Men who only vote for other men, just because the candidate IS a man are sexist pricks. Women who don’t seem thrilled about voting for a female candidate simply because she IS a woman are traitors. Shame on you, New York hussies!

13 Aug

So, after months of doing just the bare minimum of housework, the cute, innocuous little dust bunnies under the kids’ beds turned into Dustosaurus Rex and it was time to do a proper cleaning.  As in move the furniture and sweep and mop every inch of floor and wash down the walls and baseboards and dust everything.  Took nine hours!


My kids actually made their beds this morning!  Without prompting!  It’s like living in an alien, dangerous world when the house is this clean.  I don’t want to damage their immune systems, though, by not exposing them to a lot of germs, so I won’t be doing that again for a long while.  I’m a very caring mother in that way.

So much interesting stuff happened in one day!  I really loved this piece for Jezebel, lamenting the disappearance of sixty million women from India!

Sixty million!




Where did they go?  All those human women?  What happened to them?

Well, some of those HUMAN BEINGS, who just happened to be women, were murdered and some were sold into slavery and some were lost to accidents but most of those female human beings were lost because they were….



Oh ho ho!  So abortion IS killing a human being then?  I thought it was just removing a cluster of icky, unwanted cells.  Like cleaning pus out of a wound or something.

Guess not.

In a future post, I want to take a look at the laws and culture in India to try and suss out exactly WHY Indian families opt to abort their daughters. If we begin from the assumption that Indian mothers and fathers are not evil, misogynists who imagine the face of their infant daughters and are subsequently filled with murderous lust and rage, and instead consider that there may be some very real, tragic, avoidable and possibly enshrined in law REASONS that Indian families MUST choose sons over daughters, I think we will find something quite interesting.


My thinking on this is heavily influenced by Karen Straughn’s piece at AVfM, where she unpacks exactly why countries like Afghanistan and China appear to hate women.  It’s one of the most thought-provoking things I’ve read in a long while.

That will be for another day.

Today, I was captivated by Katie Roiphe’s post at Double X over at Slate, in which she laments the seeming reluctance of women to support Christine Quinn for Mayor of New York, because Christine is a WOMAN, and dammit, women should always vote on gendered lines.


One question raised by New York’s simultaneously boring yet circus-like campaign for mayor is why the hard working women of New York don’t care more about having a female mayor.

Katie seems genuinely perplexed by this and she offers a few reasons WHY women might not particularly give a shit about Quinn. First up, Quinn might just be a piss-poor candidate.

Part of Quinn’s problem here is clearly the specifics of her candidacy, the perception that she is a party hack, a bureaucrat with no inspiration, a brassy or aggressive personality without redeeming brilliance or vision.

Oh, come on now, you dumb bitches!  Just because Quinn lacks brilliance and vision and interpersonal skills doesn’t mean she should lose your vote.  Vagina, ladies!  That redeems everything.  Maybe it’s because New York ladies aren’t really into SYMBOLIC power?  Could that be it?  Katie thinks maybe.

In part this may be because in a city like New York, women are too accustomed to female power in general to be hugely excited by the symbolism involved. We are so used to watching women wield power at newspapers, banks, magazines, television shows, publishing houses, law firms, that we are almost bored by it; we have our fair share of Hillary Clintons and Anna Wintours and Jill Abramsons and Tina Feys and rising female ambition is not rare or exotic or precious to us anymore. It’s not something that stops the presses, that in and of itself gets out the vote.

hil and bill

Hmmm.  Let’s see.  Hilary Clinton is powerful because she married the right guy.  Gosh, it sure is easy to cultivate a network of political support when your husband was the fucking PRESIDENT!


Anna Wintour is successful because she was born to the right father. Getting a foothold in the print business is a wee bit easier when Daddy was the Editor of the Evening Standard.

Jill Abramson went to Harvard where she snagged Henry Little Griggs III.  Her father in law is a producer with NBC news.  Her hubby is the president of Triad, a huge PR firm.

