Random Xpat Rantings

Contemplative dominance for the modern man

The Wizard of Oz is a feminist

Posted by xsplat on June 22, 2013

The Wicked Witch of the West melted when water was thrown at her, but feminists and their mangina supporters are unaffected by truth, no matter how withering. Why? Together they use the force. The force of the hampster.

From nydaileynews: Ken Hoinsky’s ‘Above the Game: A guide to getting awesome with women’ has yet to be published but is already being slammed as a how-to guide for rape.

Excerpts from Ken Hoinsky’s book, for which he has received $16,000 in donations, tell men to forcibly put women on their laps and make them touch their genitals. He says his words have been taken out of context.

Here’s a chache of the original kickstarter page.

Quote:”Pull out your c— and put her hand on it. Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don’t ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your d—.”

And Kickstarter has caved in to the feminists and manboobs:

Quote:First, there is no taking back money from the project or canceling funding after the fact. When the project was funded the backers’ money went directly from them to the creator. We missed the window.

Second, the project page has been removed from Kickstarter. The project has no place on our site. For transparency’s sake, a record of the page is cached here.

Third, we are prohibiting “seduction guides,” or anything similar, effective immediately. This material encourages misogynistic behavior and is inconsistent with our mission of funding creative works. These things do not belong on Kickstarter.

Fourth, today Kickstarter will donate $25,000 to an anti-sexual violence organization called RAINN. It’s an excellent organization that combats exactly the sort of problems our inaction may have encouraged.

We take our role as Kickstarter’s stewards very seriously. Kickstarter is one of the friendliest, most supportive places on the web and we’re committed to keeping it that way. We’re sorry for getting this so wrong.

Private Man said: Kickstarter’s refusal to fund “seduction guides” is further proof that Learned Charisma is considered wildly dangerous to the status quo of white knights, orbiters, and their sad ilk. A man trying to improve himself in order to meet his relationship goals is the act of a social revolutionary. He must be stifled by a social expectation that men be kept in their place.

babelfish669 :The status quo of a growing majority of people who are morbidly obese, don’t exercise, can’t talk to people without a keyboard, and have a profoundly dysfunctional sex life.

WesternCancer said: I think I’m going to troll the shit out of the next feminist chick I go on a date with (ill probably have to actively search for one)

I’ll run game and periodically pull out a huge binder full of forms that we both sign and fill out to provide a description of an action and its consent.

I wonder how far you could get with this. First one to get a chick signing a waiver before banging wins!!!

The realities of sexual dynamics are threatening to women, because women have a dual sexual strategy, that they must at all costs keep secret from men. This is so important, that they go so far as to keep the secret even from themselves. Introspection about the subject would cause catastrophic internal failure, were it not for the ever vigilant and industrious female rationalization hampster.

“Secret” dual sexual stragegy of women:
1) Proclaim to like nice guys, seduce and dominate them and use them for safe long term monogamous provisioning.
2) Seek out the genes of successful alpha men who employ non-nice sexual strategies.

The dual sexual strategy would completely fail were nice guys trained to act in non-nice guy ways. The alphas must be natural, and “just get it”, otherwise fucking them would be like being raped, because the woman would have been seduced fraudulently. The dual mating strategy relies on women not being duped. Seduction guides are therefore rape guides.

About these ads

10 Responses to “The Wizard of Oz is a feminist”

  1. […] xsplat.wordpress.com […]

  2. […] The Wizard of Oz is a feminist « Random Xpat Rantings […]

  3. UCB said

    “Third, we are prohibiting “seduction guides,” or anything similar, effective immediately.”

    This would be a great business opportunity, were it not for the fact that everything everything useful about learning game has already been said and a good chunk of it is available for free on the internet.

    Kinda makes it hard to believe that once upon a time PUAs’ biggest fears were that seduction would eventually go mainstream. This is just further proof of why that will never happen. Too many people have too much invested in the maintaining the status quo.

  4. Retrenched said

    It’s been said that women “hate” betas, but I don’t think that’s really true.

    Women really DON’T want all beta men to disappear, because then there would be no one to rub their feet after a long day at work, fix their routers when they’re on the fritz, unclog their sinks, lend them shoulders to cry on, and so on. Women may not like sleeping with betas, but they certainly like having betas around to do beta things (protect, provide, pamper) for them, while alphas do alpha things (fucking the shit out of them).

