Preliminary vivisection of a jezebel

The SDL came across a jezebel who expressed a fear about Republicans ending no-fault divorce. As it happens, Ms. Cheung's general point is reasonable. If you're going to protect babies from murder, why not protect them from the family courts as they grow up? Therefore, it behooves one to look at the arguments offered in defense of no-fault, and their rather shaky logical foundations, which is exactly what I intend to do here.

Before I begin, a brief note about style. While I announced a vivisection in the title, I will stay away from harshness and other unbiblical ways to treat women, because a) God will judge me for what I write here and b) I hold out hope that jezebels will have their hearts softened when they see how men are supposed to conduct themselves around women. Please see the bottom of the post for the Bible references.

Let us get to it then, emphasis being mine:

No-fault divorce, which was first enacted in California in 1969, has always been a feminist issue. It’s allowed domestic abuse victims to leave a bad marriage without onerous barriers,

That's the thing about the Western legal system. The idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' is an onerous barrier indeed. To be fair, asking a Cheung to comprehend, let alone agree with, Western anything may be an undue burden.

empowers women and all people to escape legally binding situations with someone they don’t love.

Love is a choice. That's why spouses promise to love one another til death do them part. They can promise this because they can choose to do it. For instance, I cannot promise that I'll be hungry when I come to someone's house for dinner, because I cannot choose my feelings. I can promise to eat a light lunch, because what I eat for lunch is a choice. It's an important distinction. Food for thought: ask yourself how pretending that love is not a choice helps other evil causes like baby murder, fake-and-gay marriage, even pedophilia.

One would think no-fault divorce is a no-brainer

I do not think that Ms. Cheung meant to insinuate that it takes an absence of brain to support no-fault, but that would make the above sentence correct.

Pool says, “The courts are heavily biased in favor of women to an insane degree, especially with children.” (Notably, one woman in Louisiana briefly lost custody of her daughter to her rapist, and was forced to pay him child support earlier this year.)

Here we are treated to a classical jezebel argument: the attempt to counter a general assertion with a single outlier. I would accuse Ms. Cheung of attempting to deceive the reader, but the state of public education makes it possible that she, at age 24, is not numerate enough to know that one case means precisely nothing in a country of 300 million people. For instance, I know a guy who fishtailed across three lanes of a congested Chicago highway without hitting anything whatsoever. Nobody got hurt. Does that mean that all of us should drive 80 mph around a curve in a snowstorm?

In the same episode on Pool’s show, conservative commentator Ian Crossland adds, “We live in this culture where no-fault divorce is the law of the land… If young folks know they’re in an environment where divorce is not an option, I firmly believe they’re going to be more careful about who they choose to marry.”

Does anyone think that being careful whom you marry is a bad idea? What exactly is the problem about being careful with whom you vow to spend the rest of your life? Do you think the Louisiana woman above would have benefited from a social and legal environment where people are real careful about whom they marry?

The more analytically inclined will notice that this specific quote is inserted seemingly at random, without leading to a point that Ms. Cheung is trying to make. Is it possible that the quote is the point, that jezebels have legitimate reason to be concerned about potential husbands becoming more selective?

It’s tempting to write off Crowder’s words as an obvious projection of his own insecurities that no woman would ever marry him for love, but unfortunately, there’s something more sinister afoot.

Here is another tactic you will run into in your dealing with jezebels: woefully underinformed remote psychoanalysis. Of course, such an accusation will never come with detailed connections between a long-term record of the accused's behavior and the relevant DSM-V definitions, so don't pay any attention to it. However, I am tempted to wonder why Ms. Cheung's mind immediately jumps to peoople projecting their insecurities. Seems oddly specific, does it not?

When women’s abusive partners or other adults harm their children, laws in some states criminalize the mother—there have been several recent high-profile cases of this, including Rebecca Hogue in Oklahoma and Melissa Lucio in Texas.

In this case, it makes sense to cite isolated cases, since child murder is now a fairly rare crime, courtesy of overturning Roe v. Wade. The specific crime that Ms. Hogue was convicted of, the crime that Ms. Cheung finds it objectionable to prosecute, is failure to protect. This shows that it is not about the 'rights' of specific parties to a marital contract, but about removing protections for children.

Here be the Bible verses: Colossians 3:19, 1 Peter 3:7, Ephesisans 4:32 for style. Finally, Hebrews 13:4 shows that defending marriage is a good idea by itself.

Thank You William Thomas

Yes, I get it. Women's sports are boring. Swimming in general is boring. I've been to women's swimming events; got more homework done than had I spent the same amount of time in the library. It's great.

But y'all should stop it. Stop sperging about how the trannyfreak issue has wreaked havoc in divorce disputes and schools and God knows where else. There's a reason the Venn diagram of 'who cares about women's sportz' and MGTOWs is a perfect circle. It's a complaint that takes negative social skills to publicly voice. While they may be right, nobody beeping cares. It's a phenomenon common across the lower echelons of the male SSH. But I digress.

The point is, in his greed for getting medals while being slow, Mr. William Thomas of U Penn handed what may well be millions of churchian, cuckservative, or downright liberal Americans a golden red pill opportunity. His generous gift is the logical implication of his athletic fraud. Let us run through it. What does it take to say that it's wrong for a grown man to hop into a pool full of women and pull the testosterone card on them?

First one, men and women have to be biologically different. Specifically, men have to be so much stronger and faster that women cannot be expected to compete against them. Else why bother with separate, protected women's sports? Just co-ed every sport and watch the massacres.

Second, these biological differences have to be unchangeable by the labcoats. If the labcoats can change this stuff, then William's infraction is maybe competing before his 'therapy' is complete. His public sin goes from abomination to technicality. Furthermore, if humans can't change this stuff, what does that point to in terms of our understanding of genetics? Is it possible that, hypothetically, man and woman He created them, and that there's sod-all we can do about it? You get the idea.

Third, women deserve the privacy of their locker room. Your search engine will reveal certain rumors about Mr. Thomas' conduct at Penn State. Consider keeping a bucket nearby when you do go look. But women can only deserve the privacy of their locker room if men and women are, again, biologically different, and if there are aspects of human sexuality that require regulation. Works doubly in those related to little girls. Do you want your daughters/granddaughters/nieces changing around a naked biological man with the associated hardware in full view? Ask yourself further if a certain book, compiled approximately 1500 years ago, could possibly have warned us about not controlling our bodily passions?

Those three are very basic implications. Stuff everyone can understand, even public intellectual figures. Use them tactfully. Yes, it's technically dialectic. But there's plenty of rhetoric to go around. Compliment Mr. Thomas' Adam's apple and his beer gut. Both are clearly visible on the publicly available video footage. And when your less based friends start asking the fun questions, be sure to thank Mr. William Thomas for setting off everyone's disgust reaction.

Thank you William Thomas

Edit: an earlier version said Penn State. Turns out Mr. Thomas swims for U Penn. S/O to Vinny for catching it

How much can one blame unprotected women?

Content warning: I am writing about abuse and related topics. Discretion is encouraged

Between Harvey Weinstein, Joss Whedon, and many other media figures, there is always a contingent of people who like to blame the women who, more or less voluntarily, agreed to their mistreatment. I find this to be wrong, if understandable.

There are several reasons to blame women for their semi-willing participation. Often, proponents of this erroneous viewpoint will argue that the victims could have just torched their careers, or spoken out sooner. Both of these are factually correct, and certainly a standard that men should be held to. Emphasis on men.

The problem is that women are objectively the weaker sex, in more than just the physical sense, even though the physical sense is part of the problem. Absent specialized martial arts training and/or firearms, the most pathetic gamma weasel can overpower most women. It is highly unfair, but that is how bone density and upper body strength work. While physical violence is seldom part of these stories, it is always in the back of women's minds. Deep down, they understand that pretty much every able-bodied man can overpower them. They have every reason to be afraid of men, especially men with less than entirely noble intentions.

Secondly, predators perfect their craft. They certainly do not run around with 'I want to hurt you in intimate ways'  emblazoned on their T-shirts. What they do is they seek out vulnerable women, make them more vulnerable, and then move in for the atrocity. In a similar vein, women are very easy to manipulate, and consequently to prey on. There is a reason that most consumer advertising is aimed at women: it is much easier to deceive them long enough to make a sale.

It is for these reasons that I find it unfair, and more importantly useless, to blame the women for what they were pressured into. It may be true, but it is about as useful as blaming a deer for getting himself shot in hunting season; they did not stand much of a chance. There is a much more effective target for blame. Where were the fathers, cousins, and brothers of these women? Unprotected women will be targeted, because it is so easy to target them.

For further encouragement, consider the fact that sexual predators are fundamentally cowards. Their physique is also much closer to Ira's than to Chris Hemsworth's, so most men are able to intimidate them. The first time I caused a creep to back down, I was 14 and my sister, the intended mark, was 12. And I just stared at the weasel. He physically backed away from my then skinny teenager frame. It would be funny if one ignored how many women still fall prey to these creeps. I repeat: predators are fundamentally cowards. If you show up, they back down.

If you want to protect women, do not just blame them. Educate and protect them. Much love!

Female communication

Preface: This post does not apply to sigmas, lambdas, or women. Lambdas talk like women already, and sigmas are wild cards. Sucks to be you, VD et al, but I can't understand or help you. The rest of you, strap in and take notes, for the Holzkind is about to explain women to you.

Are you saying that you, a humble Delta with a big mouth and no filter, figured out women?
No, I did not figure out women, and neither can you. Not even women understand women. Matter of fact, most of them hardly understand themselves, let alone women in general.

That being said, there is something that most lower-SSH men need to understand: women do not talk like you or I do. Sure, they say words that sometimes mean exactly what they'd mean when a guy says them, but they say a lot more as well. This is where the concept of 'womanese' comes from. Same thing when you talk to a woman. She will hear what you say, and understand some of what you meant to communicate. She will also 'pick up' on all manner of other things that you 'communicated' through other means. 'Communicated' is in air quotes because you, being a simple man, often do not know that you are communicating these things, and you do not choose to communicate these things.

There are many people who have picked up on this before me. Rollo Tomassi describes it as a content versus context distinction, with men prioritizing content, and women prioritizing context. He also talks about how women prefer covert to overt communication. Here I have to disagree with Rollo, because, to women, there is nothing covert about this 'covert communication'. They see it is brightly as a man sees the headlights on an oncoming car. It only appears covert because we men are a little bit on the slow side in these matters.

That's all fine and dandy, but how do I pick up on all this covert female communication and learn to understand it?
You don't, because you can't. Your pathetic man-brain trying to keep up with female communication is like bringing a knife to a tank battle. Consider yourself fortunate if your mangled remains are afforded a dignified burial. Anyhow, let us get to the useful takeaway. How does the communicatively underqualified male deal with female communication? By not dealing with it.

Here's the deal: you can't understand women, but they can understand you. So force them onto your level. If you ever hear a woman complaining how men "don't get it" or are "stupid brutes", then there's an eleven in ten chance that she just had to simplify her multimodal communication into man-speak. Women hate to do this, but it's honestly their problem, not yours.

Similarly, do not engage in gossip or drama or social intrigues. Again, you're trying to take on an M1A2 Abrams with your trusted Victorinox. Not going to work, pal. Speak plainly and truthfully, or not at all. If you don't believe me, ask this weird Jewish carpenter kid from two millenia ago who turned a bunch of water into booze and flipped some tables at the temple. He told you to 'let your yes mean yes and your no mean no'. Additionally, both Him and His Father really don't approve of gossiping. 

TLDR: Women hear more than you say, and they certainly mean more than they say. So avoid their games and speak plainly.

Note to the gammas: Yes, I generalized. Yes, you're an extra special boy to whom the normal rules do not apply. Now ask yourselves why nobody likes you. Goodbye.

How to be attractive as a Delta

Most men are deltas. And, contrary to gamma wisdom, one does not simply move up in the SSH. But deltas can make themselves more attractive to women. Here are some basic tricks to do just that:

Stop it with the vidya and p0rnos:

They're fun. I get it. It's a near-zero effort way to live the life of a higher status man, while the screen is on. Don't fall for it. Sure, being an alpha badass with a virtual rifle beats the nine-to-five, but it's also a ticket to gammatown as the fictional worlds take over from the real world.

Get a hobby:

Do something with your life. Preferably with other men and outdoors. Ask yourself which one of the following is more attractive to women:

a) Jimmy from accounting who's a Level 33 supermagic in World of Warlord

OR

b) Jimmy from accounting who works at a community garden and plays the guitar

Hit the gym:

Yes, women are that superficial. Use it to your advantage. While you're at the gym, do something for your cardio and your back, makes middle age much more fun.

Draw a line in the sand:

This can be anything, doesn't even need to be controversial. Examples include that you don't go to Starbucks, or that you shoot recreationally. The trick is to be firm and reasonable. Firm, because women will try to cross the line. It's a sh!t test, and you must pass it. Being reasonable is to make the line easier to hold. And hold the line you must. Prove to her that you are capable of making a stand.

Personal grooming is legal:

If a woman dates you, she will be seen in public with you. Dress like you have your act together. Even if you're single, you're better than that ill-fitting t-shirt with the pizza stains that should be in the hamper right now.

These are all the ones that I can think of right now. If I missed a big one, please leave a comment. I'm trying to help people with this list, so it's got to be good.