Going Public?

There is some definite controversy about Manosphere bloggers going public. Most bloggers here are anonymous. I support that. When the person stating the idea is anonymous, the idea must be argued, not the person presenting the idea. Anonymity is the best defense against the ad hominem. The tactic is effective, but only to a point. Sometimes, it’s necessary for someone to step from behind that curtain of anonymity. Yes, I know that Matt Forney and Danny are public. Matt Forney has already dealt with the MSM and turned down the opportunity.

I am offering myself up for real interviews from the media (mainstream or otherwise) about the Manosphere and Red Pill wisdom as it relates to attraction and dating. I’ve already done one lengthy interview so if anyone is curious about my voice and interview style, it’s available here.

It’s extremely important to know that I am not a spokesman for the ‘sphere, I am simply a participant in it. I will never claim to be a spokesman.

Through direct experience, I know exactly how the mainstream media works so I have four non-negotiable conditions:

1. Audio or email interviews only. Again, this is about dealing with ideas, not individuals. A video interview can be edited to make anyone on the receiving end of the interview look awful or crazy. Also, video can be used to easily create the ad hominem logical fallacy: “Oh, he’s bald and has brown eyes, he must be full of shit!”

2. Mutual recording/emailing. All interviews, regardless of format, will be recorded by me in its entirety without editing. I will then post that entire interview on my blogs or somewhere so the listener or reader can know how much editing was done. This includes “pre-interviews” and any email correspondence leading up to an interview.

3. The subjects of attraction and dating only. I don’t do politics anymore. I won’t talk about politics. I won’t even talk about social issues that are unrelated to the attraction and dating issues. Also, I’m the worst person to be talking about committed, intimate relationships.

4. Nothing too personal. This is about ideas, not the individuals who discuss those ideas. If I bring up something personal, then the interviewer can ask about it for the purposes of clarification. I reserve the right to say “this is beyond the scope of this discussion”.

Having such conditions will certainly limit the number of interviews I might get. I understand the consequences of my actions in this regard.

Despite these restrictions, I do give good interview. Of course, the MSM is looking for a raving crackpot to boost clicks and ratings. That ain’t me. I’ll substitute ravings with thoughtful discussion and a very healthy dose of humor. I’ve even been accused of being “down to earth”. Oh, the horror!

As well, this invitation goes out to other Manosphere bloggers and writers. Focusing just on attraction and dating yields a wealth of interesting potential subjects to discuss: Dating 2.0, the nature of attraction, re-entering the dating marketplace after divorce, natural gender behaviors, etc. Such discussions can be very informative.

This is a risk. I’ll likely catch some crap for being a big ol’ attention whore. I’ll also get excoriated by the mainstream media for my connection to the more visceral elements of the Manosphere. I don’t simply don’t care. Other priorities have my full attention.

To reach me: emailtheprivateman at gmail. Or, simply make a comment on this blog post. All comments go into moderation so I can read the comment and don’t have to make it public. This could get interesting.

Dating Advice Gone Bad

I usually don’t criticize dating coaches directly. I support all successful dating coaches because they are performing a valuable social function, especially in regards to educating their clients about the essential truths regarding attraction and dating. A successful dating coach is an excellent counter-balance to the vast amounts of politically correct (and damaging) dating advice that permeates the media and Internet like a lethal virus.

Through the miracle of Twitter, I was alerted to the most recent blog post from Miss Solomon and her dating coach business, “The Dating Truth”. The title of the blog post says it all, “WE SHOULD ALL BE FEMINISTS IN DATING”. Her full post is here. Overall, the blog post is rather disjointed. The lengthy quote in the beginning of Miss Solomon’s blog post is simply feel-good stuff with the purpose of making the female readers, well, feel good. You go, grrl! It has little to do with the reality of attraction and dating.

For the rest of her blog post, my comments are in boldface. I’m keeping my tone as reasonable as possible because I’m sure Miss Solomon means well, she’s simply lost her focus on this one post because many of her other blog posts are truthful and reasonable.

In dating, women are incredibly apologetic. We’re sorry when we react emotionally, we’re ashamed when we’re single at a certain age and we compete for men who let us humiliate ourselves in the name of love.

There’s nothing wrong with being apologetic. That’s a sign of humility, a wonderfully attractive feminine characteristic. Sometimes, women do get too emotional and apologies are important. Practicing emotional self-control is the best tactic. Emotional self-control is the hallmark of a mature adult. Finally, women do compete for the most attractive men. This is a firm reality of Dating 2.0 and the nature of attraction. Not liking that is like not liking the sun rising in the East.

Why?

Women don’t see themselves as equal to men in dating. We have conditioned ourselves to believe that we are chosen by men and we have to do everything we can to be “his choice” and when we’re not we find ways to apologize to the world for it.

Women and men are so different that equality in the context of dating is pointless, frustrating, and self-defeating. There is no “conditioning” The attractive men certainly do the choosing in regards to relationship commitment. Men are the gatekeepers of commitment. This is biology. This is DNA. This is not “conditioning”.

Adding a little feminism in dating isn’t about the woman paying for the date. It doesn’t mean women should ask men out more often or have sex casually. Being a feminist in your love life means giving both sexes the right to want and participate in a loving relationship.

Miss Solomon needs to dial down the hypocrisy. She demands equality in one breath and then appeals to natural gender behaviors in the next breath. She must pick one. Men will find that consistency quite appealing. Better still, men will happily pay for the first few simple dates if the woman understands and embraces her femininity (call the PC police!).

Miss Solomon can either embrace feminism or repudiate it. Given that she is a business-person and her capitalistic endeavors are based on the profit-motive, she must repudiate (diplomatically) feminism. If not, she can write for XOJane and wallow in the filth of that website’s political correctness. That won’t be so good for business.

Start to view a man as a partner and not the master of your marital destiny. It’s not the complete responsibility of the woman to be good enough, or make the relationship work or to compromise more.

Let’s be honest, men are the deciders, the selectors, the choosers when it comes to relationship commitment. With that in mind, it is the woman’s responsibility to be good enough. It is she who must bring something to the dating and relationship table if she wants to fulfill her relationship goals. This becomes more and more important as men and women age.

I understand the nature of marketing. Every dating coach and PUA “systems” dude has to deal with it. This is why I cut a lot of slack regarding those marketing messages: “Three simple tricks to [make him commit… three simple tricks to get her into your bed]” I have signed up for many email marketing campaigns and such messages are common. This is business, nothing more.

I do hope that Miss Solomon is successful and that her blog post was an unfortunate exception. She has a business and she is financially bound to give successful attraction and dating advice. She might not like it. Her clients will not like it… but the truth always wins out.

From A Reader

I sometimes get amazing correspondence from my readers. Here is something from a woman about the nature of women. I’ve done some minor editing to make it a bit more readable.

I’m unfamiliar with this site. But the page on domineering women struck a nerve. As a battle-scarred woman, let me tell you about the three most domineering women I’ve ever known. I’m talking the ultimate, supreme, unrivaled, gold standards. Two of whom I’ve known since youth. The third I worked with for just two years but who scarred me badly.

The first two are rough, crude, battle-axe types who are so insufferable they eventually drive away everyone, including their husbands, who were so fed up that they both got out of control sexually and had numerous affairs (think Bill Clinton and his battle-axe). Now each of the women are raising three kids on their own. They have mostly themselves to blame.

The third was most dangerous. Unlike the others, she is well educated, refined, sophisticated, and who came across as lady-like. Upon first meeting her, no one would ever suspect that they were looking into the eyes of a lying, scheming, domineering, manipulative, self-serving, back-stabbing, greedy little witch. One who got ahead by shamelessly undermining those around her, one by one: male, female, young, old, higher ups and support staff alike. Sometimes it was subtle. Other times she would throw tantrums and tattle on people.

Perhaps, tellingly, the one she treated most viciously and unfairly was a beautiful young blonde woman. For the existence of beautiful women (as opposed to her plain Jane self) was an affront to her smug sense of superiority. That she would never consider herself dishonest or unethical was most outrageous. Everyone else she expected to toe the line. Otherwise she would nail them and squash them like a bug. If this were the behavior of a soap opera villainess it would be amusing. But in reality it’s truly disturbing.

Years later I actually saw her on the tv news, in a segment on working women with stay-at-home husbands. Not a surprise given that a) she’s narcissistic enough to seek publicity; and b) the poor shmuck is now totally under her control. Let’s see how long he lasts.

In conclusion, for me it took time, experience, and helpful insights by good folk like those on this site to piece it all together and see behind the curtain. God bless us everyone.

Weekend Weirdness – Pomeranian Edition

I’m dog-sitting for a week or so. My friend, Brenda, left behind these two Pomeranian dogs for me and Lucy to watch over while she ventures North to do some business at a Christmas gift show up in Virginia. So what the hell am I supposed to do with a couple of Pomeranian dogs?!

Lucy does look bewildered by the whole thing. Thunder is on her right. Lightning is on her left. Hey, I didn’t name the things!