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 »

Comment Of The Week: The Motivations Of Anti-Gamers

Nick S explains the psychology of anti-gamers:

In my experience of MRA circles, there seem to be two types who dislike Game. There are the social conservative, often religious, types who are still to some extent emotionally attached to the idea of women being less carnal and more moral, and who dislike more than anything the fact that Gamers/PUAs are holding up the dirty linen of women’s less than admirable sexual nature for all to see. These are closely related to father’s rights supporters. They tend to have a beta-first mentality that men who do the right thing and contribute to society are more deserving of being given a break ahead of the players and alphas.

Then there are the nerdy beta types who are so socially inept that they tend not to get laid much, who resent the alpha males who get a lot of pussy, and would prefer to pretend that their lack of success in the sexual marketplace is part of some principled decision to not compromise their values and integrity for the sake of getting some. Feelings of moral superiority are too often the psychological refuge of the failure.

I am not 100% pro-Game. I am generally pro-Game, but with some reservations on a few things. I am not opposed to have a critical discussion of Game. But many of those who oppose Game are so irrationally contrary and hostile to the whole thing that it is obvious they have their noses out of joint about something and are incapable of being even remotely objective.

This meshes with my impression as well. The socon types usually have good intentions, but road, hell, and all that. Many of them resent the free spirited players who get to have all the fun while they grind away in indentured betatude. Others are trapped in an anachronistic mind warp and prefer the comforting lies they were told about women’s Mother Mary purity. Not all socons are anti-game. One would think that those of them with sons might be more amenable to game, having the opportunity to impart to them the wisdom of the ancients and give their sons the gift of true, lifelong happiness. Then there are the former socons who have either suffered, or witnessed a friend suffer, a divorce raping at the hands of a woman come into the game fold and see the light.

The second group — the sperg herd — occupy male ranks from beta all the way down to the untouchable dregs. As Nick S said, some of them feign principled objection to game to ameliorate the pain they feel from being losers in the mating market who can’t say “hi” to a woman without loading their footy pajamas. But some spergs hate game because they imagine the player as iconic representation of the bullies who used to (still do?) hang them from locker hooks by their underwear. To them, it’s better for their egos to rationalize game as useless and manipulative (they’ll never see the contradiction in that), rather than own up to their failure and try to improve. Paging tokyojesusthimbledick.

There is a third group who have reservations about game — call them human nature realists — who have a pretty good grasp of social dynamics, history and the lessons of fallen man and woman, but may not be particularly religious or family-oriented themselves. These types are few in number but strengthened by a worldview that is as close as one can get to reality given innumerable informational input variables and active propaganda campaigns waged against them. They generally accept the effectiveness of game, but they worry that widespread adoption will be antagonistic to civilizational health. Their concern is for the society at the expense of the individual.

The only group to engage seriously is the third group. The first two groups are lost to reasonable discussion. Socons ride like white knights on gimp hobbyhorses, and SMV rejects troll away their powerlessness. At their best, they serve as amusing cat toys.

Read Full Post »

Comment Of The Week: The Natural State Of Woman Is Submission

King A and I have disagreed before, but I have to tip my hat to a well-executed comment.

When sexual submission is not reflected in the culture — female bosses, lawyertwats and women judges, heck, suffrage itself — the culture is permanently unstable. We have tried it their way for a hundred years. Experiment is over.

The epicenter of the quake was the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment. The further one gets away from that moment (before or after), the more the culture reverts to a sustainable form. We are unfortunate to have been born so close to the blast, but we are lucky that the reverberations are decreasing rather than increasing. It will take another 50-100 years for the repeal of the Nineteenth Amendment. Michele Bachmann is the last (small) chance for a female American president. Hillary Clinton was their best chance in 2008.

We forget just how primal the female need for submission is because we are surrounded by women who have been ruthlessly denatured since birth. Even so, the impulse cannot be completely eradicated by artificial, totalitarian means any more than the Soviets could eradicate dissent forever.

Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. — Horace

How relieved she finally is on her back, a strong hand binding her wrists above her head! No more burden, she can just be. She reverts to what she is, and she is that which is acted upon. Yes, she is the object. Objectified. That curse word. Man is the subject.

Man fucks wo-man.

Every cultural institution that does not proceed from this truth is a lie. Our sex is the most fundamental distinguishing characteristic of all. Even our language reflects this inescapable reality through gender. It is impossible to imagine the human apart from la différence.

Vive la différence, you tinkering, vivisecting, social engineers! You life’s losers, you resenters, you poisoners of the punch bowl! You philosophesses with weak-chinned daddies! What kind of world is this! You have insisted our sisters become everything but what their entire being is geared for, because you once personally dreamt of possessing a cock.

We will fuck our way back to inequality. It will be a while, and it won’t be pretty.

Just remember this, you sisters awakening out of your dogmatic slumber, slowly scrubbing out the last greasy traces of penis envy: you are demigoddesses.

You are the most beautiful creatures in the universe. You are the measure of all beauty. You know this. You cannot unknow this. Men are ugly, gruesome creatures. You really don’t want to be us, the cheaper of the two sexual commodities by a factor of billions to one (lifetime gamete production).

You are hothouse flowers. You are our most precious of all objects, we protect you with everything we have, to the very last, with our very bodies if we must. We kill and we die for you. We launch a thousand ships because your beauty makes us weep. You and the kids get the lifeboat, we drown like men. You are the mothers of our children, the vessels of our immortality. It’s not a bad place to be. We need some small, official recompense for sacrificing all that we are to keep you there. Is it really so important you get to vote for county commissioner in next month’s primary?

Forget what “game” has to say about pedestals. When the world is right-side-up again, you will be put back there. Let’s work to get you back there. But so long as your sex insists on grubbing around with us men squabbling and clawing and slopping below, you will never be “treated like the princesses” you truly are. You will be made examples so that the women after you might once again be allowed to act like women.

The proposition that women are natural submissives is not new to this blog. It is a core tenet underlying the truth of game. When I say that the natural state of woman is submission, I mean that woman is happiest when she is in a submissive role. Submitting to a worthy overlord. When she is forced to submit to an unworthy ruler — i.e., when her womb is exposed to the threat of beta sperm — or when she finds herself adrift in a sea of weak, apathetic, surrendered men, she is unhappiest, and will lash out furiously to reclaim her prerogative to save her submission for the deserving.

In our present Western milieu of thugs-run-rampant among teeming hordes of emasculated manchildren betas abdicating their inheritance and retreating to the comfortable mini-kingdoms of gadgetry and porn, it’s no wonder the modern woman is unpleasant company. Her nature is not only ignored, it is violated; its opposite exalted and glorified by our propaganda ministers. We have given her the keys to the house, the office and the ivory tower, and like a child she has wrecked them all, daring discipline. Her guiding hand has abandoned her. Game is one of those guiding hands, and plays a part in returning balance to the force.

As for putting women on a pedestal… well, they were never meant to be there. It was a mistake putting them there in the first place. It has led us down the road to where we are today, much like the once-noble belief in universal morality has turned on itself and gutted the passion and capital that built our fortresses from dirt and dust.

Read Full Post »

Is America A Vector Of Evil?

Over at Mangan’s blog in a post about how the U.S. State Department (a den of transnationalist vipers) is betraying oppressed (yes, genuinely oppressed) Christians living in the Middle East, the commenter WLW writes (and links to Peter Frost, another good blog):

[Re:] how we are stabbing not only our own people but people of our own faith.

Peter Frost on his blog “Evo and Proud” writes this:
“South Korea has entered what may be called ‘late’ or ‘mature’ capitalism. The business community has emancipated itself from the nation state and is now willing to enrich itself at the expense of its host society, notably by outsourcing employment to lower-wage countries and by “insourcing” lower-wage labor. To this end, its political spokesmen borrow leftwing discourse to create an artificial Left-Right consensus.”

From South Korea abolishes itself

What he records about what is happening in South Korea, is what is happening in this country. Nationalism is evil. They have the Koreans abolishing themselves? What a wicked title but true. And he points out that it was America that did it. America is the seat of World Revolution. It is now the seat of Marxism.

South Korea needs to sever their “special relationship” with the U.S., before it’s too late. Unfortunately, it seems the mind virus — the most powerful mind virus ever created in human history — that has so wholly consumed the body politic of America is rapidly metastasizing in South Korea.

America, exporting:

obesity
feminism
multicult
ethnomasochism
wage gutting insourcing/outsourcing
parasitic oligarchism and
self-abnegating national suicide

since circa 1965 (date of the passage of the law which was the beginning of the end of the historic United States).

If karma exists (and no, it doesn’t, but let’s play hypothetical), then there will soon come a day when these traitorous puppetmasters will hang, twisting on the gallows under a bright midday sun. And the men will spit on their bodies, and the women will rejoice, and the children will squeal with glee.

Now, personally, I feel a great sadness having to declare the nation of my birth a messenger of evil. The last thing I want to do is give foreign enemies of the U.S. an excuse to kill fellow Americans who have no connection with the filthy in-house elites driving policy and discourse. If a real revolution is to come, I don’t want it to come at the hands of Hin Jao or Ibn Muhammed. I want it to come from within, by the people who are truly aggrieved and have a stake in seeing a return to greatness of the country they once loved, and the country which deserved their love.

If you thought WWII was the last time American mettle was tested, well, you might be surprised what the next decade or two offers. A wind rustles through the falling leaves, whispers of omen…

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 »

Comment Of The Week: Fat Chicks And Their Ludicrous Standards

In yesterday’s post, Days of Broken Arrows made the following observation:

“Fatties also have a problem of unreasonable standards. I don’t think I’ve ever met a fat chick who was not convinced that she was still entitled to a 99-point checklist [Ed: 463 bullet point checklist is the term of art] and a man every bit as desirable as what her younger, thinner self would have bagged.”

I’ve been going through online dating Web site profiles and this statement is DEFINITELY true. It’s disturbing and doesn’t bode well for the country that seriously obese women will put out profiles demanding men be a certain height and weight. WTF?

I don’t spend much time at online dating sites, but I’ve seen the same attitude in real life. It’s preposterous, laughable. Fat chicks who pull the “I’m too good for any man” card are engaging in a very transparent example of sour grapes. It’s easy and emotionally cost-free for a fat chick/old chick/ugly chick/single mommy to have standards no man will meet when most men who aren’t losers couldn’t be bothered to meet her standards in the first place. It’s analogous to crowing about being virtuous when there is no temptation to vice.

Anyhow, in response to DoBA, I wrote:

My take on what’s going on: When you have such horribly low Sexual Market Value that most men find you repulsive, it makes a certain amount of self-gratifying sense to carelessly throw realistic expectations out the window and feed (heh) your ego as a dopamine substitute.

And that’s why you see the perverse phenomenon of so many loser chicks flaunting an unrealistic checklist in men when they themselves have little to offer. It’s not about the men; it’s about them. Their egos must be salvaged before their love lives can be rescued.

Remember, too, that once a girl passes a threshold of sexual inactivity (on average, three to six months), she slips more easily into quasi-involuntary celibacy (quasi, because there is always a loser who will dump a five second fuck in a low SMV girl if she’s willing to swallow (heh) her pride) than a man would. Women are built like worker bees in that respect; once acclimated to celibacy and the dull drone of useless paper-pushing office life, they forget the joys sexual abandon. Or, perhaps, rather than forget, they simply don’t experience the same vital urgency to renew sexual relief the way men do. Consequently, it’s easier for a woman in asexual frigidity mode to maintain a facade of high standards that she must know on a subconscious level will never get her sex and commitment, or even a second date, from the men she wants.

And this phenomenon is more acute amongst fat chicks who were once thin. They fondly recall what it was like to be pursued by men, to turn away those who didn’t meet their expectations, and to experience the thrill of men attempting to satisfy their demands, doing it all for the top-notch nookie. But now, as a fatty (or a cougar or a single mom or an acid burn victim), the men they find desirable shun them and, adding insult to injury, the beta males who once lacked the confidence to approach now hit on them with a grating expectation of success.

What’s a put-upon woman to do? Right. Lie to herself. Happy feelings on the cheap. Better yet, surround herself with yenta friends who will abet her self-delusions.

But neither of the quotes above are the comment of the week. That honor belongs to “uh”, who replied to both of us:

There’s not enough neurochemical payoff for a [fat] woman in admitting the truth to herself if the choice is between that and easy self-affirmation. Given that choice, which may be thought of as a false consciousness imposed/reinforced from above (media), and laterally (other women), the woman becomes alienated from true acceptance of herself as a relational being and enters the narrow straits of denial. Neurochemically this almost resembles the pathway of cigarette addiction: cheap self-affirmation gives quick temporary rewards necessitated only by the presence of the toxin — the subnarrative itself.

This is a concise and penetrating explanation of the common female frailty herein known as Absurd Standards Syndrome (ASS). Insulated by the PC media, glam mags, academia, beta suckups and female friends, women have lost touch with their rank relative to other women and are thus finding it easy to slip into a comfortable bubble of self-delusion. Similar to cigarette addiction, the quick dopamine fix — necessitated by the subnarrative, as uh puts it — trumps the harsher acceptance of personal flaws that must be remedied by willpower and self-control (or simply accommodated) to achieve longer term and more fulfilling rewards, or to come to terms in a dignified manner with one’s diminution of mate choice. This subnarrative toxin, an effluvium of pretty lies, perpetuated by feminists, groupthink apparatchiks and fat acceptors alike, is the wicked poison that courses through the sludgy veins of the Western woman, corroding her from the inside out until she is a mere husk of the feminine ideal that once held sway over the hearts of men. Well done, uh.

Men — particularly internet nerds without a hope of meeting a woman in real life — suffer from this syndrome as well, but not nearly to the same degree that it perplexes women. As has been explained before on this blog, the reason ASS afflicts women more than men is because men, as the chosen sex, have to be more in touch with reality to get what they want in the dating market. A deluded man is quickly a celibate man. A woman in her prime, on the other hand, can stand around looking good, ignorant of the rules of mate choice reality, and men will hit on her… until reality rudely turns against her.

Interestingly, uh’s comment has parallels with the denial inherent in economists’ inability to grasp that the drive for relative status is a bigger motivator of human behavior than the urge to maximize utility. (Want to watch a libertardian squirm? Bring up the subject of status jockeying.) Economists, stuck in the narrow straits of the rational actor (their toxic subnarrative), have become alienated from the commonsensical wisdom that humans are relational beings who sometimes do seemingly inexplicable things just to gain status points over a neighbor. Like fat chicks on an ego-assuaging bender, economists in thrall to their theories have forsaken the long hard look at human nature in favor of the quick pleasure fix of aggregate demand and open borders circle jerk pontificating.

The impetus for our economic decisions is not so far removed from the mechanism guiding our mating decisions. Quite the contrary; economics is servant to sexuality — the one market to rule them all.

Solution: people of good (and not so good) intent must strike at the heart of the toxic subnarratives, killing them and salting the neuronal fields in which they grow, unafraid of the certain immune response it will spastically trigger, before the human psyche (and body) can be healed. The way to kill the subnarratives is one this blog has stressed countless times, and which we here happily, some might say sadistically, pursue — The Three Rs of human psychological manipulation:

Reframe.
Reject.
Ridicule.

Progress will be slow at first, but momentum will inevitably build. It only takes 10% of a population holding an unshakable belief to cause that belief to be adopted by the majority of the society. Your goal of spreading better ideas is not as out of reach as you imagine. Alinsky leftists and ideological warriors have known this fact about group dynamics for generations. It’s time for you to know it too.

Read Full Post »

A Study In Contrasts

Me, during an evening of sitting on pea green, chocolate brown and beige boutique furniture, drinking $14/four-pack beer, and ricocheting rapid-fire witticisms about supper clubs, pop culture icons and travel mishaps with a mixed group of men, women and gay non-math-oriented professionals carousing through the twilight of our nation’s greatness:

Me, during a night of rolling solo in a dimly lit bar chatting up girls:

You’ve gotta struggle a little to feel like a free man.

Read Full Post »