Female moderators


I hate female moderators because they cannot do their job. To them it is more important that people are politically correct than that those people form their own opinions.

If you think about it, moderating means to make moderate. In practical terms, that means “to make equal.” You remove every spike and alley so that everyone can fit to a normalized standard.

Have you heard the story of Procrustes? He was the son of Poseidon and a black smith of old Greece. Known as “the stretcher,” this is his story. He had an iron bed and offered passerby a night’s rest. Then he would make them fit the iron bed. If they were too tall, he would amputate parts to make them short. If they were too short he would stretch them out to fit. Since no one matched his bed exactly, everyone who slept over would be dead in the morning. Moderating is like this.

Procrustes was one of the earliest moderators. Moderating requires the removal of any upsetting thought and to actualize conformity to the crowd. Intelligent people are in bad luck since they cannot express anything without standing out. That is because they make accurate observations and think for themselves, rather than adhere to groupthink. A stark contrast to the crowd that repeat and spread false or poor information.

So the intelligent have their voices silenced. Wherever they go the crowd works against them. Oftentimes they are called trolls for stating the obvious. But the real trolls are all those people on the forum with ten thousands of posts. They are parasites of the system, getting along all too well by flattering others and repeating known tropes. They succeed because they speak in lukewarm crowd-speech and nothing else.

Female moderators are by far the worst group of moderators. Because women to begin with are more about getting along, they take to the role of cutting the traveler to fit the bed. They do not understand those who poke, stir, joke or express themselves. They deny the obvious: To create the opportunity for good outcome you have to stir the pot. To get through to people you have to be upsetting.

By its nature stirring the pot is risky business; it is a gamble. You could get yourself into trouble and you will face inevitable criticism. Yet it still has to be done and males do it best. Women do not know how to challenge people. After a few turns she’ll ask “why would you do that?” There is a simple, honest answer.

Because we are males. Do you trust our efforts, or not?

The motto of the age is we-can-do-it and female moderators carry out the unconscious conformity of the herd to make sure that women are seen as doing everything a man can do just as well as he can. To achieve this, modern women resist advances and deny the value of males in their lives. She cannot recognize the good you do, all she sees is the damage you do to her ego by not being inferior. In matters of sex, she is afraid to lose privileges by having less than a dominant role, so the subject is taboo.

As a moderator she will sentence you for being necessary and banish you to troll-land. She will call you a troll and a sexist simply for being male and not preemptively conforming to her control. And when you cal her sexist in return for her bias, that makes you the devil, and the course of action is equally obvious. A devil is to be banished and that requires removing its ability to speak.

A moderator is an equalizer. Equalizers destroy the exceptional. Female moderators interpret this as destroying anything which rises above the norm or threatens the group conformity. As a result, in the name of ensuring discussion, they murder it.

Tags: , ,

28 Responses to “Female moderators”

  1. Dave says:

    I was banned once for arguing than neither women nor poor men should be allowed to vote, because single women always vote for socialism, and men who can’t get their own shit together should not be passing laws that affect everyone else.

    The best part is that the forum was called “A Voice for Men”, and the moderator who banned me was a woman who claimed to be anti-feminist. How are men supposed to find their voice when women decide what men are allowed to say?

    Do not waste your time reading or posting to any forum controlled by women. Women believe whatever society expects them to believe, so you convince them by overthrowing that society and replacing it with your own.

    • Tom Iron says:

      The point is I think that women are deathly afraid of logic and reason. That’s why they’re good helpers. But once they go beyond the concept of helping and go into the realm of actual productivity and in depth thought, they are fearful and think they can change things by not hearting it. It reminds me of my little sister who would put her hands over her ears when she was told she was going to bed. It didn’t change anything, she still was put to bed, but in her childish mind, she thought she had stifled the unwanted news. Many women never actually go much beyond that their entire lives

    • Sean says:

      That’s what AVFM is and does. Placating women, letting entryists in, all run by two blowhards in Elam and Esmay I wouldn’t let defend The Yearling from the rifle.

  2. Junkyard Dawg says:

    You are exactly right in this control of the discussion by females. I am intelligent and cannot speak on important matters with my wife about anything. It’s not just in forums that this happens. And it’s just not with my wife, but with almost any female that this happens. There are also some highly intelligent, academic females where you can do this, but it should be noted that these women are not usually very attractive, but that they make good colleagues. Females want to make the conversation all “nicey-nice” and to hell with getting down to any of the real issues in a real way. I appreciate your writing on this subject.

    • Platonista says:

      Easy-on-the-eyes female academics do exist :-) …but they too are like the right Powerball ticket. May the odds be in our favor.

      • Platonista says:

        Well, I meant easy-on-the-eyes AUTHENTIC female academics. Tons of impostors available who are cute but academics in title only.

  3. Platonista says:

    Female here who agrees with the above, based on personal experience. I can testify that forums led by women are terrible for the very reasons mentioned above.
    The consistent regression towards a sub-mediocre type of “get-along-ness” is maddening. I learned to avoid female-led crowdist boards because I never fail to walk away frustrated, disappointed and alienated.
    Men who make me feel just a tad bit intellectually and socially “inferior” to them are fantastic. You’re welcome. My husband can pull this off at times, in some ways, but not always :-). In my personal experience, though, such men are incredibly difficult to find nowadays. Kind of like the right Powerball ticket. Blame feminism, blame democracy, blame egalitarianism, blame 1789, you name it. I have been struggling to get rid of a nagging complex of superiority, both when it comes to women and men… but I am having a hard time finding a cure. :-)))
    I WANT TO find people I can look up to but I can’t find any.
    Either way, I would welcome the restoration of some sense of gendered natural order but I am probably out of luck.

