A lesson in equality

In which coma girl teaches an object lesson in equality and the wisdom of not initiating physical violence:

A father-of-two accused of punching a woman so hard in a dispute over a parking space that she now she lays in a coma is claiming that she threw the first punch, and that he was acting in self-defence. The altercation took place on February 25 when 4ft 11in, 100 pound Lana Rosas, 25, was standing in the space she was saving for her boyfriend on 14th street in New York’s East Village and refused to let 35-year-old, 150-pound Oscar Fuller park there. The argument that followed left Rosas lying in the street unconscious with blood pouring from her mouth. She has been in a coma at Bellevue Hospital ever since the February 25 incident….

Manhattan prosecutors said in court papers that Fuller hit Rosas ‘with so much force that the woman flew off of her feet, was knocked unconscious and hit her head on the ground.’

Obviously, there is no way to know exactly what happened unless there is security camera footage, but if Fuller’s version of events is accurate, he deserves to be fully exonerated and Rosas should be charged with assault upon her recovery. Assuming that Fuller was, in fact, attacked by the woman and punched several times in the face, he did absolutely nothing wrong or illegal in throwing a single punch at his attacker, however hard it might have been. No one feels any sympathy for a smaller man who is dumb enough to start a fight he can’t finish and there should be absolutely none for a woman who does exactly the same thing. Conversely, if Fuller punched Rosas for simply attempting to hold the parking place, he should be found guilty of the count charged. But the fact that he is only facing a single count of second-degree assault despite the seriousness of the woman’s injuries tends to indicate that at least part of Fuller’s story is supported by the evidence.

And for all those would-be women warriors out there, notice that this was a relatively fair fight between the sexes as Fuller is a little guy who only outweighed Rosas by 50 pounds. It’s not as if he was a 250-pound construction worker; if he had been, Rosas would likely be dead already. Tough girl posturing and fantasies about female martial prowess notwithstanding, women simply are not capable of winning serious physical altercations with men, even with men who are physically smaller than they are. Ignorance has consequences and the consequences can be deadly.

The way to prevent these sorts of stupid tragedies from taking place is not to continue attempting to brainwash boys with outdated nonsense by telling them “you should never hit a girl”. All that does is to destroy adult credibility in young male eyes as boys will inevitably notice that despite all the equality talk, girls are very seldom punished for hitting them, even when unprovoked. The answer is to teach everyone, boys and girls alike, not to initiate physical violence. Both men and women must understand that no one has any right to attack another individual without the expectation of facing violent retaliation.

The more distasteful that a woman finds the idea of men beating down women in response to being attacked, the more she should be committed to telling women not to attack men. After all, how hard is it to not physically attack someone, especially someone bigger, stronger, and faster than you are? It is long past time for women to understand that they lost the privilege to be considered off-limits to retaliatory violence the moment they collectively demanded legal equality with men.


Future Cat Ladies of America

I have read that it is possible to determine if a child will end up psychopathic as early as the age of three. This video appears to suggest that spinsterhood can be detected as early as five:

The video comes by way of Susan Walsh, who wryly anticipates the need to talk some sense into the girl in 15 years, even at the risk of costing humanity some very special Powerpoint slideshows. But the soliloquy does serve as a helpful reminder of the childish nature of the idea that women can do anything more useful, special, or important than that minor matter of perpetuating the human race.


No place for cowards

Marriage is no place for cowards. No woman wants to be married to a man she can intimidate, even if she tries from time to time. Men have to realize that if they want to have a happy home, they have to be a man about facing up to conflict.

Remember the old saying, “Home is Where the Heart is?” That only applies if you relish being in your home in the first place. And that ‘aint gonna happen if you live every waking moment in your home, fearful of upsetting your wife. Lying to her to try and avoid upsetting her only makes it worse, because even if you don’t consciously realize it, you will hate yourself for living a lie.

Home is supposed to be your sanctuary. Your place to rest, relax, and recharge, so that you can get ready to go out and face the world another day…knowing you can come home and let your guard down and just enjoy the company of your family upon your return. How can you do that when you’re afraid of doing or saying something, and than having to deal with an upset tyrant of a spouse?

That is because you are not supposed to be under the dominion of her emotional state in the first place.

I understand that for many men, this is a concept that is much easier to agree with than to put into effect. But if you are under the dominion of a woman’s emotional state, you have to break free of it for her sake as well as your own. How can you be relied upon if you are constantly being blown to and fro in the winds of her emotional hurricanes? How can she feel secure with a protector who is a pushover? However, keep in mind that it’s also important not to overdo it with your reaction, as so many men and women do when they have finally resolved to act against their habitual behavioral patterns.

Remember that practice makes perfect. The man in control of himself doesn’t fear the rage of an out-of-control woman anymore than the boxer fears getting hit. He has absolutely no doubt that he can take the shot because he has taken it before. So, look for opportunities to practice facing up to your fear. The next time you find yourself tempted to shade the truth or avoid telling her something because you are afraid of her reaction, first remind yourself of the Litany Against Fear and then assume that you’re going to be busy not exacerbating the situation by giving into your own emotions for the next 15 minutes.

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me….

Then go and tell her whatever trivial thing you suspect is going to set her off and refuse to react regardless of how she emotes. Then, once the storm has blown itself out, smile and go about your business. You will almost surely find yourself thinking that it really wasn’t that bad after all. And that should give you the strength required to face up to the next emotional storm when it becomes necessary.

I love being in my home. I love being with Spacebunny. But then, I’m not afraid of her emotions.


I’m sorry, Dave

I’m afraid I can’t accept that answer:

I’m fairly responsible with finances, but my girlfriend is in a terrible financial situation with a lot of credit card debt, an expensive car payment and a big, fancy apartment. Plus, she just quit her job because she didn’t like it anymore. Now, she’s thinking about filing bankruptcy and thinks us moving in together will help solve her problems. If she can’t handle her finances on her own, what’s going to happen if we get together? Can you help?

At least Dave Ramsey advises the guy not to marry the woman or let her move in. But he doesn’t give him the proper advice, which is to ditch the financial vampire now before she can manage to get her teeth fixed any more firmly upon him. Don’t ever date a woman in debt, and don’t even allow the thought of marrying one to cross your mind for a moment. It’s more expensive and less financially prudent than playing blackjack in Vegas.


Chrissy outdoes herself

Lest you wonder why female “conservatives” and the so-called Mama Bears inspire so little confidence:

Domonique Ramirez, this year’s Miss San Antonio (preliminary to Miss Texas, Miss America) went to a photo shoot. She was supposed to wear her outfit from the San Antonio pageant. Well, it didn’t quite fit anymore, and the pageant let her know it was unacceptable…. Miss Ramirez slapped a temporary restraining order on the organization so they couldn’t take her crown away. A judge will decide whether she is fit for the crown or not. Isn’t that awesome? Seeing this kind of strength in a young woman is so refreshing. She’s fighting back and standing her ground, which I find incredibly brave. She’s becoming a role model, which is exactly what the Miss America Organization brags about.

If this pageant wants to permanently damage the youth of our country, mission accomplished. If they really want to help these girls then they need a better strategy. You don’t tell a teenage girl she’s too fat, unless you want her to have an eating disorder. If they thought she was becoming obese, sure, step in for the sake of her health. Offer her the benefits of working out if you want her to get in shape the healthy way. Tell her it helps reduce stress. They should want her mental health to be calm and collected for the nerve-racking interview. Tell her it will give her stamina to get through the long days. But never make it about her looks. That’s just crazy.

The organization threw her further under the bus by stating she has been late to appearances and has been defiant. I call that BS! It’s ludicrous to think adults would lie about a teenager just because they never could make it as Miss America themselves. They’re delusional….

Some know-nothings have argued that Domonique signed a contract. She promised to abide by these rules. Get over yourself. She’s a teenage girl, and to make any woman sign a contract like this is outrageous and unrealistic. This rule is ridiculous and shouldn’t even exist.

So apparently this is the position of the so-called conservative media these days: don’t tell fat girls they’re fat, run to a judge anytime you fail, and don’t expect women to abide by a signed contract. Now, if women can’t be held any more accountable than children by virtue of their sex, how can anyone possibly justify their right to vote?

I do wish Fox News would hurry up and hire Chatterfield already.


Dumbing down and dreaming on

I feel quite confident in stating that the scenario suggested in the cartoon has NEVER EVER happened in the entire history of Man.  Barely any men understand quantum physics; the number of women who not only understand them but are prone to discussing them on a girls night out can probably be counted on a woodworker’s hand.  As for Plato, I have yet to meet a single woman who has actually read the entire Republic outside of the one hopelessly nerdy girl in my senior year Classics class who once read a poem in public that was, we were reliably informed, written “from the point of view of me and a lizard”.  In the various debates over Euthyphro over the last two years, I’m not sure if a single woman has even commented on the matter of the pious and the gods, much less whether Socrates was justified in his artful redefinition of the terms in mid-dialogue.  Women’s book clubs don’t discuss Thucydides and Dante, much less Bohr and Alcibiades, most are devoted to novels from the Oprah list as evidenced by the helpful discussion guidelines provided at the back of those books.

There are three reasons that women play dumb on occasion.  The first is because they are insufficiently attractive to attract men that they can look up to intellectually.  Note that the author, who is an aged 3 at best, admits that the dim boyfriend to whom she refers was only the second man who had agreed to go out with her when she was in her 30s.  It wasn’t her brains that were the problem there.  The second reason is because women understand on some level that most men prefer less intelligent women.  This is not because men are intimidated by smart women, (think about that claim for a second, are they intimidated by male nerds and geeks?),  but because intelligent women tend to be a quotidian posterior pain.  Intelligent, educated, middle-class women are extraordinarily annoying because they seem to feel the need to constantly reaffirm either their intelligence or their education by pointlessly challenging those close to them over the most trivial minutiae.  The fact that a more intelligent man can effortlessly slap down those challenges doesn’t mean that he wants to waste his time doing so, especially when it interrupts his train of thought.

(To be fair, most intelligent people of both sexes are difficult compared to the norm, the significant difference is that women find the difficulty to be attractive due to their hypergamous nature.  Men just find it difficult and don’t want to deal with it.)

I found her cited example of a mispronounced word as an indication of a lack of intelligence to be more than a little amusing.  In fact, those who mispronounce words on a regular basis are probably more intelligent than the norm because it indicates that they are learning words from reading them rather than hearing them.  The writer has confused ignorance with intelligence; to the extent that a mispronunciation indicts anyone, it indicts the social circle around the mispronouncing individual who have never used the word around him.  The assumption that “Arkansas” would be pronounced in the same manner as “Kansas” is a perfectly reasonable one, especially for an Englishman who is no more likely to know the difference between the two than the average American if it is Leicester or Worcester that is found in the East Midlands.

And the third reason is that women play dumb as an excuse to get out of things they don’t want to do.  Figuring out how to program a remote or change a tire isn’t difficult, but why bother when you can simply get someone else to do it for you?


Alpha to Omega

DW has created a quiz on the male socio-sexual hierarchy. So go ahead and take it, all you precious male snowflakes, and report back on how astonishingly alphasexy you are!

I do note that lambda was somehow omitted, but I suspect most lambdas can readily figure out where they rank. For example, if your answer with regards to question four would have been You were in the mall a week ago with a bunch of friends. Are you: “The one giving/getting a hummer in the men’s room”, then it really doesn’t matter what your answers to the other questions happen to be.

I’ve been intending to put together a quiz of my own at some point in time and I’ll eventually get around to it, but this is certainly entertaining for starters.


Never show weakness

Not to women, children, or dogs, anyhow. Roissy tells the tale of a text message written in response to a blow-off:

I begin reading his reply in a trembly voice, imitating as best I can a lovelorn beta. Paraphrased:

“Ok, I’m sorry to hear that. I was hoping we could date a few more times and see where it goes. I think you are really great, and a very special girl, and I felt we had something between us. I definitely felt we bonded on our dates together. Remember that time playing pool? That was pretty funny. But oh well, if you need some time to yourself, I understand. If you ever change your mind, you know where to email me. I’m willing to give it another try if you are. Ciao.”

Look, guys, no woman ever needs any time to herself. With very few exceptions, women are not contemplative and few can even entertain themselves for any extended period of time. The expression is merely a conflict-avoidance device utilized to communicate a lack of romantic interest. The correct translation of “time to herself” means “time with men who are not you” and by “time” she means “until the end of it”. If a woman is genuinely attracted to a man, she will make time for him even if it means abandoning her children, quitting her job, or doing without food and sleep.

But a blow-off shouldn’t inspire this cringing, lachrymose attempt to convince a woman that she has made the wrong choice. “I definitely felt we bonded”… seriously? This is classic delta and all it does is convince her that she was right to blow off the weakling when she did and make him a figure of mockery and scorn. The correct response, as numerous Chateau denizens have pointed out in the comments, is nothing. Niente. No response. To lash back at her over nothing more than legitimate rejection would be gamma; this need to ensure the rejector that there are no hard feelings on the part of the rejectee is pure delta. The omega, of course, will vow eternal vengeance (to himself) and tell his fellow rejects about the ten different terrible things that would teach his rejector a lesson she’d never forget if he ever followed through on one. Which he won’t. There is no single appropriate alpha response, as the real alpha is already involved with at least one of her friends and will feel relieved that a potentially messy problem has sorted itself out again without requiring any effort on his part.

The sigma response, of course, is “????”

Now, since there are clearly a few quasi-aspies here of the sort that regularly drive the Chateau regulars mad with their inability to understand the concept of behavioral gradations, the injunction to show no weakness is a relative one. If you are covered in blood, surrounded by headless bodies, and holding a severed head in your hand, then you can safely shed a tear or two and permit a woman to read your diary of secret doubts about your courage and masculinity. Any perceived weakness will be tend to be outweighed in her mind by your manifest ability to wreak massive havoc and that delicious sense of fear and security it inspires in her.

Please note that I am primarily speaking metaphorically here despite the literal truth of the statement. Casanova can confess his fears of rejection without concern, (although quite possibly not without sarcasm), because the woman knows that if she rejects him he can and will find a replacement for her within days, if not hours. Your average delta – and this very probably means you* – not so much. In summary, the strong man can afford to be seen as vulnerable, but the average man cannot.

*Except you, of course. You are a unique and precious sigma snowflake.

Which reminds me. Pop socio-sexual rank quiz:

Omega: You have threatened to kill yourself over a woman. But you stalked her instead.
Gamma: You have thought about killing yourself over a woman. But you wrote about how she made you feel instead.
Delta: You have taken it seriously when a woman threatened to kill herself. She did not do it.
Beta: You have listened to a woman threatening to kill herself over your best friend. With some amusement. On more than one occasion.
Alpha: A woman with whom you were involved has threatened to kill you because you also had sex with a) her roommate, b) her best friend, or c) her sister.
Sigma: A woman has asked you to kill her during sex. You thought it was hot.

UPDATE: The Dark Lord explains the optimal response to a blow-off and why it is better than the alternatives. You’ll note that it is precisely the response I recommended:

#1: No response. (Credit: Gorbachev)

90% of the time, and in 90% of situations, this will be your best option. Radio silence is a failsafe method for causing reckless hamster spin in a woman’s headspace. You have got to understand a couple of things about women and breaking up.

One, women initiate most breakups. I have read it is on the order of 75-85% of all breakups. Women also initiate 2/3rds to 3/4ths or more of all divorces.

Two, women secretly get a thrill out of the power they wield as society’s de facto hypergamous dumpers. When a woman dumps a man, she wants to know she got to him. Though she will never admit it, the act of gettting to a man is a blissful ego massage for the typical woman.


The disappeal of the slut

Women often have a hard time understanding why men have such a problem with “the number” even though few men put much of a premium on actual virginity these days. But it’s a mistake for women to assume that men think about sexual histories in the same way they do because whereas the pre-selection and DHV aspects tend to counteract any negative sense of jealousy and/or disgust that women might feel when considering a stud’s copious history, there simply aren’t any equivalent positive aspects working in favor of the slut.

So, if women wish to better understand the way most men react to hearing about their girlfriend’s sexual histories, it might help to contemplate how they would feel about a man’s hypothetical past homosexual activities. While it might be at least possible to overlook a youthful indiscretion or two at boarding school or band camp, very few women are attracted to a man who spent the last ten years running rampant in the gay clubs and having sex with 20 or 30 men before deciding that he’d had enough fun and was now ready to settle down with a woman.

This is obviously somewhat of an exaggeration, but I think it’s much closer to the way that most men feel about female sexual histories than the way women feel about male sexual histories.


Dread and the drama dilemma

Susan Walsh is skeptical about the depth of the female need for uncertainty and drama:

I understand that women like men who are strong, dominant, and refuse to put up with their shit. Indeed, if a man cannot do these things, he may strike out time and time again. But that’s a far cry, a whole other continent, away from wanting to feel dread in the pit of your stomach for the rest of your life.

Susan is highly unusual in that she is a female blogger who grasps the reality and the importance of Game without being offended by it. I suspect this is in part due to the fact that she is a) happily married, and b) has a reasonable grasp of economics. Therefore, she has the ability to consider Game-related matters rationally rather than in a defensive and emotionally reactive manner.

That being said, I think she has underestimated the dark complexity of the human psyche here, in this case, the female one. More importantly, I think she has failed to take into account the powerful consequences of state interference in male-female relationships. This is why it’s not a question of want, but rather, a question of need. Due to Marriage 2.0, there isn’t a married man who does not live with at least some sense of dread that he will find himself among the 43% of men who are legally and financially raped by the divorce industry. So, what Roissy describes as “dread” and what Haley describes as “providing a drama fix” is little more than an emotional leveling of the playing field.

Susan understands that women have a strong tendency to behave badly when they feel they have the upper hand in a relationship due to their hypergamous nature. If they can’t respect you, they despise you. As Churchill once said of the proverbial Hun, they are either at your throat or at your feet. This hypergamy presents a serious problem now, since the male dread of divorce has caused many men to quite reasonably become fearfully deferential of their wives and as a consequence rendered the marital relationship unstable.

Therefore something is required to remove the feeling of the upper hand from the state-sponsored wife. Enter “dread” or some other equally effective psychological substitute. Contra Susan’s title, it is failing to counter this state-imposed imbalance that will tend destroy marital relationships, and now that courts in the UK and USA are beginning to grant awards to women who are non-marital partners, increasingly threaten long-term non-marital relationships as well.

However, this does not mean all men are well-advised to behave according to Roissy’s most extreme position. It simply isn’t necessary or even productive in some cases. Take Russell Brand, for example. He can behave in the most omega manner possible, because his wife already knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that if she behaves badly or leaves him, he will immediately react by replacing her with two Victoria’s Secret angels, six topless lads mag models, a Hollywood actress, and three waitresses from a Thai restaurant, very possibly all at once. The Roissyan “dread” for lack of a better word, is implicit in the core concept of “being married to Russell Brand”.

(Side note. SB and I laughed out loud when watching a quiz show on which Brand apologized to the women of England for not having slept with all of them despite his best efforts to do so.)

As with most things related to Game, the actionable concepts are not dogma meant to be accepted without question, but are instead designed to provide for the conscious emulation of the unconscious actions of men who are naturally successful with women regardless of the specific form that “success with women” is deemed to take. This is the central concept that so many critics of Game fail to grasp. Whether success means “nailing skank #3” or “remaining happily married to one’s beloved wife”, there will always be those men who manage it without trying and those men who don’t. And the latter will always be well-served by learning from the example of the former.

It should be noted that just as some men don’t need to provide dread or drama, some women don’t require it. Having the legal power of the state at her command is not necessarily going to translate into a feeling of superiority in a woman, especially one who happens to be more psychologically or emotionally vulnerable. In the same way that Brand has no need to demonstrate his options, the vulnerable woman doesn’t need to be emotionally unsettled in order to prevent her from behaving badly.