I’m going to tell you ladies something that will upset and anger you and cause you to call me all sorts of names, but you can’t deny the fact that it’s the truth.

If he wanted to, any man could rape and/or kill you and there’s nothing you could do, on your own, to stop him.

I don’t care if you work out every day and have a BMI in the normal range. He can overpower you because nature has endowed him with a bigger frame and superior musculature by the mere virtue of being born a man. Those womens’ self-defense classes you took at the community center? Completely worthless. I can defeat any “self-defense method” by simply uppercutting you in the jaw.

If you have a handgun, you might be able to stop him. Unfortunately, you probably live in a blue state like New York or California, where concealed carry is unheard of and getting a pistol permit is nearly impossible unless you live in the middle of nowhere. And even if you were packing heat, he could just get his own gun and put you back at square one. Pepper spray is subject to the same regulations.

Face it: as a woman, you are almost completely helpless in the face of raw male power. Your best defense, your only defense in most cases, is to fight fire with fire, in the form of a policeman, your boyfriend/husband, your brother, or your father.

The only thing that can defeat a man is another man.

Everyone knows that sexual egalitarianism is false. We prove it via our actions, never mind our words. When you need to be protected from a violent, dangerous criminal, what kind of cop do you want: a burly, muscular man, or a frail Asian woman whose cap is too big for her head?

It’s an open secret that the U.S. military’s physical fitness tests are much more lenient for women than men, because most women are physically incapable of performing at a man’s level. If the Chinese were to invade tomorrow, who would you want defending your country on the front lines: men or women?

Girls claim they want “nice guys,” guys who treat them with respect, but the most popular book among American women is 50 Shades of Grey, a BDSM fantasy in which the female protagonist is dominated by her lover in every conceivable way.

So yes, men and women are not the same and not equal. Anyone who claims otherwise isn’t just a liar, they’re a bitch.

“Bitch” is a common insult, but no one really thinks about what it means. The interesting thing about the word “bitch” is that its meaning is different depending on the sex of who you’re insulting with it.

Female bitches are typically combative, mean, miserable and bossy; in other words, they’re masculine.

Male bitches are typically catty, passive-aggressive, whiny and gossipy; in other words, they’re feminine.

So when you attack someone by calling them a “bitch,” you’re accusing them of failing to live up to the ideal of their sex. If they’re a woman, they’re being un-ladylike; if they’re a man, they’re being unmanly. But there are also a lot of similarities between bitches of both sexes:

• Bitches are untrustworthy and incapable of keeping promises.
• Bitches have no sense of personal responsibility and always blame their problems on someone else; the patriarchy, their asshole boyfriend, ex-wife, their parents etc.
• Bitches complain all the time and are unwilling to take any action to solve their problems.
• Bitches are histrionic and think their emotions are the end-all-be-all of human existence.
• Bitches are self-absorbed and can’t imagine that anyone thinks differently than they do. See: the eternal solipsism of the female mind.
• And finally, bitches have no backbone. At the slightest sign of trouble, they fold like Swiss army knives.

That’s the problem with the West today; an overabundance of bitchiness. This is the Planet of the Bitches.

If you were born after the year 1946, you are in all likelihood a bitch. It’s not entirely your fault; our society encourages people to be bitches by denigrating and punishing authentic masculinity and femininity. In order to not be a bitch, you have to go against everything society tells you. The manosphere in part exists to help men extirpate their bitch behavior and cultivate masculine virtues.

If you’re a Millennial man, you’ve been drugged and bound since you were in kindergarten. When you justifiably got bored of your nauseatingly dull teachers and the girl-centric curriculum, you were diagnosed with a phony disorder like ADD and pumped full of pharmaceuticals to turn you into an obedient little drone. You were told by your teachers, professors and parents that being a white male makes you the root of all evil, a potential rapist, a colonial exploiter, a racist. You were made to believe that being a good man entailed suppressing your masculinity, your strength and your intelligence, being “nice” and self-serving and “chivalrous.”

If you’e a Millennial woman, you’ve had it almost as bad. You’ve been lied to all your life, told that you should aspire to be one of the boys, that being an consumerist harpy slut is a good thing, that relationships with men are a chess game in which whoever shows more emotion (or any emotion at all) loses.

Bitchiness is a social disease brought about by too much material comfort.

When you can live cradle to grave without having to struggle for anything, you become soft. You start manufacturing drama to entertain yourself, tricking yourself into thinking you’re on a great moral crusade: anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, blah blah blah. At a certain level, you know you’re a failure, but rather than try to rise above, you attempt to pull everyone else down, reframing your vices as virtues.

For example, the idea that American women are masculine and unpleasant is hardly news to us in the manosphere. When confronted with their numerous defects, Jizzabellers and other “empowered” women retort to the effect of: “Well, you’re just saying that because you can’t handle a confident, independent woman.”

Oh really?

The average American woman is anything but confident; she’s a neurotic wreck, one missed therapy session from committing suicide. She gulps down antidepressants like candy, she shoves food in her face like a starving Ethiopian, she spends hours a week watching mindless TV shows and movies that validate all the bad decisions she makes, she has meaningless sex with men she can’t stand sober to fill the widening hole in her soul, and she derives her self-worth from her makework paper-pushing job. And she has the gall to call herself “confident” when she’s never faced any of the real crises or tribulations that are a prerequisite for developing confidence.

The women from Eastern Europe, South America, China and other places praised in the manosphere (and mocked by the Jizzabellers) actually have faced those tribulations, living in countries that are corrupt, violent and poverty-ridden, and as a result have more confidence and strength in their pinky fingers then the average American girl has in her entire body.

No, Miss Careerist, you’re not strong, you’re not independent, and you’re not confident. You’re just a bitch with a golden chain.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, showing us all how strong and independent she is.

Male bitches abound as well; you usually find them castigating themselves for their whiteness and/or maleness and generally being servile suck-ups. Even female bitches find them contemptible.

Fortunately for us, the Age of Bitchiness is drawing to a close.

