Sunday, November 30, 2008

The dark dirty secret

Women that get by mostly on their looks, and KNOW that they get by mostly on their looks are usually the most insecure people in the world.

Especially since they know no matter what, that gift is the one that gets steadily taken away. As Johnny Cash says,

Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.

The Mumbai Tragedy

There's not really much to say about this.

Of course it's ridiculously horrible.

A couple positive "silver linings"

1. White people now know the town's name is "Mumbai"
2. White Americans see good "brown" people on the TV.

Also, watching Fareed Zakaria interview Ratan Tata on CNN is an exceptionally proud moment, letting the people who are most directly affected by this event discuss it, rather than having fat old white men talk about something they know next to nothing about.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

The real thanksgiving

I know its early.

But I always like to use this time to remind people, of the true meaning of thanksgiving, and the true history behind it. Not the whitewashed version we see on TV and in elementary schools on a yearly basis.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Didn't mean to call you a dumb bitch.

but I took what you said to be very insulting.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

To the dumb idiots that think Obama's victory is an end to racism


Let's put everything aside

Close your eyes.

Imagine a desi girl, her arms wrapped around some white guy.

Now imagine these two laughing at how socially inept desi guys are, how they're chicken, how they're coddled, how they cant approach.

Now imagine the girl asking the guy to do an impression of how "an indian guy approaches" and then laugh at this mockery.

Now ask yourself. is this not the behavior of a girl so smitten with self-hatred? someone who hates her background and culture so much she has to run to what she's been pummelled with as "superior" ?

You know. in the old days, white men raped and pillaged and instituted programs to force minority men into thinking less of themselves and forced minority women into hating themselves and likewise, the men of their culture.

Now it seems desi women are just all the more likely to follow that path willingly.

Rule 8. If this is your first time on this blog. you have to post.

One of my favorite movies is Fight Club.

Watching it again, it got me to thinking about male aggressive behavior, a topic that I've debated
for a small amount on SM. But now I think it's time to extend the debate here.

Of course, let's add a bit of context to the discussion. It's an often quoted joke that women would
be "fat, happy, and hairy" without men. That is to say, their desire to lose weight, and remove their hair, and generally
"beautify" themselves stems from a socialized, learned behavior, to attract, appeal to and please men.

Let's just keep that in mind. Back to male aggression.

Now, let's think back to the playground, I'm talking ages 5-12 years old, How do certain guys get attention
of the women? by doing math problems? in India maybe, but not in western society. In fact, I lost a
student council election on that very platform. But thats another point.

When I did martial arts, a girl was very transparent about why she was dating a certain guy

"I'm glad Lou is my boyfriend, he doesn't lose. [his martial arts tournaments]"

"What if Mike beat him next week."

"Mike won't beat him."

But early on, we as boys, learn that girls like the boys that can physically dominate their opponents, and do so. Basically those that show the aggression early on. So couldn't we conclude that the aggressive behavior is a socialized, learned characteristic, that's reinforced by positive feedback from women? Of course we can, because that is most definitely the case. Which is why when a woman laughs or mocks a man publicly, it provokes an aggressive impulse - an impulse that has been wedged into his brain as the "go to" method to earn female approval - be aggressive (maybe even violent) and defeat opponents.

It's internalized from an early age, and progresses its way to later on in life, where physical dominance isn't as important, but dominance and "owning others" still is. So the lawyer who out argues, the chef who out cooks, the crack dealer who out-deals all win women in their respective spheres.

Yet women are given the privilege of having their behavior explained away as socialized, trying to please men, etc... where as we are usually slapped with "boys will be boys" or "boys are naturally aggressive" which if it's true, and it's such a bad thing...

why do women engage in relationships with a naturally corrosive and inherently aggressive group of individuals?

Of course, the dirty little secret is, women *WANT* boys to be boys, because it provides them a simple mechanism to target when attracting them.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

An amazing post

An excerpt from a great post:

"It is strange, too, because women are by no means the second sex. As Camille Paglia conclusively demonstrates, women are without question the dominant sex in our society. No one who has ever seen the desperate attention-seeking of teenage boys or intricately-shaped lavender soap in the private bathroom of a rich and powerful CEO can doubt it. It is usually not much more than a decade, somewhere in the years from 15 to 30, that a man is not under the strong influence of a woman.

There is a saying, that a woman is, and a man must become. Perhaps it is this need on the part of males to become, this sense of a battle fought and won, that separates the sexes more than any other.

Or perhaps it is that women simply do not understand that male respect is never given freely, it must always be earned. And the only way it is earned is by taking complete responsibility for one's words, one's actions and one's decisions."

Full post available here:

Friday, November 7, 2008

A quick recap

This blog, over the past few weeks has seen some increased traffic, a surprise to me, no doubt. I don't know whether it's some
collective joke against me, or a serious inquiry and engagement on the issues I have brought up over my time on SM and
subsequently here, since my removal from there.

It appears that a few unanswered questions and uncontestable points have been uncovered, let's run them down. By the way, I appreciate the effort made by the people who have attempted to combat me on these issues. However, it's clear they have yet again proved to be unsuccessful.

-Women are granted a right to be emotional and those emotions are treated as more valuable and protectable.

Reasons: Men showing emotion are often regarded as being weak, as a man who does show emotion is told
by society to "be a man" with the implication being, don't let these emotions get to you. Men have a higher demand
on them to be in control of their emotions.

-Women can minimize emotional risk in relationships, by taking refuge in adopting a "I only want to be approached" strategy and hence keep their emotional connection to relationships and sex.

Reasons: Because we live in a society that grants women the privilege to sit back and wait for approaches and "select" , they do not have to endure difficulties that men have to endure. In order for a man to succeed he has to harden his skin to multiple rejections, women on the other hand do not. A woman can meter the amount of emotional investment she makes by simply rejecting or not rejecting the man. Society privileges her absolutely, in this regard. All the difficulty lies with the male, because the male must basically hoodwink the woman into believing he is emotionally connected, all the while maintaining a strict policy of emotional distance- otherwise he risks another rejection tarnishing his self worth - and further corrupting his chances for future relationships

For example, lets say a woman approaches, and gets rejected. She feels bad and adopts a policy of "I will only be approached and chased."

Now, lets say a man appraoches and gets rejected, he too feels bad, but cannot adopt the same policy, as society deems it "unmanly" and "against the nature of manhood" so he has to go back and get repeatedly rejected again and again. And moreover, has to hear about how hard women have it in life being treated as unequals, yet this glaring inequality is so often glossed over.

And to the b*tches that say "If she's not interested, then just shake it off and move on" How about taking some of your own advice? but no, you don't take that advice, you just fall back onto the privilege you take for granted when dispensing this advice.

Now I understand that a woman can undergo the pain of investing emotions and having them not returned, and can also feel "burned." But it's a different animal when society questions your very existence and very place on earth for not approaching, and taking all the steps to escalation. In a sense, we are always risking ourselves, women have the chance to assess interest then make the decision. Men do not have that luxury.

If women truly want to be equal partners in a relationship, they should be willing to shoulder half the load.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008


That's all I gotta say.

a non uncle tom person of color got elected to the highest position in US government.

I think it'll take at least a week for the truth to actually set in and become believable.

Manju. if you're reading. I might start that investment bank.