Perhaps New York women, more than most, understand that women’s power is almost always derived from men’s power, and that a rough and tumble home girl who also happens to be gay is not really any sort of workable role model for the truly ambitious lady?

Just a thought.

Revealing her true thoughts about the depth of the average woman’s character, Roiphe muses as to whether or not Christine just isn’t “cool” enough.  I think that says a whole lot about Katie and not much about women. Lots of women loooooove Hilary, and that bespectacled little geek is about as far from cool as you can get.


Another murkier element may be that Quinn is somehow not stylish enough, not cool or personally commanding enough to garner the enthusiasm of many New York women.

I don’t necessarily agree with Hilary politically, but I have to say, her often unfortunate struggles with her hair endears her to me.  Aw, honey.  Just pick a style and go with it.  Personally, I think she pulls off the badass man cut quite nicely.


Roiphe wonders if it’s just because women are cunts, especially to each other?

As we know from life, women are hard on other women and the “woman’s vote” will always prove trickier and more complicated or elusive than it would appear. Women, especially, New York women, will not vote for a woman just because she is a woman, and they may even apply greater scrutiny to her and hold her to higher standards.

Finally, Roiphe suggests that New York women are just delusional, or at best, woefully ignorant. Maybe those idiots think there has ALREADY been a girl mayor?

It may also feel, in the irrational, creative fog of New York’s collective unconscious, like we’ve already had a female mayor.

I’d like to offer another explanation for why women won’t vote for another woman just because she IS a woman.  Two explanations, actually.

First, white females make up 33% of the population in New York.  Some of those females are children so fewer than 33% are voters.  Everyone else is either male or of some heritage other than European.  Why would any one of those people choose gender over any other factor?  William Thompson is black.  Using Roiphe’s argument that voters should choose candidates on the basis of identity politics and nothing else, then black women should vote for Thompson.  Asian women should vote for John Lui.  Hispanic women should vote for Erick Salgado.

Etc. etc.

But no, Roiphe thinks women – ALL WOMEN – should always choose their gender, and if it means throwing men with whom they identify more strongly on other dimensions of identity under the bus, well too bad, so sad.  See ya later ,guys!


And feminists wonder why they are accused of racism?  Such a mystery.

But I think there is even more at play, and that has to do with the fact that women outnumber men in New York city.  All the pretty young ambitious things flooded to the Big Apple to pursue their dreams and ambitions and got smacked in the face with the reality of sexual economics.  Women outnumber men by four to one in fancy pants Chelsea, in Manhattan.–Study-shows-women-outnumber-men-FOUR-TO-ONE-parts-U-S.html

It’s a candy store for men.


When women outnumber men, men have the upper hand.  New York women, more than most, have played by the rules of the game, followed all the advice their big sisters offered, focused on their careers and material acquisitions and their own personal development and got well and truly fucked.

I think New York women are leading the pack when it comes to embittered young women, who are not so young anymore, and who realize they have thrown themselves to the wolves.  I think Kate Bolick sums it up rather nicely:


Today I am 39, with too many ex-boyfriends to count and, I am told, two grim-seeming options to face down: either stay single or settle for a “good enough” mate. At this point, certainly, falling in love and getting married may be less a matter of choice than a stroke of wild great luck. A decade ago, luck didn’t even cross my mind. I’d been in love before, and I’d be in love again. This wasn’t hubris so much as naïveté; I’d had serious, long-term boyfriends since my freshman year of high school, and simply couldn’t envision my life any differently.

Well, there was a lot I didn’t know 10 years ago. The decision to end a stable relationship for abstract rather than concrete reasons (“something was missing”), I see now, is in keeping with a post-Boomer ideology that values emotional fulfillment above all else. And the elevation of independence over coupling (“I wasn’t ready to settle down”) is a second-wave feminist idea I’d acquired from my mother, who had embraced it, in part, I suspect, to correct for her own choices.

