Sunday, November 27, 2011

The Negotiation: Part 5



Are things making a little more sense now? Can we all see why it is that women are so upset over 'male privilege' and the issues this brings to their own interests? In order to get and achieve what they want, women have little choice but to submit to men and our desires. They can’t do it on their own and feminism was the means for them to attempt to bargain for more, raising the bar so they could level the playing field as far as the negotiation is concerned. Once more, this is the reason why Average Joe may not have institutional power per se, but he still commands quite a bit of leverage over Average Jane.

 I liken women’s situation to being a football player in the NFL. Aspiring pros have to start hard training relatively early so a good college can notice them. Once there, they receive even better training from the college in order to increase the odds that they win games. This works to our pro’s benefit because better training assists them in improved performance so an established football club can notice them. If they are lucky enough to generate interest from some ball clubs, they grab an experienced agent who has to haggle like hell in order to finance the rest of their lives. They know full well that their playing days are far shorter than most 'normal' careers (the average pro career is 6 years) even though they are paid much more than the average wage slave.

Remember, they have to be strategic; they have to leverage their skills while they possess something the NFL values. More importantly, the more successful their on field output, the more they can therefore ask from the League.

They can't ask for too much however, because doing so may sour the team against signing them. This is the reality; there will always be other football players willing to take their place. In fact, consider the pressure on any starter in the game. All they need do is look to the bench and they will see many hungry eyes chomping at the bit to replace them if given half the chance. Injury, dismal performance, a downward spiral of attitude can and will eventually mean you and these 'youngry' players will switch seats. Does anyone need to state that NO athlete EVER wants to be on the bench?

chompin' at the bit to get your starting position c/o

Additionally, the NFL has given teams the rights to release players at their discretion, so you toe the line and play nice, or face an uncertain future outside of the NFL. There are many players that the League can choose from and more every single year, but there is only one NFL for players to choose. Unless you play for the CFL that is, however you will receive one-tenth the pay there. It hurts for me to say since I'm Canadian, but the CFL is made up of players who couldn't make the NFL.

The bottom line; the league makes the rules, they say jump, you say how high. They say you will be paid this much and then they go about their business and you then bust your @$$ to improve your value IN THEIR EYES so you have some leverage to ask for more money. This is their show, you just live in it, and they have so many other potential players to choose from that they can call the shots without giving a rip about you or your interests. Get your nose out of joint too much and it curtains for you my boy. Then there are other situations one has to worry about. As you age, the body will get to a point where it simply can’t do what it used to. At this time you will see younger players vying for your spot on the roster. What can you do, you can’t travel back in time, all you can do is adapt and continue to perform to the best of your ability, while you still have something the league or the team finds valuable.

I’m sure it can be a little scary from time to time, you can be released from a team even if you’re still performing, but simply too old. Just ask Marvin Harrison of the Indianapolis Colts.

Then, after a few more years, you will get to a point where you simply can’t ‘do it’ anymore. You will hang up your pads and start life somewhere else. Maybe you’ve invested your earnings, maybe you’re headed to the broadcast booth, but the bottom line is that your days on the gridiron are over whether you wish them to be or not. Even if your heart is still in it, your body isn’t and therefore, the one thing you could leverage to the League is now gone. It’s at this time where your past decisions now become very crucial and living for the future instead of the moment, has either made you, or it will break you.

Lots of pressure wouldn't you agree? While the money may be phenomenal, would that pressure to perform be worth it? How many men reading this are glad they never have to face such pressures? Joining the NFL is a choice some men are able to make, but it’s still a choice they have available to them. Men can have very successful and satisfying lives outside of the pressure cooker which is the NFL or other pro sports, to this we all agree. This is the situation; women face those very same pressures just by being born female and they have no choice in the matter. That's why women are so p!ssed off at men and one reason why the constantly speak of their lack of power and choice. It isn't men per se, but the lack of leverage women have with men in terms of 'the negotiation' and having to supplicate to men, as they have no other alternative. Due to our unique characteristics, we set the rules, whether we realize it or not, and women have to follow them, which is why they get their backs up so much at telling them to ‘make me a sammich’. To us it’s just a joke, to them it’s a threat, a reference to how the world really works despite all their beliefs otherwise. 