Bitches are parasites; they only exist because they rely on real men and women to keep them alive. They need women to rear and raise them, and they need men to fix their toilets, police their streets and defend their borders from invaders. A civilization can tolerate a certain amount of bitchiness, but too many ticks sucking blood and the host dies.

The unprecedented material prosperity that fostered Western bitchiness is drying up. Don’t listen to the mainstream media; the recession is still here and only getting worse. Young Americans are relegated to a life of working menial service jobs and paying off student loans into their thirties. Move across the Atlantic and things are even worse. When the nationalist Golden Dawn party won twenty some-odd seats in the Greek elections earlier this month, bitches around the world wrung their hands in disbelief. How could the Greeks support evil racist fascist Nazi homophobes? As Jim Goad writes in Takimag, however, Golden Dawn’s popularity stems from their willingness to help ordinary Greeks in need:

In last week’s elections, Golden Dawn performed best in crime-addled areas of central Athens, gaining up to a quarter of the vote in some precincts. What could those voters possibly know that might escape some faraway Brussels Eurocrat in their cramped grey hypoallergenic cubicle?

What about reports that in some areas, Golden Dawn serves as a “Robin Hood” agency that provides clothing and food for vulnerable Greek nationals? Is it true that in certain Athenian quadrants, imperiled Greeks are more likely to call in Golden Dawn for physical protection before they’d ever call the police? Is it possible that some Greeks feel that only Golden Dawn cares about their survival and is willing to shed blood to ensure it?

Although media outlets cast a harsh spotlight on Golden Dawn’s immigrant-bashing, they don’t focus nearly so much attention on their fervid criticism of “global loan sharks,” “bailout dictators,” and “international speculators” who are “selling us out and looting the sweat of the Greek people.”

The Greek government, like all Western governments, is a government of the bitches, by the bitches and for the bitches. The mainstream parties have left citizens terrorized by immigrants to twist in the wind out of fears of being accused of “racism.” Since the bitches in charge can’t or won’t help their own people, Golden Dawn has stepped in to do it themselves.

Bitches scatter like cockroaches in times of crisis. As our society crumbles under the weight of its own stupidity, it won’t be bitches riding to our rescue. It won’t be bitches mewling about their “rights” who will save us. It will be men, men of courage and conviction, who will make history.

This applies to the personal level at well. Men are realizing that they don’t want a butch, pantsuit-wearing co-worker; they want a cute girl who will greet them with a smile and a cup of coffee after a hard day’s work, who will be supportive and nurturing instead of belligerent and sulky. Women are realizing that they don’t want a sensitive, effeminate, “respectful” herb; they want a dominant, assertive man who will lead them and protect them from danger.

A bitch will never be more than a bad facsimile of the real thing.

If you’re a bitch, your days are numbered. Bitches get stitches. The future belongs to those who are strong and determined enough to take it into their own hands.

Matt Forney is a recovering bitch. Visit his blog, follow him on Twitter and friend him on Facebook.

Immigration from the third world into the West is said to be a human right of the third worlders and the duty of the West to give these people a better life.

It is said that the West needs workers, even when unemployment runs at 10%, and early retirements due to physical or psychological disability runs at another 10%.

It is said that the West needs population, so the West takes in immigrants, when 10-20% of Western babies are aborted.

There are so many holes in these and other arguments that anyone who makes them can be considered a total brainwashed moron or a person speaking in bad faith. Since anyone questioning the arguments will be branded an intolerant racist without having time to voice his own arguments, I do not feel playing unfair when I label the pro-immigration people using these arguments as I did.

A few days ago, I met a friend I have had little contact with and we sat and chatted for hours. At some point he criticized the right wing party, which actually is a socialist anti-immigration party, but this detail does not matter; adding that even if he is against their policies, he can see the point in it.

The talk moved on to the working socialist system in Scandinavia; and that there is no wonder why the third worlders want to move to these frozen lands in droves. Socialist system working, or not, is also not what has been bugging me. I think the state taxes the productive to breed the unproductive, and to what that leads should be no surprise.

To his claims, that the system here works, and that is why the third worlders are in a migration towards here, I said:

“These types of systems only work in homogenous societies.” Had to be careful, testing the waters.

“You are right,” he said.

“Things are changing,” I said.

“Yes. But I understand those immigrants, too. They come from societies where the only way to survive is to cheat, bribe, lie, steal, do indecent business and be ready to be swindled at any time. So coming here, they can’t adapt.” This, coming from an immigrant. And this is the only time I use “immigrant” for a productive member of the society. The reason for this is that for every engineer, doctor, consultant etc. immigrating into the West, you have tens of wannabe welfare kings and queens immigrating, where the most ambitious ones want to be a DJ or open a cheap food kiosk. Having explained that:

Since then, it has been bugging me.

If immigration is a humanist act by the well off West…

If immigrants are coming here because their systems have failed…

If immigrants are coming here because the Western system functions to a better extent…

Considering that the immigrants are coming from failed systems located in places with more land, more underground resources, more natural resources…

If Westerners are to accept immigrants in order to rescue the lives of a few thousand who make it to the shores of Italy and Greece…

If the West owes this to the rest of the world…

What if the West can actually do better than that?

Instead of rescuing a few thousand, if it can rescue few hundred thousand… millions?

The following is a thought exercise that has been going on in my head.

We are told immigration is great. All cultures are valuable. We can all live together. There is no problem in living on welfare paid by the host people.

And we are told the West owes the world because its systems function…

And we are told to tolerate the ones coming from failed systems not adapting to these functioning systems.

So…

From what we are told by the immigrants’ actions, and the pro-immigration crowd’s words…

The system of the West works better than the system of the third world.

Since most of the third worlders stay on some state welfare program for generations, the people bring their own system with them, and that the system is more people dependent than it is location dependent.

Immigration is a thing to be cherished.

There is no problem in flooding one system with people from another system.

What if…

Instead of the third world pouring into the West and not adapting to a working system…

A number of Westerners pour into the third world, and don’t adapt?

What if, instead of ten thousand third worlders coming to the West to be given a good life…

Ten thousand westerners with the skills and the cultures of a working system — remember, the third world is doing everything to get here — go to the third world and infect the non-working systems with working systems, in places with more land, more resources, more manpower.

Instead of giving a good life to ten thousand third worlders in the West, would that not give a good life to tens of millions of third worlders back in their homes?

Remember, all the assumptions I made, all the questions I ask, come either from the migration movement, or the from the words of the migration enablers.

I sincerely ask.

Which would give a better life to more humans?

Importing tens of thousands of third worlders who have shown to be disproportionately on welfare and stay there for generations, and unable to change from their dysfunctional social systems, into the West…

Or importing ten thousand Westerners with the skill and cultures of the working systems, with the same financial aid given to the current immigrants, the same rights and privileges they receive here, into the third world.

Which would feed, clothe and protect more humans?

Upon hearing this, a pro-immigrationist would shout and accuse me of supporting colonialism.

I ask them, what’s the difference?

Was immigration not to be cherished?

So suddenly, instead of a system importing populations that will be dependent on welfare for generations, a system imports people that will actually be successful and amass wealth while raising the host systems total prosperity, that is bad?

How is what you now call colonialism any different from the open-border, all welcome immigration we have now?

That it actually increases the prosperity of the host culture?

That it does not import invasive species into a culture not prepared to deal with it?

That it proves the West’s system is better working than the third world, something that is already proven by the boats on the Mediterranean Sea?

That it benefits millions of third worlders without importing them from the third world?

That it actually does not destroy the West?

Where do you, pro-immigrationist, lie?

Immigration that benefits ten thousand immigrants without any proven benefit to the host?

Immigration that benefits ten thousand immigrants, while importing a working system that will benefit tens of millions of the host?

Like I said, just a thought experiment based on population movement and statements of ideologues whose ideologies I don’t share.

Where I lie is a third option, not presented above.

Finndistan writes here.

It was an unfortunate series of events that led footballer Ched Evans to the hotel where he slept with a woman who later accused him of rape. Her reasoning for filing the charges was that she was so drunk he shouldn’t have listened when she said she wanted sex. Comparatively few men will be so unlucky in their dealings with women. Few will face such a long prison term during his prime because of a woman’s false accusations; and though men are hard done by in divorce, comparatively few will get the kind of true and proper ass reaming in family court that’ll make the strongest stomach cringe. We hear gruesome stories about such cases, but most of us haven’t seen that carnage up close. We’re happily enjoying relationships with women without having yet been wrongfully imprisoned, or are still married and enjoying our children and possessions in the belief we have any right to them. We blissfully live our lives not worrying about high speed collisions with feminism that in all likelihood will never happen to us.

Yes, you understand the concept of proactively attacking our society’s anti-male bias to combat injustice in the spirit of “an ounce of prevention” to ward off more tragic men’s stories from being created. But the absolute last thing you want to spend your time listening to is some bitter men’s rights loser drone on about how a few inconsequential anti-male jokes or a few incidents of male shaming in the feminist media are making men more likely to become victims. He lost you when he said his “cure” to ward off any possibility of the catastrophic accidents above is to hate women, to boycott American women, or to just ignore women altogether and go his own way. To you, the reality of the cure sounds worse than the risk of the disease.

All the above are some reasons most men don’t get involved with the MRM movement, but the most important is that we men like to think of ourselves as masters of our own fates. We prefer to take personal responsibility for our failures rather than blame anyone else. We refuse to cry for help like victims. We want to fight back.

Matt Forney, “The Problem with the Men’s Rights Movement“

The problem is that I don’t want to be a victim. I want to be a victor. I want to crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentations of their women. I want to look them in the eye and dare them to take me on.

Come at me, bro.

I don’t want to get in line for a bowl of victim borscht. “Oh, your whore wife divorced you? Here here, cry on my shoulder. Here’s a cookie. It’ll be alright.”

Most of the time this is a successful strategy, but for the occasional man who comes up hard against feminism, it sets the stage for a spectacular disaster. Whether he has to defend his sons against the utter lack of funding for boy tailored programs in feminized schools that are failing boys in epically lopsided proportions, or whether he has to face a woman in court due to divorce, a false accusation of rape, domestic violence or any other transgression against a woman, he’ll stand alone to his great disadvantage. Men who believe that by “manning up” they can singlehandedly face down the entire feminist establishment are either stupid or profoundly uninformed about how powerful and deeply entrenched organized feminism is. Not that this knowledge and awareness alone would save him either. Even if he called out for help, the men’s rights movement is so small because of the above factors that there probably wouldn’t be any men’s organizations in a position to help him anyway.

So when he goes up against the IMMENSE might of organized feminism odds are he’ll get SAVAGELY reamed. He’ll bend over gritting his teeth silently and will “take it like a man.” Then if he hasn’t yet been physically, emotionally, and financially destroyed, he’ll work even harder to convince the system he didn’t deserve what he got. Despite everything he believes, justice will prevail in this system in which men can’t defend themselves and women play the “victim” card so they never have to. In his righteous indignation over the injustice he’s suffered, it never occurs to him that his concept of justice is meaningless. Men have it coming because injustice against men is exactly what the system was designed to do.

William Munney (played by Clint Eastwood), Unforgiven

Scene: The sheriff [Gene Hackman] lies in a pool of his own blood staring at the business end of the double barreled shotgun held to his face by notorious outlaw William Munney.

Sheriff: “I don’t deserve to die like this.”

Munney (before blasting the Sheriff into hell): “’Deserve’s’ got nothing to do with it.”

Ironically, taking responsibility for defeat when the system is so rigged that winning is impossible results in men being ashamed to share their stories and being reluctant to band together. There’s good reason for that reluctance as he won’t find sympathy, even from other men. The legions of men who refuse to take the time to inform themselves will look down on him as weak for having been defeated rather than rally with him to address the rabid anti-male bias he shouldn’t have had to fight in the first place. In fact, it took the complicity of this army of white knights, manginas, and just plain idiots, for the unlucky man to become a victim. “Manning up” and “taking responsibility” was part of the crime scene, a heavy psychological implement that happened to be at hand for feminism to subdue the victim with.

