Ex-Stripper Describes Her “Girl Game”

I’ve noticed a trend in the MSM. Men invent something controversial, get little mainstream press, women follow up with their watered-down version, get tons of mainstream press. In this case, an aging ex-stripper has landed on the front page of the New York Post where she discusses girl game: the female version of getting “what you want” from men, which in femspeak means getting love, money, attention and resources with, presumably, the ultimate goal being marriage. (Although you have to wonder about the kind of man who would be willing to pony up big bucks for a useless rock and ceremony to geld himself by marrying a road-worn and tossed away wet ex-stripper single mom with enough cock notches on her vagina wall to make it look like a gynecological cave painting.)

I don’t much write about girl game — aka The Rules — because it is, for the most part, ineffective relative to the thermonuclear game that girls already have at their disposal; namely, their youth and beauty. An ugly girl can run all the “girl game” she wants; it won’t make a lick of difference to her prospects. Conversely, a hot girl will often get what she wants without any girl game. In fact, girl game can actually hurt her chances with the alpha males she loves because those are the kinds of guys least affected, and most turned-off, by girl game machinations. Only in the middle where the average over-25 plain janes congregate can girl game help at the farthest margins, and then only by helping them snag betas who are more likely to fall for it.

With that in mind, let’s examine this whore’s recipe for dating bliss. First, here’s a look at her:

Not bad, not good. She has the tell-tale post-op tranny face that bespeaks a lifetime of pumping and getting dumped. That lifestyle tends to masculinize women. I wouldn’t pay her for a lap dance, but I would bang her for free. Once. With a kevlar condom.

So what does this broad “Diane Passage” have to say about girl game?

1. Show your confidence at all times — especially when you feel it the least. No one will ever know if this is true, but if you believe it, others will, too. A friend of mine who was a dancer at a club once gave me the advice to always enter a room “proud as a peacock” — stand up straight and move confidently. She worked in Las Vegas, where it’s highly competitive for any type of dancer or entertainer. She was a pretty girl, but average in comparison to other women. But wherever she walked — whether it was a club, casino or a grocery store — all eyes were on her.

Classic case of female projection. Women love confidence in men, so they think men must love the same in women. Nope. Confidence in women is neutral to their dating market value at best, and actively off-putting at worst. Most likely, this “confident”, “stands tall” Las Vegas girl she talks about has a big rack, and guys were staring at her jutting tits that she was thrusting outward.

Very shy girls who are pretty will arouse a deep, instinctive authoritarian desire in men to protect and sexually serve. Women don’t need to be loudmouths or assertive if they are cute. It helps, in fact, if they are a little effacing and deferential. A woman with *clinically* low self-esteem, (as distinct from nearly all women who are told they have low self-esteem but in actuality are full of themselves), can temper a man’s lust by slouching, mumbling and denigrating herself. Why? Because men will think she’s not interested.

2. I can create my own outcome and accomplish any goal. I like to set goals for anything — serious or ridiculous. I started doing this when I worked at the club; I’d set weekly income goals to help me stay focused and not get onto a downward spiral (which is typical for exotic dancers). Along the way I set fun goals — attending certain concerts, parties, etc. My most ridiculous goal? Hooking up with a certain male porn star. A friend of mine offered to buy the star for me for one night, but I declined. It’ll be far more satisfying to accomplish my goal on my own. Whether your goals are serious, fun or both — never think you can’t have it all!

New age, feelgood pablum. Worse than useless. This will encourage ugly, old and fat girls to avoid putting in the necessary work to make themselves more attractive to men. Newsflash, ladies: No, you can’t have it all. You can have what your best assets will bring you by maximizing their impact and minimizing the impact of your worst liabilities. Some liabilities, of course, are not mitigable. PS: Getting a male porn star to fuck you is not an accomplishment. Getting him to love you and commit to you is.