Consider some of these Feminist quotes for a second;

"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."
-- Catherine MacKinnon 

"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.".
-- Sylvia Fraser

Catharine MacKinnon ( ) maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid--ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed--they're "hiding from the truth." The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose.
-- Donna Laframboise;

"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to ****/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'
-- Judith Levine

If you look past the unadulterated malice (very hard to do), you will see that these quotes come from the frustration that women have little choice but to conform. Folks, let me repeat this so we can all try to understand this situation; it isn't as if women don't by and large wish to be wives and mothers, it's the fact that on top of this desire, they have little choice BUT to become wives and mothers if they want a 'successful life' here on Earth. Men have to be lead and convinced to be fathers and to contribute to society because we can live without doing so, Women have no such option. Of course all efforts they make to relinquish themselves of patriarchy only stymies their interests further and muddies the waters.

Consider career women for a second. Does a woman having a career and therefore financial independence solve their issues with men and inequality? Does it bolster their position in the negotiation? Of course not, to a man, a career women is like Tom Brady thinking ballroom dancing skills will add to his value to the New England Patriots. So this places yet another negative side effect to Feminism, the more they seek independence from men, they more they distance themselves from what they really want from and can attain from men.

Women seek autonomy, and power, they seek to have their own identity besides that of being just “Mommy” or “Wife.” Which I have no issue with to be honest so long as it's understood that there is a cost to making a choice in this manner. However, this can come at a very high price when these same women seek partnership with a man and family. An independent career woman often can become a lonely career woman with nothing to show for it except professional accolades. Just like the football player who wishes to get back into the game far too late, women can and do experience this sort of buyer’s remorse once the curtain has shut on their dreams of family and companionship. I say this not as a cruel statement, but as a question to any woman considering only a career. Men look at other men as tools to be used; in other words, we are viewed by our usefulness in a professional setting. Is that what you’d like to be looked at from other men while in your twilight years? Simply a useful tool to be used professionally and that’s it? Equality would mean that you will be looked at and judged by the caliber of your performance, but nothing else. Men won't look at you in any sort of romantic manner only because you're a kick @$$ performer while on the job.

Think about that for a while, I urge you.

Just like a top football player who is lauded and sought after in their prime, many potential suitors pursue women. Just like they ride off into the sunset, a memory of their past selves as the younger players take the mantle, women too look at their younger counterparts and reminisce when men used to court and pursue them. Once those days are done, they are gone forever, and if you didn’t play your cards well during your prime, you could be left with some very large regrets…jus sayin. 

(EDIT; I hope these posts somewhat illuminate the issues women face and possibly answer why it is they seemed so upset with Men. The biggest thing to also remember (and this message goes out to women) is that hating men isn't going to solve this issue whatsoever, it's only going to make things worse for everyone involved. Just like you had no choice in whichever gender you where born as, us men didn't have a choice either and we have our own burden's to carry. Attempting to goad us into changing things that are beyond our control is simply p!ssing into the wind and making us BOTH miserable.)


Saturday, November 26, 2011

The Negotiation: Part 4

Image c/o Cooper Business School

THE TRADE; Biological Imperative

I apologize for the delay in getting these last posts out, work has been quite demanding as of late. At any rate...back to the matter at hand!!

We’ve discussed at length how the dynamics of the negotiation places women at a very severe disadvantage to men when discussing mutually beneficial arrangements. This last bit here is the coup de grace in terms of the negotiation and why feminists are so bent in regards to men.

What is a woman’s biological imperative? Simply put, to have babies and raise them successfully to adulthood.

What is a man’s biological imperative? Simply put’ SEX.

Here is the largest issue society faces today; a woman’s biological imperative is very resource heavy and difficult to satisfy. It takes years of investment in order to properly meet a woman’s B.I. adequately. What about a man’s though? What does it take to meet his successfully? Well, let’s do this, here is a picture of both a man and a woman’s replacement in regards to their respective B.I.’s

A woman's biological replacement for men

A man's biological replacement for women

The funny thing about these pictures is that women have long poked fun at a man’s need to ‘self gratify’ with Fistine and Palmela, shaming us that we aren’t real men if we need to stoop to that level. Sorry ladies, the jake’s on you. It isn’t men who get all bent about pornography. That would be y’all, because you view it as a threat to your leverage over men. Bluntly, to replace a man, the government has set up an expensive and monolithic bureaucracy which simply ensures that women can still achieve their B.I. in men’s absence. It’s expensive, unwieldy, and these days, has grown unsustainable. A man’s replacement for a woman is cheap (the cost of a computer, internet, and electricity) and ubiquitous.

Let’s put this another way; a woman can’t live without meeting a man’s B.I., but a man can live without meeting a woman’s. This is why Men Going Their Own Way is possible for men, because men don’t need women in our lives to exist, men only need them for one thing and one thing alone and in this day an age, there are many women who willingly give it up no strings attached. It’s women who need men and badly I may add. The whole statement of “Women need men like fish need a bicycle.” Is nothing more than posturing to ignore the truth of the matter. Women need men like fish need WATER, it’s men who need women like a fish needs a bicycle, which is why there is all this talk of women worried about men not manning up.

Anyone notice that there are no equal ‘grow up’ articles in the mainstream media about women from men? Yes us guys know that we can’t say such things, to be sure that has a very quieting affect, but the reality is that men are also very pragmatic and our needs are so small that we simply don’t need women in our lives to meet them. The easier avenue to follow is simply PUA, or MGTOW. While men refusing responsibility undermines society, men inherently lose nothing by opting out. It simply doesn’t hurt men the same way it hurts women by refusing marriage. This is one large reason why there isn’t a social movement from men to get women to act in accordance to previous social regulations in order to ensure marriage. To be honest, marriage was never seen by men as something beneficial, there is a reason why men sometimes referred to their wives as ‘the ball and chain’. Marriage was a victory for women, but a concession for men since it meant giving up some freedom in order to assist wifey attain her most valued possession.

This by the way is why Alpha’s like Roissy make fun of Beta males and below. Due to the simple fact that men pay a huge price to get sporadically what men such as these get for free. Alphas inherently know about the leverage men have over women and willingly exploit it. Beta’s and below don’t, which is why we tend to tolerate so much bad behavior from women.

Let me tell you this, there is no reason…I REPEAT NO REASON to EVER accept any sort of crap from the woman in your life. She can be replaced much easier than you ever will to her, if anyone is entitled to anything, it’s a guy, NOT most women. Please note, I’m not advocating men turn around and act like PUA’s. My statement is only to tell men not to sit down and accept sh!t from the women they are seeing in their lives. We need to collectively grow a backbone; we have every reason to do so.

Let’s go back to the negotiation table folks to see how this plays out. So, here we have once more, a man and a woman sitting either side of each other and trying to make sure they get the best possible deal out of this. These are the characteristics women have to deal with;

1)      Since women have indirect control over their assets, this means the type of man they can even initially assess may be much lower than they want. They have no means of increasing their value so this affects their asking price significantly. 

2)      So long as her prospect is at least halfway ambitious, his value will increase over time, while hers has a very short shelf life and will ultimately decrease. This also means that she doesn’t have quite as much time to haggle with the price as doing so works to his benefit, but to her expense and even what sort of price she can ask in the first place

3)      The biggest one; this situation benefits her quite a bit more than it will ever benefit him so this too also means she can’t set a price for as quite as much as she would like. It also means that he can set a much higher price that she will have little choice but to accept.

This is what I was referring to about women and the Patriarchy. What women are so upset with is the sum total of biological advantages that men have over women and their leverage in this negotiation as a result. Due to these advantages, women have very little choice but to acquiesce to the demands of men or perish. This is why they have to act and dress a certain way because “Men don’t like certain types of girls.” The decline in society we witness right now is proof positive about said advantages. There is nothing men need from women so large that we will accept “End of Men” scenario’s just to survive so we opt out and watch the world burn. Women CAN’T go on strike, who does that benefit exactly? How many Liz Jones’ and Kate Bolick’s are happy with their past choices hmmm? Think about Titanic, where Rose Bucater had to choose a life with a man she didn’t love simply because he could ensure her survival and she realized just how hard it can be to live as a woman.

That was a woman’s life in a nutshell, in the past, that was what the suffragettes where fighting to change. Although, the truth of the matter is that you simply can’t change nature.


Wednesday, November 23, 2011

The Negotiation: Part 3

THE TRADE; Gender Value Dichotomy

We’ve already discussed how women are somewhat powerless in the direct management of their assets in the negotiation, but I wanted to split this up into two sections because I tend to run off at the mouth. As well as having no direct control over their assets, there is yet another aspect which plays into the favor of men at women’s expense.

A) A man's value to a woman (resources, confidence, experience) increases over time.

B) A woman's value to a man (fertility) decreases over time.

I've said this many times but I really don't think anyone grasps the enormity of this particular situation. This isn't even as if men improve with age while women remain the same which would be a completely different animal. Ask anyone in negotiations, a situation like that one would still give the upper hand to one side as they could ask for a higher price from the other party as time went on. The other party however, still has their value intact so they can still ‘shop around’ so to speak if their chosen prospect begins asking too high a price.

This is a different situation altogether, one improving while the other regresses? Basically put, in this negotiation, men have the upper hand even more so than in my last post. They can afford to wait and push for a better deal if they so choose as their position may either stay the same, or it improves. For women this means that they have substantially LESS time to negotiate for a better deal from men and they aren’t in any sort of position to ask for the world and a bag of chips too. Time WILL undermine their bargaining position and if not careful they could find themselves negotiating for less and less as the men they turned down years ago are now far out of her reach.

If you consider, if men decide to extend an offer, any negotiator can tell you that under circumstances such as these that they don't have to offer as high a bid to their proposed, due to such leverage in their favor. They know they can offer a much lower bid to women and that they really don't have much wiggle room in order to try and wait men out or even ask for too high a counter offer.
However it needs to be stated that men do tend to accept a much lower bid then they should because they simply don't comprehend the power they bring to these negotiations. If women wait too long, men can (and will) close negotiations and move onto yet another prospect.  This is yet another bone of contention for women; for men there is a greater chance of another prospect (possibly younger and more fertile as well) wishing to 'do business' with them is the same true for these women?


Sure, we have a new ‘cougar movement’ which is spreading across the West like wildfire, but sadly it doesn’t take nature into account. An older man/younger woman coupling tends to be more natural than a younger male/older woman couple. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes seem to work much better (at least on the outside) rather than Ashton and Demi Moore. Let’s consider potential rivals for example when taking into account these couples. Katie Holmes isn’t ugly by any stretch of the imagination, and I bet money that she is still getting attention from many men even now! Well, here’s a question, how do you think that these potential rivals stack up to old Maverick? Willing to bet that in the assets women find attractive they are poor choices at best and simply f&cking crazy to pursue at worst.

(EDIT; I feel compelled to insult your intelligence by reminding you of the assets women find attractive. The star of Risky Business has a net worth of $250 million USD. Gotta wonder how many men have that sort of scratch to even compete with Maverick, huh?)

On top of everything else, Tom and Katie have nature on their side.

Now with Demi and Ashton, we can see what has happened. I’m sure there would be a line up of guys who would love to be with Demi Moore. The woman is gorgeous, no lie. However, the guys who would love to pursue Demi don’t stack up well against Ashton, this goes without saying. Why is this? Due to the fact that the guys who DO stack up well against Ashton are pursuing women far younger than Demi. However, while she is gorgeous, we need to qualify this statement. She’s ridiculous for a 49 year old woman, but her rivals are all 20 something YOUNG women. The assets, which Ash found attractive, are dwindling, sad but true. While he is apparently still on the rise and attracting more attention as his career ascends. As time goes on, Ash will attract more and hotter women and their marriage would have been stressed regardless.

Bluntly, Ashton and Demi had nature working against them.

The 'winner' C/O

I have nothing against Demi Moore, and frankly I’m sad this whole thing happened to her. Truth be known I was rooting for the both of them years ago when the initially got hitched, but wasn't surprised to hear about troubles in their marriage. The bottom line is that nature doesn’t care one whit about what we believe or want and the best thing to do is to align ourselves with nature, because not many are strong enough to fight Mother Nature’s inclinations be they male or female.

Jus sayin.

edit; just to put things into perspective for you guys, try this on for size. When The Donald married Ivana Trump in 1977, Melania Knauss was 7 years old. Think about that for a second, seriously!

