Wednesday, August 20, 2014

The lady that protests too much

This story of a nice, well-meaning guy getting repeatedly cheated on by a remorseless whore reminds me of one of my good friends. He's a tall, strong guy with a giving heart, an instinctive white knight by nature, which naturally means that he has dated some impressive trainwrecks. I'm not casting any stones here; it's been a matter of no little humor for us in the past, such as the time that there was a front page story in the paper about two strippers being arrested for a fracas at the strip club and one turned out to be a high school girlfriend of mine, the other a college girlfriend of his.

But the problem was that he kept finding himself in sub-optimal situations with these trainwrecks and I kept repeatedly having to tell him "sometimes women say things that aren't true." And he would insist that he was sure that this time that couldn't be the case, because she had looked him right in the eye, or she had told him that she loved him which really wasn't easy for her to say, or she had cried, or any number of a variety of signs that, of course, meant absolutely nothing.
We’d spend hours discussing anything and everything; though the conversations often turned to ethics, motivations, and stories of her past. Among the most commonly recurring were:

  • Stories about how the grief and confusion of being raised by a pathological liar taught her to make it a point to always say what she meant, and to communicate at face value.
  • Stories about an extremely manipulative ex-husband, who would do things like refuse to stop wearing the ring from his last relationship, and make her feel terrible or insane for any discomfort she expressed — though he was in fact cheating on her as he was making her feel terrible for being worried.
  • The pain of spending most of her childhood alone, as well as the injustice of being ostracized from various groups and communities in her adulthood.
  • Views on the ethics of infidelity. Which she maintained is inherently wrong even if the person who was cheated on never finds out, because (aside from willfully endangering their partner by way of increased STD risk) if the unfaithful party then has sex with their partner, they are doing so under false pretenses, and therefore without their partner’s consent. That is, sex with a partner who doesn’t know you’ve cheated on them is sex without consent.

There were other strong principled positions, sometimes brought up for their own sake, sometimes brought up in relevant situations, and almost always tied to her past, but they didn’t in any sense make up the bulk of our relationship.

Shit, man, what happened?

I mean, obviously she cheated on me (a lot actually), but why would someone violate their own beliefs on something as important to them as sexual consent? And what’s with all this fear of someone going public? What happened to her strong principled stance of unflinching honesty? Or of owning up to mistakes? What happened to the paragon of virtue I fell in love and set out to help fix the world with?

Well, the above conversation happens a few days after a considerably more painful one, where I discover almost none of the things I loved about her were true.
My immediate response to reading this was: shit, man, what else did you expect? Any time a woman makes a big deal about how important not doing X is to her, that is because she is doing X. For some reason, women think posturing is camouflage, and that reason is probably that so many unthinking men buy into the posturing.

What would you think if a man walked up to you and said, out of the blue: "I think molesting children is VERY, VERY bad. I think it is terrible! I think it is inherently wrong and I think child molesters should be shot! I think we need MORE laws against child molesting and we need them now!"

My first thought would be: "Well, you certainly think a lot about child molesting." And my second thought would be: "Never let this man anywhere near my children."

But for some reason, if a woman goes on and on about the evils of infidelity and how IMPORTANT it is to always tell the truth, the average man concludes that this means that she is faithful and trustworthy. No, it doesn't! It means the precise OPPOSITE! It's bait, cast out to see what sort of innocent idiot is going to bite on the bullshit.

Stay very far away from a woman who wallows in past pain. You want the sort of woman who says: "yeah, so it sucked when I saw my parents eaten by crocodiles when I was six, but hey, what are you going to do? Anyway, that's why I always wear croc-skin boots." not the one who revels in the reaction to her stories of suffering and nobly deigns to accept the consolation you offer.

Also, if you are a man and you decide a woman is untrustworthy, ditch her at once. You will NEVER regret it. Granted, it's easier if you have a few more mares in the stable than if you are LOSING YOUR ONE SHOT AT TRUE LOVE IN LIFE or whatever the hell it is that Deltas think every time they face a breakup with any girl they've had sex with more than twice, but it's still true. And once you break up with someone, MOVE ON. They're not your responsibility anymore. Ironically, you'll have a much better chance of eventually being friendly acquaintances if you cut contact and stop worrying at the wound.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

The argument for patriarchy

It's also the argument against women in science fiction. It should be no surprise whatsoever that the science fiction world has devolved into award-winning dinosaur revenge fantasies, gay Asian angst, genderless pronouns, and necrobestial emoporn nominally representing the best of the genre ever since the strength of SFWA failed like Isildur before the fires of Mount Doom. (The men of what was once an association of science fiction writers did not tell Ann McCaffery she was welcome to depart when she threatened to leave the organization if fantasy writers were not permitted to join.) In fact, it is the essential argument against unrestricted female involvement in anything.

Women habitually, perhaps even instinctively, seek to degrade standards. They are motivated to do so in part because they are more herd-oriented and they enjoy being around their own kind, but also because they are, on average, smaller, weaker, slower, less intelligent, less sturdy, and more self-absorbed. That's why women are constantly yammering on about inclusion, outreach, and the evils of standards, which is nothing more than rhetoric used to justify lowering natural barriers to female involvement, influence, and control.

Which, in the end, eventually leads to the equivalent of a naked woman menstruating on an empty canvas and calling it art. Never forget that the ultimate aim of all female involvement in every human activity is to eventually reduce it to a group of women talking about themselves, ideally while being admired for their looks, wit, and superior sense of style by attractive heterosexual men.

Monday, August 18, 2014

Don't cut your damn hair redux

The Chateau observes that short hair on women is an affront to male desire:
The best you can say about a woman with short, cropped hair is that she looks almost as good as she does with long hair. Audrey Hepburn was a classic representative of the ingenue who looks impishly sexy with short hair. But long-haired photos of Audrey prove that she looked even better with her tresses out and about for a playful romp.

Given the near-universal preference of men for longer-haired women, it is then a mystery why women chop their hair off. Don’t women want to please men? They do, but cultural and sex ratio shifts can influence how weakly or strongly women feel the need to appease the sexual preferences of men.

The last period short hair styles were widely fashionable on women (as well as flapper dresses which concealed the female form) was the Roaring Twenties, a time of feminism, suffrage, intensified status striving, and growing wealth inequality. Sound familiar?
We can even quantify the amount to which a woman cutting her hair reduces her sexual market value. The difference between going from long hair to chin-length hair reduces a woman's SMV by 15 percent. Going even shorter probably knocks it down another 5 percent.

Just to put it in perspective, that 15-percent reduction is the equivalent of going from a D-cup to completely flat or from skinny to flabby. So, if you're a woman who has ever worn a push-up bra or worked out, keep in mind that cutting your hair off will cancel out all your other efforts to look attractive to men.

Also, as Gavin McInnes points out, short hair is rape:
Cutting your hair short seemed like a good idea at the time. Maybe your boyfriend dumped you and you’re looking to reinvent yourself. Maybe you think a “pixie cut” is a cute new look. Maybe you find it empowering to have a zero-maintenance ’do and you want to be free to focus on your work without being hit on all the time. In all cases, you are saying “yes” to yourself and “no” to us. This is perfectly fine if you want to check out of society for the year or so it takes to grow your hair back, but if you’re still horsing around with us, it’s more than unattractive. It’s rape.
And rape is wrong. So don't cut your damn hair.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

A tale of a white knight

It's always mildly amusing to observe brave white-knighting going south, especially when it's over something as harmless as young men exercising their right to free speech in public:
A Texas man who attempted to intervene in some routine street harassment landed in the hospital over the weekend, after a group of catcallers knocked him unconscious while he was visiting Philadelphia’s Rittenhouse Square.

Police report that around 2:45 a.m. on Saturday, the 39-year-old man (whose name has not been released) saw a vehicle full of men pull up next to a group of women. The men began taunting the women and making suggestive comments, at which point the victim decided to intervene, according to NBC Philadelphia:

“The male victim took offense to something that the guys were saying to the girls and said ‘hey, watch what you’re saying,’” said Philadelphia Police Captain George Fuchs. Police say one of the men inside the Nissan then got out of the car and punched the victim once in the head. The man was knocked unconscious after he fell and struck his head on the concrete.
First, it's not your business. Second, a group of women can take care of themselves better than a single middle-aged man because Equality. Third,  you have neither the responsibility nor the ability to patrol the streets ensuring that no one makes a woman feel bad. Fourth, don't threaten violence unless you actually intend to follow through on the threat. Fifth, what are you doing in a place where people behave this way? Sixth, don't take offense on behalf of someone else. And seventh, it's not your business.

Violence is serious affair not to be taken lightly. I have weapons. I know how to use them. But since I'm not willing to gut a teenager like a fish or blow his head off simply because he's inclined to say stupid things while trying to sufficiently impress a girl so that she'll open her legs to him, I'm not going to intervene unless the girl is family and I have a responsibility for her. After all, the reason most young men will promptly back down to fathers who tell them to shut their mouths is that they suspect, quite rightly, that the father is just looking for an excuse to unleash Hell on them.

But if you're not willing to kill a man over his actions, then don't confront him. It's ironic, but it seems it is often the men who are least prepared for violence who are most eager to threaten it and leap into situations where it is a distinct possibility. It is vital to understand that we no longer live in a society where either basic civility or sweet reason are paramount.

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Blind Game

A college reader writes in again:
Not sure if you remember this, but you wrote a post about a year ago about ways a blind man might be able to leverage some game in specific ways.  I wasn't able to incorporate a lot of the suggestions from that post, with the exception of power-walking and facial hair.  However, I have done quite a bit of dating over the past year and I still keep up with some of the manosphere blogs.  While I have some moral differences with a lot of them (including yours), gaining a knowledge of the theory has been helpful.  I just wanted to give you some updates on what I've learned and, probably appropriately, most of it doesn't have to do with blindness.

I have learned through several experiences not to try and date longstanding female acquaintances (I would use the term "friend", but I'm kind of leery of calling woman "friends" at this point.) Especially adding the blindness as a factor, it simply doesn't work; I will often place myself right in their friendzone and it's generally impossible (and not worth it) to try to escape.  I have also found that basic game concepts-frame control, outcome independence, and mission/God priority-serve as a very solid foundation to build on.

So, here's one of the basic tactics I have employed successfully multiple times.  If I have met a girl I'm interested in, often I won't even ask for her number first.  If we are sitting in close proximity, I will do a small and explicitly physical IOI; nothing salacious, but definitely not mistakeable.  I will then say nothing about it the rest of the time I am with her.  This has proven to be very effective at gauging interest.  It is also helpful with regards to blindness, because a physical IOI is both natural to me and not out of place in my circumstances.  How it plays out from that point can vary by the woman, but I have found this particular tactic to be quite useful.
This guy doesn't let being blind stop him, or even slow him down. What's your excuse in comparison with that? The best thing he's doing is asserting responsibility for himself and refusing to accept being friendzoned.

Friday, August 15, 2014

How you know they're important

Both Roissy and I observed, years ago, that we would know Game and men's issues were entering the mainstream, not when the media began paying attention to the actual opinion leaders, but when they began appointing women as official spokeswomen for it. Apparently the same is true for the MRAs.
The Men's Rights Movement and the Women Who Love It. Who are these women men's rights activists? And why do they embrace a movement that some see as blatantly misogynistic? Below is a rundown of key players. A few of them, including Janet Bloomfield, who was the focus of a recent in Vice News article, have been in the spotlight recently. Others are virtually unknown to the mainstream, but within the movement they're seen as luminaries.Some of movement's fiercest activists aren't men.
Now, I very much encourage what these women are trying to do. It's not even remotely their fault that they find themselves being given a platform denied to the men they are trying to support. Dr. Helen, in particular, is always very good about rejecting the idea that she speaks for men or that she even can speak for men. She understands that we are perfectly capable of speaking for ourselves and points that out with regularity. But it is still a bit ironic, if entirely predictable (and it was, in fact, predicted), that the aspect deemed most newsworthy about the Mens' Rights movement is that there are women who support it. Real live women and everything!

It is great that Dr. Helen and other women are getting the word out there; exposing people to the ideas is far more important than establishing any cults of personality, and let's face it, some of our sites can be a bit much for the neophyte. But it is still amusing to see an article with pictures and glossy illustrations of Janey-come-latelies who have been addressing the subject since the early days of 2011.

If we were women, there would already be a Time Magazine cover with Roosh, Roissy, and me dressed in all black, arms folded, cast in dramatic lighting. Based on our respective numbers, I would estimate that a man's site requires about 20x more traffic to receive the same amount of media attention as a woman's. But it doesn't matter anyhow. Roosh is far too busy doing unspeakable things to the local women in Tanzania or wherever he is now and Roissy is even more reclusive than I am. We'd probably just send Rollo, Dalrock, and Yohami in our stead.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

No one cares when you kill yourself

If you are a middle-aged white man:
More than 70 percent of all suicides in the United States are white men, most of them in their middle years, and many take their lives in the wake of some loss, whether professional, personal or physical.
There are 39,518 annual suicides in the USA. About 25,000 are middle-aged white men. That's only 14,000 fewer deaths than there are every year from female breast cancer. Meanwhile, there are 145 annual deaths from anorexia nervosa, of which about 129 are young women.

And yet we are subject to an unending barrage of media propaganda concerning the terrible societal problem of young girls feeling bad because they erroneously think they are fat. Which is rather ironic, as, based on the current obesity statistics, they are probably going to end up as fat, waddling, land whales if they don't manage to starve themselves to death first.

Thereby illustrating, again, that most people are simply not very concerned about the fate of men. I suspect people would only consider the problem of middle-aged white male suicide to be more of a priority if they had a greater propensity for taking those who drove them to it with them. Or if they didn't leave their financial resources behind.