Are All Women Gold-Diggers?

By Stephen Jarosek (aka Codebuster): From JW Productions comes a movie with a deliberately provocative question in the title… Are all men pedophiles? [1] This seems like an odd title, given that they acknowledge in the film the existence of female pedophiles. But if they want to take advantage of some dominant cultural narrative, well, we can play that game too… indeed,  it might be quite fun. JW Productions [2] provides a brief outline on their website:

For the first time in history the tables have turned on men. In the past “Witch-Hunt” was associated with women but now it is associated with men.
In an effort to protect our children society has started to isolate men. This documentary explores the pedophilia hysteria and how all men are viewed as potential pedophiles. How did society come to such a conclusion and what are the political and social consequences?

Witch-hunts serve little purpose in the course of reason, and focusing only on the perversions of men doesn’t help anyone. The perversions of women also deserve scrutiny and, for balance, I’d like to ask… are all women gold-diggers?

Materialism as women’s porn

E.L. James’ novel Fifty Shades of Grey might pique women’s curiosity, and they might fantasize about having nasty things done to them by a mysterious, powerful, rich dude that flies helicopters and owns lots of stuff, but their fantasies cannot be disengaged from the stuff that lies at the centre of women’s being. It is no accident that the main protagonist in the novel, Christian Grey, is obscenely wealthy. That he is mysterious, powerful and eager to indulge is part of the context that revs women’s engines, but these are not the first things that a woman will notice.
The key to understanding what makes women drool lies in their self-indulgence… their narcissism… the me-me-me of the female psyche. And a primary vector for their self-indulgence is their materialism… their obsession with owning stuff. In a nutshell, women identify with stuff; it is the source of their Raison d’etre. Women’s indulgent materialism is the shallow extension of their hypergamy [3].
Women love stuff. Lots of stuff. They crave for stuff, the more, the better. Women fall over themselves in the rush to obtain stuff… stuff on sale, stuff at bargain-basement prices [4]. Women will stampede shopping centres [5] in the rush to acquire stuff. Women have special days on which they can celebrate and worship stuff… Christmas sales, stock clearance sales, new fashion sales, spring sales, summer sales, winter sales, autumn sales, because-you’re-worth-it sales.
Women wallow in stuff; they celebrate men who provide them with stuff, and they divorce men quicker than they can say “alimony and child support,” should they find someone who can provide them with even more stuff.
Stuff doesn’t even have to be useful… an obscenely expensive diamond ring, about as useful as tits on a bull, will nonetheless have women oohing and ahhing, and swooning in either admiration or envy, depending on who it is that is wearing it.
A woman might know nothing of the precision engineering, the exquisite upholstery and amazing technology that’s gone into the creation of a high-performance Lamborghini Diablo, and she might not even know how to drive. But as stuff in which to sit and show off her latest perm, with a rear-view mirror that she can look into to make sure she’s looking her best, it can make the ideal birthday gift for the man who has everything.
Women judge each other according to the stuff they own… big, shiny, gleamy stuff that sparkles in the sun and that they proudly show off to friends. Women judge each other according to the stuff that they wear and the stuff that they lather on their faces to provide the masks that spell identity [6].
Imagine where women would be without stuff. Imagine them coping in a world without cosmetics, without texting or Facebook, without the internet for them to follow the latest fashions or without television to keep up with the latest celebrity gossip (incidentally, notice how all these things on which women depend are created by men! Just Sayin’).
Where most men are content with four pairs of stuff: One for summer, one for winter, one for formal and one for casual, women want hundreds of pairs of stuff. Sometimes even thousands to match their lipstick, their mood, their dress, the occasion, the weather, the car, the furniture. So let us take this moment to spare a thought for poor Imelda Marcos after her tragic loss of thousands of pairs of stuff [7] and what she must have been going through.
Designer stuff
Unmasking Feminism [8] nails what women want:

She may have everything she wants, but not everything she needs. She wants independence, the vote, her own income, etc., but she wants all these things like she wants a designer purse.

Precisely. Women want careers and self-determination like they want designer handbags, shoes ‘n’ stuff. Independence, the vote, and income are fun things to have that make you look good, they create a good impression, and your girlfriends will envy you. They have nothing to do with achievement, responsibility, what you stand for or what you believe in. That’s men’s stuff.
For women, the role of minister of defense is more a fashion statement than it is a responsibility. Consistent with Angela Merkel’s stance on invaders refugees, the defense ministers of Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, and Germany [9] care less about protecting their countries from invaders than they do for maintaining appearances. You know the kinder, gentler, friendlier face of a liberal, progressive Europe that holds its doors open for anyone, regardless of how their cultural and religious values clash with those of their own people. Fashionable, trendy and popular, they’ll show that boring, stodgy old-boy network of The Patriarchy how defense should really be conducted. Hennis-Plasschaert, defense minister of the Netherlands, told the Guardian:

[The Dutch politician] Neelie Kroes once said to me that old boys’ networks are the oldest form of cartels we have in Europe. She was right, but things are changing, and women can do similar things now.

And the Guardian gets right into the swing of it:

Her tweet with the photograph soon went viral. To many, the image heralded a new era in which even the last bastions of male privilege were no longer closed to talented women. Sweden’s foreign minister, Carl Bildt, retweeted it with the comment “True Power Girls” (and was widely criticised for the condescending tone).

Thank God for affirmative action, whether as formal policy or implied in the cultural narrative, without which these women would have had to compete against men on a level playing field. Without affirmative action, whether formal or implied, there is every likelihood that they might have opted for the safer, less stressful stay-at-home option. Minister of Defense is the ultimate designer label that a woman can flash around to all her friends. And relaxed in her self-assured superiority of her gender, she need not trouble herself with the boring details of her culture unravelling.
Visceral sense of unfairness that punches you in the gut
Women cannot understand that for men, work is not a hobby. They don’t understand that for men, work is not something you do if you like, something you do if your fancy takes you. And so women have acquired a visceral sense of the profound unfairness that only men have been allowed to enjoy access to these goodies for centuries. It hits them in the gut like a pile-driver. But thanks to feminism, things are different now. For women steeped in the culture of feminism, they can now enjoy work as an option, an indulgence, something you do if it’s convenient and fun and does not interfere with your quality of life. That’s why women need affirmative action so that they can have the first choice at those jobs selfishly and insensitively being hogged by men who have families to support.

A woman’s perspective may be narcissistic and self-indulgent, but it has very practical survival benefits and enables them to cope with the unfairness of thousands of millennia of oppression. Thanks to feminism, they have more options now. They can still prioritize being provided for and they continue to judge men on their ability to provide [10], classifying men as winners, losers, studs, and creeps, as they have for millennia in the tradition of hypergamy. But now thanks to affirmative action, they are at liberty to toss their provider should they get bored with him… they can even claim child support and alimony if they want… and then take away another man’s livelihood as payback for all those millennia of oppression against women. And if any man should get too uppity about his rights, she has VAWA to protect her “rights” (privileges) while trashing his constitutional rights [11]. And she can contrive unsubstantiated allegations of rape or violence [12] to put him back in his place… and then expect to get away with it [13]. Indeed these days, she can even murder [14], and the worst that she might expect is a stern look from the judge with a slap on the wrist.
Practical implications
Women’s hypergamy is inextricably entwined with their narcissistic materialism. While not all women are necessarily gold-diggers, the assumption that they all are is one that will stand a man in much better stead than any self-help theories, like (PUA) Game. We are reminded of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs… because women control sexual supply, they set different priorities. They choose materialism as their first priority because they can, and because their sexual needs will be met by default subsequent to their first priority being met.
For men, appearances can help, but not in the same way that lookin’ good helps women. It especially helps if you look rich… if you look like you own the Lamborghini on which you are leaning or the yacht on whose deck you are standing. Google the terms [gold digger prank] for some laughs. It is the size of a man’s wallet, not his member, that makes all the difference. There is no mystery about women at all, this is the simple, unvarnished truth. The “cute versus rich” matrix explains this most succinctly, 6 minutes into the clip Hot Crazy Matrix – A Man’s Guide to Women [15]. But I prefer to provide a slightly different slant.
I’d like to expand on the presenter’s comment on the space to the left of the husband line, which is a little simplistic because it does not factor in the arbitrary manner in which women define “cute”. It is more accurate to portray the region to the left of the vertical husband line as containing an enclosure – say, a small rectangle – to represent women’s motivations. Beyond the rectangle is the no-go zone. This rectangle changes shape and shifts its position with a combination of cultural fashions and emotional states. In this way, we can better appreciate that a woman’s choices in men are going to be contingent on many variables, from her mood on the day, to what her friends are telling her, to fashion or social proof. But the key point is that vertical husband line… regardless of what her ever-shifting motivations might be, regardless of how the rectangle morphs and shifts within the no-go zone, there is only one thing that really matters. Money whispers to women in a way that it does not to men.
Conclusion
Women certainly have primal sexual impulses that are no less than those of men, but these are typically sublimated in favour of materialistic priorities. This is why an appropriate response to the question “are all men pedophiles?” is, “are all women gold-diggers?” For the simple truth is, many of them are… and the assumption that all of them are is the safest, most reliable assumption that a man can count on… more reliable than Game or anything that any woman or feminists might tell him. The right assumption will predispose a man to the astutest of decisions, from the pleasures he indulges and the company he keeps, to defending his freedom and protecting his assets, to not wasting his time on spent women. Even the nicest, kindest, most marriageable women are not averse to being wooed… how can a man lose by sticking with that one assumption to govern all women?

 *****

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Breure, J. (Director). (2016, February 25). Are All Men Pedophiles? Documentary [Youtube – JW Productions]. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=243cGRVFrzA&ab_channel=JWDocumentaries
[2] JW Productions. Are All Men Pedophiles? Documentary. (n.d.). Retrieved May 15, 2016, from http://areallmenpedophiles.com/
[3] Tomassi, R. (2016, May 6). Category Archives: Hypergamy. The Rational Male. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from http://therationalmale.com/category/hypergamy-2/
[4] Lunchboxcafe. (2013, November 28). Black Friday – 2013 Wal-Mart. [Youtube]. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from http://youtu.be/ucrM3TLLJRs
[5] Bailey, J. (2011, November 25). Black Friday Crowd Rushing into Urban Outfitters. [Youtube]. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from http://youtu.be/DigiWS1YhxI
[6] Kerry-Washington.us. (2009, April 18). L’Oreal – ‘Because You’re Worth It’. [Youtube]. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from http://youtu.be/84SUfl8Yv4k
[7] Oliver, A. (2012, September 23). Imelda Marcos’ famous collection of 3,000 shoes partly destroyed by termites and floods after lying in storage in the Philippines for 26 years since she exiled. Daily Mail. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207353/Imelda-Marcos-legendary-3-000-plus-shoe-collection-destroyed-termites-floods-neglect.html
[8] Unmasking Feminism. Remove the Needs (Repost from 2010). Retrieved January 19, 2014, from http://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/remove-the-needs-repost-from-2010/
[9] Oltermann, P. (2014, February 2). Female defence ministers pledge to break Europe’s old boys’ network. The Guardian. Retrieved May 13, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/02/female-defence-ministers-tweet-photograph
[10] Arndt, B. (2012, April 22). Why women lose the dating game. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved May 16, 2016, from  http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/why-women-lose-the-dating-game-20120421-1xdn0.html
[11] Wex Legal Dictionary. (n.d.). Equal Protection. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection
[12] Kassam, A. (2016, March 26). Canada urged to rethink the approach to sexual assault after Ghomeshi acquittal. The Guardian. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/26/canada-justice-system-ghomeshi-acquittal-sexual-assault-allegations-approach?utm_source=esp
[13] Franklin, R. (2014, January 21). Sara Ylen False Rape Claim Shows Ease With Which Innocent Men Convicted. A Voice for Men. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/sara-ylen-false-rape-claim-shows-ease-with-which-innocent-men-convicted/
[14] Davison, D., and J. Hembling. (2014, January 18). Canada: a first world country. A Voice for Men. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynarchy/canada-a-first-world-cuntry/
[15] Erhan Ilter. (2014, December 10). Hot Crazy Matrix – A Man’s Guide to Women. [Youtube]. Retrieved May 15, 2016, from https://youtu.be/TjZIPClPR6I?t=6m

About Stephen Jarosek (aka Codebuster)

With his interests in science and philosophy, Codebuster's practical interpretations of theory provide fresh perspectives to contemporary problems. Necessity is the mother of invention, and Codebuster foresees that in men's rights we have the new necessity for maybe a whole new paradigm.

Source