3. Slow and steady wins the race. While goals are important, you shouldn’t set unrealistic time limits to achieve them. People do crazy things under deadlines. An acquaintance of mine stalked a man because she was obsessed with getting married before the age of 35. Last year, she fell head over heels on one of her first dates. On Facebook, she saw he was looking forward to a sushi dinner at his favorite restaurant. My friend knew where to find him, because he’d mentioned the same restaurant on their date! So early in the evening, she planted herself at a table with a good view of the place. He showed up . . . with another date. This woman is seemingly sane otherwise. If she dropped the marriage deadline and just had fun dating, I bet she’d end up meeting her goal — without stalking!

This advice isn’t half bad as a way to avoid the worst mistakes women make. Women can quickly kill a sexy, fun vibe and drive an alpha man away by revealing their desperation on a first date. Or even during the first year of dating. (Beta men will stick around and suffer her desperation because they, too, are desperate.) As women don’t want to feel like sex objects, men don’t want to feel like commitment objects.

4. Every girl should know the basics of fishing and dog training. Several years ago, my son [ed: bastard spawn soon to be huffing paint under an overpass] took an interest in fishing. I had to learn, too, so I could help him with it. Little did I know that my basic fishing knowledge would end up serving me well in the world of romance! When dating, I like to try a fun and sporty approach. As the person who’s fishing, I’m able to lead my “fish,” so I have the advantage of getting what I want. My bait: smile, hair, makeup, clothing, stilettos and either legs or cleavage (never both at the same time). [ed: no, because that would be slutty. it’s not like he’ll think you’re a skank when he hears about your stripper past and bastard sprog] My hook: a flirty, mysterious demeanor. When I “reel” a man in, that means I’m getting to know him. He always has the option to free himself from my “hook.” And I always have the option to throw him back into the dating sea. If I decide to keep my “fish,” then I switch to boundary-setting mode. I’ve trained a dog, raised a son and have been married twice to men who wanted nothing more than to make me happy [ed: if she’s been married twice and is currently an unmarried single mom, then they weren’t very interested in making her happy. nor was she interested in making them happy. and single women should take advice from her?]. I know how not to let a male dominate me. The one consistent thing for all types of men: consistent enforcement of boundaries and giving rewards when they deserve them.

It sounds like she ripped this nominal idea straight from the Chateau archives. Anyhow, what she is saying here is nothing new. She’s just repackaging the time-tested advice to women to look as good as possible to capture a man’s interest by trying to make it sound edgier with the comparison to dog training and fishing. And enforcement of boundaries? What does that even mean? Her boundaries have obviously been rodgered to complete permeability.

5. My wallet does not exist. It might sound like an outdated cliché, but if you’re a woman, you should never reach into your wallet while you’re in the presence of a man. Even if you’ve been married for years. Not only must a man pay for the main components of a date (dinner, etc.), but they must also take care of taxi fare, coat check and bathroom attendant tips. The woman who believes in this mantra is not a gold-digger or obligated to “return the favor.” The few times I’ve gone “dutch” on dates, it usually results in the man feeling emasculated because of it — or it means the guy has some sort of money hang-up. Can an emasculated guy or someone with issues give you what you want? Not for me!

How sweet. An old-fashioned stripper single mom. The worst of every world. Now here’s some real talk for the single women reading: the only men you’ll get by playing the role of whore golddigger are betas with few other options and rich men with harems and zero game, wit or charm. Don’t bet on the latter unless you’re smoking hot.

6. My presence is a gift. Know your value — and not in dollar amounts. Relationships are work — and work has value. Do the rewards of your relationship satisfy you? What do you want from your partner? I broke up with a guy (who my friends and I nicknamed “The Whiny Baby”) because he was too high-maintenance, emotionally. This wouldn’t have been a problem if he could have just provided a bit of emotional support in return. [ed: translation: he treated her like the worthless aging stripper single mom she is] I told him that, and he briefly turned into a decent boyfriend until becoming a whiny baby. I decided my time was too valuable and he had to go.

This reads like he dumped her and she’s rationalizing it as her decision. Allow me to clarify. Your presence is only a gift if you’re pleasing to look at. It is less of a gift if you think you look as good at 35 as you did at 25, and you are saddled with kid baggage from another man. (This is starting to sound like a broken record. But it needs to be said, over and over, apparently.)