How many of those 39 year olds live in NYC?  Lots.  And when they look at Christine Quinn with her ambitions and accomplishments (scant that they are), they feel a little knife twist in their hearts.  They’re not going to vote for a representative from the tribe that told them such fierce lies, and watched them let love and family and children and everything important pass them by.

Not a chance.

It’s a story that is becoming increasingly visible.  The celebration of making your life all about YOU is giving way to the funeral for everything you will never have.

‘My life is a poorer place for not having children, and I am less of a woman for not being a mother. There is a vast realm of experience and growth I will never know’

The sadness over not having children is one that men and women share equally.  Women, the ultimate determinants of whether or not children are born, make decisions that affect everyone.

There are so many aspects of what makes each of us human.  We have many ways of identifying ourselves, and our affiliations, and what is meaningful to each of us.  When Roiphe is perplexed, and continues to insist that gender is the ONLY meaningful way we can express ourselves as humans, and that gender should always trump every other consideration, she is inadvertently (or perhaps very, very deliberately) encouraging women to see themselves as part of a special, special group that deserves, special, special treatment.

So what if the mayoral candidate is a bureaucratic pinhead?  So what is she lacks brilliance and vision?  So what if she can’t communicate very well?  So what if she has backed questionable policies in the past?  So what if her funding comes from some dicey sources?

The only that matters is that Quinn is a woman?

New York women aren’t buying it.  And good for them.  Men who will only vote for candidates that are also men, and for no other reason are quite rightly dismissed as idiots. The same should be true of women.  If the only reason you are voting for a candidate is because you share the same genitals, you are a bona fide moron.

Now voting for a candidate on the basis of hair is completely understandable.

Hilary for President!  Provided she gives up the scrunchies.  Jesus, woman.  Scrunchies?  You’re 65!


I can’t vote for anyone wearing scrunchies.

Lots of love,


39 Responses to “Men who only vote for other men, just because the candidate IS a man are sexist pricks. Women who don’t seem thrilled about voting for a female candidate simply because she IS a woman are traitors. Shame on you, New York hussies!”

  1. Eric August 13, 2013 at 18:10 #

    I believe the closer we vote to home (mayor v governor v president), the more we tend to vote for rational tangible interests as opposed to abstract ideologies.

    I believe a woman is more likely to vote a woman for US President on the predominant basis she stands for Team Woman than apply that rationale for a mayor who will have tangible impact on her living environment.


  2. Anon Ymus August 13, 2013 at 18:42 #

    JB, “the reason is because” is not proper English. I could not resist. Sorry.

    Also, check out Joe Lhota, the current Republican frontrunner. Interesting guy. I like him.


  3. judgybitch August 13, 2013 at 18:43 #



  4. Spaniard August 13, 2013 at 18:43 #

    Last time I was in USA was in 1992. In New York. I lived there for a few months.
    From that time, I remember the slut culture all around. I remember too that it was Elections year and Bill Clinton was running for Prez. Then was the “Jennifer Flowers affaire” and I remember the cover of one tabloid: “Clinton deflowered”.
    I always had the biggest simpathy for Billy: smily, nice, charismatic, empathic, drunk faced with pinky cheeks, womanizer badass. And moderate leftwinger.
    In Spain, the time of Lewynskygate, the popularity of Billy increased 100%.
    Still having a great popularity in Spain. He said that he saw the most beautiful sunset in his life when he was young, in Granada. He was in Madrid a couple of months ago.


  5. Spaniard August 13, 2013 at 18:47 #

    Probably the only 40 year old extremely hot woman on Earth who does not regret having children is Cameron Diaz,

    I am pro choice, but I do not understand this Jezzabel double standard. Well, yes, I understand it.


  6. CG August 13, 2013 at 18:54 #

    Hey JB,

    Was flipping through your archives the other day–you’re hysterical. My fave post was about how you steal the Dowager’s sheepies, and she made you a giant cow ass sweatshirt. I still giggle when I think about it.

    Wanted to address (with a short novel apparently, sorry) the first part of your post about India. I don’t know much about India, but I read KS’s post on China and Afghanistan. Again, I don’t know anything about Afghanistan, but I do know about China, and just so you know, the issue is far more nuanced than Straughn goes into with her brief discussion of China. The biggest issue she’s left out is Confucian filial piety, which is deeply ingrained in East Asian cultures.

    Her post was written a while ago and I didn’t read it till now, so I’m not sure if I comment there, someone will see it. But just a few things to think about if you decide to work on a similar post, at least as far as China:

    1. Filial piety (xiao). This ties into ancestor worship and the belief that you must have sons to carry on the family name. Thus, if you can only have one child, you want a son, because traditionally, daughters marry out of the family (the word for a woman marrying is jia, which implies leaving) while sons bring in a wife (the word is qu, which implies bringing in). Since daughters leave the natal family (traditionally, they weren’t even permitted to return to visit except once a year), it’s considered a huge waste of money and resources to raise a daughter, because the daughter leaves the natal home to serve her husband’s family (yes, serve. On her knees, traditionally. Believe me, daughters are not getting off scot-free). So it’s not that you’re raising a daughter who has no obligations, it’s that you raise a daughter who is obligated to serve someone who is not you. This is deeply, deeply embedded in over four thousand years of history.

    2. There is a huge disparity between what the Communists wanted under Mao (specifically in this case, female ‘equality’), and what traditional Chinese culture demanded. The tension between these two issues are still unresolved (and Straughn seems to confuse these issues, too). Hence, for example, the idea of ‘leftover women.’ If the Chinese truly embraced Maoist “feminism,” this concept wouldn’t exist in modern Chinese society. I think that for any discussion of “Chinese culture”, these two things should be separate.

    3. As of now, daughters ARE equally obligated under Chinese law to care for their parents. The first woman to sue her child for not visiting under the new law was a mother suing her daughter and son-in-law. So that part of the article is totally inaccurate.

    Consider, for example, the story of Mulan. She is a celebrated figure in Chinese folk culture because she exemplifies female filial piety: she is willing to sacrifice her own life for her father’s, though of course she survives and comes home in triumph.

    I think it’s deeply misleading and perhaps straight up inaccurate for Straughn to use a “male duty, female privilege way’ binary to look at Chinese culture. Chinese daughters also have plenty of duties. The problem here is of the elderly being privileged, while the youth are saddled with duties. Perhaps an awkward way of phrasing it, but the elderly are automatically deserving of respect while the young are automatically required to obey. This is why the Red Guards went so crazy during the Cultural Revolution–all their lives they were told to obey, obey, obey, and here is some charismatic dude telling them it’s okay to rebel against authority and the oldsters! That the young are right! It was intoxicating. Still, the Cultural Revolution passed, and Chinese culture still favors the old, which comes with its own set of issues.

    Finally, with regards to female privilege. I think Straughn is very, very wrong about who has the privilege. it’s not daughters. But there IS one class of women who are universally privileged, and that is mothers who have given birth to sons. They have fulfilled their duties by providing their husband’s family with a son to carry on the family name (and to partake in the rituals that will feed the hungry ghosts of the ancestors.) But the mother of a son controls her child entirely. He cannot disobey her. And when he marries, he must marry the wife of his mother’s choosing (see modern novelist Lu Xun for an example), and his wife must also obey her entirely. If her son earns money, the money goes to her, not to the child and his wife.

    (Inversely, a woman who has not given birth to a son can be thrown out of the house by her mother in law for not fulfilling her duty. Also, can be ordered to be buried with her husband if he dies first.)

    So, to use your own family as an example, if you and Mr. JB were Chinese, Mr. JB would, first of all, have not married you, because he is disobeying his mother and thus no filial piety, a curse on him! There’s a special level of hell reserved for those who disobey their parents!

