The following story and the comments I’ve seen on it under various articles expose an alternate universe — one in which many women are blaming the alleged victim of sexual assault, the villains are the parents of the victim for demanding charges be pressed, and the older sex partner of an underage teen is being called a victim of discrimination. There are multiple victims, multiple perpetrators, and there’s a perpetrator-victim as well as a victim-perpetrator.

Now here’s the real kicker: the defendant is a cheerleader, and the alleged victim is on the varsity basketball team. How could this all be possible? Well, they’re both female…

Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt was arrested February 16 by the Indian River County Sheriff’s Office on two counts of lewd or lascivious battery on child.

Her mother, Kelley Hunt Smith, explained on Facebook that Kaitlyn began a “mutual consenting” relationship with a girl at Sebastian River High School who was about three years younger. The parents of the younger girl were upset by the situation and contacted police, she wrote.

“They were out to destroy my daughter, they feel like my daughter ‘made’ their daughter gay,” Kaitlyn mother’s said. “They are bigoted, religious zeolites [sic] that see being gay as a sin and wrong, and they blame my daughter.”

The parents of the younger girl also pressured the Indian River County School Board into expelling Kaitlyn, she added. The teen is now attending an alternative school.

“Those parents have forced the State Attorneys office to go thru [sic] with felony charges and are trying to ruin my daughters life,” Kaitlyn mother’s continued. “This is insane. This should have never been a legal matter, it is a family matter. They are trying to send an innocent young girl to prison because they are full of hate and bigotry. These girls are teenagers in high school, who had ONE mutual consenting sexual experience. My daughter isn’t a criminal, she isn’t a predator.”

Kaitlyn has until Friday to accept or reject a plea deal of two years house arrest and one year probation, according to her mother.

Modern sex law isn’t really equipped to handle these kinds of cases, so I suspect the court will eventually implement some version of the well-established “mentula rea” (guilty penis) test and try to ascertain who did what to whom or, to put it a little more bluntly, who stuck what where, which is never easy if neither man nor (male) beast was involved. I would assume that if the varsity basketball player female indeed strapped on a dildo and penetrated the cheerleader, the cheerleader will likely be acquitted. If the cheerleader was the penetrator and thereby took on the masculine role, she’ll probably do some time in prison unless she cops a plea. Although I’m not a lawyer, I’d advise her lawyer to urge her to accept a plea if the latter was the case.

I have to admit I’m a bit conflicted about this case. On one hand, it’s very difficult for me to feel pity for a lesbian who gets busted for sex with an underage girl, because I know a lesbian prosecutor would have no mercy whatsoever on a very young man in a similar situation. Take Janet Reno for example. When the bulldyke butcher of Waco was climbing the career ladder she not only used alleged statutory rape as a justification for burning scores of Christians to death, but prior to that great achievement effectively destroyed the life of a 14-year-old Dutch boy accused of satanic sex abuse in the witch hunts of the late 80s. After two years in prison, the boy was tried and acquitted, and Reno was then hired as attorney general of the USA, where she went on to distinguish the office by killing more Americans, including a couple dozen children, in a single police action than any predecessor had before.

Naturally, the temptation might be to keep one’s mouth shut and smirk in schadenfreude. But, as a man, something about that approach strikes me as ugly and unbecoming. There is such a thing as objective right and wrong, and in this case felony prosecution may well be an injustice. It appears the contact was consensual, the age gap small, and the potential for physical and emotional harm relatively minor. The punishment should fit the crime, and this wasn’t a case of sodomizing boys or anything that hazardous and cruel. However, the same goes straight sexual activity; no consensual sex between adolescents, so long as it is not aberrant and cruel, should be prosecuted as a felony.

As for the accusations that the victim’s parents are Christian bigots only persecuting the girl for having consensual lesbian sex, why is it that so many feminists are eager to go after young straight males when they have sex with girls a few years younger than them? Is that any less bigotry? Christians are known to do the same from time to time, so how can this be said to be selective prosecution? It isn’t. Lesbian sex is probably the least prosecuted of all, so it’s ridiculous to maintain that Christian bigots are persecuting lesbians.

Finally, this case brings up questions about the wisdom of propogandizing homosexuality to children, which has come to be regarded as acceptable to those who make decisions at the top. There are some gray areas with youth sexuality, and adolescents may be somewhat confused, so pushing the notion that anything goes is bound to cause problems both within families and between individuals. While I have no doubt that some people are born homosexual, we can’t necessarily assume that everyone below the age of majority is sure about it. That being the case, it’s no more appropriate to instruct them in gay sex techniques than it is to decide their career at that age. The consequences are simply too dangerous, and the risk of abuse too high. I’m afraid that it will result in something like the prison culture in some schools, where younger and smaller boys are preyed upon and sodomized to enforce a certain pecking order, whether they are gay or not. This could lead to very angry fathers and significant acts of violence down the road.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

While doing a bit of research for an article, I came across this amazing historical artifact from the 1980s, and thought I had to share it. It’s an early example of girl rap, and brings us right back to the heady days of feminism rising.

I’ll let the girls of “Anquette” lay it down for you:

Something else, isn’t it?

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

As some readers may have noticed, I’ve been keeping an eye on Israel lately, because it recently came to my attention that the same revolutionary changes to marriage and family law that occurred in the US starting nearly a half-century ago are happening there right now. This is providing a first-hand view of how a few changes to the law can cause a cascading domino effect that plunges society into a hypergamous free-for-all in a very short timeframe.

I can’t say I’m an expert on Israel or Israeli culture, but I am aware that it is a more conservative society than the urban parts of the US in which most American Jews live; in other words, Israel is not just a distant burough of New York City.

However, due to its small size and very close relationship with the Jewish American community, which is arguably a more powerful entity than Israel itself, Israel is more vulnerable to the whims and trends of American society in general than, say, Ireland or Italy. This is why it looks like Israeli men are in for some rough times.

European countries are no picnic for men, but in many regards they are much, much better than the US (I’ll let the British commenters here decide whether they belong in Europe or not in this regard). Child support is not punitive, alimony is very rare, and men are more likely to share physical custody of children. Smearing a husband in court results in little in the way of payoffs — people are, for the most part, expected to work a divorce or separation out without resorting to expensive litigation.

But Israel, as far as I can tell is moving swiftly toward an American-style family law regime by replacing rabbinic courts with civil courts in which all the wonderful features of American law are apparently included. I have no doubt that plenty of enterprising attorneys will be all too happy to lighten their clients’ or their spouses’ wallets in vicious, protracted custody battles.

According to Avri Gilad, a popular Israeli TV host, there has been an explosion of false accusations as of late, probably after the new law allowing women to testify against their husbands in court before divorce went into effect in 2008:

Every day I get e-mails from fathers whose natural right to see their children is denied them by social workers, courts, the police, and what not,” Gilad wrote on his popular Facebook page, which is followed by more than 20,000 people. “They cry out and no one listens – sometimes they are even mocked.

The feminist revolution, which I support wholeheartedly, is felling victims among my brothers, the divorced fathers. In the name of [fighting] thousands of years of discrimination, in the name of an injustice that was done in the past and is done in the present to millions of women in the world, by rapacious men who shame the male sex, the legal systems believe that it is okay to mow down good people, devoted fathers who divorced because they chose to, or because others chose so for them.

I regret to say that there is a fad of submitting false accusations to the police regarding violence, the fear of violence, sexual abuse and other kinds of lies against good, loving and devoted fathers, whose only sin is that they did not get along with the woman with whom they thought they would live forever.

The police report that there is a huge number of strategic false complaints against men, which automatically set in motion a process of distancing the man from his children, transferring his limited meetings with them to contact centers – dingy rooms in the welfare offices – under the watchful eyes of female welfare workers (very busy, underpaid, who get a raw deal themselves) who are usually hostile, and in extreme cases, a complete severing of the connection between the man and his children.”

[Gilad notes that a governmental committee – the Schnitt Committee – has recommended joint parenthood as the default arrangement for divorce in Israel, but its recommendations are not being implemented.]

Almost no lawmaker is dealing with the matter. In private conversations, they admit that they fear the power of the militant women’s organizations. I am not afraid and I say with a clear voice: One evil is not corrected by committing another! Children are not raised by separating them from their fathers…

Sound familiar? This is a script that’s been playing out in the US since the 1970s, first dramatized by Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep in Kramer vs. Kramer way back in 1979.

Sadly, it looks as though Israel’s men have some catching up to do. Avri Gilad declares his support for feminism – a mistake that it took American men decades to correct – perhaps because he is not aware that the evils he addresses above are exactly what feminism is all about. Gloria Steinem herself indicates that absolute power over procreation (she calls it “reproductive freedom”), which includes parenting, is the cornerstone of the feminist temple. What Gilad and others have to keep in mind is that when feminists say “equal,” they don’t mean fair, as too many naive men assume. Feminist equal is an arbitrarily set value, prone to subjective interpretation and never to be defined by men (because that would not be equal).

But maybe there’s hope for Israelis. Unlike Americans, they are not the first to go through this nightmare, so they’ll have plenty of reference material from the get go. Some of the stories coming out of the states might give them some motivation, too. Maybe they are starting see the threat to father’s rights, but that isn’t all that’s at stake: do Israelis relish the idea of home-grown versions of monsters like Kermit Gosnell to implement the “reproductive freedom” envisioned by the likes of Gloria Steinem? How about an integrated army in which coddling and providing for female “soldiers” takes priority over battlefield effectiveness?

For Israelis, the most important question should be:

Can Israel afford feminism?

Personally, I doubt it. The US can’t really afford it, but this is a massive nation. Feminism is already a chronic problem here, but we can sustain a lot of damage before it becomes an existential threat. Israel, on the other hand, is a lot more vulnerable in that regard.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

A story which had no apparent impact on the collective psyches of gender combatants is that of American Sami Shaffer, who authored a run-of-the-mill advisory on having an abortion in China, based on her personal experience.

Ms. Shaffer’s concerns in the matter are noteworthy and include:

• buy a pregnancy test without risking seeing someone we knew;
• I had forgotten to shave my legs that day so that was embarrassing;
• I make it onto the table first so the doctor inspects me first;
• I was feeling really embarrassed and awkward;
• I’d even go as far as to say it (the abortion) was nice.

The primary focus of Ms. Shaffer’s concerns are self-evident: her thoughts are entirely absent of ethical debate or insight and highlight the female-serving nature of society’s increasingly irrational response to this issue.

Abortion-as-murder has made the headlines on a couple of notable occasions of late, in the instances of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who received three life sentences for killing late-term fetuses after they survived abortion, and of a Florida man charged with murder for tricking his girlfriend into taking an abortion drug.

The newest spectacle in this gong show comes from Canada, where the Supreme Court has just upheld the  acquittal of a woman who left her newborn for dead in a Wal-Mart toilet.

The conclusions to be drawn are disturbing, to put it mildly. At best, it appears that the definition of an aborted fetus as a human being depends largely on which gender is doing the killing. Accountability for women, who are the instigators, contractors and accomplices of abortion, is non-existent, while men are ruthlessly punished and demonized for essentially the same act.

It is apparent also that concern for the fetus/baby is not at issue, or such a hypocritical and cognitively-dissonant perspective would never be tolerated.

This is public madness on a civilization-wide scale, and it is built on a willingness to ignore the incongruities and abuses of female behavior.

It is my increasingly firm conviction that feminism, while aggressively exploiting the blind eye turned toward female behavior, is not the source of that convention, but rather, that the pedestalization of women is endemic to all societies in some form, regardless of the technical status and rights obtained by the females within those societies.

Accurate, pointed and realistic public criticism of female behavior is thus long overdue; co-operation with the pussy pass, cultural Marxism and the politically correct goal of equal outcomes renders the female of our species free to continue and escalate her destructive, irrational and abusive behavior without hindrance. The consequences of this are highly detrimental to men, as the past 50 years of history show, but also to society at large and to women themselves.

Rather than obligating women to raise their intellectual, ethical and behavioral standards, society has chosen instead to embrace, with all the religious fervor of an Inquisition, a false image of reality – shiny happy victims holding hands with government – which in the long term can benefit no one. This allegiance  to the false idols of feminism has led directly, since the 1970’s in particular, to the loss of basic human rights and freedoms, a loss which is now deeply ensconced within every Western nation’s political and legal foundations, a loss which impacts men most profoundly.

Looking past the obvious evolutionary value of the pussy pass, there is  little purpose in cooperating with and maintaining the fraud, and to do so will lead inexorably, in this era of virtually omnipotent governance and bureaucracy (the ‘new patriarchy,’ created, just like the old one, for women at their own behest), to the ever-escalating abuse of men and children, up to and including the potential for societal collapse.

This path will undoubtedly see the regression of society into a quasi-Victorian state, one in which the bulk of men are so heavily constrained and alienated that they lose all desire to participate in the social venture. Signs of such a zeitgeist can be seen in many countries already.

As well, if the escalation of destructive female behavior continues, blowback from young men in particular will be increasingly prevalent, whereby outright disdain for females becomes both a descriptor of and a motivator for the new generation of men: there are numerous blogs out there which speak clearly to this possibility, as many people are aware. The obvious contempt towards women displayed by certain commentators would seem to be well-earned, and it does not bode well for females.

Humanity will undoubtedly survive, though with much unnecessary suffering, but it is incumbent upon rational men (and women) to speak truth, to expose the great gender lie. In addition to refusing compliance with a false reality, this most definitely includes pointing the accusatory fingers of reason and culpability directly at women, a task which can no longer be shirked.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

With the recent explosion of stories that have spun out of control for the Obama administration and generally left-leaning traditional media, it strikes me that the collapse of the old media paradigm is just beginning to be felt in a big way. The IRS scandal, Benghazi, and Kermit Gosnell’s house of horrors are the kind of stories that, back before so many people were online, might have been effectively contained by a sympathetic media. The IRS scandal is big news, obviously, but I can remember other scandals that were just as bad, but somehow kept under control by the major media outlets. The Clinton campaign taking money from agents of the People’s Republic of China during the ’96 election, for example, struck me as one of the most brazenly crooked things imaginable, but it never went as far as it should have in the press. The entire affair was remarkably well-managed.

1996 happened to be the last year before the Internet really took off as a popular medium, so there was no good alternative to the newspapers and TV networks. And even after people began to go online en masse, it took years for online journalism to gain any credibility. The Drudge Report was an early success story, but there weren’t many others at the time. As I remember, the Internet was more associated with pornography than with news for at least a few years after it became popular. I think Bill Clinton was lucky for that — there was enough odd stuff going on in his administration that there’s no telling what might have come up in today’s environment.

Blogging, for its part, didn’t really come into its own until around 2005, and maybe even a bit later. As it matured, and online classified ads took a bite out of newspapers’ profits, the big papers started to founder. In the last fifteen years their decline has been remarkable, and although many are moaning about the end of traditional journalism, I don’t see it as a big loss. If the journalism of the end of the 20th century is characteristic of traditional journalism, then good riddance! It was about as biased as it gets, and unfortunately much of the refuse from that time has managed to hang on in one way or another. But today these people are no longer dominant. The fact that so many truly diverse blogs and sites with different perspectives from theirs have emerged shows them to be the partisan shills that they are.

I’m not sure we can come to any firm conclusions quite yet – it will be easier to see what’s going on now in hindsight – but there’s something noticeably different in the air. It just seems that they can’t contain stories and control discourse like they used to.

For example, Kermit Gosnell had been operating his charnel house for decades, and I’m sure a lot of people knew about it, but if he’d been busted in, say, 1988, we probably wouldn’t have heard much about him. He might not even have been charged with murder, because the photos wouldn’t have been disseminated. It turns out there’s another guy in Texas who has allegedly been doing the same thing for a long time, and now it looks like he’s going down, too.

Why is he being investigated? Because somebody put the evidence online, and you can’t ignore that kind of stuff (you can find a link to it in the article linked above — I’m too squeamish to post it or even look at it myself).

Even Benghazi might have been successfully “managed,” but there are pictures of Ambassador Stevens’ corpse online, and evidence of a coverup has leaked all over the place. The IRS story, for its part, has legs online because there’s no effective filtering of the documents coming out, and many of those involved are telling their side of it to any blogger who will listen.

As the big city papers slowly fade away and network television news ceases to have an authoritative voice (both literally and figuratively), all these crazy things are coming to light. It isn’t that they weren’t there before, but that journalists just didn’t talk about them. Editors would pick and choose, and editors were, for the most part, in agreement with other editors about what’s fit to print. That’s all out the window now, and it’s finally starting to make a palpable difference. It’s about time.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

John Andrew Weldon, a Florida man whose father is a doctor, has been charged with murder after allegedly tricking his pregnant girlfriend into aborting their child by giving her abortifacient drugs instead of antibiotics. The man forged his father’s signature to obtain the drugs, then told his girlfriend that she had a bacterial infection and should take some amoxycillin. Instead of the antibiotic, he gave her misoprostol, which induces miscarriage. The drug did its work, killing the fetus.

TAMPA, Fla. — The 28-year-old son of a Florida fertility doctor has been charged by federal authorities with tricking his girlfriend into taking a pill used to induce labor and cause an abortion, killing the fetus she was carrying.

John Andrew Welden was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury on charges of product tampering and first-degree murder and faces up to life in prison if convicted of the murder charge. He’s also the defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court by his ex-girlfriend, 26-year-old Remee Lee.

“Whenever a woman is robbed of her ability to give birth and have a child, I don’t think there’s any greater harm you can cause somebody,” said Lee’s attorney, Gil Sanchez. “She’s devastated. She still can’t believe this happened to her.”

You know, it’s a pretty sleazy thing to do, but imagine if the tables were turned. Man doesn’t want his child aborted, but girlfriend does it anyway. Who believes she’d be charged with murder? No, it would be her “right,” because it’s “her body.” Using that logic, however, how could we come up with a murder charge agaist the boyfriend? If a woman can terminate a pregnancy at will and face no charges for the injury done to the child, then the most Mr. Weldon should reasonably face is a felony assault charge for drugging his girlfriend.

This is yet another case where the law clearly and explicitly demonstates that men and women are not equal under the law, and most people – including women – do not want them to be.

I’m not arguing for or against abortion here, but instead pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in law surrounding abortion. Commenters have pointed out that Kermit Gosnell was merely the “hit man” for the women who hired him to kill their children. Not a single one of his patients was charged with any crime for having him exterminate viable infants.

These kinds of cases demonstrate that in some areas, women clearly have superior rights. That might be tolerable if men had superior rights in other areas, but this is unacceptable to feminists. The advantage must always tilt toward the female, and there must be no balance. In the long term, this is unsustainable.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

In the emerging IRS tax scandal, it has come to light that the agency was not only apparently deliberately discriminating against conservatives during an election year, but inserting itself into issues such as abortion.

According to the Thomas More Society, A Catholic law firm that takes on charitable cases, a client that attempted to get nonprofit status faced demands from the IRS that the entire board sign a letter promising not to publicly protest Planned Parenthood:

In one case, the IRS withheld approval of an application for tax exempt status for Coalition for Life of Iowa. In a phone call to Coalition for Life of Iowa leaders on June 6, 2009, the IRS agent “Ms. Richards” told the group to send a letter to the IRS with the entire board’s signatures stating that, under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood. Once the IRS received this letter, their application would be approved. After a series of letters following a request for more invasive information, Thomas More Society special counsel Sally Wagenmaker sent a letter to the IRS demanding the tax exempt status be issued immediately.

Wagenmaker summarized her concerns about what she called “the IRS’s disturbing ability” to stall and suppress legitimate applicants. She explained how through lengthy questionnaires and wrong citations of applicable law (as in the case of Coalition for Life of Iowa), applicants with less fortitude or without access to legal advocates like the Thomas More Society will be effectively silenced from exercising their constitutional freedoms. Wagenmaker added, “The IRS’s role should only be to determine whether organizations fit the section 501(c)(3) test for ‘charitable, religious, or educational’ qualification, not to inquire about the content of prayers, protests, and petitions. It’s high time that the IRS be called to account for its workers’ potential to trample on our constitutional rights, through such ostensibly innocuous means…what the Ways and Means committee will discuss may only be the tip of the iceberg of IRS abuses.”

Given the DOJ’s recent moves against free speech in universities and the witch-hunt against the relatively obscure Jason Richwine, it appears that there’s a real push afoot to criminalize politically incorrect expression in the United States.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

by Keyster

I realize most of the Manosphere is loath to discuss abortion because they’re either pro-choice or it’s a complicated moral issue, a “rat hole” they’d prefer to avoid, etc. This is regardless of Feminist Inc. putting at least 90% of their unlimited resources behind the “Women’s Reproductive Health Movement” (ie – abortion rights and govt funding). But I’m gonna go there anyway because the Kermit Gosnell case raises some conundrums and paradoxes that have me hopelessly flummoxed.

When a woman has an abortion the baby, fetus, zygote, fleshy parasitic mass – whatever you want to call it depending on your view of abortion – is unceremoniously sucked from the uterine wall and disposed of. This supposedly kills the “mass” as it’s support system for life is taken away, although it’s not clear how long it continues to live afterward, let’s assume it pretty much dies instantly…at least that’s what we’re told.

This takes us to the uncomfortable realm of the late term abortion provider such as Gosnell, where the fetus starts to resemble a human and can quite possibly live outside the womb as early as six months with premature neo-natal care. The late term abortion provider (meant for women who could never get around to aborting at 6 to 8 weeks of pregnancy), must then kill the human formed fetus or “baby” in utero to remain within the legal bounds of our country’s Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion or state law. Once the human formed “fleshy mass” is confirmed dead (or a “confirmed kill” in military parlance), it’s then within our legal bounds to abort or “still born” the baby.

Where Gosnell tripped up was that in at least several hundred late term abortions he performed the babies (typically black) were “delivered” alive, and he killed them by snipping their spines post facto. OH THE HORROR! This was probably easier and came with less risk to the “mother”, hence his very competitive pricing schedule. But at least he was more concerned for the health of the woman (even though one died in his care), which is all that really matters to the pro-abortion crowd. And this guy was no “back ally abortionist from the 1950′s”. It was an established “Women’s and Family Health Care Center” on a busy Philadelphia street corner in business since 1979.

So as long as the fetus is not a baby (as deemed by the pregnant woman or “mother”), and remains inside her body, regardless of trimester and within state law, it can be legally killed. But the second that fetus magically becomes a baby and is birthed live and outside the her body, it becomes an official human able to “walk you to the bus stop” and if you kill it while it lies their breathing and squirming, an official murder in the first degree. Of course the “clients” of Dr. Gosnell aren’t charged as accessories to murder either, even though they agreed to it and paid for it.

As Kermit Gosnell sits in a jail cell contemplating his actions, I wonder if he merely rationalized infanticide as another abortion “technique”, just pushing the boundries a little. I wonder if a moral society contemplates the line between abortion and infanticide that the Gosnell case presents. To give life or to take life. Her body her choice.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

By The Theorist

Why Washington, D.C. produced three of the greatest theorists on “game” in the English-speaking world is something of a mystery. Certainly the US capital has more than its fair share of crime, corruption, and careerist women. Rocky soil may make for hardy plants. Then again, there are no game bloggers of note hailing from the Bakken oilfields. Though establishing a conclusive explanation may be impossible, it is, however, an undeniable fact that out of the primordial slime of the DC dating scene came three lions of the manosphere: Virgle Kent, Roissy, and Roosh Vorek.

Roissy is the heart of the manosphere. VK is one of its funniest storytellers. But Roosh Vorek is the man who wrote Bang, a book released six years ago that still occupies the upper rungs of its Amazon category, ahead of the Karma Sutra. Roosh is the guy who quit his job, ground his way through South America, barnstormed his way through Europe, and incited the hatred of right-“thinking” people on three continents. His plain, matte-black, self-published pickup tomes are lying around male dorm rooms across America. Like him or not, he is the public face of game 2.0.

From 2006-2013, Roosh wrote 1,793 blog posts, most of them around 500 words each. That’s 900,000 words, or around eleven standard-length novels. He’s distilled that down to a single collection: The Best of Roosh: Vol 1. It’s a comprehensive look inside the head of Roosh, and by proxy, the minds of the first generation of men to come of age in the context of a mature manosphere.

The collection covers 10 topics: Pre-Game, Approaching, Game, Dating, Sex, Life, America, Culture, Travel, and the author himself. But this is not a book about game per se. It’s a book about how and why one man developed his own code for navigating the mendacity and misandry of the male role in today’s declining West.

There’s a sense of rage and loss in Roosh’s writing; a kind of social irredentism. Western Man built a civilization which provides more prosperity for more human beings than any method of social organization in the history of the world, but now that man is derided as “boring,” “colorless,” his achievements meaningless in an age where the highest ability a man can possess is the ability to entertain others. The most important commodity in the world, sexual access, is now governed solely by the societally-irrelevant capacity for clever wordplay. It’s clear from the text that much of Roosh’s disillusionment stems from this simple fact.

To read Roosh’s essays can be depressing. The man is a realist. There is no masculinized version of “having it all.” The men who can live in the public eye and receive society’s respect while exercising their sexuality are limited to a tiny proportion of apex alpha males: sports stars, actors, comedians, artists. Roosh does not pretend to offer that. To even have a coin-flip chance of achieving the bourgeois respectability that was the birthright of our grandfathers involves sacrifice beyond what my generation is willing to bear. Roosh understands this, and regrets it in equal measure. “You did this to me,” he writes. “You are a corrupted and damaged female, and have tried your damnedest to bring me down to your level.”

While I can’t quibble with Roosh’s philosophy, his prose style could use some work. These are blog posts, and though classics like “You Did This To Me,” “Everything I Know About Women,” “What It Feels Like to Be a Hot Girl,” and “I’m Ready to Man Up,” are undeniably worth reading, the blog style wears on you after a while. There isn’t much in the way of humor, either, but that’s okay — I didn’t read it for comedy purposes, or snazzy prose. I read the collection because I wanted to partake in the wisdom of one very cold player indeed.

Ultimately, Roosh, like everyone in the manosphere, is concerned with finding the right path for his own masculine reaction. In another era, Roosh’s enormous productive energy would have been marshaled in the service of something a little more important than getting girls, but alas, our age is our age, and the behavior of women and their minions shows no sign of changing. Perhaps the finest essay in the collection, “What is Your Project,” gets at the heart of the fundamental question of manhood. A French-Venezuelan rancher in the Andes Mountains asks Roosh what his project is. Roosh says, “To write a book.” Eighteen months later, he dropped Bang. If the old mission of marriage-family-children is dead, dead, dead, it doesn’t mean there is nothing else for us. Roosh, for all his (justified) anger and his nihilism, is living proof of that.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

The pentagon has released a report quantifying the rate of sexual assaults in the military, which was quickly picked up by various media outlets as evidence of a culture that victimizes women and deprives them of legal protection. Less ethical organizations, such as “The Editorial Staff” at USA Today, took it a step further with bombastic headlines invoking Vietnam-era casualty rates claiming “500 military sexual assault cases a week”  that indicate “women in the military continue to be vulnerable to rape, anguish and injustice because the Pentagon’s attempts to fix the problem have been inept”. Others have joined the clarion call, demanding that the military’s UCMJ be overhauled to provide greater assurance of convictions for sexual assault cases.

The results of the study are based on a survey administered by the Pentagon and taken by 22,792 military personnel. The survey, titled the 2012 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members (2012 WGRA),  is based on civilian gender violence data-gathering tools and takes a wide scope on what constitutes sexual assault, including “unwanted sexual contact, unwanted gender-related behaviors (i.e., sexual harassment and sexist behavior), and gender discriminatory behaviors and sex discrimination”, and even “unwanted phone calls”. Notably, the respondents also include male victims, though one wonders how many men lined up to fill out this paperwork.

Reading into the report,  as opposed to grabbing outrageous numbers and running with accusatory headlines, one quickly finds statistics on actual assault cases brought up for disciplinary action :

In FY12, the Department completed development of and deployed the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID), a secure, centralized, case-level data system for documenting sexual assault reports and managing cases. The Department also continued to standardize case disposition definitions, resulting in a standardized definition for the term “substantiated.” At the end of FY12, the Military Services reported dispositions for 2,661 of the 3,288 military and civilian subjects receiving or waiting for a disposition for the allegations against them at the close of FY12.12 Investigations determined that 947 of the 2,661 subjects were either outside the legal authority of the Department or a military criminal investigative agency determined the allegations were unfounded (false or baseless). 13 The remaining 1,714 subjects investigated for sexual assault were presented to military commanders for consideration of disciplinary action. Of the 1,714 military subjects, commanders could not take action against 509 due to evidentiary problems. Eighty-one of the 1,714 military subjects received no disciplinary action because commanders determined the criminal allegations were unfounded (false or baseless). Commanders had sufficient evidence to take disciplinary action against 1,124 of the 1,714 military subjects. Of the 1,124 subjects, sexual assault charges were substantiated for 880 subjects for whom it was determined a sexual assault offense warranted discipline. For the remaining 244 subjects, evidence supported command action for other misconduct discovered during the sexual assault investigation (such as making a false official statement, adultery, underage drinking, or other crimes under the UCMJ), but not a sexual assault charge. Command actions for sexual assault charges and other misconduct charges included court-martial charge preferrals, nonjudicial punishment, administrative discharges, or other adverse administrative actions. Sixty-eight percent of subjects receiving disciplinary action for a sexual assault had court-martial charges preferred against them.

These statistics are from Volume 1, which most of the news outlets are referencing. The rest of the report describes institutional bromides to alleviate the problem. Volume 2 provides details on the research method :

To determine the extent of unwanted gender-related behaviors, members were provided a list of 12 sexual harassment behaviors and four sexist behaviors and were asked to indicate how often they had experienced the behaviors in the past 12 months. The 12 sexual harassment behaviors comprise three components of sexual harassment—crude/offensive behavior (e.g., repeatedly told sexual stories or jokes that are offensive); unwanted sexual attention (e.g., unwanted attempts to establish a romantic sexual relationship despite efforts to discourage it); and sexual coercion (e.g., treated badly for refusing to have sex). To be included in the calculation of the sexual harassment rate, members must have experienced at least one behavior defined as sexual harassment and indicated they considered some or all of the behaviors to be sexual harassment. Sexist behavior is defined as verbal and/or nonverbal behaviors that convey insulting, offensive, or condescending attitudes based on the gender of the respondent (Fitzgerald et al., 1988). Members who indicated they experienced unwanted gender related behaviors were then asked to provide details of the experience that had the greatest effect (i.e., where the situation occurred and who the offenders were). Trend comparisons on unwanted gender related behaviors are presented from surveys administered in 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2012.

Based on weighting of the response rate and comparing it to reported civilian phenomenon, the report extrapolates that 6.1% of female military personnel are assaulted each year, resulting in news reports of  “26000″ assaults. Regarding the above disciplinary statistics, the study further concludes that only 10% of assaults are reported, presumably due to fears of retaliation. Taking this dubious claim at face value, 10 X 880 = 8800, not 26000, which in USA Today’s calculator  parlance, amounts to one military rape victim every 20 minutes.

While news outlets are reporting the “26000 military women sexually assaulted each year” as fact, the findings in this report are based on subjective opinions of survey takers using a broad definition of what constitutes sexual assault. That being said, anyone who has spent time in the military knows that female service members are sexually harassed in the extreme, and that black troops are the most egregious offenders. Racial statistics are not provided in the Pentagon’s report, and for good reason, as the rate of black-on-white assaults and harassment would be revealed at nearly 100% of incidence. That is an ugly truth that feminist media outlets will not broach, preferring to spill their ink vilifying the majority of decent military men and their leadership with demands for reform to better accommodate the career aspirations of today’s young women. Our military mission is steadily morphing from national defense to being an equal-opportunity jobs program that ignores brutal realities in favor of expanding female employment prospects.

Our President, who recently emasculated American men in his computer-generated Mother’s Day proclamation that lauds women’s long march against oppression and blithely puts our mothers on “the battlefield”, was also quick to seize upon the Pentagon’s report with directives for the Secretary of Defense to “go after” and cashier military sex assault defendants. The president and his staff should have probed the report a little deeper to seek workable solutions to the problem instead of grabbing another chance to pander to female voters. Other female-centric political leaders, in demanding an overhaul of the UCMJ specifically to address sex assault cases, care not that innocent men are going to be railroaded in upcoming attempts to prove that sexual harassment reduction initiatives are succeeding. A year from now you can bet on hearing about encouraging results towards making the military a safer place for our daughters and sons.

When an organization becomes feminized, focus shifts from efficient production of goods and services to establishment of rules for the comfort and security of women. Our military, which has been at the forefront in providing opportunity for men of all backgrounds to prove themselves based on their talents and efforts, is devolving into a politically correct Petri-dish for universal inclusion in the name of social justice. As this process continues the armed forces will weaken, and we will at some point find ourselves facing an enemy that does not entertain such noble delusions.  When that time comes, a good number of our young men are going to die attempting to prop up the rotten edifice of feminist overreach.

The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.