The Reality Blog

“Feminists have a hard time finding guys who want to date them,” a classmate in my Social Psychology class expressed this sentiment one day during a discussion on stereotype.

Gee, who would have thought that ?

Not Happening is it..

The argument about who pays for dates arose once again and it does appear to create a lot of discussion which flows either one or the other depending on whether or not you're a women or a feminist. I have been informed lately that women on dating sites go out of their way to state that they are not feminists which says a lot about that movement and how women do not support that hate movement but go out of their way to ensure that there is no doubt that anyone can misconstrue their non-allegiance. They must realise that any suggestion of being associated must be anathema for any female whenever any male is checking out their "look at me" rant page..

Paying for dates is a rather interesting argument as it appears that women as well as feminists (those strong and independent) types demand that men pay where even one feminist claimed that they should because she bothered to turn up which is sufficient excuse for the extortion demand. It would appear that women have gone through the imaginary lists of demands and picked out all the positives and just dropped any item where they would have their ego impinged which ofcourse would be the case if they have to part with any of their money. I suppose they look at it as parting with that new dress, shoes, make-up, massage, boob job, face lift or other nefarious requirements that women indulge in,  As those items or options would not be available if they decided to pay for their own food and Martini..

The hypocrisy is rampant and there for all to witness, they actually make the same income as you and in some cases even make more depending which city you live in. I did a recent post on the habits of women going to bars where they suck in guys to buy them a drink and just simply wander off once they achieve that act of thievery without so much as a backward glance and that is the same attitude women have when they demand you pay for them to free-load a meal and booze at your expense for no particular benefit coming back your way. The question must arise "what's in it for me" and don't tell me it's sparkling conversation or just turning up because that just ain't reason enough..

We have some incomprehensive comments from the feminasties who appear to be incapable of detecting their own hypocrisy or even their own stupidity, like this one..

All these men are plain cheap and I would feel bad for any woman that dates them. I have never paid for a first date...

There you go..

Manipulative, who me ?

This fairly typical response that appeared at the Seattle Post Intelligencer website: “Sorry ladies. In the age of PlayStation 3s, 24-hours-a-day sports channels, and free Internet porn, you are now obsolete. All that nagging, whining, and stealing our hard earned cash have finally caught up to you."

Even Hymowitz has a go at explaining the aversion..

Shocked? I wasn t. During the last few years researching this age group, I’ve stumbled onto a powerful underground current of male bitterness that has nothing to do with outsourcing, the Mancession, or any of the other issues we usually associate with contemporary male discontent. No, this is bitterness from guys who find the young women they might have hoped to hang out with entitled, dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling—and did I mention gold-digging?

So there you go and it would appear that when they finally snare some sucker desperate enough to take them out to dinner, they demand he foots the bill even though she would probably have more cash in her pocket than he has..
What goes round comes round ladies. Your ever increasing demands and your compliance to the feminist hate movement has removed you from the heart of any perspective suitor. So rather than complaining about who pays for the meal maybe you should just order that take away in, again..

It's amazing how they carry on about what men do but never mention anything that's akin to time wasting that the privileged princesses constantly indulge in, because that would be too easy and ofcourse don't forget rule number One "never criticise a woman"..

So what do women do to waste their time, gee, where do I begin..

Short List..(low estimates)

Getting hair done. 2-4 hours per month
Getting finger nails & toes done. 1-2 hours per month
Having a massage. 2-4 hr per month
Checking out the latest fashion.. 4-8hrs per month
Reading the lastest gossip magazine..4-8 hrs per month
Having coffee with the girls..4-16 hrs per month
Shopping, more shopping and other shopping.. 2 (16Hrs) to 5 (40Hrs) days per month

Min. Hrs. 33 per month and  Max. Hrs. 82 per month..

So as you can see, many hours wasted if comparing the usefulness of sitting in front of a screen exercising the fingers and comparing the time wasting by the opposite sex. Both would consider it personal or rest time and definitely not time wasted at all. Are they as productive or what ?..

Being the owner of a few games (System Shock 2 was a classic), I have absolutely no problem with anyone preferring to game rather then watching the mindless anti-male drivel on television or watching that similar drivel in movies. My last purchase was Halo 2 which I play with my grandsons and have a ball doing so..

So why the endless whining from the likes of Hymowitz claiming that men won't man-up because they would rather game than deal with another female drama queen demanding attention and endless grasps at the wallet. Tell me that's just a joke. What's in that for me apart from the headache?..

Gamers over 30 years old are weird? 

If they meant people who maintained blogs about video games (like myself), perhaps I would agree. But what is really being said here?
I don’t think this has anything to do with gaming. Gaming , over 30, is almost always the province of single men. Note how they made the exception of a guy who has kids (he wouldn’t be single if he had kids). Since I fit the description of the ‘weird’, let me say what is really being said.
This is an attack on single men over 30. Instead of finding some used up woman to marry, these single men are going their own way and doing whatever they find is fun. The men are playing the video game because it is far more entertaining than those women you saw on the Today Show. How much make-up did they have to dump on those wretches to put them on TV? Looks like a ton. (The ‘man’ there doesn’t even appear to be a man. What is he doing holding hands at the end and singing Kumbaya? WTF?)
When I get put in a retirement home, I hope I am cognizant enough to still be playing video games. I’d much rather play video games than watch TV (such as shows like the Today Show).
You know what I think is weird? Women over 30 who keep going to theme parks. Yeah, they use the kids as an excuse, but do they really need season passes to four or five theme parks? Most of the husbands, I’ve talked to, despise these theme parks. They feel they are just a money trap (which they are). I can see why kids would want to go to Disneyland. But I think it is strange that women over 30 years old want to go.
Video games are a cheap hobby. It may not seem cheap when you are young, but compare the cost of video games to a theme park, or football season tickets, or the orchestra, or (God bless you) the opera. Video games are also the most social medium ever made.
These women are pathetic if they, beings of flesh and blood, cannot compete with the amusement of a video game. No wonder these women cannot get married.

I can see right through you..

Having recently posted about Hyperwitch Hymowitz, and her delusional "man-up" drudgery, I came across this comment that MarkyMarks posted on his blog and have to admit that it is a really great interpretation on that hypothesist's misandry.

Brilliant..

“For some reason, people don’t think in terms of incentives when it comes to men as a demographic.”
Oh, they do, they do. Not the average woman. But a thinker like Kay Hymowitz knows that the problem is the lack of incentives (she states so clearly) and, therefore, the solution is creating new incentives for men to create families.
But some incentives are impossible to create (going back to a manufacturing economy). And other incentives mean that women would have to give up some of their privileges….THE HORROR! When they realize, these fembots start issuing “syntax error! syntax error!” and their face turns into the “blue screen of death” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Screen_of_Death)
For the modern thinker, drowned in feminism from childhood, telling that women have to give up something (even if it is to get something better) is UNTHINKABLE. It is like telling a fundamentalist Muslim that the solution to his problem is to burn all the Qur’ans in the world and to paint pictures of Mohammed fucking a camel.
So they tie themselves in knots trying to solve this cognitive dissonance. They know that changes are necessary but any change will be something that women have to give up. So this is why the book ends up without solutions.
This is the plight of modern woman. The traditional woman had some excellent privileges (I call them the OLD privileges: family, kids, a male breadwinner). Feminism promised them to acquire NEW privileges (exciting career, money, casual sex with hot alpha men in their twenties, divorce with alimony and child support).
Women got along because they thought they would end up enjoying all the OLD privileges plus the NEW privileges. This is what the mantra “having it all” means. The thing worked for some decades, because of the inertia of the old system, that made men want to marry, even if the incentives were not there anymore.
But now women are discovering that, by acquiring the NEW privileges, they have unknowingly lost the OLD privileges (which is the thing they love most). Suddenly, it is harder and harder to get a husband to be a work slave. Women are desperate. They can’t live without the OLD privileges but they are not willing to give up the NEW privileges.
They are desperate and the only thing they know is to shame men (“man up”). But this is only a desperate measure and this is not working.
The solution will come with time, which is the better healer. After forty or sixty years of single motherhood, miserable life for women and social decay, new generations of young women will learn that the OLD privileges is what matters and these OLD privileges will be so rare that women will be willing to do anything and give up anything to get it. This will be the end of feminism.
But we won’t see this. Nowadays, women still harbor the hope of having the OLD with the NEW. As Clausewitz says, the purpose of a war is not to win battles, not to destroy the enemy, but to destroy the enemy’s hope and the willingness of the enemy to keep on fighting. Until hope is not destroyed, feminism won’t be beaten.
be desperate to get a male breadwinner and will be willing to give everything to get it. But we won’t see this: this is the future.

Hymowitz, not her best shot..

Hyperwitch, Hymowitz has some grovelling to do as she did a typical feminist male-bashing article and so called study where she accused men of being boys and refusing to "man-up" to service the privileged princesses in America and elsewhere according their narcisstic requirements. Needless to say that she received a plethora of negative articles telling her what she could do with her sexist interpretation and it even encouraged me to produce an MP3 just to tell her the same thing..

What do feminists have to do with informing all men what they should be doing is beyond my comprehension as it is basically none of their damn business what men do as normally they are only interested in female supremacy and they should just leave men to their own end and means. Getting them to mind their own business is something that is long overdue as they continue to harp, bitch and moan about how the world of women is so unbearable that only men are capable of fixing it. One does have to ask the question as to why would we even bother as if they are unhappy then they can damn well fix it themselves instead of relying on the sex that they so loathe and love to hate. The hypocrisy is outstanding, to comprehend feminist doctrine one would have to be able to exclude one sex and yet include it to pay the bills and elevate their incomprehensible doctrine..

The feminist miasma continues on it's nonsensical path as it demonstrates that it's doctrine is just the pterotic bone, in the side of the MRM. One that is imagined rather than being functional..

KAY S. HYMOWITZ
Why the Gender Gap Won’t Go Away. Ever.
Women prefer the mommy track.
Early this past spring, the White House Council on Women and Girls released a much-anticipated report called Women in America. One of its conclusions struck a familiar note: today, as President Obama said in describing the document, “women still earn on average only about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns. That’s a huge discrepancy.”
It is a huge discrepancy. It’s also an exquisite example of what journalist Charles Seife has dubbed “proofiness.” Proofiness is the use of misleading statistics to confirm what you already believe. Indeed, the 75-cent meme depends on a panoply of apple-to-orange comparisons that support a variety of feminist policy initiatives, from the Paycheck Fairness Act to universal child care, while telling us next to nothing about the well-being of women.
This isn’t to say that all is gender-equal in the labor market. It is not. It also isn’t to imply that discrimination against women doesn’t exist or that employers shouldn’t get more creative in adapting to the large number of mothers in the workplace. It does and they should. But by severely overstating and sensationalizing what is a universal predicament (I’m looking at you, Sweden and Iceland!), proofers encourage resentment-fueled demands that no government anywhere has ever fulfilled—and that no government ever will.