Deference

The recent tragic events in Colorado have revealed the depths of heroic actions that a man will automatically give to women. Three men lost their lives by literally taking a bullet for their respective girlfriends. Three men are dead, their girlfriends are alive (link below). While these are extreme cases, it points to an element of female privilege that is all around us. Sometimes its manifested as chivalry, sometimes as “helping a woman out” White Knighting. But it all boils down to one word:

Deference

In non-work environments (though I have seen it in the workplace, too), men tend to defer to women. For too many guys, it’s a reflex. It’s that deference that leads men to ask “so what do you want to do?” for a first date. It’s that deference which prevents men from showing some backbone and strength when dealing with women. It’s that deference that leads men to complete heroic acts even for women who are strangers. Even smacking an offensive and vile creature like Snooki causes men to immediately jump to her defense all because she’s female and for no other reason.

Deference is all about female privilege and it’s so much assumed that even feminists guard it ferociously. Consider this juicy quote from Amanda Marcotte in a comment to a male reader (link below):

Women’s need to be safe comes first, James, Full stop.

This is her strident call for maintaining female privilege. I think this is why feminists are so threatened by men questioning this social status quo. It’s the potential loss of men’s deference to women. Of course, they will lay down a thick and barely-logical smokescreen of victimhood that, in the past, worked pretty well. Should the smokescreen prove ineffective, insults are the inevitable: “Stop whining”, “You’re just bitter”, “You can’t get laid”. No cupcake, your fear is showing.

But the men have gathered in the back and have started discussing this rotten state of social affairs for the masculine gender. We’re starting to learn that we’ve been duped, that deference to women is working against men. Be it the FriendZone®, excoriated for being NiceGuys®, and general invisibility to women, the guys who keep deferring to women are learning to knock off that bullshit. Women are indeed human beings, not automatically worthy of deferring to. As well, deferring to a woman with some magical expectation of getting something in return actually works against men. That’s the NiceGuys® crap and needs to be addressed with a healthy dose of Charisma.

Ironically, Charisma tells us that such deference actually works against a man’s effort at attracting the opposite sex. A man taking the lead and showing strength may not be about expressing deference, but it sure does make a man more attractive to women, especially the feminist types. Reflex deference to women can only be cured by the bitter medicine of the Red Pill and it takes time and effort. But when the urge to automatically defer to women finally stops, it’s sweetly liberating and rewarding.

Returning to the Colorado tragedy, The three young men did what they felt they must as the bullets flew and chaos reigned. Imagine how we would respond if three women died in the same manner protecting their boyfriends. Perhaps the mainstream media will start to see masculinity as something positive and beneficial in this world and that male deference to women can save women’s lives. One more thing, are you listening, feminists?

Three heroes died in Aurora taking bullets for their girlfriends

Amanda Marcotte Urges Men To Learn Game!

About these ads
  1. #1 by Original Trouble on July 23, 2012 - 11:22 AM

    I think that women who urge male deference to women on the basis of gender aren’t feminists. Feminists, by definition, should be pushing for gender equality.

    As far as a woman dying to defend her husband or boyfriend, I would applaud it.

    But, it’s classy that you aren’t using this tragedy to score imaginary points against team pink. Oh, wait…

    • #2 by theprivateman on July 23, 2012 - 11:55 AM

      Feminists can push all they want for gender equality but men and women are so radically different that a gender balance based on the innate differences between the sexes is far more realistic. Maybe that can restore a degree of harmony, especially in the context of dating and relationships. In the meantime, trying to use social expectations to overcome biology (and push a political ideology) is a fool’s errand and does more harm to individuals and society alike.

      • #3 by Original Trouble on July 23, 2012 - 12:13 PM

        So, when I effectively rebutted your position, you’ve now moved the goal posts? Duly noted.

      • #4 by theprivateman on July 23, 2012 - 12:32 PM

        I learned from the best… feminist websites and comments. ;)

      • #5 by just visiting on July 23, 2012 - 12:21 PM

        I’m not convinced that it’s just social expectation. We’re wired for it. On some level, men sense this, hence white knighting. But it gets tricky because white knighting doesn’t pay off for a man unless a woman senses real danger. Emphasis on real. In the first world, despite a lot of talk to the contrary, we are not confronted with real danger very often.

        I think that there are two functions going on . I strongly suspect, that women are wired to form “harems” of male friends because this made her safer to walk around. In todays world, we call these beta orbiters. Who may or may not trigger sexual response based on protection. Usually not. Though, depending on perceived danger to HERSELF, that can temporarily change.

        In the case of a boyfriend or mate, another function kicks in. A woman who is is somewhat attracted to a man may find herself very attracted, even if there is no danger to herself. (Sporting competions or fights that have nothing to do with her). In the case of actual protection, she’ll be ripping his clothes off afterwards.

        The reverse is true. A woman can lose all attraction for a boyfriend or husband who doesn’t protect her in a situation that requires it.

      • #6 by LostSailor on July 23, 2012 - 1:48 PM

        I fail to see, OT, where you rebutted anything. The No True Scotsman argument is all about moving goalposts.

      • #7 by P Ray on July 23, 2012 - 3:19 PM

        @just visiting :
        Tricks love their pimps, eventhough their pimps put them in danger.
        Bang goes that theory “women lose attraction for men who don’t protect them”.
        I’d say … “the more degradation and abuse a woman is willing to go through to be with a man, the more she loves him”.
        Women are quickest to take offence when their husbands have an opinion, I put it down to the fact that that is because they consider their husbands “human doings” and not “human beings”.

    • #8 by Just1X on July 23, 2012 - 12:20 PM

      “should be” – yeah, you nailed it and proved PM’s point.

      You might applaud it, but you’d have to wait a fucking long time to see it.

      • #9 by Original Trouble on July 23, 2012 - 1:51 PM

        This feminist pushes for equality (I work with violent young men, and am consistently trying address their issues and improve their life circumstances). This feminist is married to a man I adore, is the daughter of a wonderful man, is the sister of a wonderful man, and is the mother of a 14-year-old boy. I can’t have success and happiness in my life if the men in my life don’t have the same thing.

        As far as putting myself in harm’s way for my husband, I wouldn’t hesitate to do so. I’m not a pampered princess who lives in an ivory tower, I’m a woman who works in a male-dominated field. I\’ve been shot at, I’ve been threatened, and I’ve been in other kinds of dangerous situations for my job. I’ve risked myself for strangers, why on earth wouldn’t I do it for the man I love?

        There are a lot of women just like me. And no, I don’t have to wait a long fucking time to see it, but then, I work in a field that you probably don’t see much of, except on TV. When a female police officer steps in to defend her partner, nobody issues a press release. it’s just part of the job.

        Good blog post on the subject, fwiw:

        http://voices.yahoo.com/women-police-officers-1050067.html?cat=41

        Yes, there are women who expect deference. And, there are men who expect the same thing…there are plenty of men in the U.S. who are perfectly happy sending other men to die on their behalf in a foreign country, who would never think about putting themselves in harm’s way for their family, much less an idea. Beyond that, many of the men who bitch about female expectations of chivalry are the first to bleat and moan about how women aren’t cut out for combat, or that those of us who step up and handle our business without an expectation of male white-knighting aren’t feminine.

        But, there are many women who don’t expect deference (I am one of them), and who would not think twice about stepping in front of a bullet to protect their man or children. We just aren’t in the ivory towers publishing articles about feminism. We’re too busy living.

        I’m just not sure that y’all are attracted to us. We aren’t delicate flowers.

      • #10 by Just1X on July 23, 2012 - 3:01 PM

        And you’re rarer than unicorns, if you even qualify. I’m with Yohami, but in a different time zone, tata

      • #11 by Just1X on July 23, 2012 - 3:05 PM

        “When a female police officer steps in to defend her partner, nobody issues a press release. it’s just part of the job.”

        Yeah, right. See my comment below about BO

      • #12 by P Ray on July 23, 2012 - 3:24 PM

        I’m just not sure that y’all are attracted to us. We aren’t delicate flowers.
        You’re attracted only to the guys you want to be with.
        Every other guy is either human scenery, someone to complain about or a creep.

    • #13 by just visiting on July 23, 2012 - 3:34 PM

      P Ray

      Different function. Women are wired for dominance. Her protection/ dominance functions will blink back and forth. Especially if feral traits are being cultivated. Watch how pimps play on this. It’s a form of game in itself.

      A man who fails to protect is unfit. FAIL. Not dominant.

      • #14 by P Ray on July 23, 2012 - 3:57 PM

        A man who protects doesn’t necessarily mean he’s dominant either.
        What’s stopping her from saying his disability/death due to protecting her, means he has abandoned her and thus is not worth being loyal to?
        See how that works?

      • #15 by theprivateman on July 23, 2012 - 4:03 PM

        Would the White Knight be an example of the non-dominant protector?

      • #16 by YOHAMI on July 23, 2012 - 4:06 PM

        I think… the white knight is like the beta version of it. He protects the woman but he doesnt OWN her. She probably belongs to the alpha who owns him. He’s taking care of his boss’s wife, of sorts. He protects the woman but he doesnt have a claim on her.

      • #17 by just visiting on July 23, 2012 - 4:00 PM

        Also, keep in mind, the function of a pimp in a prostitute’s mind is about protection. Fitness testing takes on a whole disfunctional level. She might tolerate violence toward her, especially if she provokes it. But he’d better put his ass on the line for her. Even if he gets it kicked, the fact that he did it will still count.

      • #18 by just visiting on July 23, 2012 - 4:38 PM

        Though too many failed attempts at protection and the pro will find a stronger protector. If she is valuable enough.

      • #19 by P Ray on July 24, 2012 - 10:44 AM

        If you talk about women “being wired for dominance”,
        don’t get angry when men “cheat on you”.
        ‘Cause it isn’t cheating when they’re following their biological prerogative – Genes trump law everytime, amirite?

      • #20 by just visiting on July 24, 2012 - 11:18 AM

        Depends on the man. I’ve seen dominant men who are capable of fidelity, and those who are not. Either way, fidelity is not an easy thing for them. But if you make the oath, yes, fidelity is expected. Would I toast a marriage over few indescretions over a lifetime? Probably not. Holding up an ideal of perfection is one thing, expecting it is another. It’s the struggle to be the ideal that is divine.

        And no P Ray, we’re more than our genes. We are not just biology and lizard brains. We are capable of developing our higher functions. But that requires principals, honor,intellect, discipline, application , character and god forbid, sacrifice. Not a lot of that in high supply with men and women.

      • #21 by P Ray on July 24, 2012 - 1:12 PM

        You’ll get even less as men keep observing that a few men … can keep many women interested in them to the point of being single mothers while hitting up the state (which happens to be made up of those other men they didn’t want to have children by either).
        In other words, alpha f*cks and beta bucks.
        A good reasons for men to go ghost – “Not my kid, why I gotta be payin’ for it? Her body, her choice, her bill”.

      • #22 by YOHAMI on July 24, 2012 - 1:15 PM

        “Her body, her choice, her bill”

        Brilliant.

    • #23 by A♠ on July 24, 2012 - 1:24 AM

      “Feminists, by definition, should be pushing for gender equality.”

      While that certainly is the dictionary definition:

      The word itself, sans inferred meanings by the reader/listener, shows a clear bias by its composition alone.

      Wouldn’t “equalist” or “humanist” (or perhaps “humynist” for the very militant) be a more accurate and inclusive description if your goals are what you state them to be?

    • #24 by ar10308 on July 24, 2012 - 7:59 AM

      OT,
      What is your max bench press? My guess is that it doesn’t break 150lbs.


      A naked guy takes on and escapes from 2 female officers and 1 male officer. How much do you want to bet that if there were 3 male officers there, that guy would have stayed on the ground?

      In my experience with women (in boxing and Muy Thai), I have noticed that they vastly underestimate the strength and physical power of men. They literally cannot process or conceive how much stronger a male actually is. It isn’t until a man nearly lays them out while they are holding a pad for that man’s thai kick do they begin to gain the proper perspective on a man’s physicality. The look on her face becomes a mixture of awe and fear as the realization hits her.
      The same goes at my CrossFit gym when the men are doing their sets of 10 and 20 pull-ups. The women stand watching, eyes wide and jaws slack, most not even being able to fathom doing 1-dead-hang pull-up, let alone multiple sets in double digit numbers.
      Most women have never felt the true, uncontrolled strength of a man unleashed upon them, so they think they can go toe-to-toe or hand-to-hand until that realization is literally beaten into them by a man who does not care that she is a woman.

      To the woman who thinks she can defend a man: Your female privilege is showing.

  2. #25 by Georgia Boy on July 23, 2012 - 12:16 PM

    Privateman, did you see this?

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/07/23/aurora_dark_knight_shooting_the_men_protected_the_women.html

    Hot off the presses, good ol’ Hanna Rosin over at Slate notes the men taking the bullets for their girlfriends and uses it to plug her book The End Of Men and its agenda of cataloguing our deficiencies these days. God, how disgusting. I certainly hope someone in the manosphere is going to call this out.

    • #26 by LostSailor on July 23, 2012 - 2:00 PM

      I marvel at the cognitive dissonance of applauding masculine heroics while at the same time working to eliminate masculinity. Give the poor hamster a break.

      Though I completely understand her using this tragedy to flog her anti-male book, since she is a feminist and all…

  3. #27 by Socialkenny PUA on July 23, 2012 - 12:23 PM

    Well as I posted on my blog the other day,I believe strongly that the Aurora massacre was a government-inside job.CIA and the US Defense Department was behind it.

    Classic false flag operation like 9-11 was.

    • #28 by theprivateman on July 23, 2012 - 12:53 PM

      Conspiracies notwithstanding, there will much political hay generated over this one.

  4. #29 by Bwana Simba on July 23, 2012 - 12:25 PM

    What’s your take on the guy who left his girlfriend and son behind while fleeing?

    • #30 by Realiti Czech on July 24, 2012 - 2:02 AM

      Fight-or-flight is not really a logical decision. It’s automatic. Some guys fight, some run. Some are too scared to make a decision either way, and just freeze up. You won’t know which one you are until the moment of crisis.

      The guy running and leaving the others in the lurch – is he a hero? No. He was saving his life, and his life only. Is he a coward? Hell no. Falling short of ultimate sacrifice is not cowardly. Heroes are called such because what they do is not normal, it is far beyond what a normal person would do.

  5. #31 by YOHAMI on July 23, 2012 - 2:11 PM

    “As far as putting myself in harm’s way for my husband, I wouldn’t hesitate to do so.”

    There were no women like you at Colorado that night. And frankly I have never seen any woman like you, ever.

    If the story was about 3 deaths, one of them being a girl who saved his boyfriend’s life by offering her own, she would be a national hero right now, with half o the population shaming the guy because his saint girlfriend died.

    But the story is about 3 dudes giving their lifes for women. And it’s, well, expected.

    We cant have “equality” when the genders are different and have opposite wirings, instincts and behaviors. Right now we need to drop the bullshit, and more rewards and recognition for what the men are already doing.

    Putting others first.

    • #32 by Original Trouble on July 23, 2012 - 2:44 PM

      Maybe you should get out more. I celebrate the heroism exhibited by these men. I also celebrate the heroism displayed by Christina Ripatti, a detective with the LAPD gang unit, who was shot while confronting a suspect in Los Angeles, and other female officers who have been shot in recent years.

      http://www.apbweb.com/officer-down-news-menu-26/1086-more-female-officers-killed-in-the-line-.html

      But, it’s not hard to find examples of women who acted to save the lives of men, if you’re willing to look for them. Here’s one, for instance:

      http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=7145783

      However, those stories wouldn’t bolster your paradigms, would they?

      • #33 by YOHAMI on July 23, 2012 - 2:57 PM

        These women stand out because they are rare – so they make the headlines. You wont find a similar article about more males dying in the line.

        The stories introduce sexism to make the tales more interesting. When it’s a female her genre is overplayed, when it’s a male dying his gender is underplayed, if his story makes the headlines at all. Male sacrifice is abundant – not news.

        “Maybe you should get out more.”

        I do plenty, thanks.

      • #34 by Just1X on July 23, 2012 - 3:18 PM

      • #35 by P Ray on July 24, 2012 - 1:14 PM

        6 Women have a separate memorial for their deaths in the Vietnam war.
        Yes, women really believe in equality.

    • #36 by Just1X on July 23, 2012 - 2:58 PM

      On UK TV I’ve just seen coverage of BO celebrating a woman applying competent first aid to another female victim (cool, way to go), no mention of the three guys who sacrificed themselves for women…SNAFU

      • #37 by YOHAMI on July 23, 2012 - 3:00 PM

        See?

    • #38 by P Ray on July 23, 2012 - 3:26 PM

      I’d definitely like to know how long those women whose boyfriends/husbands/partners died, will stay single.
      I see it as a measure of how seriously they take the memory of a person who laid down their life to save them.
      On the other hand, they could turn out just like Rachel Uchitel…

      • #39 by YOHAMI on July 23, 2012 - 3:30 PM

        There’s a saying for that – “he would have wanted me to be happy”

      • #40 by ar10308 on July 24, 2012 - 9:32 AM

        Four weeks, tops. Probably more like 1 week. “Because I need to cheer myself up!”

  6. #41 by YOHAMI on July 23, 2012 - 2:31 PM

    Deference is not the same as the protective instinct to take the bullet though. Taking the bullet comes, in my opinion, from dominance.

    For your you to want to protect her you have to be stronger and she has to be weaker and you have to be in charge. Then, we developed this before there were bullets. What’s happening here is the dude is running towards danger / towards fight / towards violence, while she retreats from it and finds safeness. If you are masculine and you’re in a relationship (even casual) with the feminine… there are no really other options. She’s not going to jump into the chaotic situation to save you (if she did, there goes my boner), and you’re not going to run away and leave her alone there (losing her to the aggressor)… so… it is what it is.

    • #42 by Original Trouble on July 23, 2012 - 2:46 PM

      She’s not going to jump into the chaotic situation to save you (if she did, there goes my boner)

      Here’s the real issue…it’s not that there aren’t women that wouldn’t jump in and save their partner or run towards danger (I know quite a few that run towards shots, not away from them, myself included). It’s that women like make your dick shrivel and you don’t quite know what to do with us.

      What a quandary. You resent the chivalrous expectations that are foisted on you, but you don’t like the women who don’t require them.

      I feel for you…really, I do.

      • #43 by YOHAMI on July 23, 2012 - 2:52 PM

        “Here’s the real issue…it’s not that there aren’t women that wouldn’t jump in and save their partner”

        No, the real issue is that there arent. There werent any at colorado, and overall, they dont exist.

        “It’s that women like make your dick shrivel”

        Of course, Im not gay. Two dicks together – aint my thing.

        However a lot of women “pretend” that they are just as strong, pretend and claim equal treatment, but, when the moment of truth comes, they dodge the bullet or expect you to take it for them. So it’s like dealing with a dick until they have to admit they had a pussy after all. If so, let it be pussy all around. It’s a way better deal.

        “You resent the chivalrous expectations”

        Im fine with chivalry. What I dont like is the pretense that “strong women can live without men we need men like fish needs a bicycle down with men Y chromosome is BAD!” while at the same time taking all things men do for granted.

        You’re welcome.

      • #44 by dana on July 23, 2012 - 3:30 PM

        “…make your dick shrivel and you don’t quite know what to do with us.” oh men know what to do with women like you, hunt you for sport

      • #45 by theprivateman on July 23, 2012 - 3:34 PM

        This does NOT imply violence… consider this is a Charisma blog.

  7. #46 by Original Trouble on July 23, 2012 - 3:17 PM

    Do you need a cookie?

    • #47 by YOHAMI on July 23, 2012 - 3:18 PM

      Oh stop you flirt.

      • #48 by Original Trouble on July 23, 2012 - 3:53 PM

        Huh. It seems you require something from me for actions you haven’t undertaken on my behalf. The men in question are dead, so praise means nothing to them. But, you’re willing to graciously accept their well-deserved praise, it in their honor, by virtue of having a penis. Right?

        Well-done, Yohami. Thank you for laying yourself down metaphorically for all of womankind. Your heroic actions are greatly appreciated.

        Now, are you going to reciprocate? You can say something like, “Thanks, Trouble. I appreciate the dangerous job you do while I’m sleeping and dreaming about being a hero.”

        Or, you can just give me a cookie. Cookies are nice.

        As far as hunting me for sport, thanks, but I’m already someone else’s trophy. Good luck with that hunting/sport fucking thing. I know it’s risky to hunt the wily cougar.

      • #49 by Twenty on July 24, 2012 - 1:35 AM

        @OT

        “Thanks, Trouble. I appreciate the dangerous job you do while I’m sleeping and dreaming about being a hero.”

        Statistically speaking, you’re probably a liar, and face no job-related dangers greater than a papercut. On the off chance you really do have a “dangerous job”, you almost certainly (a.) do it badly, and (b.) are carried by men.

        So, no thanks or appreciation from me. Suck it.

  8. #50 by YOHAMI on July 23, 2012 - 4:02 PM

    “But, you’re willing to graciously accept their well-deserved praise, it in their honor, by virtue of having a penis. Right?”

    Nope, to each their own, their sacrifice was theirs, so it is their honor. Im not sure I would have put myself in the path of the bullet… maybe in the heat of the moment, with the instincts and wirings and all, I would have, and I would be dead, then I would (or, my instincts would) deserve the praise. The praise of saving women. The praise for protecting the weak at my own expense.

    So. What I would be willing to see is a change in society where we drop the “dont need men” while at the same time taking stuff men do and male sacrifice for granted. A change in society that stops putting women as heroes for having a vagina.

    See, when men are elevated, it’s not because they have a dick, but because they did something worthy. Im willing to see a change where women stop being praised and put in pedestals for having a vagina. But, honestly, they could keep there, being praised and all, if the counter force of putting men down for having a dick stopped.

    One of the two has to go. Either the one elevating pussy, or the one putting down dick.

    Then we´ll go back to regular business, which means, dick protects pussy, boyfriends die in saving girlfriends, because that’s what our bodies were wired to act like, and we could / should be able to just do that without all the stupid bipolar wirings that feminism created around them.

    • #51 by Original Trouble on July 23, 2012 - 4:15 PM

      So, sincere question here…why would a man not want to be with a woman who would just as readily step in front of a bullet to protect him as he would to protect her? If I had the chance to save my husband’s life, I would do it, in a heartbeat. I would far rather die for him than have him die for me and have to live on without him.

      I like men. Most of my rowdy co-workers are men. Further, I need men. I love my dad (I wanted to be just like him when I was growing up). My husband is my hero. When I was single, I wanted to marry someone just like my brother. Most of my role-models are male. I would not want to live my life without my husband…he is my partner in crime, he is the captain of my ship. He’s a Navy officer, so I would say that we have a commander/XO relationship. He keeps the big picture straight, I’m the XO who handles the details and gets things done.

      At my house, we protect and take care of each other. My husband saves my bacon, and then I turn right around and save his. When our rental property needed a new roof, we worked together and put it on. When shit needs doing, we both pitch in and do the heavy lifting. There aren’t any pedestals at our house, and there’s no putting down of dick or pussy (there is quite a bit of putting dick in pussy, though, thankfully).

      What I don’t grasp is…why on earth would you want a partner who isn’t just as willing to sacrifice her life for you as you are to sacrifice yours for her? What’s the point of it, otherwise?

      • #52 by YOHAMI on July 23, 2012 - 4:28 PM

        I like the question. Its not about love and not about saving and sacrificing for each other. In a relationship, when there’s love, each has or should take care of the other.

        The issue with the bullet is not about sacrifice but about gender behavior.

        I made the metaphor saying it wasnt a bullet, but one running towards danger and the other retreating from it.

        Say Im in a bar and a very hostile force comes towards me and my girlfriend. Let it be a feral dog, a burgler, an angry manager. One of the two will stand up and fight the aggressor. The one who does is the dominant party in the relationship. AKA the dick. The one who will try to find refugee and stay out of danger is the submissive part in the relationship. AKA the pussy. The dick is valuable because it’s hard and strong and can take care of the war in the here and now. The pussy is valuable for keeping the relationship healthy and working but not during war.

        Say, if both elements jump at the same time to face the danger – that means there are two dicks. In reality this doesnt happen, one of the two will take charge, and the one who does is responsible for the other. You´ll see it with moms and their kids. They become lions.

        When it’s the woman taking care of the danger and the hubby steps aside, then when you watch the rest of their relationship and she´ll keep trying him like a kid plus full of contempt. It’s, well, inevitable

        Why dont I want a woman who is as masculine as I am in dealing with danger? because Im attracted to women who are softer than me and can take care of me after I have dealed with the danger. Im not into dick. I have my own. I need a pussy around it to be happy – and it has to be wet and soft.

        Wet and soft are the opposite to what I have to groom on myself to be good at being the dick I am.

        Complementary stuff.

      • #53 by Original Trouble on July 23, 2012 - 4:40 PM

        I run towards bullets sometimes. It’s what I do for a living. Being brave is not the same as being manly. I am told that I can run towards bullets at work and still be soft and nurturing at home with my husband (I’m also a damn good cook).

        My husband is not soft, and I don’t ever treat him with contempt. He’s better at many things than I am (there are, admittedly, some things I’m better at, but we know each other’s strengths). In the event of thermonuclear meltdown or zombie apocalypse, he’s the guy I’d want leading my band of survivors. His survival skills are far better than mine. And, he’s just really smart and good at life, too. He manages the money, even though I make more. He tells me how much I get to spend each month, and I graciously submit to his financial leadership.

        We don’t really fight, and definitely not over stupid crap. I respect him all the way. To me, he is everything a man should be. He is in no way lessened by what I do for a living.

        So, let me say it like this…to me, it’s a sign of pseudo masculinity if you have to insist on marrying a weaker person. For the record, you don’t somehow become less strong if you marry a woman who’s strong and capable and brave. It’s not a competition.

        Take a lesson from all of the testosterone-filled career military guys who marry strong women who can take care of the house and everything else while they’re serving overseas…it’s a sign of strength to value strength and competence in your partner, not a sign of weakness. If I weren’t strong and competent, we’d be floundering right now while my husband is away on deployment.

        For what it’s worth, I like this a lot: http://marriedmansexlife.com/take-the-red-pill/captain-and-first-officer/

      • #54 by theprivateman on July 23, 2012 - 5:45 PM

        So, let me say it like this…to me, it’s a sign of pseudo masculinity if you have to insist on marrying a weaker person. For the record, you don’t somehow become less strong if you marry a woman who’s strong and capable and brave. It’s not a competition.

        And it should never be a competition. Once again, we have a nomenclature problem. Words have meanings and connotations. For two generations femininity has been associated with weakness. This leads to the masculinization of women. Women became “strong and independent”. I argue that those are masculine qualities. I covered that here: http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/relationship-language-ruined-by-political-correctness/ Worse, they do become competitive because that’s what happens in the capitalistic workspace. That comes home and right back into the house where it certainly doesn’t belong. Yeah, I covered that, too: http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/from-the-masculine-to-the-feminine-in-35-minutes/

        A feminine complement to the relationship is where we should be. Men are the competitive ones. Women should not be competing with the men outside of the workplace. Athol’s approach is ideal.

      • #55 by LostSailor on July 23, 2012 - 6:07 PM

        Well, there’s your answer right there, Trouble. You’re clearly not a feminist.

        What those 3 men did was, I think, pure instinct to protect the people they love. That instinct is not a gender issue, both men and women will be willing to risk death to protect their loved ones. Yet…if a woman runs from a dangerous situation, leaving her man behind to face the danger, no one would bat an eye or think less of her; if a man runs from danger leaving his woman behind, he will face rage, ridicule, humiliation, and accusations of cowardice. So there is a social difference based on gender, at the same time when feminism is moving toward a new wave where instead of changing society and law for the benefit of women, the goal is to change men and to discourage traditional masculinity for the benefit of women.

        There are always outliers of women who are soldiers, Marines, police officers, etc. But they aren’t really the point. It’s the general social expectation that men will come to the defense of women, but not vise versa. How many women, in general, would rush to defend a male stranger in a dangerous situation as opposed to a man rushing to defend a female stranger?

        And it happens all the time. And it can have fatal results. See here, here, or here.

        And there are other examples of men’s deference to women, such as the expectation that a man pays for a date. Yes, yes, NAWALT and all, but the general expectation is still there, even among feminists.

      • #56 by Sasha on July 23, 2012 - 7:30 PM

        It doesn’t have to be either/or between pussy and dick. It can be and. The future lies with those who can access and develop both their feminine and masculine parts as both are essential even if largely unequal in a single person. I’ve know too many men who have pinged their softer sides way too hard on their way to their dickdom. There is a better way.

      • #57 by P Ray on July 24, 2012 - 10:30 AM

        I’ve know too many men who have pinged their softer sides way too hard on their way to their dickdom.
        What you say has no meaning if you are not attractive to the men who has pinged away his softer side “on their way to their dickdom”.
        And it counts even less for “the men you are not attracted to”.

  9. #58 by NMH on July 23, 2012 - 4:12 PM

    Women want the sexual commitment from alpha’s but when the woman is in physical danger she still expects the surrounding beta and omega males to give up their lives for her.

    • #59 by just visiting on July 23, 2012 - 4:45 PM

      That’s why social contract 2.0 was developed.

      Social contract 1.0 was feral. Alphas and harems. sex/protection.
      Civilization social contract required honor. Sexual honor/protective honor.
      Every one (usually) got a feminine virginal wife. Softer gentler non feral creatures were protected by society as the trade off.

      Social contract 3.0
      non functioning. At least feral and honor codes had Deference to men. Each required respect and honor shown for courage.

  10. #60 by BlackCat on July 23, 2012 - 5:50 PM

    Original Trouble = Hard-core snowflake and NAWALT

    • #61 by Original Trouble on July 23, 2012 - 8:05 PM

      BlackCat:
      But what if all women really aren’t like that, or even the majority? I’m not like the stereotype perpetuated by PM. Nor are my friends. I have several friends who would definitely physically defend their spouses and children. So, why do you have such an investment in believing the worst about women?

      LostSailor: I am a feminist, because I believe in equal rights and opportunities for men and women. I don’t ask for privileges because I’m female. I’ve earned what I have the hard way, through work and integrity. My husband and I split costs on our dates starting with the first one because I don’t think it’s fair for men to have to pay the majority of dating cost. I don’t let my husband lead in a lot of areas because he’s a man, or because I am some kind of traditionalist who’s stuck in the 1950s. I follow his leadership because he’s earned it–he’s calmer and steadier and frankly, less prone to get aggression than I am. He’s a better leader than me, though I’m better at other things. Personally, I think men and women should be judged by the same standard. I didn’t raise my daughter to run from danger, she’s smart and strong and was taught to stand up for people who are weaker than her (my son was, too). I found this blog via Moxie’s blog, and I’ve always been a staunch advocate of women living up to their so-called feminist ideals in the dating scene. And frankly, there are quite a few of us like that who read her blog and comment. I get what you’re saying, but you don’t change those ideas by vilifying women, in my opinion.

      PM: The Victorian concept of the weaker woman didn’t exist where my ancestors were breaking sod, the women working side by side with the men. I think it’s a myth that certain character traits are assigned by gender. People are too diverse for those kinds of generalizations.

      • #62 by YOHAMI on July 23, 2012 - 8:08 PM

        Its not a myth. Women are generally speaking weaker than men, more emotional than men (for good and for bad), and have a different set of smarts, interests, and sensibilities. If you are a feminist, please take a strong dosis of girlwriteswhat and let me (us) know what you think and feel about what she’s saying. I’d like to see both sides of that equation.

      • #63 by LostSailor on July 23, 2012 - 9:13 PM

        Trouble, I think it’s more correct to say you were a feminist. But I think feminism has moved beyond you. I’m not against equal rights for women, but I do want to see that those rights are paired with the responsibility that goes with them. As a country, the USA has gotten away from that pairing in general.

        You sound like you have a good head on your shoulders and you’ve found the right man and the right balance in a relationship. Congratulations, that’s all great, and I’m happy for you.

        Moxie’s blog is about honestly facing the realities of dating, identifying the problems, and surmounting them. This blog–at least for me, I can’t speak for TPM–is about advising men about how to not only successfully navigating the hard shoals of the current dating scene, but also about becoming better men. The Red Pill is about accepting some hard truths and taking uncomfortable actions.

        Some feminist ideals are utopian, which by definition is unobtainable. Plus, my experience with actively feminist women (as opposed to women who generally kind of agree with the principals, but aren’t on the barricades) is that there is a fair amount of hypocrisy going on. Teaching your children to be respectful and to not take any shit is just being a responsible parent, not necessarily feminist.

        Men and women should be judged by the same standard, but they usually aren’t. The current culture won’t allow it.

      • #64 by ar10308 on July 24, 2012 - 9:42 AM

        “I have several friends who would definitely physically defend their spouses and children.”

        Then they must have married complete pussies. I’ve never met a woman who could remotely take me in a fight.

      • #65 by ar10308 on July 24, 2012 - 9:45 AM

        “Personally, I think men and women should be judged by the same standard…The Victorian concept of the weaker woman didn’t exist where my ancestors were breaking sod, the women working side by side with the men. I think it’s a myth that certain character traits are assigned by gender. People are too diverse for those kinds of generalizations.”

        I actually laughed out loud when I read this.

  11. #66 by Original Trouble on July 23, 2012 - 8:22 PM

    By the way, NAWALT is logically flawed.

    Simple logical syllogism

    All women are overdramatic, hystrionic, entitled, diva/princess types.
    I’m not an overdramatic hystrionic entitled diva/princess type.
    Thus, not all women are overdramatic hystrionic entitled diva princess types.

    The simple fact of the matter is that not all women are like the type that you are describing. The reason you think they are is because you’re looking at the wrong women in the wrong places. Or, because you are viewing women through the “Yohami Paradigm” of needing a weak woman so you can feel stronger. Obviously, if those are the women you seek out, you’re going to think that women are weak, overdramatic, hystrionic, entitled princess types.

    It’s no different than the women on Moxie’s blog who complain that all men are dicks and liars. Why do they think that all men are dicks and liars? Because those are the only men they pay any attention to. The rest of the men in the world who aren’t dicks and liars? They don’t even see those guys.

    • #67 by YOHAMI on July 23, 2012 - 8:39 PM

      “By the way, NAWALT is logically flawed.”

      NAWALT = not all women are like that. How is that logically flawed?

      “The simple fact of the matter is that not all women are like the type that you are describing.”

      Precisely. It’s a generalization.

      “Or, because you are viewing women through the “Yohami Paradigm” of needing a weak woman so you can feel stronger.”

      We’re not talking about what I need, but thanks for caring. Now lets talk about the subject.

      • #68 by Original Trouble on July 23, 2012 - 8:52 PM

        The generalization is that women like me are some kind of statistical anomaly that don’t fit the general rule (in other words, I”m a special snowflake, not all women are like that.”) I don’t consider myself a statistical anomaly, most of my friends operate off of the same values and ethics that I do. There are many women who aren’t as the OP describes us.

      • #69 by YOHAMI on July 23, 2012 - 8:56 PM

        Generalizations are general and inaccurate. Is that your point? if so, you’re right. On the other hand making the specific (your personal reality) general is even more inaccurate.

        Do you consider that most women are like you?

        If so, why no woman gave her life for their boyfriends at the shooting?

    • #70 by theprivateman on July 24, 2012 - 6:17 AM

      NAWALT? Well, of course you are right.

      But enough women are like that. The collective wisdom of the Manosphere and other Red Pill men is a continuous reminder of that.

      As well, you’re married and heterosexual. You don’t know anything about how enough women act in the context of dating and intimate relationships.

      • #71 by P Ray on July 24, 2012 - 9:32 AM

        There seems to be a profusion of women already in existing relationships or “past it” by other mens’ consideration, that are actively going around say they should be arbiters of how men behave.
        Here’s a logical rebuttal to their idea that “be nice means women will be attracted to you”:
        (Richard’s Rebuttal): If women were not attracted to violent men or men who hated women …
        Then all the violence in domestic/intimate partner relationships – would be the fault of women.
        Women love bad men too.

  12. #72 by Original Trouble on July 23, 2012 - 8:48 PM

    Yohami:

    I could have written this post and have written many like it on an online forum where I frequently post to keep my brain sharp.

    For instance:

    http://intjforum.com/showpost.php?p=2709862&postcount=75

    http://intjforum.com/showpost.php?p=2744432&postcount=8

    I worked for a police agency for many years (and I still work in the field) and I feel like there was an innate bias against men in domestic violence scenarios. The fact is that women perpetrate domestic violence at equal rates with men. In practice, however, women have an advantage in that realm.

    I don’t think that either men or women are served by exaggerating male involvement in partner violence or rape statistics (and I work quite a lot with crime data and I’m quite familiar with the ways in which rape “statistics” are spun to give the impression that women are being victimized at much higher levels than they actually are.

    I wrote on Moxie’s blog about having a pregnancy scare with my 14-year-old son a few weeks ago (his “girlfriend” initiated sex with him, things got weird fast, and when he broke up with her, she told her friends he’d raped her and faked a pregnancy). How would you like to deal with that at age 14? It pretty much sucked, for him and for me. I work in the system, false rape allegations are anathema to me. Total bullshit situation which I think is resolved at this point after I threatened to press charges against her for lewd conduct with a minor. I am completely intolerant of crazy chick drama.

    Is she the norm? I don’t think so, I have a daughter and can’t see my daughter or any of her friends acting like that, but it only takes a few to give men a bad taste in their mouth. Since the situation with crazy girl, my son and I have had quite a few discussions about sex, stupid things girls do in high school, rape allegations, birth control, and protecting himself. I told him quite clearly that he’s at a disadvantage as a young man, and needs to be extremely careful. It’s good to protect victims, but there’s current an underlying presumption of guilt directed towards men in rape/d.v. scenarios, and it’s something men need to protect themselves against.

    I guess I’m old-school. Feminism is supposed to be about equality, not punishing men or creating a double standard. In the long run, that’s not good for either men or women.

    • #73 by P Ray on July 24, 2012 - 9:34 AM

      If you only had daughters, would you care so much about what happened to men?
      Did you care at all about men and justice when you were single?

      • #74 by Original Trouble on July 24, 2012 - 10:17 AM

        Of course. I’ve worked in my field for 21 years now. It’s an integral part of the work I do.

        FWIW, I was single until 4 months ago. I’m still basically a newlywed. I was single from age 39-46. When I was single and dating, I shared costs for dates and behaved ethically. That’s how my parents raised me to be. It’s also how I am raising my kids to behave.

      • #75 by P Ray on July 24, 2012 - 10:40 AM

        FWIW, I was single until 4 months ago. I’m still basically a newlywed. I was single from age 39-46.
        You’re not a “newlywed” if you came out of a long relationship that ended only when you were 38.
        For all intents and purposes, long cohabitation is considered marriage by the states, according to law (which you say is where your occupation focuses on).

      • #76 by Original Trouble on July 24, 2012 - 1:20 PM

        I am newly married to my husband. I was single for 7 years after getting a divorce. My (current) husband and I never cohabitated, that was not a lifestyle that I wanted to model for my children (who are 14 and 18). We dated for 4 years before we got married. At this point in our lives, both of us knew what the risks were, and we wanted to be sure.

    • #77 by tm on July 24, 2012 - 10:34 AM

      “Feminism is supposed to be about equality”

      Sorry to repeat what others have said many times: from it s early days (suffragettes, white feather campaigners, etc) feminism has never been about equality. Your own honesty and fairness can t change that.

      “Is she the norm? I don’t think so, I have a daughter and can’t see my daughter or any of her friends acting like that, but it only takes a few to give men a bad taste in their mouth.”

      She may not be the norm but the norm is that women can get away for that with no consequences or barely a slap on the wrist. Check register-her.com, false rape society, etc, and the many stories of female criminal conduct that resulted in zero or little punishment.

  13. #78 by A♠ on July 24, 2012 - 1:41 AM

    Riffing darkly here but…

    Considering a man willingly dying in defense of women is not only taking himself out of the gene-pool but is also making the ultimate (albeit tacit) admission of his inferior genetic value when compared in the harshest light – does it make anyone think that this “protection meme” is yet another “shit test”?

    In support of this (admittedly terrible and depressing) idea, studies have shown the Dark Triad is attractive to women, imprisoned murders get sent marriage proposals and women whose men die in their defense eventually have children with men that do not.

    Thoughts?

    • #79 by just visiting on July 24, 2012 - 10:17 AM

      Most men in power, in the past and present, have had theses traits. And most had wives and children.

      The women who marry imprisoned murderers are kinda weird themselves. Dominance probably plays a role, perhaps a higher tolerance to dark triad traits. But I think there’s an immature fantasy element. They remind me of teen girls mooning over the pictures the’ve plastered their room with from the latest Tiger Beat.

      • #80 by A♠ on July 24, 2012 - 3:00 PM

        I must say, I like this:

        “They remind me of teen girls mooning over the pictures the’ve plastered their room with from the latest Tiger Beat.”

        Very amusing and quite likely accurate in certain (disturbing) ways.

  14. #81 by BlackCat on July 24, 2012 - 9:39 AM

    By the way, NAWALT is logically flawed.

    A stereotype (generalization) is essentially a statistical truth.

    But then, maths are hard. And so, apparently, is basic biology.

  15. #82 by Linanati on July 24, 2012 - 11:06 AM

    A,

    That’s assuming the man doesn’t already have children. If my husband died defending me so I was able to get away to safety, I would have survived to raise our children, who each have half his genes. That’s what a man’s protective instincts are for – to defend his wife and children, which means his genes are carried on to the next generation.

    Sometimes the man’s protective instincts are activated in defense of someone who has not had his child(ren), which could remove him from the gene pool if he is killed. On the other hand, it’s possible one of the girlfriends of the men who died for them could be pregnant and not know it yet. That’s less likely now than in the days before reliable birth control, but his body doesn’t know that. A man’s instincts are to protect the woman he has been putting his sperm in, even if she hasn’t borne his children yet, because she might be pregnant with his baby.

    It’s an evolutionary advantage in that the offspring of men who protect their women and children are more likely to survive. That’s why it’s so widespread, and not that surprising, that men do put themselves between a bullet and their wife/girlfriend and/or children.

    • #83 by P Ray on July 24, 2012 - 1:17 PM

      Excellent. If she’s not blood or sharing your bed … you’re not responsible for her.
      It will be great to observe the change in attitude from women once more men start putting this in practice.

    • #84 by A♠ on July 24, 2012 - 3:12 PM

      I believe the strongest part of your viewpoint is here:

      That’s less likely now than in the days before reliable birth control, but his body doesn’t know that. A man’s instincts are to protect the woman he has been putting his sperm in, even if she hasn’t borne his children yet, because she might be pregnant with his baby.

      However, in all of these discussions of gender-relations, the bandying about of evo-psych ideas always misses the largest, most important fact:

      The goal of all life – without exception – is twofold –

      1} Survive

      2} Reproduce

      What’s at the top there?

      Exactly.

      Parents and women like to stress the importance of reproduction for their own benefit (which could be anything from justifying their choices to getting more out of relationships, etc).

      And it’s almost always successful because reproduction is certainly the penultimate goal of all life – therefore it does speak to us on a deep level.

      However, when one’s life is in danger, everything changes.

      I was in law enforcement for almost 10 years and was almost killed 3 times.

      You would be amazed at what the desire to survive will cause one to do.

      Now, I’m not saying either of us is wrong or right; I’m simply enjoying a debate (not an argument – those waste my time) on the matter.

      Which was the clearly stated point of the comment to which you replied.

      • #85 by Linanati on July 24, 2012 - 3:55 PM

        Personal survival isn’t always at the top. If it were, men wouldn’t put themselves between their wives or girlfriends and a bullet, and parents wouldn’t give their lives for their children. Sometimes survival of a person’s genes trumps personal survival.

        Now, the person making the sacrifice isn’t thinking, “I’m doing this to increase the chances my genes will make it into the next generation.” They’re sincerely doing it out of love or, in the case of a stranger, a deep-seated instinct to protect someone weaker than themselves.

        But why do they have those protective urges to begin with?

        The children of people who are capable of that kind of self-sacrifice are more likely to survive. Those children are also more likely to have, and pass on to their children, that protective instinct.

  16. #86 by ar10308 on July 24, 2012 - 11:16 AM

    Reposting my comment from The Spearhead:

    I think it comes down to a simple idiom:

    Never sacrifice yourself for someone who isn’t your DNA or hasn’t/wasn’t willing to carry your DNA to birth.

    Is your life worth it for a GF of 6 months? Probably not. She’ll likely bang your friend the night of your funeral to help her get over you.

  17. #87 by Original Trouble on July 24, 2012 - 11:18 AM

    Some stereotypes are statistical truth, some aren’t. In my field, profiling people on the basis of race or gender can definitely get you in trouble, because it can be a distraction and take your eye off the real ball. Race/gender aren’t enough to accurately identify likely criminals. Imagine if we policed communities by statistics, for instance. But wait…we don’t have to: the NYPD has already done the field work in this area, and an assessment of the outcomes of their arrests reveal the problems with this sort of stereotyping on superficials: http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120605/new-york-city/stop-and-frisks-have-done-little-reduce-shootings-nypd-data-shows

    If only there were more actual biological research in support of your game theories. But, alphas, as defined by game theory, are more pseudoscience than actual biological reality.
    First, alpha male behaviors amongst hominids aren’t the same as alpha male behaviors among other species: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/science/a-course-in-evolution-taught-by-chimps.html?src=pm

    The guys I work with and my husband are true alpha hominid/primate males: they are peer-bonded males with self-selected leadership who protect the boundaries of their territory from incursions by hostiles. Equivalents to chimp male behavior can be observed quite clearly in modern human society through looking at groups like gang members, cops, and military personnel. Alpha males are selected by their peers (you can’t fake alpha status with other males). They win this status via demonstrating competence, focused aggression, and building a team of other male supporters (demonstrating leadership qualities). In primate and hominid society, this is a democratic process. There’s one winner but the losers often get killed. There is no replacement for competence and leadership in this process.

    Beta status isn’t as good as alpha, at least in chimpanzee society, but there is evidence that lower ranking males actually won “the game,” genetically speaking, in our ancestors. Recent research suggests that biological pair-bonding between lower ranking male hominids and monogamous females began around 4.4 million years ago and laid the foundation for the modern family: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/How-the-Weak-Inherited-the-Earth-161602265.html?c=y&page=2. There were two ways to win the battle of the seed spreading. One way was the alpha chimp method of promiscuity and spreading of genes via screwing as many females in your “tribe” as you could. The other way was for a lower ranking male to woo the fidelity of a female by being a provider, and have more offspring with one female who was pair-bonded to you. Some of the more current research suggests that this latter method “won” the genetic lottery and that is why families exist among humans. This scenario not only won in terms of numbers, but it is also theorized to have won in terms of providing a healthier diet for the family involved, leading to higher levels of brain development and escalating human evolution into higher-level thinking.

    It’s much more complex than the beta/alpha false dichotomy espoused in MRA forums and amongst PUAs. I think that Athol Kay nails it when he says, “So Alpha Traits create attraction…Beta Traits create the pair bond…You need a balance of both Alpha and Beta in a marriage….”

    The problem with a lot of the red pill writers and posts like this one is simple: Alpha hominid males have historically been the ones at the dangerous edges of the tribe protecting the tribe from harm with their male peers. The alphas would have led the other males in diving in front of bullets to save the tribe. It isn’t about deference…biologically speaking, it’s an intrinsic part of being alpha. You’re either a hero, or you aren’t.

    There were five alphas in the theater: John Blunk, Matt McQuinn, Alex Teves, Allie Young, and Stephanie Davis.

    Allie Young was the first person to stand up in the theater, warn other people, confront the gunman. She was shot in the neck (perhaps one of the first people to be shot). Stephanie Davis risked her life to save her friend. John Blunk, Matt McQuinn, and Alex Teves laid down their lives for other people: true alpha behavior.

    No offense, but if you have to try and fake alpha behaviors, you aren’t alpha. I don’t know what you are, but dismissing and belitting alpha behaviors because it makes you feel small, or using it to try and drive a wedge between men and women (as if there aren’t enough, already)…it’s a lame excuse for inadequacy, and no: I don’t think it makes men (or women) better.

    • #88 by P Ray on July 24, 2012 - 3:15 PM

      Some stereotypes are statistical truth, some aren’t.
      If something is true even 1% of the time, it’s a statistical truth.

      John Blunk, Matt McQuinn, and Alex Teves laid down their lives for other people: true alpha behavior.
      If you’re not boning the guy, please don’t expect heroism.
      As a matter of fact, you should praise to the skies the guys who helped you even if you didn’t bone them. Because they didn’t get anything from you, other than be exposed to danger, hardship, inconvenience and frustration.

      Reminds me of what someone else said:
      If you keep doing something for nothing, are you an idiot or a slave?

      No offense, but if you have to try and fake alpha behaviors, you aren’t alpha.
      If you wear makeup, the hypocrisy is laughable.

      I don’t know what you are, but dismissing and belitting alpha behaviors because it makes you feel small, or using it to try and drive a wedge between men and women (as if there aren’t enough, already)…it’s a lame excuse for inadequacy, and no: I don’t think it makes men (or women) better.
      Women choose whom they want to be with.
      It’s not mens’ fault they choose so badly, when women have so much advice to listen to that would save them time and grief.

    • #89 by LostSailor on July 24, 2012 - 3:50 PM

      In my field, profiling people on the basis of race or gender can definitely get you in trouble, because it can be a distraction and take your eye off the real ball.

      Quite true. Which is why the “security theater” of the TSA airport screenings are a farce. One blog I read says TSA stands for The Sexual Assault. The Israelis don’t have all that pat-down, full-body scan nonsense in their airports and they haven’t had an incident on a plane since Entebbe. Instead, they have trained people throughout the airport watching how people behave and they approach and talk to anyone who seems suspicious and observe how they react.

      Which also supports a key Charisma principle: watch what women do, not what they say (and, yes, the same can be applied to men).

      If only there were more actual biological research in support of your game theories. But, alphas, as defined by game theory, are more pseudoscience than actual biological reality.

      I think the research does support game theories. The evolutionary success you described was the primary social paradigm for most of our history. It’s only in the last 40 years or so that it changed. Of course, we’re not chimps, so the parallels can only be stretched so far. But we all acknowledge that true, natural alphas are still quite rare. For most of our history, the mass of men have been the beta provider or the omega outsider. Society organized itself such that the betas were paired off with women, mostly in monogamous marriage. The species prospered and advanced.

      It’s only been since the rise of feminism that the paradigm changed. The whole “fake it till you make it” part of game theory is to teach the beta, who is no longer needed as a provider, enough alpha-like behavior to succeed with women. I don’t think anyone would claim that practicing Charisma will make a man a true, natural alpha, but if done consistently and long enough, a man can come close.

      No offense, but if you have to try and fake alpha behaviors, you aren’t alpha…. I don’t think it makes men (or women) better.

      I agree with the first (see above), but it doesn’t really matter. I disagree with the second. You even quote Athol Kay who does nail it. Obviously a man who learns the “crimson arts” can put them to destructive use for his own gratification. But even he can’t do that without the acquiescence of women. And it can be done differently, as in developing Charisma, that inherently can make a man a better man. And with deep knowledge of women and relationships, it can make women better by making them happier in relationships.

      • #90 by Original Trouble on July 24, 2012 - 4:34 PM

        agree with the first (see above), but it doesn’t really matter. I disagree with the second. You even quote Athol Kay who does nail it. Obviously a man who learns the “crimson arts” can put them to destructive use for his own gratification. But even he can’t do that without the acquiescence of women. And it can be done differently, as in developing Charisma, that inherently can make a man a better man. And with deep knowledge of women and relationships, it can make women better by making them happier in relationships.

        Interesting point. I think that Athol Kay was the first male writer I’ve ever read who really nailed exactly the type of relationship I want in my marriage. My husband and I have spent a lot of time talking about leadership in our marriage. My husband didn’t seize control of the marriage relationship; he’s simply better than me at leading, and he demonstrated that competence over time. I don’t care about control, I care about competence. Be an effective leader, and I’ll happily follow. He is the commander, I am his respected and trusted XO.

        I’ve given this subject a lot of thought, because of the failure of my first marriage and my desire to be in a healthy/happy relationship. I would call my ex pseudo-alpha. He demanded the leadership role, by virtue of being male. He wanted the power, but not the responsibility that comes with it. My husband likes the responsibility, so I have no problems giving him the power.

        The thing about being alpha is…it’s not an entitlement. It’s hard work and a heavy burden. It comes with a cost. It’s not something you get by virtue of flouncing around and posturing. Natural alphas earn their roles, via the respect of their peers. To me, the marriage relationship is very much that way. If you aren’t competent to lead; if you aren’t up to the responsibilities, don’t take that role. If you want to be an alpha, I don’t think there is a shortcut. You have to learn to lead and be competent (and not self-serving) at it.

        I think what really bothers me about this post is that, on a certain level, it devalues something I hold sacred: that willingness of a human being to sacrifice himself/herself for a noble end or simply to protect a loved one or a stranger. I have friends who died doing that, and I don’t take it lightly. All feminist rhetoric aside, that’s a sacred thing to me. Using it to score points in an imaginary game against the metaphoric opposing team is the antithesis of being a leader or a respectable man.

        Beyond that, the OP takes true alpha behavior and twists it into a sad mockery of itself. It denies the capacity of women for self-sacrifice (and why on earth would you want a woman who isn’t self-sacrificing?), and pretends that being noble is really just being a chump.

        Sad.

      • #91 by LostSailor on July 24, 2012 - 5:44 PM

        Indeed, the alpha/beta mix (attraction/comfort and loving leadership) are the keys to making a long-term relationship work. I wish I’d found Athol 6 years ago. I understand your point about natural alphas, but my point is that such traits and behaviors can be learned, and I think must be learned by a lot of men if they are going to be successful in their relationships with women.

        I’ve known only a very few true alphas. One was a great college friend and roommate both during and after school. I’ll never be able to lead with the effortless charm and true charisma he had–and though we haven’t spoken in many years (long story), by all accounts, he’s still got it going strong–but I learned a lot from knowing him. Sadly, I gradually lost a lot of that through many years of marriage. I’m only now recovering that knowledge.

      • #92 by NMH on July 24, 2012 - 8:00 PM

        I think the OP would support men taking the bullets for women if they were, in masse, worth it. I think one thing he basically is pointing out is why should men show difference to women when they, in our culture, are taught not to cater to the tastes of men? If women were sweet, lithe, feminine virgins that would never divorce instead of the loud-mouthed ginormous-assed sluts that they are (for the most part), why the hell should men follow the cultural rule to defer (accept bullets).

        Take your beloved need for bullet acceptance by men and shove it up your big fat ass (to paraphrase Tom Lykis).

      • #93 by Original Trouble on July 25, 2012 - 3:24 PM

        NMH:

        I wrote at the beginning that I would happily take a bullet for my husband. I don’t have a need for male bullet acceptance. I’m just pointing out the difference between actual alpha behavior and game alpha behavior.

    • #94 by ar10308 on July 24, 2012 - 4:18 PM

      Your standards for what makes one an Alpha are stupid and arbitrary.
      Sacrificing oneself for another is not intrinsically Alpha behavior.

      • #95 by Original Trouble on July 24, 2012 - 4:43 PM

        Research with primates and hominids says otherwise.

      • #96 by jodark on July 24, 2012 - 7:48 PM

        Incorrect. Who is more Alpha the Wall St Banker or the Soldier?

        Hint: The one giving orders is more Alpha.

        And by your standard, anyone who dies for someone else is Alpha, when that clearly isn’t the case.

      • #97 by just visiting on July 24, 2012 - 9:17 PM

        And by your standard, anyone who dies for someone else is Alpha,

        Yes. We wont agree. Our biology and drives are too different. It’s the very reason why dominance is attractive to women in the first place.

        I get that the men might not want to protect women they don’t know. My instincts recoil a bit, but my intellect can understand it. But if we’re debating a man’s woman or children……

        My vajayjay just shrivelled up, dropped off, and rolled under the couch. Not feminine? Not feeling particularly inspired to be. Feminine submission for this? No.

        I do apologize for the rudeness of this comment. Not my usual style.

      • #98 by Original Trouble on July 24, 2012 - 10:50 PM

        @jodark:

        I’ve known some pretty effeminate wall street bankers. Give me the soldier any day.

      • #99 by ar10308 on July 25, 2012 - 8:45 AM

        @OT
        And I’ve met some pretty effeminate soldiers as well.

        Alpha is based on social dominance. Most bankers are much more socially dominant than soldiers.
        You’re equating “big, tough and dirty” to Alpha when it is much more than that. Alpha is attitude.

        Who has more social power? Clearly the banker.

      • #100 by Original Trouble on July 25, 2012 - 1:58 PM

        Actually, alpha status amongst primates is based upon physical dominance, hunting skills, aggression, and social dominance. It’s attitude, but it’s maintained by use of force. Alphas are chosen by other males..

        Culturally, you may be right, but biologically, you aren’t. The type of currency that bankers have to spend (aside from large bills) is not what gets most women’s biological motors running…they tend to have the attitude, but not the physical dominance. Having money to spend is a beta behavior (being a provider).

        http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/How-the-Weak-Inherited-the-Earth-161602265.html

        If you put marines and bankers in a room, the marines would win. I know you want this to be on your terms, because then it’s attainable, but mother nature is cruel. She may even be a feminist.

      • #101 by NMH on July 25, 2012 - 3:28 PM

        A hominid is a primate.

      • #102 by jodark on July 25, 2012 - 3:46 PM

        Who is more Alpha:
        The one giving the orders or the one following the orders?

        If you can take control and direction of another’s strength and physicality through social dominance, you are the Alpha.

        If Marines are so Alpha, why do they take the orders of a bunch weak elderly men who posh offices in Washington, DC, who follow the orders of a bunch of bankers in NYC? Why do they submit themselves to the officers appointed over them?
        That sounds rather Beta…

        You assume that by putting them in the same room, that they would fight, you don’t think that the Bankers would outsmart the Marines and get the better of them without resorting to physical force?

      • #103 by Original Trouble on July 26, 2012 - 9:31 AM

        You’re overthinking. Turn your hamsters off. Women don’t see those orders being issued by a shadowy cabal of puppetmasters in DC and no, Dick Cheney isn’t and never will be sexy.

        Women see rawr. Rawr is hot.

        Biology is simple. Stop trying to justify your persona.

      • #104 by ar10308 on July 26, 2012 - 9:53 AM

        Sorry lady, I’m not justifying my persona. Based on size and strength, I could probably kick a Marine’s asses.

        Who gets the hotter women: Marines or bankers and congressmen?

        Biology is simple, but so are the minds of Marines. It takes more than biology to survive in this modern world.

        And I don’t have hamster. I am not a woman. I have a brain that makes conclusions based on observations.

      • #105 by Original Trouble on July 26, 2012 - 11:00 AM

        Have you ever seen marine wives? They usually get hot, young chicks. Because they’re hot, hyper-masculine, and in general, young.

        And, on this subject, you’re totally hamster-braining.

      • #106 by ar10308 on July 26, 2012 - 3:46 PM

        And then the wives cheat on them while they are deployed. Such faith and allegiance.

        How do I know? I work at a military base and was in the Army for a short while.

      • #107 by Original Trouble on July 26, 2012 - 4:09 PM

        I don’t think that alpha status is a guarantee of fidelity. Further, those wives may be married to alphas, but they are also in a situation where, when their alpha is gone, they’re surrounded by other alphas. Primate behavior suggests that alpha loyalty is extremely transferrable by females. In other words, the alpha can get the girl, but can he keep her?

        I think that’s why some newer variations on red pill propose that men must have a mix of alpha and beta characteristics…alpha to get the girl, beta to keep her. And, getting/keeping is an ongoing process.

        What do you think?

      • #108 by YOHAMI on July 26, 2012 - 4:12 PM

        “In other words, the alpha can get the girl, but can he keep her?”

        Ah, but who can? keeping her is really on her. A girl who will cheat on the alpha is going to cheat on everyone.

      • #109 by ar10308 on July 26, 2012 - 4:26 PM

        Well, the real issue in this case lies with the women today rather than the men, because there used to be systems that set checks and balances on her hypergamous nature. Those systems are no longer in place now.

  18. #110 by YOHAMI on July 24, 2012 - 1:19 PM

    Nothing like a good post and a troll to make for a memorable discussion.

    • #111 by Original Trouble on July 24, 2012 - 1:21 PM

      Anything other than applause is considered trolling here? How beta of you.

      • #112 by YOHAMI on July 24, 2012 - 1:22 PM

        Troll ;-)

      • #113 by fi on July 25, 2012 - 12:34 PM

        Original Trouble. Why do you persist in trying to persuade these guys? They have obviously been turned down by women once too often, or lost out in a divorce or (in PRay’s case) have never managed to get a woman to agree to have sex. They dislike women and are irrational and bitter. There is absolutely nothing you could say or do to get them to change their minds.. They take the credit for other men’s good actions by virtue of being the same sex. They believe they are entitled to the same respect although they won’t ever have done anything to merit it. The generalise from the particular where women are concerned. I read them and shudder that there seems to be such numbers of them, but them I remind myself that despite what they say, they are in the minority.. Its just the same ones bleating about the same stuff over and over again on different sites. Why do you care what this bunch (who must be pretty unsuccessful relating to women in real life to have such distorted views) think of you? They just find it amusing to throw insults at you instead of considering what you say, because they have the emotional maturity of a teenage boy. Athough I think my teenage son is actually more balanced and fair.

      • #114 by YOHAMI on July 25, 2012 - 12:38 PM

        You forgot to mention the tiny dicks + unemployment.

      • #115 by theprivateman on July 25, 2012 - 12:48 PM

        Hey, it’s Fiona!

        When a comment war breaks out, I rarely get involved. I don’t have the time!

      • #116 by LostSailor on July 25, 2012 - 4:23 PM

        It’s fi! Queen of De Nile!

        What about Mom’s basement and Cheeto-stained fingers?

      • #117 by P Ray on July 26, 2012 - 2:07 AM

        @Fi:
        Don’t forget the sex toys! You left that out.
        Also, must be uneducated, jobless, violent, stupid and insane.
        Yeesh, you left out so much on your list. Remember to try harder next time.

      • #118 by fi on July 26, 2012 - 5:19 AM

        PRay – As Mark Twain said “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience”. Particularly apt I feel.

      • #119 by fi on July 26, 2012 - 5:28 AM

        “What about Mom’s basement and Cheeto-stained fingers?”

        What? What on earth are you talking about?

      • #120 by LostSailor on July 26, 2012 - 7:17 AM

        Twain was a wise man, fi. I shall perhaps take his advice and no longer argue with you. You certainly are experienced in this area.

      • #121 by fi on July 26, 2012 - 7:29 AM

        Irony! :)

      • #122 by fi on July 26, 2012 - 7:37 AM

        Not only irony but subtlety too. Not something Americans are known for in Europe as I’m sure you know. Maybe I should revisit my prejudices. :)

      • #123 by NMH on July 26, 2012 - 9:49 AM

        Dont worry, fi. You will be forced to wear a burka soon enough. If not you, your daughters. Your feminism will have enslaved your daughters.

      • #124 by fi on July 26, 2012 - 11:23 AM

        “You will be forced to wear a burka soon enough. If not you, your daughters. Your feminism will have enslaved your daughters.”

        Again, what??? Why would I have to wear a burka? Never say never to anything but in the extremely unlikely event that would happen, how has feminism contributed to that? Is that a view commonly held in America about Europe?

    • #125 by BlackCat on July 24, 2012 - 6:42 PM

      Not a troll.
      A snowflake, which is infinitely better.
      Snowflakes are much more educational.

      • #126 by Original Trouble on July 25, 2012 - 11:43 AM

        That’s good. I like snowflakes. They’re so unique. ;)

    • #127 by Original Trouble on July 25, 2012 - 1:47 PM

      Hi, Fiona:

      Nice to meet you. It’s a slow week at work and my husband is deployed for two more weeks, so I’m just killing time. I enjoy engaging group-thinkers, whether they are racists or fundamentalists or the manosphere circle jerk.

      You should use the prison data next time, it’s compelling. ;)

      • #128 by fi on July 25, 2012 - 3:46 PM

        Hi. Nice to meet you too. ;)

        What’s the prison data?

      • #129 by Original Trouble on July 25, 2012 - 9:53 PM

        About the inordinate amount of men currently incarcerated in the U.S. I was riffing on the comment made by Yohami about tiny dicks and unemployment.

      • #130 by NMH on July 26, 2012 - 5:35 AM

        “Manosphere circle jerk”—must want to be in the middle of that. Men wacking off to you in a circle like you were some goddess-like porn star Im sure is a potent dopamine saturated fantasy.

      • #131 by Original Trouble on July 26, 2012 - 6:42 AM

        I don’t think you guys allow women at your circle jerks. It’s the woman-hating he-man club. But no, a bunch of schlubs who can’t get dates wacking off to me…not so sexy.

      • #132 by fi on July 26, 2012 - 7:01 AM

        Maybe the fact that they think women like that sort of thing is an example of why they lack success with women?

      • #133 by fi on July 26, 2012 - 7:07 AM

        Sorry. Just realised that he doesn’t think women like that sort of thing, he was just being derogatory and crude.

      • #134 by Original Trouble on July 26, 2012 - 9:28 AM

        In all fairness, these guys are bitter and damaged, but many of them have earned their bitterness through failure and pain. And, most are going through this enormous effort in hopes of finding someone to love who will love them back. I think that those of us who have endured and survived significant damage are like Joshua Trees, hanging on the edge of a canyon somewhere. Maybe a little twisty and prickly, maybe kind of stunted in some ways by the harsh world we’ve endured, but still tenacious and still reaching for the sun.

        Personally, I find tenacity kind of beautiful, even when it’s ugly.

      • #135 by NMH on July 26, 2012 - 9:46 AM

        Your husband must be a clueless fool to marry a misandrist entitled woman like you.

      • #136 by ar10308 on July 26, 2012 - 10:08 AM

        Bitter and damaged, huh?
        Ever ask yourself why? Who damaged them? Who embittered them?

        Nice shaming language over male’s expressing their emotions, BTW. Such a helpful, feminine healer.

        If your son comes home upset from getting cheated on by his whore girlfriend, what do you tell him?
        “Aww, don’t be angry and bitter, but it was all your fault.”

      • #137 by Original Trouble on July 26, 2012 - 10:46 AM

        If your boy chooses to date a whore, whose fault is it if she acts like a whore?

        I chose an abusive, cheating prick. He seemed like a good guy, in fact, he was my sunday school teacher. But, I didn’t date him long enough to find out for sure. I impulsively got married to a guy I really didn’t well, and realized really quickly that I’d made a bad choice. Then I got pregnant, and stayed married, but things didn’t improve, and I had no idea how to fix them. Whose choice was that? Mine. I copied my mom, and things got worse. Again, my choice. Then, I got pregnant again, still no improvement. I stayed for 12 years, telling myself that I was doing it for the kids, but really, staying because I was needy and scared and didn’t know how to be alone. Whose choice was that? Mine.

        Whose fault was my marriage? MINE. Had I not claimed my own responsibility in the failure of my marriage (I chose badly and for the wrong reasons, and then I compounded those mistakes through arrogance and stupidity), I would never have gotten to a point where I was able to get over my bitterness, take ownership of my behavior patterns that got me into trouble, correct them, and then recognize a better class of man when I met him.

        I’m occasionally bitter. I was really bitter for a long damn time. In fact, while I’m not bitter these days on a daily basis, i can go there quick when interacting with my ex. He fucked my world, and he’s still an abusive prick.

        I’m damaged, too. The damage my ex-husband caused still exists, and still causes me pain on an almost daily basis. When my husband and I got married in March, for about a month, I went through a series of little mini panic attacks. My ex started abusing me in the first month of our marriage, and after I married J, it took me a couple of months to realize that I was reliving again, the pain is in the past, and I am married to someone kind and decent and strong, who will never treat me that way. It pisses me off, frankly, that even after 7 years, that shit is still causing me pain. It is what it is. <—great power in acceptance, too. I am working on it, I will probably always be working on it (though I have come a long ways).

        There is no shame in having suffered and being hurt; bitterness and damage are an outcome of pain. There is only shame in continuing the same patterns that took me to that place of pain, and whining when they produce predictable outcomes.

        Pointing out the obvious is not an attempt to shame any of you. If it were, I would stand convicted right next to you.

      • #138 by fi on July 26, 2012 - 10:50 AM

        “If your son comes home upset from getting cheated on by his whore girlfriend, what do you tell him?
        “Aww, don’t be angry and bitter, but it was all your fault.”

        I wouldn’t dream of saying anything like that to either my son or daughter if they were cheated on. I’d say “shit happens to us all, there’s nobody that hasn’t gone through what you’re going through, good job you found out sooner rather than later, let it go and move on”

      • #139 by Original Trouble on July 26, 2012 - 10:58 AM

        My son had sex a couple of months ago (he’s 14). He was taken by his father to a girl’s house, the girl’s parent was not home, and the girl offered him sex (the girl set up the entire scenario). After they had sex, he told me that he got creeped out and asked his dad to come and pick him up, then cut ties with the girl. I was not happy, this is not in line with how I have raised my kids or behaved in front of them. He also did not use a condom (aka protect himself), in spite of many conversations on the subject.

        It caused a whirlwind of drama…the girl made a false rape allegation and then faked a pregnancy scare. I handled it directly with the girl’s mother, including asking the girl to take a pregnancy test at my house and deliver the results to both mothers at the same time. She was not pregnant (big surprise).

        I don’t think that my son was responsible for the fact that this girl has a lot of issues and is somewhat disturbed. But, he was 100% responsible for choosing to have sex with her. We spent a long time talking about the risks that young men face from false rape allegations, the innate bias against young men in these scenarios (see Duke Lacrosse Team), and the risks from unprotected sex (STDs and pregnancy). The message I delivered was that he needs to be damn careful who he sticks his dick in, and what girls he allows to get close to him.

        So, in short, if my son was dating a whore (and he was), I held him responsible for that choice.

      • #140 by Original Trouble on July 26, 2012 - 11:41 AM

        NMH:

        In the nicest possible way, your rhetoric is not a panty-dropper. I read in the other thread that you are a beta-minus who is frustrated in your quest with the wimmenz. You’re doing. it. wrong. Strong men = hot. Making creepy allusions to burkhas = not hot.

        Instead of being angry at women for not fucking you, you could redirect your anger at the gym or something. That might increase your hotness ratio and reduce your creeper ratio.

      • #141 by theprivateman on July 26, 2012 - 12:17 PM

        If you ever use the word “creeper” (or some variation thereof) again in a comment, you’re banned. And you’ll be the first ever in the history of this blog.

      • #142 by ar10308 on July 26, 2012 - 11:58 AM

        My issue is that you are WAY out of line when you come in to THE MEN’S place where they are trying to work this stuff out and start throwing around those words around that shame male emotions.
        “OMG he’s angry!!! shaaaaammmmmeeee!!”

        I don’t care about your past. Really. I don’t.
        There were probably people who tried to help you, but you ignored them and some of them were probably good men who you rejected. You take fault because it is your fault, just like it would be a man’s fault for staying in a marriage knowing that his wife was cheating on him. Most men here NEVER got those offers and it isn’t their fault that their wives divorced them for cash and prizes.

        And for your husband, what an idiot. He married a woman who was in an abusive 12 year relationship and has 2 kids from it? Taking care of another man’s children is Beta as shit. You got bred by an asshole-Alpha and found a nice Beta to take care of them.

        The issue with 80-90% of the guys in the Manosphere right now, is that NO ONE EVER tried to help them.
        Is it their fault that NO ONE taught them what is actually attractive to women when they were young? Is it their fault that MOST were told the exact opposite of what actually leads to success? They were told these lies by ALL sources, mothers, sisters, counselors, pastors and advice articles. That’s my story, and I will NOT take responsibility for bad advice.
        And there are guys who had their selfish wives divorce them and had everything including their social support system ripped out from under them.
        You cannot expect men to take responsibility for the true nature of women.

        THEN when they finally take the Red Pill, realize the true nature of women and start to become Alpha-assholes like they should have from the start, they get shit-tests from shrikes like you who tell that ‘sometimes women need to defend men physically’ and ‘you aren’t actually an Alpha, you’re just acting like one’.

        SO. I’m nuking your shit-test.
        Sit the fuck down. And shut the fuck up. Men are speaking.

      • #143 by Original Trouble on July 26, 2012 - 12:04 PM

        ^still hasn’t unpacked his suitcases.

      • #144 by fi on July 26, 2012 - 12:20 PM

        F-u-u-u-u-c-k!!!!!!

      • #145 by Original Trouble on July 26, 2012 - 12:27 PM

        PM: My apologies. It was not my intent to offend.

        AR10308: I am sorry if something I said pushed your buttons. That was not my intent (I have buttons of my own). PM’s comments elsewhere have sparked an interest for me. The information here on the red pill led me to Athol Kay’s blog, which has been eye-opening and created a lot of new thoughts for me that I find intriguing and useful. If this blog is designed to be a sheltered place for men to talk through men’s issues, I apologize for stepping in the middle of that.

        The issue of male/female roles is a huge one for me, and one I have struggled with a lot in my life, in a variety of ways. I am trying to avoid the mistakes of my past and create a good future with my husband. Like you, I was given a lot of bad advice growing up. I tried to follow the rules, or so I thought, and it basically went to a very dark place. I am happy, for the most part, in my life right now. It’s kind of an abundant feeling. If I can share that with someone else, I want to, because other people taught me a lot back when I was in the weeds. If, however, you feel that women have nothing to say that might help in your journey, PM just needs to give me the word and I’ll find somewhere else to comment.

        I do like to goof around on the internet when work is slow, but I don’t like to cause harm.

      • #146 by ar10308 on July 26, 2012 - 12:39 PM

        OT,
        In your response to NHM you do nothing but shit-test and shame him. You seriously need to get the fuck out of here or immediately change your behavior and tone. I guess the fact that your husband is away is causing you to misbehave and shit-test other men. I feel sorry for him that when he walks through that door after a long deployment, he’ll be faced with the a woman who has shit-tests built up since the day he left.

        If you actually want to help and heal “bitter and damaged” men, I highly suggest you do it by encouraging and being responsive to their burgeoning attempts to relate, not emasculating, condescending, arguing and gutting them on the floor. Do you really think tearing into their self-esteem more is going to help them??? Do you really think they need one more woman to argue with or go point for point with them?

        You will be astonished at the response in men when they are mildly encouraged by women, because it happens so fucking rarely.
        Just to give you an example that happened to me just the other night: I went Swing Dancing as a way of going out of my normal comfort zone and but in an atmosphere I can handle. It was my first time in 6 years, so I did the free lesson in the beginning. I got the hang of it just fine, just like I did before. I made sure to give whichever girl I was dancing with a lot of strong, leading physical contact because I knew they would respond to it. One of them who had been a few times and her eyes lit up and she smiled real big when I put my arm around her like a meant it. She even told me that it was awesome to have a guy finally lead like that, she said that I was doing way better than for it my first night. Guess what? Because she gave me just a little bit of positive reinforcement (really minimal encouragement to be honest), I’m going to take the 6-week class that starts in 2 weeks.

        The moral of the story is, HELP these guys in a way that meets their needs OR get the fuck out. Do not come to argue and shit-test.

      • #147 by Original Trouble on July 26, 2012 - 1:22 PM

        Okay, so I was going to write that you guys started by shit-testing me. Then, I realized that I actually kind of started by shit-testing PM in this thread. And I had a little blush of humility and self-awareness, so thanks for that.

        I am a pretty aggressive person, and I work with a bunch of male cops, so if someone starts out the gate by being aggressive with me (P Ray), I am going to dish that crap right back. I will acknowledge, however, some personal responsibility in how things started off because I treated this like a rather aggressive bulletin board where I post and challenged PM’s statements fairly aggressively out of the starting gate. I still believe they were somewhat illogical, but I clearly misinterpreted the culture here, and I apologize for my approach.

        Perhaps we can start over from this point. Who I really am is written in the most recent blog post by Lost Sailor, where I talk about taking responsibility for my actions, owning them, and using that personal responsibility to heal.

        Your comments about my relationship with my husband were unnecessary and rude. I’ll stop making assumptions about y’all, but I would appreciate the same. I worship my husband. He is the best man on this planet and there isn’t anything I wouldn’t do to make him happy.

      • #148 by YOHAMI on July 26, 2012 - 1:25 PM

        That was wonderful.

      • #149 by Original Trouble on July 26, 2012 - 1:40 PM

        It’s only really wonderful if it made you want to listen to Celine Dion and watch Titanic.

      • #150 by ar10308 on July 26, 2012 - 3:42 PM

        Well now, that’s a bit better.

  19. #151 by A♠ on July 24, 2012 - 4:37 PM

    @ Linanati,

    “Personal survival isn’t always at the top. If it were, men wouldn’t put themselves between their wives or girlfriends and a bullet, and parents wouldn’t give their lives for their children. Sometimes survival of a person’s genes trumps personal survival.”

    I didn’t say personal survival was.

    You’re getting wrapped up in the wrong place.

    I was asking if this deference was a “shit test”

    Now, the person making the sacrifice isn’t thinking, “I’m doing this to increase the chances my genes will make it into the next generation.” They’re sincerely doing it out of love or, in the case of a stranger, a deep-seated instinct to protect someone weaker than themselves.

    Part of that is correct.

    They are not thinking.

    They have no time for it.

    But if they are dying for their children or potential children they are defaulting to survival – albeit, as you say, not necessarily personal survival.

    But why do they have those protective urges to begin with?

    Now you’re getting back to my original question:

    Is that protective behavior instinct or is it a societal inculcation?

    The children of people who are capable of that kind of self-sacrifice are more likely to survive. Those children are also more likely to have, and pass on to their children, that protective instinct.

    You’re correct – from the female reproductive strategist’s viewpoint.

    Reproduction for women is a long and costly effort.

    For men, it’s a minute or two.

    Therefore, the course you state would be best for females.

    It better serves a male perspective to simply live on and keep impregnating women.

    Admittedly, what I’m saying is bleak and soul-shaking.

    But as Mr. Kurtz told me with his dying words:

    “The horrors; the horrors.”

    • #152 by Linanati on July 24, 2012 - 5:29 PM

      In more primitive times, when life was a lot more dangerous, impregnating a lot of women might not have had a greater chance of success than staying with and protecting your children and their mother.

      Although certainly, from a male POV, there are benefits to both methods. Many men throughout history, as well as some today, have had legitimate children they provided for and protected (who would have had better odds of survival, as well as a better chance in life), plus illegitimate children who often were left to the mother’s meager resources and protection (thus being less likely to survive, and the survivors usually having a poorer quality of life). You could argue that a married man with bastards was hedging his bets.

      The best course for men would be to do both, except that today the government will make you provide for illegitimate children. So nowadays illegitimate children pull resources from legitimate children – the only thing they don’t get is the father’s physical protection. You might as well only produce the children you are going to protect and give the best chance in life, because each illegitimate baby is only going to make you poorer, thereby reducing your own quality of life.

      • #153 by A♠ on July 24, 2012 - 5:37 PM

        “The best course for men would be to do both, except that today the government will make you provide for illegitimate children. So nowadays illegitimate children pull resources from legitimate children – the only thing they don’t get is the father’s physical protection. You might as well only produce the children you are going to protect and give the best chance in life, because each illegitimate baby is only going to make you poorer, thereby reducing your own quality of life.”

        I believe you’ve just proven my long view of things.

        The deck has been stacked – by women – in favor of the female reproductive strategy.

        This is tacit admission they know, at the core, what strategy is best for men:

        Thus they remove the option.

        Thank you for a very enlightening conversation.

      • #154 by Linanati on July 24, 2012 - 6:04 PM

        No, I have not proven your point. I am saying that both methods are advantageous to men.

        A man chooses the best woman he can get for marriage. Historically, that has been the woman he will protect, along with the children she has borne him. Those children are likely to be the better specimens, because he chose the best mother he could for them.

        Men’s standards typically go down (sometimes drastically) for one-night stands. Any children resulting from the one-night stand or short-term relationship are likely to inherit some of the less desirable traits from their mother. A man’s fat 2am booty call isn’t someone he’ll marry, but she could end up having his child.

        Our system today that forces men to pay for illegitimate children isn’t good for women – at least, not all women. It’s good for the fat, ugly, or otherwise undesirable women who offer easy sex then lie about being on birth control or poke a hole in the condom to get pregnant by a higher-quality man. Those are the women who can’t get a decent man to marry them. It is not good for the higher-quality woman or her genetically superior children when the man’s resources are diverted from them to his illegitimate offspring by a lower-quality woman.

        That’s why feminists want the system the way it is. They are ugly and hate men. It’s set up in their favor, not in favor of women in general.

      • #155 by P Ray on July 24, 2012 - 7:51 PM

        A man’s fat 2am booty call isn’t someone he’ll marry, but she could end up having his child.
        You’re assuming a 2am booty call has no standards.
        Your apex “phallusy” is showing … :)

        It’s good for the fat, ugly, or otherwise undesirable women who offer easy sex then lie about being on birth control or poke a hole in the condom to get pregnant by a higher-quality man.
        A higher-quality man that DESERVES to have sex without consequences! How dare those women ensnare such a guy.

        Those are the women who can’t get a decent man to marry them.
        Please also consider that those women may not want a decent man.

        That’s why feminists want the system the way it is. They are ugly and hate men. It’s set up in their favor, not in favor of women in general.
        All women are feminist until they oppose it.
        Few women oppose feminism until they have a male child, or their boyfriend/husband is paying alimony or their relatives are victimised.
        I wonder why they’re so slow on the uptake? Maybe because they think only men need to maintain civilisation.

  20. #156 by A♠ on July 24, 2012 - 6:45 PM

    @ Linanati,

    As I had no desire to take up all the space on The Private Man’s wall, I foresaw your counterpoint and addressed it here:

    http://80proofoinomancy.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/326/

  21. #157 by jg on July 25, 2012 - 7:55 PM

    Original Trouble is a.k.a Dubious Wanderer who keeps harrassing Dalrocks blog is back. She too has a blog…which is quite depressing.

    Dalrock says:

    July 25, 2012 at 11:52 am

    @Original Trouble

    @Dalrock: Huh, go figure.

    I was curious if there was an honest explanation for your reappearing under a new name or if you were simply trolling. Were there an honest explanation you would have shared it instead of continuing the deception. Goodby.

    • #158 by Original Trouble on July 26, 2012 - 10:51 AM

      My comments are harassing? In what way? Please, articulate.

  22. #159 by jg on July 26, 2012 - 8:19 PM

    You’re full of BS and exposed yourself pretty good coming under the guise of your new handle. You have no shame. Yohami is right…you’re a troll. I put links up to a couple of your arguments at Dalrocks, but you did not even link one to your arguments. Folks like yourself only come to Dalrocks for attention with no substance. Dalrock and other commenters saw right through that…

  23. #160 by James on August 1, 2012 - 8:15 PM

    The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est,
    Pro femina mori.

  24. #161 by Tor on August 22, 2012 - 8:43 AM

  1. A Spirited Debate « 80-Proof Oinomancy
  2. Linkage Is Good For You – 7-29-12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,454 other followers

%d bloggers like this: