The Vicious Cycle Of Misinformation And Lies
It goes something like this:
1. A new social expectation arises where women are suddenly supposed to be “strong and independent” (cough, feminism, cough). Some individual woman transform themselves into the StrongIndependentWoman™. This, of course, goes against their biological imperative.
2. Many men, in order to make themselves more attractive to women, proclaim their desire for a StrongIndependentWoman™. This, of course, goes against their biological imperative.
3. Other women, seeing those men proclaim their desire for a StrongIndependentWoman™, try to transform themselves to become a StrongIndependentWoman™. Biological imperative? ha!
4. Dating and mating ensues. Men are put off by the StrongIndependentWoman because she’s actually bossy and domineering. Women are simply confused. “Where are all the good men?”
By reviewing online dating profiles of both men and women, it’s easy to see this vicious circle in operation. It’s also a very sad thing to see.
This scenario can also apply to the social expectation for a man to be a Sensitive New Age Guy (SNAG). Are women really attracted to this type of guys? Sure, as plantonic friends. As passionate and sexy lovers? Yeah, right.
If we allowed men to be men and women to be women, perhaps the gender war would be a mild skirmish. Men and women might be able to find happy and fulfilling relationships.
The Private Man 
I’ve noticed this too. In talking with other women something that hadn’t occurred to me is popping up. When pushed and asked questions about this phrase, eventually all of them mentioned something about not wanting to come off as clingy. I’m beginning to wonder if this is supposed to put men at ease, but is backfiring.
They don’t want to come off as clingy …
to men they have no interest in.
This is because a man who has a woman act clingy around him … is having the signal broadcast for him that he is in demand.
Women do not want men they see as “fallback options/last resorts”, have other choices.
Women will be cold and aloof towards men they do not want to see succeed. They will be extremely expressive towards the men they do want.
As an example, Russell Brand. Katy Perry boldly told him ‘You’ve met your match m***** f*****’ as she threw a plastic water bottle at him at their first meeting.
She would not have done so if she considered him not worthy of her attention.
Women hate apathy more than love or hate.
It’s because love or hate are feelings, whereas apathy is indifference.
Women are indifferent towards men they don’t care for.
Which is why aloof game is something players practice – it keeps her in suspense.
Perhaps, but woman have internalized the message that men don’t like clingy. I think that this might be a way of actually trying to show an attractive trait. Men, on the other hand view the phrase very differently.
Not true.
Women have internalised the message that men are likely to leave them if “the woman showing she is desperately attached”, gives him more options, and if he is that kind of guy.
That’s not the same as “women have understood that men don’t like clingy”, which is a very martyr-like idea. Give me a break.
Most women pick “that kind of guy”. Because they want to have the love of “a man who has other options, but pick only them”.
Many women hate being with a man who does not have other options, _especially_ when they have attractiveness to trade up to another man.
This is why women only pick the nice guys AFTER they have lost their looks.
It’s musical chairs applied to relationships … and the nice guys are starting to notice.
Keep in mind, women define the nice guy as a man always puts her interest first.
Would you call a man who left a woman (who saw him as a last resort, and only married him to have someone to complain to, that he does not measure up to her previous boyfriends), as “not a nice guy”?
To ask the question, is to answer it.
No, let me be crystal clear. Rightly or wrongly, women have internalized that that anything remotely clingy will turn men off. Especially alphas. (Hence hyper sexualized behavior but less emphasis on emotionality.) Cautious emotionality is ventured into after sexuality has been established. I don’t think this is a good mating stratagy, but I see it over and over, and have even fallen into it myself.
just visiting:
Women would not be wrapped around the finger (and then be able to claim to a nice guy “I hate my boyfriend, he always ignores me. This is my latest emotional problem”)
of a man she did not see as being “worthy” of being emotional around.
That’s why the situation above occurs.
If women really were unemotional around men they were attracted to…
where are all these women complaining about how their boyfriends ignore their emotions, coming from?
After all… would you say they are not being emotional, and complaining about something that doesn’t exist?
That would make them insane.
Look, don’t take my word for it. Ask any random woman if they are sensitive to the whole men hate clingy women thing.
Random women are always available to tell others their relationship problems.
Have you asked that of random men?
Would I be anywhere near the manosphere if I didn’t?
There are a fair amount of trollers, it’s hard to say.
They’re trollers the moment they make an assertion which is true independent of evidence to the contrary, and where the semantics are endlessly debated.
Asking a woman is a poor strategy. Much better to observe them to see what they DO.
Which is what men do … and adjust accordingly.
Well, I’m not trolling. When it comes to relations between men and women, we have to do the same thing. Watch actions. Many a woman has been lied to. (Many men lied to as well.) And, we’ve adjusted accordingly. The thing is, are the adjustments healthy. Perhaps short term, but I don’t think they are in the long term.
Just a personal observation. These adjustments are causing us to become fractured. Women have divorced themselves from their femininity, men are divorcing themselves from their beta traits. Ultimately, I think it makes us all internally sick. We’re too concerned with attractive and sexy traits, and not concerned enough with what bonds us over the long haul. Personality over character. Men will claim it was feminism, women will claim patriarchy. I figure that industrialization played a part. Either way, I’m not sure cutting off parts of ourselves is the answer.
Yep, the last thing a woman wants is to appear too needy. Also, sometimes a woman must be strong and independent because there truly are no men around that she wants to help her. I live in a remote mountain town that has a lot of issues with alcohol, drugs, and mental illness. Most of the guys here are not ones you want around you unless you are into being stalked. I work a responsible job plus runs small scale farm. It would be great if I had a guy that I cared about to help me, to have an intelligent conversation with, who would respect my values but it’s not gonna happen here anytime soon. I am independent and literally strong because I have no other choice. I do not want some sort of stripped down apartment life because that is not who I am. Forget about the on-line dating guys; they just want to comehere to ski and play, not to stay. Does that make me an ice queen? I don’t think so.
I am doubtful that that a woman thinks becoming a SIW is against her biological imperative, or how much becoming a SIW is truely against this imperative (no matter how she thinks of it). Case in point: My sister in law: she was previously married to a man I think originally she thought was very sexually attractive but had a relatively low income/status job. She pretty much acted on her hypergamy and divorced him, got a law degree, and now makes 200 K a year, and is married to my brother mostly for his high status.
By becoming a SIW, she fulfilled her biological imperative to find the highest status man she could get. I would think that she did not think that becoming a SIW went against her.
Now, from a objective EP aspect, did becoming the SIW go against her? Well, she dumped her low income providing husband and cuckolded my brother to financially and emotionally support her children.
So I think that sometimes becoming a SIW works for the woman, especially if she is very sexually attractive (she was a 9). For a woman with a lower SMV then I can see that becoming a SIW might lessen her chances of procreation, even if she thought it might increase her chances. I can think of a few examples of this.
The manosphere is great. Where else can you have analytical conversations about the men, women, and the SMV?
“SNAG” – love it. That’s my new word for nice guys.
Snag (noun): Sensitive new age guy.
Snagging (verb): Being a complete beta pussy.
Snaggish (adj): Pertaining to anti-alpha behavior brought upon but post-feminist conditioning.
Back in the ’80s I once told a counselor that I was drawn to strong, independent women. Yes, I used this exact phrase. He rolled his eyes and replied, “Man. What a set-up.”
I foolishly dismissed his reply. To my continuing disadvantage. Now I see that he was trying to nudge me in a Red Pill direction. Lessons learned, eventually I guess.
when I occasionally peruse women´s on-line profiles, only about 10% seem somewhat agreeable. I am just starting to realize that maybe in place of going along with this whole joke, it is time to joke back with it? maybe more fun then pursuing these entitlement princesses and queens seriously? Forget all that game shit and just make a game out of it.
i mean, com´on, some of this shit these women write and profiles they put up, they need to be ribbed about and not ego-fed.
I’m not ready to date yet but I’ve read profiles from men and women that are cringe worthy. I think that the list is part of something bigger going on with men and women. Men and women don’t trust each other, and with good reason. It’s like they’d rather be alone or the other person had better be spectacular.
Strong and independant is a mating strategy for women because it’s what broke down class, money, dowery and educational barriers to get to middle class and wealthy men. A cockney flower girl might get a pump and dump, a governess from a good family but lack of fortune might become a mistress, but without title, social class,, money or a powerful father, you weren’t going to get wifed up by these guys.
Even as late as the 60’s this held true to some point. If you were an ambitious man in a firm dating an attractive secretary and the company owners daughter, which one do you figure got wifed up and the other becoming mistress?
This gentlemen is why women will never beleive you when you say that their job and education don’t matter in attractiveness. It’s not in your dna, it’s in ours. It’s not about getting banged. It’s about mating. Because we all can’t be daughters of rich and powerful men.
give me a an efin´ break,
the history of mankind is marrying down.
where do you get this stuff?
just visiting your just pulling my leg
ha
i mean marry down on that social status ladder
Are women marrying down on the social ladder? Prove it. As for older or divorced women, marrying down is a very real possibility. There’s a time limit for holding out for the highest status man.
you are confused,
how can i say simple enough for you
it is men who have married down to the contrary of your first post where you engaged me
And I’m saying as simply as I can, that there was a strategy for women to break across class, economic and social barriers. Now, in this day and age of universal education and class structures not being nearly as ridgid, these strategies can be relaxed some what. But make no mistake, the message ringing in our dna is to break through those structures. And attractiveness wasn’t enough to do it. (Or we’d all be chamber maids to the lord and master.)
Look, as long as men’s actions show women that attractiveness is not enough, women are going to pursue mating strategies that will up their chances to be in the sphere of men they want. Even on this blog, it is maintained that men want more than attractiveness. The problem that has come about is that in pursuing a strong and independant mating strategy (which has worked) women have lost more and more of their femininity.
I’ll be blunt. Women view their femininity the same way you view your beta traits. They are unaware that you find these traits attractive. Speak up. Very specifically compliment on these traits. We know you like sexy. We play it up. We’ve learned every sexual technique that we can skillfully use. Cosmetics. We got ’em. Working out. yep
Femininity, not so much. We actually think that you guys find it frumpy. Reward what you want.
We are in transition in our western societies, so don´t think we are at the final model of what our world will look like,
The big changes that we have seen starting about 50 years ago has taken alot of men by surprise. And older generations that lived pre-1960s are still around and are just now seeing their power on the wane, so relations between the sexes will keep evolving, maybe for as much as another 50 years. But, the change in men to their new circumstances are starting to be felt and I expect that will continue to intensify. We lived for a thousand years or up to two thousand maybe more under one model, so it will take time to fully sort out how relations between the sexes will look.
I think this is an excellent article in what to expect of men in the future:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/10/10/on-the-road-again-free-range-men/
and here is another article, observing a somewhat different reaction by men:
http://www.rooshv.com/you-did-this-to-me
and I personally have become a hybrid of these two.
Or what Kate Bolick( see the introduction to this, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/) would have to call a…?
deadbeat playboy
Yes, the loathing of femininity has consequences. I think that the strongindependant/ menhateclingyneedy bears closer inspection. It’s a tell.
Pingback: Why Is Dating So Horrible? « The Private Man
Pingback: Two sides of the coin (and the whole piggybank) | 2013 RGS 303 Group 4
Pingback: The War Between The Sexes | The Private Man