How aggressive are single 35-year-old men in the contemporary dating market opposed to their younger rivals? How about their female counterparts? Cougars tend to be aggressive because they have to be in order to steal away a young man’s attention from younger females. Women still in their ‘hot spot’ (15-25) simply wait for the man of their dreams to approach them, while declining the offers of the rest who don’t measure up. Cougars have to ‘go on the prowl’ and ‘hunt’ these men because these young’uns won’t naturally approach them. I don't care how great you as a cougar think you are, as I've heard on the internet, you can't out 20 a 20 year old.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

So here we are back at the negotiation, and now I want you to consider everything we have discussed this far. Men on one side, women on the other trying to strike a deal which is mutually beneficial. Men are bargaining with their resources, women with their fertility, but here is the deal. Men can improve their status and therefore their asking price in this negotiation. In fact, so long as a man is halfway ambitious his value will improve as time goes on. As for the woman, she can only marginally improve her value in this negotiation; in fact, it was her base appearance, which she had no initial control over, which allowed her to even assess this man in the first place. She is aware (or she damn well should be) that if she drags this on too long, or even asks too high a price he could improve to the point of ceasing these talks and start again with another, younger women.
She is also acutely aware that she may have to accept whatever price he states due to the nature of her own leverage in this situation. He can afford to leave the table, depending on the status of the guy in question; she may not be able too.

Not exactly equal now is it? Still not done yet folks, tune in next week when you'll hear Miss Piggy say...okay forget that, tomorrow we'll talk about Biological Imperative, that one's a doozy.


Tuesday, November 22, 2011

The Negotiation: Part 2

Part 2


This one's very easy, and anyone remotely aware of the Manosphere must be aware of this by now. Men and women are willing to trade what the other gender finds valuable and have been doing this for Millenia. To expand on these characteristics, let’s list some here to gain some insight;

Men value;

Fertility and health; which equals, youth and beauty.

Women Value;

Resources; experience, knowledge, confidence (which can be construed as a measure of how well someone will be able to produce during lean times) and loyalty.

We even have a ranking system, a classic 10-point scale to quickly gauge a prospective man or woman’s value to determine if they are even worth pursuing just from their outermost accoutrements. Dude driving a Porsche and wearing a Rolex is the male counterpart of a woman who resembles an elite level actress or model.  The higher a prospect scores on this scale, the better his value in terms of the assets the other gender desires and therefore, the more they can ask for during the negotiation. As we already see in the reality on the ground, Rich and successful men tend to pursue beautiful women, and beautiful women tend to pursue the rich and powerful men.

Pretty cut and dry, nothing new here and at this point everything seems very equal. Both parties have something the other wants and equally, so why all the animosity, why the need for feminism?

There is a very serious external factor affecting even this stage of the negotiation, which so many men seem to realize, but not consciously.

A) A man's value to a woman (resources, confidence, experience) is under his direct control.

B) A woman's value to a man (fertility) is under indirect control at best.

Let me put it to you like this; man sits down to try and open up negotiations with a woman and gets shutdown fairly quickly. He only ranks a 5 on the 10-point scale, while his prospective mate is a dead ringer for Heather Morris. Why did she decline his offer? Simply this; at her status she can indeed demand more in the Sexual Marketplace and would most likely have many higher status males also attempting to initiate negotiations with her so why should she accept his offer? So what can our hero do? Well, he can make himself over and improve his status is what. He can learn game to understand the female psyche; he can work out and enroll in combat arts to improve his self-esteem and discipline, and he can seek out mentors in his profession to improve his skill set and therefore his value to his employer. All in all, he can return to the table with his improved status and ask for another assessment if he so chose.

Once more, this is all old news to men really, nothing to see here right?

What of women though? The issue which women, and especially feminist chafe under is that their largest ace in the hole which men value in them is nothing more than a gamble they may have won or lost the second they where conceived. A woman can’t choose (there’s that word again, choice!!) to be a 10, that all happens thanks to the genetic lottery their parents rolled at conception. To turn things around, a woman now sits down with an up and coming law student at the negotiation table. This man is a decent looking; confident, and ambitious intern currently articling at a prestigious law firm. The girl in question is a 5, like the dude in our previous example and she too gets shut down for the very same reason. However, what is available to her in order to increase her status in this negotiation or others? Sadly, she is limited to superficial changes like exercise and/or diet, style of dress, better or more skillfully applied makeup, or even plastic surgery but these are all indirect modes of control at best. They simply augment the appearance which was bestowed naturally which is why their affect is so limited. Surgery is expensive and can have serious unwanted consequences to our heroine in question so it may not even be a viable choice. So what does she do? I guess another question for her is what else can she do but lower her standards?

Can you see at this very early stage of the negotiation why women get so butt hurt about men and their ‘preoccupation’ with a woman’s appearance? Hey, us guys do get a little hot under the collar when it comes to some women and their ‘gold digging’ ways, but we can choose to make more money, to us it’s simply a choice (look at that, we have a choice) to improve our status. Guys can look at a woman and say (nah, b!tch ain’t worth it) and keep going with their lives, however since a woman’s appearance is capped, they are powerless to pursue males of certain tiers so the choice has been taken from them outright.

Bluntly, if men want a certain kind of girl, men have the control to improve their status and pursue her, women do not have this sort of control over their lives and in some cases whole tiers of men are completely out of their reach before the game even started.

See how this affects the negotiation even now? This, my friends, is why feminists try like holy hell to downplay the role of appearance in the dating market. It’s to even the odds between attractive and unattractive women and to cow men into giving up part of their leverage in the negotiation. So right here, men have tremendous leverage over women which affects the price both genders can set or accept from the other. All women want to marry an affluent, Brad Pitt type who will make all her dreams come true, just as many men dream of girlfriends who resemble elite level models or actresses. 

The issue is that men can CHOOSE to improve themselves with nothing but sweat equity, but to women, all the hard work in the world won't change their status and deep down they do understand this. I once spoke about the former bum who became a billionaire and married a beautiful former playboy playmate, that's one hell of a turn around. While he is an extreme example, I'm still waiting on the ugly duckling of a woman to turn herself around and become such a slamming hottie that movie stars and affluent businessmen are breaking down her door to marry her.

 However, this isn't all; there is much more to this whole situation tomorrow.


Monday, November 21, 2011

The Negotiation: Part 1

Okay, going to take another kick at the can with this one. See, guys always have so many questions as to why women seem to be so angry at men for whatever reason. We never can seem to comprehend their animosity about us and our contributions to marriage and society. What is patriarchy, why do they think our fore fathers have oppressed them when men in those days where hardly living high off the hog themselves.

What gives?

I had tried to illuminate my own theory of the matter but it may have been too long (I’m also a blogging noob which doesn’t help matters) and not quite clear enough. I will try once more to show where I think women are coming from, why they are so frustrated, and I will even supply an example some guys may be able to relate too in order to possible shed light on where women are coming from and why they may feel the way they do. Understand that we as men don't fathom the resulting pressure that women undergo due to gender dynamics. We understand that men and women differ in their wants, motivations, and ultimate desires, but I highly doubt either gender follows these ideas to either their logical conclusion, or perhaps even their logical inception.

What we need to examine are the dynamics, which are created between the genders and the accompanying pressures that result, which are unique to each sex. If you consider it, women don't have much choice or control over their lives as opposed to men. In fact, because men have much more choice and control over their lives this frustrates women to no end. Understand, when I state women's issues with male privilege and therefore male power, we’re not talking about institutional power for men. Yes as commenter stated, the average man doesn't have institutional power, which is what confuses us at times.

No, we need to look at thinks from a different perspective.

First; equality, why do women seek it out? What is equality? Is it not two groups who meet and can exchange things fairly without any member from either side having an advantage over the other? Sounds fairly reasonable no? We’ve all been on the short end of the stick in many situations over the years, and there isn’t one person who will state that it doesn’t suck @$$.

How does this relate to men and women? Okay let's start with a round table with men at one side, and women at the other. See both parties are discussing a deal, an exchange of their assets so a mutually beneficial conclusion can be sought. When I speak about an 'arrangement', I simply mean that both parties are pursuing their own interests in regards to the proposition both desire. In other words; these two parties may not be seeking exactly the same thing. Consider an auction or real estate for example. Two parties seek a transaction, but the goals of both couldn’t be any more different. One party is seeking the highest dollar they can, while the other is seeking the lowest. Diametrically opposed objectives are present during this negotiation even though we’re still talking about real estate. Now, if all things where equal for both parties, then neither side would have the upper hand, right?

This is the situation at hand; we know that there are outside aspects to life, which tend to affect these negotiations and sometimes give advantages of disadvantages to either side depending on the situation. If the seller has already purchased a house and is desperate to unload the current one, he has less room to negotiate the selling price up. Also, if a buyer has already sold their current home and must find another house for their family before closing, they too have external pressure in being more accepting of a higher price then they would like. Essentially, a persons choice and control over a the negotiations can sometimes be heavily affected by external factors which are outside of their control and therefore they must deal with them accordingly.

What does this have to do with men and women?

As said before, this arrangement starts off with an exchange of assets, what each gender wants and desires in the other, and what they are willing to trade for them. Seems pretty equal at this point, right? However, it's the characteristics of these assets, which give men their leverage while putting women behind the 8 ball which is the source of their consternation. What we must understand everyone is that when women state they want 'equality' they really mean that they aren't at a disadvantage to men in trying to achieve what it is they most desire. Over the next week I will post my take on the situation as to why women are so upset about sexual dynamics, and why they do not have equality while they negotiate for what it is they seek.


Monday, November 14, 2011

The Gamble

Nothing in this world is guaranteed, nothing. Whether it be reaching old age healthy (or reaching it at all) to even crossing the street without ending up street pizza, no one simply knows until after the goal has been achieved successfully. Now of course one can analyze all the contributing factors to their success in retrospect so they can enlighten others wishing to follow in their footsteps. Yet even after they've dispensed wisdom most deem foolproof, these successful achievers still can't grant guarantees with 100% certainty. Essentially undergoing a task, it's essentially a gamble that the outcome will be reached successfully.

Why you ask?

Due to the fact that there exist too many contributing factors which can affect the desired outcome positively or negatively and these factors differ for each individual. This is why Medicine uses so much probability in dealing with disease. They will state that 90% of men who died of lung cancer where smokers, they can also say that there is a good chance that you as a smoker could develop lung cancer, but without looking at tests of your lungs and watching the results over time, they can’t look at you and say you WILL die of cancer because you smoke. One has to consider other mitigating factors such as genetic history, your current physical health, your diet, your current rate of smoking, and even where you work.
All these factors work to skew the odds positively or negatively so every case may have to be handled differently, and as a result outliers exist. Consider tennis for example, a sport with quite a bit of emphasis on cardiovascular fitness. Most can’t play tennis regularly or on an elite level without having a decent level of cardiovascular development. However, Arthur Ashe still had heart issues despite his elite level conditioning. Now compare him to George Burns, the man wasn’t an athlete by any stretch of the imagination and lived to be 100 smoking stogies fairly often.

What’s the deal?

Obviously both Arther and George had some other mitigating factors which affected their unique outcomes right? Outliers they both where on different sides of the spectrum. So, where does that leave us? If nothing in this life is guaranteed then why care about the future at all? Why put any sort of positive investment in our potential interests if all were are really doing is merely gambling and hoping that our desired outcomes comes to pass? Well, the reason can be summed up in a great post Grerp made. Sure we may not be able to guarantee our desired outcome, but we can hedge our bets to increase the odds in our favor. If you want to lose weight, then of course if you start and maintain a workout program, that will increase your odds of success. In addition, you also now cut out fast food, that will increase your odds even further. If you get a workout partner whether your spouse or a close friend, this will increase your odds still further. What I’m saying is that the more you engage activities and behaviors which support your intended goal, you increase the odds of its achievement.

Hardly rocket science, but it also applies to the behaviors of other people and how they react to us. Let's put it like this.

As I grew up, I realized that racism was always going to be around. Just like the song from Avenue Q, everyone’ a little bit racist, and by that I mean every race on this planet. However, my parents made sure that my siblings and I realized that acting a certain way tended to arouse the wrong sort of attention from society and it was better to err on the side of caution and conform. EDIT; I also want to add that my parents let us kids know that yes, slavery was bad in the past, but walking around with a chip on my shoulder for 'whitey' wasn't going to do us any favors in the present or future. The point is simply this; I will never be fully accepted by every single member of other races despite my intent to avoid acting like a 50-Cent wannabe with a chip on my shoulder, BUT I will indeed be accepted more often than if I act like a thug hoodlum right?

Does that make sense?

Let's be honest, a woman can dress modestly, act demurely, and have her wits about her and yet still attract unwanted male attention. However, what sense does it make for a woman to dress and act provocatively amongst men she hardly knows and then get offended by their leering looks? Women don’t ask for attention from lower tier men, but it happens, and all any woman can do is guard against it. Hedge your bets, increase the odds that your desired outcome will be achieved, and/or decrease the odds that an unwanted outcome will occur. That’s how life works which is exactly what Grerp was trying to say. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. Dressing modestly may not guarantee you won't get any unwanted male attention, but is anyone willing to debate that the woman on the top is going to get much more attention than the woman on the bottom? 

Image c/o
Doesn't more attention also mean an increase in UN-wanted attention? Isn't that the precise reason why Grerp didn't make a stink about the truck driver but simply stopped wearing a skirt which most likely increased the odds of men leering at her? Arguing that these women should or shouldn't recieve attention for their appearance is like arguing with the sun about the potential for sunburn. We can fill books and ledgers with useless prose on the subject and debate until the cows come home but here’s the point some either miss or ignore, that tonight a 20 year old girl is 'going out' looking like the woman on the top, and men will stare at her so why waste time debating something which cannot be changed?

I wholeheartedly agree with Grerp on her post and her approach. While acting in the manner she described may not work 100% of the time in regards to good men and their resulting reactions, I promise you it will work much more often than acting the opposite.


Friday, November 4, 2011

No Liz…it’s NOT your exes

Sorry Liz, you didn't need to be honest with your exes as far as your desire for motherhood was concerned; you needed to be honest with yourself. However, as a feminist you made the very same mistake that Kate Bolick made, you didn't take into account the motivations and desires of men and how that would directly affect you. Both you and Kate strictly focused on your own needs that have lead you both to this woeful state.

No of course Liz, you have your illustrious career which I'm sure is very satisfying, but that doesn't translate well into the dating market, now does it? Also willing to bet that all the accolades of said career don’t warm your heart the way a child or a grandchild would now hmm? Sadly, like so many of your sisters you have found out the hard way that your career adds to your marriage value the way macramé adds to a prospective football player’s value with NFL aspirations.

Liz, you figured that men would wait for you, that they would always be there at just a snap of your fingers ready and willing to meet your desires of commitment and family. I mean women are so valuable right, what man wouldn't be lucky to have You and Kate Bolick are very similar in a way; did you ever learn about compromise? That you needed to compliment a prospective husband or that marriage is about cooperation? Let me guess, your independence was too strong, your feminist values clashed with your strong biological imperative for procreation and you where in turmoil as to what road you should choose.

Obviously you figured that you where the cat's @$$ which is why it never troubled you to air your husband's dirty laundry to the world.

Hey, he was undoubtedly lucky to have you and would NEVER leave right...right? Then again…don’t women wish to have a man they can look up to in the first place? Isn’t the best time to find a man like that when you are…oh…never mind.


These are the truths that you didn't consider Liz, that men and women are different, driven by differing needs and wants. That nature is by far stronger than nurture or ‘social construct’ which is why at one point in time you where planning like a thief to achieve the very thing women where built to do by and large.

Women who embrace who and what they are do not have to skulk around in the night stealing sperm…jus sayin’.

By subscribing to a faulty paradigm, you sacrificed your dream of motherhood for membership to a flawed movement. In all honesty, I don't find your situation funny, (possibly because I've never met you nor am I familiar with your feminist blathering) I do, however find it sad.

Your idealism didn’t match up with reality, but who could have steered you toward the truth? Would you have listened?  Will feminism fill the void of motherhood that you so desperately wanted but so completely took for granted from this point on...I highly doubt it, but hey you never know.

I simply pray more women learn from the finality of your situation and don't let the same fate befall them. Honestly, women need a wholesale abandonment of feminism but sadly, I bet money that most will simply dismiss you and your plight as an urban legend, something which could never, ever happen to them.