Thursday, October 30, 2008

A moment of clarity.

I figured it out.

And I've been correct all along. Men and women are human beings, and both people want the same thing. Validation and attention. Both people want to know... they are important to someone.

And for a coupling to work. Both people need to have someone to be stupid with. Someone to be completely illogical with.

And both people need to have a feeling of over compensating for the other, just at different times.

So if a girls sucking a guys dick, she needs to feel like she's doing it selflessly. to please him. and he needs to pick up on that selflessness.

if a guy's spending $200 on dinner, for a girl, he needs to feel like he's doing it for no reward, and she needs to pick up on that feeling.

I believe thats the secret to a successful pairing. Now of course, there are still larger issues of desi women, from a certain generation who've been whitewashed to hate their own kind, and basically think all desi men are like their fathers (who they no doubt have negative opinions of) that need to be addressed, indian women definitely need an education in confronting pro-white biases that YES, WE ALL HAVE.

However here's the difference, because I want this to be clear to people

Indian men, yes have a pro white bias.. that ENDS IN BEAUTY. so I may think Jessica Alba or Pamela Anderson is hotter, but it ends there, I dont think shes a better woman, more capable of being a nurturing woman, and a a better human being

yet how many times have desi women been hoodwinked with flowers and romance and all that bullshit.? hmm? all in favor of reinforcing an opinion that white men are betteR MEN., not just better looking.

And so here is the difference.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

My message to the hypocrites:

Here's my message to the women that regularly practice hypocrisy:

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

What makes a female emotion more protectable, guardable, or valuable to its owner than a male one?

Answer that question. Because insisting that men always approach or put themselves on the line, is basically believing that female emotions are more valuable to their owner than male ones.

Keeping with the discussion.

Keeping with the discussion of inequality.

Here's my theory. Men and women are human beings. And we all need attention and validation. No matter how much "self confidence" or "self-awareness"
all of us need to be validated and made felt relevant by someone else.

If this point is agreed. then why do so many women feel they deserve more attention and validation, in particular in the beginning of a relationship?

Is this not a dereliction of a core belief of equality, now if a woman doesnt believe in equality and is willing to do her part, then there's no hypocrisy at all.

But having as a core belief of male-female equality (which by my understanding, is the underlying tenet of the entire feminist movement) how can one maintain that such unequal behavior must take place?
it's just a bum deal for guys (and yes I know by stating that I alienate any women who are reading this, but truth is truth)

For the women actually reading this, I've looked through the "rules" book. you must be aware of that bullsh*t. How can women subscribe to such nonsense like "you should be able to come 15 minutes late and the guy shouldnt complain" I mean seriously?

What if some guy wrote a book that said, "you should be able to grab her ass 3 times without her getting mad at you" Wouldnt that be labelled sexist, this-ist and that-ist?

Yet no, a book published by a mainstream US publisher can advocate such sexist behavior out of women, behavior that encourages women to devalue a man's time (and god knows what else)

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Being a nice guy

Can someone explain why nice guys are repeatedly shafted, when women regularly say they want someone respectful?

I had a debate with a woman, and she stated that female privilege wouldn't exist if men were smart (and didnt do stupid shit to try and impress them)

Couldn't I say, on the flip side, that male privilege wouldnt exist if women didn't repeatedly turn towards men that treated them poorly?

Think about it.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Dagnabbit. Banned again

"You are not allowed to post comments"

is the message I got again. After changing my pseudonym to "hero many faces", it looks like I got the official banning treatment once again. Now this is getting silly. It appears there are some in SM that tolerate my presence, and some in SM that completely want me blown off the face of the earth. (I wont go so far to say that there's anyone there that 'likes' me there)

I won't even bother asking for an explanation this time.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

I hate reality TV.

I hate reality television.

But I saw recently, what's possibly the best segment of reality television I've seen my entire life.

It was an episode of beauty and the geek. and the task for the girls was to go into a club wearing "normal" or "bad" clothing, no makeup, and ACTIVELY approach men and get their numbers.

Now some of these pampered b*tches were shocked to learn that men carried phones and those phones were assigned a 10 digit number. But I digress.

Finally, these dumb bimbos got a taste of what normal guys like myself and a host of others have to experience on a daily basis. having to actually put their egos on the line, not just sit back and wait for someone else to roll up on them. This is what our realities are like, the struggles we have to endure.

And it brought them (rightfully) to tears, when they realized they could be rejected. and a single rejection cut into their little weak minded psychii's over and over, while guys like us have to experience that 100+ times per week.

It's sort of like the great masterpiece written by John Howard Griffin, "Black like me" where he took psorlen, to make his skin darker (as he didnt believe the absolute 2nd class citizen ship that these "uppity" negroes were claiming) So he finally underwent the hardships that black folks were going through on a daily basis. And then commented, "I can stop being black any time" likewise these women can stop being "unattractive" any time, and immediate take refuge in their cosmetics, fashion and low cut tops.

So in this episode, I truly have no sympathy for these women, coasting through this part of life with so much ease. finally they got their comeuppance in a small way. Of course it could never be equal to them living an entire life that way, they could never comprehend that, however, now they know at a small level what it feels like, hopefully that lesson sticks with them.

Speaking about gender...

So women like to tout the fact that they are more likely to be abused in relationships. And while this is true, and horrible, and should be corrected. Let's not forget that men are 4 times are more likely to be murdered, according to the DOJ statistics:

Yet this rarely gets any media or blog coverage. To the point where female behavior is excused (ie running away, infidelity, etc..) is somehow engineered to be rooted in their higher likelihood to be abused.

When does male behavior ever get excused in this way? How many times do men get a free pass to their behavior because of their hightened risk to be victims of murder, and indeed all violent crime of any kind? Couple that with the intense pressure to take soul-less, meaningless jobs for the purpose of earning money? Yet this doesn't fit into the narrative, because we live in a world where women are perpetual victims, passive recipients of the evil male exploiting them and controlling them.

How about some true equality?

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

The San Fernando Valley Tragedy

I'd like to comment with respect to this post:,0,7425239.story

Now. there's no doubt that this is horrible and tragic. For these kids especially, not even allowed a chance to move forward
in life and fight for what they see is justice and truth.

I wonder how much pressure was on him to make money, pressure so high, that when it was taken from him, he saw his only option to end his life and those that depended on him.

Friday, October 3, 2008

Alea iacta est.

Since it's clear my presence at SM is to be eliminated permanently, and any attempt of mine to rejoin the discussion will be deemed as "trollish" behavior, I've decided to post a little epilogue here.

This is not meant to be a complete list, nor is it meant to be a "bash" list (or Korn shell list either, oh I kill me.), rather an account, mostly by memory, of some of the more striking interactions and people with whom I've interacted, both past and present.

There is a caveat however, these summaries are purely my opinion, and drawn from memory, if I had more time I'd be able to ferret out the actual SM discussions I've referred to in the following descriptions.

I'd say the biggest issue with ANNA is having to recognize her AS an issue. I had no issues with her, in fact no opinions at all. If anything, I'd say my opinion of her is mostly positive. However, I liken ANNA's presence on SM, to the Jewish communities presence in America. Now, before you start going all "poo poo anti-Semite! (1) " hear me out, then chose either to process the context, or ignore it and dismiss me as an anti-Semite(1).

When someone joins SM, (assuming they come in with a "clean slate") invariably you will see ANNA write a post where she's defending herself and taking some kind of statement very personally. When questioned, others will come to her defense, with statements like, "she's been attacked before, just for being a woman, etc.." After many iterations of this, a new person is eventually forced to take an opinion, even if they do not want to. In a way, she's a perpetual victim. The same way some (not all) Jews call upon the Holocaust (2) to reclaim their victimhood, you basically force anyone who's emigrated to the United States well after Jews in America have rebounded to keep thinking about them. (by the way, before you start flogging the anti-semitic flag at me again, this is the exact same logic used to tell blacks to 'shutup' when they bring up issues such as slavery, reparations, etc..) Yet white people can use it all the time, and not be "racist" yet when spoken towards the Jewish community, amounts to discriminatory, horrible, horrendous, illegitamite thinking.

Anyway, the upshot here is, I do think Anna is a tremendous addition to SM, and a diligent, smart, blogger. But you're forced to have an opinion about HER. even if you don't want to. I can't tell you how many times, I myself have been accused of "disrespecting her" when my response was, "I dont have the time to point you out specifically and disrespect you! don't flatter yourself!"

I dont know how instrumental she was in my banning, but I do believe she has been very fair, and respecte the right to free expression of opinion, and namely "keeping it real."

Oh. and one thread some time back, she posted a picture of a girl in jeans (with her head cropped off), and asked guys to comment whether she was "hot" or something like that. My guess is it was her (either from before hand or now).


Not sure which component of my posts she took towards, but apparently had a "crush" on me or something of that nature. I'm assuming she's reading this, maybe she can comment on what specifically she took towards?

