conservative blog.  There’s a lot of talk about “individualism”, “separatism”, and “autonomy”.  This is supposedly a criticism of both feminism and the MRM.  Notice how those terms aren’t really defined for context they’re used in.  They’re supposed to be “bad” because they’re “bad”.  There are also a lot of bizarre claims that MRAs want to be “liberated from masculinity”.  What “liberated from masculinity” means is not defined either.  Nearly all MRAs would have no idea what is being talked about in that post because MRAs are dealing with the reality on the ground.  MRAs are dealing with issues that affect (and in many cases destroy) the lives of men and boys such as anti-male divorce courts, fathers having their children taken away from them, men forced to pay for children that aren’t theirs, men in jail because of false rape charges, men losing their jobs due to affirmative action and the mancession, boys trapped in feminized school systems, boys forced to take drugs like ritalin, etc.  If a 7 year old boy fights back against a feminized school system he is trapped in (as much as a 7 year old boy reasonably can), are we really supposed to believe that 7 year old boy is wants to be “liberated from masculinity”?  (The author of the Oz Conservative blog is a teacher so he may actually believe that.)

Another example of supposed anti-feminism that refuses to deal with the reality on the ground can be found at The (Not) Thinking Housewife (along with another post at that blog).  Look at some of the things Josh F. had to say:

And so what  is becoming ever more evident is that the “men’s rights movement” is really a white male liberationist movement towards radical autonomy/ de facto homo-ism. It is the consciously persued spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman. This white male liberationist movement justifies itself by incorrectly identifying its foe as feminism/woman  in order to give cover to its fellow radical autonomist, devout dyke.

The incentive for adopting the roles that Mrs. Wood speaks of is the opportunity TO BE A REAL MAN. One isn’t born a man nor is one able to be a man without continually “acting” manly. The idea that males seeking de facto homo-ism (spiritual, emotional and physical detachment from woman) can be MEN is the fraud of the “men’s rights movement.” Liberal “man…” Radically autonomous “man…” “Man” that rejects woman IS actually anti-man. He is the “soul mate” to the other anti-man, the inappropriately named “feminist,” i.e., devout dyke.

The delusion of the MRM is in the idea that its  liberal male collective can defeat the liberal female collective either by utilizing liberal tactics or by withdrawing into a state of de facto homo-ism (radical autonomy)…This is the radical liberal’s subconscious desire to self-annihilate so as to realize final  liberation from the burden of being God-fearing American Man. This is the essence of the MRM; a mirrored sham very much in collusion with devout dyke to destroy both man and woman.

To lead males to de facto homo-ism with a rally cry of “no marriage, no kids” is to lead males to a state of radical autonomy. Meaning, you are ensuring that he never sees the light of manhood.

Homosexuality is not JUST two people of the same sex that are attracted to each other.

It is a simple fact that those who believe in sexual autonomy (fluidity) simply reject the idea of an externally imposed sexual order. This means that their sexuality is self-created. Homo-sexuality is the sexual attraction to the self, first, and only then the same when the void is felt. But make no mistake, a self-created sexual “orientation” that is sexually attracted TO ITSELF (the purely physical narcissist) is really a sexual “orientation” that rejects the externally imposed sexual order; this fluid sexual “orientation” rejects man as devout dyke and it rejects woman as radical homosexual. It is very plain to see that a self-sexualizer, even when he fills the void with something of the same, is by nature a self-annihilator.

What Josh F. is saying is difficult to read because many of his concepts are not defined.  What is “autonomy” in this context?  What is a “real man” supposed to be in this context?  What is the “externally imposed sexual order”?  It can not be figured out except that it is supposed to be “bad” for some unknown reason.  Also, Josh F. tries to redefine terms like homosexual to some other nebulous concept similar to how leftist academics try to murder the English language for destructive purposes.  The only idea that Josh F. communicates is that he is trying to expand anti-male shaming language.

