Wednesday, March 27, 2013

The Roosh Post On Why Toronto Is The Worst City In North America To Meet Women

This post by Roosh has been receiving a lot of attention lately. In it he describes why Toronto is the worst city in North America to meet women, and he takes this position as someone who has travelled to many different countries and cities and seen what women are like there. This is just one more good reason why Toronto is not like every other city when it comes to meeting women. There is indeed something uniquely sinister about the male-female dynamic in Toronto, so much so that a disproportionate amount of negativity is cast upon the women of Toronto and their difficulty in meeting. Before anyone rushes to the defense of Toronto women they should ask themselves why someone who is not from Toronto, and who has travelled extensively, would single out Toronto as the worst place to meet women in this part of the world. If someone from the city complains about the women of the city he can easily be accused of having a "grass is greener" attitude. But why would a well-travelled stranger to the city just happen to choose Toronto as one of the worst places to meet women?

I personally don't need convincing on the state of things in Toronto since I've accumulated my share of experiences over the years and have more than enough personally gathered evidence to back it up (and have shared that in my posts). But someone who is new to the Toronto scene would do well to ask themselves why Toronto receives a disproportionate amount of negative press from guys who try to meet the women there.

I want to discuss some of the points that Roosh makes about Toronto and throw in my observations alongside.

Girls are more excited about getting late night food than having sex

For Toronto girls, having no strings sex is generally seen as an extremely low value activity with lots of negative stigma attached. They see it as a basic formula where, sex = he wins and I lose. The guy wins by getting laid and scoring points that way, and she loses by giving up something of great personal value. In Toronto, a female's personal value is strongly tied to holding out on her sexuality unless a strict price is paid; that price being committed relationships and/or expensive dates and dinners. Anything less is undervaluing yourself. Basically, Toronto women are hell bent on not undervaluing their sexuality and they overcompensate for that by throwing up ridiculous obstacles such as the knee-jerk rejection of men, and having overprotective mother hens cockblock like crazy in order to maintain the tight trade union that is the Toronto female sexual market. As a result, no strings casual sex is almost impossible to get since it is seen by Toronto women as the ultimate killer of self-worth (and reputation).

Girls cockblock more than anywhere else in the world

This is strongly related to maintaining a tight grip around the Toronto female sexual marketplace. It's like having bodyguards protect a high value sexual celebrity from being exploited by unworthy males. It's like a neurotic overprotective instinct which actually crosses over into police state monitoring of any woman who is at least moderately attractive. There is probably also some jealousy too as the protective cockblocker is very often a not so attractive female who herself doesn't need to be protected from unworthy males seeking to exploit her sexuality due to her lack of attractiveness. So to address this jealousy she takes it upon herself to prevent her more attractive friends from having sex as a way to feel better for her lack of "action". In other words, if she can't get laid neither can her more attractive friends.

Girls think they are cooler than they actually are

They certainly do, and if you listen closely to the substance of their conversation you find that it is usually pretty mediocre at best. They don't have very many unique opinions except those that most other people have. They also tend to think of themselves as a great catch which is merely a self-proclaimed viewpoint, bolstered by phony magazine articles and pompous media messages designed to inflate the female ego for no reason other than for being female.

Girls are obese

Many Toronto girls are obese and often end up with guys who are in better shape and better looking than them. The greatly inflated sexual market value of Toronto females creates this imbalance in sexual market forces where women feel more attractive than they actually are, which causes them to overshoot for guys who are above their level and conversely causes guys to have to settle for less than they deserve. And unlike men, women can hold out much longer for someone of a high enough calibre due to their lower sex drive and the constant media hammering of "you deserve the very best". As a result, women can hold out for the overshoot longer than guys can resist the undershoot (someone less attractive than themselves).

Girls don’t give eye contact

They avoid eye contact with men in public places at all costs, even when there is only a small chance a guy could interpret that as interest and chat them up as a result. As a rationalization, they often say that they avoid eye contact only with guys they don't like, but the problem is actually that they avoid eye contact with every guy unless that guy is part of a pre-approved, pre-screened, controlled environment from within their cliques. So there is a half truth here. Yes, they give eye contact to guys they like but only when that guy is in an environment that is pre-approved by their peers. Guys outside that environment are automatically deemed unfit and hence they are not "liked". The only time Toronto girls will initiate eye contact outside their cliques is if they are in a moving vehicle and there is zero chance that the guys noticing the eye contact can follow up and do anything about it. Only then will they indulge in the pointless fantasy of "what if".

Now, it might seem like you're hitting it off with a girl you met in a public place, such as a club or a mall or whatever, but she will inevitably flake on you simply because she met you in an environment that is not pre-approved by her peers.

