Why Women Are Not At The Top (of Politics, Business, and Culture)

Women have more freedom, power, and control over their lives in the West than any group of women ever, before. Women today have more wealth, freedom, comfort, and stability than any other group of women before. And yet, still they rarely occupy the highest rungs of power, being absent from political leadership, commercial leadership, and cultural leadership. A Black man was elected President of the US before a woman. Why?

Because women won't sacrifice the … sexiness in men. And no sexy, dominant Alpha male will put up with a woman having a career and power greater than his. That's why they are Alpha males in the first place. For a woman to advance to the top, she has to be … Margaret Thatcher. Or Leslie Blodgett of Bare Escentuals. Or Carly Fiorina of H-P. Married to a "boring" beta male who is supportive and stays out of the spotlight.


Lucy Kellaway at the Financial Times was the first to make this clear:

The biggest reason that alpha women don’t become CEOs is that they have made the common, yet fatal, error of marrying an alpha man.
My evidence for this is based on long observation of the women I know. Some of them did brilliantly for a bit, but then their careers stalled. The problem was not that they had had too many children (successful women seem to have lots of them) but that their alpha husbands insisted on putting their own careers first.
Until last week this was just a vague prejudice. But on Wednesday I sat down with the FT’s list of the 50 top business women and Googled each one, searching for information about their home lives. Annoyingly, some of them have succeeded in keeping their private lives private, but with the rest I found my theory spectacularly well borne out. Nearly all have children, but I could not find a single one with an alpha male husband.
The only whiff of an alpha mate came from the household of Andrea Jung, CEO of Avon, whose husband was the CEO of Bloomingdale’s. I use the past tense not because he lost the job, but because he lost his wife – the marriage didn’t last.
…

Indra Nooyi, CEO of Pepsi and the world’s most powerful businesswoman, is married to a man who quit his job and became a consultant to fit in with his wife and children. Ditto with Irene Rosenfeld at Kraft, whose husband decided to be self-employed 20 years ago to help her. Ditto with Ursula Burns at Xerox.
There are three pretty obvious reasons an alpha husband is a problem for the aspiring female CEO. First is logistics. If you want to be really successful you need to be mobile. You need to have a husband like Gregg Ahrendts, who wound up his construction business so Angela could move to London to be CEO of Burberry. You also need to have someone who is prepared to see the children occasionally. And above all you need a bit of encouragement. If you have spent all day competing with men at work, you don’t want to go on competing at home. You want someone like Lloyd Bean, Ursula Burns’s husband, who worked at Xerox long before she joined, but who claimed delight when his wife whizzed past him in the fast lane. Or like the husband of the Indian banking supremo Chanda Kochhar. She says he is “genuinely happy about my progress”.
The lesson for a future female corporate queen is to give more thought to her choice of spouse. She should go for someone who is mentally her match, but who is happy to play a supporting role. In other words, Mr Right should be a male Kate Middleton.
Alas, there is a problem here in both demand and supply. High-flying women are programmed to go for high-flying men. Most men aren’t attracted to women who are more successful than they are. And until those things change, there is not going to be more than the odd sprinkling of women emerging from the sticky yellow marzipan into the glorious royal icing on top.

As Business Week noted:

When Carly Fiorina became Hewlett-Packard’s (HPQ) first female chief executive officer, the existence of her househusband, Frank Fiorina, who had retired early from AT&T (T) to support her career, was a mini-sensation; now this arrangement isn’t at all unusual. Seven of the 18 women who are currently CEOs of Fortune 500 companies—including Xerox’s (XRX) Ursula Burns, PepsiCo’s (PEP) Indra Nooyi, and WellPoint’s (WLP) Angela Braly—have, or at some point have had, a stay-at-home husband. So do scores of female CEOs of smaller companies and women in other senior executive jobs. Others, like IBM’s (IBM) new CEO, Ginni Rometty, have spouses who dialed back their careers to become their powerful wives’ chief domestic officers.
This role reversal is occurring more and more as women edge past men at work. Women now fill a majority of jobs in the U.S., including 51.4 percent of managerial and professional positions, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Some 23 percent of wives now out-earn their husbands, according to a 2010 study by the Pew Research Center. And this earnings trend is more dramatic among younger people. Women 30 and under make more money, on average, than their male counterparts in all but three of the largest cities in the U.S.

However, for most women, that trade-off, a supportive house-husband screams "Kitchen Bitch" and thus, poison. Most women would rather their husbands be high-flyers, than themselves. Because their reflection of self-worth is based on their sexual marketplace value (sad but true for most women, sad because that is so transient like a flower), and their sexual marketplace value is based around how much of a dominant, sexy Alpha asshole they can land.

Women don't go further in politics because they are unwilling to marry Denis Thatcher. An amiable businessman who kept his mouth shut and loyally supported his wife. They have fantasies of being Hillary Clinton, who did not sacrifice the Alpha Asshole Male, and still got to be a Senator and Secretary of State. [This is why many women love Hillary -- she got the Alpha Asshole, and the power, at least in part.]

Men who rise, mostly do so by either blind luck and opportunity, plus "seize the day" aggression and vision (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg), or grind-it-out steady rises like say, Howard Schultz generally require a supportive spouse. Business and politics are high-stress careers, and supportive advice and comfort are generally a requirement for those grinding it out, a decade at a time, to rise to the top. This is true for both men and women.

Men, more than women, tend to realize this and trade off on Alpha sexiness. This is particularly true when men are younger and less powerful, and thus less attractive to women, they will often settle and marry the best woman they can get. Sticking with her for the most part means no costly divorces, no emotional upheaval, and the perception of stability and sensibility, that boards of directors prefer. No one wants say, a Mark Hurd. A guy who is a walking lawsuit machine.

Women on the other hand, feel that settling is both a betrayal of their natures, and a slur on their very person. Saying basically that they are so ugly and unsexy that the best they can do is some "supportive" aka "kitchen bitch" beta male instead of the sexy bad boy Alpha asshole they crave.

Thus women are trading off opportunity for sex. This is entirely predictable, since eggs are expensive, and sperm cheap, women generally prefer less perceived risk and men more, comparatively speaking. Women will trade off the opportunity to become a top leader, for sexy times, most of the time.

It is the unwillingness to trade away those sexy times, in favor of beta male "kitchen bitch" supportiveness, that keeps women from occupying half or more of the CEO suites, upper reaches of political leadership, and the cultural power centers (such as directing, producing, and so on). Rising up that way requires generally guys women just can't stomach.

The goal of feminists is to have it all -- the sexy bad boys AND the power. Like most fantasies, too much of it tends to be destructive. Because real problems are never solved by ghost-dancing fantasies and fairy tales.
...Read more

The End of Female Advancement

Women long for Alpha Males. Well, file that under "duh." Alpha males, those possessing higher amounts of social dominance, power, charisma, and attractiveness, than the women around them, are irresistible. They come in many different varieties: Bill Clinton, Barack Obama (by virtue of celebrities and famous people openly worshiping him as a Living God), and Charlie Sheen (before his meltdown made him merely mentally ill, not a tame-able bad boy). One of the quickest ways to Alpha male status is of course, violence. Violent men are fairly irresistible to most women, as Theodore Dalrymple documented in "Life at the Bottom."


One of the unforeseen but logical outcomes of women's out of control, un-moderated desire for Alpha males, is the lack of female advancement. Oh sure, we have women like Hilary Clinton, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Sarah Palin, and Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi. Clinton merely continues the age-old tradition of trading on a powerful husband or father's name. That's great if you are a Kennedy, or a Clinton, or a Bush, or now an Obama. Not so great if you are a nobody. But the other women, mostly succeeded on their own (with one critical advantage). Their advantage: a beta male husband.

The Financial Times Lucy Kellaway noted:

... successful career women are all getting stuck in the “marzipan layer” just below the boardroom. According to the author, Sylvia Hewlett of Columbia University, this is because too few men are willing to pull women up on to the top of the cake. Men, she argues, are worried about being seen to support a woman too openly because they fear they might be suspected of having an affair with her.

This strikes me as a pretty feeble reason for the lack of women CEOs. Prof Hewlett is right to say that men hold women back, but is wrong to think the holding back happens at work. In fact, it happens at home. The biggest reason that alpha women don’t become CEOs is that they have made the common, yet fatal, error of marrying an alpha man.

My evidence for this is based on long observation of the women I know. Some of them did brilliantly for a bit, but then their careers stalled. The problem was not that they had had too many children (successful women seem to have lots of them) but that their alpha husbands insisted on putting their own careers first.

Until last week this was just a vague prejudice. But on Wednesday I sat down with the FT’s list of the 50 top business women and Googled each one, searching for information about their home lives. Annoyingly, some of them have succeeded in keeping their private lives private, but with the rest I found my theory spectacularly well borne out. Nearly all have children, but I could not find a single one with an alpha male husband.

The only whiff of an alpha mate came from the household of Andrea Jung, CEO of Avon, whose husband was the CEO of Bloomingdale’s. I use the past tense not because he lost the job, but because he lost his wife – the marriage didn’t last.

As far as I could tell, all the others have husbands who have been prepared to sacrifice their careers in order to aid the glorious ascent of their wives.

Indra Nooyi, CEO of Pepsi and the world’s most powerful businesswoman, is married to a man who quit his job and became a consultant to fit in with his wife and children. Ditto with Irene Rosenfeld at Kraft, whose husband decided to be self-employed 20 years ago to help her. Ditto with Ursula Burns at Xerox.

There are three pretty obvious reasons an alpha husband is a problem for the aspiring female CEO. First is logistics. If you want to be really successful you need to be mobile. You need to have a husband like Gregg Ahrendts, who wound up his construction business so Angela could move to London to be CEO of Burberry. You also need to have someone who is prepared to see the children occasionally. And above all you need a bit of encouragement. If you have spent all day competing with men at work, you don’t want to go on competing at home. You want someone like Lloyd Bean, Ursula Burns’s husband, who worked at Xerox long before she joined, but who claimed delight when his wife whizzed past him in the fast lane. Or like the husband of the Indian banking supremo Chanda Kochhar. She says he is “genuinely happy about my progress”.

The lesson for a future female corporate queen is to give more thought to her choice of spouse. She should go for someone who is mentally her match, but who is happy to play a supporting role. In other words, Mr Right should be a male Kate Middleton.

Alas, there is a problem here in both demand and supply. High-flying women are programmed to go for high-flying men. Most men aren’t attracted to women who are more successful than they are. And until those things change, there is not going to be more than the odd sprinkling of women emerging from the sticky yellow marzipan into the glorious royal icing on top. [emphasis added]

There you have it. Ms Kellaway nails it. Women are not going to advance. Not in significant numbers. It is notable that the women she cites, are mostly older women from before the wave of unrestricted female hypergamy.

To climb the corporate ladder, a woman needs a supportive spouse. One as Kellaway notes is willing to sacrifice, be mobile, be emotionally supportive at home, and be willing to take a lesser role. Almost no rational man will do this, because women find these things unsexy and grounds in and of themselves for an affair or divorce or both. Men are simple creatures, they will be whatever women reward. Women talk a great game (about things they don't mean) but when it comes to reality, and choices, the end is obvious.

Being a Kitchen Bitch is a fast-track for divorce (after being cheated upon). Being sexy, which means making most women in your orbit want to sleep with you, if you are a male, is vital to keeping attraction and thus love, and faithfulness, in a marriage. This is the cost of sexy.

Sexy men are well, sexy, but they are not supportive or reliable. They won't move when their partner's career takes off. They won't take second place. They certainly won't take of the kids, and be emotionally supportive. The whole point of being sexy is being of higher status, and power, than their female partner. That's why they are sexy in the first place.

Modern women ages 20-40 have a fantasy that a man will be uber-sexy, and also supportive. When they find out he's not, they choose sexy and choose not to advance. Women will choose the hot sexy guy over the career every time. And they do. It is not motherhood, or men being unwilling to work with women. [Though the penalties for being bossed by a woman -- a man is unsexy and thus basically a eunuch or a neuter are very serious, particularly to younger men on the look-out for a romantic partner who might turn into a wife.] It is women's desire for a sexy man at the expense of everything else.

Everything has its price. Including Sexy Men. As more and more men discover the nature of female hypergamy, and the desire of women in the modern era for sexy men at all costs, the male support for measures (certain to fail at any rate) promoting female advancement in the corporate boardroom and other places is sure to collapse. Under two heavy weights.

The first is that women themselves are responsible for lack of female advancement. They choose sexy men who must be higher than themselves, and then wonder why their men won't pick up and move when they get a transfer and promotion. Why their men won't do the dishes, look after the kids, or provide even an ounce of emotional support. Because the men are sexy, that's all they do.

The second of course is the knowledge that for every female that advances to their own level of power and importance, let alone above it, there is one more women who finds the ordinary man sexually invisible to repulsive. I.E. the price of female advancement is the making of more Beta Males. The textbook definition of which is a man with the same or lower social status as his female peers. Delayed marriage and longer single duration for men means this is not a trivial issue. Particularly early on. Men would do better, by far, if women were restricted to being secretaries and the like in the professional workplace, because they gain nothing by female advancement (they are single) and lose everything by it (they become either repulsive or sexually invisible to their female peers). Not that this will ever happen, but single men are likely to dig in their heels, tremendously, at any further female advancement. Married men, particularly those that married later in life, are likely to equate their wives moving ahead of them in power and status as a guarantee of an affair and/or divorce. Only those with post-menopausal wives (no one will want them anyway) would benefit.

Sexy has its cost, and women are starting to find that out.
...Read more

Obama's Advantage: White Women

No matter how bad the economy, with gas possibly at $10 a gallon next Summer, unemployment officially north of 18% then, and widespread riots and shortages, Obama has one secret advantage. Most White women love him. Sarah Silverman recently noted her encounter with Obama in a "secret meeting" and spoke about it in quasi-sexual terms.


Silverman noted in an interview with Howard Stern:

I actually love our president, and I'm enjoying some nice blind faith, like the others got for eight years. And I believe in him." (Silverman made a humorous video in the lead-up to the 2008 election called "The Great Schlep" in which she encouraged Jews in Florida to vote for Obama.)
…
"He shakes my hand, he goes, 'Oooooo, I'm a big fan! You're very talented! Although I turn the volume down when my girls come into the room,'" said Silverman, whose particular brand of humor is notable for its edginess and is frequently controversial.

Silverman said that Obama "jokingly" said, "Ooo, you helped me win Florida.”

"I was so nervous and excited," said Silverman, adding that the president asked what project she was working on next.

"I'm going to be naked in a movie!" Silverman nervously shot out.

Silverman said Obama turned to her agent and said, "Oh, you'll have to send me a copy of that," but added that it wasn't meant in a creepy way but more as "a gracious way to get out of" the awkwardness that Silverman had created.
…
The meeting remains firmly ingrained in Silverman's memory, however.

"Oh my God, he gave me a big hug," said Silverman. "His body is like a thoroughbred. It's just, like, pure muscle."

White women love Obama, for the most part. Obama remains the rock star, the celebrity, the uber-hottie. Not for anything he's done, not for results, or a good economy, or more security, or a better life. But because in the female-centric world of fashion, celebrity, and such, all the big entertainment names fawn over him like a living god. White women love Obama because Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore, Oprah, Ellen Degeneres, and other celebrities bow down and worship Obama. Its that simple, female hypergamy run amok.

Women exist, for the most part, in a hyper-PC driven workplace and social environment where social positioning, power, and status matter, not results. This is very different from male-dominated workplaces that rely on words such as "production," "productivity," "value-added," "profit center," and the like to define success and value. Engineers either create products that succeed or fail. They meet deadlines or don't. They produce high or low margin products. Their buildings stand, or fail. In areas like fashion, corporate finance, human resources, education, and the like, dominated by women, it is more status, social standing, and social power that dominate, because objective measurements are either impossible or replaced with social networks.

Even the entertainment White men and women consume accentuate this difference. Men prefer sports where winning and losing are clearly defined, and players and coaches who are not very nice, or even lawful, are tolerated as long as they produce winning results. By contrast, female entertainment enforces rigid PC rules, except when stars have an image of an Alpha Male. Charlie Sheen, before his rants and tirades, suffered no real consequences for bad behavior. It was only when he appeared sick, crazy, and ill, instead of Alpha A-hole bad boy, that he was tossed over the side. Warner Brothers TV first gave Sheen a million dollar an episode raise after his arrest for threatening his wife with a knife across her throat on Christmas Day. Female audiences did not react in disgust and tune away, they tuned in even more. But when Sheen looked un-sexy, crazy, ill, erratic, and weak, he was dumped.

Obama will have an edge with White women. Unless he is made to look un-sexy.

Yes, this is enraging to men. Who think a President should be judged by results, not on how stimulated he makes a bunch of White women voters. While Silverman is an extreme, she's not entirely unrepresentative of the attitude of most White women towards Obama: a "hunky" Black guy, with more testosterone and masculinity, than White male rivals, who is the world's biggest rock star celebrity. They don't care if they're desperately poor under his leadership, any more than Rihanna cared that Chris Brown slapped her around, or Charlie Sheen's girlfriends and wives cared about abuse up to actual death threats that were credible.



Because sexy beats everything else for women. For women, five minutes of Alpha beats five years of dutiful beta male support. Heck Monica Lewinsky is still in love with Bill Clinton. She's never married nor had kids, because she's still in love with this Guy.

Monica still hasn’t got over Bill and would take him back in a second,’ a friend said.

‘She told me: “There will never be another man in my life that could make me as happy as he did",' the friend told the National Enquirer magazine.

‘Monica still carries a torch for him. She’s dated some guys, off and on, since the whole White House mess. But she’s never been able to get Bill out of her heart’.
When Clinton's memoir My Life came out in 2004, Miss Lewinsky spoke of her upset at its contents to the Daily Mail, saying rather than being a physical fling, it was a mutual relationship.

'He could have made it right with the book, but he hasn't. He is a revisionist of history. He has lied.

'I really didn't expect him to go into detail about our relationship', she added. 'But if he had and he'd done it honestly, I wouldn't have minded.'

She believed he made it sound like the dalliance came only at her initiative and was purely physical.

'He talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn't resist the dessert.'

Clinton wrote that his affair with Lewinsky revealed 'the darkest part of my inner life' and led to his temporary banishment from the White House bedroom.

He said on CBS' 60 Minutes that he became involved with Lewinsky 'for the worst possible reason. Just because I could.'

But according to Lewinsky at the time, 'That's not how it was. This was a mutual relationship, mutual on all levels, right from the way it started and all the way through.'

There is a reason that Sarah Silverman wants to send Obama a copy of her movie in which she's naked. There is a reason Monica Lewinski is still in love with old, sick, and ugly looking Bill Clinton. Obama and Clinton are Alpha Males. They are Alpha Males because the media and celebrities and such treat them as living gods. No other reason. Not Adonis like physique (both are ugly, and in relatively poor health), nor natural charisma, nor anything else. Just the social approval and deference high ranking celebrities and media retards give the two in every aspect.

So what must anti-Obama people do to separate White women away from Obama?

Simple: Make Obama look like Charlie Sheen. Sick, foolish, weak, and laughed at.

Obama recently made a play for the Oprah crowd, admitting he was bullied as a child. This should be seized upon constantly, and Obama must be mocked as weak and pathetic, particularly around White women.

A modest proposal. Around any White woman you know, mock Obama as weak, a pansy, a sissy, easily bullied, and quote his own words. Make Obama look like a kind of gay, weak, and laughed at nothing. Just the very fact that a lower status male is laughing at him, openly, will work wonders. Indeed, the one weakness of Obama with White women is his strength.

Obama does not have a magical pull on White women based on results. On wealth delivered and guaranteed. But rather on social approval and social dominance. While the media can and will push Obama the Living God who is Super-Sexy idea, with the enthusiastic support of women like Sarah Silverman, the power of laughter and mocking is strong. A "laughing campaign" of personally laughing at Obama as weak and pathetic, un-sexy, in front of White women (his power base among Whites) would if widespread, be terribly damaging to his re-election prospects.

There is nothing White women will forgive less, than being an un-sexy beta male.
...Read more

The Fix for Alpha Girls and Man-Child Men

Per Rich Lowry and Kay Hymowitz's lament about Alpha Girls and "Man Child Men," the only "fix" for that problem is nothing less than the destruction of women's equal status among their peers, or often superior status, by the destruction of whole swaths of Western society. To end "Man Child" men, it is required to destroy "Alpha" women. This means ending, most corporate finance jobs. Nearly all Human Resource jobs. Ending most media, entertainment, publicity, fashion, and other female-dominated jobs. Ending most corporate middle-management jobs period. Radically defining downwards in status, education and health care jobs. While simultaneously increasing the status, power, earnings, and dominance of jobs like mining, lumbering, oil extraction, manufacturing, construction, and of course, the military. None of that will be easy, and if it is put up to a vote, or general social policy, it will never happen. Female voting dominance assures that outcome.


The only conceivable way to do this change, of course, is series of wars and crisis. Not "fake wars" such as Iraq and Afghanistan, which while achingly real and horrific for those fighting, left the homefront of America untouched and largely uncaring. No, something akin to the dislocation and shattering experiences of say, the British during the Blitz and Buzz bomb attacks, or the Confederacy for much of the War, or English society during Cromwell's rise. Only questions of survival, and the value of men as protectors and heavy, strenuous laborers, who are absolutely vital to survival, can change this around.

The "good news" is that this conflict (in some form) looks increasingly likely in the next thirty years. Western society has been coasting on advantages that are nearly used up. The Cold War limited military exchanges, by raising the cost of fighting to catastrophic levels, with massive US-Soviet nuclear arsenals. The Third World was divided, inept, and mostly fighting amongst itself. Resources were plentiful, and sold at rock-bottom prices by Third World nations to the industrial countries of the world. China had not become the world's cheap manufacturer of choice. Its enormous appetite for everything had not transformed commodity markets. And the spread of nuclear weapons to unstable Jihadi-led regimes had not yet happened for most of the period from say, 1955-2000.

That time is now over. As Mark Steyn noted:

Bismarck's second best-known maxim on the region is that the Balkans start in the slums of Vienna. The Habsburg imperial capital was a protean "multicultural society" wherein festered the ancient grievances of many diverse peoples.

Today, the Muslim world starts in the suburbs of Frankfurt. Those U.S. airmen were killed by Arid Uka, whose Muslim Albanian parents emigrated from Kosovo decades ago. Young Arid was born and bred in Germany. He is a German citizen who holds a German passport. He is, according to multicultural theory, as German as Fritz and Helmut and Hans. Except he's not. Not when it counts.

Why isn't he a fully functioning citizen of the nation he's spent his entire life in? Well, that's a tricky one.

Okay, why is a Muslim who wants to kill Americans holding down a job at a European airport? That's slightly easier to answer. Almost every problem facing the western world, from self-detonating jihadists to America's own suicide bomb — the multi-trillion dollar debt — has at its root a remorseless demographic arithmetic.

In the U.S., the baby boomers did not have enough children to maintain their mid-20th century social programs. I see that recent polls supposedly show that huge majorities of Americans don't want any modifications to Medicare or Social Security.

So what? It doesn't matter what you "want." The country's broke, and you can vote yourself unsustainable quantities of government lollipops all you like, but all you're doing is ensuring that when, eventually, you're obliged to reacquaint yourself with reality, the shock will be far more devastating and convulsive.

But even with looming bankruptcy America still looks pretty sweet if you're south of the border. Last week, the former director of the U.S. Census Bureau, Steve Murdock, told the Houston Chronicle that in Texas "it's basically over for Anglos." He pointed out that two out of every three children are already "non-Anglo", and that this gap will widen even further in the years ahead. Remember the Alamo? Why bother? America won the war, but Mexico won the peace.

In the Lone Star State, Murdock envisions a future in which millions of people with minimal skills will be competing for ever fewer jobs paying less in actual dollars and cents than they would have earned in the year 2000. That doesn't sound a recipe for social tranquility.

What's south of Europe's border? Why, it's even livelier. In Libya, there are presently one million refugees from sub-Saharan Africa whose ambition is to get in a boat to Italy. There isn't a lot to stop them.

Between now and mid-century, Islam and sub-Saharan Africa will be responsible for almost all the world's population growth — and yet, aside from a few thousand layabout Saudi princes whoring in Mayfair, they will enjoy almost none of the world's wealth.

Niger had 10 million people in 2000, and half-a-million of them were starving children. By 2010, they had 15 million, and more children were starving. By 2100, they're predicted to hit 100 million. But they won't — because it would be unreasonable to expect an extra 90 million people to stay in a country that can't feed a population a tenth that size.

So they will look elsewhere — to countries with great infrastructure, generous welfare, and among the aging natives a kind of civilizational wasting disease so advanced that, as a point of moral virtue, they are incapable of enforcing their borders.

The nations that built the modern world decided to outsource their future. In simple economic terms, the arithmetic is stark: In America, the boomers have condemned their shrunken progeny to the certainty of poorer, meaner lives.

As blogger-journalist Steve Sailer noted, this is basically "the Camp of the Saints". Or if you prefer, the invasions of the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Vandals, the Franks, the Saxons, the Angles, and the Jutes, into the Western Roman Empire.

Except things are a bit different than the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. While the Western elite would no doubt be overjoyed at "drowning" their "icky White ordinary" populace in Third World peoples, Western people don't want to live in the Third World. Westerners like Western things: clean water that does not kill you, a road system that is safe to drive, police that do not rape and rob and murder you, no armed gangs killing with total impunity, buildings that do not fall apart, food that is cheap and safe to eat, medicine in clean hospitals (as opposed to voodoo and witch doctors and pygmy cannibalism).

PYGMY leaders have called on the UN to set up an international tribunal to put government and rebel fighters from the Democratic Republic of Congo on trial for acts of cannibalism against their people.

Sinafasi Makelo, a representative of Mbuti pygmies, told the UN’s Indigenous People’s Forum that during the four-year civil war his people had been hunted down and eaten.

“In living memory, we have seen cruelty, massacres, and genocide, but we have never seen human beings hunted down as though they were game animals,” he said.

“Pygmies are being pursued in the forests. People have been eaten. This is nothing more, nothing less, than a crime against humanity.”

More than 600,000 pygmies are believed to live in the Congo’s vast jungles, where they eke out a subsistence existence. Both sides in the war regard them as “subhuman”, and believe that their flesh can confer magical powers. [Emphasis added]

Simply put, Steyn is right. There are millions of people in North Africa and Africa who want nice things (also, Mexico and Central America), and figure the best way to get them is simply show up, en-masse, and take over Western Europe. Certainly the effete (and female dominated) leadership of Western Europe that detests masculine viewpoints and actions, will do nothing. But that does not mean Westerners will not fight.

It is fairly likely that the energy/food crisis (they are one and the same) driven in part by China's insatiable appetite, will accelerate the mass migration into "shocks." And just as history does not repeat itself exactly, the mass migrations are not unstoppable. Unlike the barbarians invading a depopulated Western Roman Empire, facing almost no military opposition, and themselves possessing considerable experience as Roman auxiliary mercenaries, the prospective Camp of the Saints is likely to be more on the Pygmy-cannibalists side of competence than anything else. People not possessed of much military acumen, or tradition, or ability to even perform the most basic maintenance on weapons, not the least of which is that they are largely illiterate.

Reshaping Western Society away from the Alpha Woman, into the usual Western tradition of a generally but not absolute female equal, who is made to recognize (by ugly reality) the requirement for male protection and hard, brutal labor, is likely to be accomplished by a series of running encounters with a violent, failing, cataclysmically desperate Third World. Nuclear Jihad is a possibility, and the weakness of the West invites attack (as weakness always does). The "Camp of the Saints" is already upon us, in both the US (mass immigration from Mexico and Central America is a fact, not prospect) and Europe (already Libyans and Africans are coming to Italy's shores). Competition with China for scarce oil, uranium, natural gas, coal, and agricultural resources is a built-in certainty at some point. As is control of choke points like the Sunda Straights, or Arabian Sea, or Indian Ocean, or Eastern Mediterranean. All putting a premium on male muscle and talents, and making the hip trendy world of fashionable Alpha girls a thing of the past. Like Western advantage in wealth and power.
...Read more

Rich Lowry: Alpha Girls and Child Men

Rich Lowry's latest post on Kay Hymowitz's "Manning Up" book demonstrates absolutely and completely how most conservatives don't have a clue about what is reshaping our society: the female preference for sexy over reliable men. It really is that simple. But would require Lowry to believe the evidence, instead of his deep-set social conditioning akin to the Catholic Church's belief in a Geocentric universe. Ask Galileo how that went.