7. Allow your man to believe he is in charge. Men like to play the dominant role in relationships, so why not encourage the fantasy? This summer, I was with a man who was sensitive about women using him for his money. He watched me like a hawk, so my usual tactics were no good. But he was open to spending extravagantly at charity events, fine restaurants and so on. So I invited him to my friends’ events and establishments — where he was free to spend money — and I remained quiet and pretty, as he required me to be.

She’s contradicting herself. Above she says she does not allow men to dominate her. Here, she says she encourages men to dominate her. Oh, but of course she couches it in terms of “letting him feel like” he is dominating her. Hair-splitting. He’s either making the decisions, giving her orders and demanding she look pretty and remain quiet, or he’s not. Leave it to a single mom stripper to vomit whatever ill-conceived toddler babbling happens to scoot across her gyrating frontal lobe.

Not that there isn’t some substance to the advice to placate a man’s desire to dominate. A woman who constantly battles a man for dominance is an unloved woman. Men don’t respond on a visceral level to those kinds of women. And it works the other direction, too: men who renege on their duty to dominate are often pushed around and unloved by the women in their lives.

8. As a woman, it’s my right to act bitchy on occasion. When a man first approaches me, I’m icy cold and dismissive. The weak men leave. The ones who are up for a challenge stick around and show their charm and wit, and may land a date. Refer to mantra No. 4 (dog training) — along with boundaries, give rewards when due — leading to mantra No. 6 (value). A woman’s time, smile and interest are valuable and can be rewarded to the man who deserves her attention. Being icy or lukewarm at first also maintains an element of mystery. In addition, refer to mantra No. 5 (woman never pays). A man does not deserve a woman’s phone number without buying her and her friend(s) a drink, not to mention paying their entire bar tab.

Any man who buys a girl *and* her yakking yenta friends drinks, and pays their entire bar tab, just to get her precious, gold-plated number, is, by definition, an emasculated, hopeless beta who has the masturbation stamina of ten men. I doubt very much this skank ho would respect, let alone desire, such a man.

Mostly, what she writes here in point #8 is a rewording of the conventional wisdom that a woman who puts out too easily will harm her chance to get men to commit to her. (Leave aside her admonition to be bitchy. That’s not advice. It’s just a recognition that hot chicks will shit test men to discern their alphaness.) There is some truth in the CW. Beta and alpha men alike subconsciously downgrade loose women from potential girlfriend material to funtime sluts. But a woman has to carefully walk that tightrope; too much coyness, playing hard-to-get and bitchiness, and the alpha males of her dreams will quickly find sweeter and moister pastures. Too little, and they will relegate her to fuckbuddy status. And herein lies the main problem with “girl game”:

Girl game is effective at manipulating exactly the kinds of men women desire the least.

Horny, desperate betas — not sexually satisfied alphas — are the ones who will allow themselves to be toyed with by scheming girls. If those are the men you want, ladies, you can’t go wrong listening to the dating advice of a washed-up wednesday night stripper single mom.

Luckily for us men, game — real game — is just what the best looking girls crave.

Read Full Post »

The Importance Of Male Style

If you follow the conventional wisdom closely, (or just leave your apartment once in a while), you’ll come under the impression that a good sense of style is more beneficial to women than it is to men. Women are the ones who lacquer themselves in lotions potions liners and rouges, spend exhorbitant amounts of green on fashionable attire, and coif their hair to perfection down to the last flyaway strand.

Men, in contrast, are the ones who throw on a pair of jeans and an ill-fitting button-down.

Now, the CW makes some sense, at least in the big picture. Women, being the sex whose primary attractiveness derives from their looks, would want to focus on maximizing the display of those looks. Men, whose primary attractiveness derives from status and attitude, don’t get as much SMV bang for the buck from ken dolling themselves up. But I’m here to tell you that for some men, particularly ugly men, style can play a huge role in boosting their perceived attractiveness.

Maxim #77: The role of style in diverting attention from male ugliness is severely underplayed by most ugly men.

