Masculinity & Master Morality

by Jack Donovan on June 25, 2012

In a Scientific American article titled “When Men Are Less Moral Than Women,” psychology professor Cindi May recently claimed that men were more likely to “cut ethical corners” when they felt their masculinity was at stake. She concluded by recommending that, “if ethical standards are a significant factor in your choice of financial advisors or real estate agents, it may be safer to go with Bernadette than with Bernie.”

I first skimmed this on the UK’s Daily Mail, and immediately wondered if advocating sex-based discrimination would legally be considered “hate speech” in Britain, but quickly discovered that May is safe from the truncheons of the British thought police in sunny Charleston, South Carolina. Whether in the colonies or the motherland, it’s safe to say that similar claims made about women or a protected ethnic group would explode into public melodrama and end in tears, resignations and staged apologies. However, it’s become not only acceptable but fashionable in the mainstream media to claim that discriminating against men and hiring women is better for business and that, theoretically, doing so would solve all of “today’s problems.”

May’s biases were obvious from her use of loaded, snide language:

“Apparently manhood is relatively fragile and precarious, and when it is challenged, men tend to become more aggressive and defensive.”

That’s feminist boilerplate, and seems a little out of place (even today) in a publication as august and ostensibly scientific as Scientific American. Referring to masculinity as “fragile” (compared to what?) is the kind of intentionally emasculating banality more at home in gossip columns and trash zines like Slate, Feministing and Gawker, and in the desperate cries for help ”work” of comic train wrecks like Hugo Schwyzer.

May glossed over complex issues and presented them as settled science. She asserted that the “evidence” doesn’t suggest that testosterone or genetic differences between men and women has much to do with male status competition.

Careful readers might want to have a look at, say, “Influences of Serotonin and Testosterone in Aggression and Dominance: Convergence with Social Psychology,” by Paul C. Bernhardt, which suggests that high testosterone correlates with status-seeking behaviors, like winning a negotiation. (Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 44-48) Some of May’s colleagues to the North noted more recently that, “During negotiations testosterone increases in those who think  they have a chance of gaining or maintaining status, and it decreases among those who think they are about to lose.” (Testosterone and Social Behavior Alan Booth, Douglas A. Granger, Allan Mazur and Katie T. Kivlighan. Social Forces, Vol. 85, No. 1 (Sep., 2006), pp. 167-191). There’s also evidence of stock traders performing better when testosterone is higher, which is probably one of the reasons why testosterone therapy is popular with men who work on Wall Street.

Testosterone is probably only part of the reason why men might behave differently than women in negotiating scenarios. However, before we move on, I’d like to make a point about testosterone, masculinity, feminism, historical analysis and contemporary studies concerning sex differences. If, as some studies have shown, current male testosterone levels are artificially low – due to a variety of factors including environmental toxins, sedentary lifestyles and widespread obesity – then current studies that show minor differences between male and female behavior tell us less about historical differences between the sexes than is often argued. Basically, if men today are less chemically manly than their predecessors, many masculine stereotypes from the past may have been even more valid than contemporary data would seem to suggest. There is good reason to believe that men and women were more different even a few decades ago.

Instead of dealing with a complex reality, May took a carefree cruise down to the Margaret Mead Memorial Theme Park on the tropical island of Ma-king Shitup. She predictably pointed to vague “cultural” associations between masculinity and winning, and the implied conclusion is that we must reduce cultural associations between masculinity and winning to increase male morality.

May is either a little slow for a professor or she is willing to misrepresent evidence that any layman can find on JSTOR to achieve a perceived “win” for women. That doesn’t help her claim that men are less moral than women, but her rationalization hamster could probably explain to us all why she is still morally superior to men, no matter what she writes or how she conducts herself. At any rate, she makes a good case for revisiting the proposed 1995 law that would have required psychologists to dress as wizards in court.

There is a better explanation for the results of these studies. Women are not more “ethical” in any noble sense of the word. They’re more timid — more “risk-averse”—and more empathic.

Increased testosterone in men correlates with decreased empathy and increased optimism about a man’s chances of success. The evolutionary reasons why are pretty obvious if you think for a minute about what kinds of jobs men would have been most likely to do not only in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA), but also in most economic  and social classes throughout most of recorded history.

Men spent more time at the edge of the tribal perimeter in scenarios where they stood to benefit (eating dangerous game, triumphing over external enemies) from a higher risk threshold and a focus on winning – in the context of a male group – above all things. When competing (within a group) or fighting against other men, too much empathy is a handicap. To take another man’s life, you have to care more about your own success and less about his feelings. Winning comes first, empathy comes second.  It’s absurd to posit that this is some kind of novel cultural invention, when it’s obvious that the ability to dehumanize a competitor is a survival skill. There is every reason to believe that men have been selected for being successful at dehumanizing competitors, because the men who failed to do this would have lost to men who were able to cut down their foes.

There is a twist to this, though, because men have always been cooperative hunters and fighters. Men needed to be able to care less about their enemies and competitors, but to function as a group, they also needed to care a lot about what the gang of men they fought and hunted with thought of them. They had to be willing to take risks and possibly even sacrifice themselves for men they had bonded with. Men compete with each other to attain a higher status within the group – a sense that they are valued by other men – and there is every reason to believe that men who were highly valued by other men would have acquired a greater share of the booty (in both senses of the word).

Darwin believed that this ability to sacrifice for the group in battle was the kernel of altruism. He wrote in Descent of Man that, “A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.”

That may be true, but practically speaking, this is also the basis for honor – a concern for one’s reputation as a man among men – and a strong desire to avoid dishonor.

Here are some general ideas about men that we can extract from all of this, which explain the results of the cited studies in a less crass “women are angels and men are devils” way than that charlatan from Charleston did.

  1. Men, when threatened with losing, tend to place a higher value on winning than empathy for competitors or following abstract moral codes.
  2. For men, avoiding dishonor – defined as a loss of status as a man within the group of men – is a stronger motivator than avoiding being perceived as immoral or less empathic.  
  3. (Hypothetical) Moral codes probably have a stronger influence on men when they are directly linked to status within the male group, and/or avoiding dishonor. (Western chivalry and samurai codes are examples of moral codes bound to masculine gang status.) 

In a survival scenario, when men lose, the entire group loses. Failure is starvation and death. Winning must come first; finer points of morality are a luxury afforded by success.

It also follows that women would be less likely to take risks and more empathic. Women haven’t traditionally been judged on their competitive obstinacy or their ability to win, but on their conduct round the campfire within a secured perimeter. They’ve had less reason to dehumanize enemies, and every reason to try to gauge what others are thinking and feeling, and every reason to behave with an eye to avoiding potential social costs that have nothing to do with male honor, winning or bravery. A woman who is socially despised and shut out for being exceptionally undesirable, unlikeable, or socially undependable finds herself in an outcast and at-risk position similar to the man who has been revealed to be disloyal, a coward or a weakling.

In The Way of Men, I made a point to present masculinity “amorally,” because most people think of morality in civilized, quasi-Judeo-Christian terms that incorporate aspects of guilt and asceticism that Nietzsche would have associated with ressentiment – the priestly, inverted values of the meek and jealous. What these studies reveal about men is what Nietzsche would have called a “master morality.” For the “master,” that which is good is first of all that which wins and the rest can be sorted out later. It is the “right” of the mighty.

Cindi May’s feminist interpretation of those studies is thick with ressentiment. It betrays a jealousy of strength – of winning  –  and a desire to make the weaker sex appear to be morally superior for seeming less concerned with winning and more concerned with feeling, empathy and the avoidance of risk.

________________

Jack Donovan’s new book, The Way of Men, is now available in paperback and various e-book formats. If you enjoyed this article and would like to keep up with his work, please “like” his author page on Facebook or visit his web site at http://www.jack-donovan.com

 

 

{ 76 comments… read them below or add one }

DCM June 25, 2012 at 03:16

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is a leftist publication that includes science and science terminology in an attempt to hide its bias.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 6
Justinian June 25, 2012 at 03:17

Cindi May recently claimed that men were more likely to “cut ethical corners” when they felt their masculinity was at stake.

What about the 55 million children killed by abortion in America since Roe v. Wade whenever a woman’s convenience was at stake?

Oh thats right, they have just redefined ethics by their own leftist religion to suit themselves.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 5
Geography Bee Finalist himself June 25, 2012 at 03:19

Cindi May sounds like a bitch with projection issues.

“When Men are Less Moral Than Women” can be summed up in one word, not a full article: “Never.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
Carnivore June 25, 2012 at 03:43

Yeah, what DCM says. SA might have had some credibility 30 plus years ago, but no longer.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
freebird June 25, 2012 at 05:18

Behind every strong and empowered woman there is 10 manginas who would gleefully slash at the others to get a wiff of pussy.
That’s how she became so arrogant and Snidely whiplashish.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 0
Brigadon June 25, 2012 at 05:37

actually SA was a ‘hack rag’ 30 years ago, pumping the newest and most exciting garbage being sold by their advertizers, and full of theorists that share more with Peter Venkman than Roger Bacon. They published alien abduction ‘true stories’ and explained how in less than ten years we’d all have limitless power from groundbreaking room-temperature superconducting fusion reactors.

The fact that they managed to get WORSE over the intervening three decades startles me even though I should have seen it coming.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1
Zorro June 25, 2012 at 05:50

As soon as I see or hear “feminist” I disengage. You cannot expect the religious to look through the telescope, and you can’t expect a feminist to perceive reality by any other means than Princess Snowflake’s Looking Glass.

Fembots blame testosterone for everything except global warming. Whenever I see a high-rise building, a race car, cure for a disease, rocket ship or aircraft carrier, I have testosterone to thank for that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 1
freebird June 25, 2012 at 05:56

Classic projection and penis envy.
“Apparently manhood is relatively fragile and precarious, and when it is challenged, men tend to become more aggressive and defensive.”

“Apparently women are relatively fragile and precarious, and when feminism is challenged, women tend to become more aggressive and defensive.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 0
walking in hell June 25, 2012 at 06:09

From my experience, women are less likely to violate the law to get what they want. But if a law is enacted that is clearly immoral, women are more likely to use that law than men. A classic example is abortion. Another example is child custody. Even though it is legal but immoral to keep children from fathers, the majority of women do it.

The difference between men and women with respect to morality and law is that men have an internal sense of what is good, just and fair.

In contrast, women’s morality only comes from what society tells her is good, just, and fair.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 3
American June 25, 2012 at 06:25

The Gender-feminist establishment is breaking and lording over the legions of the broken and un-educated matriarchal underclass, how moral is that???

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 9
American June 25, 2012 at 06:33

I believe the white Gender-Raunch establishment will only hold their positions of “lords of the broken un-educated matriarchy”, for so long. for example, Immigrant families don’t prescribe to the white the Gender-Raunch value structure, and many don’t watch gender-raunch constructionist pop television, so their families are remaining intact. Within another generation, they will displace the white gender-raunch constructionists.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14
Uncle Elmer June 25, 2012 at 06:51

Women’s workplace power comes from their ability to invoke male authority to back them up when they have a conflict. They routinely challenge a man’s masculinity knowing full well that the he cannot respond like a man for fear of losing his job. Very often he becomes paralyzed with rage unless he learns to respond like a woman, which will help him ascend the corporate chain but will cost him his balls.

Bring to mind the scene in Of Mice and Men when the troublesome boss’s wench goads the black ranch hand and threatens to “say the word” if he doesn’t comply with her insults.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 2
ahamkara June 25, 2012 at 07:17

I’ve known women who lie, cheat and steal just so they can buy new shoes. Men may do it to look more like winners, but women do it for garbage.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Damage June 25, 2012 at 07:33

And women are less moral when their happiness is at stake, which is all the time. One only need look at the divorce statistics to figure that one out. Can I be a psychologist now?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 2
Andie June 25, 2012 at 07:37

The most interesting thing about these kinds of feminist re-visionings of gender is how they rely on the very stereotypes they purport to undermine!

Men negotiate with an emphasis on winning, not empathy for the loser. OK. Fine. This turns into “empathy for the loser is morally superior”. Which turns into “women are morally superior” and blah blah blah.

