Why it is harder to be a man than a woman explained in under 11 minutes

All men still interested in forming a long term relationship with a woman should view this.

Women should view it too as evidence of why it is harder to be a man than a woman.

Would women be able to deal with this sort of shit every day without their heads that is full of pink and fluffy stuff exploding?

I don't think so.

This probably explains why most men who don't feel up to dealing with this crap go gay or become asexual or prefer to masturbate to porn instead or spend their time and energy trying to invent the perfect sex bot? What do you think?

Perhaps the only way of explaining this to women is to ask them to imagine their pet suddenly having the same rights as they do and the ability of telling their owners exactly what they think of them.

Oh, and can take half of their owner's stuff under the rules of no fault divorce.

Two very important essays by F Schmidt that say what I say about sex and God

Feminism is the natural expression of women's changing mating preference in a decaying society.  But let's imagine that we could magically eliminate feminism.  Would this be better for humanity?  I believe that what this would look like is America almost permanently stuck in the 1950s.  As I explained in "The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture", American culture began to break down in the 1800s when religion went from encouraging people to follow Jesus's moral teaching to simply having a personal relationship with Jesus.  With such a change, it was inevitable that society would lose focus on the core issues of sexual morality, and lose the ability of effective enforcement.  In the 1950s, America retained the facade of a moral culture, but underneath society was breaking down.  Women clearly expressed sexual excitement for "bad boys" in movies.  And I am certain that this must have corresponded to a rising adultery rate.  Without feminism, the facade could have remained intact for centuries, with moral men continuing to find wives but these wives cheating on them and having illegitimate children with immoral men.  The genetic breakdown of society would have been much slower, but the ultimate result would have been the same.  So instead of taking decades for society to call apart, it would have taken centuries.  Which is preferable?  I think it is preferable for a morally broken society to fall apart as quickly as possible so that it can be replaced by something else.  Feminism doesn't change the end result, it only speeds it up.  And so I support feminism.

What about the poor suffering moral men in modern culture who can't get women?  One can read the complaints of these men all over the internet.  If you suggest options to these men like using a prostitute or looking abroad, they will tell you that they want validation.  Any moral man who wants validation from a woman in modern culture is simply a moron who deserves to suffer and die without reproducing.  Unlike feminists, he hasn't slightest understanding of evolution.  The only sound evolutionary strategy for moral men is to join together to form moral patriarchal societies.  Such societies are evolutionarily superior to modern culture.  When modern culture has decayed sufficiently, a good moral patriarchal culture should attack modern culture and slaughter all of its men for the genetic good of humanity.

If a woman from the modern culture calls a moral man a loser, the correct response is "I would be a loser if I were a member of your culture, but I am not.  My culture is superior to your culture and my culture will eventually destroy your culture."  Intelligent moral men must reject modern culture and find an alternative.  And from the perspective of an alternative culture, we can recognize feminism as a good thing that is helping to destroy our enemy, namely modern culture. 

http://www.mikraite.org/In-Defense-of-Feminism-td570.html

So evolutionary salvation requires one god and the right god. And the god of the Old Testament is certainly the right god. Are there any others? Are there any other books in this world that address the issues of human evolution even close to the degree that the Old Testament does? None that I know of. And this is why the only means of evolutionary salvation is through God.  

http://www.mikraite.org/Human-Evolution-td17.html

Claire Khaw reconciles what E O Wilson said was irreconcilable

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0639kzv

"Selfishness beats altruism in groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups, and everything else is commentary."

"Human nature is hung in the balance: our behaviour driven by selfishness and our desire to co-operate to ensure the survival of the group."

"The tension between individual and group selection is the tension between sin and virtue."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/e_o_wilson.html

E. O. Wilson:

"Of course, there is no reconciliation between the theory of evolution by natural selection and the traditional religious view of the origin of the human mind."

I have reconciled the two by the following:

"God if He exists is Darwinian. He means to demonstrate to us that those who follow His laws most closely will triumph over those who flout His laws. For this reason it is not looking good for the West, even if ISIS do occasionally misinterpret the Koran."

God (if He exists) is Darwinian

F Schmidt:

Jews have been corrupted during many time in history, but each time those Jews that return to religion and virtue cause Judaism to survive for another round of productivity.  No culture has been productive as long as Judaism for the simple reason that no culture has known God for as long as Judaism has.

Is there a single counterexample?  Is there a single case in history where a people from a decayed culture rose again without God?  I can't think of one.  So why is this?  Those with faith may find this question silly.  They will say that those who obey God's will are rewarded and no other explanation is needed.  But as a skeptic, I want to show that God's will is explainable and that the theory of evolution explains it well.  So I will argue that the evolutionary salvation of a people requires two critical elements, that they worship one god, and that this god is the correct god. 

So not only does the Old Testament give the correct rules to optimize human evolution, it also gives the correct warnings of what will result from not following these rules.  In fact the broad story told in the Old Testament begins with God giving the Israelites the right rules.  The Israelites follow these rules for a while and so they become successful and prosperous.  Then success causes them to begin to sin.  So their decay begins.  The more they violate God's laws, the more they decay and the weaker they become.  Finally their country falls to Babylon and they go into exile.  But then they return to following God's law and find salvation which allows them to survive and eventually begin again in Jerusalem.  This story makes the same point that I am making in this article, that salvation can be found by following God's law.  The Old Testament is the only book that I know of that goes through the entire life-cycle of a culture along with a complete analysis of what happened and why. 

http://www.mikraite.org/Human-Evolution-td17.html

Khavian Koranism Reconciling God, Evolution and Man

God, if He exists, created EVERYTHING.

Therefore, God is also responsible for Evolution.

God most certainly exists because God was created by Man to assist him in his government, morality and spirituality.   

Abu Zufayr should sue The Guardian for defamation

http://www.savemasjidtawhid.com/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/06/usama-hasan-london-imam-death-threats-evolution


http://www.facebook.com/abdullah.andalusi/posts/10150099057897517?cmntid=10150100001052517

It has been alleged that Abu Zufayr has made a death threat against Usama Hasan over the latter's deliberately provocative position on Evolution.

A wiser person such as I would have said "God created everything and He must therefore have created Evolution" to reconcile the two positions, but he did not, in order, perhaps, to be deliberately provocative and attract attention to himself.  

It seems Usama Hasan was suggesting that he has received a death threat and that death threat came from a certain Abu Zufayr.  Those present said that while Abu Zufayr certainly called him a "kuffar" they heard no death threat.

It seems that the death threat was contained in a leaflet at http://peacebruv.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/charges-of-kufr-against-usama-hasan.pdf  

Does giving someone a leaflet saying "In the good old days you would have been killed for doing and saying what you did" amount to a death threat?

Not to any reasonable person, I would have thought.  But then who said The Guardian is read or written by a reasonable people?  It is read by the liberal Muslims, who are walking oxymorons so messed up in the head by double-think that you wonder that their heads do not explode with so many internal contradictions.

Nevertheless, The Guardian, who wanted a "another Muslim extremist issues yet another death threat over something silly" decided to run this story.

I hope Abu Zufayr gets damages for this outrageous slur on his reputation, if indeed the facts are as I have stated above, and that he in fact made no statement that could reasonably be interpreted to constitute a death threat.  Poor journalism should be seen to be punished when it has the effect of ruining a man's reputation and stirring up racial and religious hatred.