I have been around the Manosphere for about 3 years now. In that time I have seen quite a few newcomers and their various reactions to the new information they are reading. It can be very confusing coming in because of some of the different vocabulary we use (much of it not quite in sync with the precise dictionary definitions) and because it is very often completely contrary to so much we have been taught. People react to this in various ways. Couple that with unknown intentions and being a newcomer can be very difficult.
The purpose of this post is for it to be a place for newcomers to ask their questions. If it goes anywhere, I will place it on the side bar for people to be able to ask any questions at any time. A couple of things to note, this guide may be a good place for you to start. It may answer your questions or prompt more. Also, please know that I do not moderate my comments. Given the size of this site I still have the luxury of this. It is important that you realize that your tone is very important here. Many people are going to respond to you in the same tone that you are asking your question. Not everyone who comments on these blogs is here to learn and if people believe that your intentions are to create havoc, you will be addressed in that manner. If I believe you have poor intentions, you will be ignored.
In short, if you truly want to learn, simply ask your question.
On the Rock 
Why are they so mad?
i’ll enjoy my popcorn.
Connie,
Those men in particular? I don’t know. Many of the angry men here in general?
1. Many of these men have been divorced by their wives for no other reason than their wife wasn’t happy. Many of them even had no idea it was coming. Then, not only did their wives leave them (sometimes after adultery, sometimes not) the wife then took a lot of their money, houses, and kids.
2. Many men feel they’ve been lied to (women, too) about our very nature’s. Men have been told “Just be nice” and you will get the girl only to have said girl go after all the bad boys. Many were taught that their very masculinity was outright wrong and they should suppress it, only to have girls go for men who were relatively more masculine.
3. Men are being systematically downgraded. They are being looked over for jobs, school, etc because they are male.
4. Boys are discriminated against in our schools.
5. Many women come into these websites and purposefully shame them for being men. Shame them for trying to learn about themselves and about women. Shame them for going against the status quo of what we are all taught today. They are pushing back. Sometimes it is very difficult to tell the difference between a woman who wants to learn but has put her defenses up and a woman who comes in for the sole reason of shame. These types tend to sound very similar on line.
There are more, and I will add to this as I think of them. This will likely get expounded on as the day goes by as well.
Danny,
Pull up a chair (and add some romano cheese to that popcorn. it’s delicious).
The men who post here were systematically raised, educated, brought up and socialized in a feminine-centric worldview. When we questioned it, we were drugged, sent to counseling, academically disciplined, grounded, administered corporal punishment, sent to required sensitivity training, or fired.
We watched our mothers run roughshod over, mistreat, abuse, bankrupt, and undermine our fathers. And those are the ones lucky enough (like me) to grow up with our fathers living with us. Those less fortunate were deprived of meaningful relationships with their fathers; or denied a relationship altogether.
We listened to a daily pounding and pummeling of messages from absolutely everyone around us telling us that:
1. Our sexual desires were ignoble, base, dirty, predatory, evil and bad.
2. We did not mature as quickly as girls and that girls are just better at nurturing and caring.
3. Without the civilizing influence of women, we are violent, predatory, shiftless, lazy, irresponsible, incompetent and unfaithful.
4. We are sexist male chauvinist pigs bent on violently beating women to within an inch of their lives, depriving them of basic life necessities, and demanding they be kept barefoot and pregnant, chained to a kitchen stove.
5. If we are married or are fathers, we are the stupid, unthinking parent and we need the wife to be smart and sensible. She will always save our bacon and clean up all our mistakes.
6. If we are single men, we must be beer swilling, porn addicted, video-game playing fatsos living in our mothers’ basements.
7. If we are men attending church, it is our God-commanded DUTY to wife up a former carousel rider who’s just returned to church at age 30 after her shack up with F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer busted up, her abortion, her stint in drug rehab, and her bastard 4 year old in tow.
“Why are they so mad?” -Connie
I will try and not repeat what Stingray has said, as it is all spot on. Instead, I will add a few other thoughts.
1) Many are or were Christian men who did the right thing. They didn’t fornicate or seek to have pre-marital sex. They wanted to wait until marriage. But the so called “Good Christian Girls” didn’t show the same restraint. They chased after bad-boys, after non-Christians. They had sex with them. Lots of it. Then, when those Christian men rejected those sinful “Christian” women as potential wives, they were subjected to “man-up” lectures which amounted to their religious leaders, their friends and even their family telling them to “marry those sluts!”
2) Many young men wanted to actually marry young, but couldn’t. Why? Because the women their age weren’t interested in marrying. They wanted to “explore the world” (and be explored by the world). Then, when those women finally were interested in marrying, guess what? They were no longer young. No longer beautiful. Not younger virtuous. Many are angry because women are demanding that men give them the best years of the man’s life, but women themselves won’t give men the best years of their lives.
3) The current legal environment is heavily biased towards men. Whether it is Family Court or sexual harassment in the workplace, the current system is anti-male. And when you attempt to point that out, you are called a misogynist, at best.
Your gonna LOVE tonight’s post. Though I doubt you’ll comment. Lol.
It’s been an interesting “uuuuh” week in the US to say the least.
Mistake under my point 1 should read “telling them”, not “being told”. Sorry.
[Stingray]: Fixed!
To add to donal’s points:
Everyone around us was either woefully ignorant, stupendously incompetent, or simply intentionally lied to us when it came to intergender relationships. We were told to be nice. When it didn’t work, we were told that we weren’t being nice enough and we had to be nicer. We could see that nonchristian men, “bad boys” and jerks and douchebags were getting all the girls and all the sex. When we told our families, friends, teachers and pastors this, we were lied to again. They told us that only stupid girls and sluts sleep with bad boys, jerks and douchebags. When we said no, the nice girls f*ck those guys too; we were told that those were bad men and they were tricking and defrauding and duping the nice girls into sex. And then we were told that we must never, never, ever emulate the bad boys or the douchebags because if we did we wouldn’t be nice, and then no one would ever love us. Because no one loves guys who aren’t nice, we were told.
Then we’re told by some female bloggers that, well, you guys had the facts right in front of you. You could see the alpha douchebags were getting all the girls. You could see the bad boys and the jerks getting all the sex. Why didn’t you figure it out? Why didn’t you ask those guys what they were doing right? Why didn’t you figure out your parents, pastors, teachers and Scout leaders were wrong? Why didn’t you think for yourselves? Why don’t you take responsibility for your own lives? It’s all YOUR fault, you beta/omega men. You should have learned. You should have figured it out. You should have defied your parents and pastors, and told them to go f*ck themselves. You should have hung out with the bad boys and jerks and douchebags so you could learn.
Then we’re told by feminists that “nice guys” aren’t really nice. No, they’re “Niceguys”, meaning that the “nice” part is an act. They are “nice” and therefore they expect sex as a reward for being “nice”. Those feminists say that “niceguys” are creepy and mentally disturbed and potential rapists. And, well, if you want to get a girl, you just need to “be more attractive” and the “onus is on men to not be creepy”.
I am not mad.
But I can understand why many men are. What Boys Hear Growing Up
The laws and culture are hopelessly slanted against men and in favor of women. Divorce and family law are crushingly draconian. Men are routinely put under incredibly onerous financial obligations including alimony and child support. An unhappy wife can blow up a family and take a man’s children away from him for no cause at all, or simply because she no longer wants to be married, or no longer is “in love with” him. Stories abound of wives keeping the kids and the marital home, moving the new boyfriend in, while the ex husband moves into a studio apartment and must pay her mortgage, all while his ex wife shtups the new boyfriend in a house he pays for in a bed he bought. Child visitation orders are routinely not enforced. Men are incarcerated for failing to pay child support– even when they are unemployed or laid off. A woman can have her husband slapped with a preliminary injunction or no-contact order or have him arrested and removed from the home merely by calling police and telling them “I feel unsafe”.
There are stories of women cuckolding their husbands, i.e. having extramarital sexual affairs and getting pregnant by another man, then passing off the child as her husband’s to cover the affair. When the husband later discovers the truth in the divorce, the soon to be ex husband finds he must still pay child support for a child who is not his. His wife lied through her teeth to her own husband about the child’s parentage, yet walks away from the marriage with cash and prizes.
Sexual harassment law in the US is a farce. Men walk on pins and needles, deathly afraid they will say or do something that some ultrasensitive woman will take offense to. Whether what they say or do is objectively offensive doesn’t matter–all that matters is whether even ONE WOMAN got offended. Sexual harassment is essentially (1) masculine conduct by unattractive men; or (2) any conduct by anyone that any woman does not like. Looking at a woman is sexual harassment. Refusing to help a woman lift or move something heavy is sexual harassment. Commenting in any way, shape, manner or form on anyone’s appearance is sexual harassment. Commenting about some TV show is sexual harassment. Excluding women from male conversation is sexual harassment. It’s completely and totally ridiculous. Radical feminists are trying to expand this to the world at large. There are serious proposals to outlaw men looking at women for too long — such that a woman can summon police merely because some guy on the street looked at her. JUST FOR LOOKING AT HER.
Connie: Still wanna know why men are pissed off?
I have trouble finding a concrete philosophy that defines the manosphere, they are anti-feminist, but some are MRA’s, some traditionalists and some something else. Also there are differing opinions on divorce, the value of women and the value of male chastity. It is difficult to support “manosphere” when I only agree with a few of them and strongly oppose others, I find myself unable to support the term when parts of the manosphere are so against my values although there are some very valuable pieces of wisdom found, how can you support something that doesn’t have a defined philosophy?