The entrenched PUA culture is raising the egos of all women

Toronto women prove that PUA tactics and game are almost entirely bullshit. The difficulty in getting with Toronto women is generally due to their adversarial attitude towards meeting men, which no amount of PUA tactics or game can overcome. This proves that getting women is in large part due to how much (or how little) they naturally want to meet you, regardless of game. Hence, women need to be open to meeting men in general for anything to work, which proves that there is no magic bullet, other than having a base level of physical attractiveness, decent conversation skills, and just being a guy with his own unique views on the world. But PUA thinking takes the position that no matter what a girl does to interfere with meeting you, you can overcome it with the right game. But this reinforces and enables bad and inappropriate female behaviour, and it causes you to lose that sense of give-and-take where each party has to do their part to make the interaction work.

Interestingly, it is the extreme difficulty that men have in meeting Toronto women that breeds the large PUA culture in the city. The extreme difficulty in meeting women causes desperation in many men who then naturally get lured into the PUA indoctrination, which is just a radical coping mechanism and a type of extreme proactive measure which makes you feel like you can always turn things to your favor if you just do the right things. It's fake empowerment which just happens to stave off the feelings of helplessness many men feel.

If you make just one mistake with a Toronto girl, you will be rejected

Toronto women are generally hypersensitive to anything that is a "screw up" when it comes to men. You can be a creep, creepy, a nerd, a bitter loser who cannot get laid, sleazy, or any other of the negative stereotypes that exist about men. Due to these biases, the bar is low on what is considered a deal breaker, but the bar is high on what you have to do, as a man, to win her over. Toronto women are Frankenstein monsters of media garbage, magazine tripe, radical feminism, female entitlement, programmed man hatred, and politically correct ideology. Trying to avoid any "red flags" resulting from all this mental crap in their heads is next to impossible, and is not even worth trying in my view, since you yourself have to practically be a disingenuous asshole to pull it off. And even if you do, you don't have much of a prize for your efforts.

Lots of people will criticize posts like the one Roosh made, and this one too. But I can tell you that the one main thing which the criticizers lack is specifics. They talk in a general sense about how Toronto is great because of this and that, based on philosophical assumptions on how things should be. They give vague reasons why the women of Toronto are so great but fall short on specifics explaining why. This is where guys like Roosh and myself aren't lacking - it's in the specifics. We give specifics about our experiences and give conclusions based on that, and not on how we think things should be like and then work backwards from that to try to prove someone wrong. There are often ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies at work when people try to prove other people wrong. But one way to tease apart the more accurate statements from the less accurate is to distinguish between conclusions based on personal experience and conclusions based on generalities, preconceived viewpoints, and philosophically based non-specifics.

Some guys say they have no problems meeting women in the city and then call guys like Roosh a loser, but you will find that such guys are usually lacking in specifics, either because they are exaggerating or the specifics involve some variation on the usual "pay to play" theme which everyone knows is within every guys reach and is not a valid testament to how easy it is to meet women in the city.

Monday, March 18, 2013

Ryerson Students' Union Rejects Formation Of Men's Group

An effort to guard the empowerment of women’s voices on campus took form Monday when the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) swiftly adopted a bold new policy rejecting the concept of misandry – the hatred or fear of men.

Neda Hamzavi, a faculty of community services representative on the RSU Board of Directors (BOD), watched her amendment to the RSU’s policy on women’s issues pass without any debate, discussion or dispute. This could cause conflict at a time when controversial men’s issues movements are on the rise at university campuses.

“There’s been a lot of work across campuses not only in Ontario but also across the country that have been working sort of [as] anti-women’s rights groups,” Hamzavi said in her pitch to the BOD.

“We want to acknowledge that the additions that we added here are regarding the ideas of misandry and reverse-sexism, both of which are oppressive concepts that aim to delegitimize the equity work that women’s movements work to do.” Marwa Hamad, vice-president equity at the RSU, said the policy will preserve space for discussing misogyny and institutionalized gender imbalances.

The amendment applies to a Women’s Issues clause that provides a strict mandate for which activities the RSU opposes. Outlined in the board’s agenda, the new policy rejects:

“4. Groups, Meetings or events [that] promote misogynist views towards women and ideologies that promote gender inequity, challenges women’s right to bodily autonomy, or justifies sexual assault  5. The concept of misandry as it ignores structural inequity that exist between men and women 6. Groups, meetings events or initiatives [that] negate the need to centre women’s voices in the struggle for gender equity.”

This is a bigoted and disgusting rejection of a group aimed at helping bring to light the issues that face men. What the Ryerson Student Union has done is hastily create a policy that prohibits the formation of this group. The student union claims that formation of such a group oppresses and delegitimizes the woman's movement. This is clearly a fascist move because it pre-emptively shuts down debate and discussion using the manner of rationalization shown. In the view of the ignorant bigots of the Ryerson Student Union, women are victims of male oppression. Therefore, when a movement forms on behalf of males and their rights, this further enables male oppression of women. Therefore, such a movement must be squashed and never be allowed to form.

These ignorant bigots firmly believe that the only voice that counts is women's voices. So ludicrous are their claims that a debate with them would almost be comical to watch. But close minded people as a general rule cannot debate. They are simply not used to it, and if you try to debate them you will see a lot of child-like pouting, huffing and puffing, and screeching that they are right using every logical fallacy you can imagine. Their only salvation is to shut down open debate before it happens, using fascist tactics. This is the only way they can maintain the illusion of having the high ground, by making pre-emptive strikes against those who threaten to question their world view.

By framing the alternative view points and the process of questioning (their singular world view) as part of the "problem", they (temporarily) manage to stifle opposition. But this underhanded tactic will eventually cease to be effective. Public curiosity, if nothing else, will ultimately bring to light those alternative view points.

It's only a matter of time before men's issue groups start cropping up at an accelerated pace. The fact that they are being stopped (by some) only brings us closer, since it unavoidably raises the question, why are they being stopped?

The University of Toronto has done an admirable job of allowing Warren Farrell to speak there last November, and most recently has allowed Janice Fiamengo to give a talk there as well. Clearly, the heads at U of T have more sense than the naive and brainwashed members of certain student unions. I guess when a city is so feminist and anti-male as Toronto, it will eventually breed its own resistance movement from within, and what better place than a feminist stronghold like U of T.

Warren Farrell was the first step, Janice Fiamengo was the second. And there will be more.

I talked previously about Warren Farrell. But who is Janice Fiamengo?

She is a University of Ottawa professor of English. She has seen the workings of feminism from inside of academia for many years. In fact, she says that she used to be a radical feminist, but has seen the light and has come full circle to realize how dishonest and corrupt feminism has become in academia. So for this reason she can't be easily dismissed for not understanding feminism. She lived and breathed it inside of academia at one time.

Here is a video of her talk:

And here is her follow up interview with Sun News:

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

A Good Cause For Men

A representative of TCC (Testicular Cancer Canada) has asked that I help their awareness campaign by helping to distribute one of their videos:

This is definitely an important cause, and it's 100% a man's issue, so it falls within the scope of this blog. Here is their campaign poster:

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Don't Use One Extreme To Justify Another

There's been a lot of news lately about crimes done by men against women. Two recent instances stand out. The first is the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut in which a 20 year old man goes on a shooting rampage in an elementary school killing mostly girls and women, and the second is the gang rape and subsequent death of a young woman in New Delhi, India. These are horrible crimes, no question, which should be talked about publicly and addressed, with an eye towards preventing future tragedies. But unless we are also willing to talk about crimes against men, to the same degree, then we are at best a selectively sympathetic society. It reminds me of how people will vehemently speak out against pet abuse, but turn a blind eye to the factory farm abuse of animals which happens on a much larger scale. Humans can be really compassionate and all, just not in a consistent sense. We want our meat, our eggs, our dairy products at an affordable price, and for all the naysayers, well, we're at the top of the food chain, so there. Animals eat each other in the wild all the time, so there. But the truth is that there is a big difference between raising a living creature in inhumane conditions and an animal living in the wild which becomes food for another animal who is trying to survive. But if someone hurts Fido, watch out! Okay, I'll stop there. I won't go more into this since it's a whole other issue, and I just wanted to point out examples of how people twist their reasoning to serve their personal agendas, and the agenda I want to address in this post is the one where, in this part of the world, female suffering is acknowledged and addressed in full view, but male suffering is not as important.

I have to wonder how many of the civilians that were killed so far in Syria are male, and yet we only ever hear about the number of fatalities as a total. Whenever you only hear about the total you can bet that most of the fatalities are male. Apparently, gender breakdown of fatalities doesn't matter unless the majority happens to be female. I get it, I know how that works. It's called selective journalism. Cover the issues that matter. The key word is "matter", and the fact of the matter is that females matter more.

When crimes against women are reported more, and the crimes against men are reported less, you have a bias at work, and this bias can make it seem like only (or mostly) women are at a disadvantage, and in a political sense this becomes ammunition for helping keep alive the gender bias in favor of women, back home. In the minds of some, the fact that some women in other parts of the world have it bad means that women here should have it good, and if it's at the expense of men, even better. The flaw here is that you're using the legitimate victim status of others as a tool of leverage to gain more privileges for yourself here, and also to stomp on the counterpart in this part of the world. In the minds of some: "You can deal with asshole men in other parts of the world by punching men here in the face. Men are assholes after all." Be very careful of this kind of extreme, guilt by association type of thinking.

When the mainstream news covers injustices against women, by men, in other parts of the world, but doesn't cover injustices against men, by women, in this part of the world, we have clear institutional bias at work.

Similarly, because the people at the very top of the social-economic pyramid are mostly men you can conclude that men have it better than women overall. As a result, even that poor homeless man begging for spare change will garner less sympathy than a woman in his place just because he happens to share an XY chromosome with most of the Forbes 400. This is called guilt by association and any guy who has tried to meet women in clubs will know exactly what I'm talking about. You're a man, in a club. Verdict: Guilty.

Black and white thinking, guilt by association, and using one extreme to justify another must be seriously guarded against, even for us, the MRAs. We must strive for balance and work towards bringing the pendulum towards center, and not just another extreme, otherwise we're just as bad.