Tag: women

Hypergamy trumps ideology

Even stark raving feminists go on the hunt for gamma providers… once they begin to feel their looks starting to fade. The perceptive observer will note the Game-predicted pattern at work in Jessica Wakeman’s unexpected feminist defense of gold-digging:

Take me, for instance. I’m afraid I’m going to get tarred and feathered as a “bad feminist” for admitting this, but yeah, I do want to marry someone who can financially support both me and our kids…. Right now, I rent an apartment with my boyfriend and a roommate, but personally, I’m still living at the edge of my own means as it is. I don’t make a lot of money as a journalist, I owe lots of money to student loans and unless my future husband or I had a great job prospect someplace else, I don’t want to live very far outside New York City, because that’s where the media capital of the world is right now.

Maybe this isn’t “feminist,” but logically, I need to marry a guy who makes more money than I do—preferably a lot more money than I do—for us to be able to afford what I want and I hope he will want, too. An apartment big enough for kids, prenatal care, doctors appointments, birthday presents, vacations, summer camp, college, their own car, all that stuff. I know parents can raise children well on much less. But personally, that’s not the lifestyle I grew up with. I want to be able to give my children everything I had—maybe a little less, maybe a little more—because I think my parents did a great job.

I also would immediately disqualify entering into a sharing-bank-accounts relationship with a man who proved to be irresponsible with his cash. College loan debt is fine (I’ve got it) and a reasonable balance on the credit card debt is understandable (I’ve got that, too). But I couldn’t wrap up my life or my children’s lives around someone who spent or managed money irresponsibly.

So, the woman is living with her current boyfriend while simultaneously seeking some unwitting gamma who will completely fail to see that his only attraction for her is to pay her bills… and of course, her debts. This fits the classic pattern wherein a woman devotes her prime years to “having fun”, which translates as having as much sex as possible with alphas and unemployed artists while ignoring the nice deltas and gammas who helplessly offer her the promise of a stable relationship.

Then, once the daunting specter of THIRTY looms on the horizion, she begins to lower her sights and transform her attentions to the provider class of men further down the socio-sexual hierarchy. And this is why most married sex lives will tend to dry up after a year or two; the woman is no longer required to fake her level of sexual interest in the benefit of the hapless provider and there is nothing he can do about it since she has the full force of the feminized law at her disposal.

This is why it is a very risky and probably foolish endeavor for men to marry women over the age of 25. Even an extended “try before you buy” approach is unlikely to improve your odds, as observation suggests that desperation and/or determination to entrap a provider causes women to present a false sexual front for an extended period of time. And worse, over time her hypergamous nature is going to rise to the forefront and cause her to return to her “happiness-seeking” (read: alpha-seeking) habits.

There are two ways to address the situation. One is to marry a genuinely religious or submissive woman, as she will have a strong inherent resistance to her hypergamous instincts. Remember, instinct is merely an influence, it is not a controlling factor. The second, of course, is to not marry at all. But whatever you do, do not even speculate about the possibility of considering the thought of marrying an aging, debt-laden feminist who is scouting about for a long-term delta provider following an extended ride on the thugacious carousel.

The Twilight of the Damned

I am entirely confident that had vampire porn been around in the first century, Twilight bed sheets would have been included along with adultery as legitimate Biblical grounds for divorce.

I am an enthusiastic fan of the Twilight Saga and have recently purchased an Edward Cullen pillowcase and blanket. Here is the problem – I am married and my husband has taken great offense to having these items on our “marital bed”! I have argued that he is a fictional character and that these are just objects…and if he wanted to put Pam Anderson on a pillowcase he could gladly do so. He thinks I am not in touch with reality (which I find offensive) and am not being a considerate wife. I want to make my husband happy but does that mean that I have to compromise my happiness in order to achieve this?

Attention deltas and gammas. Remember this email the next time you find yourself tempted to take anything a woman says seriously or to place her on a pedestal. This is not a joke, it is an actual example of the way that a living, breathing, adult married woman thinks. Now, steel yourself and try to imagine what must be going through the head of the average woman who doesn’t regard herself as being sufficiently grown-up for marriage!

The mind reels.

There is so much wrong here that it might seem hard to know where to start, but in fact it is entirely clear. The bedsheets go and the wife can either decide to grow up or she can go too. Her immature, self-centered lack of respect for her husband is total and it is hilarious how she “finds offensive” his statement of the completely freaking obvious given her equation of happiness with teenybopper bedsheets.

The advice given by the fat little complacent gamma was totally predictable of course. As soon as I saw his picture, I knew his advice would be to ignore the fact that the wife is a complete lunatic and tell the husband to let her have her way. After all, doing exactly what a woman tells you to do is the way that you may occasionally be permitted to have sex with her, right? This is the point at which the observer is forced to note that as many as four of the advice columnist’s seven children might actually be his.

Sure enough: I’ve read those Twilight books, they are pretty romantic. So let your wife enjoy her dreamy fantasy of fangs and foreplay and she may just turn out to be the most considerate wife you could imagine – nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Did I call that one or what? Romance novels and romance TV are nothing more or less than female porn. Most women will furiously deny it, but their very vehemence underlines the reality. Women get the same buzz off romance porn that men get from Victoria’s Nasty Secret Vol. 37 and the fact that the female variant happens to be more acceptable in public in the West is no more meaningful than the fact that tentacle monsters penetrating spread-eagled teen girls in tattered school uniforms is equally acceptable in public elsewhere. I’ll never forget being puzzled by the sight of a middle-aged sarariman openly reading a comic book on the train next to me and glancing over his shoulder to see what sort of childish superhero cartoon it was. Such was my eye-opening introduction to the significant difference between shōnen and seijin manga.

The point is that while a man should tolerate a woman’s moderate porn habit, if it’s gotten to the point that she’s doing the female equivalent of bringing a Jenna Jameson blow-up doll to bed, she’s out of control and requires reining in. But this woman is so far gone that there may be no hope for her. Forget the sexual and sanity implications, I’d leave the poor freakshow solely on the basis of aesthetics.

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.