Tag Archives: Women

How (almost all) women and all feminists selfishly try to force you into a traditional male role

In this article we will explore a very selfish and brutal strategy used by women and feminists, and that is using “creep shaming” as a way of emotionally shaming you into outdated gender roles.

Most of the general population primarily uses direct shaming such as “man up and be the man and make the move”, “I’m not attracted to a wuss who has to ask me for permission before he kisses me”. While such direct shaming is also a form of bullying and hurtful toward men, we will not focus on unraveling such direct-shaming in this article because it’s pretty obvious and straightforward. We will only use it as a way of contrasting creep-shaming off of it.

The much worse forms of shaming are those that are indirect and insidious, sneaky forms of manipulation. Most women have at one point or another used sneaky-indirect-shaming, and all feminists have. The reason all feminists have to use indirect shaming is because using direct shaming is too blatantly apparent, and shines light on feminist hypocrisy too brightly.

So what is indirect shaming?

Well, there are many forms, but I would say the primary form is the use of so-called “creep shaming”. This isn’t to say that creepy behaviour is good, or that one should set out to make people uncomfortable on purpose. Of course not.

Creep-shaming is where women claim that not-conforming to a gender role is “creepy”. Let me give you an example. Let’s say that you are not Ashton Kutcher, and that you have common human insecurities when you see a woman you’d like to talk to.

- You see her

- Your mind starts racing “Oh wow, should I look at her more or look away? Oh wow, should I smile or is smiling too strongly creepy, or wait, smiling too little is creepy right!??! omg omg omg what do I do? What if that guy next to her is her boyfriend, how do I approach her?”

or

- You have had a great conversation with a girl, and now you’re standing in private

- You realize this might be a moment to kiss her, your mind starts racing “Oh wow, do I kiss her, or wait no? Do I like crack a kissing insinuation joke, see how she reacts, and if she reacts well I THEN kiss her?! No, no no wait, maybe I should just lean in and do it anyway? My friend said men do that when they think it’s on, but this feminist online said that’s so-called kiss-rape… oh wow, what do I do”

- If this continues and you hesitate past a certain point, the women who are interested will tend to lose interest and get disappointed if you don’t “man up” and do it quickly enough (the approach or the kiss), provided again that they wanted to be kissed/approached by you. If they did not want to be approached or kissed, your wandering eyes and uncertainty makes them feel uncomfortable. Your shifting all over the place makes them feel uneasy (they feel entitled to you taking the risk and responsibility while they lazily get what they want by just existing with a vagina).

Now… let’s parse this example through direct and indirect shaming language

Women who shame you directly will say that you need to “man up” and “be the man” and “just do it” and not care about consequences. A female friend might even say “So what if she yells at you and calls you a mouth-rapist, man up and do it”. If you protest and tell your friend that you read feminists online who said this is “assault” she will shame you and tell you to listen to “real women” and not feminists. If you tell a female friend that you had asked a girl to hang out for over a dozen times and never got the courage to make the move, she (your female friend) will say you’re a wuss and you just need to do it, because girls lose interest in guys who wait so long.  If you spend all night staring at a girl, and wait so long to approach her that she loses interest, your normal female friend will say you disappointed the girl and you lost her by being such a “wuss”.

Women who shame you indirectly will say that you are “creepy” and that you’re “creeping” women out for daring to make them uncomfortable. They will describe your hesitation and not knowing when and how to make a move, or not having the courage to make the move as “rapey”. The feminist will say that you are a “rapey” “creepy” and “deceitful” man for asking to hang out with someone for over a dozen times while only “pretending to care for her non-romantically”. The feminist will say that if you stare at a woman all night and don’t approach her up to the point where the woman becomes uneasy, then you are a “creepy eye-rapist”.

Do you see what’s happening here?

1) Both strategies are designed to make you feel bad about not performing maleness

2) All of these are centered around you performing typically female behaviour

There are many more examples. For example women being lazy as they are will not approach you, but they will spend all night trying to think up ways to hover around you, accidentally brush up against you and always be in your eye-sight. If YOU did this, you would be “creepy” and “stalkerish”  or a “cowardly” “wuss” depending on the shaming mode used.

