There is no reciprocity. Men love women. Women love children. Children love hamsters. Hamsters don't love anyone; it is quite hopeless.
― Alice ThomaElliss
This excellent quote was posted on my last episode by Decoy 9/11. It’s a perfect and funny illustration of tonic masculinity, except putting hamsters at the center, surrounded by children, surrounded by women, surrounded by men. However, it may be the last exchange I have with Decoy because I’ve removed him from my list and removed myself from his. Life is too short to deal with people full of hate, even if it’s not directed at you which, in this case, it likely is. Let me explain.
On my last episode Decoy commented that “domination, superiority, aggression and violence [were] Absolutely at the core of masculinity—call it tonic or toxic doesn't matter.” He argues that “Throughout all of human history, virginity was absolutely essential in wives. It didn't matter if you waited for the wedding night, the point was your wife was untouched by any other man. This is an essential biological imperative for men to avoid being a cuckold.” He states, “The last thing I would want is to go back to primitive, matrilineal societies—that is a return to grass huts. … Patriarchy is literally the bedrock of civilization. It is never going away—thank God—but plenty of people can and do opt out of it. A lot of women choose patriarchy and two parent households are clearly better for children.”
These are all ideas, not ones I necessarily agree with, and I respectfully explained why. I welcome and engage with any ideas without offense. Yesterday on his own stack, however, Decoy posted Toxic Old Divorcees. In it he writes:
What is "feminism?" It's old bitter divorcees who can't get laid anymore.
So these nasty old women go out of their way to ruin the relationships of young people—purely out of spite. Of course, few men will put up with such women—we'll just ignore them. But unfortunately these nasty old hags do have influence on young women. …
These bitter old sexless hags see some young woman doing nice things for her boyfriend and they whisper in her ear: "oh you do everything for him, you're just a pick-me, in fact he's actually raping you."
Where are the wise Elder Women, mentoring the young women on how to "catch" a nice guy, how to be a good wife, how to be a good mother?
We don't have those women anymore. We have old, bitter divorcees poisoning the minds of young women. They failed at relationships, now they are going to do everything they can to ruin everyone else's.
Never underestimate the utter hatred an old, washed up sexless hag no one will f*ck anymore has for a beautiful young woman falling in love. …
Let me tell you young guys a little secret: it all changes at about 30. They start chasing you. 30+ women are horndogs and quite often very much down for casual sex.
See, we had "monogamy" to fix the "imbalance" between men and women. Patriarchy. A man knows the child is his.
Feminists, and especially old women who failed at marriage, really hate the idea that brides should be a virgin on their wedding night.
To toast my miserable life as an old, washed up sexless hag, I made myself a bourbon old-fashioned with Bitter Housewife Barrel-Aged Bitters. Then I asked:
‘Mirror, mirror on the wall, where is a beautiful young woman falling in love, whose life I can ruin?’
‘No worries, wicked witch, none of them can find a worthwhile man either.’
(thank you Sane Francisco for the Architinctures! I’m feeling bitter already!)
hypersexual tribal shit
I don’t think Decoy’s post needs an editorial except to point out the one place men like this think there should be equality—if men can be toxic then women are too. Or as William replied, “I am going to challenge you to talk less about how certain men are not living up to your idea of tonic masculinity and start describing what you think tonic femininity might be like.”
I define toxic as “domination, superiority, aggression and violence,” which Decoy says are “Absolutely at the core of masculinity.” Under this paradigm, women need to protect children from men rather than men protecting women and children. Toxicity is the core of masculinity, according to Decoy, and his vicious comment proves his point. If this is true, societies need to be designed and run by women who view men as weapons to be both coddled and controlled. If this is not true, men need to speak up.
To see whether I’m consistent in challenging ideas and not insulting people, let’s look at the adjectives I used for John Carter: brilliant, engaging, articulate, sharp-witted, insightful, clever, funny and ingenious. Yet also wrong. As marta says, “the thing that stands out to me, and which you address as well, is that women can't win in his world view. What is his solution for healthier masculine/feminine relationships? I like your solution—children at the center, women tending, plus the men and others who choose to tend, and men supporting and protecting this sacred circle.”
I told marta I was going to my dance class but once I was there, I realized it was really ho practice. No one is as funny-crude as my teacher. The class involved crotch-grabbing, simulated blow-jobs (is that where tongue in cheek comes from?), handstand twerking, humping and much gyrating. The teacher training, which I’ve now done three times, has a module on how to sexually harass your students without scaring them away. And how to bend someone over without knocking them down.
When doing some floor-crawling thing, a student said, “thanks, this is going to help my sex life,” and Gina retorted, “bitch, this is my sex life.” Just another bitter old washed up hag, whose workouts are so rigorous I’ve never seen a man even try to keep up. One guy who’d seen the class labelled it “hypersexual tribal shit.” I thought we should put that on a tee shirt.
The class has all ages but mostly 40 and above. There are some of the most stunning bodies I’ve ever seen, including one grandmother, but most of us are pretty ordinary. What’s extraordinary is the amount of fun we have. The way I describe it is women taking power from their own sexuality. Our bodies and our movements belong to us.
sociopaths on love and marriage
The gentle and generous reader Steve Martin was ruminating on the life he’d lived alone. To understand how he’d missed out, he was listening to a psychologist named Orion Taraban. I watched the interview by Soft White Underbelly and thought this was the most revolting talk I’d ever heard in training men how to be sociopaths and grooming women to serve them. Look at the eyes of this guy and tell me you can’t picture him advising Guantanamo guards on torture techniques as a side-hustle.
Taraban tells women how she can get any man she wants. Start by being beautiful and picking your prey. Be a hunter, not a gatherer. Make yourself familiar and accessible and, as soon as you can, give him mind-melting sex. Be your nastiest, sluttiest self, but make sure he knows it’s only with him … even if it’s not. Make yourself useful. Do things for him that he can’t ask his admin to do. And never, ever criticize him.
For men, don’t settle early. While women peak at 18, men get more attractive as they acquire money, which Taraban euphemistically calls ‘providing a lifestyle.' I think it’s because the pre-nup makes sure the ‘lifestyle’ is only hers when he can’t find better brain-melting sex.
Never let her question you. If she asks where you’ve been, say it’s none of her business. If she cries, ask why she’s making herself miserable. If she says, ‘I want you home more,’ well, she doesn’t mind you working more when she’s driving that fancy car, living in that nice house, and taking that luxury vacation. If you give in, she’ll know she can manipulate you and won’t respect you. Tit for tat, literally.
However my youngest daughter says it’s nothing new, Jane Austen did a better job of describing the games women need to play in a patriarchal world where men have power and money. The games have changed, but the paradigm remains the same. Then the stakes were higher for losers but the status was permanent for winners, not just pay to play.
dissident women
On William Hunter Duncan’s Substack, Born on the Fourth of July, he posted ‘What is a Conservative?’ It showed a chart where Neoliberal Feudalism had plotted 29 ‘dissident Right writers,’ including William on a horizontal axis of pessimistic to optimistic and a vertical axis of political to metaphysical with cultural inbetween.
Rurik Skywalker, Jasun Horsley and Edward Slavsquat were pessimistic metaphysical, William and John Carter were optimistic metaphysical, Robert Malone and Gato Malo were optimistic political, just to name a few.
I asked if Neo’s chart had any women. He answered:
I don't think any women were included on the chart; this wasn't a conscious decision, and apologies if I didn't include you or others. I was merely trying to demonstrate the idea, not aim for comprehensiveness. Generally speaking I think men are at the forefront of any non-mainstream movement and women come in to fill in the gaps later (take, for example, cryptocurrency; it was literally only men interested in it for many years). There's also a *lot* more drama surrounding women, and they tend *generally* to try to make discussions and arguments about themselves (look at a Laura Loomer, for example) instead of about the ideas themselves. They're also much more likely to flip if social pressure is applied to them. Again, these are just generalities based on tail ends of bell curves; there are always exceptions to the generalization...
I answered:
Here's what I wonder, is 'dissident right' a contradiction in terms? Can someone be described as a dissident if they're still falling into a category of mainstream thought like 'right' or 'left'? If someone is a dissident liberal, wouldn't that make them someone who disagrees with the mainstream liberal view? Or a dissident woman as someone who breaks that stereotype of interest in self rather than ideas? Like someone who wades into a group of men she knows will disagree with her but doesn't succumb to the social pressure ;-)
I wasn't feeling that I should have been included in this group. I'm certainly dissident but wouldn't describe myself as right or left, conservative or liberal. Mostly too 'out there' for either. But I definitely have zero interest in myself and could talk about ideas all day.
I'd differentiate between believing in the superiority of your ideas, which we should all do, and believing that you are better as a person. If I didn't believe my ideas were better, I wouldn't continue to think them.
I think men are on the forefront of cryptocurrency because men are gamblers, something that's been proven across cultures and throughout anthropology. Cryto is a gambling chip with no inherent value other than what someone else will pay for it, like the stock market.
If you were looking for dissident women interested in ideas and NOT themselves, you couldn't do better than Conspiracy Sarah, Heather B., kitten seeking answers, Vanessa Beeley, Pasheen Stonebrooke of Diva Drops, Visceral Adventures, and Kathleen Devanney, just off the top of my head. I don't know who Laura Loomer is and wouldn't waste my time finding out.
Neo clarified that he was defining dissident as “someone who opposes the egalitarian ratchet effect and its sense of Whig history which powers the forward momentum of globohomo.” In the meantime, Uncouth Barbarian wrote:
Maybe you’re having an emotional reaction to intellectual thoughts
Perhaps it’s my emotional reaction but I have no idea what egalitarian ratchet effect, Whig history and globohomo mean. The women I named write about scientific research into graphene, geoengineering and depopulation, historical gaslighting, propaganda and censorship, psyops like Malone, metaphysics, genocides in Gaza and Syria, the Maui inferno, adrenachrome, and attacks on the food supply.
Is this what Neo means by women surrounding themselves with drama? When they post pretty pictures and memes, or talk about themselves, it’s always enlightening. And I’ve never seen one flip under social pressure.
war of the sexes
To say there is a war of the sexes is to take valid points made by women and put them into a male framework. As denise shaw answered Decoy:
It is not the males that really care about continuity, it is the mothers and grandmothers. If it were males, we'd see continuity but we don't, families are in an atrocious mess. As for not believing that our entire society is based on catering to males, we must look at the paradigm we exist in. Males wrote the bibles, the constitutions, the laws. Males even coined the language. There isn't even the language for women to speak because women were prohibited from education and public life. So men designed it all.
Today women have been trained in the patriarch (as all education is patriarchal except for schools like Montessori, the Kin School, Waldorf schools, etc) Everything is based on hierarchy in normal society which is all around us. Hierarchy, oneupmanship (competition) and making numbers in one's account. Nothing else really matters. Look at violence and especially gun violence or bombs—there are women who use guns but they are a small minority. Women have as much freedom to use guns and form armies as men do but they don't do that shit. They're just not interested.
The thing we don't ever realize is that the entire milieu is male-designed for men. The money system, the political system, the education system, all of it was laid down by men and women have simply learned to become competent within that framework. I'm not saying this to elicit sympathy. I think it's time now for women to initiate a currency and it would put rings around this stupid currency. And relieve everyone of their slavery which most aren't even aware of because when you're in the paradigm, it's hard to see it as an observer.
When I write my episodes, I’m disagreeing with the words and actions of men but not attacking their character, as individuals or a whole. I don’t agree with Decoy that “domination, superiority, aggression and violence” is the core of masculinity, that men are toxic by nature. I think the nature of men, which has been thwarted by our system, is to build, construct, fix, tinker, grow, shelter and nurture.
What I’m criticizing in the words and actions of men is the demeaning and labeling of women, rather than addressing their points. My challenge to these men has been to tell me how women can succeed in being good mothers under the current system, or how they would change the system to make that possible.
Decoy asks, “Where are the wise Elder Women, mentoring the young women on how to ‘catch’ a nice guy, how to be a good wife, how to be a good mother?” He admonishes men that their wives should be virgins yet also winks that 30+ women are horndogs, totally DtF. Decoy writes:
Years ago I literally used images from anti-domestic violence campaigns to illustrate various kink stories, because it is the same god-damn thing. Women fantasize about a brute beast f-ing her through tears—that is a woman's fantasy, not a man's fantasy.
Just like there isn't a single man on the planet who ever asked to choke his girlfriend—that request always, always, goes the other way. It is women, not men, who are driving the modern trend of violence pornography.
So this is someone who think women should be virgins but is taking images from domestic violence campaigns to illustrate violent pornography and blaming it on women. Yeah, I know a lot of women addicted to violent pornography. Those 30+ horndogs are always watching it, in between begging men to choke them. I don’t know how Decoy knows what women fantasize about but maybe it’s all those romance novels they buy about men fucking them through their tears. It’s against my principles to say Decoy is an idiot; I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.
hoes, horndogs & hookers
The meaning of a slut or whore is a woman who wants sex for its own sake, without any reciprocal relationship or obligation. A hooker or prostitute has a specific price, and sugar dating or OnlyFans is an explicit transactional relationship.
The label of whore removes any sense of obligation from the male. It’s the woman’s desire for sex that makes her an immoral slut. The man has no responsibility towards her, the risk and responsibility is all hers.
So when the huntress pursues her prey, giving him mind-melting sex, being her nastiest, sluttiest self, all he needs to say to himself is, “Just can’t make a thot a wife.” Rather than her being used, she used him. If he choked her, it was because she wanted it but just couldn’t ask with his hands around her neck.
Women, is this the world we want for our daughters? The men are not going to ride in on white chargers and save us. It’s time to take economics, spirituality, metaphysics into our own hands. And as a parting gift, here is a video on Womb Wealth by a woman named Xi who was recommended by marta. As marta says, she is very woo-woo but she likes her. I agree. And building womb wealth is exactly what we need.
Two videos that talks about my own dragon dreams are Waking the Dragon Mom and Patriarchal Pyramid or Matriarchal Matrix?:
Responding to Russell Brand's interview, I agree with Jordan that men and women are fundamentally different and I describe a feminine ideology, morality and shape of government. Jordan suggests a fourth branch of government as symbolic with a king. The symbol I'd choose for a feminine structure is the interlocking honeycomb with the child in the center and the queen bee serving the hive. Jordan proposes that lust isn't a sin when directed to the marriage, but I look at sin as seeing inferiority, including objectified wives. I end by applying problem-solving criteria to the pandemic and wonder what it will take to wake the dragon mom.
Responding to Russell Brand's interview called On Fearlessness and Fighting Power, I nominate Vandana as Spirit Mother Earth Goddess and suggest Ganesh as her consort. I predict that we're at the end of 100 generations of patriarchy and should enter the matrix—the womb or place of origin—to imagine what comes next. I look at fear as the opposite of love, and the social distancing that says fear IS love. I cite another fearless Indian woman, Arundhati Roy, on the fighting power of the Maoists or Naxalites. I propose India's 1.3B people as 4000 self-governing commonwealths and end with a dream of Red King Kong and the Winged Green Dragon in which they have tea and solve the world’s problems.
I think it’s quite likely that certain men have a very two dimensional understanding of women. I know the same could be said the other way around. But even the most in-depth observations that I’ve heard men have of women, I know they’re not quite there, that they don’t quite get it. But that’s really just fine, dudes. Let women be a bit mysterious, damn. Let us commune with the moon and we’ll get right back to ya.
You’ve got a nice set of brass ovaries, wading into all that. I almost wrote “big balls” but then also realised that balls are quite sensitive and you could flick them to send them off crying in pain. A uterus, on the other hand, well, it takes a bit of a pounding and it gives birth and all that, and is still a nice, warm, cozy thing. I can’t believe I’m writing all this on a public forum. See what you bring out of people, Tereza? 😅
Just before you wrote “I have no idea what egalitarian ratchet effect, Whig history and globohomo mean” I was thinking to myself “I have no idea what egalitarian ratchet effect, Whig history and globohomo mean”.