1. My piece about the decline of skilled trades has been picked up at Good Men Project. Comments there appreciated.
2. At National Review, Kevin D. Williamson has a piece laying out the case, which most here are familiar with, for why Chicks Dig Jerks. Related and less convincing, Hugo Schwyzer has a piece at Jezebel linking to Heartiste and In Mala Fide laying out the case for why those guys are big meanies for saying that chicks do dig jerks. Schwyzer also relies on tired and untrue statements of women’s false consciousness (flip the script on feminists): that they don’t prefer dominant men over submissive men. Thing is, women prefer acting, assertive men; they’ll take positive actions first, but that brand quickly runs out of supply. They’re left with negative action over positive passivism – which do you think they’ll choose?
3. At eXiled, Mark Ames tries to hoist himself up among the big boys by insinuating that the Koch Brothers deployed a Breitbart henchman to write up a hit piece on him. Ames, the same guy whose books are hovering around the 100,000 Amazon sales ranking; the same guy who sometimes writes for The Nation and occasionally appears on Russia Today i.e. places where Obama neckbeards are deeply entrenched i.e. places where the Kochs would be “willing” to let hacks peddle their influence. But most laughable in Ames’ death dance is his unabashed statement that, between him and Breitbart, Ames won. How? Because Breitbart kicked the bucket. This just strikes me as a weak argument even considering that arguments in the internet don’t follow the normal lines of logic. The argument fails on logical grounds, of course, but it doesn’t even play in the shadow logic realms of the Web. For Ames to say that he beat Breitbart because Breitbart died is the same as Hakeem Olajuwon saying that he beat Michael Jordan to win the NBA Championship during Jordan’s short hiatus from the game.
4. Just the facts ma’am. Breitbart died on March 1. Breitbart Breitbart claims he had the drop on Barack Obama. Breitbart had a history of heart problems. Breitbart confidant claims that tapes with Obama alongside former Weather Underground members will be released within a week to ten days.
5. Obama tells Bill Simmons that Sportscenter “is the one thing she [Michelle Obama] allows me to control.” You’re the President of the United States of America, man, act like it.
6.Another aspect of the birth control no-copay mandate: since consumers won’t have to worry about cost, they’ll opt for more expensive name brands; Big Pharma companies will take full advantage of this distorted market to jack up prices even further. And of course, you know what the narrative will be. It’ll be that Big Pharma companies are greedy; it won’t be that the government set the table at which they stuffed themselves.
Hey Now! Michael Jordan did play in the playoffs in 1995 and everyone was excited because he immediately had a big game; however,when the Bulls got beat by the Magic who preceeded to get swept by the Rockets everyone seemed to forget about it. Also, its not clear how the pre-Rodman Bulls, who lacked a good rebounder in 1994, would have done against the Knicks and the Rockets that season.
Russia Today i.e. places where Obama neckbeards are deeply entrenched
My impression of RussiaToday I’ve gotten from occasionally checking out their YouTube channel is that they are hardly pro-Obama. Their coverage of Ron Paul has generally been pretty favorable. What they seem to be concerned with most is opposition to the European Union, American interventionism and Zionism.
- Yes, the average guy still believes the mere act of selflessness will make them attractive to woman, but this depends on how selfless men are around the woman and what kind of men is doing the act.
An act of selflessness from someone known for being selfish is a better gift to woman.
- The argument that woman may be lying during these studies does hold weight since we’re only going by what they’ve said, i’ve never been a fan of these studies.
“The argument that woman may be lying during these studies does hold weight since we’re only going by what they’ve said, i’ve never been a fan of these studies.”
Indeed. Her mouth may say one thing, but her spread pussy says something else.
“You’re the President of the United States of America, man, act like it.”
(neck snap) He just cain’t handle a strong black women(sic). I think that whole “She’s the Boss” routine is bullshit, to pander to women voters.
Confidence
It stands to reason that women are attracted to confident men. Confidence is a sign of success, or at least potential. Confident men can get a woman what she wants.
And a study published last year found that women are more sexually attracted to brooding, proud, confident-looking men than their jollier counterparts. In fact, they tended to find shiny happy blokes a bit of a turn-off.
It could be that male displays of pride – even if that’s only shown by facial expression – suggest confidence and status, and women are hardwired to look for high status men. Other studies have found that smiling can be associated with a lack of dominance, and subservient men are not likely to be high up the pecking order. So if you want to attract women, make sure you’re friendly, but don’t stand around grinning like a lunatic.
That kinda sounds like jerkish characteristics to me.
Also, while that same article also states that women find things like kindness, generosity, intelligence and humour attractive in men, the justification given by the authors is that women evolved to find such characteristics attractive in a long-term mate.
I don’t think any PUA or ‘gamer’ would argue that women don’t find conventionally nice or provider like traits in men to be unattractive for a long-term mate, what most PUA’s tend to focus on is generally what women who are pursuing short-term mating strategies find attractive, and what such short-term strategist women find attractive is good-looking dominant men, aka bad boys.
bases their whole premise of men being competitively altruistic on men pursuing long-term mating strategies and hence trying to signal that they would make good long-term/provisioning partners.
Sexual selection theory asserts that men and women are likely to attend to somewhat
different signals when they are evaluating potential mates (Barclay, 2010; Buss, 1989).
Parental investment is generally high in humans and so it pays for both parents to invest
in offspring survival. However, because the variance in lifetime reproductive success
is lower for females compared to males–but their biological investments considerably
higher–women have more to lose from mating with a partner who fails to invest in their
offspring’s survival (Bateman, 1948; Trivers, 1972). Women therefore, relative to men,
tend to be choosier about selecting mates, and express stronger preferences for mates
who signal an ability and willingness to take care of them and their offspring (Brase,
2006; Waynforth & Dunbar, 1995). Since females consider kindness and helpfulness to
be important indicators ofmale attractiveness (Farrelly, 2010; Miller, 2007), an intriguing
possibility is that men show off their mate qualities–ability and willingness to care for
others–through providing large-scale public goods. Public goods may be a suitable arena
for men to show off their mate qualities because by its very nature such contributions
are (a) personally costly and (b) altruistic.
Interestingly at the end of the study it also states this:
The provision of public goods may be an alternative mating tactic for males who do not possess traits that signal good genetic quality such as their physical attractiveness (Waynforth & Dunbar, 1995). Therefore, we predict that less attractive men may contribute to public goods more than attractive men in the presence of a female (Takahashi, Yamagishi, Tanida, Kiyonari, & Kanazawa, 2006). Further research could look at more objective mate value characteristics such as a man’s height, physical strength, or facial symmetry (Scott, Pound, Stephen, Clark, & Penton-Voak, 2010; Zaatari & Trivers, 2007), which are expected to correlate negatively with their public good contributions.
I read whorefinder’s post about you and your response. Is something wrong with that kid? I’ve liked his comments though I’m puzzled why he obsessed so much over solid, even hardline conservtives on your blog. He had a thing out especially for pro-white populists, whom he idiotically called “lefties.:
“bases their whole premise of men being competitively altruistic on men pursuing long-term mating strategies and hence trying to signal that they would make good long-term/provisioning partners. ”
To be fair, there are lots of men who try this strategy.
Women call them “nice guys” and generally find them sexually disgusting.
I thought Sshwyzer’s citing some study that shows men act nicer around attractive women was pretty weak. Like, duh.
Hey Now! Michael Jordan did play in the playoffs in 1995 and everyone was excited because he immediately had a big game; however,when the Bulls got beat by the Magic who preceeded to get swept by the Rockets everyone seemed to forget about it. Also, its not clear how the pre-Rodman Bulls, who lacked a good rebounder in 1994, would have done against the Knicks and the Rockets that season.
“Schwyzer,” excuse me.
Russia Today i.e. places where Obama neckbeards are deeply entrenched
My impression of RussiaToday I’ve gotten from occasionally checking out their YouTube channel is that they are hardly pro-Obama. Their coverage of Ron Paul has generally been pretty favorable. What they seem to be concerned with most is opposition to the European Union, American interventionism and Zionism.
- Yes, the average guy still believes the mere act of selflessness will make them attractive to woman, but this depends on how selfless men are around the woman and what kind of men is doing the act.
An act of selflessness from someone known for being selfish is a better gift to woman.
- The argument that woman may be lying during these studies does hold weight since we’re only going by what they’ve said, i’ve never been a fan of these studies.
I’ve got a link for you. Obama playing the white knight, riding in to save our heroine’s honor from Rush.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-rings-limbaugh-slut-georgetown-sandra-fluke-200016515.html
Ryu,
i have something in the hopper on that. it’s all getting ridiculous.
This birth control debate is getting ridiculous. Didn’t JZ say that birth control pills cost $8 at Walmart? That’s less than I pay for an eyeliner.
“The argument that woman may be lying during these studies does hold weight since we’re only going by what they’ve said, i’ve never been a fan of these studies.”
Indeed. Her mouth may say one thing, but her spread pussy says something else.
Guess which one men are listening to?
“You’re the President of the United States of America, man, act like it.”
(neck snap) He just cain’t handle a strong black women(sic). I think that whole “She’s the Boss” routine is bullshit, to pander to women voters.
Pingback: Integrity and Selling Out: Chuck Rudd « Whores of the Internet
The sources that Schwyzer uses to back up his assertions about what women find attractive doesn’t support his argument.
http://arabia.msn.com/lifestyle/him/mh/2012/january/charactertraits/the-character-traits-that-women-find-attractive.aspx
This one expressly states:
That kinda sounds like jerkish characteristics to me.
Also, while that same article also states that women find things like kindness, generosity, intelligence and humour attractive in men, the justification given by the authors is that women evolved to find such characteristics attractive in a long-term mate.
I don’t think any PUA or ‘gamer’ would argue that women don’t find conventionally nice or provider like traits in men to be unattractive for a long-term mate, what most PUA’s tend to focus on is generally what women who are pursuing short-term mating strategies find attractive, and what such short-term strategist women find attractive is good-looking dominant men, aka bad boys.
Furthermore, the second study he refers to here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120202093836.htm
bases their whole premise of men being competitively altruistic on men pursuing long-term mating strategies and hence trying to signal that they would make good long-term/provisioning partners.
Interestingly at the end of the study it also states this:
I read whorefinder’s post about you and your response. Is something wrong with that kid? I’ve liked his comments though I’m puzzled why he obsessed so much over solid, even hardline conservtives on your blog. He had a thing out especially for pro-white populists, whom he idiotically called “lefties.:
“bases their whole premise of men being competitively altruistic on men pursuing long-term mating strategies and hence trying to signal that they would make good long-term/provisioning partners. ”
To be fair, there are lots of men who try this strategy.
Women call them “nice guys” and generally find them sexually disgusting.
I never watch TV so I haven’t seen a picture of Obama in a while. Man, he looks really old.