    If he did marry you despite his mother’s protests, all the money he makes (and if he had any brothers, the money his brother makes) would all go to her, and then she can redistribute the wealth as she feels like. So if Mr. JB’s imaginary brother was the favored son, he might get the lion’s share, while you and Mr. JB had to take the leftovers–even if Mr. JB was more talented.

    Your son would be the favored grandson, the little emperor. If your family was poorer, he would be the only one who gets to go to school. Your daughters would have to marry whoever the Dowager picked out for them. Let’s say Mr. JB’s imaginary brother (I’ll call him IB, k?) married the woman the Dowager picked out for him, but Mr. JB married you, whom the D hates. So now the Dowager prefers IB’s kids to your kids. If IB has daughters, guess who gets to marry the rich guy’s son when he comes looking for a wife? Guess who has to marry the pimply guy who eats his boogers? (Er, not to shade pimply dudes who eat their boogers, but my point is you, as the daughter-in-law, and your daughters, and your husband, his brothers and their wives, have no power. None. It’s all with the mother-in-law. Not the father-in-law or the husband.) All that said, once the mother-in-law croaks, and your son comes of age, guess who gets to be the all-powerful mother-in-law? yes, you! You can make your son’s life hell!

    My point is to say that neither men OR women were privileged in Chinese culture simply for being men or women. It absolutely privileges the elderly, however, and elderly mothers who have given birth to sons are GOLDEN.

    Anyway, sorry to write a novel. Hope this is useful/informative/somewhat interesting/sparks some ideas for your future post. Look forward to reading.


  7. The Real Peterman August 13, 2013 at 20:18 #

    “Today I am39, with too many ex-boyfriends to count”

    Wow! What a catch! Where do I sign up?


  8. Aye. August 13, 2013 at 20:30 #

    Say what you will about female candidates, scrunchies aren’t ALL bad. Elastics damage hair. Damaged hair leads to traumatic hair cuts, which leads to sobbing uncontrollably into a margarita about how you are 28 and you look just like your mother.

    So I wear scrunchies. In the privacy of my own home. And at the gym or dance class. I understand that they look a little gooofy but I really like the loose rolling waves I get when I let my hair dry in a scrunchie bun.

    In conclusion, scrunchies are at least more becoming than sobbing uncontrollably into a margarita, which is a thing I have never seen Hil do… but probably would look worse than that scrunchie photo.


  9. Emcee August 13, 2013 at 20:33 #



  10. Marlo Rocci August 13, 2013 at 21:05 #

    Well, they say women can’t do math.

    (window seat please)


  11. Marlo Rocci August 13, 2013 at 21:07 #

    So she’s the one with the “take a number” sign on her door.


  12. Marlo Rocci August 13, 2013 at 21:18 #

    I also want to say that it’s not just about women who kept dumping boyfriends who weren’t perfect enough. It’s also about guys like me walking the hell away from the institution of marriage. Of all those guys they had to pick from, how many actually liked the idea of losing all their stuff and their kids in a divorce? Were any of those guys she dumped actually going to marry her? All those men were just as hungry for business success as the women, with one difference,: no maternal instincts.

    So if you are still single at 39, you can thank me personally.


  13. MayorsHusband August 13, 2013 at 21:25 #

    When all is said and done, a woman with the sort of power the feminist West affords women in power will always always always be driven by her own personal interests, the chief of which is the transmission of her most deeply treasured feelings into the hearts of those she seeks to govern.

    All feelings are valid but when they’re used as a guide to leadership, the objectivity on which social order and civility (genuine civility, not feigned) depends can’t help but begin to break down. There will always always always be resentment when someone disagrees with this leadership strategy or that, as the woman in leadership will at some level, deep inside, take it as an attempt to invalidate her feelings.