Hymowitz, Lowry repeats, laments that today's Alpha female does not have a match for her high achievement. Well, duh. Women find status, power, social dominance, along with physicality, sexy and attractive in men. They are the necessary conditions for any sex, let alone romance, to happen between a man and a woman. The man MUST have higher amounts of status and social dominance than the woman. He must be more aggressive than the woman. He must be more attractive than the woman. This makes female selection very, very choosy. And women are at their most choosy when they are in their teens and twenties. Selecting only the man with the most margin of social status over themselves, the men with the most margin of social dominance over themselves, the men more attractive and aggressive than themselves.

Basically, Brad Pitt, or George Clooney, or NFL Quarterbacks Tom Brady and Mark Sanchez. These are the standards of most young, professional urban White women. Obviously they won't be dating these famous men, but generally compete for the few rock climbing, BASE-jumping, Venture Capitalist types so expertly parodied in "the Wedding Crashers."

Women fundamentally don't get it. Their high achievement is a turn-off to most men, who understand the basis of female selection well. Women find men their own status and social power, well either repulsive or sexually invisible. Women are not now nor have they ever been, interested in a marriage of equals. Or even a romance among equals. The man MUST bring something "more" to the table than the woman: looks, social status, dominance, aggressiveness, and so on.

The pool of such men is vanishingly small. Most men know that they will be going nowhere with their peers in their twenties. At best, a "mistake" soon regretted as the ladies discover the lack of more dominance, or social aggressiveness than themselves. The men who DO possess these qualities have their pick of the most beautiful women. All the credentials, income, and achievement mean nothing to these men, only sheer physical beauty.

By increasing their status to higher levels, all the women Hymowitz and Lowry commiserate with have done, is price themselves out of the market. Ordinary men won't approach them (a lament I've heard often among women I knew in the workplace) because they are essentially, their equal, and know from experience they have no real shot. Those that do approach, tend to be the "Jersey Shore" jerk, the guys who have figured out total obnoxious and total aggressiveness can carry the day, in compensation for being totally average and equal in status, earnings, and social status to their female peers.

In short, by making women equal or superior to most men, those men instantly became unsexy. About as desirable for women as a cold bowl of oatmeal. This is the problem.

The "schleps" that Hymowitz derides, played in movies by Adam Sandler or Seth Rogen (or Matthew McConaughey, "Failure to Launch") know very well that they will not be husbands and fathers. They're not the equivalent of Brad Pitt or George Clooney. Which is exactly what it takes to be a twenty something professional woman of average looks prospective husband/fiancee. So for all those men not devastatingly handsome and with chiseled physiques (against "average" female bodies by the way), or enormous amounts of charisma, or not trustafarians, or felons, or tattooed bicycle messengers, or hip-edgy guitarists in indie bands, or artistic hipster drug addicts (often also trustafarians), well there is no point in maturity.

The "best" that awaits is a sexless, loveless marriage to their age peers in the mid to late thirties, after a parade of said trustafarian hipster drug addicts, felons, hip-edgy guitarists, and so on. Who will always be first and foremost in the hearts and minds of their very "settling" wives. Followed no doubt by a quickie divorce when the revulsion of their wives against their beta male selves becomes too much.

The feminists were in fact correct. Much of Western society DOES rest on controlling, limiting, and coercing the free expression of female sexuality. Limiting it in fairly significant ways. Of course, the few Alpha men (those deemed sexy and desired by nearly every woman) are also limited in significant, though lesser way, in the free expression of their sexuality. Women in the West were forced to marry, and marry relatively early (compared to today), in their early to mid twenties, in order to have children. Though women often worked outside the home, and often side by side with men on farms, cottages, villages, and cities, their status though BETTER than that of contemporary women in other societies, was lesser than their male peers. This had the social function of making their male peers at least minimally sexy.

Lesson: women find loathsome and unsexy men who are their equal. They want men who are superior to them in some way.

Therefore, the rise of the "Child-Man." Why bother with responsibility when all that is available is a shadow of the family life that their grandfathers mostly had and their fathers partially had? What is really all that attractive about a mutually loveless desperation marriage at age 36 between an aging, used up cougar and a Beta Male?

Lowry agrees with Hymowitz that men (basically White men) are not that important. That a family is a single mom and the kids by various bad boys, or "hot" sperm donors. That's a pretty heavy bet. I don't see women being capable of defending the nation, or securing vital resources (like oil, for starters). Much less working drilling rigs, or power lines, or construction projects. Much of the idiocy of so-called conservatives like Lowry and Hymowitz is "magical thinking" -- the infrastructure of the modern world "just happens" and "dirty things" like oil production and refining and transportation, power generation, sewers, just magically happens. With "hopefully" a compliant, serf-class group of non-Whites. If not the "Aunt Jemima" and "Uncle Ben" image of smiling and subservient Black cooks, then perhaps one equally subservient group of Mexican laborers. [This process is inevitable once writers/thinkers cease having had to work for a living, and become bloodless and removed semi-aristocrats, without the hunting and military experience to bring to mind the bloodiness of life and death.]

Alpha women made their own bed. They like all women, disdain men their equals. And they advanced so that nearly all men are very distinctly, either their equals or worse, gasp their inferiors. In status if nothing else.

There is a solution, but one that deserves another post.
...Read more

Julian Assange Is An Alpha Male

Two new stories about Julian Assange confirm he is an Alpha Male. And just how the the nexus of celebrity and fame operate to create, Alpha Male winners, and losers (Beta Males). That, moreover, women's preference for Alpha Males exists only in a timeless now, where tomorrow never comes.


Assange apparently fathered a son with a girl of 17, when he was only 19. After his first arrest for computer hacking, the couple split up, and she remarried (and remains estranged from him and her son). This is not surprising. Men who have early experience with women, and early success, tend to be more confident and assured. Assange having a child, at the age of 19, seems not have made him less attractive to the women in his life. Rather, the reverse, proof positive that he was in fact, worth having. Assange, despite his rather unimpressive looks, seems to be a "natural," at least among a certain subset of women, able to impress those who are "shy and introverted."

The other story shows how Assange stole a girlfriend right away from a journalist, at a social occasion. While rude (and courting a fight outside say the world of journalism), it certainly cements Assange as a true Alpha male. One able to chat up (through his celebrity) and impress the girlfriend of a journalist, and apparently go home with her. That is not surprising. A man with fame, and one who uses it arrogantly, is practically irresistible to most women. Even if he is not particularly good looking.

Arrogance, and obnoxiousness, are when done right, incredibly attractive for women in a man with a measure of fame or better yet, notoriety. Particularly in today's society where there is no shame.

The journalist later saw his girlfriend and Assange walking hand in hand, and claimed that when he challenged the WikiLeaks founder, ‘he dropped into a classic fighter’s pose, with his fists up’.

He said: ‘Assange seemed to take pleasure in humiliating me.’ The writer slept alone that night.

Of course Assange took delight in humiliating a Beta male. Women find beta male humiliation quite attractive, for the most part, if done by an Alpha male. Yes it is utterly unsurprising that a beta male's girlfriend would dump him on the spot for a fling with an infamous Alpha a-hole. And consider herself the winner of the exchange.

It is alleged that Assange may have been able to smooth the whole thing over by taking an HIV test:

Yet it has been suggested the Swedish police would never have become involved in the first place if Assange had only agreed to an HIV test.

WikiLeaks’ Swedish co-ordinator, who knows Assange and his two women accusers, said: ‘The two women told me, that if he goes to the clinic for an HIV test, then we won’t go to the police. I told him, “Just do it, and anyway, it’s good for you, because you’re sleeping around”.’

Funny. Even among the nerdy set, there are a few Alpha male winners, and a lot of losers. Assange is not that good looking (neither are his accusers) but he has great social power because of his infamy. Indeed, he may like the even greater notoriety around his sexual assault cases because it only makes him more hyper-notorious. Thus, more attractive to women than before. His celebrity endorsement can only help in that regard, like say, Roman Polanski. Not exactly lacking for female companionship after pleading guilty to drugging and anally raping a 13 year old girl. Polanksi's Wife, Emmanuelle Seigner, is many years his junior. She has two children by him.

Are Alpha males a good bet for women? Well, if you are Emmanuelle Seigner, and Roman is getting older, yes. Same for perhaps, Annette Benning (Warren Beatty), but even then, straying is in the cards. A straight up trade, a beta male boyfriend for a fling with an Alpha? It depends, perhaps, on what the priority is and how difficult it will be to get another beta male boyfriend.

The rapidity by which the beta male journalist was dumped by his girlfriend suggests that he wasn't that valuable, that beta males are basically interchangeable and replaceable by women. Whereas, an Alpha Male with some notoriety is the catch of a lifetime.

Consider the women in Sweden swearing out a complaint.

It is not disputed Miss A willingly slept with Assange. A fellow activist, she had invited Assange to stay at her flat while he was in Stockholm to address her political party, the centre-left Brotherhood Movement. Although she was away at first, when she returned on Friday August 13 they went out for dinner and then went to bed together.

But in the police statement, Miss A claims Assange began stroking her legs as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes. She claimed she tried to put some clothes back on because the situation was ‘going too quickly’ for her liking, but ‘Assange ripped them off again’.

She tried to reach for a condom but Assange held her arms and pinned her legs, she stated to police. He then agreed to use a condom but, Miss A alleges, he did ‘something’ to it that resulted in it becoming ripped.

When police interviewed Assange, he said he did not tear the condom and was not aware it had been torn. After that night, he continued to sleep in her bed for a week and she had never even mentioned it, he said.

Certainly, that is one of the most puzzling aspects of the case against Assange. For not only did Miss A indeed let him stay, she threw a party in his honour the night after he allegedly assaulted her.

