Showing posts with label manginas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label manginas. Show all posts

Friday, July 2, 2010

White Men Are Responsible For America's Gun Problems

Predictably, liberal bloggers have reacted to McDonald v. Chicago with an array of ignorant, poorly written screeds. There are good reasons to be skeptical of McDonald, but the liberal reaction generally involves bashing white men and gun culture. The article below is a good example. It was written by Mark Karlin, the editor of BuzzFlash, a socialist progressive website.
If you think the 5-4 partisan hack decision denying the City of Chicago the right to ban handguns is about guns, you're wrong.
Governments do not have rights. They exist to protect rights that people have.

(It's the same 5-4 GOP block -- with some face changes -- that put Bush in the White House and bestowed Corporate Personhood in the Citizens United Case, in short a radical right activist majority of judges.)
True, there have been a few decisions such as Bush v. Gore that appear to be conservative judicial activism, but the number of liberal judicial activist cases dwarfs the number of conservative ones by a couple orders of magnitude.

It's about white males in America feeling threatened by becoming a minority and the gun is their last psychological reassurance of entitlement power against an encroaching demographic change in our democracy.
Two paragraphs in, Mark Karlin reveals himself to be a self-hating mangina. That's pretty awful, considering that most liberal white men are capable of doing so in the first paragraph.

Liberals love to psychoanalyze everything and accuse conservatives of being mentally ill. Has it ever occurred to them that maybe they are the ones who are mentally ill?

Also, why would white males be threatened by becoming a minority? We already are only about 33% of the population of the United States.
After all, the City of Chicago allows citizens to own rifles, so there never was a ban on guns in Chicago; there was a ban on a certain type of gun, which didn't even exist at the time the Constitution was written.
Chicago banned handguns, which were invented long before any of the Founding Fathers were even born. Pistols were used by cavalry since at least the 1500s. Gun grabbers are generally ignorant of guns and Ms. Karlin proves herself to be no exception.

But it is the handgun that makes so many white males feel impregnable, as if they were riding around with a turret gun in a Hummer.
I don't think she knows what the word "impregnable" means. Guns don't make you impregnable, body armor does (not against all rounds, though).

It's a vestige of the Confederacy; "I'm a white man and that allows me to do whatever I want and get away with it, so don't mess with me."

In addition to being ignorant of firearm history, she is also ignorant of American history. Gun ownership is not a vestige of the Confederacy. The Confederacy existed roughly seventy years after the Second Amendment was put into effect.

It's not about the Constitution; it's about a hormonal psychology under siege.

No, "hormonal psychology under siege" is when a forty-year old woman decides to stop chasing alphas and get married, only to discover that the men her age who would make good husbands are sleeping with 20-year olds. Gun ownership is about self-defense, freedom from tyranny, and just having fun.

Meanwhile, the presence of handguns in America causes more deaths than our wars -- and few politicians or corporate media will do anything but giving passing note to the carnage.
The reason why American cities are violent is not due to guns, it is due to the fact that they are filled with blacks and Mexicans, who commit disproportionate amounts of crime compared to whites and Asians.
Why? Because the white male is still too big of a voter block to psychologically "mess with." Even Harry Reid, the Democractic Majority Leader in the Senate, sent out a news release applauding the Supreme Court for overturning the ban on handguns in Chicago and "upholding the 2nd Amendment."
In 1993, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed the Brady Bill. In September 1994, the Democrats passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The next month, in part due to their enthusiastic support for gun control, the Republicans took control of the House, the Senate, and a majority of state legislatures. Harry Reid, despite his flaws, is not stupid. He realizes that if the Democrats go on the offensive against guns in an election year, they will suffer losses at the ballot box as a result. And it's not just white men who would vote against the Democrats. While unmarried women vote Democratic, married white women tend to vote Republican.

As America becomes more diverse in race and religion, the white male psyche becomes more frantic in need of "firearms reassurance."

