Tag: women

Mailvox: exiting Omega

DG wonders how to apply Game in his situation:

I need some help. I’m very new to Game. I got started on my little adventure into this after a disaster of nuclear proportions with the last girl I was seeing. A conversation about masculinity, femininity and the roles men and women play in relationships set me on the journey.

Quick bit on me – in 2008 I took the “red pill” on the world (not women yet) and started questioning everything. While we may agree or disagree on points, we share similar outlooks in that much of what is conventional is likely a lie perpetrated for someone’s advantage. I am a Christian currently, former atheist for 16 years and then agnostic in 2009. I mention this because my faith and adherence to it affects what I can and cannot do.

I was a beta in HS, became a lesser alpha in college when my body finally decided to step it up (I was a late bloomer, I dropped 20 pounds of fat, put on about 15 pounds of muscle and grew 4 inches in my freshman year). Suddenly I was looking attractive and compared to the men at my university, I was golden. But then when I converted, I decided to be “nice.” Stupid me! I should have realized you can be an alpha and not be a douche, but my whole game was asshole game and never realized it until now. I have two major questions/requests. I’ll try to keep them short and to the point.

1) Where do you suggest that someone start if they are a complete newb and need to reverse their beta-tude? No matter what you are shooting for: STR, LTR, marriage, casual dating/sex, whatever, you need to know Game.

2) I mentioned the disaster that was the last woman. As Roissy described in an old post about what to do to win and ex back, everything he said not to do, I did. Oh yes, and then some. I went from alpha to omega in this girl’s eyes for sure. While I have no intentions of winning this girl back (it would take a miracle from God, and I’m not counting on getting one on this issue) or being her friend (I don’t keep female friends anymore, utterly useless), I can’t cut her out entirely from my life. I still need to deal with her and encounter her…at my church of all places. How do I deal with her when we are in the same room and when I do actually need to speak with her or work with her? I may not be able to recover my omega status in her eyes, but I certainly do not wish to feed it.

I think the best way to work one’s way out of beta-tude, or as I would refer to it, gammatude, is to stop judging yourself on the basis of what women think. Here’s how. Take a good look at the men around you, the men you know well. Consider what you think of them, of their strengths and weaknesses. Then compare your opinion to what women think of them. Are the results similar in any way, shape or form? I tend to doubt it.

The main reason that I could not care less what the female collective happen to think about pretty much everything is the result of the extreme dichotomy between what I thought of the men in my social circle at the time and what women thought of them. With a few notable exceptions, the men that were most highly regarded and sought after by women were the weak and insecure ones, the shallow, treacherous and useless ones. Once I could no longer take seriously what they thought about other men, it became impossible to care what they thought about me as well because I no longer considered them capable of judging me in a reasonable manner, whether they thought well of me or not. “In a way, I actually judge her for not breaking up with me sooner.” I have far more confidence in the average dog’s ability to distinguish between a good man and a bad man than the average woman’s and I don’t lose any sleep over what the average dog happens to think of my actions.

Given DG’s familiarity with Game, he can probably guess what developed as a result. At the superficial and social level, women respond to genuine contempt like catnip, probably because it is one of the more powerful forms of DHV. Note that I’m not talking about dislike or hate here, only the same sort of well-merited contempt for a ludicrously irrelevant opinion that The Special One would demonstrate for a soccer journalist.

As for Disaster Girl, the right thing to do also happens to be the polite thing to do. Don’t live in fear of her and don’t give her a moment’s thought when she’s not around you. Treat her in an entirely polite and civil manner, keep your conversations short and to the point, and make it very clear that what’s done is done and you have no interest in revisiting the past. Don’t give her any information about your life, if she asks how you are doing, just reply “very well, thank you,” and change the subject if she gets curious and starts probing. That will probably get her rationalization hamster spinning on its wheel; there is nothing that piques a girl’s curiosity like a former flame who has inexplicably stopped showing interest in her.

Then be sure to expect the probable test and don’t fail it by promptly dissolving into desperate gamma mode when she pulls a 180 on you and starts telling you how confused she is and how she thinks she might have made a mistake and so forth. Just remain perfectly polite, decline to pursue every dangling olive branch she offers, and tell her that you’re ever so pleased that after everything that has happened between the two of you, she’s still such a good friend. Be a Crimson Artist and flip the script on her.

Of course, if you really want to get out of the Omega box for good, show up at one -and only one- church event with a very pretty and somewhat inappropriately dressed girl with stripper hair. Don’t act like she’s your girlfriend or behave obnoxiously, just behave normally and let all the little gossips assume whatever they want to assume. And when asked about her later, just say “well, it’s kind of complicated” and leave it at that.

The fact is that Christianity inhibits Game for the obvious reason that Man is fallen. That’s just a reality that the Christian man has to accept and remind himself that pleasing the world and its women is not his mission on Earth. But the Bible demands male dominance and female submission too, just in a different form. Jesus Christ was seldom nice and he did not come to assuage anyone’s feelings but rather to make them feel so abysmally bad that they were willing to repent of their sins. The need to abandon asshole game should never be confused with the duty to assume gamma. Jesus is, after all the ultimate ALPHA as well as the Omega.

Breaking civilization

Scientists confirm the ideas of the Game theoreticians:

The results show that if there were no returns to career choices in the marriage market, men would tend to work less, study less, and choose blue‐collar jobs over white‐collar jobs. These findings suggest that the existing literature underestimates the true returns to human capital investments by ignoring their returns in the marriage market.

Source: “Marriage and Career: The Dynamic Decisions of Young Men” from “Journal of Human Capital”

Result: men turning away from the drudgery of building careers as a surefire investment strategy for acquiring [sexual interest from women]. The ROI of a corporate 9 to 5er is decreasing rapidly, and men are beginning to catch onto this.

Prediction: as long as women remain a large and growing segment of the white collar job market, men will continue to “drop out”. Replacement strategies for men include:

– prostitution (with concomitant calls for legalization)
– sexbots/3D porn
– video gaming
– growth of high paying blue collar trade jobs that women studiously avoid
– thuggishness
– game and assorted pickup strategies. (i.e. the birth of the “alpha mimicry market”.)

A few years ago, I demonstrated one way that the increase in female labor force participation from 30% to 60% has significantly harmed married women by forcing them into the workforce to replace the wages of their husbands lost to the increase in labor supply. That was pure economics. What Roissy is talking about here is a related socio-sexual cost of female labor force participation; since the hierarchical benefit to men working white collar jobs is decreasing even as the compensation for those jobs has fallen due to the increased white collar labor supply, men are becoming less influenced by their natural instinct to impress women.

Despite being groomed for a career in “the office”, I left that environment at 22 and never once looked back. But this makes me think that there is a seventh option that Roissy hasn’t considered, which is more male self-employment and virtual offices. Self-employment will become increasingly important as female-dominated HR departments institute credentialism that will favor female hires and corporate regulations that men aren’t willing to accept. And technology makes the virtual office not only possible, but more effective than the traditional office.

This suggests that men will not, as so many who only think in terms of linear projections presently assume, lose out due to increasing female domination of education. Instead, women will take over the dinosaur corporations just in time to help them die off more quickly even as men increasingly move towards working in a faster, more technologically evolved and lucrative manner.

A perfect summary

It isn’t often that I find myself wishing I’d written something someone else wrote, but this comment by Alexa Menos is the most flawless description and indictment of current female confusion that I have ever read. And I quote:

“Why don’t men in a matriarchal, polyamorous society behave as if they’re living in a patriarchal, monogamous society?”

If you change the rules of the game, don’t be surprised when the players begin to play it differently than before.

NB: Cocomment appears to be down so I’ve turned on Blogger comments.

A degree in unicorn riding

Maureen Dowd argues for more female fantasy in education:

Time for a curriculum overhaul. Young men everywhere must be taught, beyond platitudes, that young women are not prey.

Regardless of whether you are a materialist or a dualist, whether you believe Man is driven by his evolved genes or his fallen nature, you should be able to recognize the abject stupidity of Dowd’s plaintive assertion. Young women ARE the prey of young men… in fact they are their primary prey. Dowd might as reasonably call for teaching cats everywhere that birds are not prey.

And the sooner that a young woman learns that she is prey, the better her chances become of avoiding an undesirable fate.

Less work, less pay

This chart on sex self-segregation by the clock shows the primary reason women make less money than men.  They harbor a strong disinclination for work outside of normal working hours.  This is concomitant with the research that has shown women work fewer hours per week on average than men.  The excuse that it is “for the children” doesn’t fully account for the gap since there are only around 35 million American households with children under 18 vs 72 million American women in the labor force.  Moreover, it is a feeble excuse; an employer doesn’t care why a woman isn’t working, if she’s not working then obviously he shouldn’t have to pay her.

Now, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with women putting their children’s interests ahead of maximizing their income-earning potential.  Putting children before Powerpoint is an excellent choice and in my opinion, more women should work fewer hours and spend more time ensuring the viability of the human race.  The enlightened employer who offers the greatest amount of time flexibility to his female employees will usually find himself benefiting from a higher quality of women willing to work for him.  On the other hand, it is absurd to insist that having children is not a choice, that an employer is to blame for the life choices that his employees happen to make, or that there should be no negative consequences to one’s paycheck when one is working less than other employees.

Let them fend for themselves

Unsurprisingly, some women are upset that most people are inclined to stay out of a domestic dispute, especially if the woman is lower class:

Last night, ABC used hidden cameras and actors to see what regular people would do if they saw an obviously abused woman being harassed by her boyfriend. A lot of regular people failed the test.

Failed the test? I’d say they passed it, assuming that the test is of their intelligence. Only a white knighting gamma or a clueless fool doesn’t know that many women are aficionados of the “let’s you and him fight” game. If I don’t know the couple involved, there is very little chance that I am going to risk injury or jail on behalf of a woman with a taste for the thug life. And since women are so strong and independent these days, why should they expect help from anyone of either sex? I respect the right of women to not only make their own decisions, but also to experience the full consequences of those decisions.

This isn’t to say I have never intervened in a violent situation. If I happen to know the people involved and understand the situation, I will consider escalating the level of violence without warning to bring the situation to a close. An acquaintance once punched his girlfriend in the jaw right in front of me; she was a friend of mine who had previously dated one of my best friends. So, I immediately bounced his face off a nearby brick wall. Twice. However, to be honest, I have to admit that I had always disliked the guy and it is entirely possible that my reaction was less white knightly and more opportunistic.

Anyhow, the point is that you should never get involved in a violent situation unless you intervene without warning and with a conclusive level of violence. Unless the situation CLEARLY and ABSOLUTELY justifies you incapacitating the assailant without warning, stay completely out of it. Don’t posture, don’t lecture, and don’t white knight. It’s not your business and you really don’t want to end up like the Hispanic guy who was killed trying to help a woman who couldn’t even bother to call for help for her rescuer.

This doesn’t mean that one must suffer the interruption to one’s dinner, of course. Etiquette demands that one clear one’s throat, lean over, and say: “My dear man, I could not possibly care less what sort of gorilla sex games the two of you happen to enjoy, but unless this is part of the scheduled dinner theatre, I would be most appreciative if you would throttle your woman outside the premises, thank you very much.”

Whaling and the drama queens

Once victimhood is sanctified, all the attention whores desperately want to be a victim. Hence all the dramatics about near-rape and semi-rape from silly stupid, young women who desperately want to suffer without actually suffering in order to impress their peers.

Sex does not require an annotated request and positive affirmation.  If it did, then the vast majority of sex that has occurred in the history of the human race has been rape.  Men are not mindreaders, so until the human race evolves telepathic communication, “he should have known better” is a risible justification for crying rape.  Or near-rape.  Or semi-rape.

She is certainly free to consider it semi-rape, if she wants.  Just as we are free consider her a silly, stupid, drama queen.  It’s not as if men never scream NO!!!!! inside either, the difference is that men are sufficiently self-aware to realize that they have no one to blame but themselves.  What women call semi-rape is nothing more than what men call beer goggles.

Watch Oprah, mostly

In which a decades-old question is answered:

In her own writings, Mosher was acutely aware of her foresight, and of the possibilities that lay ahead for women once sex became less of a secret and gender less of a burden. “Born into a world of unlimited opportunity, the woman of the rising generation will answer the question of what woman’s real capacities are,” Mosher wrote in 1923. “She will have physical, economic, racial and civic freedom. What will she do with it?”

My suspicion is that the men of my generation and the following one have a far lower opinion of “woman’s real capacities” than the men of Mosher’s generation did. Mostly because we have the advantage of seeing what women have done with the physical, economic, racial, and civic freedom that Mosher anticipated: Twilight, Oprah, Girls Gone Wild, Prohibition/War on Drugs, and the current debt/GDP ratio pretty much covers it.

No amount of male cynicism could possibly have anticipated a post-patriarchal world in which female professors would utilize their astrophysics degrees in order to teach lesbianism in Hindu film as part of a Women’s Studies program. The moment of that fortuitous discovery, for which I will always be deeply grateful to my interlocutor at the time, Mr. John Scalzi, was the precise one at which my loathing for feminism transformed into a genuine appreciation for the vast amount of intrinsic humor it offers. And the more I have learned about the history of feminism, the more I read about the optimistic hopes and dreams of its antecedents and activists, the more amusing its absurd reality has become.

What he said

I’ve told you this before. But the Dark Lord articulated it better:

CR Maxim #57: Never trust a woman’s advice on how to please women. Her advice is designed for alpha men she already finds attractive and from whom she seeks signals of attainability and commitment.

It’s vital to understand that women have pretty bright lines regarding who they find attractive and who they do not. You’re placed in one category or the other in the first five seconds. And while it’s always possible to make yourself less attractive to a woman, there is virtually nothing you can do to make yourself more attractive to a woman except to be seen dating a woman who is more attractive than she is.

No sympathy

Given the present anti-father legal regime, why would any man feel any pity whatsoever for this clueless British mother who signed custody of her son away to her dead husband’s relatives?

Rebecca Jones signed legal papers written in Arabic and witnessed by her dead husband’s family – believing they were about an inheritance for her boy Adam. But instead the documents gave full custody to 77-year-old Mariam Al Madhaiki – who immediately swept the frightened child away from Rebecca and enrolled him in an Islamic school in Qatar. Last week, to Rebecca’s dismay, Sharia judges in the Middle East state THREW OUT her appeal to win him back after a seven-month battle – despite Adam sobbing in court: “I want my mother.”

The judges ruled she can see her son twice a week for just FOUR HOURS, supervised by cops in a room. Now the 43-year-old mum from Sheffield is going to the High Court to try to get justice over what she calls a “kidnap”.

“I was tricked into it. This is completely against the rights of my child and me as his mother,” she said.

So she lost custody of her son. Boo freaking hoo. Precisely how is that any worse than what happens every single day to men who are divorced by their wives, robbed of their children, and stripped of their assets? At least she had the option to NOT sign a contract she couldn’t read in a foreign country and she still gets to see him every week. Moreover, she doesn’t have to foot the bill for his expenses or the lifestyle of her in-laws either.

Notice the tone of the article. Newspapers don’t even bother to report on men losing their children because it happens so often and it is something that many journalists outright support. But if a mother loses custody of her child, then naturally it must be grounds for an international incident.

To be honest, I have zero sympathy for any Western woman who is foolish enough to get romantically involved with an Arab man these days regardless of how the relationship eventually implodes. The difference between Western and Middle Eastern legal and marital norms have been well known for at least two decades now, so there’s no excuse for claiming one didn’t know about them. And of course they all act charmingly modernized at first, it’s not as if anyone was ever likely to get a date riding around on a camel shrieking “death to the infidel!”