    Not all men are objective in leadership and there are certainly many many many men who aren’t, but I’d put the odds of finding a good objective leader of both men and women in the pool of potential candidates over a women with the same capability at around 100:1.

    For this reason alone, not because women are incapable of managing an administration (which many many many are), would I vote always always always for a man just because he is a man.

    If you think that’s sexist and not just being responsible and pragmatic in a world still full of deadly influences, then you’re demonstrating the very reason it’s unwise to consider men and women on the ballot paper as equals. If you then vote for a woman with ‘equal’ administrative capabilities because she is a woman, then you are not only a fool, but a blind fool who ought not be voting at all.


  14. Emcee August 13, 2013 at 21:35 #

    JB, you filthy scrunchist.


  15. Spaniard August 13, 2013 at 21:55 #

    I am 43, with many hookers to count. I do not have paternal instincts at all.
    I feel I have to shag a lot of hookers left.
    Am I Ok, Doctor?


  16. Spaniard August 13, 2013 at 22:31 #

    Marlo. listen to this wise words, written in 1900: “The liberation of women will be, above all, the liberation of the prostitute within women” (Otto Weininger)

    He was absolutely right.

    But this is actually good. Just look around… go to any nightclub… Cannot you see all the regular ladies are just copying whores?
    And this is only the beginning.

    For thousands of years, “regular women” they thought that prostitutes were “cheap” because by whoring, hardly they were going to catch a rich guy to marry.
    Now, prostitutes think that “regular women” are cheap because shaging non stop for free.

    The time when the Prostitute and the Regular Women are going to match and become EXACTLY the same is about to come. It won’t be long.

    Then, men, they will go for the original, not the copy.


  17. Goober August 13, 2013 at 23:30 #

    The 39 year old with “too many boyfriends to count” wrote a seriously long-winded article that is so full of shoddy logic and justification that I stopped reading about half way through. Since, due to her choices, her writing is literally going to be the only thing that will mark her existence after she dies, you’d think she’d do a more careful job of it.

    For instance, when talking about degrees “post high-school” she talks about how women get more bachelor’s and master’s degrees than men do by a pretty large margin, but there is no discussion whatsoever about in which majors the degrees are, or if they are used to good purpose upon graduation. I’ll gladly concede that women get more degrees than men do – that’s been pretty widely known and accepted for quite some time, since men have the opportunity to earn good money in the trades that don’t require post-secondary degrees. However, she must accept that a healthy majority of those degrees that women get are in totally useless fields of study and will be sufficient to get the bearer a job no better than one she could have gotten before she paid $90K for a degree. Yes, fewer men get degrees than women, but understand that men are generally getting degrees in something useful (STEM), and are therefore putting their degrees to use after they’ve been obtained. Going by number of degrees obtained is a useless metric. My wife has a degree. She got a job doing something that she didn’t need a degree to do. I have a degree. I got a job USING my degree and now I make 3 times what she makes per year. But in the analysis in this woman’s article, my wife and I are on equal grounds because we both have a bachelor’s degree, which is just stupid.

    She also manages to forget to include tradesmen in her discussion of “disappearing men”, since she literally only talks about college degrees. I pay my carpenters $25 to $36 an hour. $25 per hour is the entry level wage. This also includes medical, dental, and a 401K plan with matching up to a certain percentage. This is a goddamned good living by anyone’s standards (remember, not in New York or Chicago, here. Adjusted for cost of living here, these are upper middle class wages, folks. Most of my guys have nice houses, nice families, nice trucks, and the odd boat or two). She seems to think that the only way for a man to earn a living is by a degree. She forgets that men are willing and able to do jobs that women won’t touch, and they get paid well to do it.

    Of course, it goes without saying that to her, tradesmen don’t exist because she could never lower herself to be involved with a man with such a shameful occupation as working with his hands for a living. I find myself not liking this women, not so much for what she says, but for what she obviously doesn’t say. Sounds to me like the men who ducked her over the years are “too lucky to count”, in that they avoided committing to her.

