Part of the Reason Behind the Beta-fication of Men?

It appears that women on the Pill are attracted to less masculine looking men. It places the woman’s body in a state of feigned pregnancy-a period of time where a woman is at her most vulnerable. Any wonder then why they will prefer the more nurturing type of men? The “providers” rather than the “hunters”?

Ovulating women exhibit a preference for more masculine male features, are particularly attracted to men showing dominance and male-male competitiveness and prefer partners that are genetically dissimilar to themselves. This is significant because there is evidence suggesting that genetic similarity between couples might be linked with infertility.

Of course, the dominating man is the one that she will be happiest with in the long run. No woman wants to be the leader in a relationship. On average, they are happiest with a man for her to submit herself to at the alter of his masculinity. Since there is also children involved, the ideal would be a dominating man who is also a nurturer-a trait biologically linked to rounder, softer faces of men. Then her submission would also ensure the perpetuation of her genes.

Interestingly enough,  after abandoning the pill, I am now with a man who’s face shows evidence of heavy testosterone exposure in the womb. His jaw is extremely heavy set, his eyebrow ridge is also very heavy and he is hairy. Everything about him drips with masculinity. The way he stands, walks, talks and holds a rifle. Facially, he looks like an Indian version of Christopher Reeve.

Why Casual Sex Will Mess With a Woman’s Brain

If someone told you that there existed a love potion, would you believe them? Science proves that it exists. And it confirms my long lasting suspicions that casual sex interferes with a woman’s ability to select a compatible long-term mate.

The hormone released during sexual intercourse, oxytocin, is the same one that bonds a woman to her baby. It is also released in woman in larger amounts than men. Because it triggers an increase in testosterone levels, there is a positive feedback loop occurring.

If a woman is serious about finding a long-term partner, she needs to understand the force this hormone can have. If she casually sleeps around, it will cloud her judgement on the man she is getting physical with. The presence of these good feelings can often be mistaken for “true love”, which in reality has nothing to do with sexual lust. One is about gratifying the ego, while the other is about being part of something greater than yourself.

By being more discriminating in who she goes to bed with, a woman will lessen the risk of getting emotionally attached to a man in the long run will simply break her heart. It isn’t just the pesky advice your grandmother gave you. There is now a biochemical reason for it.

Oxytocin is a brain chemical associated with pair bonding, including mother-infant and male-female bonds, increased paternal involvement with children, and monogamy in certain rodents, according to Kai MacDonald, M.D., assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at UCSD.

In humans, oxytocin is released during hugging and pleasant physical touch, and plays a part in the human sexual response cycle. It appears to change the brain signals related to social recognition via facial expressions, perhaps by changing the firing of the amygdala, the part of the brain that plays a primary role in the processing of important emotional stimuli. In this way, oxytocin in the brain may be a potent mediator of human social behavior.

By restricting touch to those we are sure love us, and we love in return, we can truly create a stronger social network. Casual sex and lack of interaction with loving family members can have detrimental psychological effects. Not only does it lead to poor decisions in marriage partner selection, but it can lead to heart ache when the man we sleep with does not love us in return.

A brief description of feminism

A youtube video by ArgusEyes on what feminism is:

The 10 commandments and morality

In Dan Ariely’s book Predicatably Irrational, the MIT behaviorial economist professor conducted research into the nature of dishonesty by conducting tests that allowed cheating. His team wanted to discover is planting certain ideas in the minds of participants before taking the test that would allow them to cheat (and get paid per correct answer), they seperate their victims into two groups. The first group was asked to recite a list of 10 books and the second one was asked to recite the  10 commandments. The results on the nature of the cheating displayed by both groups were starteling:

 

This experimental setup meant that some of the participants

were tempted to cheat after recalling 10 books that

they read in high school, and some of them were tempted after

recalling the Ten Commandments. Who do you think

cheated more ?

When cheating was possible, the gruop that recalled 10 books read in high school achieved an average score of 4.1 questions solved (or 33% more than those who could not cheat).

The big question is what happened to the other group-the students who first wrote down the Ten Commandments, then took the test…..[they] had not cheated at all. They averaged [the same] basic score as the group that could not cheat.

This is quite remarkable that such a simple thing as recalling the Ten Commandments had an impact on the moral integrity of participating subjects. It is quite possible that recalling phrases or quotes explaining morally ideal behavior (for example, quotes by Mother Theresa) would have the same effect. This is not my main point about the experiment.

My main point about this experiment is that the power of suggestion has a powerful effect on how we behave and conduct ourselves. Theoretically speaking, both groups already knew and understood that stealing, lying and adultery were wrong, but it was the group that was reminded that stuck to those principles. 

Perhaps there is a deeper spiritual meaning behind it, that the invokation of a God holding us responsible for our actions was what did the trick. Much in the same way that the memory of a nagging Jewish mother or an angry Portuguese mother would stop us dead cold in our tracks (I am both Portuguese and of Jewish descent, so please… no hate mail). Perhaps it really is the mere fact of reciting a Biblical passage that had a powerful effect on the ethical decisions made by participating guinea pigs. 

Either way, one thing is certain. The things we allow our senses to pick up on have a definite effect on how we behave-even if it is on a subconscious level. Marketing firms know and understand this concept. This basic concept works so well, that entire industries are successfully formed around it.

Unfortunately, the masses are allowing the media and government to be in control of what filters into their minds. Or even worse, are completely passive and complacent-simply allowing anything to pass through without discrimination what-so-ever. This is going to have indirrect consequences on our actions. 

How much in control you want to be in of those actions, will be up to you and your God-given freewill.

Warren Farrel: the wage gap myth explained

One of the biggest and most successfully prominent beliefs that feminism is responsible for is the factually incorrect perception that a wage gap exists because of discrimination. What the belief suggests is that for the same position and the same responsibilities, a man and a woman would experience a disparity in their wages of a 10:7 ratio.

This is an extremely misleading concept that many people are seduced by. A look at the facts will quickly indicate otherwise, and Warren Farrel does a pretty good job of laying them out in this Youtube Video.

Here is a brief summary of his views:

1. Women chose to work less hours than men on average

2. Women chose less dangerous professions that have lower pay

3. Men and women earn equal pay when they are in the same position working the same number of hours

4. If women were truly being paid 70 cents per each dollar men earned, then why aren’t employers rushing to hire this cheap source of labor?

An old post found somewhere in the internet archives

*******The user has deleted her blog, so I am unable to provide a link*******

I refuse to participate in any March for Violence Against Women.

There. I’ve said it.

*Nervously awaits mobs to reach door step*

I refuse to support projects that focus only on violence against women. It isn’t that I am a traitor to my sex. Because people have accused me of this before. Self-proclaimed feminists, actually.

It isn’t that I am heartless. Infact, it is precisely because of my compassion that I won’t support the march, nor the day of Violence Against Women, nor the Anti-Violence project on my campus. While at first glance the causes seem noble, and although I am sure the people involved have good intentions, I believe that this is a case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

The hell is that these projects remove focus from the true nature of crime. The hell is that by not understanding the basic sociology of crime, it will be left untreated.

Think about this for a minute: have you once, even once, ever heard of these organizations mentioning men as victims of violence, or mentioning women as perpetrators of it?

*Chirp. Chirp. Cough*

I didn’t think so.

This fact alone tells me that these organisations don’t actually care about decreasing the levels of violence. And the march of women against violence? Even more ludicrous. Power to gals who want to do it, but I would rather join a march for violence against women, children, and men.

Men account for 70% of murder victims.

Recent statistical studies have shown that 14% of men will experience violence while that figure for women is only half of that.

In cases of child abuse and murder, it is women who are the main perpetrators.

Lesbian and gay relationships experience the same levels of domestic abuse as heterosexual relationships.

More and more studies are showing that women are just as likely as men to initiate domestic violence. Grrrrrrrrrl power? Um…. err….moving along….

Most abuse shelters are for women and women only.

Domestic violence and rape statistics are skewed because

1) Under reporting by both men and women
2) False allegations-which are actually more common than the average person would believe
3) Social groups wanting to skew statistics in order to recieve more funding

This list will go on and on. My main point is that violence is such a complex issue, that focusing on ONE GROUP will infact defeat the purpose of minimising it.

If people really were serious about decreasing female and child violence, as they so insist, then why are they not researching the issue properly and actually doing the LOGICAL thing to minimize it and include men and female perpetrators in their campaigning? This way, by decreasing the overall level of violence, women in turn will experience less (precisely the result they want).

I can only then conclude that while they may be sincere in their efforts, they are not credible organisations and therefore drains on the economy and tax payers.

Ladies and gentlemen, do not count me in on this march. Do not expect me to support any Anti-Violence projects. If it makes me a traitor, then so be it. You may call me Brutus.

Scientifically demonstrated benefits of meditation

Please refer to this article Of Body and Mind, and Deep Meditation.

[Meditation]… prior to a mental math test led to low levels of the stress hormone cortisol among Chinese students. The experimental group also showed lower levels of anxiety, depression, anger and fatigue than students in a relaxation control group.

…

Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) — a scanning method less distracting than functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) — showed IBMT subjects had increased blood flow in the right anterior cingulate cortex, a region associated with self regulation of cognition and emotion.

Physiological tests also revealed significant changes. Compared with the relaxation group, IBMT subjects had lower heart rates and skin conductance responses, increased belly breathing amplitude and decreased chest respiration rates, all of which, researchers wrote, “reflected less effort exerted by participants and more relaxation of body and calm state of mind.”

Clearly this is a beneficial activity on a physiological level. Why aren’t church leaders encouraging daily prayer and meditation for their members? In families, why aren’t husbands and wives encouraged to do this on a regular basis? Can you imagine the huge impact this would have on relationships? Nagging would decrease, and men would have more courage to stand up and take reasonable authority in the marriage.

Spirituality and submission

Women have always been know to outwardly show more emotion than men. They are more prone to crying, emotional outbursts and therefore irrational behavior. These emotions may or may not be justified. These emotions may or may not be psychotic. What these emotions do indicate, however, is that surrendering to a force larger than yourself is inherently more difficult.

Surrendering yourself, as a woman, to a force such as God or the quiet strength of the masculine spirit requires a sort of humility and openness that is easily lost in a flood of emotions. I do not believe that this is an easy thing for women to do. And I do not believe that it is easier for them to do this than for men to do it.

Men also seem to submit themselves, but for some reason this male surrender seems much more natural and less prone to resistance despite the sacrifice and humility involved.

A great example can be found in the leadership role where the natural leaders of society and families assume this role at a price. Following your passion in a scientific discovery or crazy invention requires a sort of humility that brings you to stand in the line of fire for the sake of a dream. Men have historically done this in droves, even died for their beliefs in the process. Historically and traditionally, part of submitting to families as the natural leader and protector meant risking your own life during the hunt or during a war being fought to protect the homeland.

I believe that today, the reason why spirituality has become so taboo (as opposed to the water-downed versions of it called religion) is that it is politically incorrect to demand for someone to take responsibility for their own actions and well-being.Women, being the more coddled sex, will be less likely to hear this piece of advice than a man would. Being spiritual and paying attention to consequences of actions (karma), and taking responsibility for them is not an easy thing to do. It requires work and dedication, as well as the ability to admit fault.

What does feminism have to say about this?

A personal experience with dating broken men

Here is my personal account: My looks aren’t above average-perhaps a 6 or 7. Several people usually comment to me about how well groomed I am on a regular basis, though. I am an excellent cook, and am described by many people to be an independent woman (of the lone wolf variety). Attracting men has never been a problem. Finding one not broken by the system has been.

My love life can be summarized by two men. They are two different individuals with one thing in common: they grew up without a strong male figure in their life. One was raised by women and has never met his father. The other was raised by a super feminist society. Both depended on me to be the leader in the relationship. Both bought into the lie that women and men should be equals. Both has identity crisises and seemed lost in life-without passion.As a result, neither were ready to even consider marriage or kids. These traits eventually led to the destruction of any romantic long-term relationship with me.

Their feminist influenced beliefs led to a lot of friction, and eventually the end. Both men are extremely kind individuals with so much potential to succeed in whatever passions their hearts desire. Both lacked self-confidence, however, and it crippled them.

Both expected me to lead them through their own darkness when I- as a woman- was not equipped to do so. And I looked- even if it was subconsciously- for a masculine man to submit myself to while trying to adapt to this weird role. It simply was not the natural order of things. And learning it the hard way leads to more pain than preserving that old wisdom.

One is better off than the other, however.

And that is the first boyfriend. I am still friends with him, and our break-up has done him a world of good. He found himself in the past year, and despite his all-female upbringing (with a brief period of being raised by his war veteran grandfather), he has begun the growing up process of self discovery that began when he moved away from his mother. Because he was never one to place me on a pedestal, or grovel for love, because he was able to occassionally take authority my respect for him has never waivered. It was clear to both of us, however, that our life goals were incompatible and a relationship simply made no sense.

The second boyfriend, unfortunately, was completely indoctrinated by his surroundings. His older age (15 years my own senior, and 13 years my first boyfriend’s senior) placed him at a disadvantage since his ability to adapt has decreased. Growing up, his father never spent time with him and his mother was controlling. His spirit, to say the least, was broken. He had become emasculated to the point where he would curl up into a ball and cry whenever a minor disturbance occurred. He made me his whole world, put off his Phd thesis despite my protests to spend time with me, was over eager to please and constantly allowed other people to walk all over him. He has no goal, no dreams, no aspirations, and had already convinced himself that a life of being a corporate whore was in his destiny despite his obvious misery with the chosen profession.

My Western and feminist girl-friends adored the second boyfriend and couldn’t stand the first one. They loved that the second one could be so easily molded and “trained” . They mourned the end of my relationship with Mr. Modern Metrosexual Sensitive Man and celebrated the end of my relationship with Mr. Boy Discovering Himself As A Masculine Man.

The end of both relationships were extremely painful and extremely revealing. I am thankful for both, and saddened at the spiritual suffering two good men went through. The first one will be fine and is wise enough to rise to challenges placed in front of him. The second one has doomed himself and I often wonder if he will end up with a masculine, feminist woman.

One of the reasons why feminism has hurt male/female relationships

Feminism tells me that I should be able to do it all on my own and without the help of no man-unless he is a feminist himself. Perhaps I can buy into some of this. I am a capable woman, with an IQ that is over 140 and who is well educated. I do not mind proving competency in a field of work, so long as it is work to be passionate about (the corporate cubicle lifestyle has never made much sense to me in terms of happiness and fulfillment). I am more than happy to participate in a debate without getting emotionally involved. Some consider me to be the stereotypical “modern” woman who should be fucking for sport in her mid-twenties.

But there is something very empty about this picture when it taken into isolation. And that is the absense of emphasis placed on my human need for companionship and my feminine thirst to share life with a masculine man possessing leadership skills.

I do not want an equal. I want a captain who inspires me enough to want to be his right hand man; a captain who is excited to have someone with my values and character to be by his. When I come home from my day job, I want to abandon my briefcase at the door way and be a soft, nurturing, sexual kitten to someone. When I enter that doorway, I do not want to be an independent woman. I want to be a loving mother, wife and companion.

What do feminists have to say about that?

Nothing, because they are too busy trying to convince men that being masculine and a leader in a relationship is wrong and oppressive. They are too busy turning a blind eye to the ivy that is slowly suffocating the male gender.

Feminists, your movement has removed the role of captain from men. Your movement has destroyed the natural, spiritual balance that existed between a loving, but firm husband and his wife. Your movement has been responsible for the broken men I have dated.