What are these “devout dykes” that Josh F. talks about?  They sound like aliens on another planet.  That is because Josh F. refuses to deal with the reality on the ground of feminism.  If the only problem of feminism were a group of aliens on another planet then men would have nothing to worry about.  The problems of feminism are all around men on this planet.  A woman who forces a man into divorce court and steals his children from him is not a “devout dyke”.  It’s a heterosexual woman.  An actual lesbian wouldn’t marry a man in the first place.  When considering all of the problems caused by feminism, it took a lot more women than some small cadre of lesbians to create these problems.  It took the work of average everyday heterosexual women too.  To ignore this is to ignore the reality on the ground for men.  Josh F. refuses to consider that not getting married and not having kids is a solution that men can actually implement to protect themselves.  This is why a lot of men avoid marriage and children.  These men have never heard of words like “autonomy” or “self annihilator” in the context they are being used.  Even if they have, they don’t care because they are dealing with the reality on the ground.  They are trying to avoid things like divorce court and jail.  Does a man dealing with the real problems of feminism such as a man who is a victim of false rape charges care about Josh F.’s weird ideology?  No, because he is dealing with the reality on the ground, namely avoiding jail.

Look at what Jesse Powell (the same person who said that men should be imprisoned on false rape charges to “protect women”) had to say:

“Duty to others” always exists no matter what the circumstances. Men have the duty to “provide for and protect” women simply because that is a fundamental part of the man’s role in society; it is an inherited duty; it is an intrinsic characteristic of the man.

Why do they positively celebrate the decline in marriage calling it “the marriage strike”? I suspect men’s rights supporters know their condemnation of marriage and their refusal to fulfill their obligations as men is destructive to society and so they embrace and glorify the destruction of society in order to legitimize and glorify their own anti-social behaviors.

What is the “duty to provide for and protect” women?  Why does it exist?  These questions won’t be answered because there isn’t an answer.  Those statements exist to avoid the question, “Why should men get married knowing the reality on the ground?”  The reality for men getting married particularly younger men is that there is a greater than 50% chance their wives will force a divorce on them, take half or more of their assets, and take their kids away.  Since when is it a man’s duty to go to divorce court or jail?  Jesse Powell is telling men to ignore their own good judgement and ability to plan for the future and pretend the reality on the ground doesn’t exist.

All the people in these examples do the same thing, avoid dealing with the reality on the ground men are facing.  They provide no practical solutions for men to use who are facing these problems in the face.  They refuse to admit these problems even exist and refuse to admit the lives and men and boys are being destroyed by the problems feminism has created.  Instead they waste their time on mental masturbation inventing concepts that don’t reflect reality in any way.  This is in stark contrast to how the MRM or the greater manosphere acts.  Take game, for example.  It’s a solution that was created to deal with the reality on the ground men were facing.  This is one reason why it’s effective.  The only way we men will move forward in dealing with feminism is dealing with real problems and find concrete and usable solutions to them.  Anyone who wastes their time on weird ideological debates will not be a part of a solution to the problems of feminism and is not really against feminism.

The Spearhead: An Example Of How Women Deal With Unemployment

 female behavior and whining, female economic bubbles, mancession  1 Response »
May 152010
 

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

As the Mancession continues the mainstream media finds new ways to avoid talking about how men have had to deal with 80% of the job losses from the current economic downturn.  This article from the New York Times talks about clerical jobs lost due to technological advances.  This means secretaries, “administrative assistants”, and the like so the New York Times profiled Cynthia Norton, a 52 year old woman living in Jacksonville, FL who was an an administrative assistant.  While the article tries to paint a picture of (a subset of) women being hit hard by the economic downturn, the fact is for every Cynthia Norton there are four men unemployed.  However, it does show us how women deal with unemployment.  Here are some excepts from the article:

Ms. Norton is reluctant to believe that her three decades of experience and her typing talents, up to 120 words a minute, are now obsolete. So she looks for other explanations.

Employers, she thinks, fear she will be disloyal and jump ship for a higher-paying job as soon as one comes along.

Sometimes she blames the bad economy in Jacksonville. Sometimes she sees age discrimination. Sometimes she thinks the problem is that she has not been able to afford a haircut in a while. Or perhaps the paper her resume is printed on is not nice enough.

The problem cannot be that the occupation she has devoted her life to has been largely computerized, she says.

Notice how this woman blames anything and everything else other than herself.  It must be misogyny (which is blaming men) or age discrimination (which is code for blaming men).  It has to be the paper she used for her resume or her inability to “afford” a haircut.  If the problem is simply paper or a haircut that get paper or get a haircut.  How much is she paying for a haircut that she “can’t afford” it now?  The paper a resume is printed on doesn’t matter that much anymore since resumes are sent over email now and scanned into a computer system when received on paper.

Ms. Norton has spent most of the last two years working part time at Wal-Mart as a cashier, bringing home about a third of what she had earned as an administrative assistant. Besides the hit to her pocketbook, she grew frustrated that the work has not tapped her full potential.

“A monkey could do what I do,” she says of her work as a cashier. “Actually, a monkey would get bored.”

If this job at Walmart is so terrible then why not quit?  There are lots of unemployed men right now who would love to have it.

Ms. Norton says she cannot find any government programs to help her strengthen the “thin bootstraps” she intends to pull herself up by. Because of the Wal-Mart job, she has been ineligible for unemployment benefits, and she says she made too much money to qualify for food stamps or Medicaid last year.

“If you’re not a minority, or not handicapped, or not a young parent, or not a veteran, or not in some other certain category, your hope of finding help and any hope of finding work out there is basically nil,” Ms. Norton says. “I know. I’ve looked.”

This is what men have always been dealing with.  There are no government programs for men (outside of very limited categories like veterans).  Welcome to the real world, Cynthia Norton.

Ms. Norton, for her part, may be reluctant to acknowledge that many of her traditional administrative assistant skills are obsolete, but she has tried to retrain — or as she puts it, adapt her existing skills — to a new career in the expanding health care industry.

Even that has proved difficult.

She attended an eight-month course last year, on a $17,000 student loan, to obtain certification as a medical assistant. She was trained to do front-office work, like billing, as well as back-office work, like giving injections and drawing blood.

The school that trained her, though, neglected to inform her that local employers require at least a year’s worth of experience — generally done through volunteering at a clinic — before hiring someone for a paid job in the field.

She says she cannot afford to spend a year volunteering, especially with her student loan coming due soon.

It wasn’t the job of this school to do research into this field for her.  I doubt that volunteering at a clinic would conflict with her job at Walmart.  Even if it did then she could go on unemployment and qualify for all those government programs she didn’t previously qualify for a year and then get a job.

She blames her student loan, but even that is a solvable problem.  While student loans can’t be discharged in bankruptcy, they can be deferred.  Several types of deferments are available including economic hardship deferments and unemployment deferments.  Norton will qualify for one of those types of deferments.  All of this ignores how taking out a $17000 student loan for just an eight month course is a bad idea.  (Of course, Norton should be thankful that she isn’t in as dire straits as Michelle Bisutti who ended up with a student loan bill of $555,000.)

There are people who would say that I’m just kicking a woman when she’s down by writing this post.  The fact is I have been laid off and unemployed.  But I also was able to get employed again without worrying about the paper my resume is printed on or about getting a haircut.  It’s not the job of the government or educational institutions to wipe your ass.  Again, for every Cynthia Norton there are at least four men who lost their jobs during this economic downturn.  Unlike Norton, these men understand there will be no one to bail them out.

The Spearhead: Man Runs For Public Office Against His Wife

 false abuse industry, male/female relationships, mancession, the spearhead  No Responses »
Apr 062010
 

My latest post for The Spearhead is up. As with all Spearhead posts comments are disabled so comment on the post at The Spearhead.

In Missouri John Fischer has decided to run for the Missouri State Legislature to represent MO District 107.  He is running as a Republican against the current holder of that seat who is his wife, Linda Fischer, a Democrat.  They are the only two people running for this seat and the filing deadline has already passed so there will be no other candidates.