    One final point – look at the weasel wording of her jobs comparison. More women than men in “management and administrative” fields. She includes secretaries and receptionists in this metric, since they fall under “administrative.” Take “administrative” out of the discussion, and the number of men in management dwarves the number of women. She’s just blatantly dishonest here, trying to create her “disappearing men” crisis and perpetuate it with lies in the clothing of factual analysis, by making it look like women are running the show now. Nice fantasy, sweetheart. Try again.


  18. Goober August 13, 2013 at 23:34 #

    Re: paternal instincts –

    Really? You’ve never felt any desire to have kids of your own?

    I’m just curious because I’ve wanted kids since I was in my early 20’s. Just had our first two years ago and are working on number 2, and being a Dad is the most awesome thing I’ve ever done, bar none. It is so natural to me that I can’t really imagine not wanting to have kids. I hear it from guys all the time, but never really understood if it’s just something they say, or if there really are that many guys out there with zero interest in having kids. It’s an interesting phenomenon to me. Just curious…


  19. Goober August 13, 2013 at 23:37 #

    LOL. I wonder what planet these women are from where they think it is a good idea to admit this in public. Especially given her desire to eventually “settle” for settling down with someone (poor bastard).


  20. Spaniard August 14, 2013 at 00:26 #

    Never ever, Goober.
    I have met some guys that had paternal instincts since very young, but, just a few. A very very few.
    And I know a lot of men -fathers- that they never had paternal instincs but they assumed, since very young, that one day they would be fathers. Just because is the social norm. The WAY (not their own way)
    Most of this guys one day realised they are trapped. The vocational fathers never feel trapped.


  21. Spaniard August 14, 2013 at 00:45 #

    The problem with this kind of bitches is that they want it all. They have no coherence.

    What a difference with Cameron Diaz: she is gorgeous, she is 40, she is rich, famous, single, childfree, and want to remain like that. She is coherent.
    My deepest admiration to women like Cameron.
    Not to this “I want it all” bitches. And they still classist , and snobbish, and treating workers like lower people when most of them probably climbed in their careers by speading their legs.


  22. Spaniard August 14, 2013 at 00:46 #

    There is a lot of this “career women” in my country.


  23. Marlo Rocci August 14, 2013 at 01:07 #

    Go forth and tap that ass.


  24. Harsha August 14, 2013 at 03:11 #

    I am an indian and i dont think . . that 60 million stat is nowhere near true. . . Seriously i dont think thats logical given the fact that people (who belive that having a female child is a burden) dont even have money to abort . . . And those people are very rare by the way(few thousands ,usually poor muslims). . What about millions of male children who are forced to beg and die of hunger in slums?? Does that stat make global news ? Sadly no because its a “true stat”!


  25. Dude Where's My Freedom? August 14, 2013 at 03:16 #

    A real feminist would insist that the only reason there aren’t more female carpenters and plumbers is because those industries are dominated by sexist men who won’t allow women to compete.

    Acknowledging that different genders have different preferences and sometimes this affects labor statistics is a BIG no-no in femi-land…


  26. Dire Badger August 14, 2013 at 04:44 #

    a picture is worth a thousand words:


  27. RS August 14, 2013 at 05:29 #

    My husband always knew he wanted kids- I wasn’t sure until I met him. Best thing I have ever done.


  28. RS August 14, 2013 at 05:35 #

    A lot of women are like me and have degrees we don’t use because we chose to be stay-at-home moms. I don’t regret going to school- if I hadn’t married I would at least be able to support myself. But I’m also glad I didn’t spend a fortune on my education.


  29. Ron R. August 14, 2013 at 11:41 #

    Agree with Spaniard,
    Never ever wanted kids, got a vasectomy at 24 to just to make it less of a hassle on trusting on birth control on either party.