Personally, I believe that woman have evolved with a different psychology than men and that the average woman is indeed more concerned with empathy. Her stance towards the world is one of caretaking, and that reflects her position as childbearer. This means I believe women are more suited to caretaking than men, based on their evolved psychologies.

Try saying that to a writer like May. Women have evolved to be caretakers, not aggressive competitors. A woman’s entire psychology is geared towards protecting and raising her biological children. This is neither morally superior nor inferior – it just IS.

May and every other feminist will run screaming down the streets at this kind of assertion. Tears and apologies indeed. This kind of claim requires women to take responsibility in a way current women don’t like. It requires them to reflect on the entire history of humanity and try and put that into some perspective and no feminist is interested in any perspective other than her own.

And yet…

By claiming that women have more empathy for losers in negotiations are they not claiming the EXACT EVOLVED PSYCHOLOGY that suggests they really should be at home taking care of their own children and families?

Evolved psychology that proves men are evil = Hooray!

Evolved psychology that proves women are reneging on their most fundamental human responsibility = Boo!

The strangest thing about all of this is that if you ask any woman dragging her weeping children off to spend the day at the orphanage while mommy competes ruthlessly with men who will always outgun her and then microwaves some shitty lasagna for dinner while shrieking at her husband to do more housework “ARE YOU HAPPY?”, the answer will be no.

Millions of years of primate evolution can’t be overturned by 30 years of propaganda. Younger women are less interested in competing and more interested in continuing to evolve. The hard part will be finding men to trust them. After all, men don’t have a lot of empathy for losers.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 5
Huck Finn June 25, 2012 at 07:39

CM is just another emotionally unbalanced angry female therapist who probably went into her profession because she is/was so messed-up. They’re more in over-abundance these days than toilet paper.

Personally, I think female financial service industry workers are more likely to cut corners and be unconcerned for their clients since women are not held to the same standards or expectations as men are held too.

Don’t hire a Cindi. Hire a Charles.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0
Huck Finn June 25, 2012 at 07:46

PS Doesn’t SA see what is going on in their own media industry? Viewers or the ‘publics’ of a media organization are leaving to go to smaller more specialized medias available online. People are going to sources that are written by intelligent informed adults. The mass media is losing viewers who are sick and tired of the irrational male-bashing, political correctness, and the shallow political and pseudo science stories. Individual viewers may not be ‘experts’ in for example psychology yet they can increasing smell bs when it is written by a cow.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 0
Raj June 25, 2012 at 08:10

“…studies have shown…” > Close tab.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1
Days of Broken Arrows June 25, 2012 at 08:27

The concept of morality was devised by men to begin with. The concept of science was devised by men as well.

The female writer might have taken that into consideration before making her assertions. Without men, no discussion would even be taking place.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1
Anonymous June 25, 2012 at 08:32

“Apparently manhood is relatively fragile and precarious, and when it is challenged, men tend to become more aggressive and defensive.”

As Larry Summers found out to his utter regret.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) June 25, 2012 at 08:38

Every single CODE of HONOR was created by MEN, and then corrupted by WOMEN via the banker’s FEMINIST MOVEMENT which is fundamentally immoral as it fronts the conversion of fiat debt into wealth and assets via transferring such entities from men to women.

Women created the Vagina Monologues.

Men CREATED:

The Japanese Bushidō (武士道)—the way of the warrior—is the Samurai code of honor, and it has many parallels with the Western concept of chivalry, and again, it emphasizes not physical strength, but spiritual strength, virtue, and righteousness. The seven primary virtues are:

•Rectitude (義 gi?)
•Courage (勇 yuu?)
•Benevolence (仁 jin?)
•Respect (礼 rei?)
•Honesty (誠 makoto or ?, 信) shin
•Honour (誉 yo?)
•Loyalty (忠 chuu?)
And the expanded list includes:
•Filial piety (孝 kō?)
•Wisdom (智 chi?)
•Care for the aged (悌 tei?)

Perhaps the most influential code of honor in the Western world has been Moses’ Ten Commandments—simple principles that thunder on down through all the Founding Fathers’ and great economists’ writings, from Adam Smith (who once considered becoming a minister!), to Mises and to Hayek; and thus simple principles underlying western entrepreneurship and common business law. In a 1906 speech before congress, Mark Twain cited the Ten Commandments alongside the Constitution in his defense of copyrights. And here they are:

The Ten Commandments
Deut. 5.1-21
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:
10 but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honor thy father and thy mother:
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.

Note how Buddha prefaces his precepts with “I undertake,” emphasizing the importance of action.

Buddha’s Eight Precepts
1. I undertake to abstain from causing harm and taking life (both human and non-human).
2. I undertake to abstain from taking what is not given (stealing).
3. I undertake to abstain from sexual activity.
4. I undertake to abstain from wrong speech: telling lies, deceiving others, manipulating others, using hurtful words.
5. I undertake to abstain from using intoxicating drinks and drugs, which lead to carelessness.
6. I undertake to abstain from eating at the wrong time (the right time is eating once, after sunrise, before noon).
7. I undertake to abstain from singing, dancing, playing music, attending entertainment performances, wearing perfume, and using cosmetics and garlands (decorative accessories).
8. I undertake to abstain from luxurious places for sitting or sleeping, and overindulging in sleep.

The Feminist movement deconstructed all of these exalted CODES OF HONOR and transformed the world into a shopping mall, while forcing men to pay for their clothes and birth control at gunpoint, seizing their children, drugging them up, and dumbing them down in schools that no longer teach of HONOR nor of THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.

The Austrian Economist Joseph Schumpeter stated that the stock market is a poor substitute for the Holy Grail, and in Arthurian Legend, only the most chivalrous knights ever found it. In the 14th Century, the Duke of Burgandy listed the chivalric virtues of the Knights.

Faith
Charity
Justice
Sagacity
Prudence
Temperance
Resolution
Truth
Liberality
Diligence
Hope
Valour

The Song of Roland (La Chanson de Roland), composed between 1140 and 1170, is the oldest surviving major work of French literature, and it presents The Knights’ Code of Chivalry and the Vows of Knighthood. You will note that the majority of the precepts pertain not to physical battle, but to spiritual purity and righteous action.

To protect the weak and defenceless
To give succour to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
To live by honour and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honour of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
To at all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honour of women
To never refuse a challenge from an equal
To never turn the back upon a foe
To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valour and faith

Fellas–not GAME, but the CODE OF HONOR is what you must learn first and foremost!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 6
Doc June 25, 2012 at 08:38

Personally, I have to say that women are the amoral ones – I’ve never known a man to pass off another woman’s child as his wife’s to her. Yet I know of many women who have done so – now their husband was complicit in his foolishness for not having a DNA test. But the act and lie was still hers.

Women just have better PR and hide it better, and their “justifications” tend to be accepted more. So overall I’ve always felt that men get a raw deal on this type of non-sense – women are much, much worse than men. How many men have cried “rape”, or “abuse” or any of the other standard non-sense that women tend to use? Look at the number of women who cry “child abuse” is they are lousy mothers and have a chance of losing custody – the man’s name ends up on a sex-registry even if the charge is dismissed… Yeah… Men are amoral… (dripping sarcasm intended)…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 2
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) June 25, 2012 at 09:02

The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is “What does a woman want?” -SIGMUND FREUD, Ernest Jones’ Sigmund Freud: Life and Work

GBFM’s ANSWER: Alpha fucks and beta bucks.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) June 25, 2012 at 09:08

“It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.9 So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters (Lindsay Lohan).” -Shopenhauer on Women

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) June 25, 2012 at 09:17

The MASSIVE FRAUD and CORRUPTION of WALL STREET coincided with the FEMINIST MOVEMENT.

The MASSIVE destruction of the FAMILY, accompanied by the MASSIVE RISE of troubled children COINCIDED with the FEMINIST MOVEMENT.

Women sent 50,000,000 innocent souls to their deaths via abortion, so they could afford more clothes.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2
Rebel June 25, 2012 at 09:17

Soon, men will be emasculaed to such an entent that when the Huns will come down us us, the feminists are going to insult men for their cowardice.
The “Descent of Man” that is presently acclaimed as the ultimate success for women will reap its benfits when hordes of invaders will conquer the West. Europe is already being invaded. Peacefully at first..

In a sense, History repeats itself again and again.

It has been said many times that feminism will signal the fall of Western civilization.
Recently, I have read a series of well written articles on the demise of the white Caucasian. As depopulation accelerates in Europe and North America, it is expected that many millions of people from many corners of the world will claim much of the unoccupied territory.

Since feminism is specific the the Caucasian homo sapiens, the eradication of those will have a positive effect: the ultimate demise of feminism. If that’s the price to pay, so be it.

Meanwhle, enjoy your first row seat and watch the freak show.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5
Zorro June 25, 2012 at 09:21

@Rebel: Dead on.

Rome fell not because it was defeated. It fell because it was corrupted from within. Feminism is doing what jihadis only dream of accomplishing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Firepower June 25, 2012 at 09:46

DCM

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is a leftist publication that includes science and science terminology in an attempt to hide its bias.

…which IS the reason
why nobody ‘should’ give a rat’s ass what they write, say or opine.

Does anybody REALLY STILL think chiding them will “make them see the light?’

Who cares if they do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6
meistergedanken June 25, 2012 at 09:49

GBFM wrote: “Fellas–not GAME, but the CODE OF HONOR is what you must learn first and foremost!”

Tsk, tsk – now what would your pal Roissy say?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
"The One" June 25, 2012 at 10:07

1) “Men, when threatened with losing, tend to place a higher value on winning than empathy for competitors or following abstract moral codes.”

Regardless of whether a man or woman is forced to fight for survival, either one has a “fight or flight” response before abstract thinking.

If the threat of losing is something important, but not necessarily urgent, such as a business transaction, it’s worthwhile to take the time to think it through, abstract moral codes and all.

On the other hand, if it’s only a friendly game one is faced with losing, it is more important to enjoy the game than to win.

2) “For men, avoiding dishonor – defined as a loss of status as a man within the group of men – is a stronger motivator than avoiding being perceived as immoral or less empathic. ”

A man’s own sense of honor is being compared with his anxiety about others’ perception of his immorality or lack of empathy. This is comparing apples and oranges.

Being perceived as lacking empathy can be good or bad depending on circumstances.

3) (Hypothetical) Moral codes probably have a stronger influence on men when they are directly linked to status within the male group, and/or avoiding dishonor. (Western chivalry and samurai codes are examples of moral codes bound to masculine gang status.)

There is no need for hypothesis. Classic chivalry and Bushido are nothing more than keeping one’s word. There is no separate morality for men and women.

The woman from Scientific American was obviously wrong for her dehumanizing portrayal of men. But some of this article appears to be reinforcing similar misconceptions.

“There is every reason to believe that men have been selected for being successful at dehumanizing competitors, because the men who failed to do this would have lost to men who were able to cut down their foes.”

I do not agree. In general, men are no more guilty of dehumanizing others than women are guilty of dehumanizing others.

Part of the code of honor for combat requires that a worthy foe is honored in death. Dehumanizing the enemy is not part of any honorable warrior’s code, neither classic chivalry, nor Bushido.

The greatest warriors recognize not only the humanity of their enemies, they perceive their personality, down to their slightest weaknesses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
"The One" June 25, 2012 at 10:17

Too bad about Scientific American. I used to have a subscription. The same thing happened to National Geographic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
keyster June 25, 2012 at 10:18

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is a leftist publication that includes science and science terminology in an attempt to hide its bias.

Apparently it was far too objective for “Psychology Today” or “Cosmo”.

Men seek advantage (whether ethical or not) in competition with other men (and sometimes women), to rise up through the dominance heirarchy and eventually attract the best female. Men are simply more cunning and imaginative because they HAVE to be. Women can always (and typically do), rely on sexual power to get what they want. A man’s sexual power over woman is limited at best, depending on his “ethics”.

The fact that the authoress misses this, is Feminist irony at it’s best.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Jack Donovan June 25, 2012 at 10:26

“Does anybody REALLY STILL think chiding them will “make them see the light?’”

For the record, I don’t harbor any fantasies that I have the slightest influence over SA’s editorial policy. This is just another opportunity to look at what is being said and offer a different view, with the objective of getting new male readers to think about these issues from a more masculine angle.

Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) June 25, 2012 at 10:44

Fellas–GAME is a subset of the CODE OF HONOR.

Live by the HEROIC CODE OF HONOR and all else shall follow.

Exalt GAME above the CODE OF HONOR, and ye shall fail, even if you get your lotasas cockas wet now and then lzlzozozlzoozzozlzo.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Charles Martel June 25, 2012 at 10:48

Winning comes first, empathy comes second. It’s absurd to posit that this is some kind of novel cultural invention, when it’s obvious that the ability to dehumanize a competitor is a survival skill. There is every reason to believe that men have been selected for being successful at dehumanizing competitors, because the men who failed to do this would have lost to men who were able to cut down their foes.

Great article, Jack. Enjoyed it, as always.

Empathy. If I were a lawyer I would say there’s a prima facie case that women lack empathy and that men have more empathy than women. Why? Men will always take care of the women while we know the reverse is untrue.

So how do you explain warfare? Two factors.
1. Men will suppress their empathy for other men when necessary. This is easier when the other men are from outside the tribe.
2. Empathy is unequally distributed. We know from studies made in WW2 and Vietnam that as many as 80% of the men in a conscripted unit will not fire their weapons when in contact with the enemy. Less than 5% of men are enthusiastic killers while up to 5% of men will literally die rather than kill. All the ills of mankind spring from the actions of the sociopathic 5% who rise to the top of human institutions assisted by their lack of empathy. The 5% have no problem sending the 95% to their deaths if it supports their goals.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) June 25, 2012 at 10:53

Yes, glad you brought up warfare.

Suppose you wanted to wage a preemptive war on 50,000,000 innocent souls. What you would do is give the most vengeful, hateful warrior of all time–women–the opportunity to kill them.

The 50,000,000 that women have murdered over the past thirty years put Stalin, Hitler, and Mao to shame.

While men will now and then take up arms to fight for friends, family, honor, and freedom, women will kill just to have more shopping money.

lzozllzozozlzo

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Tom936 June 25, 2012 at 10:57

In a Scientific American article titled When Men Are Less Moral Than Women, psychology professor Cindi May recently claimed that men were more likely to cut ethical corners when they felt their masculinity was at stake.

So what’s Cindi May’s excuse for cutting ethical corners?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) June 25, 2012 at 11:03

I think that the whole problem with the “Men’s Movement” is that men do not honor the code of honor found throughout the Great Books and Classics.

For instance, above there are two positive votes for my Code of Honor post, and two negative votes.

Basically there are as many men for their Great Books Heritage as there are against it.

And so, women/leftists/bankers will continue to rule over all of ye.

Until ye man up,
and embrace
The Great Books 4 Men
and their
Code of Honor

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
keyster June 25, 2012 at 11:33

They routinely challenge a man’s masculinity knowing full well that
he cannot respond like a man for fear of losing his job.

That exemplifies the mine field that is Encorpera.
Being hopelessly under control of feminist dogma, I would often challenge a woman’s masculinity…because they’re “equal”. It was a very bad technique for retaining employment. Encorpera has become a Passive-Aggressive Hell of sorts, because women and now manginas, dominate the org charts. Women are held to a different standard, and you’re expected to “man-up” and deal with it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel June 25, 2012 at 11:38

keyster
Encorpera has become a Passive-Aggressive Hell of sorts, because women and now manginas, dominate the org charts. Women are held to a different standard, and you’re expected to “man-up” and deal with it.

You and Elmer should write a satirical Encorpera HR Handbook. Sell it as an e-book. I’d buy it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
keyster June 25, 2012 at 12:11

You and Elmer should write a satirical Encorpera HR Handbook. Sell it as an e-book. I’d buy it.

The very first anti-feminist book I ever read was “The Rantings of a
Single Male” by Thomas Ellis.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Rantings-Single-Male-Correctness/dp/0976261308

He really skewers Encorpera and political correctness. If I recall he worked for IBM. I don’t know if I could say it any better than him or Elmer’s sardonic wit.

I got fired once for telling a woman to “Go f*ck yourself!” after she bitched me out and insulted my “masculinity”. I was fired a few days later for sexual harrasement; exactly what she was hoping to accomplish. I’ve got dozens of stories from the Salt Mines. I was making $100K a year and miserable. Now I make virtually nothing and I’ve never been happier.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Eric June 25, 2012 at 12:20

I wonder if Cindi May is the same ‘Cindy’ who comments here occasionally? LOL, they sure sound alike.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Eric June 25, 2012 at 12:44

Donovan:
Looking at Ms. Cindi’s analysis, I think what she’s doing is floating some the feminist paradigm on the public. The old feminist position that ‘Matriarchy’ (i.e. female supremacy) is rooted in some prehistoric golden age is starting to collapse in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Feminist academics are trying now to revise their theories by turning to evolutionary biology and psychology—the idea somehow that women are in a process of ‘evolving to a higher life form’.

It’s really the same feminist variation of the Master Race all over again. Feminism has never been about equality—gender supremacy has always been their goal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
Eric June 25, 2012 at 12:51

GB4M:
‘Game is the code of honor.’

LOL—are you serious? Trying telling that to Ms. Cindi and see how she swoons before an ‘alpha’ with a ‘code of honor’. LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
Charles Martel June 25, 2012 at 12:52

keyster
The very first anti-feminist book I ever read was “The Rantings of a
Single Male” by Thomas Ellis.

It’s on my bookshelf.

I was making $100K a year and miserable. Now I make virtually nothing and I’ve never been happier.

I live in one of the top 100 zip codes in the country. My brother-in-law once told me I have the “perfect marriage.” In the US I started with nothing, literally – two suitcases and $300 – and earned my “white privilege” with 30 years of hard work and several setbacks and heartbreaks. If I could get free of my obligations I’d trade it all for a two bedroom apartment close to a quiet grass airfield in a rural Red state and a nice conservative country girl(friend). I’m going to die before I get there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Firepower June 25, 2012 at 13:07

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18
Charles Martel June 25, 2012 at 13:17

keyster
He really skewers Encorpera and political correctness. If I recall he worked for IBM. I don’t know if I could say it any better than him or Elmer’s sardonic wit.

OK, Uncle Elmer, step up. You’re funny as hell. There’s serious money in a successful e-book.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
American June 25, 2012 at 13:57

The protocol perversions and semantics games that American law enforcement have been engaged in for the last 20 years, that serve to manufacture inflammatory statistics for the gender-feminist community to Inflame their way to Empowerment, are not only perverse, but unconstitutional.
Stop matriarchal violence, Break the gender-feminist / law enforcement misinformation Alliance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
American June 25, 2012 at 14:07

Eric, I believe that the goal was more to divide and break the American male,(and keep him that way); more than it ever was about ??womens equality??.
Feminism was the perfect pretext to break and divide American males. The new American matriarchy manufactures legions of broken, divided, un-educated boys that are easy to harvest.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
Sun June 25, 2012 at 17:04

Great Nietzschean article Jack! :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Attila June 25, 2012 at 17:09

You can’t cut ethical corners when you don’t have any sense of ethics —- when you just do what is supremely convenient every second of the day. I must add that a lot men do not seem to have too many principles either. That’s our “anything goes” society in a nutshell.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Attila June 25, 2012 at 17:14

Thanks to Great Books for posting those codes of honor —- it’s soothing just to read them and internalize them (again).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
spocksdisciple June 25, 2012 at 18:15

Scientific American was one of the finest popular scientific magazines prior to 1994. For a popular science magazine they had very high publication standards and you would find articles written by true scientists and researchers. After the change in editors in the mid 90s and an editor who was not a PhD but a science “writer”, the quality of the magazine fell enormously, this coincided with the magazine going “glossy” all the way through and focusing on semi sensationalist topics in order to boost circulation.
Today that magazine publishes questionable articles by little known people “in the field” and is written at a grade 10 level of comprehension, if that.
This article then is no surprise as it caters to popular sentiment and will use anything which can grab some attention and subscribers.
I stopped reading the magazine back in ’97 and occasionally glance at the cover and then I keep walking.
This article is psychological pseudoscience combined with innuendo and a large dose of radfem misandry which is what expect of Sciam these days.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer June 25, 2012 at 19:28

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement fellas, but my Encorpera Handbook would ultimately be a failure for the simple reason that I cannot complete any assigned task no matter how simple-minded. As a kid I could never just sit still, shut up, and color between the lines like all the other students. At Encorpera I vexed co-workers with my Executive-Style hairdo, which showed great promise, but in the final analysis resulted in no actual work performed. I have to give Encorpera some credit as it usually took them 5 years to figure out my scam and walk me to the door. At smaller companies it normally takes less than 3 months.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
jaego June 25, 2012 at 20:42

Empathy? Where? Sentimentality – or empathy when it strikes their fancy or self interest? Sure, lots.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
ralph gorman June 25, 2012 at 21:56

A sex that murders its own child under the pretense that it is non-human until born has no morality of any kind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire June 26, 2012 at 00:11

Women are not more “ethical” in any noble sense of the word. They’re more timid — more “risk-averse”—and more empathic.

—————-
do not mistake feeling MORE with feeling for others

that’s what liberal men do

it’s why they think that females are every bit as ‘bleeding heart’ nice as they are

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire June 26, 2012 at 00:14

There is every reason to believe that men have been selected for being successful at dehumanizing competitors
—————–
tell that to a feminist

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire June 26, 2012 at 00:20

A woman who is socially despised and shut out for being exceptionally undesirable, unlikeable, or socially undependable finds herself in an outcast and at-risk position
——————–
IF she lives in a small community where everybody knows everybody else

but if it’s a big city then not so much

well, now we know at least one reason why big cities favor feminism

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire June 26, 2012 at 00:27

They routinely challenge a man’s masculinity knowing full well that the he cannot respond like a man for fear of losing his job.
——————
or staying out of jail

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
freebird June 26, 2012 at 04:06

@GBFM
“Alpha fucks,beta bucks.”
Let me fix that for you!

“A woman can be counted upon to do the
*most evil* thing at any given moment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Firepower June 26, 2012 at 06:02

Charles Martel

keyster
I don’t know if I could say it any better than him or Elmer’s sardonic wit!

OK, Uncle Elmer, step up. You’re funny as hell. There’s serious money in a successful e-book.

You’re right, marty. What the MRM really needs to get going – is more writing.

Nothing beats an activist seeking to get paid for their idealism. It’s how all Great Movements got started: I’m sure it’s why our very own Mr. Price has dutifully informed us every day for the last three years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10
Charles Martel June 26, 2012 at 07:33

Firepower
You’re right, marty. What the MRM really needs to get going – is more writing.
Nothing beats an activist seeking to get paid for their idealism. It’s how all Great Movements got started: I’m sure it’s why our very own Mr. Price has dutifully informed us every day for the last three years.

Your thinking is too narrow. A well-written parody of a Fortune 500 Human Resources policies manual could be a very effective tool to highlight the absurdities of feminist corporate governance.

There’s enough writing talent here that Bill could put together some e-books. He doesn’t have to write them, just assemble them.

I know while we’re all just sitting and typing you’re out at night in your Ninja suit, sabotaging the feminist power grid, blowing up the feminist logistics dumps and assassinating the senior officers of the occupying feminist army. I think that’s great and I thank you for your efforts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
scatmaster June 26, 2012 at 10:22

Charles Martel June 26, 2012 at 07:33

Firepower
You’re right, marty. What the MRM really needs to get going – is more writing.
Nothing beats an activist seeking to get paid for their idealism. It’s how all Great Movements got started: I’m sure it’s why our very own Mr. Price has dutifully informed us every day for the last three years.

I know while we’re all just sitting and typing you’re out at night in your Ninja suit, sabotaging the feminist power grid, blowing up the feminist logistics dumps and assassinating the senior officers of the occupying feminist army. I think that’s great and I thank you for your efforts.

Snerk.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Alonso Quijano June 26, 2012 at 15:16

Great Essay Jack. I only disagree with this part:

“They’re more timid — more “risk-averse”—and more empathic.”

Timid maybe. Risk-averse only with their own money, and empathic only with her in-group du jour.

There’s a recent study, done by the German Bundesbank, That’s the equivalent of the FED in Germany, alas the centre of real power.

The study, based on the gender composition of executive boards in over 3500 German Banks over a time frame of 15 years, found that – against all previous assumptions – “the overall risk of the business model INCREASES with the number of women in executive positions.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd4a3ac0-77f6-11e1-b437-00144feab49a.html#axzz1ywLtqkZT

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Carrie June 26, 2012 at 15:23

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 25
Carrie June 26, 2012 at 15:32

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 26
My Cunt Is Wet With Fear June 26, 2012 at 17:13

“Science, it’s a girl thing!” video is a taster for a campaign to get more girls into science, and that the campaign will cover 27 EU member states for the next three years.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/martha-gill/2012/06/science-its-girl-thing-says-eu-commission-holding-lipstick-and-bunsen-burn

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
My Cunt Is Wet With Fear June 26, 2012 at 17:23

Working video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g032MPrSjFA

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
ActaNonVerba June 26, 2012 at 18:51

My thoughts (and the response I left):

The author sure does have issues with men. Sorry daddy didn’t hold you enough or things didn’t work out with your ex husband or whatever your problems are. Allow me to play devil’s advocate.

Let’s pretend (I personally don’t believe it) that what the author says is true. Well, let’s see. It is certainly true that women gladly take credit for raising admirable men (e.g. see London Olympics “Thank you, Mum” campaign”. Men are surrounded (smothered and curtailed in my opinion) by women in their youth….Mom, female-dominated early childhood educators, female babysitters, etc..

So, if women are going to take credit for their LEADERSHIP creating admirable men isn’t it only logical they should do so for scoundrels. After all, isn’t ACCOUNTABILITY something a true adult accepts.

Therefore, the author (a misandrist) has unkowingly accomplished the opposite of what she intended. Instead of making men look bad; she has made women look bad. Because: 1) Women dominate (smother) the lives of young boys. 2) Women gladly take credit for the influence of their LEADERSHIP on producing admirable men. 3) Women, as adults, surely accept ACCOUNTABILITY and, therefore, also accept responsibility for their LEADERSHIP producing scoundrels. 4) So, since most males (and females for that matter) who are scoundrels had primary LEADERSHIP from women in their formative years, this article does nothing besides bringing women’s leadership abilities into question.

A more fitting title, “Are women inferior leaders?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
GT66 June 26, 2012 at 19:33

Women have largely been able to claim moral superiority and superior empathy simply by virtue of the fact that they have capitalized on men doing all the dirty work.

Andie: “I believe that woman have evolved with a different psychology than men and that the average woman is indeed more concerned with empathy. Her stance towards the world is one of caretaking, and that reflects her position as childbearer.”

If *by average* women are superior in these characteristics, it is ONLY by the thinnest margin. Without further adieu, I bid you more quality female “caretaking” and empathetic behavior for the month of May. Just look at all this winning:

(From Interested-Participant)

(AL) Rebecca Diane Pounders, 40,
neighbor – Accused of dissemination of child pornography, aiding a person traveling to meet a child for a unlawful sex act and aiding and abetting attempted second-degree rape,

(AZ) Christina Marie Carbone, 23,
teacher – Accused of sex with boy, 16,

(AZ) Gabriela Antoinette Compton, 21,
teacher’s aide – Gets probation for sex abuse of two male students, both 14,

(AZ) Melissa Ann Dalton, 33,
teacher – Accused of sexual misconduct with two students,

(CA) Mistie Atkinson, 32,
neighbor – Guilty of incest, oral copulation and sex with her biological son. Sentencing in June,

(CA) Mayra Gonzalez, 32,
neighbor – Accused of engaging in sex with her daughter’s 16-year-old boyfriend, resulting in a kid,

(CA) Janel Pearl Ramirez, 31,
teacher – Gets house arrest for sex with student, 16,

(CO) Lauren Redfern, 25,
teacher – Guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Sentencing to be determined,

(FL) Artia Patrice Davis, 30,
teacher’s aide – Accused of sex with disabled student, 16,

(FL) Gretchen Gonzalez, 34,
teacher – Accused of being inappropriate with a middle school student,

(FL) Krystal Kamil Hernandez, 19,
neighbor – Accused of transmitting harmful material to a minor, sexual battery and lewd and lascivious exhibition,

(FL) Margaret Ann O’Neill, 26,
neighbor – Gets 25 years prison for molesting girl, 7,

(FL) Chung Ramos, 29,
teacher – Faces possible license suspension for sex with student, 18,

(FL) Kacy Wilson, 28,
teacher – Accused of sex with male student, 16,

(GA) Kathern Laura Green, 36,
teacher – Accused of alcohol and cocaine offenses,

(IA) Heather Adams, 41,
teacher – Accused of sexual exploitation by a school employee,

(IL) Sara Glashagel, 27,
former teacher – Accused of forgery,

(IL) Kathryn Morgan, 49,
neighbor – Accused of hosting underage alcohol party for minors,

(KY) Andrea Conners, 33,
teacher – Indicted for first-degree sex abuse,

(KY) Shannon Hirchert, 42,
teacher – Guilty of sex abuse of minors. Sentencing in June,

(LA) Destinee Elizabeth Chaisson, 20,
neighbor – Accused of molesting girl, 13,

(MA) Lisa Lavoie, 27,
teacher – Gets 18 months prison for violating probation,

(MI) Jessica Goolsby, 29,
neighbor – Accused of stealing $12,500 worth of bras, panties, etc. from Victoria’s Secret,

(MN) Jenna Anne Schultz, 26,
student teacher – Accused of sending sexual messages to male student,

(MO) Melissa Eaton, 48,
neighbor – Accused of sex with boy, 13,

(MO) Larissa Hurley, 37,
neighbor – Accused of engaging in sex with boy, 16,

(MO) Tessa Vervlerah (aka Venvierah and Vanvlerah), 22,
neighbor – Gets two life sentences for rape of infant daughter,

(NJ) Jillian Clementi, 28,
teacher – Accused of long-term sex with male student,

(NJ) Kristin K. Leone, 26,
teacher – Accused of sex with student, 16,

(NJ) Jennifer Mahoney, 32,
neighbor – Accused of repeated sex abuse of girl, 5,

(NY) Debra Mercado, 52,
neighbor – Accused of criminal sale of controlled substances,

(OH) Alicia Gaston, 20,
neighbor – Accused of engaging in sex with her boyfriend’s seven-year-old son,

(OH) Michelle Kazmierczak, 46,
teacher – Accused of sending naked pics of herself to her daughter’s 14-year-old boyfriend,

(OH) Laura Saylor aka Laura Barnhart, 36,
teacher – Gets probation for drug trafficking,

(OH) Mary E. Schnell, 25,
teacher – Gets two years prison for sex with male student, 16,

(OH) Heather Schoell-Schroeder, 45,
teacher – Accused of stealing prom money from students,

(OK) Rhonda Michelle Ford, 29,
teacher – Accused of engaging in sex with a 15-year-old male student,

(OK) Stephanie Notah, 44,
neighbor – Accused of child neglect,

(OR) Heidi Hyre, 51,
library aide – Accused of sending sexually explicit texts to three male students,

(PA) Philicia Barbieri, 26,
teacher – Sentenced to home detention for bank robbery,

(PA) Susan McCauley, 27,
neighbor – Accused of arson,

(PA) Kimberly Lake Smith, 36,
teacher – Accused of sex with two students,

(SC) Sally Elizabeth Neal,
house parent in children’s home – Arrested for sexual battery of child, 14,

(TX) Tiffany Michelle Amos, 25,
teacher – Accused of soliciting boy, 16,

(TX) Karen Lee Carstens, 41,
neighbor – Accused of engaging in sex with son of a hospitalized friend,

(TX) Natalie Deshan Johnson, 33,
neighbor – Gets 25 years in prison for sex with boy, 13,

(TX) Dusty Dawn McGrew, 31,
youth services worker – Accused of sex with boy under 17,

(TX) Kimberly O’Briant, 46
teacher – Indicted for improper relations with male student, 15,

(VA) Allison Tuthill Gaul, 37,
teacher – Gets suspended sentence for drug offences,

(WA) Cheri Powers, 44,
teaching assistant – Accused of sex with male student, 16.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
GT66 June 26, 2012 at 20:00

Carrie “It’s sad to see that many “men” on this page can only rant about how they’re so much better than women when, in reality, there is no absolute. Every person is different and I’ve known terrible males and terrible females, but I’ve also known great people from both sexes.”

Well, sorry to say Carrie but feminists have set this tone as the gold standard of gender discourse in this world since the 70′s. Given that they have been unrelenting in this attitude for more than 40 years now and only *now* want to claim that it is “so unfair” and NAWALT, you’ll have to forgive us guys for the collective eye roll and down votes at what you must SURELY recognize as your supremely hypocritical comment. Should we discuss the kitchen and what one should do when they can’t stand the heat?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Geography Bee Finalist himself June 26, 2012 at 20:23

“and every human is equal.”

I’ve heard that one before, and it wasn’t from males.

Equality is a pipe dream, or more appropriately, a crystal meth pipe dream.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Firepower June 27, 2012 at 08:08

Charles Martel

Your thinking is too narrow. A well-written parody of a Fortune 500 Human Resources policies manual could be a very effective tool to highlight the absurdities of feminist corporate governance.

I agree: that 425th one – really had effect.

There’s enough writing talent here that Bill could put together some e-books. He doesn’t have to write them, just assemble them.

Then, why isn’t it done.

I know while we’re all just sitting and typing you’re out at night in your Ninja suit

,I know it’s not as noble (or effective) as your 5 year typing career, but I do my best.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5
Sun June 28, 2012 at 17:59

@ Carrie

I have no problem with you Carrie and if you’re open to discuss there is no reason why I wouldn’t want too.

“I have only two problems with this article: calling this May woman a feminist and using the term “weaker sex” in place of women.”

I have no idea what you actually meant there. I think some words were left out (not trying being condescending).

“Anyone in support of gender equality is a feminist, not a man hater.”

There is no such thing as equality and “gender equality.”

“…I do believe that the sexes are equal but different, which you seem to disagree with in that last paragraph. (Using “weaker sex” for women.) That’ not fair at all, and every human is equal.”

So Alexander the Great is “equal” to Joe on the street, because despite there differences they each are an equal benefit to society?

While I used to be a person who believed in equality of totality, I don’t anymore. In other animal specie there is a dominant/superior sex. Women are important and do have advantages; however this doesn’t prove that men and women are “equal” when we talk about genders.

200,000 years proves this. Our expression of behavior, culture, society, institutional structure prove this.

“Every person is different and I’ve known terrible males and terrible females, but I’ve also known great people from both sexes.”

How does this prove that both sexes are equal? Are we talking about personality or kindness? I’ve known terrible males and terrible females as well. What does this prove? We are all equal? Through a collection of experiences called “life,” I’m able to understand that as groups, men and women, behave quite differently in many respects.

I’ll agree that men and women are similar due to being part of the same specie. I will not agree that men and women are equal.

“It’s a shame to see so many misogynists. I wish people could ignore sex (along with race) and look at individuals.”

You can’t “ignore” sex. It is a biological reality. It is part of what an individual is. You can recognize individual differences within a sex but ultimately we judge upon sex (even the most egalitarian feminist who claims to see no sex when interacting with people).

How do you ignore sex?

As for the article, there is a lot of ressentiment among Feminist for hating the feminine and thus try to make men and women equal often through male standards. How often have you heard women can are successful if they are in a career? A male standard. “Right wing” women have no qualm with motherhood or playing a supportive role. Feminist despite there name, believe the traditional “feminine” is a social construct, and should be eradicated because it places burden.

So they work to try to be men essentially.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sparta January 26, 2014 at 20:57

How do morality and masculinity work when you’re homosexual (as Mr. Donovan is)?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: