Sunday, May 31, 2015

Women Gun Owners: Evidence of REAL Gender Equality

I've been ranting about various aspects of gender roles for a few months. One of the hypotheses I've highlighted is the idea that "traditional" gender roles do not occur as a function of patriarchal oppression. Instead, traditional gender roles develop out of a need for men to use their their greater physical strength and willingness to readily die for their "tribe" to protect women, and women are willingly and enthusiastically complicit in this dynamic.

I've went further and hypothesized we'll never achieve true gender equality until two things happen:

1. Men need to stop protecting women just because they're women. It's fine protecting the weak, but there's a whole lotta women out there that can take care of their own shit. We have to be willing to allow that to happen.
2. Women need to start taking responsibility if they place themselves in situations that could be dangerous. In short, women need to stop relying on men to protect them from harm.

A recent article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal highlighted an interesting (and dare I say encouraging) trend - women are buying guns in record numbers. I'm intimately familiar with the debate on the Second Amendment versus gun control laws, but let's ignore that for a minute. The encouraging part - more and more women are taking responsibility for their own safety. THAT is unequivocally a good thing and would be shocked if anyone aside from serial rapists would disagree. 

I'm easily annoyed by white knight sentiment that dismisses a female's capability to take care of themselves, mostly because I think it''s perhaps one of the most passive-aggressive misogynistic beliefs a guy can hold. SOME women may need (and appreciate) an overzealous over-protective male that assumes they're a porcelain doll, but most women I know are deeply (and justifiably) offended by the sentiment.

What are your thoughts? Share in the comments section!


Men Need the Confidence to Reject Granny Panties

Yesterday, I reposted an HuffPostarticle about the rise in popularity in women wearing granny panties on my Facebook wall. I have pretty strong opinions about granny panties - I think they are ugly as fuck. It's quite possibly the least-sexy undergarment ever made. It's on the level of Oops, I Crapped my Pants.

My own opinion on the matter? Granny panties would be a deal-breaker. If women are just wearing them in their day-to-day life, that's not a problem. My issue happens when they know someone else might see them. Women know that style is ugly as fuck. If a woman thought there was a reasonable opportunity sex would happen and still wore granny panties, that would be a clear signal that she was completely unwilling to impress the man because he's desperate, thus low-value. That's a really, really bad foundation for a sexual experience. If she's not even willing to make that tiny effort, she's probably going to mail in the sex, too. And lame sex sucks.

The responses from men were interesting. About half of the men agreed. The other half expressed some form of "I'd just be happy to be seeing her in underwear" sentiment. The problem - this is a total beta male mindset that ignores every single thing we know about female behavior. Women love confidence. Having standards and enforcing those standards is part of being confident. The dude that does not like granny panties (which would be 99.999% of the male population) should be willing and able to demand something better. Unfortunately, far too many guys jump and any female attention, even from women that obviously see them as low-value.

This specific example is part of a wider trend I see occurring with more and more frequency. Women are beginning to automatically assume they can get any guy they want without putting in any effort at all. Indeed, there's a sea of guys that would take anything they could get, and would gladly exchange any shred of self-respect to get it. This effect is so pervasive, even some women are taken aback when a dude expresses their standards. These women seem genuinely offended that a guy would tell them "no thank you; try harder next time."

Yet women do that all the time.

As men, we need to start plumbing the depths of our psyche and deciding exactly what minimum standards we have, then exert the self-confidence to draw a hard line in the sand and accept nothing less. Saying "no" to pussy, for almost all women, will actually increase their desire. Unfortunately, the ability to rock the pussy boat is scary because too many men are too insecure in their actual value as a partner. It's not at all surprising that granny panties are making a come-back... we're awash in a sea of far-too-desperate men.


Thursday, May 7, 2015

The Greatest Failing of Feminism

Over the last few days, friends have forwarded me two interesting news stories. In the first, a woman wrote about "yes sometimes means no." The premise is that sometimes a woman affirmatively consents to sex, but doesn't really want to have sex. Her premise is that the very idea of consent is "...a privilege, and it was built for wealthy, heterosexual, cis, white, western, able-bodied masculinity." So we're clear, she's claiming if a guy wants to have sex with her and she says "yes", it's still considered rape because saying "no", apparently, is something only wealthy, heterosexual, cis, white, western, able-bodied masculine persons can do. 

In the second story, four women met an apparently attractive, young dude online, then agreed to meet up for completely consensual blindfolded "50 Shades of Gray" sex in a dark room without having ever actually met the dude face-to-face. As you can probably guess, the dude turned out to be a 68 year old man. He's being charged with "rape by surprise." I'll be the first to say the dude's actions were completely shitty and I suspect he's a terrible human being. But that doesn't change the fact that these women readily agreed to do this

Both of these issues highlight a trend I've seen repeated again and again and again. Too many women seemingly don't understand that decision-making is power, and with that power comes responsibility. 

I know a lot of you white knights and irrational feminists are reading this and your Spidey sense is tingling because we've been taught to frame this sentiment as misogynistic sexism. Unfortunately, that's the very sentiment that creates the issue. 

I'm pretty sure she was capable of stepping over the stream...

For a long time, I've wondered about the exact nature of the glass ceiling (imaginary boundary that keeps women from advancing to positions of power.) The traditional explanation usually revolves around men creating a "good 'ole boys club" that intentionally works to concentrate power among themselves. Talented women are seen as a threat, hence they are excluded. 

But is this really what's happening here?

There's a flip side to the glass ceiling known as the "glass cellar." These are dangerous jobs that are performed by men almost exclusively. Think working on oil rig workers, welders, roofers, and waste management workers. There's very little prestige in these careers, hence they have very little power. Why are women excluded from both of these types of jobs?

I have two hypotheses.

First, most men have a "protection" drive that compels us to protect women. This is most obvious when a man steps in to protect his significant other from physical harm (like a mugger or home invader), but is also apparent is the aforementioned white knight behaviors. It's hard for most of us men (myself included) to see our girlfriends, wives, or daughters get hurt. For me personally, I feel far more protective towards my daughter than my sons, even though my daughter is probably the most capable of taking care of her own shit (Shelly is a phenomenal role model.) This protection instinct makes us bristle whenever we see women in danger, which is part of the reason the glass cellar exists and we have mixed feelings about women serving on the front lines in the military. 

Second, positions of power or danger require a vetting process regardless of gender. The CEO of a company has to make a lot of important decisions that directly affect the welfare of a whole lotta people, including those below them. A good example is downsizing. If the company is facing a situation where the company will either go out of business or fire half of their employees, the CEO has to be willing to give those people the ax. That could mean many people would not be able to feed their kids. Not everybody has the courage to make that call, hence the vetting process.

In glass cellar jobs, the same principle applies but for a different reason. Many of these jobs require employees to look out for each other (I've had a few of these jobs.) You could literally have another person's life in your hands. These jobs require trust, and that trust has to be measured and earned in some way.

The Purpose of Hazing

Enter hazing. Hazing is often seen as a silly, useless activity guys do for no discernible reason, mostly because it makes absolutely no sense. Unless you look below the surface. Hazing does two things - it tests and it conditions. Male hazing is just like a shit test. Whereas women may be testing to see if a dude really is a confident, assertive, compassionate provider, dudes haze to make sure the other dudes have the capacity and willingness to cover their back. Evolutionary speaking, hazing is how guys assure, no matter what, the other dudes guarding the perimeter of their tribe will be willing to stay and fight. Mutual survival requires that dedication. 

Hazing also conditions by "toughening" each other. This is why guys are always mocking each other and punching each other in the balls. It desensitizes us to emotional and physical pain. Not surprisingly, the more dangerous the endeavor, the more intense the hazing. We can expect dudes deployed in Afghanistan to haze a lot more than male French literature professors at Yale. 

Sort of off-topic but kind of important: A lot of bullying behaviors can be explained as misguided hazing. In other words, sometimes bullying isn't about the bully having low self-esteem or being a complete sociopath (though that does happen.) In many cases, bullying is an attempt by the bully to "toughen up" those around them. This is relevant because, in my role as a teacher, some bully intervention strategies fall flat. In almost every case, the methods fail because the people doing the intervention do not recognize the bullying as a form of hazing. Once it's reframed that way, the problem gets A LOT easier to solve. 

So What Does This Mean For Women?

I would go as far to say the greatest failure of feminism has been the failure to teach women that the power the comes with decision-making requires one to take responsibility for said decisions. When you make bad decisions, you have to live with the consequences. You don't get to claim victimhood. THAT is the nature of power. That's what the women in the "yes really means no" situation fails to grasp. That's what the women that fucked the anonymous online dude failed to grasp. In both cases, the women are making decisions but are not willing to accept the consequences of their decisions. 

It's worth noting this is not a male and female issue. There are plenty of men that also do not take responsibility for their actions. Not surprisingly, those men also to not rise above the glass ceiling nor do they fall below the glass cellar. More significantly, there are a lot of women that DO accept that responsibility and thrive in positions of power of high danger. Shit, my wife is one such person.

When Shelly and I started training at our mma gym (doing jiu jitsu, boxing, muay Thai, and mma), we immediately noticed we were mostly ignored. Nobody bothered to learn our names, most people would be pleasant, but clearly distant. At first, we just thought everyone was kind of rude. Then we assumed it was just a "California thing." 

Once we got past that stage and were accepted, we realized those behaviors were for a very different purpose. It was a form of passive hazing. While we were being given the cold shoulder, people were also testing us physically. Could we take a punch? Could we tap out when put in a dangerous position? Did we release submissions when someone was tapping out? Were we hotheads that couldn't control our tempers, or were we calm and collected under pressure? 

All of that was necessary because we're doing a ridiculously dangerous activity. If we're choking someone out and they don't tap, they'll lose consciousness after a few seconds because there's no blood flow to their brain. If we don't release the choke immediately, there's a good chance they could suffer irreversible brain damage or even death. Same deal with boxing and muay Thai. Essentially, we had to prove to everyone that they could trust us with their lives. 

The operative part of this - they treated Shelly exactly like they treated me. Our teammates punch her just as hard as they punch me. Sex was irrelevant. Our ability to survive the test is all that mattered. I see this with my female friends that occupy positions of power. They first had to prove they could handle the shit they are forced to handle as part of the endeavor. They take personal responsibility for their actions. They don't blame someone else. They don't play the victim card. Decisions have consequences. Male or female, if you're not willing to accept those consequences, the people that rely on you are not going to trust you.

All too often, my hard-core feminist friends will demand women have access to institutions that are seemingly exclusive to males. What they fail to realize is that you can't demand people trust you because that trust is critical to the other people that are part of that institution. Many women seem to believe men automatically get a free pass, which is ridiculous. Any man will tell you he has to prove himself to become part of these power or danger-based institutions. What right would I have to go into my gym on the first day and demand to be treated exactly like the people that have been proving themselves for years and years? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

What Needs to Happen

Equality, whether it be gender, racial, age-related, or whatever) should involve a simple idea - everyone should have the same opportunity, same possibility, and same responsibility. If a woman wants a job in upper management, she shouldn't get a free pass to the front of the line. She should have to prove herself just like the men. If she can hack it, great! If not, try something else. 

In the event the ARE actual barriers based on gender that aren't part of the vetting/hazing process (and these DO exist), those absolutely should be removed because they violate the above principle. However, considering the vetting.hazing process as a barrier is flat-out stupid. That process exists for a good reason. It's intended to keep out the unqualified regardless of gender. 

I do not want my kids to grow up in a world where we give people power or place them in dangerous positions just because they make the most noise. I want people in those positions because they've proven they can handle the responsibility of the situation. THAT is what equality is all about.


Tuesday, May 5, 2015

The "Dadbod" is Bullshit

There's been quite a bit of talk as of late about a phenomenon known as the "dadbod", which is code for "fat." Supposedly, women now prefer this body type over a fitter, healthier body type. Toss out Ryan Reynolds, hello Pillsbury Dough Boy!

Not surprisingly, every male over the age of fifteen is rejoicing. Staying fit is tough, and that degree of difficulty seems to increase exponentially as a function of age. If Fat Bastard really were the universal feminine ideal, all of us dudes could confidently plant our asses on our couches and fire up the 'ole Xbox. 

But wait - should we really trust this sentiment? 

The original article shedding light on "dadbods" came from a college girl. ONE college girl. And, supposedly, her roommate. While I'm sure she's a bright girl, I tend not to trust life advice coming from someone with so little life experience. Help with a Pythagorean theorem? Sure. Advice on what women want? No fucking way.

When I posted the issue to social media, the response was predictable. Every man that didn't work hard to remain fit jumped on board in support of the idea. Men that did work hard to remain fit just laughed at the other men's naive response. Women we far more skeptical... unless they had a partner with a dadbod -or- seemed to have insecurity and jealousy issues. This helped conform what I suspected all along - this is the exact same fallacy as "women love nice guys" or "just be yourself and your soul mate will come along eventually."

And we know both of those ideas are complete horse shit. Women don't want nice guys. Women want a bad boy they can tame. And "just be yourself" is just a thinly-veiled attempt to get guys to stop trying to appear better than they really are in hopes of landing a better partner. It's the equivalent of a men telling women to stop wearing makeup, hair extensions, pushup bras, Spanx, and yoga pants. 

I've been spending a lot of time lately counseling dudes that bought into these two ideas, and they follow a very predictable pattern. They internalize these ideas sometime around puberty, then go through years of rejection and friend-zoning. Eventually, usually around their mid-to-late twenties, they land a girl who seemingly appreciates their willingness to sacrifice anything and everything for the love of a woman. They get married, have kids, and quickly settle into a life of complete, desperate dread. And now, with the popularizing of the belief that women love the dadbod, they can now rationalize completely letting themselves go.

So if women don't universally find "dadbods" attractive, what's actually going on? There could be a few things going on here:

  • Some women may actually prefer fat dudes. Even though it's not entirely understood, women develop fetishes like men. It's entirely plausible for a woman to be physiologically aroused by fat guys. If this is the case, this is entirely healthy and legitimate. Rock on, chubby-chasers!
  • Some women are horribly insecure and possessive, and the thought of their man cheating or leaving them is simply elicits too much anxiety. The solution? Go after undesirable dudes that won't likely be poached by better women. Not surprisingly, this is a stupidly unhealthy mindset for a relationship; the suspicions and accusations will result in abject misery. Any dude that pairs with this woman reaps what he sows.
  • Her market sucks. Relationship pairing behaviors follow a pretty predictable supply and demand pattern based on sexual market values. Hot, young, smart, sexually-adventurous women get the pick of the litter, and everyone else falls in line. If a woman delays "settling down" in favor of career development, her pool of "good men" dries up quickly after about the age of 25. Indeed, just take a look at social media posts from single women over 30. This Onion article is funny because it's true. These women would accept a "dadbod" because it's literally the best man they can get that's decent relationship material. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; dudes do the exact same thing. The lone danger here, for men, is that their ladies may have lowered their expectations, but they're still aroused by fit dudes. If she gets bored after a few years of the relationship, she may not turn down advances from the buff dudes
  • She's just lazy. The college girl alluded to this idea in her original post. Women may prefer fat dudes because they themselves would prefer to let themselves go. While physiologically-unhealthy, I actually don't have a problem with this. Hell, the only reason Shelly and I are pretty fit is we have stupidly physical hobbies (ultrarunning then jiu jitsu and mma.) Those activities aside, we're complete couch potatoes AND foodies AND we like alcohol. We're one serious injury away from the obesity train. 

So What's the Harm?

There's no harm in having a dadbod, so long as dudes fully understand the true cost. The health angle is obvious, but other costs might not be so clear. Here are a few of the potential hidden costs:
  • Buying into the dadbod belief means you're unwilling to live up to your full potential. For me, this is the big issue. Men today have a serious lack of drive to excel, and I find that personally annoying as fuck. That's a major reason I chose to do the sports I do - it's hard to half-ass running up and down rocky mountain trails for a day or stepping into a cage with someone that's eagerly anticipating beating your ass to a bloody pulp. In other words, the hobbies self-select the turds. And the "dadbod" rationalization promises to produce a lot more lazy turds.
  • Your pool of potential female mates shrinks. The number of women that prefer a fit body far outnumber the pool of women that prefer a Michelin Man body. Just like the number of women that prefer alpha males far outnumber the women that prefer beta males. Again, this isn't necessarily a problem if you know that going in. The danger, much like the "nice guy" trap, is that guys expect women to flock to their dadbod, then get bitter and resentful when they get rejected again and again. Personally, I believe THIS is the mechanism responsible for rampant misogyny we sometimes see from men. 
  • It's unhealthy. That was the main point of the very first link in this post - the dadbod promotes a body type that, based on the available research, is correlated to all sorts of health complications. Yes, yes, I know correlation does not equal causation, but this is one of those cases where it's probably prudent to assume there's a causal relationship. I'm clearly not in the "your body is a temple" camp, but I do think it is important to understand the risks of any lifestyle choice. And there are quite a few dudes that apparently have not heard that being obese is bad.


The dadbod phenomenon itself is not a bad thing. The expectation men may develop, especially regarding the universal appeal of love handles and a beer gut, is the root of the problem. Also, it would probably be prudent to question why exactly a woman may prefer the dadbod. If it's due to her own insecurity, that could be a huge red flag. If she's just low on options, it may work out okay as long as she doesn't do anything to increase her sexual market value. If she's just a hedonist, I say wave her around third. Enjoy that shit.

What do you think? Is this a good or bad phenomenon? Are women being disingenuous? Leave your thoughts in the comments!