    And I am not opposed to getting in a serious long term relationship with someone closer to my age (think the 39 yo woman), but, I find most women near my age either have kids, want kids, are over weight, dress like slobs, or all of the above.

    Back to the main topic – Why can we not all just have common sense when it comes to voting, in which a majority of American are middle of the road (but we have no middle party), so we either vote with are heart on a single issue, or vote for the charm factor. It is such as shame we waste our vote in this manner, and never effect any change in our government, so we get what we deserve.

    But back to the NYC dilemma for women, I would love to find one of those described, that is in their late 30’s, never married, successful, well educated, and my hope with NYC being NYC, know how to dress when she’s leaves the flat. And bonus points if she is into CrossFit (cultFit) and kite surfs.

    Ron R


  30. Marlo Rocci August 14, 2013 at 12:07 #

    When I was a kid, they showed me an environmentalist film. The end of the film was taken from “night of the living dead” and people emerging for a smog filled background, wearing gas masks pounding on the windows of the last greenhouse on earth. The message being unless we stopped reproducing the planet was doomed. This has shaped my view of the future and I’ve seen nothing to change it. Each of your precious little darlings consume resources and bring the planet one step closer to death.

    Beyond that, I have a couple genetic defects such as very poor eyesight that if inflicted surgically would be considered extreme child abuse. To pass this defect on to a child would be inexcusable.


  31. Sasha August 14, 2013 at 12:45 #

    I am not extremely hot. But I’m 40 and I don’t regret not having kids. Not one bit. My husband didn’t want any when we married and still doesn’t. I didn’t, and don’t. Every few months I ask him again, just in case he’s changed his mind. He never does, and I am relieved.


  32. Marlo Rocci August 14, 2013 at 17:01 #

    Given that Michelle Bacman is an alleged woman and that she was a batshit crazy conservative, just voting with your vagina doesn’t seem to work out too well for women.


  33. Eric August 15, 2013 at 13:16 #

    JB: “God, guess I’m really old! I must be the last generation that came of age when sexuality was something you discovered with a boyfriend you had been dating for a really long time. Going steady.”

    I realize this was a tangential aside in the post, but it caught my attention. “Going steady” as a prerequisite for exploring sexuality was the norm when I was in HS, too.

    There are pros and cons that the Manosphere schools can pick apart, but on the whole, I thought a measured developmental progression of sex and intimacy relations for teenagers, or JHS/IS through HS stages, psychologically benefited boys and girls. Building up to sex that way also constructed a healthier social-cultural context for sex and intimacy relations.

    Has the de-civilizational college hook-up culture – which, as we have come to realize, is driven by social-cultural-demolishing feminism and opportunistic PUAs – permeated HS? The Pott and Parsons cases you covered earlier are indicators that the answer is yes, but I didn’t know whether the behavior surrounding those cases has become normal teenage culture.


  34. Spaniard August 15, 2013 at 13:36 #

    That is great. I always wanted a woman like you. Because it is so hard to find, then I go for women with grown up children. Then, they will not disturb me with such an issue.


  35. Spaniard August 15, 2013 at 13:40 #

    Most of people who want to have children they do not give a shit about disgenesics. I agree, marlo, it is highly inmoral.


  36. Spaniard August 15, 2013 at 13:45 #

    I sugest you a 40 year old woman with a grown up kid. Just one. Is the best.
    You can find a lot classy beautiful ladies in their late 30s,early 40s, with grown up children, (18+) in Ucraine. They would give everything to find an American male like you.


  37. Eric August 15, 2013 at 14:33 #

    Odd. How did I place this comment here? This should be under the pills post. Will re-comment over there.



  1. Lightning Round – 2013/08/14 | Free Northerner - August 14, 2013

    […] verges on crimethink. Related. […]


  2. Feministisk hyckleri | Yasers hörna - August 16, 2013

    […] Men who only vote for other men, just because the candidate IS a man are sexist pricks.  Women who … […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: