Social Media And Female Self-Esteem

It’s funny ’cause it’s true.

Feminists and their suckups have been very effective at shifting cultural opinion in the direction of believing that women suffer from low self-esteem at the hands of an antagonistic patriarchy. And they have managed this propaganda feat while simultaneously trumpeting the world-changing force of grrlpower. Remarkable squaring of the circle! Feminists are, if nothing else, skilled at resolving seemingly insurmountable contradictions in thought. Their hamsters are juiced to the cheeks on roid pellets and spinning that wheel faster than ever.

The truth, as is always the case when closely examining feminist doctrine, is the complete opposite.

If you are a man, imagine experiencing life through the fish-eye lens of the woman in the left-hand side of that Facebook graphic above. The lens distorts reality so that you are the impossibly enlarged center of your frame and everything around you recedes to warped insignificance. This is an even better analogy for the life of the typical attractive young woman than the metaphor of living in a fishbowl.

Try to picture this life, except with the sex roles reversed. Every one of your trivial observations or random thoughts gets “upvoted”, literally and metaphorically, by throngs of admirers, mostly female but some male too. Your lauded accomplishments amount to sharing cute puppy pics. Say something stupid? No one will call you out on it. Make a lame joke? Everyone laughs uproariously. Post a drunken photo of yourself? Hundreds of chicks “like this” and cheer in unison, “you go, guy!”. Tell no one in particular that you are sad, and you’re having a bad day? Hundreds more line up to offer uplifting messages of support.

You get the idea. Now, what do you think experiencing life like that will do to your self-esteem? If you answered, “my self-esteem would fly through the roof”, you win. Again.

The notion that American women endure the travails of low self-esteem is unmitigated bullshit; mythmaking of the highest caliber. American women, and really most women in post-industrial countries on the downslope into cultural decay, have the opposite psychological condition: TOO MUCH self-esteem.

Social network mediums like Facebook and Twitter have contributed to the bloating of the American female ego by giving her access to the admiration of ARMIES of would-be suitors (the equivalent of a handful of suitors in pre-internet fame times), and to an emotional support system that numbers in the hundreds, even thousands, over the relatively tiny social circle her grandmother was grateful to have in her day.

Today, it is insidiously easy for a woman in her peak attractiveness years to attention whore. If you want to know why so many women so readily whore for attention, the answer is simple: because they can. Cute puppy pic —> cascade of high fives. Who wouldn’t avail themselves of that quick ego fix?

In contrast, most men must still attention whore the old-fashioned way: by earning real achievement and marketing it to as wide a receptive audience as possible. A man doesn’t have the luxury of posting puppy pics to get his ego thrills. He needs to actively market himself and/or his accomplishments, and to sell himself in such a way that he is received in a positive light by his audience. Game is a revolution in thought because it allows men to circumvent the traditional avenues of male attention whoring; namely, occupational status and ostentatious materialism.

In some limited ways, social media serve men’s interests as well. The task of preselection becomes a lot easier. One pic of you doing shit with a cute chick is worth ten overactive hamsters. Plus, if you have a band, it’s now a lot simpler to expand the pool of potential groupies. Nevertheless, critical differences in how social media affect men’s and women’s psychology exist; few men will experience the instant ego rush from online exposure that so many girls in their prime fertility years do.

I occasionally get emails from older men taking issue with one or another core game concept. Usually, they are along the lines of “When I was dating, I didn’t need to neg women. It wasn’t that complicated.” Well, that may or may not be true (rose-colored glasses come to mind, as does the suspicion that a lot of old-time players have conveniently forgotten how much game they used to spit), but the fact is that the prevalence of social media and its effects on women’s egos has demanded the use of self-esteem lowering seduction tactics like negs and disqualifications.

Maxim #22: A woman with inflated self-esteem is a woman who will erroneously believe she is too good to date men normally in her league, unless steps are taken to bring her self-esteem back in line with reality.

Corollary to Maxim #22: A dating market lopsided with unrealistically high self-esteem women will shrink the pool of men available to date and marry, with the consequence that women remain single longer than they would otherwise.

Corollary to the corollary to Maxim #22: The most effective measure society can undertake to increase the incidence of marriage and the quality of married life is to stop artificially propping up women’s self-esteems.

It’s no coincidence that social media — and the Generation Masturbation it spawned — and the modern permutation of game co-evolved at roughly the same point in history. Future anthropologists will study this era as one in which the sexual market operated in near complete freedom, with all artificial constraints tempering female sexual prerogative removed, and many of the impositions on the full expression of male sexuality removed as well. The consequences of this society-wide experiment are beginning to manifest, and so far the social landscape coming into focus — despite being a boon to cultural renegades like myself — doesn’t bode well for maintaining a healthy, prosperous nation.

*downvote*

Read Full Post »

Women Are Less Principled Than Men

Do women have an underdeveloped sense of justice? Is the adherence to principles primarily the domain of men?

Anecdotal evidence would suggest both the above propositions are true. Certainly, Chateau field marshals have previously turned their awesome powers of observation to the task of illuminating the wide gulf between the sexes in how they understand and apply the notion of fairness. For instance, in this Chateau post from long ago it was noted that women’s sense of justice flows from a refined but wholly self-interested pragmatism.

Women as a whole are more coldly calculating than men, and the worst of them can challenge the top 1% of sociopathic alpha males for deceitfulness and cavalier betrayal. It is the prerogative of women that practical concerns, and how to achieve them, dominate their thinking and catalyze their emotions. They are the ones stuck with nine month pregnancies. Morality was codified by men; amorality perfected by women. And no one is more versed in justifying and rationalizing their own shitty behavior than a woman.

And in this Chateau post, it was boldy stated that women’s morality is geared toward the welfare of the social collective regardless of first principles, and that the beliefs of the most popular in status and numbers often become the beliefs of women who, as is the whim of their historically vulnerable sex, fear exclusion from the group more than anything else, except carrying the seed of a beta male.

[W]omen by nature are followers, and where the pack goes, so go they. Women self-govern by a simple (simplistic) motto: “It’s all in the numbers.” Once a tipping popularity point is reached, women will abandon their old principles for the new principles with a speed that will prove the shallowness and expediency with which they hold their beliefs.

But to date, little science has been done to examine the evidence for the Chateau and common man wisdom that men and women hold different moral values. Until recently.

The scientific literature is accumulating that points to fundamental sex differences in morality.

• Some studies show that women are more empathetic then men, and that this difference increases over child development (for example, there’s a nice study showing this trend in Spain by María Mestre and collaborators).

This is evidence that group cohesion informs women’s morality more than it does men’s morality. If someone is distressed in the group, it will be more empathetic women who tend to that person’s gripes. This is a good thing when the group is the nuclear family; you want a wife and mother who will defend your family, right or wrong. It’s a bad thing when the group — such as the society in which women live — is exploited by bad people who can convincingly project a victim mentality and, thus, hijack women’s empathy compulsions.

• When looking at pictures of immoral acts, women’s judgments of severity correlate with higher levels of activation in emotion centers of the brain, suggesting concern for victims, whereas men show higher activation in areas that might involve the deployment of principles(Carla Harenski and collaborators).

Women are less principled than men. A woman’s sense of fairness and moral disgust can be manipulated by emotional pleas. This is why you often see women defending hardcore killers when they are bombarded with sob stories about those killers’ sad upbringings. The upside is that women’s gravitation to the travails of victims can insulate true victims from egregious applications of principled but misguided retribution.

• When men watch wrongdoers getting punished, there is activation in reward centers of their brains, whereas women’s brains show activation in pain centers, suggesting that they feel empathy for suffering even when it is deserved (Tania Singer and collaborators).

Again, more evidence that women’s morality rests on feelings rather than on abstract devotion to principles. This is why you will often see women (and this includes nuns) sympathizing with death row scum of the earth. Their empathy modules have trouble distinguishing between real victims (the dead at the hands of killers) and sentimental victims (the condemned about to die).

• Women are more likely to factor personal cost into decisions about whether to punish an unfair stranger, which suggests that women are more context-sensitive, and men adhere to principles (Catherine Eckel and Philip Grossman).

Women are unprincipled pragmatists. They must be, because, evolutionarily speaking, they have been the more vulnerable, weaker sex. As evolutionary psychology would predict, women simply can’t afford high-minded adherence to principles the way men can.

• Women were twice as generous in a game that involved dividing $10 with a stranger (Eckel and Grossman, again).

Female generosity with strangers is likely an evolved trait that furthers group cohesion, or prevents the outbreak of intra-, or inter-, group violence. Male selfishness with random strangers likely evolved because men’s mating value rests to a greater degree on their acquisition of resources. (So if women complain about men being selfish, well, they should remember who it is exactly that motivates men to horde their winnings.)

• Numerous studies have found that women are more likely than men to reciprocate acts of kindness (reviewed by Rachel Croson and Uri Gneezy).

Another example of female predilection to see to the collective good in order to strengthen group cohesion.

• Women tend to be more egalitarian then men, and men are more likely to be either completely selfless or selfish (James Andreoni and Lise Vesterlund).

I should hope it’s pretty well known by now that women have been voting for more liberal policies and candidates than men since suffrage. In other words, women will discard principles when voting in favor of the expedience of spreading around harmonious tranquility with other people’s money.

• Women are more likely than men to think it is okay to imprison a person on trumped up charges in order to stop violent rioting in the streets (Fiery Cushman and Liane Young). But women are also less likely to endorse diverting a runaway trolley down an alternate track where it will kill one person instead of five (John Mikhail).

AKA: Where the desire for group cohesion bumps up against overcharged empathy.

• Women are more likely than men to blame a shipwreck survivor for pushing another survivor off a small plank of driftwood in order to survive (Stephen Stich and Wesley Buckwalter).

“Someone, somewhere, is hurting.”

• Women are less likely than men to be politically conservative (Karen Kaufman; Terri Givens), though the reverse pattern was true in the 1950s (Felicia Pratto).

I’m guessing the pattern was the reverse in the 1950s because more women were married and getting their provisions from provider husbands instead of grievance shakedown rackets and sugar daddy government. A married woman with children is a woman whose worst moral instincts are muted. Alternate explanation: political conservatism was of a lot different complexion in the 1950s than it is now.

This range of findings resists an easy summary, but, on the whole, women seem to be more empathetic and more focused on the collective good. This is broadly consistent with Gilligan’s suggestion that women are more likely than men to base moral decisions on a care orientation, whereas men gravitate more towards principles.

Once again, the science confirms horribly evil and politically incorrect Chateau observations. I don’t post these studies because I like to have my balls gently caressed by reams of scientific papers proving the rightness of my worldview. Though that is a nice side effect, my primary purpose in highlighting these scientific explorations is the warm glow I get thinking about the eyeball-popping rage that reading these posts must bring to my haters. Their pain fills me with good cheer!

What the scientific conclusions mischievously suggest is that female care-oriented morality is best suited for small-scale communities like families and neighborhoods, but is not so good when expanded to a national scale (see: mass immigration). Male principle-oriented morality, in contrast, is a much better guard rail for steering a nation along the right path (see: fiscal restraint).

Read Full Post »

Feminists Are Afraid Of Evolutionary Psychology, And With Good Reason

Amanda Marcotte, no raving beauty she (the objective rating of her looks is germane to this discussion insofar as it partly explains the motivation for why feminists hold the irrational opinions they do), has a beef with sociobiology, aka evolutionary psychology.

I read and research a lot of “evolutionary psychology”, and while they are very good at getting people to cop to anti-feminist opinions and sexist behaviors, I have not really seen many—any?—that prove their contention that these behaviors or opinions are encoded in the genes instead of learned from the environment. They simply note people are sexist and claim that it’s genetic. I sense an agenda there, because if you were putting science in front of an agenda, you would acknowledge the huge body of research supporting the idea that we learn our behaviors and beliefs from our environment.

But I’m happy [ed: no, she’s not] to read studies that prove that sexism is genetic and unchangeable instead of socialized and changeable!  I just haven’t seen it in all the years I’ve been writing about this.

Feminists are scared shitless of the implications of sociobiological theory, and it’s easy to see why. The whole edifice of feminism teeters on the shaky proposition that sex differences feminists find unpalatable are amenable to change (i.e., “improvement”) via government and societal intervention. If it is found that sex differences are instead hard-wired into the brain architecture through the process of millions of years of natural and sexual selection and are resistant to social reengineering schemes, then feminism as a practical ideology is utterly discredited.

What’s a man-jawed, fuzz-faced, beady-eyed fembot to do when her raison d’être is rendered null and void? One thing we know for certain: she won’t be happy to read studies dropping a hot, steaming deuce into her brain case.

There is a level of psychological distress more disconcerting, more bowel-evacuating, than even that of coming to realize one is hitched to a hollow ideology. Ultimately, feminists are afraid of what evolutionary psychology has to reveal because feminists are afraid of attractiveness standards, and of unchangeable attractiveness standards in particular. Because, you see, in the arena of sexual marketability, it is men who are the sex with more options to improve their dating market value. Women are, for the most part, stuck with their desirability, or lack thereof, the moment they are conceived. Outside of expensive, radical cosmetic surgery the effectiveness of which is questionable at best and monstrous at worst, the average woman will not be able to make herself more beautiful and, hence, more likely to snag a high value man anytime in her life. She can only lower her mate value by, for example, getting fat, old, burdened with bastard spawn or facially disfigured.

Accepting this truth is so depressing for many women that elaborate delusions, rationalizations and nonsensical ideologies occupy large swaths of their neural pathways to misdirect and medicate their overstuffed egos.

As the gleaming Chateau on the hill once pointed out, accurate generalizations about immutable human characteristics are the holy water to feminists’ undead orthodoxy:

if you’ll notice, women are the most outraged by the idea of evolutionary psychology and unchangeable genetic fate. that physical beauty should be so unalterable and at the same time so critical to a woman’s prospects for snagging an alpha male of her own sends shivers down her spine. if true, it means they cannot do much to improve their value on the open market. no educational attainment, no carreer success, no makeup, no exercise [to a point], no hob nobbing with the right people — nothing much matters but for the face they were given when mommy’s egg was fertilized by daddy’s swimmers.

yet, this is precisely how the sexual market works. and so, as the gears of the pretty lie machine clank and sputter to dispense more of its life-affirming self-delusions, the “social conditioning” brigade strikes out at the descending shroud of hopeless darkness.

Read Marcotte’s words. Listen to her distress signals. “Learned behaviors”. “Social conditioning”. “Cultural conditioning”. These empty slogans — so pleasant on the ears of blank slatists and equalists and temperamental bolsheviks — are the lifeblood of feminist thought. To undermine the slogans is to ling chi the souls of their adherents. Marcotte frantically and blindly swings them around like a verbal sword, not to persuade or enlighten, but to keep her encircling enemies at bay. This is argument in service to self-preservation, nothing more, for the evidence she marshals in support of her worldview is slowly rotting from the inside out. As science inexorably chips away at the justifications for believing in these feminist fairy tales, the cognitive dissonance that believers must feel rattles their confidence and sends them reeling backwards into paroxysms of strawmen, illogic, sour grapes, non sequiturs and ad hominem. The stuck pig always lashes out most violently when cornered.

Feminists will answer, with all the self-contradiction that only they can expertly dispense absent the slightest hint of irony, that sociobiology is not a hard science because we can’t go back in time to observe our ancient ancestors’ mating habits, thus relegating any theory of human mating behavior to the province of “just-so stories”. Such penetrating insight!

Well, no shit. We can’t go back in time to observe apes evolving into humans, either, so according to feminist logic that must mean the theory of evolution is wrong. Scientists gather evidence for historical biological processes by analyzing what is available to them in the present environment, and then draw inferences from the data. Additional data and experimental testing will either buttress or weaken a particular hypothesis. This isn’t just-so fantasizing; it’s the scientific method.

Sadly for Marcotte and her ilk, to date the accumulated data is buttressing a genetic view of human nature and weakening fifty years of environmental supremacy belief.

The question of evolutionary psychology’s status as a hard science is not something of much relevance. All that matters is whether or not its findings make sense. And compared to competing humanities and “soft science” fields, evolutionary psychology makes a lot of sense. It, and not “cultural conditioning” theories, best explains the patterns of human behavior anyone can see in action every day if they aren’t up to their eyeballs in denial, or striving for social status points over their SWPL frenemies.

Marcotte is insisting on cultural explanations for which there is much less evidence than there is for genetic explanations. If feminists present a theory of human behavior which explains the available evidence better than evolutionary psychology, I’ll give it its due. Of course they will not do so because they and their cohorts have nothing but lies. For example, the highly popular “stereotype threat” theory held near and dear by racial egalitarians — close cousins of feminism — has recently been proven a sham.

Even evidence that supports a cultural primacy interpretation is fraught with danger to feminist orthodoxy. For what is culture but a manifestation of genetic propensity?

Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” you so recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.

If feminists find some smidgen of peer-bypassed evidence tucked away somewhere in a private school’s gender studies program that, for instance, Playboy has pushed men to value young, slender babes over the old, fat chicks men would otherwise prefer, then they will have to account for the unnerving fact that the culture *just happened* to influence men to favor slender babes over fat chicks, and not the opposite. Then they will find that most cultures across the globe mysteriously influence men to favor young, thin women over old fatties. The muddled and tormented bridging of all those coincidences into some kind of semi-coherent thought will belie their theories and rob them of any parsimony. Why does culture, if it is the primary influencing force of sexual behavior as feminists claim, almost always act in one direction on fundamental human dynamics such as mate choice? That is a question feminists dare not entertain.

So feminism, along with Communism, multiculturalism and egalitarianism, falls victim to the same tropes that all human nature denialists share: namely, the belief that people behave in upsetting ways because some nebulous cultural mind ray tells them to behave in upsetting ways.

The “blame the media” refrain is the reflexive blurt of the human nature denialists. It comes in many flavors: blame society, blame cultural conditioning, blame stereotyping, blame heteronormativity, blame subtextual bias… anything to avoid confronting the reality of evolved immutable human preferences for some traits over others. People are intolerant of obesity because it innately disgusts them, not because “the media” tells them to be disgusted. Media propaganda can make it more or less acceptable to publicly express that disgust, but it can’t create the disgust out of thin air.

One should not underestimate how convenient the feminist beliefs in gender equalism, social conditioning, and the malleability of human behavior is to the realization of their goals. Because without those beliefs, feminists won’t be able to get on with the program of altering the oscillation of the evil sexist cultural mind rays. Their worst fear will instead emerge to soak up the light of day: human nature is less alterable than they wish were so, and essential contours of our sexual preferences are heavily influenced by a universally shared genetic legacy. Where the genetic predilection for certain mate characteristics is not universally shared, it is racially or ethnically shared, and thus, just as immutable.

Contrary to the hopes and dreams of rainbow ejaculating egalitarian gasbags, what the science of evolutionary psychology and genetics tells us is that there are born winners and there are born losers, on the individual and on the population level, and you’ll have no choice but to sit back and get used to it. Since most feminists are ugly, accepting this truth would deliver a mortal blow to their egos.

This week, I will present three more of those evolutionary psychology studies that so vex feminists. Hopefully Marcotte will catch wind of them. The thought of her groaning under the weight of the anti-equalitarian evidence as her forehead vein throbs and her soul splinters into a million shards of impotent grrlrage fills me with sadistic joy.

Read Full Post »

Why Alimony Must End

A girl pal was telling me about the uncle of one of her friends. His wife had left him, moved way out of state, and met some new guy who became her live-in boyfriend. Get this: the ex-wife refused to marry the live-in bf because she wanted to keep the alimony spigot open. Years later, she’s still unmarried, still boffing the bf, and still collecting alimony from the ex-hubby beta uncle, who, by all accounts, is a stand-up guy that everyone (except, apparently, his ex-wife) really likes and admires. He doesn’t know where the money goes because the kids are with him most of the time. He thinks most of it funds his ex’s vacations with her lover.

The problem with America’s anti-male marriage and divorce industrial complex is that it allows women’s normally inhibited cuntery — when just and fair, and some might say patriarchal, rules constrain their choices — to effloresce beyond the bounds necessary to maintain a healthy, functioning society. A good rule of thumb: if a woman thinks she can get away with sticking the shiv in a beta to redound to her personal advantage, she will.

There is no feminist in the world who can twist her hamster logic enough to convince anyone worth convincing that legally forcing a man to pay alimony to an ex-wife who refuses to remarry so that the alimony gravy train keeps riding is even remotely within the universe of fairness. A fucking two year old can tell you that this is bullshit on stilts.

Since feminists are so irrational, it’s best to ignore them and focus on persuading people who matter of the rights or wrongs of certain laws and policies. Unfortunately, the number of persuadable people who matter is next to zero in the funhouse amusement theme park formerly known as America.

Assuming for a moment that the elites currently womanning the legal, political, academic and media institutions haven’t gone completely insane or malevolent (a big assumption nowadays), a sensible correction to this blatantly man-hating legal policy (greased by the oily secretions of the world’s number one parasites — divorce lawyers) is a new policy which states in unequivocal terms that any alimony to an ex-wife ends as soon as the tip of another man’s cock pierces her outer labia.

And that’s just a minor concession to fairness. In a truly sensible world which took account of the changed modern mating landscape, there would be no alimony at all. The whole thing’s a fucking sham — like just about everything else that oozes out of courtrooms, boardrooms, ad rooms and legislative committees these days — designed to steal redistribute wealth and prestige from rules-playing beta suckers to bloodsucking grievance groups. You wonder if someday the dutiful and honor-bound betas will wake up to their dispossession, but then you have to remember that impotently bending over and taking it up the poop chute again and again is probably encoded in their DNA, so they really can’t help themselves.

Read Full Post »

Another Conservative Traditionalist Gets It Wrong About Men And Women

Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education and Drug Czar, correctly identifies and laments the declining fortunes of men…

The data does not bode well for men. In 1970, men earned 60% of all college degrees. In 1980, the figure fell to 50%, by 2006 it was 43%. Women now surpass men in college degrees by almost three to two. Women’s earnings grew 44% in real dollars from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6% growth for men.

…but then reverts to blind, deaf and dumb traditionalist form by laying the blame for men’s ailments at the feet of… I know the suspense is killing you!… men.

If you don’t believe the numbers, just ask young women about men today. You will find them talking about prolonged adolescence and men who refuse to grow up. I’ve heard too many young women asking, “Where are the decent single men?” There is a maturity deficit among men out there, and men are falling behind. […]

Man’s response has been pathetic. Today, 18-to- 34-year-old men spend more time playing video games a day than 12-to- 17-year-old boys. While women are graduating college and finding good jobs, too many men are not going to work, not getting married and not raising families. Women are beginning to take the place of men in many ways. This has led some to ask: do we even need men? […]

Movies are filled with stories of men who refuse to grow up and refuse to take responsibility in relationships. Men, some obsessed with sex, treat women as toys to be discarded when things get complicated. Through all these different and conflicting signals, our boys must decipher what it means to be a man, and for many of them it is harder to figure out.

Oh, those precious, pedestalized princesses, incorruptible vessels of Mother Mary love, doing what’s right and suffering the slings and arrows of men’s failings in reward. What’s a haloed lady to do when her heart is open to the love of a good man and all she gets is a parade of losers in her bed? The burdens of her gilded womb she will bear in martyrdom.

The bubble boy boundaries of the conservative imagination are never more evident than in its grappling with the sociosexual differences between men and women and the workings of the dating market. An appalling lack of understanding, of even a tangential blow with the truth about female nature, suggests that traditionalists and their offspring — Promise Keepers, Iron Johns, (some) MRAs, evangelists, etc. — have an allergic reaction to plumbing the depths of the human sexual soul, a revulsion likely concocted in a cauldron of sheltered life experiences and morbid fear of their own temptations.

Someone, anyone, has to pull the wool from their eyes, because their ignorance compounds a problem they rightly see as anathema to civilized prosperity. Their haste to lay the fault at the feet of men and to wholly absolve women of any responsibility gives the id monster free reign to lay waste to their utopian ideal. This is because it is the shackling or the unleashing of the female id, not the male id, that ultimately controls the destiny of a society.

So, a sincere plea to Bennett and his ilk: Get your heads out of the sand. You can start by repeating the following to yourself every morning in the mirror:

What’s wrong with men? Nothing that isn’t also wrong with women.

Men don’t “refuse to grow up”. They drop out, (or rather, beta males drop out), and with good reason, because the sexual market has been reconstructed to pander to female hypergamous impulses. Men can no longer achieve the clearly-defined status over hypergamous women they once could because the traditional field of battle that afforded them relative supremacy and, thus, attractiveness, to women — the corporate office — has, via managerial despotism strengthening PC and diversity to a state religion, lopped their balls clean off. And so men retreat from the corporate drone working world to achieve their status elsewhere.

Men don’t avoid marriage and family because they have a “maturity deficit”. They rationally avoid marriage and family because, as the institutions are currently constituted, they are a raw deal for men. Marriage is a risk made too great by misandrist divorce laws, and kids are a cost made too high by falling wages and tightening housing markets, of which part of the blame must go to women who have been voting for increasingly leftie and feminist-friendly governments since suffrage.

Men don’t play the field because they “avoid responsibility”. Men play the field because they can; because women, in their zeal to delay marriage until their careers have been established, to hop a parade of alpha cock during their roaring twenties, and to reward the players over the providers with their prime sexual access, have opened the field to men.

Men don’t “treat women as toys”. Men get the sex while the getting’s good because women allow — nay, PREFER — themselves to be toyed with by the kinds of men who are good at it.

In other words, Mr. Bennett, women GET EXACTLY THE KINDS OF MEN they deserve. Even more dispiriting to your conception of the universe, women get the men they WANT.

Women are the gatekeepers and the hadron collider tubes of sexuality. This has never changed, and likely never will as long as our biology remains rooted in the material world. The shape and direction of man is primarily an effect, not a cause, of the pathway laid out by women. The ancients you revere knew this, which is why they found it perfectly natural to restrict female power where they could.

For boys to become men, they need to be guided through advice, habit, instruction, example and correction.

Nice sentiment. But guidance and advice are worse than useless when they lead astray. Your advice should be customized to the reality you live in, not the comforting unreality you wish were real.

Someone once characterized the two essential questions Plato posed as: Who teaches the children,

Stone cold experience.

and what do we teach them?

To accept the darkness.

We need to respond to this culture that sends confusing signals to young men, a culture that is agnostic about what it wants men to be, with a clear and achievable notion of manhood.

The lunacy of thinking the culture is ultimately well-intentioned and all it needs is a proper scolding is the mindset of the fool, or a pity whore. What good is a “clear and achievable notion of manhood” if such a notion is unvalued by women? How achievable is this notion in a culture dictated by a cognoelite that has no use for it?

The Founding Fathers believed, and the evidence still shows, that industriousness, marriage and religion are a very important basis for male empowerment and achievement.

If conservatives are serious about restoring a traditional concept of manhood to the modern man, I have a few suggestions for them.

1. Industriousness will only be a worthwhile pursuit for men if they can extract some real status out of it to satisfy their guiding compulsion to attract women. This means removing women from the workplace, where female career growth acts indirectly to undermine male provider and leadership status, and directly through the feminization of the workplace.

2. Marriage will only be a worthwhile goal for men when divorce laws are gutted and reinvented to stop massively favoring women at the expense of men. No-fault divorce should be abolished. Child support changed so that men and women have automatic equal share of custody if the man wants it. Alimony abolished so that we never again see a callous situation where the ex-husband is writing checks to an ex-wife who initiated divorce and is now banging a new lover. Women who initiate divorce for any reason other than provable physical abuse should be kicked out of the house and made to get by living in an apartment.

3. Religion is dead in the water. The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil has been bitten, and no one who matters in the developed nations can take it seriously again until they and their shrinking descendants have been purged from the human pool. But if you want a fighting chance to return religion to some honorable place in society, and to have men return to the fold, the constant, sanctimonious drumbeat of chiding men to behave must stop, and be replaced with sermons that take into account the fallen nature of women. Remember, women WANT to be led. They won’t abandon the church if their natures are examined candidly and honestly, and without fear.

Now naturally, few conservatives will take up this call to arms. Have you heard any of them discussing the possibility of rearranging contractual marriage, the workplace, and religion to make it easier for men to ascend to a gloried position in society? Have you heard any discuss the natural disposition women have toward men of higher status, and that catering to this disposition will result in healthier relationships? I haven’t. That’s because most conservatives are pussies. “From a pussy, ye shall stay a pussy” would be an accurate conservative credo.

Since none of the above recommendations will ever see the light of day, let alone become the law of the land, the Chateau counsel to forge a new creation by learning game remains unchallenged in its effectiveness and its nobility. The map men navigate has changed; their status and their honor now issue from a wickedly precise understanding of women’s sexual natures, an acceptance of the new culture that pervades, and a fearlessness in exploiting what was bequeathed them to personal advantage.

The answers conservatives do have are laughable. Bill Bennett gives his:

We may need to say to a number of our twenty-something men, “Get off the video games five hours a day, get yourself together, get a challenging job and get married.” It’s time for men to man up.

Yes, men, man up. That’s the ticket. When she cuckolds you, man up. When she rejects your gentlemanly kindness for an aloof badboy, man up. When she unceremoniously files for divorce because she got bored of your beta personality after she went off the pill, man up. When she takes the house, car, dog and half to fund her live-in boyfriend’s porn habit, man up. When she writes love letters to terrorists and serial killers on death row because her honorable hubby doesn’t amuse her anymore, man up. When she boffs the first douchebag DJ who comes along but makes a courteous accountant wait three months for sex, man up. When she devours pulp romance novels and vacuous feminized trash that desensitizes her to the value of real life men she can reasonably hope to attract, man up. When she gets aroused by a backhanded compliment but remains unmoved by a sincere compliment, man up. When she cries to HR about what she thinks was an inappropriate flirtation, man up. When she “forgets” to take the Pill and puts you on the hook for the 18 year enslavement, man up. When she gets multiple degrees that price her out of the mating market, man up. When she gets legal protections and favors that aren’t given to men, man up. When her every misdeed and misbehavior and poor choice is excused, man the fuck up.

Wow. What man wouldn’t want to sign up for this program?

Men will man up when women man down. The one must follow the other. The polarity cannot be reversed.

Read Full Post »

The Business Of Game

There’s an interesting article on Yahoo of all places, about the ways in which people are susceptible to subtle advertising and product placement manipulation. The author of a new book “Brandwashed”, uses Whole Foods as an example of the myriad ways you fall under the spell of clever retail strategies. While reading about Whole Foods’ devious treachery, I couldn’t help but notice parallels between retail practices and game.

Let’s take for example Whole Foods, a market chain priding itself on selling the highest quality, freshest, and most environmentally sound produce. No one could argue that their selection of organic food and take-away meals are whole, hearty, and totally delicious. But how much thought have you given to how they’re actually presenting their wares? Have you considered the careful planning that goes into every detail that meets the eye?

Game Parallel: Tight game means the girl will never be consciously aware that she’s being gamed, nor will she ever become cognizant of the amount of effort you, as the man, put into your presentation. Instead, you want her to think it will all seem to “just happen” and “it was magic”. She doesn’t need to be concerned with the messy details of seduction; she only needs to feel those good feelings.

Let’s pay a visit to Whole Foods’ splendid Columbus Circle store in New York City. As you descend the escalator you enter the realm of a freshly cut flowers. These are what advertisers call “symbolics” — unconscious suggestions. In this case, letting us know that what’s before us is bursting with freshness.

Flowers, as everyone knows, are among the freshest, most perishable objects on earth. Which is why fresh flowers are placed right up front — to “prime” us to think of freshness the moment we enter the store. Consider the opposite — what if we entered the store and were greeted with stacks of canned tuna and plastic flowers? Having been primed at the outset, we continue to carry that association, albeit subconsciously, with us as we shop.

Game Parallel: Your first impression has to be good. You are presenting yourself as “fresh, bursting manhood”, not a plastic beta cut-out. Your “symbolics” are your style, your walk, your alpha posture, your body language, your vocal tone and cadence, and any shiny accoutrements you wear to attract the child-like attention of the woman. Having primed a woman at the outset, she will be more willing to hear the rest of your pitch.

The prices for the flowers, as for all the fresh fruits and vegetables, are scrawled in chalk on fragments of black slate — a tradition of outdoor European marketplaces. It’s as if the farmer pulled up in front of Whole Foods just this morning, unloaded his produce, then hopped back in his flatbed truck to drive back upstate to his country farm. The dashed-off scrawl also suggests the price changes daily, just as it might at a roadside farm stand or local market. But in fact, most of the produce was flown in days ago, its price set at the Whole Foods corporate headquarters in Texas. Not only do the prices stay fixed, but what might look like chalk on the board is actually indelible; the signs have been mass-produced in a factory.

Game Parallel: Scripted routines and stories that demonstrate high value. The DHV story is your chalkboard price. She thinks you just rolled up with your high value fresh eggplant and kiwis falling off the truck; little does she know your story is rehearsed and was practiced on multitudes of women before her.

Ever notice that there’s ice everywhere in this store? Why? Does hummus really need to be kept so cold? What about cucumber-and-yogurt dip? No and no. This ice is another symbolic. Similarly, for years now supermarkets have been sprinkling select vegetables with regular drops of water — a trend that began in Denmark. Why? Like ice displays, those sprinkled drops serve as a symbolic, albeit a bogus one, of freshness and purity. Ironically, that same dewy mist makes the vegetables rot more quickly than they would otherwise. So much for perception versus reality.

Game Parallel: Rings, tight t-shirts, bracelets and props. The usual titillating tools of the trade. Also, negs. Negs are the crushed ice of conversation; a helpful reminder that the produce (you) that she’s checking out lays atop a cooling foundation of freshness-preserving amused mastery.

Speaking of fruit, you may think a banana is just a banana, but it’s not. Dole and other banana growers have turned the creation of a banana into a science, in part to manipulate perceptions of freshness. In fact, they’ve issued a banana guide to greengrocers, illustrating the various color stages a banana can attain during its life cycle. Each color represents the sales potential for the banana in question. For example, sales records show that bananas with Pantone color 13-0858 (otherwise known as Vibrant Yellow) are less likely to sell than bananas with Pantone color 12-0752 (also called Buttercup), which is one grade warmer, visually, and seems to imply a riper, fresher fruit.

Game Parallel: Preselection. Chicks dig the buttercup cock. You are convincing her your cock is the perfect Pantone color, at peak ripeness. Quickest way to do this is to be seen with other women, or insinuate that you get plenty of attention from other women.

And as for apples? Believe it or not, my research found that while it may look fresh, the average apple you see in the supermarket is actually 14 months old.

Game Parallel: Non-neediness. You mouthstuffed 14 girls on the walk through the parking lot to the club using the same schtick on them that you are now using on her. But she thinks she just plucked you and she’s the center of your universe.

Then there’s those cardboard boxes with anywhere from eight to ten fresh cantaloupes packed inside each one. These boxes could have been unpacked easily by any one of Whole Foods’ employees, but they’re left that way on purpose. Why? For that rustic, aw-shucks touch. In other words, it’s a symbolic to reinforce the idea of old-time simplicity.

Game Parallel: Strategic vulnerability. Temper your cockiness with brief flashes of empathy. It makes you seem more attainable.

But wait, something about these boxes looks off. Upon close inspection, this stack of crates looks like one giant cardboard box. It can’t be, can it? It is. In fact, it’s one humongous cardboard box with fissures cut carefully down the side that faces consumers (most likely by some industrial machinery at a factory in China) to make it appear as though this one giant cardboard box is made up of multiple stacked boxes. It’s ingenious in its ability to evoke the image of Grapes of Wrath-era laborers piling box after box of fresh fruit into the store.

Game Parallel: Beta provider game. If you’re good, you can plausibly promise marriage and white picket fences for years before she catches on that you’re just one giant box of erect penis.

So the next time you happen to grab your wallet to go shopping, don’t be fooled: retailers for better or for worse, are the masters of seduction and priming — brandwashing us to believe in perception rather than reality.

Game Parallel: The alteration of perception to achieve the ultimate seduction. Game is certainly about altering a girl’s perception of you, but when you do it enough times, the perception becomes reality. It is a reality the girl herself has co-conspired to create.

Whole Foods is in the business of selling produce and expensive cheeses. Whole Game is the business of selling yourself. Why wouldn’t you use every sales technique at your disposal? If you don’t out of some misplaced moral compunction, you will soon be put out of business by the competition.

Read Full Post »

The Real Reason Why America Is Declining

Over at TCCC’s, (insiders will know who I’m talking about), conversation abounds with explanations for why the American median income is stagnating or falling, and why the country seems on an unstoppable collision course with a protracted recession/depression and diminution of world influence. (Read Peter Schaeffer’s comments for some righteous ownage of TCCC’s libertardian equalist crew and open border nutjob mercenaries, and then read Chris’s comments for the traitorous filth viewpoint.)

However, no one, in my opinion, comes as close to nailing in as succinct a manner as possible, what is really ailing America (and by extension the West) as commenter Charlesz Martel, who broadsides:

In a previous post, I mentioned that real-estate developers own politicians, or end up owning them. In this case, the bankers ended up owning the regulators.

What is happening to this country is simple: We are being re-assessed as to whether we are truly a first world country, or not. For years, America was a first-world country with a third world country inside it. This third world portion has now grown to almost a third of the country. We are now somewhere between a first and a second tier country; we just happen to be the biggest kid in the sandbox.

Read all about it:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/10/real-mark-to-market.html

And then lay down by the rivers of Babylon, and weep for what was and should have been.

Final note: Anytime you see a situation you don’t understand, look for the financial interest angle. (HT- Karl Marx). or, as Lenin said; “Who? Whom?”

It’s a funny thing. By their actions, every single motherfucking elitist liberal agrees in practice with what Martel wrote above. And yet not a one of them will cop to it. No, they’ll at best speak in euphemism, or they’ll gloat like moralistic hypocrites.

It’s status games all the way down… until the bottom is reached and it’s too late to crawl back out.

Read Full Post »