Monday, July 21, 2014

Why Blue Pill Dating Advice For Men Sucks Scissors

The other Sex Nerd, Dr.Emily Nagoski has been informing the dateless male public the proper Blue Pill/Feminist-approved ways for men to approach women and, as you will see, her advice is designed to be ineffective and failure-driven.  Worse, in the name of combating "male sexual entitlement" it turns the entire process of flirtation and seduction into psychotic train-wreck of masculine humiliation.


Let's start with her posting on how to pay women compliments, presumably about her body, as a means of approach.  She uses the Facebook-delivered example of a dude who plays some Rude Boy Game by slapping at a woman's shoe on the train before complimenting her, then calling her on her irritation.  While most Red Pill dudes will see this as a bold and rough opening that will a) get him remembered and b) definitely start a conversation, Emily's delicate sensibilities were offended by his presumption.  Her position was that a man should not start a conversation with a compliment on a woman's appearance before first complimenting her on her personality and/or other attributes, and that NO compliment should be forthcoming unless that man was in a socially acceptable position to also tickle her (with her consent).

This is why feminist men don't get laid, and why Gammas and Deltas turn bitter.


Blue Pill dating advice is almost an oxymoron.  According to Emily's attempt to "help guys out", the primary consideration any man should have in an approach situation is the fact that every woman he meets is a neurotic body-phobic mess of insecurities that should be catered to at all times, lest he be labeled an Asshole and tarnished for all time.

This non-approach method of approach is basically telling men NOT "you aren't entitled to women's bodies", as Emily suggests, however; it's telling them "you aren't entitled to your own expression of sexuality because it is inherently offensive".  With that kind of foundation to begin upon, is it any wonder that the liberal and progressive young males out there are ending up with their own neurotic, scalzied insecurities about their sexuality?

Under feminism, there is NO authentic way for a man to approach a woman for a date without it being inherently offensive.  If a man follows Emily's advice then he is to check his libido and his masculine boldness at the door in deference to delicate feminine sensibilities - which screams GENDER ROLES.  While the sneaker-slapping Rude Boy Game might turn this anonymous dude into an internet meme for a few moments, when viewed with the Red Pill eye you can clearly see that while his approach failed, the blow-back for him is actually quite minimum.  Sure, he's an anonymous asshole online, but Emily ignores two fundamental truths about human mating in the age of Combat Dating:

1) Women are Fungible - he may have not successfully approached this particular woman, but consistently playing Rude Boy game will inevitably pay off with a sexual success because Emily ALSO ignores the fact that

2) Women respond to Rude Boy Game far more than they ever want to admit.  And they respond a LOT more positively to it, on average, than the standard Gammarabbit "game" of obsequious deference. The whole "chicks dig assholes" meme is regularly discounted by both feminists and Gammarabbits as patently untrue, yet any objective consideration of the data reveals that yes, indeed, in aggregate "chicks dig assholes".


Emily's advice isn't designed to improve a man's success with women.  It's designed to make rejecting men easier and more comfortable for women.  While that's just dandy for all the delicate wisps of silk and fluff who get offended if a man DARES compliment her sneakers, it doesn't help men at all.  Indeed, in closing Emily gives these two "rules" of Blue Pill approach advice to men that basically say "Don't Approach":


Talk about something substantive. Something you have in common. Something that clearly gives you a reason for talking to her other than the fact that you want to talk to her. 
Which, alas, means that very often there will be no reason for you to talk to someone you want to talk to, and therefore you don't talk to her. 
Sorry. 
Two more guidelines: 
(1) You can say something positive about a person's body or belongings ONLY AFTER you've said something positive about their personalities, their knowledge, or other attributes that you can only know about by, like, having a conversation with them. That means that a compliment about a person's body or belongings is never how you START a conversation.

(2) And if she's wearing headphones, she's saying, "I'm really hoping no one talks to me." In that case, the way to be the guy she likes most on that train or bus or elevator or in that coffee shop is to be the guy who DOESN'T approach her.

"Sorry", she says.

This isn't helpful to men in the slightest.  It's a recipe for catering to feminine insecurity in the public sphere.  While men are not entitled to sex or women's bodies, they are entitled to express their masculine sexuality in a socially-approved manner that does not violate the law or common sensibilities on the subject.  Noticing a woman's shoes is utterly acceptable, as is calling it to her attention.  Her reaction to the approach was instructive: she rejected, and demonstrated a lack of femininity and social graces in her response that gives the gentleman some indication of the quality of woman he was dealing with.

Emily continues the madness by conducting an unscientific internet survey designed to allow women to explain all the ways they prefer to pre-reject men, and then draws the following conclusions from the results:

BLUE PILL DATING ADVICE: 
Lesson #1 is: Touching a woman you don't know well is a great way to squick her out. 
Conclusion: You really, seriously, genuinely, absolutely, positively MUST GET PERMISSION before you touch.The permission doesn't always have to be verbal, but it always has come BEFORE the touching. When there is uncertainty or ambiguity, ask explicitly or else don't do it.
This is, of course, seriously, genuinely, absolutely, positively going to get you labeled as UNEXCITING TIMID GAMMA RABBIT who fails their initial worthiness test.  Follow this advice and the only women you will get are the ones you don't want.  Any woman whose insecurities about her body are this tightly-wound is highly unlikely to be a worthwhile pursuit for love or sport, and if she squicks that easily then throw her back.  This also points out how Blue Pill/Feminist-approved dating advice for men is designed to get men to REJECT THEMSELVES BEFORE THEY EVEN APPROACH.  Hardly the "help" most men need.
Red Pill Dating Advice:
Lesson #1 is:  Casually touching a woman in a non-sexual way during approach is an acceptable risk; while it may squick her out, it also helps determine her level of emotional and mental security and stability.  Likewise, approaching a woman with a compliment on her physical appearance may run the risk of squicking her out, but that is also an acceptable risk.  The cost-benefit analysis implicit in initial approach is designed to investigate the quality of the woman in question, and a woman whose insides "curdle in repulsion" to a genuine and sincerely-delivered compliment from any man and demonstrates that in her response is indicates poor potential for any kind of relationship, not to mention a profound lack of social grace.  MOVE ON.  You can do better.
It's hard to imagine a professional sex educator doing this much of a disservice to the male sex, but that's feminism's way.  Masculine sexuality is a beast to be feared, not contended with, and the more frightened they can make men of their own sexuality (and convince them to feel guilt and shame about it) the more men can be used to facilitate feminine imperatives, not pursue masculine ones.  

In other words, in the dating realm the reality is that

It Doesn't Matter What Women Like, Don't Like, Or Say They Like And Don't Like; The Only Thing That Matters Is What Women Respond To.

And that's why feminists suck at giving men dating advice.  

Friday, July 18, 2014

Proven Low-Cost Masculine Self-Improvement

I get a lot of mail from men who are desperately looking for a way to Alpha-up, break their beta, and submerge themselves in the sweet balm of masculine culture . . . but have no freakin' way how to get there.

That's understandable.  After forty-plus years of denigrating everything of masculine value, the institutions that once provided the stable and reasonable introductions into the world of masculinity have been tarnished, bruised, and battered in our society.  Even seeking out a place to cultivate your masculinity will make you the object of derision and scorn among the women and gammas in your life.  Tell a feminist you want to go someplace and learn how to be more manly, and you might as well tell her you're signing up for an "Intro To Patriarchal Oppression And Rape Culture" class.  Our culture has derided the traditional masculine to the point where manhood itself has become a tired old joke in our popular culture.  I don't need to tell you this stuff.  You see it all the time.

But what if I told you that there was an organization of men who specialized in the cultivation of masculine virtues?  What if I told you that there was a society dedicated to the improvement of men by adherence to masculine virtues, not mere pick-up lines or metrosexuality?  Where competence and the ambition to learn were valued over social status and SMV?  Where achievement and accomplishment were not just acknowledged, but were celebrated and lauded as they should be?  What if I told you that there was an organization that values the contributions your masculinity can make without reproving you for your sexism, your desire for order, or your dedication to masculine ideals?

I know of such a society.

When I talk to men about cultivating their masculinity they despair of not having a good group of male friends.  Of not having the opportunities to explore their character through challenge and trial.  I see men who desperately want the discipline and the camaraderie of male society, who crave the opportunity to contribute their own talents and resources and be recognized for those contributions.  The want a place where they can go and be men without recourse to a locker room or basic infantry training. A place who will accept them for who they are, and help them grow into who they want to be.

I know of such a place.

The Boy Scouts of America.


Scouting has taken a lot of heat from liberal and progressive factions over its stance on homosexuality.  While it is now permissible for Scouts to be gay, there is still a ban on openly gay leaders.  There are many complicated reasons for this - gay Scout leaders do now exist and have served with distinction and honor for decades in Scouts - but because of the number of religious conservatives and the perceived liability, as well as some cultural issues, openly gay Scout leaders are forbidden by the BSA.  And that little point has been the wedge that progressive feminist organizations have used against the Scouts for years.

But that's not really what bugs them.  What bugs them is that Scouting has been, and is still dominated by men and masculine values.  When men congregate to discuss anything without the benefit of female supervision, the Matrix goes nuts.  The feminist Matrix in particular recoils in open horror, assured that the Patriarchy is conspiring to oppress the wimmins the moment their backs are turned.  When men gather together to discuss how to become better men - which is the fundamental and unchanging focus of the international Scouting movement - feminists freak the fuck out.

The matter of homosexual leadership is just the excuse.  The moment that the ban on gay leaders is lifted, there will be yet-another issue the feminists will level at the Scouts when their current one is no longer valid.  Truthfully, that day cannot come too soon - not only is this a minor issue for most groups, but it would be nice if gay Scout leaders didn't have to hide.  For the most part they have no "gay agenda" beyond raising their sons to be good men.  Using homosexuality as a wedge to divide men against each other does a disservice to us all.

But if you're looking for a place to freebase masculinity, you can't ask for better without joining the French Foreign Legion. Just look at the Scout Law to see the bedrock masculine values that Scouting teaches:

A Scout Is

Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent




There is not a single thing there that conflicts with the Red Pill praxeology.  Indeed, it is a celebration of masculine values unsullied by feminism.

Boy Scouting began a hundred years ago on Brownsea Island, in southern England, the product of Lord Baden-Powell's vision.  He was a soldier in the later British Empire who served in Africa, India, and other places in the Empire.  Most notably, he lead a mostly-civilian defense of a town in South Africa against Boer insurgents.  It was during this siege that he employed 11-13 year old boys as "cadets" to handle non-violent military responsibilities that would otherwise use a soldier who could be on the lines.  After the siege he expanded his exploration of youthful participation, writing a few field manuals on military scouting and reconnaissance.  Upon retirement, he discovered his military books were enjoying huge popularity in British schools when it came to being trained in observation and deductive reasoning.

Seeing the inadequacy of the quality of manpower the British Empire was dealing with (a by-product of the industrialization of England) Baden-Powell decided to do something about it.  He re-wrote his books on scouting as Scouting For Boys, and laid the foundations of the Scouting movement with a camp-out at a small off-shore island in the English Channel.  He took twenty boys from various socio-economic backgrounds, took them camping, taught them knots and other useful stuff, and generally began a tradition of male self-improvement that has influenced millions of men today.

Scouting is perhaps the best, easiest, and most cost-effective route to self-improvement in which a man or boy can enlist.  It distills the patriotism and discipline from the military - long the essence of male-oriented organizational culture - and removes the violent component, leaving just the plethora of skills and the path to achievement.  Scouting organization is replete with ranks and levels of achievement.  No one ever got an Eagle for "participation".

That's one of the feminists' issues with Boy Scouts: they encourage actual achievement, not artificial self-esteem.  If you want the 50-mile hike badge, you have to hike 50 miles.  You don't get a patch to celebrate your ability to show up and eat pizza.  The Scouting program is designed to challenge and encourage a boy to be the best man he can be, not feel good about himself for no particular reason.  Scouting carries the essence of masculine values in its basic tenants, and reinforces them through masculine-oriented rituals.  There is no equality, no equity, no consensus.  There is a Program, and there is accountability.

While you may have missed Scouting in your own youth (if you're over 18, there's no way you can make Eagle), the fact is that the culture and the environment of Scouting is perhaps even more beneficial to grown men.  Scouting is always looking for good, responsible, committed leaders, and there's no rule that says you have to have a son to participate.  Indeed, in our troop we go out of our way to include men in our community who might not have a child themselves, but still have something to contribute.  Anyone who can pass a criminal background screen and takes the Child Protection course is welcome.

You might be asking yourself, "how can I help a bunch of 12 year-olds become men when I'm not sure how to do it myself?"  Scouting offers plenty of training (the Wood Badge course is legendary for corporate leadership training) and the fact is that once you have to start breaking down basic masculine skills to a youth, you learn them better yourself.  By being responsible for someone else's struggle with achievement and education you gain significant confidence and esteem yourself.  Really.

Nor does the emphasis on basic scouting skills deter from the larger education the boys - and the men who lead them - gain from the experience.  Sure, you might not need to know how to tie a bowline in an emergency situation, but the security and confidence you gain from just possessing that knowledge can't be purchased at a weekend seminar.  Scouting deals with all manner of achievement and skills, not just the woodsy outdoorsy stuff.  Learning how to speak in public, learning how to lead, follow, organize, plan, execute, and follow-through is key to success, as you will learn.  And the very act of mentoring a group of boys eager for decisive, knowledgeable leadership forces you to improve yourself so that you do not disappoint their expectations.

You want a workout?  Strap on a 60 lb. backpack and lead a bunch of testosterone-poisoned teens on a rugged ten-mile trek through the wilderness.  Iron is great, in its place, but the kind of robust, constant-workout you get by camping can't be beat.  And Scouting's High Adventure component is like masculinity on steroids.  No one who has returned from Philmont Scout Reserve in New Mexico has done so unchanged. A new Scout reservation is just opening in the East, north of Beckley, West Virginia, that promises to provide even greater opportunities for the men of our nation. It's like the biggest Man Cave in the world, complete with ziplines, STEM center, white water rafting and BMX park.


But if you are looking for a low-cost way of improving yourself, a tried-and-tested method of masculine empowerment, a crash course in basic maleness, you can't beat Scouting for the experience.  Sign up to be a merit badge counselor or committee member at first.  Scouting is great at taking advantage of volunteer talents - if you can't handle camping, there's plenty of other stuff for you to do.  But nothing improves your own masculine self-image more than helping a boy recognize his own.  There is nothing more Alpha than helping a boy become the best man he can be.

This would be a great place for any former or current Scouts to detail how Scouting positively informed the men they are today.  You want a quick way to break your Beta and re-introduce masculinity into your life, Scouting is your best bet.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

When The Review Is Better Than The Book

I haven't spoken much about the success of my 2012 book The Manosphere: A New Hope For Masculinity.  Commercially, it's been moderately positive.  Critically, it took an early but well-reasoned hit from Matt Forney, who called it a noble failure.  I copped to his legitimate concerns - the book is flawed in execution, I freely admit.  Real Soon Now I will be publishing an update or new edition, whenever I find the time.  A lot has happened in the Manopshere since that book came out, and it needs to be covered.

But occasionally something comes up that brings me back to that "noble failure", like an Amazon reviewer who appreciated the book in concept and what it was trying to explain.  When this review came up on the site I was gratified by the reviewer's insights.  It would have made an excellent forward to the book.  So I'm going to present it in full, here, because I'm lazy and I think that the observations about the culture he makes are well worth the space to repeat.

(BTW, I'm not doing this to amp up book sales.  But I'll see about putting the beast on sale soon, just for giggles.)

4.0 out of 5 stars An illuminating and potentially empowering tour of male subcultures, June 30, 2014
By Ben Hourigan, author "Ben Hourigan" (Melbourne, Australia) 

This review is from: The Manosphere: A New Hope For Masculinity (Kindle Edition)

After failing to be interested in it at university, I’ve been discussing gender politics with friends online since early 2013. Check out the “gender” category on my blog (benhourigan.com) for some examples. To sum up, I find much of contemporary ‘feminist’ discourse sexist, poorly reasoned, censorious, and contemptuous of the facts—a discredit to the name and to the people who rally behind it.

When I disagree with a thing, I make sure I do my research, and in the past twelve months I’ve read rather a lot in a feminist vein and in opposition. Ian Ironwood’s The Manosphere! A New Hope for Masculinity falls into the latter category.

Agree with them or not, contrarian thinkers often seem fresher and are more fascinating than adherents to the current orthodoxy. “The manosphere” is an after-the-fact grouping of a range of men’s subcultures, from those of men’s rights activists (MRAs) and pick-up artists (PUAs) to gay men attempting to create a masculine identity amid a culture that expects their feminization. I first came into contact with the term through a friend with an interest in the broader ideological movement called “neoreaction”—which some consider the manosphere to be a part of.

Writing in the manosphere is often unruly, raw, and confrontational, even downright offensive. This is not the realm of New York and London big-5 publishing, but of group blogs and self-published e-books. I hope we are beginning to move on from disdaining such work: as it was back in the mid-2000s when I was a videogames researcher, many writers with the best feel or most interesting take on the available material are doing their work outside of big-name journals, sites, newspapers, and publishing houses.

The rise of independent publishing helps the emergence of such movements and writers, giving them retail exposure without a publisher as gatekeeper and intermediary. As thriller novelist Michael MacConnell writes, there is an indentifiable left-wing bias among writers on average. It is tempting to speculate that this is entrenched by the ability of left-biased publishing-house staff to deny authors who do not share their prejudices access to the channels they control.

Ironwood’s is a self-published book, and its rawness comes in the form of several repeatedly misused words, and a range of other not-too-prevalent mistakes. I’ve come to accept this sort of thing as part of the indie publishing landscape, provided that it doesn’t compromise readability—and this is by no means unreadable or poorly written. Further rawness comes from its sources: the aforementioned blogs and e-books rather than academic journals and the canonical texts of gender politics. Ironwood also anticipates that readers of a feminist bent will take offense to the material, and makes little apology for that.

The book is less Ironwood’s own statement, though, than it is a summary of the different subcultures within the movement, the bloggers that represent them, and the ideas that they hold. Here we see MRAs and PUAs covered, as well as Christian conservatives, “old married guys” (OMGs), alpha dads, puerarchs, and “men going their own way” (MGTOW). All of these are identified as part of “red pill” culture. The term is taken from the original Matrix movie, and here signifies a willingness to accept and act on the basis of uncomfortable truths rather than the myths of a politically correct orthodoxy, which are intended to subdue you.

Such “truths,” in the manosphere, tend towards:

* ideas from evolutionary biology
* a belief that men and women are different by nature as well as nurture
* skeptical views of the claim that we live in a patriarchy, that men possess male privilege, and of claims about sexual assault incidence that hinge on a redefinition of “rape” and surveys where the researcher, not the subject, decides whether they have been victimized
* observations that women are attracted by displays and exercises of male dominance in and out of the bedroom, including the accumulation and dispersal of wealth, and the exercise of physical strength

Dismiss all this as misogyny if you like, hopefully with an awareness that the word now means “counter to feminist orthodoxy” more often than it refers to genuine hatred or denigration. That dismissal is so predictable it can be taken as given. What’s more interesting here are some of the other discoveries to be made:

* The manosphere includes gay men trying to recover their masculinity from a feminized culture.
* Lots of manosphere talk is about good health and eating, career planning, the benefits of travel, self-employment, and education, valorizing blue-collar work, and trying to stay happily married.
* “Men going their own way” are about recovering their independence not only from a culture that sees their primary value as being their ability to support women and serve their interests, but also from the institutions where they are expected to seek employment, and the consumer culture where they are expected to spend what they earn at the office or factory.

Let’s sum this up as simply as we can: the manosphere is about men being comfortable with their own gender identity and sexuality while pursuing good health, prosperity, and independence.

Given this, it’s somewhat inevitable that manospherians spend time criticizing feminism and feminists, which feminist commentators accuse them of spending too much time on. Why? Because manospherians’ view of feminism is that it means women serve their own interests while men also serve women’s interests.

I’m in broad agreement with this, and also in broad agreement with earlier strains of feminism. Health, independence, and a positive view of one’s own sexual identity are important for human wellbeing. Feminism’s claim is that women have been denied these goods, and it has sought to recover them for women.

The problem is, much contemporary gender feminism attempts to recover these goods while denying them to men—particularly the assertion of a positive sexual identity. Just one loathsome example of contemporary comment, written by a man, insists that modern men are trained to hate women. Really? I never was, and I never did.

In fact, I have since childhood been exceptionally comfortable with women and interested in them as people, and regarded them as my equals, a situation I’ve viewed as totally compatible with my interest in them as sexual partners. Precisely because of this, and the apparent necessity of mentioning it in my defence, the repeated insistence that, I and my male peers must in some way hate and fear women, be oppressing them, or be constantly enjoying a privilege that we are obliged to apologize for, has made me decreasingly sympathetic to contemporary feminism and calls for attention to women’s interests.

Magnify that for confirmed manospherians. Against a feminism that pursues specifically female interests to the exclusion and detriment of men’s interests, the manosphere’s subcultures raise their banner: “we are men pursuing our own interests and valorizing our own sexual identity.” And they will pursue those interests against the interests or claims of women if necessary.

If feminism is reasonable in calling for female self-determination, it then seems reasonable that men might attempt to do the same.

Though I don’t recall that Ironwood says this explicitly, one of the tantalizing offers that the manosphere makes to men is this:

"Men don’t have to do what women want them to do. Or, for that matter, what anyone else wants them to do."

And not only can you do what you want, but, so the red pill observation goes, you will get laid more if you do, because women are attracted to assertive men who are in control of their own lives and don’t submit excessively to external demands or goals that others have set. And not only that, but it’s fine to view getting laid more as a goal. It looks like that’s what male sexuality is about, and it’s fine to be a man.

In the manospherian view, men don’t have to:

* be feminists or feminist allies
* crusade any further for sexual equality
* wash the dishes using the exact method that their wives or girlfriends or mothers-in-law prefer to see them use when they are looking over their shoulders (yes, this happened to me—it was a mother-in-law)
* wonder if they are rapists because the willing girl who came home with them was tipsy when they went to bed, or because they hadn’t filled out a consent form, or if they are sexual assault victims because they really wanted to sleep but had sex with their insistent girlfriend instead (yep, that’s sexual assault according to some survey methodologies)
* commit to a relationship and have or support children
* pander to a culture of discourse that views emotivism, faulty logic and rhetoric, personal attacks, and unwarranted extrapolations of personal experience as a praiseworthy counterpoint to the supposed masculine use of reason as a tool of oppression

Through his survey of the manosphere’s subcultures, Ironwood repeatedly gave me this kind of lightbulb-over-the-head moment where I understood that there is actually no deep moral or rational obligation for me to be on-board with the contemporary gender-feminist project, or to make apologies for my sex, sexuality, or rationality.

This should all sound hauntingly familiar: it is a mirror of some feminist outlooks. And it should be viewed as perfectly logical and defensible that, in a world where women make these assertions, men will make them, too. If we don’t like what is in the mirror, we should also look critically at what it is reflecting. In contemporary feminist and masculinist culture, there is a lack of concern for the other, and for society at large, that some (myself included) may find disconcerting.

Similar in this regard to Neil Strauss’s The Game, Ironwood’s book is an illuminating tour of male subcultures, albeit with an identity-political bent. It will fascinate most, offend many, and empower others.

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Why Feminists Won't Surrender The War On Marriage

When the dichotomy between ideology and cold hard fact is just too great to ignore, it can create some interesting observations.  When Martin Luther nailed his 95 Thesis on the door of a church it outlined some of the stark and ironic contradictions between the ideology of the RCC and the practice.  While it's no 95 Thesis, this little gem from Forbes proves that the irony of feminists fighting against marriage for the good of women is just too delicious for even a feminist to miss.

Entitled "Dear Feminists: In The Name Of Fighting Poverty, Can We Call A Truce About Marriage?" writer Carrie Sheffield defends the institution of matrimony not on ideological, religious, or moral grounds, but statistically.  Citing several figures that show that marriage improves women's lives as both wives and daughters, Ms. Sheffield takes 3rd Wavers-and-beyond to task over their wholesale condemnation of marriage as a plot of Teh Patriarchy.

Ms. Sheffield correctly identifies several key points about how single mother families are dragging us down economically and socially, and she calls out key factos like globalization and the social acceptability of illegitimate children as culprits. She quotes stats aplenty when it comes to why the traditional two-parent household is superior to the one-mommy-and-Uncle-Sam model.  And she does, indeed, chew out feminism in general for smacking marriage around.

But in doing so she's ignoring some other pretty fundamental factors in the equation.  The fact that we don't properly educate young women on the pragmatic reproductive choices they will face, for example, or our young men on the folly of young parenting without marriage.  She wants feminism to put unwed mothers "in their crosshairs", but she's unwilling to follow the logic down the rabbit hole from where that leads.  She's placing all the pressure on feminism, thankfully, instead of blaming the "victim" of the young man whose reproductive future was coerced, but she doesn't address feminism's essentially anti-male basis for its anti-
marriage message.

Ms. Sheffield also sees this as a class issue - but doesn't identify the harmful marxesque ideology ("man as eternal oppressor", regardless of class) that underpins and informs feminism's perspective on marriage.  She proposes feminism "lay off" the topic of marriage, but doesn't say anything helpful about it laying off the general misandry that motivates feminism in the first place.  At best, she says "marriage is good for women and children", and brazenly leaves men sitting, unsurprisingly, by the side of the road.

I suppose that's par for the feminist course.  Identifying a real and valid method of improving the lives of women at risk for poverty sounds like it would be something feminism would be all over - but to do so they would have to abandon the victim mentality, the uber-rationalization that single moms are "men's fault", and then open up a rational and cogent discussion about the subject with actual men.

That's going to be problematic.  Men are generally soured on marriage in our culture for good reason, and marriage to feminists is just masochistic.  The social incentives available under agricultural culture and early  industrialization evaporated with the rise of the welfare state and liberalized divorce law. There just is no compelling reason for men to get married any more (saving women who have made demonstrably poor choices doesn't cut it) and that fact alone should shine brightly through any article about marriage and feminism.  I know guys who would be thrilled to be husbands to some decent woman, but who are so brow-beaten and terrified of divorce that they won't even consider it.  Hypergamy is an existential threat to a man considering a commitment.  Promises of better health and longevity do not compare to the apparent sacrifices and personal risks a man makes when he extends that commitment to a woman.

The feminist version of "marriage" implies no permanent commitment, no surety of a man raising or even seeing the offspring he is financially responsible for, and a permanent resignation of control over the family to his wife under pain of dissolution.  There is no respect, here.  There is no appreciation for the masculine contributions to the institution.  Indeed, they are regularly denigrated and bashed, as are the husbands who contribute them.  Feminist "marriage" is a transitory, temporary thing designed to fail and - in the process - humiliate and emasculate the husband.

He exists within the bonds of feminist marriage as a provider and protector, the "good" elements of marriage that feminism wants to keep, but is denied the respect and admiration a husband should receive (that would be a betrayal of the sisterhood) and he is vociferously forbidden from the patronizing, paternalistic, patriarchical practice of expecting sex from his wife and having full parental rights over his children.

For the feminist husband, marriage is an elaborate shit test he can never win, an invitation to hypergamy and divorce.  The more obsequiously he praises and defers to his wife, the lower in status he descends among his male peers and the less attractive he is to his wife.  Any opportunities for displaying his value as a man are mitigated or destroyed by his basic posture, and undermined by a preconception of masculine values as negative.

So why, then, would a man be drawn toward a situation which clearly doesn't have his interest in mind?

Marriage is a very particular institution, and feminism's attempt to re-write the nature of the beast have been disastrous for men.

Ms. Sheffield needs to realize that feminism won't let up on marriage because it cannot.  To do so would betray the ideology that is the foundation of feminism, and more pragmatically it would force feminists, and women in general, to begin to talk to men, not at them.  They can't do that because they are afraid: afraid that they will be held accountable for their past misandry, afraid that they will have wasted the time and energy invested in that misandry, and (worst yet) they would have to admit that the enemy, Teh Patriarchy, for the last 40 years or so.
maybe wasn't quite so bad as they made it out to be

Feminism can't support marriage, because then it would have to face the inconvenient truths about human sexuality, marriage, divorce, hypergamy, and other gendered issues that keep us from being "equal".  Further, feminism can't support marriage for the rank-and-file working class single mom because to do so would, indeed, make the lives of those women better . . . and happy women make lousy feminists.  Irate, sleep-deprived single moms who can't get a date are great feminists.  Happy, fulfilled wives and mothers who can manage themselves in a real cishetero long term relationship are lousy feminists, even to other feminists.  When outrage and anger are the coin of the realm, actually expecting an ideology to encourage people to be happier by compromising their ideals is futile.

So good luck, Ms. Sheffield, but understand that convincing women that they need to marry after you have spent two generations telling them that they are better off without - and that they do not need - a man has poisoned the well irreparably.  As men we're not inclined to go into a relationship where we are not "needed".  Modern technology and economics has made it possible for us to live comfortably and inexpensively with all the wonders of the world a click away, nearly all the comforts of a traditional home without the intense time and money investment required to sustain that traditional home.

More importantly, it can all be done without a wife . . . and until women can overcome feminism's war on wives, husbands, and marriage in general, millions of men are and will be content to live their lives without marriage.  And if that somehow hurts single women and single moms, then that's a reflection on feminism, not on the men who refuse to go against their own best interests.

Friday, June 27, 2014

Why Male Birth Control Will Change Everything

Everyone knows what the female birth control pill did to our society, and while everyone also knows that reliable male contraception would be a boon, the general effectiveness of condoms and the difficulty in regulating male fertility at the hormonal level without also impairing male sexual function has made "The Male Pill" an elusive goal.  Pharma companies are interested, of course - considering their profits on female birth control, opening up a huge market for exploitation on a monthly basis is just too good to pass up.


But the best proposed method for reliable male birth control isn't a hormone-based therapy.  It's a minor surgical intervention that renders the patient effectively sterile for a ten-year period of time. RISUG, or Vasagel, has proven effective and safe in initial clinical trials in India.

Because it's a surgical intervention and not a drug, there isn't much corporate support for the procedure, but its promise has attracted individuals to contribute to the incredible expense of funding FDA testing.  And the promise is fantastic.  Essentially, a microscopic device is injected into the vas deferens, where its crystalline structure effectively shreds the sperm before ejaculation.  After ten years the structure breaks down and the patient returns to normal fertility.  Or the device can be flushed away surgically with another minor procedure.

But for ten solid years you don't have to worry about getting anyone pregnant accidentally.  The power to conceive is under your control, as a man.  You are no longer a potential victim of reproductive coercion.

That's not a term you hear often enough, although the effect is widely known.  When a woman gets pregnant (or pretends to, or convinces herself she is) in order to extract a commitment from a man without his knowledge or permission, that's reproductive coercion.  It's the other side of "using sex as a weapon".  Unfortunately, things rarely work out well for either the man who has been coerced or his off-spring.

In the discussion about sexual violence the issue of reproductive coercion rarely comes up.  The talk begins and usually ends centered on rape and violent sexual assault, acquaintance rape and sexual entitlement.  But the issue of sexual violence is not complete without putting reproductive coercion on the table for discussion.  If rape is morally wrong - and it is - then extorting an unwanted commitment from a man is equally wrong.

It's a Red Pill fact that a goodly portion of marriages are the result of a little blue line on a plastic stick and a True Love rationalization, not the careful vetting and examination they should be.  The status quo tends to run like this: Jack and Jill go off to college, hook up with a bunch of people before getting thrown together for a weekend at the beach, knocking boots out of boredom and opportunity, and six weeks later, after both have moved on, Jill shows up at Jack's dorm with a wet stick and a blue line.  June wedding and married student housing, or perhaps a semester off, if they elect to make a go of it.

Of course it really could be True Love - or boiling hormones - that provides the chemistry that turns that little line blue.  Or it could be a calculated ploy on the part of an ambitious or desperate girl, pure reproductive coercion.  Or it could be a simple mistake that neither of the principals feels ready to contend with, but because of moral obligation or their own youthful optimism they dive in anyway.

Whether inspired by a belief in True Love, a genuine mistake, or a cynical and calculated ploy to secure a given man, the result is the same: a child has been conceived without the father's knowledge or permission.  His conscious right to choose his reproductive future has been usurped.  While it takes two to tango, he is not the one leading the reproductive dance.  A woman is ultimately responsible for what happens to her body, one way or another, and a man is at her mercy at even telling him about the child.  He is not in control of his own reproductive freedom.

So . . . what would happen if he was?

Imagine, for a moment, a world in which a sixteen year old boy went in for his summer camp physical, and while he was getting his vaccinations caught up they took twenty minutes to put his reproductive life on pause.  With no chance of getting anyone pregnant until he was 26, what different kind of future does he face?

Imagine a world where a young man has a leisurely amount of time to cultivate a career, pursue a degree, develop a skill or master a profession, without the looming, lingering danger of unwanted pregnancy.  Imagine the shift in power as the ability for a woman to have a child comes under male review and approval.

The procedure is not expensive - around $1000 - and it appears to be perfectly safe.  If one assumes that any teenage boy with a brain in his head and a future ahead of him would take advantage of such a procedure, then only the very low-status, low-quality males would be casually fertile.  Competition for high-quality males would be extremely high among women, forcing even more competition for the Big C-Commitment of an engagement ring.  When a woman's ability to conceive is reduced to her ability to attract a man who finds her worthy enough to flip the switch and have a baby with her, the rules of the SMP change dramatically.

The "I can always get knocked up by a handsome stranger" fall-back position offers great consolation to women unable to master the intricacies of a heterosexual relationship long enough to have a baby.  Most sexually-active women go out of their way to avoid pregnancy with an essential random, for fear of his real status and the social consequences of reproducing without a reliable mate.  But if the majority of decent dudes are voluntarily sterile, then even that possibility vanishes.  But that would not be the boon to women you might imagine.

As the Wall inevitably approaches, the reproductive instinct, combined with generous contributions from the Rationalization Hamster, allow a given woman to rationalize lowering her standards to take advantage of the large pool of dudes who want a regular piece of ass and possibly a relationship, muddle through with Beta Bucks and start looking around for some Alpha on the side while soon-to-be ex-hubby raises the kids.  That's the status quo for all too many poor Beta dudes who think they've found True Love when what their wives are thinking Starter Husband.  As long as she's got a few good eggs and a willingness to go wild for an unsuspecting Alpha, she has a potential escape hatch and the rationalizations and legal remedies to use it.

But what happens when that option is, for all practical purposes, off the table?  When any hypergamy-inspiring hot Alpha who walks into her life is in control over his own reproductive destiny, the biological escape hatch is closed.  And when she has to ask her husband's permission to have a baby, she has lost the innate power of her feminine reproductive biology.

It goes beyond that, of course.  When the Betas-and-below can effectively control their reproductive freedom, the ability for a woman to secure a reliable provider with her reproductive biology without his consent . . . vanishes. She must rely on her sexuality and her (shudder) personality to convince a given man that she is worthy enough to bear his children. The burden of proving herself falls to her, as mother, not to him, as father and provider.

The result: teenage pregnancy drops, and accidental pregnancies of all types plummet.  Male fertility - a commodity so plentiful it's currently essentially free on the SMP - suddenly has value.  Men of quality get the procedure as a matter of course.  Most of the middle class, naturally.  Any smart boy on his way to college would certainly do it.  Same thing for the military forces - who wouldn't?  No need to worry about pregnancy if you don't have to, right?

And then the power in the SMP shifts.  When women have to compete, really compete for a man's commitment, not just for provision and protection but for access to his genes, then the social pressures change and the idea of commitment becoms a lot more clear-cut.  Marriage becomes re-entwined with reproduction as it becomes clear that a solid marriage is the best guarantee of quality children raised in a reliably stable family.  Men who are able to demonstrate that kind of ability by their late 20s suddenly gain huge capital in the SMP, and they will be quick to re-write the rules of commitment.  Without the potential of "Guess what, honey? You're gonna be a daddy!" looming over them they are free to insist on a far stronger commitment than the drive-by matrimony that persists today.

Of course the Puerarchy explodes with horny young dudes who can't get a girl pregnant, thus obscuring the future good family men from being easily identified in the competition altogether.  When "extended adolescence" means being sterile until you're 26-28, life for a young man becomes one long pussy-party.  Even having a steady girlfriend doesn't mean as much.  The moment she brings up the idea of a serious commitment without the biological bond of a child, the youth in question is forced to look just at her, not at their offspring, when making that decision.  And let's face it, ladies, many of you just won't measure up under that kind of scrutiny.
The process of conception requires his positive approval, not just his passive cooperation.  Without that bullet to dodge, the Puerarch is able to really enjoy his youth in ways that make feminists everywhere shudder.

RISUG gives men the chance to really plan and execute their life's ambitions without concern for premature distractions.  With the smug knowledge that our sexual capital only improves with our age, instead of depreciating like a woman's, such control over our genetic destiny gives men the room to make far more intelligent, informed choices about where and when they want to father children, and with whom.  It puts a premium on the Dad skills and abilities, and makes the stakes in Combat Dating much, much higher for women.  It puts the balance of reproductive power in masculine hands, and increases the competitive drive among women.

Suddenly fatherhood becomes a hot commodity, not a wellspring for sitcom jokes.  A man who has elected to be a dad would first secure his rights and ensure he has made a choice in the mother of his children that he can live with before he has the reversal done.  Without the biologic pressure of unexpected pregnancy, he has the time to vet - and, if necessary, discard - unsuitable mates before they lure him into marriage and divorce.  He also has the time to develop a career and financial standing to support children when he's ready to, not when that cute girl he met in the quad presents him with a freshly-peed-upon stick.  By the time your AFC Beta boy is ready to become a Dad, he'll be in his late 20s, moderately successful, and ready to make some serious decisions about his life - and his choice of wife.

Of course that also frees up his dating life, too.  Without the danger of unexpected pregnancy, he just has the minefield of STDs and batshit crazy to navigate, and that's not nearly as fate-changing, usually, as bringing a kid into the world.  With a modicum of Game knowledge, the Dad-to-be can sow his oats like an Alpha for a decade.  That's likely to make him generally less commitment-happy, and genuinely instruct him on the nature of women.  And that's going to be very frustrating to the Beta-girl who suddenly fines herself desperately
competing for male attention when she wants to be out protesting wage inequality.

And most importantly, it makes responsible fatherhood a valuable commodity.  The worse the Puerarchs behave in their cock-sure shenanigans, the more the stability of a well-seasoned male will be valued by women who want to be mothers.  Watch the age of first marriage climb for men, and over-all marriage rates fall yet lower.

The blowback against feminism would be severe.  When femininity is valued, feminism loses force.  Arguing for a lean-in career path which almost certainly dooms your chances of reproduction loses credibility in the face of observable truths.

Revalorizing marriage and family by re-valuing fatherhood and paternalism - and, yes, Patriarchy - leaves women with stark choices when it comes to their futures. They would either have to commit to a childless future as a corporate drone, dying lonely and covered in cats, or they will play the game that gets them pregnant, by the rules made by those who control the tap.  Feminism will be a hollow ideology.  When men hold their future children hostage to their will, women will reflect more deeply on the whole issue of equality.  And we'll see a lot less emphasis within the Matrix on conquering the corporate world, and more emphasis on escaping it . . . by becoming a wife and mother to a worthy man.




Also, capitulating to popular demand as a test I'm letting folks take a look at a Red Pill Primer for Boys, set up as a Google Presentation.  Here's the intro.  Let me know what you think.



Tuesday, June 24, 2014

The Feminist True Love Hamster


As I've often noted, Feminism and True Love are both mating strategies.  The former relies on social control to reduce competition for the highest valued women by discouraging active mate selection among the rank-and-file.  By reducing the social impetus to permanently mate, otherwise-dangerous competitors devote their most fertile (and attractive) reproductive years to a career, or a string of failed relationships due to their lack of investment.  True Love, on the other hand, promises "Happily Ever After" (HEA) for the woman who relies on traditional feminine allure to seek out the highest-value male she can attract, promising wedded bliss and masculine comfort (tall, broad-shouldered, seethingly Alpha masculine comfort) for ever middle-aged pudgy office manager with a Kindle, on the basis of their imaginary virtue alone.

The two would seem diametrically opposed: the feminist perspective is an ideology which de-emphasizes marriage and family altogether, while the mystical True Love seeks nothing less.  One would assume, based on the ideology, that feminists would eschew romance novels for the context-dependent female pornography they are.  Ditto the celebrity pages, Huffpo's incessantly mindless fawning over fashion, "supernatural romance" and soap operas.  Yet feminist-oriented organs almost inevitably cave to the pressure of HEA, as a guilty-little-secret or as a (utterly rationalized) bit of "feminist empowerment".  When you get past the rhetoric about rape culture, the patriarchy, and misogyny rhetoric, it appears that what hardcore feminists dream of, fantasize about, even obsess about is . . . marriage.

The delicious irony should escape no one.  While feminists play Beat The Beta in the cultural arena, condescendingly blaming regular dudes for everything from wage disparities to sexual assault, their mouths may say More Beta but the secret fire in their loins is only inflamed by Mythical Alphas.  Only the profound power of the Rationalization Hamster can heal this devastating rip in ideological reality.  Only by denying its importance and playing off the inherent element of wish-fulfillment in the genre, near-desperate apologies such as this (from a column entitled "Feminism, Y'all") by blogger  can the Hamster possibly keep heads from exploding.

Don't mistake me: I am not opposed to romance novels.  They fulfill a vital role in feminine sexual psychology, providing data, suggestions, and accessories to the constant demand for context a women gets from the Female Social Matrix.  Just like porn, in the weak-minded they can provide too much data, feeding
deep-seated feelings of entitlement and dooming the viewer/reader to perpetual disappointment with reality.  But for most women they are mere fantasy jilling material, grist for the mill of their imaginative sexuality - despite the never-varying plot/character structure.  Ms. Piepmeier sums up the appeal nicely, but incompletely:

The novels feature female protagonists who initially may seem to fit the stereotype of the helpless woman, but who ultimately save the day — or play a very significant part in saving the day. They have fun plots with twists and turns, controversy and conflict, moments when you hold your breath because it's clear that everything is going to fall apart. But everything doesn't fall apart, because these novels always have happy endings. And the happy endings are crucial for me.

Ms. Piepmeier doesn't mention the fact that the "happy ending" invariably involves (expressed or implied) permanent commitment for the plucky heroine with her perfect-but-flawed Mr. Right.  In other words, Marriage.  Feminism's sworn enemy.

Rationalization Hamster to the rescue!  Indeed, Ms. Piepmeir not only dismisses the rational disconnect, she enlists the aid of other apologists to lend weight to her rationalization:

Conseula Francis, a professor of English and African-American Studies at the College of Charleston, studies romance novels. "Here's why the happy ending matters," she told me. "These novels force us, whether we know it or not, to take joy seriously. Literary fiction often asks us to consider the pain and angst and ennui of human existence. Romance asks us to consider the pleasures."


"Joy" and "pleasures" in this context mean a ring and a June date with Mr. Right, after the heroine has rescued him from himself by virtue of her Magical PoonTang.  The essence of every successful romance novel is the heroine's ability to use her femininity and sexuality to change Mr. Right's destiny, saving him from his own base emotions and desires by the simple virtue of Being Together.  Married.  Not independent fuck-buddies who pursue different careers and take a week off together every Spring - but honest-to-Hera Husband and Wife (with hyphenations, natch).  Mr. Right is inevitably brimming over with Alpha, but with the heroine's influence he becomes a domesticated Alpha, content with whatever charms her Magical
PoonTang may hold.

The fun plot twists and turns cited are nominal, at best, and require the special knowledge or skill the heroine alone possesses in addition to her Magical PoonTang, but in the end the decision for Mr. Right's precious commitment is lies almost exclusively with his unrelenting devotion to her personal abstract femininity . . . the same quality that 3rd Wave feminism despises as "masculine entitlement".  When a feminist woman "takes joy seriously" in a romance novel, the joy she is taking is is that of a woman submitting herself to an Alpha under the pretext of "taming" him.

If nothing else, studying romance novel structure and tropes strongly reinforces core Game concepts.  More importantly, discovering a woman is a reader of this jillfodder gives you keen insight on her inner psychological approach to her nether regions, key areas where leverage can be easily applied.  Most women who read such novels are wearing their Hamster out in the open where anyone who knows Game can see it.  It's a cry for more Alpha in her personal life, more shirtless billionaires and misguided oil barons with muscles like spring steel, more ruggedly handsome strangers with exotic accents or chilling pirates with an inexplicable gentle side.

Articles like Ms. Piepmeir's serve to cautiously make a stab at reclaiming some kernel of femininity from feminism's crushing jaw.  In admitting to the allure of brazen cis-hetero sexuality and the longing for the Alpha feminists who read romance novels betray the secret behind feminism's ham-handed approach to a mating strategy: as an elaborate shit-test designed to weed Alphas from Betas-and-below, wrapped in a thick layer of rationalization.  None of these romance heroines are leaving their men behind to pursue their careers, they aren't abandoning Happily Ever After for the prospect of making partner, they are all graciously accepting the masculine commitment at the end of the book.  Oh, they'll agonize about it the whole way - that's the fun - but if they don't succumb to the commitment with Mr. Right at the end of the book, then there's no "joy".  "Joy", it seems, means succumbing to marriage, and nothing less.

Ms. Piepmeier has a different take.  But put through a Red Pill filter, one may translate:

The female protagonists get to have adventures. ["They get to be stimulated by danger and excitement but without real consequence, thanks to Mr. Right"] They get to be competent. ["They get to demonstrate the characteristics that make them acceptable mates, other than the Magical PoonTang, which overrides everything else"] And they get to have great sex. ["They get to have great sex with a perfect dude willing to offer them commitment, enjoying the infatuation stage of the relationship without addressing the pesky realities of sustaining a relationship or criticizes them on their performance or approach in the slightest"]. Reading them is a fully feminist act.

You bet it is, Cupcake.  That's the feminist take on romance novels: Lean in until you catch a ring for yourself.  Then repeat as necessary. There are plenty of Alphas to go around for everyone.  And gosh, you deserve one, even if you don't need one.

The flip side of this of course is the female Omegas, those poor women who use these novels like internet tube sites.  Perpetually invested in the True Love strategy, which doesn't account for real-life attractiveness or the scantness of shirtless billionaires, these poor women have hamstered themselves into a level of
entitlement that screams defiantly at reality.  When they do embrace feminism, it's usually out of a sense of sexual frustration.  Feminism offers them the opportunity to rationalize their own personal failings and past humiliations as the fault of the misogynistic patriarchical rape culture, which oppressively doesn't realize the obvious advantages of the Magical PoonTang of the bitter, pudgy middle-aged single mom and awarded the Alpha accordingly.

These women are waiting in vain for their Mr. Right, because they foolishly took feminism at face value, when it came to the war on sexism/sexuality/male sexulity/rape culture.  Feminism told them that a real Mr. Right wouldn't care what a woman looked like, just as True Love told them that her personal femininity was enough to ignite the fiery passion of every big-dicked Alpha who was worthy of her.

Like the fat 30 year old bronies who just know that they are entitled to big-boobed supermodel heiresses who will realize what a cool and witty dude they are, these female Omegas have been tricked out of even showing up to the Sexual Market Place.  Nor is their misery wasted: feminism uses it to confirm their solipsistic belief that The Patriarchy is what is hiding all of the Alphas away from them, not their own failure to compete.  Guys would be nicer, more gentle, less judgmental, and just more accepting of cats, aging, and Teen Wolf binge marathons if it wasn't for the darn ol' Patriarchy and its misogynistic minions.  Romance gives them the personal ideal, feminism provides the finger to point the blame for their disappointment, while smart women skate between the two, run female Game, and snag up the marriage-minded Alphas.

The difference between porn and romance novels isn't just the genre and medium, however.  There's a contextual difference that many forget.  The 30 year old schlubs who are whacking it daily to the tubes still have time to learn Game and free themselves.  Thanks to their biology, their sexual capital in the SMP is about to mature, even if their personalities don't.  A year spent in the gym, learning Game, and applying themselves to their lives can make even the most unredeemable Omega dude acceptable, perhaps even impressive.  I've seen it happen.

The Omegas' romance-reading female equivalent, on the
other hand, is at the end of her shelf-life as a viable commodity.  The Wall loometh, and all the feminist theories in the world aren't going to change that.  Men will always be attracted to youth and beauty over age and plainness.

By the time your average feminist woman's hamster accepts that, and she's grudgingly willing to admit that yes, she might like to be married someday . . . she's usually devalued herself heavily in the SMP.  Heavily enough so that in the brutal competition for quality mates she's severely handicapped.  Neither feminism or romance can offer her a solution, not one that she can stomach.

While a 30 year old male geek who discovers Game can re-invent himself fairly easily, a 30-year old short-haired feminist Omega has to make severe compromises of her ideology and her approach if she's going to stand a chance, even for a desperate Gamma.  She's starting fifteen years too late, at the last gasp of her natural talent in an area of expertise she's been taught to despise.  Her best hope lies in capitulating utterly,
becoming a Red Pill woman and embracing her femininity while eschewing feminism.  Dreams of even mild suburban fulfillment are elusive as the men she thinks are in her league realize their own growing value.  In the end, she's as likely to have an empty home and cats to read her novels to than even a poor quality commitment.

But perhaps her story will prove to be a warning to younger generations before they repeat her mistakes.  Happily Ever After has to be earned.  You can't depend on luck and access to your Magical PoonTang to give it to you.  The real Mr. Rights of the world have more discriminating eyes than that.  The smart ones aren't going to marry avowed feminists, anyway.  

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Wife Test: Warm & Pleasant Disposition

Riffing on a great post over at Just Four Guys, today's lesson, Gentleman, is about your potential bride's Warmth and her Disposition.  Those are two elements of the female character which are strongly indicative of her suitability to the job, and all too often they are overlooked by the lovestruck or overshadowed by a busty figure.  Your wife's appearance and attractiveness may wax and wane over time, but her warmth and her disposition is a constant in your life.  It should therefore be highly weighted in your determinations.



 "Warmth" is one of those difficult-to-define terms that has a strong subjective component.  You might not be able to tell what it is, but you know it when you see it.  It is among the most enduring of feminine characteristics, sometimes not fully emerging until motherhood.  It is also frequently attacked by feminism as a gender-based stereotype, therefore decreasing its value among the adherents of this ideology.  Disposition, likewise, has been lambasted as a weakness by masculine-oriented feminists.  A traditionally feminine disposition, pleasant and attractive, has been called into question by corporate feminists who see it as a needless departure from their leaning in.

But warmth, and a pleasant disposition can be a key factor in both initial attraction and ultimate mate selection.  Both attributes depend largely on that most valued of female traits, a woman's Receptivity.

Distinguished from her willingness or ability to be submissive, men value receptivity in a woman.  That is, her willingness and ability to be open to his ability to order and invite.  A woman who is not generally receptive will rarely be receptive, suddenly, to her husband's leadership, no matter how strong a leader he is.  By abandoning her receptive nature, many modern women have unknowingly also abandoned a key feature of their allure.  "Warmth", as a characteristic, is the expression of a woman's social receptivity; being "warm" means that she is receptive to casual social interactions, including the comfort and ease of those around her. A Pleasant Disposition, on the other hand, is a token of a woman's receptiveness to establishing harmony in her environment through answering verbal and nonverbal calls for support.  If either one of these things is missing in a given woman, the prospect of her being a good wife goes down dramatically.

Such receptivity isn't overtly submissive or self-effacing in nature.  The strongest, most feminine women I know manage warmth and a pleasant disposition through even trying times, mustering a grace and charm through difficult circumstances that is the epitome of mature femininity.  Neither is it martyrous self-sacrifice.  It is born of a woman's deep compassion and care for the others in her life, and her desire to maintain an admirable social position.  It is quite possible to be warm, pleasant-natured, and still maintain strong hand in the relationship.

A woman communicates her warmth in part through her level of attention: eye contact, verbal cues, appropriate questions, understanding of the social context, etc.  And it is not just a good idea to pursue this test for the prospect of a peaceful marriage, it can also indicate the strength and stability of your union. And therefore its durability.

The JFG posting points out a fascinating study in which men and women in relationships were observed making verbal and non-verbal "bids" for attention and intimacy.  Those partners whose "bids" were answered with a corresponding acceptance of intimacy or interaction tended to do better as long-term prospects for marriage.  Couples who ended up divorced after 5 years had a bid ratio of less than 40%, whereas couples who seemed to have solid, stable relationships tended to answer each others' bids more than 80%.  How accurate was the theoretical prediction of a couple's success in a LTR - that is, not get divorced?  How about 94% accurate?

The study demonstrates just how important warmth and pleasant disposition really are in a Red Pill marriage.  Women who can cultivate their personal warmth are making themselves more receptive to their husband's bids.  While some of those bids are going to be sexual in nature, inevitably, women who have warmth are likely to return the bid with a counter-bid or at least an acknowledgement that can often soothe her partner's desires for intimacy and validation without any panties coming off.  Women who lack warmth won't bother to look up when their men give a casual interpersonal bid on a favorite activity for him that bores the hell out of her.  Women who lack a pleasant disposition often won't answer a bid for attention that doesn't immediately gratify them in some way.

So how do you determine a woman's warmth and disposition?  You count it. Just like in the study.


Carefully observe your interactions with your candidate woman over a period of, say, two hours of alone-time.  Mentally track the number of interpersonal "bids" you offer her, as well as the nature and degree of her response.  Try to work in a set number of bids for the period: ten, twenty, or twenty-five.  They don't have to be all that involved - "look at that cool car!" or "what do you think of my new boss?" or "I'm feeling like Mexican for lunch" are all decent bids.  Try to keep them somewhat neutral, not inviting either a summary dismissal or lengthy response.  Just simple, straightforward conversational invitations.

For each bid, observe how she reacts.  Eye contact, verbal acknowledgement, open validation, or at least rapt attention (with her body language clearly turned toward you) are all "wins" of your bid.  Noncommittal grunts, blank stares at her cell phone, inattention and stony silence are all "lost" bids, as are bids that fail because of her closed or turned-away body language.  Insulting, vulgar or degrading language subtracts a point.

Don't let your reaction to her answers color how you offer the bids.  Nor should you allow one poor performance be the sole determiner of a woman's warmth and pleasant disposition.  Try this several times and keep track of her averages.

As far as scoring, simply give her a point for every "win" and no points for a lost bid.  Within a two-hour time period, if she responds positively to fifteen of the bids and negatively to ten others, you can assign her a Warmth and Receptive score of 60%.  If she responds positively to 20, then she's starting to move into the Warm category.  But that's why you repeat: everyone has bad days.  The problem is when those bad days start piling up, and that warmth you once felt from her keeps falling.

Likewise you can test how pleasant her disposition is by observing her reaction to unfortunate news. Women who make every misfortune (whether it happens to them or not) into a tragic crisis worthy of a blow-up are failing the "pleasant disposition" test.  So are those who ride the emotional waves of other people's baggage.  The willingness and ability to consciously be receptive to negative stimuli and provide positivity in return is the essence of "pleasant disposition" - and it doesn't mean a woman is an ineffective communicator or leader by doing so.  On the contrary, the very best women leaders I've known and followed have excelled at being pleasant, no matter the circumstances.

Consider her scores in a variety of situations, too.  Observation of her warmth with others gives you perspective into her character.  See how warm and pleasant she is in a formal setting, a casual setting, a semi-formal setting, with your kin and your friends, and among complete strangers as well as her score in your private interactions.  Every time she responds openly and receptively, she gets a point.  Every time she ignores or snubs a conversational bid for no good reason that you can see, no point.  Every time she says something insulting or derogatory about someone, subtract a point (unless it's someone you don't like, in which case praise her for her keen insight.).

Again, this test is highly subjective, but it allows your direct observations of her behavior to influence your decision to commit to a relationship, not a "feeling" or "just knowing".  A warm, pleasant wife leads to a happy, pleasant life.  Thinking you can transform a cold shrew into a friendly, receptive mate is most often an exercise in futility.  And if it takes her a few drinks to really "warm up", that, too, is telling.

This exercise is helpful for gauging your own interactions as well.  Most men aren't conscious of the cues and bids women constantly offer them in their non-verbal, contextual multi-track communication style.  We prefer the more direct and simplistic single-signal communication styles that develop between men.  But being mindful of her body language and linguistic mannerisms makes you more sharply attuned to when she's offering subconscious commentary on her mental-emotional state, including her current level of attraction to you.  If she's been warm and open to you all afternoon, and you know sex could be on the table, then when she offers a bid for sexual intimacy maybe you won't miss it the first few times around.

It also makes you aware of your own responsiveness.  While male dominance is the preferred remedy under the Red Pill, remember that that doesn't mean domineering.  A good captain is always receptive to constructive input from the crew, particularly his First Officer, and giving proper attention to sincerely-delivered bids from her helps deepen her own attachment and attraction to you.  Grunting might be manly and Alpha, but subtle transactions of attention work in both directions.  Acknowledging her bids and participating in what seems like mindless, pointless discussion is actually re-affirming and validating your interpersonal attachment to each other. This exercise will help hone your ability to be responsive to her perspectives, even if you don't agree with them, and make her feel more secure in the strength of your interpersonal bond - without demanding control of the relationship.

It's quite possible to maintain hand and take a strong leadership position and still accept enough of your wife's bids so that she feels the flow of emotional intimacy, even when you're being strong and silent.  Indeed, compounding the two tends to work very well.  Mastering the art of responding to those bids is the responsibility of both parties, but the importance of this cannot be understated:



“There’s a habit of mind that the masters have,” Gottman explained in an interview, “which is this: they are scanning social environment for things they can appreciate and say thank you for. They are building this culture of respect and appreciation very purposefully. Disasters are scanning the social environment for partners’ mistakes.”

Contempt is the number one factor that tears couples apart. “It’s not just scanning environment,” chimed in Julie Gottman. “It’s scanning the partner for what the partner is doing right or scanning him for what he’s doing wrong and criticizing versus respecting him and expressing appreciation.”

Take a good, hard look at your potential bride, Gentlemen, and give her an honest, sincere examination of her warmth and disposition . . . and thereby her receptivity.  Warmth and a pleasant disposition: two essentials for any lasting Red Pill wife, and both springing from the feminine fountain of receptivity.  If she can't or wont accept your bids (or you hers) at least 80% of the time, it's probably not a good match.