DO YOU SEE? Do you get what’s happening here? Do you understand how creep-shaming gets used as a way to shame men into a traditional male role. Study any major piece by any major feminist blogger on the subject of “nice guys tm” and actually STUDY the actual behaviours they’re protesting. You will notice that 100% of them are traditionally female behaviours (i.e. passive mating strategies). This is how feminists try to shame men into the traditional male role.

The more sickening part is the cognitive dissonance created by trying to shame you away from it at and toward it at the same time. While I hate traditionalists as much as feminists – those losers are at least consistent. A traditionalist will say “you should just make the move”. A feminist is saying that you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Asking for sex is creepy, not asking for it is rapey. Being too direct is creepy, not being direct enough is creepy. Being too passive is creepy, being too active is creepy.

Pretty much the only way to not be creep-shamed by feminists is to possess telepathic skills, or have tons of experience. Now, it IS possible to be so calibrated and so experienced that you know exactly when to make exactly what move and to persist exactly how much. I’m getting close to that level, and a lot of the womanizers I know are at that level.

However, no one is born with experience. It probably takes thousands of rejections (and yes creeping out thousands of women) before you get that sort of fine calibration where you know exactly what to do “as if” you had telepathy.

Why do feminists hate nice guys, and never mention “nice girls TM”?

The most important thing to point out isn’t just that feminists hate nice guys… They hate lots of trivially negative things.

The thing that doesn’t make sense is the *disproportionate* hate leveled at nice guys.

I mean sure, feminists WILL write an article listing a set of reasons why nice guys are “not-ideal”. They will actually list things that we can admit are “flaws” (when comparing someone to perfection I mean).

Now, let’s for ignore for a second the fact that most women on this planet have these same flaws, and they are never bashed and mocked as “nice girls TM”. Let’s ignore that double standard for a second…

What’s really astounding is how disproportionate the negativity, bashing and vile hatred toward nice guys is (in proportion to) the “flaws” which are claimed as the “reason” for feminist hatred toward “nice guys tm”.

It’s so obviously over the top, that anyone with two braincells to rub together can immediately gather there must be ANOTHER (un-stated) reason for the hatred of nice guys.

I believe the leading theory is that feminists hate nice guys because they speak up about, and call women out on women’s hypocrisy and lies, and that is the number one anti-female sin one can perform.

How do we know this? Feminists only hate a nice guy after he publicly voices discontent with having been lied to by women. If feminists hate Joe for applying a passive dating strategy as claimed, how come they don’t bash Joe until and only after he complains that this strategy doesn’t work for men? (not to even mention, how come they don’t bash women, who in much larger proportion apply passive dating strategies)

The research is there too

According to the paper “Courtship Behaviors, Relationship Violence, and Breakup Persistence in College Men and Women” by Stacey L. Williams and Irene Hanson Frieze…

“[M]ales perform more approach, or regular courtship behaviors, whereas females are more likely to perform acts of surveillance, that is, attempts to make indirect contact with the love interest by way of (seeming) serendipity.”

Get that? Women are the ones more likely to engage in passive mating behavior. In fact, I’d personally say that’s all women do, being the lazy spoiled daters they are. But how come when men apply this strategy they are “broken and flawed nice guys TM” whereas feminists stay silent and all you hear is crickets on the topic of female passivity (indirect mating behaviour).

Feminists say that performing passive mating strategies is a character flaw. If you as a man are continually trying to find ways to be around a woman, hinting at interest, pretending to care about her interests etc etc… well then you are “flawed” and “deceitful” for not stating your intentions clearly and making a move.

By that same logic pretty much every woman on the planet would be deemed deceitful, even if she doesn’t take it to the extent of plausible deniability, which most women DO.

Assman posted a good comment over at SWAB’s too:

Here is my theory:

Feminists have a lot of innate preferences and values that don’t accord with male/female equality. They work hard to somehow fit their prejudices into feminism and somehow explain them away. What prejudices you ask?