No, it is not puzzling at all. Let us just assume for the moment that every bit of the complaint sworn out against Assange by Woman A is true. Every bit. Why would any woman then host a party in his honor the night he assaulted her?

Answer: Assange is an Alpha male.

Every man, learns sooner or later, that there are two rules for men, in how they are treated, by women. An Alpha male can do anything and everything, and pretty much get away with it. A beta male will have to regularly apologize for his existence. Assuming that every bit of the complaint is true, why of course Woman A would host a party in Assange's honor. He was an Alpha male. It was likely only when she learned of Woman W, that she found behavior she could not tolerate. Particularly since Woman W was younger.

So what is in the future for Assange? Assuming he is not extradited to the US (fairly remote given that Barack Obama is President and Eric Holder the Attorney General), likely dismissal of the charges against him (recall, he is an Alpha male). And even more notoriety. All of which will make him even more irresistible, to a certain set of rich Western Women at least. Assange can live like a rockstar, with rockstar like groupies in every city, for a long time.

At least until his money runs out. Wikileaks mission (undermine the West through selective leaking of Western but not other secrets) is not the same as Assange's (be a big shot Alpha Male and sleep with lots of women). He might challenge the wrong guy (a nerdy guy may decide to fight him) or his funders may tire of him and use another front. But for now, Assange is an Alpha Male. The modern rock star. Stealing other men's girlfriends (and taking special Alpha Male pleasure in doing it), sleeping around, and living the life of a natural A-hole. How long that can last in the endless now, is another question.



...Read more

Beta Males and Inferior Men

Comedy writer and former "Upright Citizens Brigade" performer Julie Klausner has a new book out. Called: "I Don't Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Faux Sensitive Hipsters, Felons and Others," it contains her complaints about inferior men and beta males.

To quote from the story in the Miami New Times:

Like most of us, she spent her twenties ricocheting from douchebag to douchebag, and she reveals every crappy moment in her dating memoir I Don't Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Faux Sensitive Hipsters, Felons and Others. As expected, there are tons of laugh-out-loud lines delivered from Klaunser's sharp-wit pen. More surprisingly is how cringeworthy tales of blow jobs with goths and bedbug-infested one-night stands are followed with sage observations. For instance, she points out the stark difference between guys and men. (As she writes, if Mad Men was called Mad Guys, it'd star Joe Pesci and not Jon Hamm.)

The book is due to be made into an HBO series produced by Will Ferrell.

Historically, leading men, at least in comedy, have featured either the feckless or the boorish: the Fred Flintstones and Bullwinkles and then useless beta males. In my book, I say date guys like Rowlf and Fozzi and not Kermit. Let me think about it.

Klausner is unhappy with Michael Cera as a leading man, finding him immature and not manly. Though she is quite happy with teen-age Molly Ringwald, girlish 80's icon, as the leading lady for the late John Hughes movies.

It's the teenage boys I'm worried about. They're not going to college in numbers. They're going to be angry -- depending on who's coming back from the war. There are charities for girls and I'm all for that, but ultimately, the real problem is the epidemic of inferior men - which is basically what my book is about.

But her real beef is with the "inferior men" she has to deal with. In other words, not being hot enough to get the commitment of an Alpha male, full time, or "change" the "vintage-eyeglass-frame-wearing guys from Greenpoint or Silver Lake, who pedaled along avenues in between band practice and drinks with friends, sans attachment, oblivious to the impending hazards of reality and adulthood." Plus of course insulting attention from "inferior" and useless beta males.


This then, is the portrait (in extreme, somewhat) of the modern urban professional woman. Moving from "douchebag to douchebag" in fairly grotesque sexual situations, but terminally attracted to hipsters and trustafarians and indie band layabouts and felons and other Alpha males. Finding the "useless beta males" in her orbit both annoying and inferior. As ultimately the men she cannot gain commitment from or "change" into a tragically hip douchebag with money and responsibility, are inferior.

While of course, you'd expect this from say, Paris Hilton, who associates with Gummi Bear Davis and Fat Elvis Davis (grandsons of oilman Marvin Davis). The modern day equivalent of the Dick Van Dyke Show's Rose Marie? Not so much.

Note too, her books are designed to appeal to women readers. So both the exploits of sexual hook-ups in the most degrading and debased nature, and the complaints about the useless beta males and other inferior men, hit a chord. Otherwise this stuff would not be published, nor would she have so many projects. Even if the chord is mostly in Hollywood, it is important. Because Hollywood shapes the culture.

Modern women who are attractive but no great beauty, face a quandary. They can have access to "douchebag after douchebag" as the writer put it, Alpha males who will happily bed them or exploit them to pay the bills if they are layabout indie musicians in lame bands. But only the most beautiful women, can secure the commitment of an Alpha with money as well as options, and then only when they couple with an aging Alpha (think Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas, or Annette Benning and Warren Beatty.)

After all, an Alpha is by definition, a man who can have many women. So he has many options. He will exploit them fully. Women are drawn, inexorably, to men who have the approval of other women, particularly those with a high partner count (other women slept with him, he must be GOOD!) This is hard-wired. The inferior men, the useless beta males, are not even on their radar. Nor will they be, ever. Women don't need anymore, a Kitchen Bitch.

Yet the qualities that women like Klausner desire, along with the sexiness, are found only in beta males, for the vast majority. Only a beauty like Catherine Zeta Jones marrying a much older Alpha at the end of his string, can expect faithfulness or even tenderness, sustained. This is the nature of the sexual marketplace. The freedom comes with a cost, and the winners exist only at the expense of the losers. The sexual marketplace, after all, is not like others. Men cannot "create" new women out of demand, and a value of a woman sexually and romantically decreases with age (as do that of men). A woman with many lovers is worth far less than one with fewer, and even for men there comes a point when too many is too many. Though indeed it comes later for them than women, given the aura of pre-selection dominant among women's decision making. But for winners to exist in the marketplace (maximizing their partner counts and freedom) there must inevitably be losers.

Average women are now no longer shamed (by more beautiful and Alpha women) from sharing the few desirable men. Be they indie rockers, trust funders, felons, pornographers, and hipsters. These are the men after all, Klausner chose to sleep with. Her book was not titled: "Accountants, Actuaries, Engineers, Programmers, and Managers: Boring Beta Nice Guys I Slept With." Those guys go home to their porn collection, while a few male winners go home with a new girl every night.

The biggest losers in the new Sexual Marketplace are ordinary guys, who live a life of involuntary celibacy in intermittent spurts, unless they can generate their inner asshole, and become at least for a while, the dominant, jerky, asshole that professional urban women like Klausner craves. Is Klausner an outlier? Certainly. Most professional women don't behave the way she does in outrageous degree. But it is certainly there, the preference for jerks and a-holes, just not as publicly expressed and likely not as thoroughly lived, as Klausner. But there, as the white-hot reaction for her book and HBO series shows.

Next up as losers, are the most beautiful women, who have to put up with cheating, endemically, from Sandra Bullock to Elin Nordgren. Their dominant Alpha a-hole husbands often choose less lovely hook-ups, because they simply crave variety and convenience. Of course these women could have married an accountant or someone of far lower social standing and power, but they chose naturally a man equal or better than their own, and with masculine power to match their feminine beauty. Thus not just discreet cheating, but massive amounts of it, in various forms. From John Edwards to Bill Clinton to Gavin Newsome (now California's Lt. Governor) to Eliot Spitzer to Mark Sanford, this is the cost for the beautiful women married to the most powerful men.

Winners, are of course, the women like Klausner, attractive but no great beauties, who can rack up sex with men they would never have been able to have before. No wonder this group, professional urban women, are the greatest advocates of the current social and sexual system. And no wonder they have nothing but contempt for the Kitchen Bitch and useless beta males.

What beta males offer, which is the potential (but not guarantee) of companionship, faithfulness, and help in child-rearing, really is not important. Klausner's book, in exploiting as she puts it, the 18-34 demo, is proof of that. It is a memoir of the bad boys she slept with (including felons apparently), not a good guy she ended up marrying. Absent from the book is a path to marriage and family, something very different from what women were interested in, fiction-wise, even thirty years ago.

This cannot be emphasized enough. Fiction appealing to women, overwhelmingly, does not focus on marriage and family, but rather bad boy hookups and degradation, along with rage at useless, beta males and other inferior men, as Klausner puts it.


Indeed, dig deeper and and see that is nerdy White guys who are Klausner's problem (and women like her).

"What I say in the book is the white, nerdy, sensitive guy is not the minority anymore," Julie said. "Between tech jobs and the creative establishment, I mean, they are the ones who feel repressed but they are actually high status."

Julie explained how the "white, nerdy, sensitive" guy, who is most in control of the comedy world, is not the nice, non-threatening person a lot of women think he is.

"There is this book 'Guyland' by Michael Kimmel [that says] how boys don't really grow up to be men anymore, they mostly become 'guys' who play video games and live in a 'frat house' type of environment for the duration of their 20's," she said. "The kind of boy's club I'm used to? It is definitely not a jock-y, frat-y kind of thing. They say 'I'm sensitive and nerdy,' but actually it's like 'You're a huge child and you're terrified of women, but you don't like sports so you think that makes you less of a misogynist."

Yep, from the woman who dated felons and trust-funders, the enemy is the nerdy White guy who is really a misogynist. Read: not high status enough. Klausner doesn't have a problem with bad-boy Charlie Sheen, who held a knife to his wife's throat, on Christmas Day. But she does have a problem with guys who are not dominant and masculine enough to hold her sexual interest.

Or rather, White guys who are not sexy enough for her. Its basically the equivalent of the frat guy "No Fat Chicks" refrain. Only "No Fat Chicks" extended to every woman who is not super-model thin. This is the attitude of sexual plenty. Never before have ordinary women had so much sexual access to dominant bad boys as today. No wonder the ordinary guys around them provoke them to rage and disdain and the nuclear missile "misogyny." After all, they don't need them. They can pick up a sexy bad boy any time.

"Any woman I know can smell a boyfriend a mile away. Women are intuitive, they know when a guy is interested but he's not going to be there for her in that boyfriend-y way," Julie said. "But if he wants to fuck you, and he's attractive, obviously you're going to go in that direction. And for people to say 'Oh, you should have waited and he would have stayed' it's like, 'No he wouldn't have, and I wouldn't have gotten laid.' I'm still allowed to feel bad when he doesn't do what he's supposed to."

Again, Klausner and women like her (probably most women on the Huffington Post) want a sexy bad boy. Just one devoted to her. She'll trade sex with the bad boy in favor of "boring" life with a useless, White beta male.

And that is the other part of it. Klausner has no complaints about Hip Hop and Rap artists spouting off about bitches and hos. Nor the lurid imagery of most rap videos. Nor Mexican/Latin machismo. Nope. Her complaint is White guys are not macho tough and dominating enough. When of course, any masculine display by a White guy is allowed only if he is entirely outside the professional workplace. The macho assholes Klausner and most White female professional women crave, can only exist in the indie band, trust fund, hipster, and felon environments. Try that in the professional corporate workplace and you as an ordinary White guy get fired. Fired fast. Complaining about White guys not being as tough and as dominant as a Hells Angel's biker is like a guy complaining that the girls at the mall are ten pounds overweight, and are not in fact supermodels.

Indeed the hatred of nerdy white guys gets overt:

The "mousy" girl she's talking about, the kind that every guy around her seems to want, is brought up in her book as the character Pam Beesely on "The Office." She writes: "There's nothing scary about Pam because there's no mystery: she's just like the boys who like her; mousy and shy. The ultimate emo boy fantasy is to meet a nerdy, cute girl just like him, and nobody else will realize she's pretty."

So who decided Pam was the epitome of emo-boy desire? Probably the emo-boys who get writing jobs on popular NBC sitcoms. Julie expressed her discontent with this domination of culture.

"Whenever culture isn't being controlled by enough gay people or Jewish people, I always get nervous," Julie said. "I feel like the whole 'Pam' thing is a result of straight, angry nerds taking over the world, frankly. And the gays and Jews, look... We know what we're doing; we've done this for years."

Of course, Klausner would not like culture being controlled by Jewish guys like Shuster, or Siegel, or Lee, Kane, or Kirby, or Mayer. No Superman, Batman, Hulk, or Captain America for her. Funny, how when nerdy, non-gay Jews created a whole pulp industry, or the modern Hollywood, their model of masculinity was Superman, or Captain America, or Batman, or Jimmy Stewart, or John Wayne. Of course, in the same breath, Klausner worships Tina Fey. Who is definitely neither gay nor Jewish. Klausner's beef of course is with too many nerdy White writers. Who just are not hot and dominating enough for her.

Why does she care who the emo-boys find "pretty?" Considering her disdain for them? The answer of course is that Klausner herself is not exactly a knock-out. Her words about Tina Fey needing to lose 30 pounds before going on the air are revealing, and empathetic, and she herself in her pictures does not look like a drop-dead beautiful woman. And yet, she still racked up the bad boy count. Even an ordinary woman can rack up the frequent flier miles with the bad boys. Leaving her equivalent male counterpart with porn or World of Warcraft. She wonders why emo-boys and slackers never grow up? Why should they? What's the reward? Disgust they're not gay from the bad-boy addicts? Being an honorary gay for a day?

Klausner's ideal society would be comprised of a few bad boy Alpha Male White guys, plenty of non-Whites and all the beta males turned gay. So they won't bother her and be instead politically correct. Since most of PC is designed to channel "evil Male White energy" into a denatured and de-masculinized emo-boy dead end, that at least "stops racism" and such. Since every White guy who is not Alpha is a threat. A threat to hit on her, quite likely, which most SWPL women, urban professional White women, find revolting and sickening.

This explains, by the way, the gender gap for White women voting. White women will always vote more Democratic than White Men, because a non-insignificant portion of White women have nothing but contempt for White guys who are useless beta males. Not hot enough for them. Most half-way attractive White women would prefer all White guys be either hot, dominating Alphas, or Gay. Hence the love for gays and disdain for Straight White Guys Who Are Not Charlie Sheen. Professional White women simply detest the 90% of White guys not on their sexual radar, for obvious reasons, and detest everything that these White guys like and stand for. Not the least of which is anything to the right of Tina Fey. Who is the default taste-maker for the White female professional class.

Again, while Klausner is more extreme than most White professional women, she is not expressing anything that is not fairly common among most of them. Disdain for White beta males (and implicit approval for pretty much any non-White guy?) Check. Hatred for "useless beta males?" Check. Love of the gays and hatred of Straight White Guys Not Charlie Sheen? Check. Disappointment that all the douchebags she slept with would not "change" for her? Check! A dubious and checkered sexual past making her a poor bet for a long-term relationship? Double check! A taste for the slumming side (including felons?) Triple Check! Yes while Klausner is more extreme than most, she is not outside the pale. She's not subject to ridicule and hatred the way, say Sarah Palin is. Salon does not make fun or her, nor do New Yorker writers say of her, as they do of Palin, that hearing her voice makes a piece of their soul die!

White women will not change their general hatred of beta White guys until and unless they all turn into variations of Charlie Sheen. I.E. dominant in some way, complete assholes, who are nevertheless terribly sexy (because they break through PC behavior bs to be completely masculine a-holes). While still of course conforming to PC beliefs generally. As does 9/11 Truther Charlie Sheen (it only makes him more attractive to women, he's getting great ratings among his almost exclusively female audience on Two and A Half Men). Since that will happen, well never, the same fairly large (around 8-5 percentage points in the White female vote) split towards Democrats will happen.

Thus, any desire for Conservative votes among Whites MUST take far more of men. White professional women like Klausner will always vote their hatred of nerdy Straight White guys who insulted them by expressing a sexual/romantic interest* in their votes. Thus greater votes among same nerdy White guys is the only possible outcome for victory. Non-whites being futile territory since Democrats/liberals can always outbid conservatives with anti-White guy measures spreading pork, preferential discrimination (against White guys) and benefits (no White guys need apply) to win their votes.

Conservative Republicans need to take note. White Professional women will never vote for them any more than Tina Fey (their heroine) will. They need to hit the slacker guy, the emo-guy, with appeals to embrace their inner asshole and "be a jerk. Vote Conservative!" The way beer commercials push outrageous but funny behavior.

*It is an insult, for most semi-attractive women, to be hit on by guys their own attractiveness level who are not dominant A-holes. Because it implies they are on that level of attractiveness, not the level they pencil themselves in, as the most beautiful, because they can sleep with Alpha A-holes. Because average looking women can nab (for a while) that tattooed biker, or indie rocker layabout, or the trustafarian, or the hipster, all of whom have a lot of other women, they figure they are more beautiful and desirable than they are. They find it gravely insulting for an average guy, of their own status and attractiveness, to express an interest in them.


...Read more

Sandra Tsing Loh and The State of Marriage

In my previous post, How Many (White) Men Are Getting Married I noted that there was a definite trend for White Men, between ages 35-40, to be unmarried. Using the GSS Data, the increase was from 5% in 1972 to 25% in 2004. A marked increase. Recent, a couple of articles by married women have shed light on the state of marriage by people who are, in fact, married, and are the Yuppie, White upper income class of people.

The infamous, Sandra Tsing Loh article in the Atlantic, extolling the virtues of divorce and a new post-marriage order where,

...let them have some sort of French arrangement where they have two men, the postfeminist model dad building shelves, cooking bouillabaise, and ignoring them in the home, and the occasional fun-loving boyfriend the kids never see.

Tellingly, the article derides Dads who help around the house and kitchen as "kitchen bitches" and finds both un-manly and un-romantic. Another woman writes that her marriage is a prison and she needs to bust out, because her beta male husband is not exciting, though a good father and husband. Comments about Loh's article can be found both here and here. Ross Douhat in the New York Times makes some silly observations and stupid ones on the matter (that the Upper classes are in fact stable, and with few incidences of divorce, and that cross-class marriages should take place, respectively).

But what is the real picture of marriage today, in America, among Whites? Increasingly, it looks as if marriage was for Upper Class people only, and no longer something that characterizes lower and middle class Whites.

Sandra Tsing Loh's article is not new. Barbara Ehrenreich, of "Nickel and Dimed" wrote a December, 1999 Essay on the future of the family, sadly no longer online, in Time Magazine, in which she advocated a "fluid and ever-changing arrangement" for family care in which "the community" would care for children while women pursued passionate, intense, but short-lasting affairs. More recently, she's written here that:

Which brings us to the third big scenario. This is the diversity option, arising from the realization that the one-size-fits-all model of marriage may have been one of the biggest sources of tension between the sexes all along--based as it is on the wildly unrealistic expectation that a single spouse can meet one's needs for a lover, friend, co-parent, financial partner, reliably, 24-7. Instead there will be renewable marriages, which get re-evaluated every five to seven years, after which they can be revised, recelebrated or dissolved with no, or at least fewer, hard feelings. There will be unions between people who don't live together full-time but do want to share a home base. And of course there will always be plenty of people who live together but don't want to make a big deal out of it. Already, thanks to the gay-rights movement, more than 600 corporations and other employers offer domestic-partner benefits, a 60-fold increase since 1990.