The Fifth Horseman, “The Misandry Bubble“

We have millions of fine young men willing to die on the battlefield to defend the values enshrined in the US Constitution, but we don’t see protests of even 100 divorced men against the shamefully unconstitutional treatment they have received.  The destruction of the two-parent family by incentivizing immoral behavior in women is at least as much of a threat to American safety and prosperity as anything that ever could have come out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia.  Men being too afraid to be the ‘squeaky wheel’ even when they have lost their children and their present and future assets is a major contributor to the prevailing status quo.

Women ABSOLUTELY know the odds are stacked, but only the rare few will be sympathetic. Most feel entitled to have the scales tipped in their favor and have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER keeping quiet so the injustice will keep working for them.

By Toads commenting on “The Men in Julia’s Life” by Dr. Helen

America is often called the land of the free, and [the land] where human liberty is valued more than elsewhere. That is, until a woman decides that the father of her children is ‘boring’ to her. After that, for the man in question, America suddenly becomes North Korea.

His passport can be seized, his wages garnished so that he has to live on 20% of his original income, and he can be imprisoned at any time for non-payment, even if he loses his job. All this, while society tells him the *he* is the villain for the crime of being insufficiently attractive. In the meantime, the mother is under no obligation to prove she spent the money on the child.

There is no other country that has a multi-billion-dollar industry devoted to aggressively separating fathers and children against the will of either, the way America does.

Land of the free? Don’t make me laugh.

Taking responsibility for turning his fate around, our male subject may get deep into reading and researching many other men’s cases to figure out a way to get justice. It’s only then he’ll see how much the scales of justice are completely tipped against men. Looking back, he may be shocked to recognize how even the male ideal of “manning up” makes male victimhood a self-fulfilling prophecy. If he’s intelligent enough to question the status quo, he’ll wonder how the hell such injustice could happen so routinely in a legal and political system he had such faith in, so he’ll begin to search for answers. Soon he’ll discover writings from men’s rights activists like Paul Elam, Dalrock, W.F. Price, and Angry Harry. Many of the visitors to those sites are men who like him have been worked over, so some of the comments they leave are understandably angry. Some are unquestionably women hating. At one time he would have condemned such comments and very apologetically assured any women in sight that not all men are like that. He no longer apologizes.

With his eyes opened by personal experience, he understands that when men face outrageous injustice in court or in government, it’s feminist tools like “shaming” that turn the accused into a pariah and keep men from banding together to come to the innocent man’s defense. What he saw before as MRM whining about inconsequential transgressions, he now sees as very insightful men trying to rectify the handicap against men in an extremely high-stakes game. Men at the playing table might be staring down the barrel of a long prison sentence for a false accusation, or in the case of divorce, might be facing the loss of his children and reversal of most of the financial gains he’s spent the last twenty years acquiring because of his wife’s failure to honor the marriage contract. Suddenly recognizing all that’s at stake for men after he “takes the red pill,” and recognizing the legal cruelty routinely inflicted on men, if he’s honest he’ll admit a little shame that in the past he attacked MRAs before he had taken the time to learn anything about the issues.

A necessary part of the MRM “red pill” education agenda is deconstructing and exposing the shaming and other tools that feminism uses to tip the scales against men. These feminist tools set the stage for the worst devastation by making it impossible for men to defend themselves. Could the MRM do a better job showing this connection so that complaints against “shaming” etc. don’t sound like whining? Probably. Could you critics on the sidelines have made more of an effort to learn the truth on your own; and instead of dismissing MRM positions off the cuff and refusing to inform yourself, at least made it less difficult for the MRM to educate you? Definitely. You may disagree with some of each individual MRA;s positions, but if you make the effort to learn the issues the truth of their overall message is indisputable.

You also have to appreciate their sacrifice. Not everyone will take up the fight for men’s rights because of the high costs involved. In this supposedly “man’s world,” coming forward to publicly advocate for men is labeled as “loony” at best. At worst it’ll brand a man as a “woman hater,” making him subject to job loss, legal persecution, and even death threats from feminist extremists. He’ll face a complete mainstream media blackout on the topic of men’s rights, making it impossible to defend himself from most attacks. For all these reasons some of you, like me will be thankful for the contribution “outed” MRA’s make, especially when there’s enough of a threat due to your circumstances that you have to remain anonymous. However, a far greater number of men will dismiss the MRM because they can rest comfortably in the truth that feminism will likely never happen to them.

But living in a feminist world can be dangerous. Collisions with feminism happen, and when they do they can be horrible life-altering events. Worrying over “what might happen” shouldn’t take over and define one’s life entirely, but no one can argue that a little insurance doesn’t offer peace of mind. The MRM is a broad based international movement with many independent splinter cells. Some have successfully lobbied against harmful anti-male legislation and lobbied for for pro-male legislation. Others generate grass roots support for that advocacy by educating on the core issues. Others, like MGTOW, propose strategies for mitigating the risk of LWM (Living While Male).

The number of cells is an indication that increasingly there are only two types of men left in this gynocracy, those who’ve already got into an accident with feminism and those who will. Supporting the MRM is necessary insurance because any of us can wake up one day and find ourselves in the absolute carnage of a full head on. Knowledge is our only protection.

I recently came across the article “Why is Obese More Acceptable Than Anorexic?” and shortly thereafter stumbled upon an infographic that’s right up the same alley. Besides the fact that the author of TheUltimateFemale.com and creator of the chart clearly lacks basic math and conceptual skills (how else can the allowable upper weight limit be one pound lower for a 5’3″ female than a 5’2″ female?), she seems to be one hell of a fat apologist! I mean honestly — look at those numbers! I’m a 5’9″, relatively athletic and muscular male, and back when I was in peak athletic condition I tipped the scales at no more than 160 pounds. How can a “healthy” female possibly weigh ten pounds more?!?

TheUltimateFemale.com "Healthy" Female Weight Chart

As absurd as the chart itself is, even more absurd, and often more entertaining, are the comments this chart is generating on Pinterest. Sure, I have to give props to the few and far between commenters that are pointing out that the upper end of this chart is well into the fat, if not obese range, however, there are even more comments complaining that this chart isn’t generous enough! Can you imagine that!?!