I was at a party and noticed down at the other end of a long hall a small congregation of girls swirling around one man. I stepped closer to check out the scene, and if any of the girls were ones I knew. I didn’t know anyone, but I did notice the guy, and he was one ugly-ass mofo. Bug eyes, big ears, blotchy skin, beak nose, and horrible teeth, some of which were snaggletooths jutting out at angles like broken glass.

Now I’ve been around long enough that the sight of an ugly man holding court with one or more hot babes is nothing surprising to me. I know a man’s can-bang attitude can compensate for poor facial structure genes. But I also know it can only compensate so much. There has to be something else that distracts girls from the ugliness. And in his case, it was his flashy style.

He was decked out in what looked like Italian shoes, a fitted metallic gray suit, red socks, vest, blood red tie with some sort of iridescent pattern, and big tortoise shell designer sunglasses. He sported a very minor fauxhawk, and was well-tanned. He was a skinny white guy, average height. He smiled like he knew he was the go-to guy at that party. I could have sworn he had a gold cap on one of his miserable teeth.

No homo here, but I have to tell you, the combined sight of the girls swarming around him like he was a maypole (manpole?) plus his impeccable dress played with my powers of observation. The ugliness that assaulted me at first began to dissipate, and suddenly I was looking at a guy who left me with little doubt he knew how to seduce women. Now imagine that perception-warping power quadrupled when used against women, who are after all the sex with the more easily manipulable acumen.

Great style — the kind of style that says you are confident enough to outshine other men and that you have exquisite taste for the finer things in life — is ugliness-reducing. If you are an ugly man, you WILL become less ugly to women if you dress like you’re a leading man. Coupled with game and a totally un-self-conscious attitude, girls will not even notice they are falling for a troll.

NOTE: Does not work for women. Ugly women can maybe… MAYBE… add a quarter point to their rank with good style, but unfortunately for them men are so piercingly attuned to women’s facial features and body that not even the best tailored fashion can alter the trajectory of their target designators. Ugly men have options that ugly women do not.

If you are an average-looking man, the right style will help, but you won’t see as much of a benefit from it as the ugly man. There are diminishing returns to dressing to excess. If you are a good-looking man, you are almost better off *downscaling* your style, so that you don’t intimidate girls into thinking you’re unattainable. Very good-looking men with game who also dress with flash should focus on 9s and 10s, because those will be the only types of girls who won’t give such a man undue grief for making them feel like he is out of their league.

I later learned the ugly guy worked for Prada, and he was wearing one of their suits. I also learned something which only one other person knew at that party: he was bi. Those girls smitten by his style and charm were in for disappointment, unless they like to share.

Read Full Post »

Is Female Careerism A Form Of Infidelity?

Reader Sidewinder writes:

While some degree of the female fascination/obsession with credentials can be explained as projecting onto themselves what they find desirable in men, I think there’s more to it than that. Not all, but a sizeable percentage of intelligent women become obsessed with their school or work. Maybe its just self-centeredness, but many women place their “career” to such a high level of importance that it almost becomes the primary component of their identity. Having read a good deal of marriage therapy literature the past year, some therapists have classified this female career obsession as a form of infidelity to the family and marrage. And its no coincidence that the vast majority of female infidelity takes place in connection with her workplace.

I wonder if in addition to projection, this obsession stems from an unconscious recognition of their declining attractiveness. Its like the 40 year old women at the gym: while they know that men aren’t especially attracted to muscular, hard-bodied women, its really the best option for them considering the alternative of sagging cellulite. Maybe girls latch on to school and work in their 20s because they feel its the only thing they can do to try to mitigate their inevitable declining looks as they approach their 30s and 40s.

Paging Penelope Trunk…

I agree that there is something “off” about women who are excessively devoted to their careers and to obtaining an acronymic parade of pointless credentials. Careerist shrikes are some of the most unpleasant, unfeminine women to be around. They must have more androgen receptors than normal women to be so grating to the male sensibility. Sure, they can fuck like Viagra-laced male pornstars, but as soon as you relieve yourself in them you will feel a second powerful urge to escape their aggro nastiness.

Sidewinder hits on an angle not much discussed in the media (obvi). Women who place their careers front and center are committing a kind of betrayal of their sex’s biological and psychological imperatives. It’s like a big middle finger to everything that distinguishes the feminine from the masculine, the yin from the yang. It’s quite possible that the worst offenders — the 14 hour day lawyercunts and the graduate school hermits — embrace the male-oriented rat race and achievement spectacle because it offers a welcome distraction from either spinsterly loneliness or boring beta male partners who, while intellectually are rationalized as good matches, do not viscerally excite them.

Maybe, too, these careerist chicks see their jobs as a way to enter the world of the alpha male, to have a taste of what it would be like to be part of his life. The office cubes and doormen and glassy skyscrapers have given legions of plain janes the daily stimulation to mentally masturbate fantasy romances with the alpha males who run their companies or the alpha salesmen who greet them at the front desk with a twinkle in their eyes.

Perhaps, as Sidewinder also noted, female careerism presents the illusion of a safe harbor from the approaching wall. When a woman’s SMV inevitably craters in her 40s, her career might be all she has to lift her spirits, especially if she has no husband she loves, no kids, or even just one kid who spends most of his time playing CoD or robbing convenience stores. Women with larger families don’t seem to dread the coming apocalypse of their beauty as much as the quasi-barren SWPLs seem to do, who start using expensive anti-wrinkle creams at age twelve.

The dumbfuck feminists will naturally ask, “Why doesn’t this same theory apply to men? Aren’t they escaping sad love lives by retreating to their careers?”

Don’t you know it’s different for guys? Unlike women, men are evolutionarily programmed to be resource providers for women. It is not a betrayal of a man’s innate purpose in life to ambitiously pursue achievement and accolades. In fact, just the opposite; it’s an affirmation of that ancient purpose. A man turning his back on raising his status is akin to a woman letting herself get fat and slovenly.

The women for whom career success is their comfort and their purpose are some sort of weird, monstrous amalgam of man and woman, halfway between both worlds, their sexual polarity askew. These types tend to attract either intense short term flings with alphas or plodding marriages with dweeby, effete kitchen bitches.

Additionally, it can be argued that a sexual market which favors easy sex (for alpha males only) and a marriage market increasingly against men’s interests pushes women into the careerist mindset, because subconsciously they realize that the guarantee of a strong male provider that was once their birthright is now a sucker’s bet, and one they have convinced themselves they don’t even want. Women, sensing the change in the rules, have responded by storming the state college citadels to earn their communications and women’s studies degrees by the boatload.

Of course, as I always remind the women reading here who complain about the change in the game…

Ladies, you get the men you created.

Read Full Post »

Is The Sexual Market Efficient?

In yesterday’s post, it was posited that later marriages are less likely to end in divorce because older spouses have fewer options in the dating market. A 24 year old wife contemplating divorce has more opportunity to jump back in the saddle than a 34 year old cougar tired of her nuptials. So according to dating market value theory, we should not be surprised to see that marriages at a younger age tend to be less stable than marriages at an older age.

To continue on this theme, commenter Sidewinder proposes a flaw in the sexual market theory of options as the limiting factor in relationship stability (i.e., the more options you have, the less likely you are to be monogamously faithful):

Women get much more feedback in the sexual marketplace than men. But you are only getting feedback on immediate sexual interest, not long term sexual relationship interest. This could explain the market error re female divorce choice. Their perception is skewed by short term sexual interest, leading to divorce based on artificially inflated sexual market value. Once single, and after a few pump and dumps, their true sexual market value is revealed, and they have to settle for something within their shrinking relationship options.

As we know here at the Chateau (but you wouldn’t know by reading only the MSM), the majority of divorces are initiated by women. It stands to reason, then, that a lot of marriages dissolve because the wives get bored of the arrangement, or agitated with their husbands’ domestication. In other words, the martyr theme that women, with the help of their feminist enablers, have carefully crafted for themselves over the decades is a cartload of bullshit. Women are perps as often as, if not more often than, they are victims.