Standard stuff from a feminist who thinks Muslim misogyny is based on fears of globalization.

Betty Friedan, who wrote of marriage as a prison, in "The Feminine Mystique" set the tone, years earlier of course. It is striking, however, that all of these women belong to a class. Fairly rich, ranging from mansions on the Hudson (Friedan never did housework, she had maids and servants) to various maids and nannies, but not rich enough to prevent divorce or longing for divorce.

The film The Nanny Diaries has a scene in which the prospective nanny, played by Scarlett Johansson, has lunch with her prospective employer (played by Laura Linney). There is an uncomfortable moment when an old friend of the Linney character stops by the table and laments her downward mobility after the divorce. Near the end of the film, the Linney character divorces her husband also, and loses the ability to live the high-life with mansions, summer homes at Martha's Vineyard, and other luxury amenities provided by her master of the universe, Wall Street titan husband. In reality of course, most married couples with that level of wealth try to stay together. The stakes, particularly for the children, are tremendous. There is a lot more ability to rise high on a net worth of $20 million, than there is with only perhaps $8 million an ex-spouse, after lawyer fees. Serious money creates serious behavior, though perhaps the super-rich divorce at the rate of those on the lower end of the financial spectrum.

It's striking that the women complaining about their sexless, "beta male" husbands (Loh, others) and the need to "re-invent" marriage as a formless, shapeless mess in which kids and husbands come last after a woman's need for passion and excitement, all come from a certain class. One able to afford nannies and maids and carpenters, making "kitchen bitches" superfluous, and speaking to the need to indulge "passion" while not at the level of wealth in which divorce means no more summering at the Hamptons in a private mansion. At least one of the women in Loh's article is described as making $120,000 a year, in addition to her husband's income (which should push their dual-incomes to around $200,000 or more a year). Given their social network, it's reasonable to assume the same for Loh and her husband (she an NPR commentator, and Atlantic writer, he a guitarist for Bette Midler) and the rest of her friends.

These women have enough money to hire their own nannies, their own carpenters, their own part-time cooks, and thus don't need or want their husbands helping around the house. It's not any accident that the women describe it as unmanly, as does the Salon.com woman who describes her marriage as a prison. Their basic needs are met by their income, and they desire stimulation and excitement. [This is why, middle income women always support more immigration, legal or illegal. Because immigration increases the supply and lowers the cost of Rosa the Nanny and Manuel the carpenter, without facing competition as, say, a Concert Violinist or Environmental Lawyer, two of the occupations of Loh's friends.]

The women also have another beef with their husbands: they don't respect them because they earn as much or more than their husbands. This is a trend that has been developing for some time.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics website has a wealth of demographic data. Their 2007 report on Women's Earnings has a wealth of data. Among the highlights are:

• The difference between women’s and men’s earnings was largest among those aged 55 to 64, with women earning about 73 percent as much as men in this age group. By
  comparison, women earned 87 percent as much as men among workers 25 to 34 years old, and 92 percent as much among 16- to 24-year-olds. (See table 1.)


• Between 1979 and 2007, the earnings gap between women and men narrowed for most age groups. The women’s to men’s earnings ratio among 35- to 44-year-olds, for example, rose from 58 percent in 1979 to 77 percent in 2007, and the ratio for 45- to 54-year-olds increased from 57 percent to 75 percent. The earnings ratios for teenagers and for workers aged 65 and older fluctuated from 1979 to 2007, but their long-term trend has been essentially flat. (See table 12.)

From the report, we have the following graphs:


[Click Image to Enlarge]

Clearly we can see that women's earnings have been increasing. Correlation is not causation, but it is interesting that as women's earnings have increased both in absolute and relative to men's earnings, divorce and later marriage and single motherhood have all increased. Charles Murray believes that the single motherhood rate among White working and middle class women may be as high as 40% and 20% respectively.


[Click Image to Enlarge]

Again, correlation is not causation, but marriage seems strongest in those populations (Asian and White) that have the biggest earnings gap between men and women, and weakest in those populations (Black and Hispanics) that have the smallest gap.


[Click Image to Enlarge]

Men have done poorly in 1979 dollar amounts (and 1979 was a miserable year, economically) to 2007, in all educational areas except Bachelor's Degree and Higher. But even there, they are far out-stripped by women, and women have done better than men, with small but measurable increases for Associate's Degree and High School Grad, where in comparison men have losses, and substantial ones, from 1979 dollars. Even with less than High School diplomas, women posted smaller losses than men in 1979 dollar amounts, i.e. inflation adjusted.


[Click Image to Enlarge]

Finally, we can see that women outnumber men in most workplace areas, except things like mining, trucking, and the like. In Professional occupations, women outnumber men by 9.4%. This is the largest gap on the graph.

It's possible, that as women have closed the earnings gap with men, particularly among middle class, professional occupations (such as lawyers, doctors, the like), the ability of most men, who won't be very exciting even on a good day, to first attract a woman into marriage, and then keep her happy, is low. Given that women can as Loh recounts her friend "Ellen" can pursue lots of bad boys, why not replace "nice guy" husbands like Ron with maids and nannies, and keep the bad boys around? Increasingly, this seems to be the choice women are making.

The Wall Street Journal in the "Real Pregnancy Crisis" suggests that the real issue is non-College White, Latino, and Black women having children out of wedlock. The CDC reports that 40% of children were born illegitimately, compared to 11% in 1970. Fully 60% of these children were born to women in their twenties, only 23% to teens. The article decries the nonsense feminist academics praising this development, ala Loh, Ehrenreich, and Friedan before her.

ABC News notes that America is not alone. Iceland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark post rates of 66%, 55%, 54%, and 46% respectively of illegitimacy. Nations known for rough gender parity in earnings, feminist politics, and lack of respect for their men. [One of Loh's friends notes in the Atlantic how "enlightened" Swedish women prefer dominant, aggressive Muslim men to their nice-guy Swedish men.] But then Sweden allows for gender-based abortion. Not the mark of a successful society, as China attests to. With 32 million more men than women under the age of twenty, gender imbalances due to sex-based abortions can be explosive. So too, lurching into illegitimacy as the social norm.

Thanks to reader Puma, for the link to Rutgers University study on the family.



[Click Image to Enlarge]

Over the last 40 years, marriage has declined radically, among women. While there are no class breakdowns, the largest slices of women are naturally going to be lower and middle class women, not upper class women.

We can see this decline in respect for marriage and husbands in the culture too. Nearly every ad, even those now featuring Black fathers, have doofus dads who are the butt of jokes.

Marriage, and the traditional nuclear family it seems, is something only for rich people. Yuppie women like Loh or Ehrenreich, can afford to replace husbands with exciting lovers and immigrant labor. For poorer women, out-of-wedlock children and rotating bad boys are the rule. Only where divorce means giving up real, serious money, in the millions of dollars, and giving up great luxury, do we see stable families and intact, nuclear family marriages. This great sea change, might incidentally explain the hatred of Sarah Palin, who famously married a blue collar guy of no great wealth, in her early twenties, and leveraged his support to run for office, first as Mayor of Wasilla, and then as Governor of Alaska.

After all, even the author of Moneyball, Michael Lewis, cannot get his wife's respect of that of other women. Lewis, a best-selling author not once but twice, with "Liar's Poker" is treated like a doofus.

In "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," it was eerie how the literally empowered women treated men. Written by avowed feminist Joss Whedon, Buffy and her super-powered female friends pursued, non-stop, dangerous bad boys with superpowers, who were their superiors. Character, morality, and duty meant nothing, only the thrill of violent, dangerous, super-powered men. Perhaps the most illustrative moment came when Buffy's second vampire boyfriend, "Spike" raped her, and she fell in love with him and (implied off-screen sex) with him again. [Star Sarah Michelle Gellar hated that particular storyline and feuded with series creator and show-runner Whedon over it.]

Now, women don't have superpowers. But the better earnings, status, social conditions, and opportunities afforded women have not come without a cost, all across the West. If women are hard-wired to be hypergamous, i.e. desire men of greater power and status than themselves, this would make "kitchen bitches" irrelevant and explain our brave new world of single mothers, rotating bad boys, and disdain, shown over and over again, for fatherhood and men who embrace it. It would also explain the success of the institution of marriage in the only class that still sustains it: high powered men making millions every year and women who work only part-time in jobs that pay little but give prestige, i.e. the Non Governmental Organizations, the NGOs, like Greenpeace or Amnesty International or Heal the Bay.

The very rich men, those of the Upper Class have superpowers. They have more power and status than their wives.
...Read more

The Secret of Superhero Movies

Recently, the Wall Street Journal ran an article detailing Warner Brother's new strategy for Superhero movies. Make them dark, "just like Batman." More proof if any was needed that Hollywood lives in a bubble and just does not understand their audience. Much less, the secret to Superhero movies.

"The Dark Knight" made $478 million as of Friday, August 22, 2008, not because it was "dark" or "edgy." Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov believes:

Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

The correct term for this is stupidity. "The Dark Knight" was successful because it hit the emotional and story core of the character, when he was created back in 1939. Which was and is, the "moral revenge" story, with a character who takes revenge (and action) within strict moral limits. That's why Batman does not kill, even though he might have good reason to do so. Moreover, Batman is an ordinary man. Unlike the other Superheroes, he has no powers whatsoever other than what an intelligent and highly motivated and disciplined man could potentially have, with the aid of money and technology. He's the direct descendant of Edmund Dantes, and Sherlock Holmes, with a dash of Zorro. Batman, lacking any superpowers, pretty much has to be intimidating and ruthless (right up to the strict moral lines he'll never cross).

Batman in the comics and movies consistently beats, dangles over great heights, and otherwise terrifies the worst and least of crooks, but never, ever kills anyone.

Why?

Because Batman is a power-fantasy for guys.

The secret to comics is who created and read them, back when they were popular, first in the late 1930's and early 1940's, and again in the 1960's (the "Golden" and "Silver" age respectively). The Comics creators were mostly Jewish, nerdy-smart guys, who liked the pretty girls who had no time for them, and preferred the wealthy athletes in High School and College. In wish fulfillment, these mostly Jewish artists and writers, who in the 1930s and early 1940s lived at a time when actual, real Nazis were active in America (the German-American Bund), created (almost exclusively male) characters that provided wish fulfillment to every young man and boy who was not a high-status, wealthy athlete, liked by guys and pursued by girls.

Which is about 90% of the male population, at one time or another. That's what comics were, and the reason for the characters success. Superman is the most globally recognized fictional character. Because of that secret.

Yes, it's really that simple. Male wish fulfillment is the secret to Superhero success.

Spider-Man's nerdy guy element of suddenly having a superpower, and winning the girl, harkens directly back to Superman, and Shuster and Siegel's empowerment fantasy. Complete with High School Jock foil to defeat and beat for the girl's affection. Even Iron Man fits this mode. While Tony Stark may be a wealthy, billionaire playboy, at heart he is a nerd, and is happiest playing and building and experimenting with technology. He builds his own superpower. No wonder nerdy guys love him. He's one of them, as a Superhero.

The problem for Studio execs, and in particular Robinov, is that comics today are not what they once were. Kids and nerdy young men mostly don't read them. Comics can cost in excess of $5 each, and are available only in Comic Book shops, which are few in number. They are written for a much older audience, median age of 40, the hipster crowd. An audience seeking not male empowerment fantasies, but uber-PC, ultra-liberal critiques of average people (and their politicians and values). There is either the grim-and-gritty ultraviolent superhero only marginally distinct from the villain (if at all). Or superteams of politically correct gay, addict, lesbian, latina, etc. superbeings who rule America to protect "the world" from un-PC Americans. Such as DC/Wildstorm's "The Authority". Remember them?

There is a reason you don't.

The dirty little secret behind comics and comic book writers today is that the writers have completely repudiated the male empowerment fantasy, where the hero has some power and gets the girl or at least defeats the bad guy (within acceptable moral limits) and saves ordinary people. "The Authority" is merely the dream of the hipster and what he/she would do if they ruled America and/or the world. Very importantly, the male empowerment Superhero does not want to rule the world (that's the Supervillain's department). He wants to save it, and do so within the kinds of rules that ordinary men and boys set for themselves. No sadism. Mostly no killing. Protecting innocents. Following all the rules.

Because, in the world of the original Golden and Silver age empowerment fantasies, the rules were quite explicit, and the reason for the characters success. Superman's been popular since 1938 for a reason. And it's not being "dark," "hip," or "edgy." Certainly not identifying with an evil side, or the villain. Lex Luthor is Superman's main villain, and other than being bald, his persona can be extremely variable. Superman is always the same. The Ultimate American (along with Captain America).

Here are the rules:

1. A character with great power must show great restraint, lest he fall into villain territory. The amount of restraint and humanity a Superhero shows is directly proportional to his power. Superman must be everyman empathetic to even the villains, whereas ordinary Batman can do pretty much anything but kill people.

2. The character must be someone the male audience can identify with and reasonably project themselves into, because the character is a male empowerment fantasy. Villains and characters indistinguishable from villains won't work, no matter how "edgy" and hip they might be among the creative class and upper-income urbanites.

3. The character must actively defend the conventional morality and beliefs of the average person, who after all forms the audience/readership for the Superhero. This means, among other things, the assimilationist Patriotism of the Golden/Silver age, mostly Jewish creators, which most ordinary Americans still hold today. Captain America, punching out Hitler in 1940, a year before America's entry into the War, at a time of deep isolationism and pro-Hitler sentiment, from Charles Lindbergh to Woody Guthrie to the Daughters of the American Revolution, is a superhero, because he embodies the values and beliefs of the average guy. "Apollo" and "the Midnighter," openly gay Super-couple (and thinly disguised Superman/Batman clones) who believe themselves better than the average guy and act accordingly as dictators, are not Superheroes.

4. The Superhero is the enemy of PC, and the embodiment of doing the right thing, even at the cost of social isolation. What hipsters and the cool people don't understand, is that the average male audience is often socially isolated, particularly in High School, where social cliques abound and a strict social hierarchy rules. For the hipster, secure at or near the top of the urban social hierarchy, there is nothing worse than being cast out from the glitterati. The average guy who read comics, felt it was acceptable since that social reality already informed their existence.

5. The Superhero must have a sense of wonder. The Superhero is not merely a hero like Indiana Jones or John McClane. He is above all else, a sense of possibility, of wonder, excitement, and strangeness. The villains are scared of this wonder.

6. The Superhero's costume must reinforce the sense of wonder. The costume is important, it visually distinguishes the hero from a two-fisted ordinary man, into a sense of possibility and wonder, or terror and menace (to villains), or awesome power, or any combination thereof.

7. The Superhero must embody a deep emotional truth or sense of aspiration in their audience/readership. Superman and Captain America embody the optimism and power of American patriotism at it's best. Batman the moral revenge fantasy, Spider-Man the power of puberty and it's body changing effects, Iron Man the ability to make world-changing tools through technology as an uber-nerd, Captain Marvel and the Hulk every little boy's fantasy of being big and strong. Through either a magic word or massive temper tantrum. Green Lantern is a cop with a power-ring, and the Flash is speed personified, able to save many by being just fast enough. There are many, many possibilities, but each has to appeal to some part or aspect of the readership and audience.

8. The villain defines the hero, in what the hero will not allow, and will fight to stop. For Superman, it's Robber Baron greed in Lex Luthor. For Batman, it's the insane desire of the criminal to inflict sadistic pain for the purpose of inflicting pain and misery (the Joker). For Green Lantern, it's Sinestro who wants to rule the world with a power ring the opposite of his own, to create chaos and war instead of law and order. The villain might be the complete opposite of the hero (Lex Luthor to Clark Kent) or similar but with a huge difference (Sinestro and Green Lantern). But the hero must always fight the villain's plans and his morality (or often, lack of it). That's why he's the hero. And why the audience loves him.

9. The hero must win, and the villain lose. This is a male empowerment fantasy, after all, not an art-film for hipsters in Greenwich Village or Santa Monica.

Hollywood bubble figures like Robinov don't get it. Today's Comic book writers don't make stories or characters who appeal to much of anyone beyond the tiny, hipster and aging crowd of today's comic book readers. Comics today circulate at a fraction of the readership they held as recently as the speculation boom of the early 1990's, let alone WWII or the Silver Age. Some marginal comics circulate at 30,000 copies a week. Superman in the early 1990's sold 2 million copies a week, and had several titles a month, to boot! Most of the new characters (or PC-updated ones) created in the last few years have failed to catch on in any meaningful way. Nearly all the iconic, widely recognized, or even popular Superheroes were created at least forty years ago, by pulp-energy, fringe writers and artists seeking to connect with socially isolated, nerdy young men. The cool and the hip crowd did not read comics. Which is why these characters, even relatively unknown to the general public characters like Iron Man, are popular.

And why "The Authority" or "Watchmen" are not. "Watchmen" will be a flop.

My suggestion to Robinov, to make DC Superhero movies that will make money:

1. Yes, follow Marvel's plan of introducing Superheros in solo adventures with cameo cross-overs to create anticipation and excitement for a team movie.
2. Don't hire any DC Comics writer or editor, in fact keep them far away from your movies with no input.
3. Don't use anything story-wise done in the last fifteen years or so, because it will violate the secret of Superheroes -- the stories will be about how cool and hip and edgy the writers are, not male empowerment fantasies.
4. Repeat constantly, "male empowerment fantasy" to understand what your movies will be and what they won't (everything else).
5. Understand that demographics means that your male audience will be older than 17, by a large margin. They'll be in their twenties, thirties, and forties, but will still want stories that provide "male empowerment," see #4. This means themes that are mature, while still delivering the "male empowerment fantasy" such as Iron Man. With it's forty-plus lead and adult (but light) story.
6. Use writers and directors who understand the core of the character (and his villains), as originally conceived and proved by time to be popular. This means no Bryan Singer tributes to Richard Donner. Or inserting of any "cool" and PC subtext that subverts the male empowerment fantasy. You may need to search outside of who you thought would be appropriate, and should beware of those seeking to make an art movie instead of a well-crafted male empowerment fantasy (Angst Lee would be a good example of who not to hire).
7. The right casting is critical, and as shown by both the Batman and Iron Man movies, the audience is older, so an older and more experienced actor is certainly appropriate, and no barrier but rather often a critical element to success.
8. Don't rush the movies. The Punisher, Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, and Hulk movies all show what happens: the stories move away from the core of the character's male empowerment fantasy and changes into star vehicles, special effects seminars, or arty angst fests.
9. Understand, not every character is Batman, and don't be afraid to sparingly use Batman to show that many DC characters are unlike Batman. The Flash is a sunny optimist, as befits a speedster. Green Lantern is a conservative, "right-stuff" supercop with a power ring that can do nearly anything. Captain Marvel is an eleven year old boy literally inside "Earth's Mightiest Mortal" and possessed of magical super-strength and speed and invincibility. Green Arrow is a notorious womanizer (Batman is a semi-monk) with a personal life beyond messy.
10. The villain is important, but only so far as he makes the hero the hero. Die Hard was not about Hans Gruber, but John McClane. Don't make the mistake that too many writers, particularly current comic book writers make and fall in love with the villain. He's there to be defeated in the end, after all.
...Read more