This short article would not be complete without posting a few of my favorite comments from both sides of the aisle, but mostly from the fat apologists as they are by far the most amusing:

Jamie writes: “Im 6’1, this scale would make me look like a skeleton – really.”

180 pounds plus skeleton? That would be something!

Lindsey says: “I was gonna say, this is assuming you are an average build. Im 5’8 and built like a viking, so 167 isnt an option.”

A Viking? Are you sure you don’t mean a hot air balloon? Below, you will find a picture of Andre Ward fighting Edison Miranda — they’re both “super middleweight” boxers where the upper weight limit is 168 pounds… they sure don’t look like skeletons to me… and they’re fucking men! And by the way, Andre is 6’0″ and Edison is 5’10″!!!!!

Andre Ward vs Edison Miranda

Sandy adds: “compare the figures to the other 2 charts i posted. FRAME size does make a difference.”

Note to the politically correct: “frame size” and “larger frame” are some of the latest euphemisms for fat!

Emilie: “I don’t really believe in this. I’m 5’7 and only 110, but I’m very healthy and athletic.”

Thanks for trying to put them back in touch with reality Emilie, but I think it’s a lost cause!

Jennifer fumes: “i saw another post like this about a week ago and although this one doesnt mention “frame size”, its the same idea, and it makes my blood boil……..im 6’1, so going off this, i should be 142lbs……BULLSH*T!!!!!!!!! im working on getting HEALTHY, not ANOREXIC…the high ends are NOT too high, according to BMI, a HEALTHY weight for someone 6’1 is between 182-185…..i absolutely hate hate hate this”

Calm down there Jennifer… did you forget to select female on that BMI calculator? Ask Andre… the middleweight male boxing champion who weighs 20 pounds less than that!

Amanda opines: “I’m 5’3 and was 148 lbs while 9 months pregnant! This chart is a little off.”

Another lonely dose of reality here…

Sammy says: “im 5’3 1/2 and weight 170 but im an athlete and have a lot of leg muscle”

Jesus Sammy! 5’3″ and 170!?! How much leg muscle? Six legs worth!?!

Stephanie surmises: “Yea, this might be inaccurate. I’m 5 9 and at 200 lbs…I have a thick skeletal frame. Also Gabriella Reese is a bit taller than me and weighs around the same…I guess it depends on musculoskeletal frame.”

For the record, Gabriella Reece is 6’3″ and weighs 170 pounds… but what’s 30 pounds and a half foot among friends?”

Tiphani chimes in: “I am 5’7 and I weigh 115.. doctor tells me I am healthy. I eat all he time. even if I tried to gain weight I wouldn’t.. lol. I love my body.”

Ah yes Tiphani… so do we.

Hannah pontificates: “This is stupid. Weight is a relative measurement from where you are to the center of the earth. I don’t know why people use that as a standard since it’s all relative. How about this, ladies. Watch your MASS not your weight. Mass is unchanging wherever you go (unless you lose mass by losing fat, of course). Step off the scale, b/c where’s the sense in measuring how “healthy” or “unhealthy” you are based on an ever-changing number?”

Hey fatty, unless you weigh yourself on Monday on Earth, Tuesday on Mars and Wednesday on the Moon, weight is a fine measure. While you may be technically correct that there are minor variances Earth’s gravity in different locations, they amount to 0.5% or less, and unless you’re weighing yourself on the North Pole, those variances are working in your favor. Nice try, get back on the treadmill Miss Piggy!

Honestly, when “healthy weight charts” have women weighing more than muscular, athletic men (not to mention with a couple extra inches on them) there is a serious problem. The fat acceptance movement has gone too far. Get on the fucking treadmill and face up to the fact that being overweight can be just as unhealthy as being underweight!

As I approach thirty, I am surprised to find myself doing alright. I have a job with a solid mentor, I am working out daily, and I have a girlfriend who can take care of herself but does not like feminism. But when I look back on years 18-28 it was, with few exceptions, a wasteland. I didn’t have Ferd’s “Advice for Young Men,” so my social life drifted into drinking beer and eating pizza with a bunch of beta duds whom I don’t even talk to anymore. I could have constructed a better social life for myself, but I was too busy brooding and obsessing over everything from religion to politics. Every young man should do some serious thinking, but a bit of common-sense advice at the beginning would have saved me a lot of wasted time that I could have spent living my twenties to the fullest. Most of life’s important principles are pretty obvious. Our uneducated ancestors understood them, and it is only the sheer volume of lies in the modern world that keep us from seeing these principles clearly. Here is some of that advice I wish I had received when I went off to college. Make of it what you will.

I. Philosophy

The central works of the “Enlightenment” are nonsense. Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, etc. are all grounded in the idea of a “state of nature” where autonomous, undifferentiated adults came together and used their free will to create a “social contract” that is the basis of society. This social contract, the philosophers tell us, guaranteed a set of human “rights” that apply universally.

Anthropology has thoroughly discredited the state of nature. Humans have never lived as individuals; we evolved and can only survive in extended, gender-and-age differentiated kinship networks bound together by genetics and shared experience. If there is such a thing as morality, it proceeds not from rights, but from the differentiated duties within our family network which are necessary for survival. Moreover, society didn’t come out of a bunch of individuals coming together and signing a bill of rights; society evolved organically when different kinship networks merged for mutual survival into a larger group and gradually became bound together by a common culture and shared historical memory. Aristotle is the philosopher who understands this best.

II. Religion

Be careful. Religion will develop your moral sense and help you understand that underneath all the glitter, we live in a fallen world. On the other hand, young men are prone to obsession and fanaticism, and religion can aggravate this. Don’t start out reading the Bible: its mixture of hyperbole, metaphor, and allegory can mess you up if you don’t know how to read it properly. You will wind up viewing the world as a Manichean, melodramatic battle between God and the Devil, when in reality it is a dreary place full of mediocrity and petty people who care about their own narrow interests, not the drama going on within your head. Stick to reading secondary sources until you are mature enough to understand all of this, the real nature of original sin.

On a related note, are you looking for proof of God? In my experience one cannot prove faith, but some rational inferences can be drawn. Consider total nothingness. Not just the vacuum of space, but the total absence of any physical laws. Did we really get from there to a universe with planets on which conscious beings dwell who conceive of a creator by total chance? I suppose it is possible, but I think we can infer at least the probability of some First Mover. The more interesting question is: if there is a God, is he really all-good? All-knowing? All-powerful? For such answers, we need to turn to revealed religion. As Chateaubriand argued, the best argument for Christianity’s truth is its own substance. Either you believe that the New Testament and the lives of the saints are too sublime to have a purely human explanation, or you do not. When I read the Letters of Paul, I don’t think I am reading some classical version of David Koresh. If you feel differently, that’s your prerogative.

III. Women

This one isn’t so hard. A woman worth anything wants a man. A man is a boy who has gotten over his fear of death. If you can laugh at death, so much the better. To get over your fear of death, perhaps take a page from the Hagakure and contemplate your own death and suffering daily. It’s a funny thing, but if you do this daily you will feel yourself freed to enjoy the rest of your day to the fullest. Women will recognize this tension between life and death, the dangerous man, and be drawn to it. Working out is a part of this.

IV. Race 

We are pretty much wired for it. It is good to treat people with respect as individuals, and if you want to have a somewhat flexible conception of race, or prioritize culture or religion, that’s fine, but race is going to remain with us as a fact of life. Any race that doesn’t stick up for itself is going to be walked over by others, and selling out your own race is at least as bad as picking on a different one.

V. Politics

Government dependants can vote. Half the population pays no income tax. Your average person watches TV for hours every day, and lets the government educate his children. Congress is run by special interests, for special interests. Nine old lawyers decide social issues. The borders are wide open. Politics is almost futile in such an environment. If you must devote some of your time to politics, devote it to minimizing the destructive interference of government in our private lives, families, and communities. Unless you are very rich, you shouldn’t devote more than 5% of your time to politics. Spend the rest of your time cultivating your private sphere of life, while minimizing your contact with the state. Also, enjoy yourself! Living well is the best revenge.

Today, I came across an article I found both shocking and appalling. I shouldn’t have found it that way, I know what the world is like today, permeated by the “it’s everybody’s fault but mine” attitude, especially in the West. But still, I felt this article was way over the top, even for today’s ultra-liberal, feel-good, everybody’s equal world. The article in question was “‘Most runway models meet the BMI criteria for anorexia’, claims plus-size magazine in powerful comment on body image in the fashion industry“.

Where to begin dissecting this complete and utter horseshit? Not that I’m a fan of your typical runway model, but neither am I a fan of fat, obese, entitled American and Western bitches. But honestly, I find this article really begs the question, “Why is it more acceptable to be too fat than too skinny?”

To get to the heart of the matter, let’s examine some direct quotes from the article. Let’s start with this one:

One, printed alongside a photo of the Russian beauty holding a tape measure across her rear, reads: ‘Twenty years ago the average fashion model weighed 8% less than the average woman. Today, she weighs 23% less.’

Well, there are at least three different ways I can think of to go from the “average model” weighing 8% less than the “average woman” to weighing 23% less:

1. The “average model” is getting skinnier.
2. The “average woman” is getting fatter.
3. Some combination of the first two.

I haven’t done the research. but I don’t really feel like I need to. Being that the authors didn’t expressly state number one, or better yet simply state “models today weigh 16% less than models 20 years ago” (note: 16% is how the math would work out if it’s 100% due to models getting skinnier), I’m willing to bet this has a lot more to do with number two than anything else. What do you think?

Check out this caption on one of the pictures of their fat “plus size” (plus size is a euphemism for fat chick, in case you didn’t know) models:

Body image: The Russian beauty poses with a tape measure around her rear alongside a statistic that shows how different models are from real women

So apparently, models are not even “real women” anymore. What exactly are they then? I wonder what the “average model” will have to say about being labeled not a “real woman”?

Let’s have a look at what Plus-Size Magazine considers to be a “real woman”:

Katya Zharkova, Plus Size Model

Let’s not sugarcoat it now, this chick is fat. She has a pretty face, but she’s fat! She’s doesn’t have big bones, she’s not “full-figured,” she’s just fat! Is she obese? Probably not, but I don’t know, what’s the definition of obese these days? I bet it’s on a continually sliding scale upward, though. It’s certainly not a stretch to say that obesity might be in her near to medium-term future. This chick has rolls of fat on her back. That’s not called being “curvy” or “fuller figured,” it’s just fat. So why is it that we should all attempt to redefine our concept of beauty to make fat girls feel better? Why is there no middle ground between anorexia and borderline obesity? What’s wrong with having a frank and open discussion about the fact that there are healthy ways and unhealthy ways to lose weight? Can we not show pictures of beautiful girls in magazines anymore without having to worry that all the “real women” will become anorexic or bulimic? Can’t these fat bitches just get on the treadmill for thirty minutes a day instead of puking up dinner or developing some sort of psychological problems (or both)?

Of course I know the answers to all these questions — no they can’t. In the West, we live in a world of “it’s everybody’s fault but mine” enablers. You aren’t too fat, those sick, anorexic models on TV and in magazines are too skinny. Shame on them!

In nature, every action by every animal is highly influenced by the genes of the animal and every action by every animal is highly related to ensuring the propagation of animal’s genes. If we look at ourselves, the world in which we live in has changed very rapidly in the last thousand years, yet our genes barely changed during this time. This inconsistency between rapidly changing surroundings and slowly changing genes makes humans do things which are insane from a biological perspective.

This insanity is manifested in numerous actions made by modern humans. A simple example to this insanity is paying a prostitute to have sex with you and using a condom. The reason you want to have sex with the prostitute emanates from your genes which entice you to have sex with the prostitute by injecting chemicals to your brain. Your genes are designed to a world without contraceptives and ‘think’ that you will impregnate the prostitute and thus ensure the propagation of your genes. However, in reality the chances of impregnating the prostitute are zero, since you live in a world with contraceptives. You are futility wasting resources and making a biologically insane action.