  4. crow says:

    Hehe: This essay neatly explains why I’ve been banned from nearly every forum I’ve ever exposed myself to. By ‘women’, of course, not only females are being referred-to, but all those insipid, drippy ex-males, too. Full of stray estrogen and insecurities.

    Fortunately I have a wife who loathes women. She sees their general modus-operandi for what it is, and avoids it like the plague.

  5. -A says:

    Families can either become neurotic and hellish or be completely ripped apart by this kind of thing. With women, and men who accommodate their bullshit, families become committee run instead of having a real head and hierarchy. Contrary to what they women themselves will believe, standards are completely eradicated and anybody who expects them to be restored is “overreacting.”

    • Tucken2.0 says:

      The crowd cannot run things. Reality must run things and it seems that men are better with communicating what that means, what the Laws are.

  6. Noah says:

    Where is the proof that you people are the intelligent ones, rather than part of the conformist herd?
    Where is the proof of any of these stereotypes about half the damn species?
    To moderate doesn’t mean to make equal. Look it up.

    • crow says:

      Where is the proof that you are anything other than a complete dork? Act your age, FFS, even if you’re only nine.

    • Where is the proof, of anything? I submit that outside of history, we have no “proof” for anything under the sun. Thus we must decide based on (1) level of quality and (2) similar acts from the past; the comparison is called “realism.”

      • Noah says:

        Brett: Do you support woman being returned to more traditional, often subordinate roles? Do you think woman are generally less intelligent, less rational and weaker than men? The answer seems implicit but I haven’t seen it explicitly on this site.

        • Do you support woman being returned to more traditional, often subordinate roles?

          Yes, but not for the reasons you cite. Women and men serve complementary roles. Traditional living makes women happier and families more functional, which makes people saner and healthier.

          • Noah says:

            I’ve seen, elsewhere on this site, an attitude towards gays somewhere between complete acceptance and ostracization. Sort of a society wide don’t ask don’t tell policy. Do you think homosexuality is detrimental to traditional gender roles?

            What do you make of transgender people? I’m guessing you think they are abominations who should be killed, but I figured I’d ask.

            • Sort of a society wide don’t ask don’t tell policy.

              Yes. Keep it in the bedroom and oyster bars.

              What do you make of transgender people?

              Same thing. Keep it quiet, no one is harmed.

    • -A says:

      When we have a media blitz both demonizing Black Lives Matter and the Bureau of Land Management while praising Ammon Bundy, then yes, we will indeed be a part of the herd. Likely gladly so. Even more if the Windsor Family declares it has had enough of equalism and declares the Empire restored, and this is met with full approval of the now former USG. Then we’ll really be conformist out of our ingot holes.

  7. Doug says:

    The omitted clarification is of course race, as is often the case in any sort of assessment of humans. Thanks to the lockstep deathmarch, whites unfortunately are the only race fanatical enough about self-loathing to adopt it as a religion. White moderators (at least of the much more common liberal variety) will defend minorities as if they were minorities themselves, thereby effectively scorning their own race whereas minority moderators would make no such inversions under any circumstances (even when the discourse is rife with allusions to purportedly retributive violence against whites). So the article would be most accurate if it had the word “white” before each usage of “female moderator.”

    • crow says:

      It’s not whites, per-se, it’s insane-whites.
      Those to whom everything is personal, an outrage, an unbearable insult, etc.
      This is the direct result of force-fed ego development, converting nominally insecure people into lunatics made apoplectic at their deliberately, externally-imposed inability, to individually control the world.

      Personally, I feel every above usage of the term ‘female moderator’ should instead read:
      ‘white, nominally-female, egotistical, pimple-faced, dumb-assed, ignorant, self-important, common-sense-impaired, douchebag’.

      But having said that, I am all too aware of the ludicrous waste of space, consumption of typing-time, and redundancy involved.
      I am sure you are, too.

  8. Junkyard Dawg says:

    And to add to this conversation, I’m old enough to remember when adults got together for an evening to socialize, at some point, the men would go to one room and the women to another, and in both areas, you could hear loud conversation and laughing.

    The way it is now, when I go out socially with my wife, we all stay together and it’s a female dominated discussion and the men are more in an observer role and interjecting comments and following along wherever the women are taking it.

    I usually feel worn out from these, after hours of talking about who’s fat, who got divorced, who’s getting back together and the like and trying to remain attentive to the conversation and being social. I often think, we’re here talking about how bad other people are, and other people are somewhere else, probably talking about how bad we are.

    • This is why God invented cigars — to mark the room where men talk.

      • Platonista says:

        What if I’m a woman and conversations about “who’s fat, who got divorced, who’s getting back together and the like” leave me worn out too? I am neither a lesbian, nor “smargly”…but then again, neither do I have a cigar. Ahhh…the dilemma. :-)

        • I seem to recall that most Southern Ladies would agree with you. Gossip was looked down on; on the other hand, there was an exception for important information concerning the community and not merely human interest and envy. I hope you find a group like this with to socialize, as anything else would bore those born with activity between the ears.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>