    (Ideally, most women would prefer to have both alpha and beta from one man, but such men are rare and tend to end up marrying only the prettiest girls in town. So most women have to either get their alpha and beta from different men, or do without one or the other.)

    Betas waking up to this, and trying to become alphas themselves, is very threatening to women’s dual sexual strategy. Betas may learn game and become successful, or maybe they’ll try and fail, but – and this is key – they won’t want to do the beta stuff in any case. (Or maybe they’ll want to, but refrain when they realize it’s a ticket to celibacy.) And win or lose, once they realize that women have a sexual preference for men who display alpha behaviors and traits, they’ll stop doing all of the beta things that women have come to depend on betas to do for them – at least until after their own sexual needs are met within the relationship – because they will (correctly) see these things as much less effective at winning women’s love and favor than alpha behaviors.

    Most men like women, and they want to have lots of sex with them, and once they realize that alpha status and alpha behaviors are the way to do that, then that’s what they’ll focus on.

    And that’s very threatening to women, the idea that there may not be anyone to do the beta things for them, to bankroll their shopping sprees, to protect and provide for them, to marry them after they grow tired of the alpha carousel, and so on.

  5. HerpDerp said

    Got a chick to sign waiver three years ago.

  6. Renfrew said

    What’s most galling to me is Kickstarter’s bent-over PC response. They could have done like Apple does with “adult content” and said, “Hey, this just isn’t our kind of thing.” But no, they were compelled to fully prostrate themselves. Why?

    I call “SOTF” — the sanction of the victim.

    Now, for the uninitiated, permit me to explain SOTF in four lines:

    First of all, I know I slagged off novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand in one of my other replies (and for good reason), but the woman named some concepts that are seriously key to understanding the world at times. One of those concepts is called “the sanction of the victim.” It refers to those situations where Group A not only does harm to Group B, but simultaneously demands and requires — through guilt-tripping and brainwashing, primarily — that Group B actively approve (“sanction”) the harm-doing. And by sanctioning the harm-doing, Group B is actually enabling their own ongoing victimization by legitimizing Group A’s position.

    Personally, I think both men and women are now losing out because of feminism run amok, so Group A vs. Group B isn’t as simple as Women vs. Men. But, nuances aside for the moment, it’s clear that PC feminism demands the sanction of the victim. It demands 1) that men (and women) twist their behaviour unnaturally, and 2) furthermore, that everyone (particularly men) regard that twisting as VIRTUOUS and pay homage (and cash money) to it.

    Ha. Maybe SOTF can be a new manosphere meme, like SWPL or MGTOW. It deserves to be.

    • xsplat said

      I like that idea and it sounds right. Can you flesh it out with some examples?

      • Renfrew said

        Oooh. To my eternal chagrin, the database in my head is associative in a way that stumbles over the simple query “give examples.” I’ll keep an eye out, though, and get back to you; now that it’s on my mind, I’ll probably see it — the SOTF phenomenon — everywhere. :)

        In the meantime, I can give you what’s probably Rand’s original statement on the matter, from “Atlas Shrugged.” Not surprisingly, given that Rand’s focus was capitalism, it pertains specifically to businessmen’s willingness to give financial and moral support to those in government and society who antagonise them by siphoning their resources via high taxes, etc. It was written in the 1950s in the nuance-obliterating broad brushstrokes (good! evil!) and Old Testament-esque bright colours (poison! death!) that were Rand’s stock in trade and which are, ironically, somewhat of an assault on reason. But there is useful truth embedded somewhere in it, if you can tease it out, and it’s not hard to re-fashion it in one’s head to apply to men and women and feminism rather than to capitalists and anti-capitalists (in fact, of course, the two frames naturally overlap if we regard men/masculinity as the prime mover behind human society, with women, obviously, being absolutely essential yet somehow subsidiary in the dynamic). The words, except the ones in [brackets] which I added to clarify things, are spoken by a character in one of Rand’s novels:

        ——

        Then I saw what was wrong with the world, I saw what destroyed men and nations, and where the battle for life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality [collectivism/altruism/feminism]—and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it. Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan—so throughout the world and throughout men’s history, in every version and form, from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collectivized countries, it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values—the impotence of death. I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win—and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was “No.”

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 120 other followers

%d bloggers like this: