March 17, 2012
Here is the scenario…
A man starts a conversation with a woman who is single. It’s an innocuous chat but the woman is feeling an attraction for the guy. She can’t quite figure out why but there’s just something about this guy that sparks her interest. Perhaps it’s his witty comments, his confidence, his posture, his looks, even the tone of his voice. With the subtlety that only a woman can master, she notices that there is no wedding on his finger.
The conversation continues and gets just a bit more personal. They find out what each person does for a living, how many kids they each have, where they each were born. The man then asks for the woman’s phone number or suggests that they go have a drink. The woman is secretly thrilled yet shows nothing. She should be thinking “This guy started the conversation, What if he’s a player? Maybe he’s one of these pick-up artists who just wants a sexual encounter and nothing more?”
To any woman who finds herself in this situation (and who doesn’t just want a sexual encounter), here’s what she must ask, verbatim:
“What if I told you I was seeing someone?”
A man of good character will back off. He might apologize. He might just say “too bad”. He might even compliment the hypothetical boyfriend as “lucky fellow.” Regardless, he’s respecting the woman’s current, if mythical, relationship. This guy is a keeper.
The next phrase the woman must state is equally important:
“Well, I didn’t say I was seeing someone so here’s my phone number… What’s your number?”
If a woman finds a keeper, she has to make sure he’s not going to run away. Getting his number is crucial and sends the strongest of interest indicators.
In response to that question, the player will simply not care. He will continue on, not respecting that the woman might be seeing someone or is even in a relationship. “I’d still like your phone number.”, “Come on, it’s only a drink”. Players don’t understand boundaries.
I’m not quite sure how “seeing someone” rises to the level of “forsaking all others till death us do part,” but perhaps that’s what it means to TPM. In any case, alphaness has little to do with words and much to do with frame control. This scenario in which a man “of good character” scurries away with his tail between his legs has little to do with character and much to do with betatude. Hot girls always have a boyfriend, and they’re often looking for a better one.
Hot girls shit-test you not when they dismiss you, but when they are interested in you. I’ll say it again, because it took me 20 years to learn this. The hotter the girl, the more she shit-tests you at the beginning, but only if she is interested in you. Shit tests mean interest.
There are an infinite number of ways to deal with “I have a boyfriend.” One of my favorites is from Ross Jeffries: “I think that’s great. It’s wonderful when you meet someone you want to be with for the…rest…of…your…life.” In addition to being true, that maintains your frame as a powerful man of good character.
September 21, 2011
Hat tip to Blag Hag for this long, rambling post about gamer geek guys and feminism. Until the last section I was certain this letter “to my someday daughter” by Geordie Tait was all a satire:
I know you might want to follow in my footsteps and have a career in gaming. After all, I’m a sedentary guy, and you’re going to have every opportunity to get interested in games and gadgets as you get older.
OK, so he’s going to use satire to make the point that men and women have generally different interests and goals in life, right? He rambles incessantly about the Gizmodo intern who blogged about her date with the Magic champion, then goes on to conclude this:
Resist the belief that you know everything about the issue already. Feminism is an actual field of study. As with any field of study, it should be entered with an absence of preconceptions. If a woman has strong feelings about women’s issues, it doesn’t mean she spends all of her time sharpening her castration tools. Talk to women about what’s important to them. As you learn more, you’ll understand more, in the same way that a budding engineer might gradually grow to understand a complex blueprint. If your first instinct when you hear the word “feminist” is to say “those man-haters want equality, but they still want me to pay for everything, hurf durf!” then you currently have as accurate an understanding of feminism as a confectioner would have of a Titan II missile schematic. You know those congressmen who say that Grand Theft Auto IV is a “crime simulator” that is “training new felons?” That’s you, and feminism.
At this point I’m stating to think he might actually be serious. The problem is that talking to women about what’s important to them isn’t the same as talking to an engineer about blueprints. In the latter case you will gain a better understanding of the blueprints. In the first case you will end up more confused then you were when you started. That’s because women talk in order to feel connected with people, not to convey information. It’s a horrible mistake for a man to listen to a woman talk about her problems and then try to fix them. That’s you, and divorce.
Now the self-hatred expressed in Tait’s letter is appropriate: spending your life playing a game, unless you’re going to achieve fame and/or financial success from it, is a mistake. But as a man, it’s your own damn mistake and you don’t need to accept shame from any woman who tries to ladle it over you. Suck it up, put the cards away, and do something to be a success in life. Otherwise you’ll end up marrying that one geek girl who thinks you’re the best she can do because she’s the only girl who’s ever been nice to you.
Jen the Blag Hag, a self-described liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted feminist atheist, says she prefers to date geek guys who are “kind, thoughtful, and – dare I say it? – feminists.” Note the plural: “guys.” That’s what you have to look forward to as a male feminist: sharing the attention of a smart, mildly attractive blogger with her other guys.
The underlying presumption of Tait’s letter, that his daughter is basically a female son, is the most destructive plank of feminism and is why we have a society full of confused men and women. By all means, don’t barricade the door to a girl with the ability and desire to become the next Einstein, Jobs, or Spielberg. But treat the normal ones like girls.
My first wife used to say to me, when confronted with a decision I made that she didn’t like, “You aren’t considering my feelings!” I would tell her that I was in fact considering her feelings, and made my decision in spite of those feelings. Much to her chagrin, her feelings didn’t automatically win.
The vexatious ACLU, half libertarian and half feminist these days, put out a call to protest a New York court decision in EEOC v. Bloomberg L.P. The decision denied class-action status to women who say they were unfairly discriminated against after becoming pregnant or taking maternity leave. The ACLU laments:
As if that was not enough, the decision ends with a diatribe against the notion of “work-life balance,” stating, “the law does not require companies to ignore employees’ work-family tradeoffs — and they are tradeoffs — when deciding about employee pay and promotions.”
But this case was not about these women’s personal choices to prioritize family over work, or even to seek “balance.” It was about being able to work in an environment free from hostility toward and stereotypes about women — like the stereotype that having a child means you’re automatically less dedicated to the job than your colleagues without children — a stereotype that men rarely, if ever, have to confront.
We caution against stereotypes because they may cause us to miss diamonds in the rough: not all members of a group are the same. But some stereotypes exist because there is some truth to them. As the judge correctly noted, many women do in fact display less commitment to their work when raising children at the same time. The fact that a pattern of reduced pay and responsibility exists does not mean that women are being unfairly discriminated against. They are being fairly discriminated against.
The judge left the door open for individual women to pursue their cases against Bloomberg, but how is such a case different from any other case of an employee being kept down by not getting along with management? You improve your relationship with your manager or you find a new job. If you can’t find a new job for better pay then you’re wrong about your value.
The feminist agenda does not really seek “equality.” It seeks indemnity from all downside risk as it pushes women into the fields of endeavor that traditionally have given men satisfaction and success in life. When women follow that philosophy and aren’t happy, they want someone to pay.
Because we didn’t take their feelings into account.
July 27, 2011
I saw Friends with Benefits, addicted as I am to romantic comedies of any era. While the cast and cinematography were first rate, the movie didn’t really make any sense to me. (Spoiler follows)
The plot concerns a very attractive, outgoing, feminine girl reaching the point of fading beauty who meets an extremely desirable man. Sort of a reverse When Harry Met Sally, they start off both wanting a pure, emotionless sexual relationship and then later discover mutual feelings for each other and live happily ever after.
In reality (and I have dated a few girls like this) she’s going to fall hard for him 100% of the time once they have sex, but in the movie she has this weird mannish standoffishness, then makes him go all beta douche bag to win her heart. (How many young men have been led astray by Hollywood into thinking that actually works?)
What would have happened in real life is she would have played him for a monogamous commitment rather than the opposite. In the movie, she supposedly wanted a no-strings-attached relationship with him although she had no other men in her life. Why? What’s her motivation? That’s not how the female mind works, and while there are gender outliers, the character in the movie was straight down the middle femme fatale, a beast used to wrapping men around their little finger and extracting as much as she can from each.
These unrealistic plotlines don’t to anyone any favors and just add to the general confusion Americans have about the true nature of male-female relationships.
July 10, 2011
This dialog entitled “A Modern Sexual-Assault Tale” (kudos for getting the hyphen right) is meming its way through Facebook and the blogosphere without much critical comment. Read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt:
- Man: Hello, I’d like to report a mugging.
- Officer: You knowingly walked down Dundritch Street in your suit when everyone knows you like to give away money, and then you didn’t fight back. It sounds like you gave money to someone, but now you’re having after-donation regret. Tell me, do you really want to ruin his life because of your mistake?
- Man: This is ridiculous!
- Officer: This is a rape analogy. This is what women face every single day when they try to bring their rapists to justice.
This little fable, innocuous on its face, actually illuminates a serious problem with rape accusations and prosecutions. Is there really an analogy to mugging? In a robbery there is a weapon and stolen property. If any of that is found, it is damning evidence. With a rape accusation, often it is only the credibility of the accuser and the accused that can be weighed to determine justice. “Rape shield” laws, while intended to protect victims, may prevent justice for the falsely accused. Along with the absence of severe punishment for false rape accusations, the scales are tilted so far that false rape accusations can be made with virtual impunity, causing devastating harm to the falsely accused.
Mugging and rape are not very similar crimes. A better analogy to rape would be cuckolding: a married woman having a baby by another man and using the legal system or simple deceit to force the husband to pay for the child’s support. See what happens then when the man says, “This is ridiculous!”
The Huffington Post commented on a Youtube video a preteen girl made showing her exasperation at what she considers the dumb things boys are looking for in girls:
While most of the sites posting this are labeling this as a full-fledged teen meltdown, it’s actually a fairly astute satirical commentary on the way girls are taught to present themselves if they want to “find a man.” Since we’re pretty sure she hasn’t been reading up on her ’70s feminist art history, we’re going to go ahead and call her a genius, since she had to figure this out on her own. Hopefully, she’s swearing off even worrying about boys from here on out and will just work on becoming the scientist-astronaut-novelist-post-punk-rock-star-eventual-president-of-the-United-States we know she can be.
This is one of the most tragic elements of the feminism virus: the idea that male-female attraction is just a social convention that can be changed if they close their eyes and yell loud enough for long enough. And indeed the girl in the video is closing her eyes and yelling. Why do boys want girls for such superficial reasons as looks and femininity? Well, it doesn’t matter so much why (evolutionary reasons, read any of several good books on the topic) as that they do, and it’s not going to change.
What the feminists are missing, of course, is that even if they could succeed in making men attracted to aging female businessmen and politicians, they would simply be replacing one set of superficial qualities with another: the superficial qualities they are attracted to in super-alpha males.
In an attempt to allow a minority of women access to traditionally male careers, the feminist virus has brainwashed the majority of girls into thinking that careerism will bring them happiness. They waste their most attractive decade slutting around and acquiring an education of questionable value instead of polishing their feminine demeanor and attracting a quality mate.
So to the girl in the video: yes, you will soon grow breasts and get attention from boys. When you do, you will be much better served to stop whining and start smiling sweetly. Show them that you’re willing to wait for a man you can look up to, who will stick with you and take care of you. Neither of you may ever be President, but you have a shot at happiness.
July 4, 2011
I need to write an article about The Elevator Incident because everyone else is wrong about it. Even Richard Dawkins.
PZ Myers, a Minnesota biology professor who writes a smug blog largely dealing with atheism, posted about an incident in which a woman, Rebecca Watson, got propositioned in an elevator at 4 a.m. during an atheism conference in Dublin.
Atheism has reached a tipping point in Western culture. It’s no longer a risk to life, or even reputation in many cases, to come out as someone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural. And I’m happy about that. I think God is a bigger mind virus than feminism and I love to see people get smarter and wiser. It disappoints me when good MRA writers such as Gucci Little Piggy turn out to be infected with the God delusion, and it disappoints me when atheists such as PZ Myers fall prey to the guilt- and shame-driven male-castrating feminist propaganda. But I suppose it’s too much to ask of people to demolish two cornerstones of their belief systems simultaneously.
PZ, who I believe has very little experience dating since he’s been happily married since his youth, parrots the feminist party line:
Maybe we should also recognize that applying unwanted pressure, no matter how politely phrased, is inappropriate behavior. Maybe we should recognize that when we interact with equals there are different, expected patterns of behavior that many men casually disregard when meeting with women, and it is those subtle signs that let them know what you think of them that really righteously pisses feminist women off.
The problem, of course, is that it’s the very demonstration of higher status in front of a woman that generates sexual attraction in her. And frankly, an invitation is not “pressure.” You can’t have it both ways, PZ: either women need protection from men because they are weaker, or they are equals and must bear equal responsibility for interactions with males. Feminism, and PZ, seek to have it both ways.
The irony is that even after having it pointed out, PZ still didn’t see the equivalence of The Elevator Incident with his own Cracker Incident, in which he deliberately desecrated a communion wafer and told all the Catholics who were offended to go stuff it.
PZ’s post generated an epic comment thread highlighted by a comment from Richard Dawkins:
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
While Dawkins’ point is amusing, it doesn’t get to the point. It isn’t that the offense committed in The Elevator Incident is minor compared to the oppression women of other cultures endure; it’s that the offense committed in The Elevator Incident isn’t an offense at all. The fact that Mrs. Watson felt unsafe, that she felt offended, is simply her own problem. That’s how equals feel sometimes when they go out in the world and interact with people. You can’t assert your right to walk around by yourself at 4 a.m. and then tell someone else he has no right to hit on you. Man up, Rebecca.
Gucci closes his post with a flippant assertion that atheists aren’t all that bright and ought to be making logical arguments. Aside from the baffling thought that somehow it’s smarter to believe in invisible beings than to believe in reality, Mr. Piggy should realize that logical arguments don’t tend to change anyone’s mind. That’s why the illogic of the God and the Feminist mind viruses have spread and why we must use rhetoric and narrative, not logic, to combat them.
June 23, 2011
June 12, 2011
June 12, 2011
Ross Jeffries used to say, “why be myself when I can be someone else and get laid?”
That’s actually a deeper question than it seems. When I put on an act to attract girls, I attract the girls that are attracted to the act. If I’m really good at it I end up with lots of girls who are attracted to the unnatural persona I am projecting. That’s fine if that’s the desired result. But is it?
I fell in love with my college girlfriend when I saw her, on a frigid day with fresh snow on the ground and dressed only in sweats, stop while crossing the courtyard to play with a puppy. I was a bit of a puppy myself and it took her pushing me away for being too beta-attentive before she caved and, missing me, returned my love. There’s no better feeling than having a crazy crush returned and falling into each other’s arms.
The pickup artist has the feeling of conquest, but not of loving and being loved back. And after the first hundred girls, it gets old. Not that there aren’t worse problems to have, but to riff on Ross: why be someone else and just get laid when you can be the Alpha version of yourself and get so much more?
When grasshoppers come to the betasattva and ask for advice, I always tell them the most important thing about what it is to be a man: A man knows himself and his work, and no one else’s approval is more important than this knowledge.
I unashamedly am and do, and seek the right woman to invite into my world to play with me, love with me, live with me. It may be for a night or it may be for a lifetime, but it is my world and I am myself.