I’m having an easier time thinking of the manosphere as a community instead of as a cause. It is a community of people with different philosophies trying to better themselves and reach their goals. This is where I sometimes get confused, it’s more like some version of community pride to support the manosphere than it is an agreeing over an idea, but many of them try to use it to push their philosophies.
What davidvs said. I am not angry in the slightest, but men have legitimate reasons to be. I sympathize with them just as I sympathize with a woman like Connie who inadvertently wandered into a kill zone.
Sis asked, “[H]ow can you support something that doesn’t have a defined philosophy?” The uniting philosophy of this community is reactive against feminism. It isn’t good to define one’s philosophy against something else, as that leads to dependency on the very philosophy one finds odious.
My formulation from day one has always focused on the renaissance of manhood. “Alpha” is synonymous with “leadership.” “Game” is synonymous with “confidence,” “manliness,” and “virtue” (from Latin vir or “man”; or Machiavelli’s virtù).
The anti-female stuff is mostly locker room talk, a bonding mechanism. It has a kernel of truth to it, but women shouldn’t get the vapors over a literal reading of its more outré iterations. This is how men speak to each other. We test ourselves with over-the-top expressions. Now add that to the fact that we have been marinating in lies about La Différence our entire lives, and speaking bluntly becomes a cathartic regular exercise.
Connie, hang around here. Stingray is an impeccable hostess, and she will translate for you more faithfully than anyone on the internet.
Matt
“I have trouble finding a concrete philosophy that defines the manosphere, they are anti-feminist, but some are MRA’s, some traditionalists and some something else. ”
“I’m having an easier time thinking of the manosphere as a community instead of as a cause.”
That is the best approach, I think. The “manosphere” is united because of what it is against (Feminism), not what it is for.
As for what to support, perhaps the best route is not to support a term but individual members of the community who support whose views you sympathize with.
What are the basics of game? What should I generally be doing to attract more women?
What are the basics of anti-game? What is woman-repellent?
Paul and other young men, read this and consider:
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/no-one-misses-a-slice-from-a-cut-loaf/
Paul, the basis of single and marital Game in a nutshell? Treat the woman as an inferior.
Anti-Game is treating a woman as a superior.
Cop this too:
http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/white-dudes-need-not-apply.html
There are some doubts about this story, but the fact that it is plausible is bad enough.
Eesh, Julian. You’re going to send newbies into seizures. 😉
Paul,
Anti-Game is easier to describe. Do not EVER put a woman on the pedestal. We don’t like it. It is tedious at first, then it leads to resentment, and from there is only gets worse.
The nutshell of Game is that we want a man who is a leader. This will help some, but I think others have written better posts writing the basics of Game better. I am just drawing a blank right now. We want a man who knows what he is about and puts that above women. We want a man to be discerning, because if we are chosen it says that 1) he’s not going to just allow anyone to help him on his path and 2) (for the woman) I was chosen by this man to help him in his life. His mission will be there and he won’t let any silliness on my part get in the way of that. He will have the confidence, the dominance and the leadership to get there and he has chosen me to help him get there.
That is a powerful thing.
how can you support something that doesn’t have a defined philosophy?
I see it much like you so, as a community rather than a cause. There are subsets within this community that have their own cause. I personally support the community because it does not shy, in any way, away from masculinity. It teaches it (some teachings I agree with and others I do not. Either way, man get to decide for themselves what is best for them) and it supports it. It has also started to teach femininity, which it (mostly) also very much supports. Also, it embraces and searches for truth. It can be painful but it doesn’t shy from it. I respect that.
For others? I think each has their own reason and finds the subgroup they decide they wish to be a part of.
Wow. Thanks, y’all. I didn’t come back here yesterday because I didn’t get an email saying that there were comments and because I was glued to CNN … and because I left work early to get my nails done and make my husband a banana cream pie. Now it’s too early for popcorn, so I’ll try to digest all this with my morning coffee.
I actually only came this morning to say, “Never mind why they are mad. I no longer care,” because the first thing that my eyes saw on my computer this morning was yet more emails from Dalrock with more (and some of the same) people calling me more (and some of the same) names.
I appreciate the feedback and that no one called me a “see you next Tuesday.”
I’ll get back to you after I’ve read all the links you’ve so kindly provided …
Sis-
“I’m having an easier time thinking of the manosphere as a community instead of as a cause. It is a community of people with different philosophies trying to better themselves and reach their goals. This is where I sometimes get confused, it’s more like some version of community pride to support the manosphere than it is an agreeing over an idea, but many of them try to use it to push their philosophies.”
this is pretty much it. it’s a community with varying voices, messages and experiences. personally i sit in the middle. i’m not a PUA but i am a MGTOW’er. i don’t try and push my views on anyone. i just express my experiences in the SMP.
you and SR are good eggs in the eyes of our neck of the woods.
Connie,
I’m glad you came back. If you’re still interested, keep asking away.
Again, wow. In “What Boys Hear Growing Up” I did not recognize my childhood at all! I grew up in a small town in Mississippi. I attended a private school and a Southern Baptist church. We went to Sunday School and morning worship, Training Union and evening worship. We went on Wednesday nights. Beginning when I was fifteen, I attended a youth bible study before Wednesday night services. I was a Sunbeam and a G.A. I sang in the choir from the time I was four. As a teenager, I went to a Christian “Share” group every Monday night. I was a Girl Scout. I took piano lessons, voice lessons, and tennis lessons. I took ballet and tap. I was in the band, playing clarinet and being a majorette. I was taught that being a good wife and mother was a lady’s highest aspiration. Women’s lib was shunned – I still remember the catch-phrase, “From Adam’s Rib to Women’s Lib Is a Big Step Down.” My Bible study group listened to Kay Arthur. I particularly remember “Sex is Like a Can of Drano.” Husbands were to be the head of the household; wives were to be submissive. Husbands were to cherish their wives. Children were treasures, God’s best gifts. (Boys and girls in my world were both taught this.)
In other words, I swallowed a different kind of Kool-Aid. Don’t get me wrong – I believed it then, and I believe it now. But it didn’t work out well for me.
I guess I should have started with the fact that I was born in 1959.
Anyway, by the time I got out of college, I was an anachronism. Stay at home and raise kids – no way. Work outside the home, and contribute to this marriage! The man I married when I was twenty-three, six days after I graduated from college (see, I got it in the right order) knew exactly how much sexual experience I had, but I was chastised for my lack of “passion.” Before we had been married for three years, he decided he should have married his college sweetie instead of his law school sweetie. So, at twenty-six, I was divorced (disgraced) and wondering what I did wrong, because, according to him, it was all MY fault.
So there’s my introduction. Anybody still wonder why I don’t understand? Maybe, after all these years, somebody can explain to me what happened to the world I grew up in and why I’m to blame.
@ Paul:
“What are the basics of game? What should I generally be doing to attract more women?”
My opinions, FWIW:
1. Frame. Your frame, first, last, always. Make her step into your frame; you don’t step into hers.
2. Confidence and dominance.
3. Have a plan, a life mission. You’re going to do something with your life: A job, a career, a vocation. The prime purpose of that “something” is yours and yours alone. Its purpose — and your life purpose — is not primarily to provide money, resources and a house for a woman and children (although a woman and children, if you want them, will be the benefactors of your “something” which you build and acquire for yourself).
4. Have a good thorough understanding of female hypergamy. It is the deep rooted, hardwired desire of a woman to have for herself the best man she can get. This desire cannot be removed from, counseled out of, or socialized out of a woman; nor can she do anything about it. The only thing that quiets hypergamy is satisfying it. It always runs in a woman as a background “operating program”, to use a computing metaphor. Whenever a woman breaks up with you, essentially she is saying to you “I think I can do better than you”.
5. Understand that nearly every woman has three basic directives which operate in this order:
a. Prime directive: Secure sperm from the highest quality man she can get, get pregnant, and have strong healthy babies.
b. Secondary directive: Secure resources to provide for herself and her babies.
c. Tertiary directive (operates only if directives 1 and 2 fail): Secure resources to provide for herself by any means necessary.
6. Be the high quality man. Live your life. Don’t tolerate her taking over your life or making increasing demands on you and your time. You bring her into your life; you don’t step into hers. Make her qualify herself to you; you don’t qualify yourself to her. Make her demonstrate that she is worth what she’s asking for from you. Never ever invest time, money or resources before she shows she is worthy of them.
“What are the basics of anti-game? What is woman-repellent?”
1. Offering commitment before she shows she’s worthy of it. Such a man is to women as a slut is to a man: Easy. Worthless. Good enough to milk for all he’s worth; not good enough for an LTR or marriage.
2. Pedestalization. Worshiping her.
3. Supplication. Giving her whatever she wants hopefully in exchange for sexual favors. Bargaining with her for sex or other things. Placating her with gifts or nights out. Saying “Whatever you want to think/do/say/be, dear.”
4. Emotional displays. Don’t be too happy, sad, mad, elated, angry or giddy. Don’t show a lot of emotion. And under no circumstances should you ever, ever, display fear. You’ll feel fear. But you cannot show HER you feel it. Ever.
5. Submissiveness: letting her make all the decisions, letting her determine the course of your relationship.
6. Timidity, hesitancy, lack of resolve and will. Hesitating to make known your wants, needs and desires. Failing to stand up for yourself in the relationship. Failing to say “no” when required; fearing the consequences of her emotions or reactions; failing to act boldly.
Maybe, after all these years, somebody can explain to me what happened to the world I grew up in and why I’m to blame.
See, you do understand why these men are mad. What was done to you is what is being done to them, only worse, because they get raped financially, and lose parental rights.
Right. You lived through the peak of the insanity with memories of a time before. We were born into the chaos and never knew anything different. And we have to pay for the sins of our mothers. You have to understand the radical difference in disposition between prelapsarian Southern Belles and child-victims of The Divorce Generation. We have passed the culture through a grinder since your foundational nostalgia.
There but for the grace of God would I have gone, had I not fortunately been born to a stable family which transcended the “idle pleasures of [the] days.” I had a protected place where I could develop into a man. My peers did not. And yet they are my brothers. I fight alongside them and for them.
Matt
Connie: Some men don’t want to hear that there are some women who’ve gotten a bad deal. There’s a strange sort of pride they have in their “victimhood.” They don’t want women horning in on that too 😉 Then there are others who realize this is more than about men vs. women; that its a people vs. people issue. Furious Ferrett is a good example of someone who gets this. Persevere, find strength, and give strength 🙂
http://evanramseymclaren.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/how-to-give/
@ Connie
Now you understand why there is so much opposition to no-fault (a misnomer if there ever was one, its really “unilateral”) divorce. Taking you story as true on the face of it, you were subjected to undeserved cruelty. Many, many men in the “manosphere” have experienced the very same thing. Not all, I’m not one of them. But enough that whenever they see a woman coming in who starts throwing around pejoratives, they won’t respond in a civil manner.
In a way, they are your natural allies. What you have gone through, is what they have gone through. Your suffering is their suffering. Try to find common ground if you can (which should be in the way that divorce laws are handled in this country now).
At this point the best thing you can do is ask questions, it takes months to really assimilate what is going on here.
@ Paul
Here is “game” in a single sentence:
Game is an understanding of the true nature of human socio-sexual interactions and the behaviors associated with them.
Anti-Game is a subset of Game that encompasses knowledge of the behaviors that will have a negative impact on women. Essentially, what not to do.
As for attracting women, I created a list a while back of what women find attractive in men, I will link it her so you can take a look. Rather than tell you what to do right out of the box, I think it is better to tell you what women are looking for, so you can adjust yourself accordingly. If you do have some specific questions, then feel free to ask away.
https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/the-5-vectors-of-female-attraction-a-restoration/
Pingback: Links and Comments #7 | The Society of Phineas
My question is about hypergamy, and especially that always-running “can I do better than you?” program that Deti mentioned. Most men get married, I think, not only for sex and companionship but also to have someone they can always count on, who will “have their back” when things get tough, just as they expect to have HER back when she needs it.
Does female hypergamy mean this is just a fantasy? I mean, when you lose your job or get very sick are going to be the exact times when there will definitely be mate options “better than you” in important ways, and even without such problems, sooner or later men who are “better” on important dimensions are bound to come into your wife’s radar.
So thinking out loud here, maybe it is better to interact with a wife not as a friend or true comrade but more like you would interact with a business associate…you might really like your stockbroker, for instance, and he might *sincerely like* you, but you wouldn’t want to share your emotional vulerabilities with him too much…and you know that if you run out of money, he’ll regretfully not want you as a client any more, no matter how much he likes you. Or think of a wife like you would think of an employee (in traditional marriage) or your boss (in feminist marriage)…you might like the employee or the boss, but never want to let yourself be too much at his mercy and always want to retain the right “frame.”
Is this too harsh? I’m hoping you will tell me it’s overstated, but I see a lot of dismal evidence.
@Matt – my parents were married until death did them part, shortly before their 54th anniversary. I am not paying for the sins of MY mother.
@deti – really? EVERYONE around you was “either woefully ignorant, stupendously incompetent, or simply intentionally lied to us when it came to intergender relationships.
This is what set me off. The sweeping generalizations. ALL women are sluts, feminazis, cunts. I’m not mad at you, denzi; I’m just past believing that none of you has ever met a good woman.
“The laws and culture are hopelessly slanted against men and in favor of women. ” There is no doubt that was once true. The state where I practice specifically forbids favoring one parent over another because of, among other things, the gender of the parent or the child/ren or the age of the child/ren. You know who ignores that? Male judges. Female judges WANT men to have equal parenting time.
What you said to Paul is … if I had any words, they would not be good.
@donelgraeme – No fault divorce is still divorce, and it is painful. I am not a family law attorney because I am in favor of divorce. If someone comes to me wanting to file, I encourage them to do everything s/he try to make the marriage work. I tell them that marriage is supposed to be forever, but divorce really is. That said, no-fault is still better than having to allege cruelty, drunkenness, adultery, etc. Ideally, all marriage would be til-death-do-us-part – I wish mine had been – but if people must separate, I prefer no-fault to one of them scarring the other for life with such accusations (on top of the other scars s/he will always carry.)
@Very anonymous – YES, that is overstated. http://www.lote.org.
I have a lot more questions. These are responses. I’m sorry if I am going about this wrong. I have no more time today. My husband has just invited me to spend some time with him, and he’s my favorite person, so I’m headed out. I will be back.
@Stingray – Much better than Dalrock. But I’m not getting the emails telling me there are more comments? I have bookmarked you, though. Thanks for the invite!
There’s a strange sort of pride they have in their “victimhood.” They don’t want women horning in on that too
Not too many worries there. Females have victimhood down to a science
You could see the bad boys and the jerks getting all the sex. Why didn’t you figure it out?
We did have an inkling. The issue was that following Christ and being a bad boy were incompatible.
Being the weekend, I don’t have the time to respond to comments as they should be right now. I will as soon as I have time.
Connie, I’m not showing that anyone has registered to follow the comments on this post. You might want to try again. Enjoy your evening with your husband. I am about to do the same!
Pingback: Deti Speaks. You Listen | dannyfrom504
Why are men mad? Well,I’m not sure whether you’re referring to the guys who are genuinely mad, or if you’re interpreting statements that are not emotional in an emotional manner because it’s easier for your brain to process it that way.
I can’t add much to what has already been said except it’s pretty irritating when men contribute to you getting the vote,the pill, and abortion and women turn around and organize against us getting a male pill by sending death threats to the manufacturers,and call us rape apologists and “the abuser’s lobby” whenever we attempt to strengthen our non-existent parental rights against the police state ya’ll demanded.
I’m not mad. I’m on a mission. I want to see feminism die. Not because I’m mad at feminism, though I have every reason to be and was at one time, but because it would be a massive boon to the health,prosperity,and well-being of our society. Feminism is cultural death. It teaches androgyny,stupidity, and self-annihilation.
Also, when people around here say “All women are…X” it generally means, “The overwhelming majority of women are X or do X”. Nobody wants to put down the women who are reasonable,knowledgeable, and who have the same goals we do.
We’d be fine doing this thing without them,but we’re happy to have as many of them as we do.
They know that.
They’re not like “that”,most of them don’t have any sympathy for the ones who are, so when we talk about the women who are like that, they know we aren’t talking about them.
The only way our statements can be directed at you is if you’ve done a bunch of slutting around,or if you plan to enable or advise another woman to do so, if YOU espouse feminist philosophy or are an activist for/beneficiary of feminism,or are sympathetic to those who do, or if you personally are a cunt.
If your hands are clean, we aren’t talking to you.
Very Anonymous:
Hypergamy does not necessarily mean that til-death-do-you-part is a fantasy. What it does mean is that a man must lead and demonstrate high value so as to give her the good memories, feelings and history to ride out the rough spots. I don’t think women are constantly out there scoping out men, looking to replace their men at the drop of a hat, and searching for any weakness, any excuse to dump her zero for a maybe-hero. Things like job loss and illness happen to men. I think a woman can tolerate low value displays for a few weeks or even a month or so. The problem occurs I think when a man’s depression, unemployment, funk or doldrums extends into months and years with no effort at improvement, no change,and no introspection or insight.
I think the most effective way for a husband and wife to deal with each other is the captain-first officer model. The husband is the captain, wife is the first officer. She is a trusted advisor, friend, confidante and helpmeet, but he is the leader and breaks the ties. There can be only one captain and he (not she) should be it. Thus, the way to satisfy hypergamy is to keep his status sufficiently above hers to quell hypergamy’s hum.
Pingback: Deti Speaks. You Listen « PUA Central
Yes to what Deti said. A man, a husband, needs to create “beta comfort” but also “alpha comfort”. The latter means that ideally the wife has a history of “magic moments of masculinity”.
@Connie
Men on the manosphere speak in generalities – enough women act that way. They don’t want to have to qualify every statement with NAWALT.
Frankly they don’t want to qualify anything – that’s a female trait not a masculine one. They are not speaking of you personally; they are speaking of the nature of women in general.
@Nergal: No one’s hands are clean. Even those trying their hardest not to do cause harm. You can’t stand in the sun without casting a shadow.
Connie wrote:
Your primary stumbling block is this kind of thinking. You are personalizing a general phenomenon. Acknowledge it or not: this is a feminine way of apprehending the world. Men (generally) think in abstractions, universalities, generalities. Women (generally) think in concrete terms, personal detail, particularities. Men focus on categorical imperatives, women on exceptions to the rule.
But you see how superfluous it is constantly qualify every hypothesis with generally, or appending an asterisk to every statement as a reminder that it is a personal, if educated, hypothesis. This insistence on missing the forest for the trees is such a common fallacy that a term had to be invented for shorthand purposes: NAWALT.
The other problem is your humility. You have entered a community organized around certain shared beliefs with the idea that you are going to tell us like it is. We don’t mind the challenges, but we have a small tolerance for the sheer repetition of the critique. Many of your concerns have been debated endlessly years before you arrived, and the truly curious interloper would get up to speed with our full, tested-and-retested thesis before presuming to teach us how we are wrong.
The key to demonstrating yourself worthy of debating (or even noticing) is your behavior when you are a guest in someone else’s place. You should present your challenges and difficulties in the form of questions rather than blunt statements. Not that there’s no truth in them, but we will never get to your good point because we will be too busy trying to enforce comity/manners/courtesy over your mission of simple disruption and personal catharsis.
Stingray extended a truly gratuitous courtesy to you by making a forum just to ask questions. But it doesn’t appear you are genuinely curious. Even the one “question” you asked was an indirect complaint with a question-mark tacked on.
In other words, if you want to learn what this is all about — the legitimate reasons why men gripe — that’s great, even if you disagree after your investigation. But you have to make a gesture of good faith, showing us you are worth the effort of disabusing. Otherwise, considering you to be an internet troll is simple prudence, particularly because honest replies to purely provocative inquiries merely feed/appease our enemies who have nothing but bad intentions for this community.
Matt
@TempestTcup…
I really want to learn something, not just argue, but I don’t understand why you think the things you/they say apply to the “nature of women in general.”
@Nergal…
It’s good that you are “happy to have as many” women as you do, but if you want women like me to be able to see what you are saying, you would do well to eliminate “cunt” from your vocabulary, IMHO.
On a lighter note, here are some of the reasons that (some) women do think men have it made…
Men Are Just Happier People–
Your last name stays put.
The garage is all yours.
Wedding plans take care of themselves. Wedding dress $5000. Tux rental-$100.
Chocolate is just another snack.
You can be President.
You can wear a white T-shirt to a water park.
You can wear NO shirt to a water park.
Car mechanics tell you the truth.
The world is your urinal.
You never have to drive to another gas station restroom because this one is just too icky.
You don’t have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.
Same work, more pay.
Wrinkles add character.
People never stare at your chest when you’re talking to them.
New shoes don’t cut, blister, or mangle your feet.
One mood all the time.
Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.
You know stuff about tanks.
A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.
You can open all your own jars.
You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.
If someone forgets to invite you, he or she can still be your friend.
Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack.
Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.
You almost never have strap problems in public.
You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes.
Everything on your face stays its original color.
The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.
You only have to shave your face and neck.
You can play with toys all your life.
One wallet and one pair of shoes — one color for all seasons.
You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.
You can ‘do’ your nails with a pocket knife.
You have freedom of choice concerning growing a mustache.
You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives on December 24 in 25 minutes.
Very Anonymous,
Very much what Deti said.
Althol Kay talked about this a while ago, too. It was in relation to something else, but it is still relevant here. He referred to it as the Alpha tank. If a wife’s tank is full up with her alpha husband, she is going to be ok with temporary set backs. She is going to need to see that serious attempts are being made to remedy the situation. She is going to need to see you being strong because she will be scared. However, I believe in the bottom of my heart that wives, on occasion, absolutely have to be the Rock in the marriage. you should be able to have a complete breakdown in front of her without her losing any respect. But this can only be for a very finite time. There is a caveat to this. Most women don’t know that this is something they should know how to do. No one has ever taught us this. It might take a bit of anger on your part first, a simple “Wife, this is what I need from you right now and if you can’t handle it I will take it to someone who can.”
A lot of this will depend on the woman and the marriages past history as well. If the husband is a strong leader this very often produces a very strong wife. One whom he can depend on as she learns it from him.
@Connie
See Matthew King’s reply – he expounded on my statements much better than I could.
Women by nature are hypergamous & solipsistic; some are more so & some are less so.
This is what set me off. The sweeping generalizations. ALL women are . . .
And this is one of the main things you have to get over if you are going to stick around these blogs. Most of the people here completely understand NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like That). But if you’re not like that, then the other thing you need to know is that very many women are. The other thing you need to understand is that you came in to Dalrock’s just like 99% of women do. You slammed up your defenses and came in with fists flying. Anyone who has spent any time here has seen what you did time and time again. Most of the time, those women are tolls. They are intentionally provocative and shaming. You did some of this as well. Only, a part of your comments seemed generally curious. That is why I invited you over here. If you want people here to speak to you in a civil tone, you need to drop your fists and your defenses and show a true willingness to learn. Even then you will get a few people around who will denigrate you. You ignore them and talk to the people who wish to teach. There are many, many people here who wish to teach as long as you put in a good faith effort. We do not expect you to agree with everything. Disagree, but without your fists and wall.
“magic moments of masculinity”.
I love this.
@Matt …
I can only tell it like it is/was for me. It is hard to learn what you say you are trying to teach when you present it with such hostility. I’ve gone to every link posted here – without commenting. I’ve read several more of Stingray’s posts – without commenting. I am trying really hard not to pass judgment. I didn’t come looking for a fight. I didn’t go to Dalrock looking for a manosphere that I didn’t even know existed, and I fell down a rabbit hole. I don’t think you are able to teach me anything about my husband, but I work in a male dominated profession, and almost half my clients are males. If I can learn something to help me understand them, it is worth some investment of my time. But I do not believe there is any theology, philosophy, ideology, or manifesto that should just be swallowed whole, without investigating, and I’m not going to do that here.
@Stingray…
I keep checking the little box that says Notify me of follow-up comments via email. Is there another way?
Connie,
That poem, or list, that you left. 90% of the things listed on there are biological. They simply are what they are. We can accept them and relish in our sexes own “happinesses” or we can be angry. Either way, nothing changes. Also, same work, more pay? That has been debunked countless times now.
but I don’t understand why you think the things you/they say apply to the “nature of women in general.”
Because males and females have natural drives and these drives are very different from each other. Women are aroused by and then attracted to men of a higher status than themselves. Most often, this higher status is shown through how overtly masculine the man is. Women are attracted and aroused by the masculine. We might be attracted to one man who will then be knocked out of the way by a more masculine man. Women might love a man, who then loses some of his masculinity for her to only “Love him but not be in love with him anymore.” Or to have a “nice” boyfriend or husband who she them walks out on when she finds a more masculine/confident/dominant man. We call this hypergamy. It is a woman’s natural state. Can we fight against this? Of course, but we are no longer encouraged to do so. This is why we hate no fault divorce. A woman can fall out of love with her husband, leave him, take half his things and his children and go be with another man relatively easy. Many, many of the men here have had this exact thing happen to them or almost happen to them. Your experience at your law firm is not the norm.
The other major thing is that we women tend to personalize most everything we encounter. I describe it as seeing the world through the prism of our own lives. It is much more difficult for us to see that the world outside of our own circle can be, and likely is, very different from our world. It’s a female trait. Is it always a bad thing? Not at all, but it absolutely can be when we cannot see what others are going through and admit it’s truth.
Connie,
I am computer retarded, so I just don’t know why it’s not working or what else you could do. Sorry.
Also, you need to realize that on this thread, there is not one single person being hostile toward you. Not one. This is how men speak. They present facts in a calm and cool manner. There simply is no hostility.
This series of blogs is called the Manosphere or Androsphere. It is a very male dominated space. This is simply how they speak and understand one another. What seems hostile to you is all of us having an excellent conversation. You are just not used to it. The ladies that comment here understand they are in a male space (or locker room) and respect that. We do what we need to to understand, comment, and converse, by talking to others like men. It is not on the men to talk to us to spare our feelings because we are in their space. We absolutely cannot expect men to bend over backwards for our feelings. In this space, it is up to us to understand how they speak and modify ourselves. This is their house, not ours. This little blog of mine? It’s more like a bedroom inside that house where people respect my space, but I am in their home.
I didn’t think Matt’s reply was said with “hostility” & I think it’s kind of off-putting that you come on a blog & tell people what words they “would do well to eliminate”. Maybe if you get offended by certain words or tones, you should look more into why you are offended & less into why they should censor themselves so as to not tread on your tender sensibilities.
Sorry, I got a little hot under the collar there 🙂
@TempestTcup….
No offense taken. I probably sounded mad, too. I was careful to add “IMHO” so as to avoid speaking for all women. And I should have been more careful to specify that I was not referring to Matt – mea culpa, I did what I was put-off by – I was referring to the general tone, as I see it, of lumping all women together. Sorry, Matt. Stingray has politely taken me to task for taking it personally.
I guess the “C” word offends me because it is used in a derogatory fashion and can refer only to my gender. No matter how many times I hear it, I still hate it. I may be able to desensitize myself to taking everything personally, but I will always hate hearing that word. Forgive me, I’m trying.
The best part of this entire exchange is that it inspired Stingray’s patient but firm explanations. It’s hard to remember the clear-minded woman’s perspective amid the fog of war — there are so few of her type, and even fewer with the talent to articulate the position well. Hers is a pithy summary for newcomers and a refresher course for everyone else. Brilliant and beautiful. I mean that literally, it is sexy as hell to see a woman so comfortable (and commanding) in her feminine element. May her kind be multiplied.
Mellifluous formulation. I second the compliments to its author, Julian O’Dea.
It reminds me of another felicitous phrase recently brought to my attention. It sums up so much so well that I curse myself for not having originated it:
“Surrendering to Masculine Energy”
(Plus, won’t lie, it helps that the authoress is cute.)
Matt
White Feminist Woman at Georgetown University working in the admissions department openly admitted that she REJECTED white men’s applications simply because they were WHITE MEN.
Brief: A female advisor in the admissions department at Georgetown University has been caught openly admitting that she committed the CRIME of discrimination based on people’s race and gender in the application process.
This has the potential to create a large scale lawsuit against Georgetown University, and with the momentum building at the rate it is building, seems very likely that will be the outcome.
Below are the main links to all of the information regarding this news story and case.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums2/tabid/369/forumid/232/threadid/6149/scope/posts/Default.aspx
http://www.avoiceformen.com/georgetown-university-and-men/georgetown-university-in-a-cover-up/
Connie:
What I told Paul is the truth as I see it — basics of game and how to get more women to notice him. I understand why you don’t like it — because my response was designed to help him and serve HIS interests, not the interests of his wife or his GF or women he might meet or women in general.
Very anonymous, Julian, Sting:
If women have alpha tanks, men have wife goggles. A man truly in love with the wife of his youth always sees her as she was when he first met her and fell in love with her. No matter how she looks now, he always sees her as fresh faced, clear skinned, young, and pretty — because that image imprints on his mind and heart, and remains there forever. When he looks at her or thinks of her, that youthful, pretty image is all he can see.
Connie:
“@deti – really? EVERYONE around you was “either woefully ignorant, stupendously incompetent, or simply intentionally lied to us when it came to intergender relationships.
“This is what set me off. The sweeping generalizations. ALL women are sluts, feminazis, cunts. I’m not mad at you, denzi; I’m just past believing that none of you has ever met a good woman.”
Connie, what you are just beginning to understand is the infilatrative, extremely pervasive effect feminism has had on American society. Everything in our society has been reordered, retooled, changed and tinkered with so as to accommodate feminism, hypergamy, and young single women. Everything, from the way institutions work, shopping, education, cultural messages, religion, to the way individual men and women interact with each other on a daily basis, has been completely changed to elevate women and suppress men. Everything is regulated and politicized. The male sex drive is suppressed (unless, of course, you are an attractive man, in which case all the ladies’ behavior to that man screams “Please, PLEASE harass me!”). An average guy can’t even seriously express romantic interest in a female colleague for fear of her being “offended” and lodging a sexual harassment charge.
Boys are told from their earliest, tenderest years that they have to defer at all times to a girl. “Give her that toy.” “You have to share with her.” “Be nice to her.” They are told to sit down, shut up, don’t talk, be still, don’t touch that, don’t go to that place because it’s dangerous. Learn it the way we tell you. Don’t think. Don’t question. Don’t analyze. Just shut up and prepare yourself to be a husband and father and a cog in the machine. And if you can’t do that, then stay out of the way. And don’t ever, EVER get it in your head that that cute girl you like might actually want to have sex with you. She won’t. Not now, not ever. So you might as well just get out your Xbox and your laptop and your porn sites and your Kleenex because Lara Croft and movies of the latest coked out pornstar are the only sex you are EVER going to get.
Those are the messages life sent us, Connie. I know it’s ugly. But I do commend you for having the courage to face the truth.
Connie:
A little empathy goes a long way. Just sayin’.
Matt,
Thank you.
And yes, Connie, I’ve known good women. Before I married I met two of them who were actually worth a damn (I’ve met many, many since then). But because I did not have the education and skills to recognize a good woman, I did not know it at the time. It’s only in hindsight I know they were, and are, good women. If I had had the skills to see them and to get and keep one of them I would have done so. The first one I met when I was 17; the second when I was 20. This is why getting boys started early on game and basic attraction skills when they are young is so important. Since I knew I wanted a wife and family at some point I could have started at a younger age than I did.
I know (now) these were good women because both of them were intelligent, pleasant, eager to see me and please me, and put firm boundaries around what they would do sexually. Both went on to marry good men and have the families they wanted. The first girl married at 22 to a guy she met in college. The second married at 23 to a guy she knew from her hometown. Both were of average looks, but were feminine and with good heads on their shoulders and pleasant personalities.
Deti,
Do you know of any articles that explain how pervasive feminism is in that our generation doesn’t even see it for what it is any more? I know I have read some but can’t remember them now. I know there are a lot of feminine imperative articles out there, but something that specifically addresses this would be helpful.
Hi Stingray,
I am in need of clarification and in need some consolation on the topic of Solipsism. I am having an emotional reaction to a realisation that I think I’ve just come to fully understand and appreciate. Is solipsism so innate to women that it can not be overcome by rational thought or beliefs? I was floored when I finished reading the yahoo post about the Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev being married to an American girl who gave up her Christian faith to marry him. What struck me was how easily she threw away her Christian faith for this man. Why not keep her faith and be an example to him? Is this an example of female solipsism? I have always struggled with the idea that solipsism is solely a female issue, yet if I interpreted solipsism correctly, this yahoo post has finally brought home for me in stunning clarity how much it is .Is Katherine Tsarnaev just a weak willed woman? In your opinion, is female solipsism one of the reasons women should not, no change that, CAN NOT be ministers and leaders in the church?
A little background on me. I swallowed the Red Pill approx. 3yrs ago. My husband and I are orthodox Christians. He has chosen to remain a minister in the mainline Protestant church. I have read your insights on Alpha Game in particular and appreciate your sincerity and the consideration you give when replying to comments. Thank you for this open opportunity to share and ask questions.
Sting:
Rollo Tomassi at Rational Male is all over this and has been for some time.
http://therationalmale.com/2013/01/07/queens-workers-drones/
http://therationalmale.com/2012/12/28/sanitizing-the-imperative/
http://therationalmale.com/2012/11/27/boys-will-be-boys/
http://therationalmale.com/2012/10/25/generalizations/ (This one is particular well suited to Connie’s complaint about “sweeping generalizations”)
http://therationalmale.com/2012/10/02/up-the-alpha/
http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/05/build-a-better-beta/
http://therationalmale.com/2012/07/27/pathologizing-the-male-sexual-response/
http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/15/double-standards/
http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/20/the-feminine-reality/
Start reading with “The Feminine Reality”, the last post, and read upward as Rollo unpacks each aspect of it.
Here is the long and short of it. Although it appears this thread is about Connie, it isn’t about her at all. She is a foil and she could have been any other of a thousand faceless trolls.
The hardest thing for the modern western woman to deal with is imagining a world that is not all about her. Now here comes a lengthy conversation that began with a specific commenter in mind, but look closer and she realizes that this birthday cake doesn’t actually have her name on it. They’re not talking about what she wants to talk about; they’re not not provoked by her foot-stamping at all. We have not conformed to her petulance, and she has no skill set to deal with it. She will seek other outlets for her attention, other chambers that will echo pleasantly back to her ear.
Indeed, someone of her age has little chance to ponder reassessing the principles that constitute her identity, much less to effect reform. Such is life. Moving on.
Matt
Deti,
Thank you very much. I knew Rollo would have the most, but I couldn’t remember which had specifically dealt with this. Rollo has written so many articles about FI that I couldn’t narrow it down more for Connie. I appreciate your help.
I think women can come to have an awareness of it, but it’s a hard-wired thing which will inevitably slip out into the whole. This is where the Team Woman expression comes from. Solipsism is the self-centered belief that nothing exists beyond the self. Basically, it’s pure selfishness and pride. It’s the projection of a woman’s interests onto the world – as in her views represent all women, her life represents all the lives of women, and so on. Solipsism removes the woman’s ability to be completely objective. In other words, it’s either Team Woman or Team Her Man. Solipsism makes it so a woman can not see the interests of others in an objective and clear manner.
The hunt for the Alpha throws away any good consideration, especially Scriptural consideration. Scripture is clear that a Christian woman should have nothing to do with the likes of a Muslim, especially in the way of Christian faith. She gave it up to be with him, which isn’t a good thing. As far as solipsism goes, if you are projecting your view of what you would do onto her, then yes it is an example of your solipsism.
Yes.
Yes, a woman’s solipsism (mainly her lack of objectivity) is one reason that disqualifies her if you go into logical reasons why (though it being a pronouncement of the Lord through the Spirit inspired word should be more than enough for a Christian).
Practically Perfect,
Bear with me here as I try to clarify my thoughts. You just got into a whole lot with your question that I need to try and tweeze out. It may be a bit garbled.
First, It’s not just women who are solipsistic as many men are as well. The more feminized men become, the worse this seems to get for them. However, men tend to be more solipsistic to certain things in their life and to a far less degree than women. Women tend to be this way for almost everything and to a far greater degree. Having said this, you asked, Is solipsism so innate to women that it can not be overcome by rational thought or beliefs? If by overcome, you mean abolished, the answer if no. I don’t think so. If by overcome you mean, realized and and therefore it is overcome, the answer is yes, we can do this. Solipsism will always be there. But if we pay attention to it, know it for what it is and then force ourselves to look beyond it, it can absolutely be done. The problem is, women are taught to embrace it today.
What struck me was how easily she threw away her Christian faith for this man. Why not keep her faith and be an example to him? Is this an example of female solipsism?
She is not the only one. I do not think this has to do with solipsism, rather it has to do with masculinity and strength. Women are drawn to. I dare say we need it, only feminism and statism has rendered our Christian churches (NOT our faith) weak. Our teachers have lost their strength and the inherent masculinity found within our faith and people are leaving it as it becomes more feminized. Women, being drawn to strength, are therefore going to the Muslim faith and strength of their men (relative to our feminized men and churches). So, Is Katherine Tsarnaev just a weak willed woman? Well, yes. But most women who are strong willed are so because they have been taught their values from a strong man and have a strong man in their lives to hold on to when our minds falter (fathers, husbands, brothers, etc.). Is this faltering is solipsism? Yes. It makes our minds take into consideration things that men would simply disregard. It’s the hamster. We rationalize to find reasons to go where we want to go even when we know it’s wrong. Strong men hold us steady.
In your opinion, is female solipsism one of the reasons women should not, no change that, CAN NOT be ministers and leaders in the church?
Yes. Faith and church teachings are NOT about us. They are not there to make our lives easier or to rationalize into what we want them to say. Our uncanny ability to rationalize what we want, our emotionalism and our ability to empathize (the solipsism) with others, even when it is inherently wrong what we empathize with are many of the reasons women should not be leaders of our faith. Women tend to bend scripture to their emotions so that it says things that will make us feel better. It is dangerous.
You touched on a whole lot with your comment and I am not sure I covered it all or that I covered it well. If you need/want more clarification, ask more questions.
Welcome, Practically Perfect and thank you very much for your compliment.
Matt:
Perhaps a woman realizing “It’s not all about you” is the toughest.
If it is , a close second is a woman’s being judged for her conduct and then having to live out the consequences.
Women hate receiving negative judgment. They HATE it.
Deti,
It’s that, but it’s also that the guilt can be almost overwhelming. It’s sometimes (often?) easier to rationalize it away than it is to face it.
Pingback: A Guide to Entering the Manosphere (For Women) | On the Rock
And then solipsism kicks in, and each woman takes a righteous rebuke against another woman for an act of sin as an action against all of them and they all rise up and rebel. So men find it easier to just not bother. This is perhaps the biggest reason the church is where it is – women running roughshod in rebellion against God and men not putting it down and instead supporting it. Nothing new (see Adam & Eve).
On a lighter note, here are some of the reasons that (some) women do think men have it made…
Men Are Just Happier People–
Your last name stays put.
It’s his responsibility, therefore the family has his name. When it’s your responsibility you can use your name. K?
The garage is all yours.
The wife gets the rest of the house, and you want the garage too?
Wedding plans take care of themselves. Wedding dress $5000. Tux rental-$100.
You decided to spend that much. All. Your. Fault.
Chocolate is just another snack.
Life is tough. Suck it up.
You can be President.
There is no law saying a woman cannot be president.
You can wear a white T-shirt to a water park.
Too damn bad.
You can wear NO shirt to a water park.
See t-shirt answer.
Car mechanics tell you the truth.
You can learn about cars just like men can. Grow up.
The world is your urinal.
See t-shirt answer.
You never have to drive to another gas station restroom because this one is just too icky.
Who said we don’t do this too? We just do it much less than you do.
You don’t have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.
Bolts can turn both ways depending on application. See the car mechanic answer.
Same work, more pay.
This is now a lie.
Wrinkles add character.
See t-shirt answer.
People never stare at your chest when you’re talking to them.
And this is a bad thing for you how? Or better yet, why are you showing cleavage to people you don’t want seeing it?
New shoes don’t cut, blister, or mangle your feet.
This is not sex specific. Do better. Get some adhesive moleskin.
One mood all the time.
See t-shirt answer.
Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.
You don’t have to talk. You can shut up. Really.
You know stuff about tanks.
See car mechanic answer.
A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.
See wedding dress answer.
You can open all your own jars.
Get a man. Stop bitching.
You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.
Only women care about this stuff and only when it comes from good looking or alpha men. Look who is getting the credit and who is giving it.
If someone forgets to invite you, he or she can still be your friend.
You don’t have to be a bitch. You don’t have to be friends with bitches.
Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack.
See wedding dress answer.
Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.
See wedding dress answer.
You almost never have strap problems in public.
Getting a nut caught in a harness, like a parachute, or smashed by saddle more than makes up for it.
You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes.
See t-shirt answer.
Everything on your face stays its original color.
See t-shirt answer.
The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.
See t-shirt answer.
You only have to shave your face and neck.
See t-shirt answer.
You can play with toys all your life.
So can you. Nothing is stopping you. Remember, you don’t have to be a bitch.
One wallet and one pair of shoes — one color for all seasons.
See t-shirt answer.
You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.
Not really. Bulging or varicose veins on blindingly white legs is bad no matter who has them.
You can ‘do’ your nails with a pocket knife.
So can you. See wedding dress answer.
You have freedom of choice concerning growing a mustache.
So do you, you can buy depilation cream.
You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives on December 24 in 25 minutes. Way to hyperbole. But it is theoretically possible if you limit yourself to one gift for the whole family; booze, candy, pastry or other kind of goodie is always appreciated.
Sorry didn’t mean to be away for so long.
Thank you for the hope Stingray. Yes I did mean realized, ever since the discussion on Alpha Game I have been intentionally trying to avoid being solipsistic. I am a NAWALT but question whether or not there are somethings that women intrinsicly can not over come.
I see the masculine confidence Islam instills in its men and see how and why women would be attracted to it and you’ll get no disagreement from me about feminism and the Constantinian Heresy of the church.
So women confuse solipsism with empathy. Did I get that right?
If I did, that makes sense and would explain the arguement my husband and I have been having about the bombers. He sees their actions as simply men making a choice to do evil things. I on the other hand want to find the reasons why two men threw away so much potential. I want to understand which will led me to empathize.
So can women empathize without setting the hamster free? Is a woman’s ability to empathize to help give a man perspective?
Thank you ballista74 for you input as well.
Practically Perfect,
What I have found works for me, instead of avoiding the solipsism, I embrace it. I feel what I need to feel and them move on past those feelings. When I tried to avoid it, it was much harder to move past. I agree with you that there are just certain things that are inherently female. Solipsism, hypergamy, being emotional. It’s who we are created to be. However, we can use our will to not impose those things on the people around us.
So women confuse solipsism with empathy. Did I get that right?
Fantastic question. And it goes exactly hand in hand with what you said next, If I did, that makes sense and would explain the arguement my husband and I have been having about the bombers. He sees their actions as simply men making a choice to do evil things. I on the other hand want to find the reasons why two men threw away so much potential. I want to understand which will led me to empathize.
I do think it is our solipsism that leads us to do what you describe here, but I don’t want people to think that this is all solipsism is. It is one faction of it. We want to know why. We want to know the reasons that drive this kind of action. We want to try and feel what that bomber felt so we can understand it better. But I am not certain why we do this. Do we want to understand his feelings to compare them to our own? Are we trying to see if we are capable of the same evil? Are we trying to find a reason that he might be a victim or is it that this kind of evil is so frightening that if we can somehow rationalize it, it will be less scary? I tend to think it is mostly the last item. We need to make sense of it to help us get over the fear. Men, on the other hand, simply need to know that it’s evil so they can fight it.
So can women empathize without setting the hamster free?
I think we can. But this takes a whole lot of work, a whole lot of time and a lot of help from people we trust, mainly men (this is likely the reason why it is older women who are called to teach the younger. They have had the time and, hopefully, the work put in to do this). We need to know the boundaries; the lines in the sand (such as are in scripture or our original constitution) before we do so. Even then, it is difficult. This is why we seek strength and masculinity. It gives us something to hold onto, to keep the hamster safely caged. That is why the image of The Rock is so powerful. It is immoveable.
@Connie – late to the game here, but…..I notice your first question is all-encompassing – and yet, when answered on those terms, NAWALT is pulled out. Just an observation……and to answer – yes, there are many angry men – and there are many men who are absolutely at peace and have never been happier now that the blinders have been removed.
@Sis – you search for a concrete philosophy – why? I see the “Manosphere” as a vibrant collection of general ideas under the very basic heading of “men being men”. Some are focused on “game”, some are bitter and angry and venting, some choose to look at being congruent and in synch with their masculinity, some treat sex as an ancillary byproduct of “being a man”.
It’s like Feminism – the Manosphere isn’t a “thing”, it’s what you want from it. The Feminism my mom lived thru in the 60s isn’t the same one that gender studies majors obsession over heteronormative patriarchical verbal rape see.
I admire your ability to embrace solipsism. I’ve yet felt the trust and secure enough to be able to do that, to let go of the control, it is something I am always working on. As with you I want to rationalize it so it will be less scary and so I can figure out how to prevent it from happening to me and mine. I want to try to help prevent more young men from embracing Islam or other false philosphies, I want to help defend what is established as right and good and not just sit back. I don’t ever want to experience what the mother’s of those killed and maimed in the bombing have experienced.
(Yes, I do see all the I’s in that paragraph.)
A big Amen to the older women teaching the younger. It’s been on my heart for almost two years to start a group at our church. I have been able to determine and establish connections with the very few women in our church who rudimentarily think in Red Pill terms and they seem interested, but where one or two women are gathered the hamster might accidently be set free.
I’ll leave you for now. I do have another question but it takes me a while to formulate how to say what I want to say. I am careful and ponder probably way too much.
Thank you again. On The Rock will be permanently added to my list of blogs to visit weekly.
Practically Perfect,
I want those things, too but I honestly have no idea what I can do other than to live as best I can and to teach and protect my kids.
It’s wonderful that you have been able to find some like minded women at your church. I wish I could say the same. Also, I know what you mean about setting the hamster free. It is very easy to do within a group of women.
I’m glad you like the blog and I look forward to your question. You asked some that really made me think today, and about some things I had never thought of before. Thank you.
Deti,
I want to thank you again for coming here and helping me to answer these questions and for finding those links for me. I really appreciate it.
deti:
“No matter how she looks now, he always sees her as fresh faced, clear skinned, young, and pretty — because that image imprints on his mind and heart, and remains there forever. When he looks at her or thinks of her, that youthful, pretty image is all he can see.”
Yes. In my mind, my wife still has dark brown hair. In reality, it is now dyed kind of blonde to cover the grey.
Less mundanely, yes, I do still think of her as if she were still 25.
“One mood all the time.”
Really? You think?
@Connie – in addition to the list that Deti posted is the sadness, depression, and sense of worthlessness that “feminista” teachings can result in a guy .
I speak from experience here…..and as I work my way through the red pill, and embracing what God’s made me to be – and I’m liking it. Ditching the long term sadness and low-grade depression is a big bonus too… It’s also made a huge difference in my relationship with certain female relatives that’d been a problem area in my life for years.
That I could’ve had a much happier life had my eyes been opened sooner is cause for being a bit … “annoyed” …. as it were.
arg! Missed a closing italic there – Sting if you could fix it pls and thx? 🙂
Connie: ‘Why are they so mad?’
Mad? A few posts on an internet blog and that constitutes mad? A few curse words and that constitutes mad?
These people, these men, aren’t going around the country, or world, blowing buildings and people up. They are not beating/hitting people on a daily basis. They are not terrorising the world with scare tactics. They are blogging on internet forums, on sites, on blogs. That is probably the most civil kind of discourse you could ever hope to have in the entirety of existence. Just think about that. Try going to Afghanistan, Somalia, or 8th century Egypt and seeing what ‘mad’ was like then. Either you’re being disingenuous or you’ve lead a very, very sheltered life.
“What I have found works for me, instead of avoiding the solipsism, I embrace it.”
Profoundly put. Female selfishness is a good thing, so long as it is directed toward proper ends. It is a maternal love for one’s own over the love for the good. The husband takes care of the more abstract love of the good. The wife cries and reminds the family that it’s her son that is being sacrificed for the good of the country, whatever the husband’s reminder of the nobility of and duty to national causes. That is how functioning households make good decisions.
It is not simply a female flaw to be eradicated. The flaw comes from applying that instinct generally, politically, universally, abstractly — the masculine domain. Hobbes and classical liberals aside, we cannot function as a society by 100% being selfish. At the same time, utopians and socialist fantasizing aside, nor can we function by being 100% selfless. (Except — and this is the decisive exception! — by the grace of God.)
Matt
Kinda sorta.
“For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you” (Matt 17:20).
Not to derail your excellent exposition of the basics to an initiate, but it is a reminder that no man is “alpha” enough to be his own foundation, and that faith is the rock under the rock, which supports His Bride and Mystical Body, the church — which properly is referred to in the feminine gender, her. Presumptive PUA-philosophy of “turtles all the way down” notwithstanding.
We can only be relatively strong (and, more to the hypergamous perspective, attractively arrogant) by being acknowledging our absolute weakness and displaying humility before the foundations laid by our mysterious Creator.
Gird up your loins like a man,
I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”
Job 38:13-14
Matt
@Matt
“Here is the long and short of it. Although it appears this thread is about Connie, it isn’t about her at all. She is a foil and she could have been any other of a thousand faceless trolls.
The hardest thing for the modern western woman to deal with is imagining a world that is not all about her. Now here comes a lengthy conversation that began with a specific commenter in mind, but look closer and she realizes that this birthday cake doesn’t actually have her name on it. They’re not talking about what she wants to talk about; they’re not not provoked by her foot-stamping at all. We have not conformed to her petulance, and she has no skill set to deal with it. She will seek other outlets for her attention, other chambers that will echo pleasantly back to her ear.
Indeed, someone of her age has little chance to ponder reassessing the principles that constitute her identity, much less to effect reform. Such is life. Moving on.”
What was the point of this post? This isn’t a NAWALT comment – This is an I’M not like that, and IMHO, you have no reason to believe I am. I’ve spent large chunks of the last few days reading without commenting – which is, I believe, something you suggested – trying to figure out what your community is all about and what I can learn. Your post is insulting, and the comment about my age was just … unnecessary.
I’m still here. I’m still reading. I’m still pondering. But to you, I’m just a stereotype, stamping my feet, being petulant. But if I said that a lot of the MEN commenting on the various blogs I’ve been reading look like lechers and/or whiners, I’d be in big trouble with you.
Move on, please. I don’t need someone like you to help me with this.
Yes, I’m angry.
@Matt
Nicely put. Before this post I’ve only encountered the discussion of solipsism in the negative. If as a woman solipsism is innate to my nature it has to be by God’s design so there must be some value/reason for it. I just couldn’t see it. Thanks for your insight.
Connie,
The state of your emotions doesn’t concern me and your emotional reaction doesn’t impress me.
I wanted to clarify for everyone participating that this exercise is not about placating the implacable but rather about clarifying the principles under which we gather and support each other.
Maybe you are open to metanoia (literally “transformation of mind”). But — and this is where you prove my point — your particular acceptance/denial of the truth is a second- or third-order consideration for us. I really do hope you are amenable to persuasion, chiefly for your own well-being and future happiness. But you aren’t the first to witness the truth and actively reject it.
Matthew 19:20-22
Our duty is to proclaim the truth, to make sure our fellow sinners know there is hope and where to find it when they are ready. It isn’t to assure that everyone be persuaded or to force them into salvation. When I defended you at Dalrock’s it was against precipitate condemnation. But here you now you have been given a superabundance of attention, and it is righteous for us, in the absence of any sign of good faith in return, to “shake the dust from [our] feet” according to Matthew 10.
I am encouraged by your report about reading quietly and pondering. In the end, however, you have to now convince us that you are worth more attention since we have already done our duty toward you, which is not persuasion but rather simple proclamation.
Now, I would call your tantrum above an indication that you believe we owe you something more than we have already given — such as respect, consideration, a deep investment in the trajectory of your soul. But this is precisely the self-centered view of this issue we desire to liberate you from.
This thread invited you to ask questions, and you brought half of one. If you were considering our words and references seriously, you would have asked many more by now, rather than to find new ways to get ticked off and then announce them as if we owe you compensation for self-inflicted wounds.
See, I truly love my enemies, even when they hate me back. But some people are so curved in on themselves (incurvatus in se) that they mistake love for hatred and condemn it for the ego poison it is.
Luke 14:33-35
Hard sayings? Indeed. The truth is your journey to the cross.
Love,
Matt
@Matt…
Where in that last post were you giving me any respect or consideration? Where was your deep investment in the trajectory of my soul? What was that last post except your version of a tantrum about what you perceived as my abandonment of this … community? What indeed was the point other than to give offense specifically to me?
Not too impressed with you either. I didn’t come here to prove anything to anybody, including you. I came to see if there was something to learn. I have now stricken you from my list of potential teachers.
I learned at a young age in Sunday School that Satan can quote scripture with the best of them.
Love? Right…
@Connie writes:
Which is a perfect illustration of Matt’s observation —
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/04/24 | Free Northerner
but it is a reminder that no man is “alpha” enough to be his own foundation, and that faith is the rock under the rock, which supports His Bride and Mystical Body, the church — which properly is referred to in the feminine gender, her.
Understood and good point. However, I am taking it a step further, in that, while faith is the rock under the rock of man, the rock of man is what is under a wife. It is what we hold onto. This seems to stem from exactly what you said here. It also follows the scripture that says (curse my inability to remember details, I can’t remember the verse itself) something along the lines of
God > Jesus > Husband > Wife > Children. (Please correct me if this is wrong.) In short, faith is the Rock of Man while Husband is the Rock of Wife.
Connie,
On the contrary, we actually have every reason to believe you are *like that*. You need to understand that we have seen many, many women come into to these parts and say exactly what you have said very nearly verbatim. It’s happened countless times. You are following the standard script. We are trying to get you to see beyond this script and the more you try to defend it, the more entrenched you become. Try to let it go. It’s as scary as anything you may have done in a long time. Let your defenses go for a time and look into yourself to look for the truth.
But if I said that a lot of the MEN commenting on the various blogs I’ve been reading look like lechers and/or whiners, I’d be in big trouble with you.
No you wouldn’t. Of course this is true. Some of these men have been through hell and don’t react well to it.
“Some of these men have been through hell and don’t react well to it.”
And some men have never gotten off the bench and use the “failure” of others as an excuse not to try to live a noble life.
What one person terms “hell” is not even a drop in the bucket to another.
Kate,
Exactly. Thank you.
Stingray: glad to be of service, especially unexpectedly 🙂
@Northern Observer …
Matt said to ME: Now, I would call your tantrum above an indication that you believe we owe you something more than we have already given — such as respect, consideration, a deep investment in the trajectory of your soul.
He specifically said he gave those things to ME.. So I asked him where those things were in a post that described me as foot stamping and petulant. This is between Matt and me. It is not at all indicative of any reaction I have to anyone else on this or any other blog.
@Stingray…
Where on your blog have I been “foot-stamping” and “petulant?” You approve of (agree with) Matt’s attack on me? Especially when, instead of posting, I’ve been reading and reading and reading – when there were a dozen or so posts between my last one and his dismissing me as being just like thousands of others? When the last thing I had posted was “Forgive me, I’m trying” ? You think what he said was okay? You think it was correct? You think it is going to encourage me to keep reading?
I don’t get it.
Connie,
First of all, Matt didn’t attack you. Trust me. I’ve been reading his comments for a couple of years now and that was not an attack. Second, again, it’s the way you are attempting to defend yourself. You are switching back and forth between openness (Forgive me, I’m trying) and being very defensive (Not too impressed with you either. I didn’t come here to prove anything to anybody, including you.)