I think he called me a bot once, and after that really not much interaction ensued thereafter. He's definitely a little darling over at SM, and that's just an artifact of human nature. Objectivity and lack of bias can never truly be achieved.

I had no real issue with him, but found most of his posts cumbersome and circumambulous, they circled around and around, and relied on concepts that your average person wouldn't know. For example, conditional probability and complex statistical analysis (I having done some probability in a different arena, could pick up on those, but not having studied say, genetics to that depth, would not be able to pick up on a central thesis) In a general interest board, every post need not be a masters thesis. or require one to determine the central point and argument.

One of the largest misrepresenters of my posts, but has toned down of late. In my view, someone who believes we should all just pretend to be white, forget who we are, where we came from, and live happily ever after. I'd imagine if there was a painless way to have our skin bleached, she'd be first in line. Sorry, but that just doesn't fly with me. Otherwise, most of the time I believe her arguments amounted to "yeah but the left-wing does the same thing" or something to that effect. So, in many cases would completely ignore the point being made, and just assume everything's a "wash."

I believe our discussions mostly surrounded male-female relationships, and social dynamics. Our largest differing point has to do with certain privileges afforded to the female in the formation of male-female relationships.

Camille & AK
I'll group these two together because they are two of the more sensible women on SM (in addition to ANNA, although I've never really discussed any of the issues with her). One's who've actually taken the time to dissect my argument and provide at least a somewhat reasonable, well constructed response. They've been unable to address the fundamental points I've brought up, but
at least they didn't lash out like others have done. Ak, in particular, for her call to other women, that indeed if they are to be treated as equals, they should act as equals. (I'm not sure if Camille has said this before explicitly, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt)


This was one of the people that attacked, yet shrieked in horror, and cried foul when attacked back. The only discussion that comes to mind is regarding a commonly done practice at elementary schools regarding Thanksgiving, where kids dress up as "pilgrims" and "indians" (guess which one I [and most probably, the majority of readers of SM] always was?) I believe he countered with some kind of point that when he grew up they dressed up in pink leotards or some sh*t. To which I answered, "yes but the majority is..." and his response was something to the effect of, "yeah well you didnt mean it when you said majority, you meant all"

She once complemented me on my sense of humor. Of couse, this was until she became a target of that very same sense of humor, then I conveniently turned from "cracking her up" to being "bitter." Now, her calling me bitter is somewhat like Sarah Palin calling someone "simple minded" but the speed of her knee-jerk "woman is always right and always a victim" response to everything would put an epilepsy patient to shame. Any male-female dispute was always rooted in the woman being abused or victimized, or something of that nature. Even if the woman set off a thermo nuclear bomb that blew up planet earth, some guy abusing her was the root cause.

I believe one time she likened a man paying for a woman on various preliminary social interactions, to a man 'leading' in ballroom dance, or some ridiculous statement like that. (I assume this was done to trivialize the act of paying from a male's point of view) I dont know where she lives, but I can't pay rent, buy food, pay ma bell and the power company with pictures of me waltzing and doing the tango, however, these service and product providers generally do accept money.

She's the person who would most definitely benefit from the statement, "if women want to start being treated as equals, they better start acting as equals."


He's pretty new to the "I hate HMF" front, but his biggest problem is the constant inability to actually address the point, which many of my other detractors have done. Rather he provides a stream of poorly constructed insults, and requests if "I'm going to whine about that desi girl that left me for a white guy" or something to that effect. Gee. never heard that one before.

My answer is what it's always been... no... because I've known many desi women that have gotten proverbially 'slapped in the face' because they chose to underestimate the innate racialism and negative assumptions dormant in even the most "liberal" of white people out there. And i'm just not the "I told you so" type of guy. But I did... tell them so.

Not much to say here. Never really discussed anything with this guy. (3)

The end. there may be more to come in the future.

End notes:
(1) Anti-Semite (used to mean attitudes against the Jewish religion and people) in and of itself is a pro-Jewish word, as Semitic people include Arabs, among others, so technically speaking, an anti-semite is someone against this entire group of people, not just the most powerful subset, but this is a digression.
(2) Again, a pro-Jewish term, the word holocaust etymologically breaks down into "complete burning", and is used to describe a large scale extermination of a group of people, the largest example (on American soil anyway) being the Native American extermination and genocide. Yet in America, the proper-noun-ified version of the word refers to a genocide (which was horrible no doubt) that occured on an entirely different continent, of a lower amount (accounts have the Native American extermination at 10 million or so)
(3) Funny thing, the word Manju means sweet.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

I wish they'd make up their mind.

I've been re-banned. This time with no explanation given.