Despite her anti-white misandry, Ms. Karlin does have a point. As America becomes blacker and browner, crime will increase and there is the real possibility that eventually some blacks and mestizos might decide to "cut down the tall trees." Widespread gun ownership among whites would deter that.

And the death toll mounts as a result.

She is correct again. As America diversifies, the death toll will indeed mount. "Diversity + proximity = war." Not to mention the fact that the people who are diversifying America have a higher propensity for crime and violence than the people of pre-diverse America.
BuzzFlash doesn't think Jesus would walk around shoulder holstered and locked and loaded. The Supreme Court has just changed one of our nation's mottos from "In God We Trust" to "In Guns We Trust."
It's perfectly sensible to trust in guns more than God. As Napoleon noted, "God fights on the side with the best artillery."

Also, I think it's hilarious that liberals disdainfully bash Christianity and refer to Christian conservatives as "Christofascists," yet they have no problem using Jesus to promote liberalism.

Friday, April 16, 2010

"Sharing" Housework

Whenever I see a man pushing a stroller or wandering around with a baby in a papoose I wonder if since he does his share of childcare, does his wife mow the lawn? (And before any FRAs start complaining, no I do not have a problem with fathers taking care of their children, I just think the sight of men wandering around carrying babies in papooses looks ridiculous and emasculating.) Feminists, their "pro-feminist" mangina allies, and women in general often whine that men don't do their share of housework, but men do plenty of housework, except that it is outside or if it is inside it involves using strength and/or getting dirty.

Most of the people who I've seen changing tires, fixing cars, mowing lawns, landscaping and exterior decorating, doing fix-it work, cleaning gutters, and painting houses are men. True, this work might not take as much time as women's indoor work, but it is a lot more tiring and in some cases, dangerous. Plus, a lot of women's work is mostly automated. Women don't wash the clothes with a washboard and string them on a clothesline, they just dump them in the washer and dryer and later fold them. Likewise, cooking really isn't very labor intensive for the most part (unless you are preparing ingredients, mixing them, or stirring them), especially since most American women just throw something into the microwave or oven. And in households where the man works and the woman stays at home, he spends 8 hours a day working, so the least she can do is the housework.

To answer my question in the first paragraph, I'm guessing that the wives/girlfriends of men who wander around carrying babies in papooses while their wives work, shop, or visit friends probably don't repay the favor by doing yardwork. The kind of men they are married to are the kind of nice guys that believe that "equality" means women have no responsibilities or are "pro-feminist" manginas who are too meek to stand up to women (because that would be patriarchal and sexist).

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Are Nerds Really Manginas?

Over at The Spearhead, Ferdinand Bardamu (of In Mala Fide) recently wrote an article about nerds and gamers as manginas who worship women. He cites a new online service called PlayDates where men pay $8.25 to play a ten minute game on X-Box Live or a six minute casual Flash game with a female gamer. The whole business concept is pretty pathetic and Bardamu sums it up nicely:

“PlayDates” is quite appropriate, since the dorks who sign up for GameCrush are basically paying women like prostitutes, but without the sex. It’s like phone sex but just as pricey and only half as retarded.


The sad thing is, there are plenty of losers out there who are stupid enough to partake in this service. I agree with his criticism of PlayDates itself and the loser gamers/nerds who will undoubtedly frequent it.

However, he also makes the statement:

It’s not a stretch to say that most hardcore gamers are nerds, and while not all manginas are nerds, almost all nerds are manginas.


There are a lot of gamers and nerds out there who basically worship women and feminists, as manginas tend to do. However, I disagree with his assertion that most nerds and gamers are manginas.

About once a month on most gaming forums, a topic pops up regarding the presence of female enemies in a specific game or games in general. Female enemies are pretty common nowadays. Sometimes they will be bosses or elite enemies (like in Wolfenstein), but in many games they make up a good portion of the common mooks (i.e. Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Bethesda's games). Predictably, whenever these board topics about female enemies pop up, a few male gamers will write about how horrible it is to have female enemies in games and that they feel guilty about having to kill female enemies (somehow I doubt female gamers feel guilty about killing male enemies while playing as Joanna Dark or Lara Croft).

That's right, there are gamers out there who get sad when they have to "kill" women who exist only as a sequence of 0s and 1s in RAM. But these gamers are the minority. Whenever some manginas whine about "violence against women" in games, they get smacked down by the non-mangina nerds that greatly outnumber them. Also, the fact that most games nowadays have female enemies shows that nerds are not manginas in general. If nerds were manginas, there probably would be no female enemies in video games and female villains would be treated sympathy in order to avoid offending the supposed mangina audience. Additionally, the people who make video games are nerds (see this picture of Bethesda's Fallout 3 development team, for example) and if most of them were manginas, then they would go out of their way to exclude or demonize "violence against women" (a term that manginas love to use) instead of including it in their games.

Mangina nerds are pretty easy to distinguish from other nerds. They worship "ass-kicking women" and think women who can beat them up are awesome. They are the kind of nerds who get upset when his opponent in a game of Magic: the Gathering refers to a creature card depicting a woman as a "bitch," not due to the unsportsmanlike comment but due to its "sexism." He's the kind of guy who complains about how a new video game "glorifies violence against women" because it has female enemies, a female villain, and allows you to hit a woman in a scene played for comedy. Yet he not only has no problem with video games depicting women beating up and killing men, but likes such women because of how "empowered" they are. This is the kind of man who writes a feminist review of Portal.

I've met these kind of mangina nerds before. I've noticed that they tend to be on the less intelligent than the average nerd and perhaps as a result they try to act more "normal" than other nerds. That's the key. The nerds who are normal and the nerds who are not normal but know it are not manginas. It's usually the less-intelligent nerds who try to fit in with normal people who end up as manginas.

I call this the "uncanny mountain of nerdom." The name derives from the uncanny valley theory in robotics that basically states that as an object similar to a human becomes close to looking and behaving like a human, its familiarity suddenly and sharply plumets, then rises again.

In the graph of the "uncanny mountain of nerdom," as a nerd's normalness increases, there is a significant increase in his level of mangina-ness, prior to falling. This uncanny mountain is caused by beta male nerds who try to act cool like everyone else, but have difficulties inherent to their nerdom. And while they are still reasonably smart, they lack other nerd's high intelligence and its accompanying benefits. In order to attempt to attract women and fit in with our emasculated culture, they act like manginas both in person and on the internet.



While there are a lot of gamers who are manginas, I wouldn't say that a majority of gamers are manginas. I think such statements are as inaccurate as saying most nerds are omega males. True, there are some gamers and nerds who exude manginaness, but female-worshipping beta males, gamma males (per Vox Day's hierarchy), white knights, nice guys, and manginas - or whatever else you want to call them - exist in large numbers everywhere.

I think the reason why a lot of people hold such stereotypes about nerds and gamers is that the media portrays them as such. If they are not fat, friendless, omega losers, they are decent-looking but socially awkward betas/gammas who worship the ground that women tread on. The reason for this is probably due to the fact that the media is dominated by feminists and liberal men who act like manginas to appease the feminists. So when they portray nerds, they will either portray loser nerds for women (and non-nerd alpha males) to laugh at or mangina nerds so women can feel smug and self-important.

Unfortunately, these mangina, female-worshipping males tend to be the more publicly visible nerds, especially in the film industry. It probably has to do with the fact that they have slightly better social skills and far less misanthropy than the average nerd so they are better suited for the public eye. Video game industry leaders are closer to the average nerd, which is probably why the mainstream media, politicians, middle-class suburban mothers, and activist groups hate video games: they're not used to dealing with nerds - and men in general - who aren't politically correct manginas.

Note: I wrote about why not all nerds are omegas here.