You can say that you don’t care about your genes and pay to have sex with the prostitute… but basically, you are still following genetic instructions given to you in the form of pleasure by your out-of-date genes. You say you don’t care about your genes, but you are very much controlled by them. If you go against your genes, and consciously act to make rational biological decisions, your genes will have better chance of propagating, but you might be less ‘happy’ since your out-of-date genes will punish you by taking away pleasure.

The basic question here is: Where do ‘we’ begin and where our genes end?

Many solutions to this question easily lead to nihilism. The approach of the Guide to the Young Patriarch is clearly expressed in the Principle Patriarchal Value:

A genetic lineage is of the utmost importance to a patriarch.

If you want to take the red pill and look at the world as it is, consciously making rational biological decisions is the only sane solution. It is disturbing like many other red pill realizations, but it is true all the same. All other approaches lead to an abyss of insanity. Ironically, since society often define sanity as being ‘normal’ (i.e. acting like others), at times the insane masses might blame a man following this path of having their vice.

Cross-posted at A Guide for a Young Patriarch.

On my article “The Problem with the Men’s Rights Movement” two weeks ago, I left this insult for a commenter who responded to my post by torching a bunch of strawmen:

Awww, did baby make a poo-poo? You want a fresh diaper and some milk?

He came back at me with this:

Do you think female shaming language works with me? Nice try. Try using your brain next time.

Ah, “shaming language.” Now there’s a phrase that’s been bandied about to the point of meaninglessness. What is shaming language? Here’s a good definition:

“Shaming tactics.” This phrase is familiar to many Men’s Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic. Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men. Male gynocentrists use them, too.

Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks.

“Shaming language” or “shaming tactics” is to MRA blogs what “trigger warnings” are to feminist ones; you can’t go ten seconds without it being shoved in your face. And I’m really sick of hearing about them. Identifying shaming tactics once served as a noble purpose; shooting down feminist debate fallacies. Now, a growing percentage of “MRAs” use the Catalogue to deflect any criticism of their behavior.

It’s like a little kid who taunts and insults other kids, then runs and hides behind his mom’s skirt when they get mad. “Mommy, they’re gonna hit me!”

A certain amount of shaming is necessary for society to function. Just because feminists and traditionalists abuse shaming in their attempts to manipulate men doesn’t mean that all shaming is bad. The three fundamental questions you have to ask yourself when you’re getting shamed are:

1. Is my behavior actually shameful?
2. Does the shamer stand to gain in some way from successfully shaming me?
3. Is the shamer justified in wanting those gains?

For example, male-dominated groups (or “gangs,” as Jack Donovan might call them) like sports teams are notorious for shaming their underperforming members. I wasn’t an athletic kid, but I know how football teams and the like work; if you aren’t playing up to speed, your comrades and your coach will berate you and attack your masculinity, maybe call you a pussy. The same thing happens in the military. The emotionally fragile react to such japes by getting defensive: “Stop making fun of me!”

But why should they? It’s a cliche, but it’s the truth: a team is only as strong as its weakest member. Your teammates aren’t shaming you because they’re cruel assholes, they’re shaming you because they need you to pull it together. If you’re on a football team and consistently fumble the ball, you could end up losing the game for your team. If you’re in an Army platoon and you screw up, you could end up getting your comrades wounded or killed by the enemy. Therefore, in these contexts, shaming isn’t just a good thing, it’s necessary to keep the group together and ensure it accomplishes its goals.

Plenty of writers have made the observation that MRAs are identical to feminists, only with the sexes swapped. Unfortunately, when you look at how both groups react to shaming, you see a lot of similarities. Feminists love to campaign against social shaming that disadvantages women in any way, whether it’s fat-shaming, slut-shaming or prude-shaming. “Fat acceptance” advocates like Kate Harding have to twist and contort logic to ridiculous degrees so they can keep denying the truth that yes, being overweight is bad for your health, your social life, and your state of mind.

We shame fat people for justifiable reasons: they’re disgusting to look at, unpleasant to be around and hurting their loved ones by being cavalier about their health. We shame slutty girls (well, not me; I personally love sluts) because they’re generally dirty, impulsive and incapable of fidelity. Feminists hate shaming because it presupposes judgement, something we’re absolutely positively not supposed to do. No matter how stupid, offensive or flat-out repulsive someone is, we’re constantly told that we can’t “judge” them (unless they’re white, Christian and/or a conservative, then it’s weapons free).

That’s the cry of the liberal, the feminist and the MRA: “Don’t judge me!”

Don’t judge me… even if I weigh 400 pounds.

Don’t judge me… even if I live in my parents’ basement.

Don’t judge me… even if I’m a 30-year old virgin.

Don’t judge me… even if I’m a creepy weirdo.

They can’t play the game, so they want to throw out the rulebook, fuming like Eric Cartman when they don’t get their way.

Just to clarify again for the slow: I am not some Bill Bennett-type trying to shame men into “manning up” and marrying when the deck is stacked against them. There is good shaming and there is bad shaming. If you’re being shamed, take a step back and ask yourself whether you deserve it. If not, tell the shamer to go fuck themselves. If yes, stop behaving shamefully. You’re not doing anyone a favor, least of all yourself, when you persist in being a loser.

And if you talk like a woman, don’t get pissy when I treat you like one.

Matt Forney shames early and shames often. Visit his blog, follow him on Twitter and friend him on Facebook.

An ordinary female has more power than the greatest kings and the richest, most famous of men. She is the gatekeeper who determines the future of the human race.

With this power comes great responsibility. Responsibility that is mostly handled on an instinctual level. These impulses originally came into being to select for men with desirable traits in an ancestral environment. In this environment, what was best for the species came naturally to her.

Agricultural civilizations brought about an increase in her responsibilities. She could no longer simply act on her every impulse. She had to restrain herself and think through important choices carefully.

In the present civilization, most of these restraints have been removed by great social wealth. Not understanding who she is, she neglects her responsibilities to her people. Not only must she usher in the next generation, it is her duty to choose fathers who will promote the betterment of the species.

However, the man she naturally favors may be especially well suited for hunting, fighting, persuading, and leading small groups but he is scarcely capable of building or maintaining a civilization. Nor has he the abstract reasoning ability to understand how the actions of millions add up to a tragedy of the commons.

Indeed, if one would gauge the potential of a populace for civilization, one would do well to simply talk to ordinary people on the street and see how many can understand how a Tragedy of the Commons works. If most people can’t think abstractly enough to understand the consequences of collective action, there’s absolutely no potential for any sort of benevolent society. And a society without any ability to pursue larger goals soon becomes the despondent vassal of any neighbor that has even the slightest ability to organize. The women who tried to escape into the arms of primitive chieftains once again find themselves the paramours of ordinary men.

Whenever a civilization reaches a level of wealth that frees most of its women from social obligations, the same pattern recurs. Left to their own devices, women fail to make the choices that will make their society more competitive in the next generation. In effect, this is a factor limits the possible extent of human social development. Over millennia we see civilizations repeatedly hit this wall.

If females prove incompetent when it comes to making the choices that will carry their people forward, they will eventually be fired.

There are many great powers in our world and sooner or later, especially as certain technologies mature, the temptation to take over the reproductive process will be too great. We do well to consider that the incentives are particularly strong for the first to succeed. Whoever does so gets the strongest advantage over everyone else.

Rather than bury ourselves in wishful idealism, we do well to understand the true nature of this situation.

The days of women as unquestioned default gatekeepers cannot last forever. We do well to see that one of the most important struggles in human history is approaching. A struggle over who gets the power to choose what traits are desirable and which not for a new human race.

Giovanni writes at 6 Heretic’s Way.

If you do a search anywhere online for “alpha male,” you will undoubtedly run across an article or two showcasing the ups and downs of being an alpha female. Oh how tough life is for the alpha female! She runs the relationship, is great at her career and everyone wants to be like her! Let’s go ahead and dispel this myth right here and right now!  There is no such thing as an “alpha female.”

There are only two types of women: Cunts and Not Cunts.

If you are a woman who thinks she is an “alpha female,” you’re not; you’re just a cunt.

If you are a man who is dating a woman he considers an “alpha female,” she’s not; she’s just a cunt.

So many woman these days try to be like men in every way they can. This includes trying to imitate the male sociosexual hierarchy. The problem with this is that there are no female pack leaders. Look at wolves: it is always a male wolf that leads the pack. Females are supposed to be a separate part of the pack – sort of an aside. I know what you’re thinking! “Well, if they’re lateral to the pack, aren’t they sort of a pack in and of themselves? Wouldn’t it then stand to reason that they have their own hierarchy?”

That’s a good try, but no. You see, the females submit to the male hierarchy; they don’t form their own, imitate the male system, or take active part in it! They simply submit to it. Because of this, there can be no “alpha female” – only carnivorous cunts who feed on the very souls and livelihoods of lesser men.

Damn bro, way harsh!

Yeah, the language is a little rough (why is it that the c-word is the only socially unacceptable swear these days?), but it is absolutely true and drives home the point. Women who consider themselves ‘empowered’ and ‘alpha’ in my experience are just vicious bitches. They’re entitled, nasty cunts who plowed through the fucking wall at 200 miles an hour, and now wear their pantsuits to bars with their girlfriends where they can cry into fancy, overpriced martinis about how no good men are around.

You know why you can’t find any good men? Because you’re no fun to be around. As was brilliantly pointed out over at The University of Man the other day, I’m not looking for a woman with a career, good income, her own house and car, and great credit – I have all of those things myself. I’m looking for the woman to bring something to the table that I don’t have. I want her to compliment and complete me as a person, not mirror me.

But a woman who has all of these things from life will rationalize her inability to find a man with such classic hamster dingleberries as:

• I’m just too strong of a personality.
• Men aren’t interested in a woman who can take care of herself.
• My independence scares them.
• Most guys are pussies and don’t know how to handle a real woman.
• I’m out of his league.
• I HAVE ALL THE POWWAAAA!!!

I’m sure you’ve all heard one, if not all, of these lines coming from a career-driven cougar who missed her chance at real happiness: a family. I feel that this is the greatest crime of feminism and the past half-century of Western decline, women will no longer be able to enjoy their femininity and revel in their womanhood. It’s a crime to be a woman anymore, not proper. We should all be career-driven! In fact, it’s only cool to be a woman if you’re a multi-racial, effeminate gay couple (who is unbelievably happy and is very excited to adopt their first child to experience the joys of fatherhood and – statistically speaking – child molestation).

Handling “Alpha” Females

So, how do you handle these women who act like super bitches and then blame it on how ‘alpha’ they are? Simple, display true dominance.  If you were a wolf, you would bite, attack, kick and put down the dissenter, showing everyone that you are the pack leader. While biting her may work, I don’t advocate it because she probably has the Herp. No, a better way of dealing with a woman who acts super bitchy is to take her drink from her, toss it in her face, and walk away. Social dominance via humiliation. If a woman screams and yells and gets in your face, it’s the same as a beta male getting in your face – she is vying for social control. Simply refuse to give it to her. It is easier to assert dominant authority over a woman because she is never going to be a physical threat to you and you will always be a physical threat to her.

While you should never hit a woman for yelling at you, showing some amused mastery over her tantrum, followed by standing to your full height and towering her (like dogs do) will quickly assert the fact that you would win a physical conflict – something she wants to avoid because she is the weaker gender (thus she backs down).

Dog towering another to show dominance.

The only time you should ever consider a physical reaction against a woman is if she is the aggressor and actually tries to physically hurt you. If you can’t hold her back and she is becoming a legitimate threat to your safety and physical well-being, it is okay to lay her out just as you would a male aggressor. Know, however, that the legal repercussions are probably more severe than if you were to fight a male – simply because of our over-feminized and left-run “judicial” system. Most of the time, however, non-verbal dominance displays are the only things needed.

If any of you do throw a drink in a woman’s face, make sure to get that shit on video and post it. One of my first YouTube tutorial videos, I think, will be on proper drink tossage – because that would be fun as hell to make.

Alpha is the mastermind behind The Alpha Persona, a blog that seeks to dissect the sociosexual status of men and women in their daily interactions and teach you how to become the ultimate alpha male.