1) A prejudice against male weakness – this is why they hate nice guys. Its not uncommon for women to hate weak men and historically its always been true that weak men have been hated by both men and women. Feminists have no good way of justifying this prejudice…hence nice guys.
2) A protective feeling toward females – this is in large part why feminism has been so incredibly successful. It has always exploited the biological desire to protect women on the part of both men and women. Notice that no protective feeling exists on the part of men. Ask yourself a question..when was the last time you felt protective of a man?
3) The view of men as lustful sexual predators and women as dainty things that need to be protected from sex – this isn’t biological…its societal. Most Christian societies have always had a problem with sex and have generally been anti-sex. There are related beliefs here like the view that men are “using” women when they have sex wit them. This explains why feminists demonize male sexuality and often try to protect women from sex with men

The Tiger Analogy (Plausible Deniability is Sadistic and Cruel)

Imagine that you’re traveling through a distant land and come upon a society where a man who wants a relationship must go into an arena with innumerable doors. All the women who have seen the man and are attracted to him then enter the back of the arena and take up behind some of the doors. But the rest of the doors are supplied with fierce tigers that would eat the man. There are many doors – hundreds perhaps – and the ratio of women to tigers is what we shall call “attraction.” The lower the ratio, the more likely the man will meet his fate in the jaws of a tiger. But men are fighters – they can fend off at least a few of the tigers, acquiring a few scars and losing some blood along the way – and are willing to do this so long as one of the doors eventually reveals a loving woman. But still, these men can only fight off so many tigers before they end up a mangled wreck of their former selves. And the women, who peer out through secret peep holes, see a progressively uglier man until they lose interest and walk off, in turn being replaced with more tigers. Eventually the man must admit defeat. Yes, there may be one unopened door left that holds his lover, but at some point it just stops being worth it. It’s just not worth it.

The really attractive men – well, they sometimes open multiple doors and have their way with all the women before moving on to yet another – completely unconcerned for the occasional tiger. And the women complain about this, they think it’s awful. But the less attractive men keep getting mangled. Everyone is unhappy about this arrangement, men and women alike. Women think it’s next to impossible to find the right guy… they peer at them through the peep holes as they either have their way with every other girl in town or else are mangled by the tigers.

The ridiculousness of this society becomes apparent to you when you find out that at any time, the women who are standing behind those doors can just open the doors themselves, walk into the arena with the man and say, “here I am, the interested one!” But they don’t. They just don’t. So you find one of the women who lives in this society and ask her why they don’t end the game even when they can. And she answers it flatly: because they just aren’t interested in a man who wouldn’t risk getting eaten by a tiger in order to be with her. She can open the door but she doesn’t want to. She swears up and down that she finds these men who are being mangled by tigers to be very attractive and feels extremely sorry for them now that they’re dead, but she is just unwilling to end the ritual. She can’t overcome her own macabre curiosity. Yet, she claims up and down that the reason why she is alone or that she has been used and discarded is because men are either cowards or assholes. It has nothing to do with her own behavior.

Would you want to live in that society? As a man? As a woman?

The path that leads a boy to standing in front of a bunch of insane feminists preaching about time machines

A response to Black Pill’s fine article about the “feminist time machine”:

Thanks for this great post Black Pill. I want to illustrate how a boy would progress to being faced with the feminist-time-machine accusation.

There are five steps which will lead a boy to standing in front of feminists who want to sell him on time machines

Step 1) Young boy spends his entire youth being LIED TO by women that dating success relies on him being selfless, good, honest, decent and pleasing to women. He spends his entire youth being lied to by women in society that his mating success is ONLY correlated to his decentness as a human being

Step 2) However, as time goes on, this boy starts witnessing women dating, falling in love with and pursuing abusive men, cheating men, assholes, jerks, criminals, alcoholics, and men with all sorts of flaws

==================================

Lying through omission:On how women show interest

The commonly implied notion in female advice is the following…

- If you’re a good person, you will automagically end up in a romantic dynamic with a woman, merely by being a good enough person

- If no woman is currently in a romantic dynamic with you, this is PROOF you are a defective man and NOT GOOD enough

Now, when I say this is implied, what I mean is that the language is written so as to lie through omission. Whenever a boy asks women why girls don’t show interest in him, or googles the question. He will run into feminist blogs who say something like “The ONLY reason girls don’t show you interest, is because you’re not PLEASING enough, are defective in some way, or don’t do enough for girls as a group!!”

The part being OMMITED is that on planet earth, human females PRE-require that the MALE show interest FIRST. It doesn’t matter how attracted a woman is to you, she will not admit interest UNTIL you have invested a certain amount of risk in her. ANY advice a boy might run into FAILS to mention this and is therefore LYING through omission.

The other IMPLIED LIE in all feminist writing and most dating advice by women (again achieved through manipulative languaging) is that you should expect hyper-expressive super-enthusiastic invitations and super-expressive and super-clear signs of interest from women. In fact it’s either outright said or at least implied that you DARING to flirt or make a move on a woman who has shown anything LESS than screaming “take me now” enthusiasm effectivelly would make you a DIRTY ROTTEN CREEP. This form of advice often uses language which IMPLIES that if you’re simply GOOD ENOUGH (not evil and disgusting) you should have a life full of women giving you these HUGE FLASHING NEON SIGNS OF “kiss me now” or “have sex with me now”… which never actually happens in the real life, where female mating plausible deniability reigns supreme.

These LIES by women are what will often lead a PERFECTLY NORMAL boy who has PLENTY of girls interested in him feeling like a complete unlovable loser, perhaps even in some cases leading to depression and suicide. Because again, the end conclusion of the IMPLIED assertions and feminine dating advice and feminist writings is “If women aren’t begging you for sex, you are a FLAWED and broken in some way dirty rotten creep”…

HE WAS NEVER TOLD that women on this planet ONLY show interest back after you show it first, risking rejection, ridicule and creep-shaming. (justin bieber excluded)

==================================

Step 3) So here is this boy who’s been told that ONLY character and personality matters in having a romantic live, yet he sees tons of men with OBJECTIVELY shitty characters and personalities dumping their 25th girlfriend. This causes cognitive dissonance. Here he is, he can’t get a a woman to “show him interest” to save his life (or at least he mistakenly believes girls are uninterested in him due to the implied lying explained above). And he is constantly working on becoming a more moral person, a better person, a harder working person, contributing more value to women’s lives. Yet he keeps witnessing men who are FAR worse in character dumping and pumping women left and right. He witnesses, what from his perspective seems like women being a lot more interested in a bunch of defective guys, and not in him (again, due to the omission-based-lie about how women show interest).

===============

The big secret no woman dares speak of is that women as a group, only put character traits as perhaps the 4th or 5th on their list of criteria, despite lying that it’s the ONLY criteria. This is a bold-faced despicable lie. Women are just as shallow as men when it comes to the initial stages of mating… This is why a woman can spend an entire life claiming to be looking for honest, sincere, hard-working, pleasant men who don’t cheat, yet continually go from one cheating alcoholic to another. Those cheating alcoholics hit the first 4 criteria on the list, which women never speak of, they only list off their criteria starting from criterion number 5 downards… THIS IS LYING BY OMISSION.

This isn’t to say women date or prefer defective men. This is to say that a man’s character traits are a very distant criteria, despite women’s bold-faced (ommision-based) lies about it. This is why if a man of perfect character doesn’t make a move on a woman, but a more defective man does make a move, she will go with the more defective man. This is the big elephant nobody speaks of. Heck, a man of perfect character might ask a woman out, but she’d say no despite being interested, and go for the more defective man, she doesn’t even like so much SIMPLY because he was persistent and asked more than once, while the “good boy”, having been taught shameful lies, had quit on the first no.

The other elephant in the room that goes unspoken is women’s laziness in dating. They will not make a move, they will not express interest first, and they sure as heck won’t lean toward your head to initiate a kiss. And so here is this boy who has been LIED TO his entire life that all you need to do is “be good” and women will auto-magically become your girlfriends. Nobody told him that he’d have to battle female plausible deniability, and be sexually persistent and aggressive. All female-written and spoken advice is INHERENTLY dishonest because it IMPLIES that things “happen on their own”. It’s like you meet a woman, you’re a good man, and somehow it auto-magically becomes romantic if your CHARACTER is good enough.
The typical woman advice-giver DOES NOT DARE speak of the fact you have to MAKE A MOVE and get rejected a gazillion times by women to separate romantically interested women from women who are just being friendly/polite/using you for attention/unsure. No woman DARES tell you that the road to a woman ADMITTING romantic interest in you is paved with you getting rejected a ton of times until you get one that admits interest back. (please see dungone’s tiger analogy).

===============

Step 4) So after many years of this boy witnessing that women’s words don’t match their deeds, he might actually have the audacity to (gasp) dare mention it in public. He might even dare point out that (gasp) he’s dateless doing what women told him to do. He’s spent his entire life working on the things women said are the ONLY criteria in whether you get romantic interest from women or not… and yet here he is “forever alone”, while men of far worse character are dumping their 25th girlfriend

Step 5) At this point, the now-man gets accused of being a bitter entitled asshole. HOW DARE YOU THINK you’re owed dates for merely existing! YOU ENTITLED PRICK! See the REASON you don’t get dates is because women can TELEPATHICALLY SENSE you’re entitled you fucking woman-hating scum!!!! It’s all this whining you’re performing that repels women! That’s it! THE FACT that you DARE state women’s words don’t match their deeds is the REASON they don’t want to date you, you fucking entitled asshole!!!

There’s just one problem with this claim. This man was dateless for many years before he finally realized he’s being lied to by women at large. If he’s here in 2013 FOR THE FIRST TIME asking why women lie, having FIRST realized that women lie their assess off in mating, and he FIRST realized it in 2013… how can it be the reason he was dateless in 2005, back in high school?

Did the girls in his class have a time-machine? Did they dislike him in 2005, because they knew that many years later he’d dare notice women lie their fucking assess off? Obviously this is impossible. The actual truth is that he was NOT DISLIKED by girls in 2005, nor is he disliked now in 2013. In fact, he’s probably liked more than the jerks he wonders about being datefull. The actual truth is that those girls were proactively HIDING their interest from him because of a very selfish-trait of the female gender called plausible deniability. This is something the female of our species does to make sure the man invests a lot, so she can fully test his intentions before she admits her interest back.

But this boy was never told this. He was never told the only way to find out if a girl is interested in you is to continually make moves on her until she finally caves in and ADMITS she likes you romantically too. The most you can expect are hints. In fact, he spent his youth BEING LIED TO that girls will automagically fall in his lap if he’s merely a good enough person and that mating “happens on its own”. He wasn’t told that women proactivelly lie, and will go out of their way to mislead you, perhaps saying no, despite being interested, to test and see if you like them enough to ask a second time.

WARNING MISINTERPRETATION CLARIFICATION: We are not claiming nor saying that a man should persist or continue hitting on a clearly uninterested woman. When a woman DOES display clear and obvious disinterest, she is DEFINETELY honest about it, and the man should stop immediately. However, this is exceptionally rare, think the woman who folds her arms, pouts her face and turns her body away from the man.

What we do mean however, is that a woman who IS romantically interested in you, will for example sometimes turn down a first kiss attempt. She will for example say no to asking her out, despite BEING FULLY interested in you romantically BEING FREE at that time.  Most often the woman does NOT do this consciously or for a MALICIOUS reason. She’s not maliciously strategizing like “Hmmm, I’ll turn him down for his first date offer to see if he asks a second time”.

She might just not “feel” “ready” for the kiss at the exact time you attempted it, or she might not feel confident going for dinner on the specific night you asked. THE CONCIOUS PART comes in second. SHE WILL however not clarify it. SHE WILL NOT actually explain and say “Oh thank you for asking me out, I am actually romantically interested in you TOO, and am only saying no on this offer, but I’d love if you asked a second time”. THIS IS where the concious deceit part begins. She will PURPOSEFULLY leave it vague, and engage in plausible deniability. The only way to find out the truth is risk rejection.

When you GIVE HER A ROMANTIC COMPLIMENT, and she brushes it off, it MIGHT be because she’s not interested in you as more than a friend, or it might be because she got fluttered and shy she didnt’ know how to respond. The point is SHE WILL NOT tell you. She will leave everything down to plausible deniability limbo.

SHE WILL NOT come to you the next day and say “You know, the reason I didn’t respond to the compliment the other day is because I am interested too and just afraid of getting hurt. I’m actually interested in you and waiting for you to kiss me”. SHE WILL NOT DO THIS. IN FACT, she will WAIT for you to plant that kiss, BUT SHE WILL NEVER state her intentions. And the only way for you to FIND OUT for sure is by risking rejection and risk being wrong.The actual truth is that women lie in mating for many different reasons, the major one being plausible deniability. This is something we at this blog support. WE fully support women’s right to plausible deniability and mating deceit as a way to maximize their benefits in mating. Women have every right to be selfish. But so do men. And this is why we’re here. We want to point out that either both men and women have a right to be selfish, or neither one does. It’s only fair

Women are just as clueless as guys

There is one implied notion that comes across from a lot of dating or feminist advice. It’s the idea that women are somehow socially perfect and that if you manage to improve your “game” enough, at the very least, you should get the majority of the women who are interested in you. However, what is much closer to the truth is that a lot of women are just as clueless as guys when it comes to dating, and that it takes two to tango.