A lot of women initiating divorce probably feel that they have plenty of good years left to snag another man of at least equal value to the husbands they are leaving. It would be more accurate to say “of greater value”, because women hardly ever leave relationships for a shot at a man of the same value. Due to her gender’s hypergamous algorithm, a woman in flux between relationships or freshly out of marriage will be compelled to seek out men of higher value than the man she just left. Until she has had her heart broken one too many times.

The problem, as Sidewinder astutely noted, is that the sexual market is efficient at offering immediate feedback on the kind of sexual interest that a woman can command, but not so efficient at offering feedback on her value as a long term relationship partner. A woman can walk down the street and know instantly by the number of men’s eyes which glance her way, and by the obsequiousness with which men relish her company, how easy it will be for her to arouse a man to want to sleep with her. But she cannot know how many of those men willing to fuck her are also willing to invest in her and nurture a loving relationship with her until she has herself invested time in them. Most men aren’t going to come right out and tell a marginal fling that she isn’t cut out to be his long term girlfriend or wife.

So you see the quandary that women are in. The dating market is great at giving them information on their sexual desirability, but not so good at giving them feedback on their relationship desirability. The later is usually learned by experiencing relationships with men of varying market value to determine a best fit. If she shoots too high, he pumps and dumps her. Too low, and his provider stability isn’t wanted.

And time is no friend to women, whose attractiveness window is shorter than men’s, being as it is contingent almost solely upon their looks. A man’s attractiveness window can conceivably go right to the end of his life, if he has compensating alpha traits for his declining looks.

The problem is compounded for married women, who presumably have been out of the dating scene for years. A woman sheltered in the confines of marital piss has lost touch with distant memories of the alpha males who used her for sex and ignored her need for love and commitment. The memories of inglorious pump and dumps that followed from shooting out of her league have faded, replaced by a feedback mechanism that relies solely on sexual interest, thus titillating her ego as if she were a fresh-faced teenager again.

A woman who thinks inspiring a man to get erect is the ultimate arbiter of her relationship worth is in for a world of pain. It is a harsh lesson many women seem to forget as they are gleefully anticipating dating life after escape from marriage to a beta provider.

You might say there is price inelasticity in women’s long term mate value. The most powerful agent working against falsely held perceptions of men’s long term sexual interest in a woman are memories of past relationships that ended badly when she tried to date out of her league. But in a multi-year marriage, those memories tend to fade and so we get the phenomenon of women initiating divorce with the belief that they can get as good as they got when they were younger.

Reality soon disabuses them of that notion, and the aging divorcée either settles with a man of lower value than her husband was when she met him, or she persists in her delusion aided by the hallucinatory effects of mimosas, cockhopping and cheerleading spinsters like herself.

Read Full Post »

White Knighting Explained

There is a popular theory that white knighters — those men who jump at the chance to defend the virtue of women at every opportunity, no matter if the defense is warranted — are beta males who hope their stirring gallantry will get them into women’s panties. Offering a shoulder to cry on or an indignant word after an asshole hurts the girl of their dreams, these men turn themselves into emotional tampons with the goal of sneaking into the pussy when she is at her most vulnerable.

They usually fail, but they keep at it because once in a blue moon, it works. Yes, most men with some choice in women would balk at spending so much time and effort trying to tap a reticent snatch, and at the cost of so much dignity, but the white knighter emo dude has the patience of a saint. Or a eunuch.

But, honestly, how many guys like this do you see in real life? They exist, sure, but not in the numbers assumed. Especially after college, when adult men simply don’t have the time to waste on platonically orbiting a oneitis who can juggle ten blue balls at once.

Instead, I’d like to offer some different explanations for the white knight phenomenon.

The Oblivious Super Alpha Male

Surprisingly few alpha males — those men who are good with women — are white knighters. Experience with women disabuses such men of any romantic notions of the fairer sex. You will hardly ever hear an alpha male praising the sublime virtues of women because he knows they have none (as a gender). But a few alpha males do embrace the white knight schtick. These are the snobby guys who have had no trouble getting women since they can remember, and are so high status that they have never seen the seedy, gritty, grimy part of women’s natures. Women are extra careful around very high status men to present only their sanitized best, so the super alpha never gets to know the annoying shit that women put typical men through. As a result, he is genuinely perplexed when he hears other men complain about women’s behavior, and feels a compulsion to rush to the women’s defense.

The Father of a Daughter

He knows better, but because he has a female charge under his supervision and caretaking, he hypocritically enforces social sanctions against lifting the veil on women’s true sexual natures. This is as much for his benefit as his daughter’s. If beta males stopped white knighting for his daughter, she would be nakedly exposed to the merciless vagaries of the dating market, and suitors would not bend over backwards to please his daughter with gifts of myrrh and golden pedestals. It is in a a father’s interest for young men to glorify his precious little princess, and provide for her and her dalliances with the DJ.

The Married Schlub/”I’m in a relationship” Guy

You know that lifeless herb who has been married for so long that he doesn’t remember what it was like to be single and on the prowl for pussy? Or how about that oddly proud guy who can’t wait to blurt out at the flimsiest excuse that he’s in a relationship? A lot of white knighters are drawn from this group of men, because being in a marriage or long term relationship clouds a man’s perceptiveness of women. Like heated molecules in a chamber, LTRs tend to settle from a high entropy state into a comfortable equilibrium of Netflix queues, sushi and missionary style. Men in these testes-shriveling circumstances lose their powers of observation and begin to assume all women are just like their contented, faithful (and aging) partners. It’s a classic case of psychological projection, whereby men ensconced in secure relationships project their limited experience with their wives or girlfriends onto all of womankind. These men are often the most infuriating white knighters, because when you listen to them blab on and on about “treating women with respect” and all the good women that are out there, you know that as soon as they get cheated on or dumped by their cow girlfriends they’ll be blaming themselves right to the grave.

The Male Feminist

Similar to the gallant bait-and-switch beta males, male feminists are their ideological cousins who try to ingratiate themselves to the slutty fat feminists in their company in hopes of tapping some water balloon-shaped vulvae. These guys wear shirts that say “this is what a feminist looks like” and cross their legs when they sit. They are huge hypocrites, because despite having been on the receiving end of a lot of female neglect, manipulation and shit testing, they still cling to their unctuous little ideology. Ideologues are auto-brainwashed. They will never see the light. Best just to enjoy a cruel laugh at their expense.

The Self-Denier

Imagine a plush beta male who has experienced nothing but woe with women. He has been LJBFed, ignored, pitied, humored, used, dumped and drained of all his resources except his balls. He’s not repulsive to women, but he just doesn’t much turn them on, and he can’t figure out why. He grows bitter with the years and the fat chicks and wrinkly cougars he manages to bang as a consolation prize. The truth about women stares him in the face — in fact, smacks him upside the head every day — and yet he clings to platitudes and juvenile romantic idealism with all his power, afraid that should he let go, his whole dating life will be revealed for the sham it is. In self-deception, there is sanity. Oftentimes, the most emphatically dogmatic white knighters are these hopeless losers in love, teetering on the precipice of revelation, a hairsbreadth away from total ego meltdown.

The Deeply Embedded Gene Machine

Underlying it all is the genetic machinery that propels groups and nations of men in different sociosexual directions. Fittingly, white knighting appears to be predominately an ethnically European white man disease. Those schooled in the science of evolutionary psychology would say that harsh winters evolved a modern European man predisposed to monogamy and, hence, to jealously guarding the virtue of his mate. White knighting and pedestalizing thus serve the dual functions of artificially boosting the perceived value of a potential lifelong mate, and of warning male interlopers away.

There are too many forces in motion that keep white knighting alive and relevant, so unless outposts like this humble blog go global with the truth about women, there is almost no chance that more than an enlightened minority of men will wake up to reality.