Linda Fischer claims her husband, a former employee of Chrysler who was forced into early retirement last May, has committed violence against her.  She has already gotten a protection order against her husband claiming that he has “harassed” her and has caused or attempted to cause her physical harm.  John Fischer denies the allegations and is willing to take polygraph test to prove his innocence.  The protection order has prevented John Fischer from entering his home so he is currently living in a camper.

Mr. Fischer says that he is not running against his wife because of the protection order but because of how the Democrats have handled the economy, health care, and the stimulus.  He said:

I figured if I’m going to be on my own, then I’m going to have to do what suits me. I’m standing up for people who lost their job. I don’t think they’re being represented fairly in this state because they do not take care of the working man.

This state legislature race is a microcosm of many of the issues that we write about, the mancession, the false abuse industry, etc.  John Fischer has not let all of the things his (presumably soon to be ex-) wife and the state have done to him stop him.  Despite being forced from his home, he is fighting back in his own way.

Haters: BANNED by Susan Walsh

 conservative female supremacism, female behavior and whining, female economic bubbles, Game/PUA, haters, male/female relationships, mancession, socialism  19 Responses »
Mar 092010
 

If you go to the blog of a socialist and start posting economic facts, the socialist will eventually ban you because they don’t facts interfering with their delusion.  I was banned from Susan Walsh’s blog, the same Susan Walsh who said that I’m a dick and incapable of treating women like anything other than “cum dumpsters”, in much the same manner.  Its even a more apt comparison since Susan Walsh has no understanding of economics, just like socialists, despite having gone to Wharton.  When I read that I was banned, I couldn’t help but laugh.  I’m surprised she didn’t ban me sooner.  I’m a real threat to her ideology, not in what I say despite bringing some facts to her blog, but I can draw directly on my own life experiences such as my experiment to show she is wrong. While I’m surprised that I wasn’t banned sooner, I’m not that surprised that it happened right now.

One side thing that happened was that I took on one of her readers that is some type of Gloria Allred lawyer type in the Philippines.  I objected to her characterization of Filipino men as dangerous animals that spend their days raping and beating women.  She tried to claim this was true because women are “short” in her country, that there was a law called VAWC (violence against women and children) which didn’t even work, and an example of a guy with six mistresses (among other things).  Of course, you should notice the similarity just in the NAME of the VAWC to VAWA.  Anti-male misandrist laws have similar names wherever you go.  The last thing she said to me was that I wasn’t interested in “dialog”.  That was the only thing she was right about.  As I said in a similar fashion in my piece on Triangulation, I am not interested in “dialog”, “compromise”, or “finding a middle ground”.  All those terms mean (if they actually worked and history clearly says they don’t) only half many men would be ass raped in divorce court, only half as many men would be in jail because of the false rape industry, etc., and this is unacceptable.  Most succinctly, “dialog” with someone or someones that are insane, drunk on power, & power hungry always means they will win.  Thus we must reject it because there is no reason we should negotiate our freedom away.  As Barry Goldwater said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

There is guy who posted there who went by the name of Steveo.  Steveo’s story was that he was about 30 and a sexless virgin.  In his questioning of why this was happening, he came across the MRAsphere/MGTOWsphere/gamesphere.  He realized either before or after about the injustice against men, and he is understandably angry about it.  At Susan Walsh’s blog, Steveo got a whole lot of platitudes and other pro-female BS.  Of course, Steveo knew enough to know it was mostly BS (even Obsidian and others noticed this) especially the parts that effectively assumed he was obese and smelly with crappy clothes.  Steveo emailed me, and I have been talking to him.  It’s clear that I have helped him more in one email than all of these pro-female morons on Susan Walsh’s blog could in months.  I’m not sure what path Steveo will take in the short, medium, or long term, but I know I helped for real.  And Steveo is not the only man I have helped.  I get emails all the time from men in the same situation or similar situations to Steveo.  It’s plenty of work responding to all of them, but I know I have helped for real.  Susan Walsh says I have a new “follower”, but that just means she doesn’t understand men or what men are deciding to do in response to pervasive misandry.  As a MGHOW I am doing what’s best for my life.  Steveo now understands that he can GHOW, whatever his own way is since it may or may not be similar to my way, and doesn’t have to obey misandrists.  The great sin I committed was that I made it so the morons on Susan Walsh’s blog don’t have their punching bag anymore.

Plenty of shaming language was also used against Steveo.  Susan Walsh said about Steveo and guys like him, “I believe steveo’s sexual frustration drives his interest in the political aspect, as is often the case with MRA types, in my experience.”  This of course is code tan shaming language.  (Susan Walsh did try to claim she really didn’t mean that not getting laid is the only reason men talk about male injustice, but this was conveniently after when she banned me.)  There’s plenty of anti-male shaming language going on there, not the least of which is how Susan Walsh tries to claim what women are going through (i.e. feeling bad and seeing women get together with alphas) with what men are going through.  This is absurd, and she denied it, but after I showed an example of this false equivalence, I get banned.  She can’t bury what she said when I’m around.

In all this talk about Steveo, one thing that came up was all of the monetary transfers done by government were disenfranchising guys like Steveo, similar to what I talked about here.  Susan Walsh denied such a thing was relevant to Steveo’s situation, but it is.  Hungry Hungry Hippos disproved this.  More importantly, it reveals that Susan Walsh has no understanding of economics whatsoever.  She even said about this, “transfer of wealth from the govt. to women”.  The government has no wealth of its own.  It only has what it gets in taxes (and loans) both of which have come from men not a magic money tree.

Also, revealing her lack of understanding of economics Susan Walsh asked me this, but banned me before I could answer, perhaps to prevent me from posting an answer there:

I have a question for you re the transfer of wealth. As we know, women are outpacing men in education, and catching up rapidly in earning power. The Pew report said that in 22% of marriages, the woman earns more than the man. This is up from 4% in 1970. This trend is expected to continue. What will be the impact on men as the wealth transfer slowly evolves to women supporting other women?

There are plenty of economic fallacies here.  I suggest you don’t play a drinking game of spot the economic fallacies in Susan Walsh’s question, otherwise you will pass out quickly.  Women are “outpacing” men in education.  As we all know there are a big difference between degrees in engineering, the sciences, liberal arts, women’s studies, etc.  With much of the “education” these women are receiving (which isn’t really an education, but a credentialation), all that is happening is indoctrination.  If it weren’t for government jobs and government derived jobs, these women’s degrees would be useless (given the rapidly increasing nature of student loans they already are arguably), and they would be saying, “Would you like fries with that?”  Women are catching up in earning power only in that men are having their jobs (which are real, wealth producing jobs) destroyed by government policies to favor women.  What this means is that there will never be a wealth transfer from women to women.  As the mancession continues, and men’s wealth producing jobs are destroyed by the government there is a shrinking tax base.  It’s not a coincidence that the mancession happened at the same time as greater than a trillion dollar federal deficits.  Watch as those deficits become multi-trillion dollar deficits.  With so many women dependent on government jobs or jobs sucking off the government teat, the tax base is continually shrinking.  It’s not sustainable the only reason it’s still going now are the loans given to the government.  As we know this increasingly means bonds sold to foreigners particularly the Chinese.  You won’t have women transferring wealth to women, but Chinese men and other foreign men transferring wealth to American women.  Of course, the Chinese aren’t going to fund our deficits much longer.  Even if they wanted to, they are physically unable to do so.  Combine this with the Tea Parties who are very angry about the platinum plated salaries, benefits, and pensions that government workers are getting, and we are not that far away from government being forced to shrink, and this means lots of unemployed women.  Expect some major battles as these women will fight it tooth and nail.

The Fifth Horseman has pointed out that most women have no understanding of supply and demand so Susan Walsh’s failure to understand economics is not surprising except that she went to Wharton.  However, The Fifth Horseman showed that at the time she went (early 80s) their affirmative action program was desperate for women, any woman.  Even knowing that, you would think that Susan Walsh would have learned at least a few basics about economics by osmosis being at Wharton if nothing else.  It just goes to show that she was at Wharton due to affirmative action, and that’s probably true about her subsequent jobs too.

The Fifth Horseman has also pointed out how most women don’t understand cause and effect. Susan Walsh said that I am not seeking an “emotional connection” with a woman, and thus I “don’t belong” on her blog. How would she know? Most women aren’t offering such a thing so its clear that Susan Walsh doesn’t understand cause and effect either. It’s just like when she said that I can only relate to women as “cum dumpsters”. If that is the case (and the same that I’m not looking for an “emotional connection”) then the reason why I am successful with women now is because I treat women like “cum dumpsters” and don’t look for “emotional connections” with women. You can decide for yourself if I treat women like “cum dumpsters”.

Susan Walsh says I would like nothing more than for her blog to self destruct.  It doesn’t matter what I want or don’t want since her blog has already failed completely at its stated mission, helping women find relationships.  The blog self destructing is immaterial.  These women are hetero and presumably monogamous so that means relationships with men and one man for each woman.  The problem is that Susan Walsh is refusing to honestly describe what is happening to men.  Why would men want to get into relationships with these women?  Look at what is happening with divorce, sexual harassment, the mancession and all the other issues feminism causes to men.  Increasingly with VR sex, more onerous laws, less jobs, less men are going to want and/or be able to get into relationships, but on Susan Walsh’s blog men are treated as an object or an accessory, not human beings with their own thoughts and desires.  Let’s look at what my colleague at The Spearhead, Welmer, had to say about having women in his life now:

It goes back and forth. Sometimes I feel I still do, but when I think about the potential harm they can do, I’m not sure it’s worth it. When my ex went on her rampage and I filed for divorce and custody, dozens of women came out of the woodwork to condemn me, including several I’d never even met or heard of and many I hadn’t met more than a couple times (she dragged in all of her high school friends, family, and even parents’ neighbors). Only one woman – an aunt – stood up for me unconditionally. What this taught me is that when it counts, women can be guaranteed to side with women — especially when the women are behaving terribly.

If a man even just seen one experience like this (and many, many men have seen examples of women always siding with women no matter how noxious their behavior) why would he want to get in a relationship with a woman?  At that point the only thing is getting laid, and for a lot of men that isn’t even worth it.

I had also uncovered how Susan Walsh thinks feminism is all about casual sex and nothing else.  What is happening to men as a result of feminism is something Susan Walsh completely ignores.  It’s relevant because why would men want to get into relationships with women that listen to her?  It also shows how Susan Walsh is similar to conservative female supremacist women.  CFS women are “against” feminism, but their only real argument against feminist is abortion (and maybe gay marriage) to the point of claiming that feminism is all about abortion and that men benefit from feminism.  This is because CFS women agree with 99% of the feminist agenda.  They are female supremacist just like the feminists, but with a minor disagreement.  Susan Walsh is similar in that she has a minor disagreement with the Jessica Valenti stream of feminism.  Again Susan Walsh denied everything that is happening to men like CFS women when she said, “casual sex is feminism”.

This gets to the heart of the matter.  Women progressively get worse forgetting more and more than men are human beings.  The alternatives to women such as VR sex appear and get better and better.  Already you have men ghosting and semi-ghosting playing video games instead of having anything to do with women.  Video games don’t even claim to replace women in any way like VR sex would.  That’s how “bad” it is already for the women that listen to Susan Walsh.  However, I have said everything I can say about this, and it’s not my problem.

I take by banishment from Susan Walsh’s blog proudly and as a badge of honor.  I consider no different than the hundreds of women who said that I have a small dick last year. This is going in my denunciation hall of fame along with the insane dude who thinks I’m a reptile alien that runs the Illuminati and the insane chick who thinks I’m part of a conspiracy of men with large dicks to promote “large penis propaganda” to get “cum dumpster servant girls” and hurt them with our large dicks.

(Addition: Susan Walsh, your comments currently are in the moderation queue until I decide how I want to deal with them if at all.)

Proof that the Republican Party is less than useless

 conservative female supremacism, mancession  5 Responses »
Jan 072010
 

Those of you familiar with me know that I have long said that the only difference between feminists and “anti-feminist” women is their positions on abortion (and now gay marriage).  Women who claim to be against feminism have no problem with 99% of the feminist agenda.

If you don’t believe me, I have absolute proof now in this article from Pajamas Media about how Obama’s policies are damaging women the most.  Yes, this was written by nine Republican female Congressional representatives.  Here is the ultimate piece of BS from these nine Republican women:

Since the president took office on January 20, about one million women have lost their jobs and today the unemployment rate among women is at the highest level in over 25 years.

Given that 80% of job losses have been men (hence the mancession) this means that that four million men have lost their jobs since Obama has been President.  What are these Republican women, these stooges of patriarchy (since they’re Republicans), doing about that?  That’s right, a lot of NOTHING.

Farther down the article is some babble about mammograms not happening due to Obama’s attempt at taking over healthcare.  They seem to be implying that men somehow benefit from a government takeover of healthcare.  Actually, they probably agree with Susan Walsh that men aren’t supposed to go to the doctor (since there is a more important woman that needs to see the doctor) unless he is slaving away for a woman.

At the very least there are plenty of comments to this article that get it.  Here is a really good one:

And I’d bet not one of these genius “congresswomyn” understands why people are so angry with the nitwit Republican Party.

This is why no man with any testosterone at all will ever vote for a feminist candidate. Feminists will NOT represent all of the people, just their favored half. They only care about pitting women against men.

The modern American woman is the most pampered, over-privileged, spoiled class of people in human history and yet the confrontational grasping, scheming and bitching never ends.

I’m sure these Republican “congresswomyn” will tell you over and over how they are “against feminist”.  Yet, they clearly have no problem with 99% of the feminist agenda or the feminist style of doing things.

Spearhead Article: Male unemployment and crumbling infrastructure

 education, female economic bubbles, mancession, socialism, the spearhead  No Responses »
Dec 162009
 

This Spearhead article should be up sometime today. As with all my Spearhead articles comment at The Spearhead.

By now you have already heard about the “mancession”, and you know that men are disproportionately losing their jobs compared to women in this recession. Since the official unemployment rate in the US is already in the double digits, President Obama did the only thing he knows how to do, talk, by holding a jobs summit. All that came out of the jobs summit was undeniable proof that all the attendees at the summit should probably be unemployed.

Originally, the “stimulus” (which was supposed to keep the official unemployment rate well below its current level) was supposed to be spent on infrastructure. The I-35W Mississippi River Bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007 and the DC Metro crash earlier this year in June (which was also covered by our own Roissy on his personal blog) showed that spending on maintaining current and building new infrastructure has been insufficient for a long time. The stimulus would have been a good opportunity to begin to correct this massive error as solid infrastructure is necessary for long term economic growth (not to mention safety), but womens’ (such as NOW) groups objected. They called the original stimulus “burly”, “macho”, and “sexist” demanding that the stimulus be spent on women. This was despite the fact that millions of men were losing their jobs, and education and health care added jobs primarily benefiting women. NOW and the other womens’ groups were successful with the stimulus was skewed towards education and health care leaving infrastructure in the same dangerous state it was before. In addition the gap between male and female unemployment is the largest in the history of unemployment data going back to 1948 when such data began.

This “women oriented stimulus” along with other things has caused the federal deficit for this year to surpass 1.8 trillion dollars, far beyond the deficit of any previous year. This causes more men to be unemployed since this massive federal debt is sucking capital out of the private sector which destroys jobs. Literally, there is no capital for new business creation and business expansion that would create jobs. Given all of the other factors here, effectively the stimulus and other ballooning government spending is causing millions and millions of more men to be unemployed. At least if the stimulus was spent on infrastructure jobs doing badly needed work would be created that would have provided a solid foundation for long term economic growth. Instead we have infrastructure that continues to crumble plus more and more men losing their jobs.

Since government policy is now driving the problems of male unemployment and crumbling infrastructure, only a significant change in government policy will solve these problems. Until then millions more men will become unemployed and there will be more bridges collapsing, metro crashes, electrical grid failures, and other disasters that should never have happened.