Let me give you a few examples from my own experiences. I went to this stand-up comedy night. There was this girl who was constantly looking at me and smiling very seductively. From an acquaintance I knew that she was single. I walk up to her to chat for a bit. A little later in the evening when I was about to leave, I asked her whether she wants to do something with me on the weekend. Suddenly she gets all nervous and starts giving me some bullshit. So I said, “Okay, no problem.” and moved on.

Now it’s of course possible that I was wrong in assuming that she likes me but these days my intuition is pretty spot-on. I don’t know what the issue with her was, but in my view, I did my part of initiating the conversation, talking a bit and asking her out. Maybe she wanted to chat more, maybe she wanted to do some other shit. But the point is that every girl wants different things and you can only do so much. If the girl doesn’t do her part, there isn’t much you can do yourself.

I remember this one time in a bar when I was talking to a girl and we were having a good time. Things were heating up and I moved in really close. Suddenly the girl starts getting all mixed emotions and tells me in quick succession that I smell really good and about how she is still hurt because a guy of my nationality once dated her. He had promised that he would marry her but dumped her later on. A few days back, I was in bed with another girl watching a movie. We start getting a little cuddly, then we start making out and as I try to ramp up the physical escalation, she is like, “I am not sure if I want to do this. I still feel hurt from my last relationship,” and some other crap.

Other times, the issues could be much simpler. Say, you are out with your friends at some cool event, and text a girl to drop by as it’s going to be a lot of fun — and then she gets all weird and shy, thinks she doesn’t know about the event, wonders whether she’ll get along with the people there and whatnot. I remember this one time when I was about to go to a party on a private yacht with a friend. It was going to be a totally fancy party, with some drop-dead gorgeous people. In my view, it was a no brainer that if I invite someone they’ll come. I called up a female friend who lived close by and told her to come over. At first, she acted really pricey saying, “I don’t know, I am really tired.” In my head, I was, like, really?! I asked her once more, but she acted pricey again so I thought, “Fuck it.” But suddenly, when I told her, “OK. Don’t come,” she says, “Okay, I will come but I’m doing this only for you and you owe me for this!” I have had some friends tell me similar shit where they ask some girl out for a movie, and for no particular reason she will act really pricey and expect that the guy will ask her out two or three times before she will say yes.

In these situations you can be persistent and it’s quite possible that the girl will come around later but it’s also totally fine if you thought, “Fuck this. I don’t want to deal with this shit” and moved on. You played your part, and it takes two to tango. Yes, with experience you can sense better what the girl wants and turn those cases around. However, you can only lift so much of the weight she should be lifting. This is of course no excuse for you to not play your part, but a lot of the times it really isn’t your fault and there is only so much you can do.

Coming back to the original point, whenever someone tells you that you have to listen and relate with the girl, not make her appear like a slut, figure out her logistics, try to understand what she likes, text her at the right time when she is free, connect with her emotionally, organize an interesting date, keep the conversation fun, be persistent but not be clingy, be aggressive but don’t creep her out, make statements and don’t ask questions etc. — then, seriously, if you don’t want to, then just forget about it. If the girl is not playing her part, there is only so much you can do.

So next time, don’t bother so much about being smooth. Don’t put so much pressure on yourself. Don’t bother whether it’s an appropriate time to ask her out or whether you should talk some more with her. “Should I organize a coffee date or is it okay to straight call her over for a movie at my place?” “Is it okay to just text ’hey, what’s up how you doing’ or should I come up with something clever?”

Really, this is just another form of supplicating to women. Do your bit, i.e. initiate conversations, ask for her phone number, ask her out, make a move on a date, ask her to come home with you and so on, but don’t worry about being smooth or creating the perfect moment. It takes two to tango.Another related point is that in my experience, difficult women remain difficult. You might think, “Okay, let’s pursue this girl for a while even if I don’t really want to because maybe, after a while, she will be all normal and easygoing!” Transformations like that usually don’t happen. Please don’t think that I’m a misogynist. I don’t hate women. I’m just saying the truth when I say that you can only do so much. You can’t lift all the weight which she is supposed to. Also, please stop reading websites that refer to clueless men as nerds or geeks or losers or chumps or whatever because there’s an implied assumption that women really know what they are doing. But the truth is they are just as clueless as guys, if not more.