Read Full Post »

Liberals And The Acceptance Of Biological Determinism

I’ve long believed that when the weight of evidence in favor of some degree of genetic determinism affecting human behavior was so overwhelming that blank slate liberals could no longer ignore it without seeming foolish, they would move to Ego-Salving Plan B and claim to have believed in it all along. Well, Kevin Drum leads the pack in Mother Jones:

I’ve never been either a hardcore blank slater or a hardcore biological determinist, but there’s no question that I have a pretty healthy belief in the power of genes and biology. [Ed: News to his readers, I’m sure.] As Karl says, this belief tends to be associated with conservatives more than liberals, but that’s really very odd. After all, it’s pretty easy to fool ourselves into dismissing the benefits of being raised in a rich, stable culture and assuming that everything we’ve accomplished has actually been the result of hard work and personal rectitude. But what if you believe, say, that (a) IQ has a strong biological component and (b) high IQ is really important for getting ahead in the world? If you believe this and also happen to be blessed with a high IQ, how can you possibly convince yourself that this is anything other than the blind luck of the genetic lottery?

What we have here is a liberal seeing the light and coming to grips with the dawning fact that Great Society-like government largesse is futile in the face of intractable genetic predispositions. But instead of admitting he and his ilk are wrong in their blank slate ideology, he claims to have believed in genetic influence all along. As the science — and daily observation thrown into stark relief by mass third world immigration — continues to flatten cherished liberal shibboleths like a massive, merciless steamroller of galling truth, expect to see more of this backpedaling by liberals intent on remaining relevant in the political discourse.

Well, I suppose people can convince themselves of just about anything. [Ed: You bet!] And certainly a smart person who works hard is likely to do better than a smart person who sits on the couch all day playing videogames. Still, to the extent that you really do believe that cognitive abilities are (a) important, and (b) strongly biologically determined, shouldn’t you also believe that the poor are more unlucky than anything else, and haven’t done anything to deserve hunger, lousy housing, poor medical care, or crappy educations? If genetic luck plays a big role in making us who we are, then support for income redistribution from the rich to the poor is almost a logical necessity for anyone with a moral sense more highly developed than a five-year-old’s.

Long story short, belief in biological determinism should make you into a liberal. And yet, here in the real world it mostly does just the opposite. Go figure.

Also expect to see, among those reluctant liberals coming over to the biological determinism camp, a framing of the issue as one of “blind, genetic luck”. This is how the liberal will make the gene pill go down easy — by couching it in terms of unfairness, a vice the liberal suckles on with hungry fervor to give his life spent posturing about all the unfairness in the world some semblance of meaning. The problem with genetic unfairness is that there is no obvious oppressor one can point to as the cause of the unfairness. How exactly are straight white men going to be blamed for the genetic dumb luck of the poor and indigent? By accusing them of racism for not marrying and reproducing with non-white women? Don’t laugh, it could go in that direction.

Drum deserves credit for at least broaching the subject of genetic predilection, which still gives the majority of liberals the high holy hives. Try dropping a “genes n’ IQ” bomb on a Jon Stewart audience member and you will witness a shrill sanctimony unmatched by the most religious fundamentalists. Drum is right about one thing: plain and simple, genetic dumb luck accounts for a lot of who we are and how successful our lives are. And it goes beyond just IQ and nose shape, too. There is evidence that genes influence everything from political leanings to conscientiousness to ambition to impulsiveness.

So Drum has the diagnosis correct: life is unfair and that isn’t changing anytime soon. Where he fails is in his prescription for curing the unfairness of it all. Genetic luck does not make it a moral or logical necessity to redistribute income from the rich to the poor anymore than it makes it a logical necessity to redistribute happiness from the happy to the depressed (a trait that may also be genetically influenced). In both cases, actively punishing the rich and the happy for possessing mental characteristics beyond their control is just as immoral as punishing the poor for fecklessness and stupidity. The child of smart parents didn’t ask for his smarts anymore than the child of poor parents asked for his dullness.

My advice to liberals who are beginning to accept the truth about human nature and all it implies:

Deal with it.

And get off yer fuckin SWPL pulpit.

Read Full Post »

When Will Libertarians Grapple With The Fact That Women’s Suffrage Increased The Size And Scope Of Government?

I mean, the evidence is staring them right in the face. And yet, not a peep from them. How utterly surprising.

ps 50 million mexicans will do the same. heh heh.

Read Full Post »