Don’t be impressed with Matt, if that’s what you decide. What you need to realize is that what you are going to get here is truth. We don’t water it down much for newcomers. The men are going to be more cold in their presentation, but that coldness is not there to make you uncomfortable. They write that way for other men. I tend to be a bit softer in my delivery, but I will not water it down so much that the truth is lost. It is simply far too important for anything to be lost for those who do earnestly wish to learn. Write now, you aren’t there yet. I don’t say that to pick on you in any way. I was you. Only, instead of putting up further barriers (which I was incredibly tempted to do) I forced myself to see from others perspectives. It hurt like hell and I came out the other side a better person with an even better marriage.
You are obviously a smart person, Connie. But it isn’t smarts that you need here. We’re not going to give you such a soft place to land to make you more comfortable, because you simply will not get it that way. It cannot work. That’s why I keep telling you to let down your defenses. You defend, people respond to the defense. You ask in a manner that is a simple and straightforward question, you get answers. When you read something you don’t like, don’t attack. Break it down. Say, I don’t agree with this and here is why I don’t. Then we will respond to you in kind. That is how you will learn here.
Think of it this way. You would never speak to your law school professors in the manner you spoke to some of the people here. You wouldn’t be able to learn what you needed to that way because they would fail you or stop teaching you. You had an end goal with them, your degree. Do you have an end goal here? If not, then I would say that you may just wish to move on. If you do have an end goal (and trust me when I say that it is worth it) then treat the people here like teachers. You are not going to like much of what they teach you (Did you like everything you learned in law school?) but it doesn’t mean that many of these people don’t have something worth while to teach. The end goal is amazing, but the path to getting there is not easy. It hurts. I remember that very well. But you can come out the other side much better for it.
@Stingray
Thank you for your kind words. I disagree with your assessment of Matt’s post. It was rude and insulting and not specifically directed at anything I had said.
My speaking up about it, specifically to him does not mean that I am looking for a soft place to fall, but neither am I looking to be spit on for no reason. What exactly did I do or say to make him say that to/about me? What was the point of that post? Can you really not see that it was both uncalled for and unfair? The last thing I had posted was an apology, for crying out loud.
And yes, if I was sitting quietly reading my contracts book – and had been for two days – I would defend myself against a professor who jumped on me out of the blue and said I was just like a thousand other law students who were not interested in learning.
Matt’s post has really undone a lot of the good feelings I had developed from some of my reading for all the reasons I mentioned three times now – without getting an answer. I’ll try one more time – WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THAT POST? Why direct it at me?
And, please note, this was a personal attack on me. I didn’t come out swinging at all men or all commenters or at you.
Connie: In a general sense, adversity is disguised opportunity. It certainly isn’t any fun to be targeted, but it sure is fun to charm your way out of it 🙂
@Kate…
I agree with that philosophy 99% of the time. This time, I’m just too hurt to bother.
Connie wears hate colored glasses. Any constructive criticism, any debate, any diagreement, any dispute of her theology is seen by her as “hate”.
Paul,
Great intro to Game for men. Keoni Galt introduces John Ross:
http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/11/got-game.html
@Bee –
In what way was that post of Matt’s constructive criticism or dispute of my theology? We were not having a debate, and I didn’t realize we were having a conversation at all, let alone a disagreement.
Why don’t you try to put your observations in context?
Also, my remarks were directed specifically at him. They had nothing to do with you or anyone else posting here or anywhere else.
Connie,
Let me see if I can break Matt’s post down for you. If I am incorrect, he will likely be back to let me know it.
This comment is not directed at you, even though it has your name in it. It is directed at everyone here who is reading these comments. Many, many people are here to learn. By the comments that you have left, we aren’t convinced yet that you are one of those people. We are not really concerning ourselves with what you are saying at this point. Rather, we are watching what you are doing. You are still often very defensive (again, this is understandable to a point). However, what we are waiting for you to do is make a good faith effort and present yourself in the way I described above (by asking questions and breaking things down in a deliberate manner rather than and offensive and defensive manner). What you need to understand is that it is not on us to see you as being different. It is up to you to prove that you are different and that you wish to learn. If you have been bitten by five different dogs, are you then wary of the dogs? Do you blame the person who was bitten by the dogs are do you blame the dogs? Blame the people who have come before you and who been nothing but defensive. We are not sure of you yet, per the people who have come here before. You can only give good faith to so many people who take advantage of that before you stop doing it.
As per the age, is he wrong? That is not a dig at your age, that is simply saying that people who are past a certain age are set in their ways. Is that a wrong assessment, generally speaking?
The middle paragraph, take out the foot stamping and the petulant remark. Change it to “we are not provoked by her defensiveness at all.. We have not conformed to her hurt comments and she has no skill set to deal with it.” Matt provoked you and you let him do it. This comment thread does not have your name on it. Your comments at Dalrock’s did indeed inspire this post, but it was not intended just for you. It is intended for many, many other to learn from. You can be one of those people or not.
If you are hurt by these comments it is because you are letting yourself be hurt.
Also, take what Kate said to you to heart. She is the best I’ve seen at what she stated. She has a real gift for it. Use this adversity to strengthen yourself and learn from it. You can disregard Matt or you can actually argue what he said, by breaking down the information. Forget the words he used, they are wholly unimportant, if you simply let them go. Hold onto them, and you prove his point. Don’t prove his point, Connie.
@Stingray …
Thank you for your explanation. I didn’t come to teach but to learn, and I kind of thought I was proving myself by reading all the material you and deti so kindly provided and by apologizing to TempestTcup in the last post I wrote before Matt jumped in and started calling me names.
I’ve read his post several times, and, sorry, it looks like he is talking to me and about me in a way that I consider unfair given the posture that I was in when he posted it. I’d still like to know what his point was and why he posted it at that time.
This isn’t about anything except what he said and when he said it. I’ve seen a lot of things in my reading that deserve to be broken down and studied. His comment isn’t one of them.
I have come a long way towards not taking the comments on the blogs I’ve been reading personally. Matt’s comment was personal. I’m hurt. Either he intended me to be hurt or he just didn’t care about hurting someone who is actually seeking to understand the message here. And when words are the only medium through which people can get to know each other, they are not unimportant.
Believe me, I’m trying to let it go. But I have a lot of time invested now in learning what you say you are trying to teach, and I feel really discouraged by his insulting dismissal of me as irrelevant. I wasn’t arguing a cotton-picking thing when he just burst in out of the blue and was … mean.
Maybe I need to take a couple of days off. Last night I dreamed about blue pills and red pills, and somehow it morphed into Slim Pickens riding the bomb in that weird Dr. Strangelove movie.
Again, thank you for your kindness.
P.S. I love Kate!
Connie,
Don’t look at Matt. You don’t wanna argue with him. He’s very good at it.
Look at Stingray.
Matt praises her … and then ask yourself why.
Here’s a hint to the answer :
It’s a kind of seduction.
I feel really discouraged by his insulting dismissal of me as irrelevant.
If you stick around, it won’t be the last time (I have no idea if Matt will do this again, I just mean in general). I think it has happened to every single one of us at some point, and some of us it’s happened several times. I think Matt’s point was, there are many, many people who want to learn and are going to listen. We don’t know that about you yet (sorry, the things you listed above are a good start, yes. But we still don’t know you. Unfortunately, it’s not enough. Again, blame those who have come before you. You have made it further than most, so keep it up).
Also, you can’t take Matt too personally. This is his way. You can keep reading him and understand that and fight back (he WILL fight back harder, so you know) or you can ask him things, or you can move past this. Even if it hurt, if you show him some effort, he will explain things to you. However, he will do this is his way, not the way you wish him to. (Matt, if I am wrong in any of this, please correct me)
Maybe I need to take a couple of days off. Last night I dreamed about blue pills and red pills, and somehow it morphed into Slim Pickens riding the bomb in that weird Dr. Strangelove movie.
This is REALLY funny. Taking a break is something I think we all have done. I still do this. It’s necessary and it will help clear your head. If you do, watch the world around you and see if you can see some of what we are talking about. It might be more apparent now.
@Stingray …
I’m trying hard to let it go. I even said a prayer for him this morning, but that was as much for my sake as for his. I learned a long time ago that holding a grudge is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die.
He said in his reply, “If you were considering our words and references seriously, you would have asked many more [questions] by now, rather than to find new ways to get ticked off and then announce them as if we owe you compensation for self-inflicted wounds.”
I have more questions. I’m not sure yet how to phrase them without sounding critical. I was looking for the answers in the posts you and deti recommended and some links in those posts. I wasn’t looking for new ways to get ticked off; he shoved one in my face.
He has no right to dictate my pace. IMHO, he owes me an apology. If I never get it, I’ll survive and keep reading. I’ll ask questions when I hit a brick wall.
Yeah, the dream sounds funny. But I woke up in a state of high anxiety. I’m still adjusting to knowing that there are so many men out there who are so angry, some of whom sound like they are filled with so much hatred. I’m NOT blaming them. But it is disturbing, to me, to know that there is a whole segment of society out there that is so collectively angry. I wonder what will happen to the women in their personal spheres when venting online is no longer a sufficient outlet.
i really like deti, dannyfrom504 and the man who wrote the piece entitled “War Brides.”
More later – I’ll be in court in another county most of the day tomorrow.
Kindest regards…
I do have a question. I copied and posted it from FaceBook. It may not be a “manosphere” question, but I would love to hear the answers. I think I will learn a lot about the philosophy here …
How do y’all feel about a school district that won’t let a senior walk to get her diploma, because she had a child in tenth grade, but went on to work, take care of her baby and finish high school through classes in school . The young man who is the father gets to walk and receive his diploma.
(Me: Apparently, if she had terminated the pregnancy and kept her mouth shut, the cap and gown would be available.)
Thank you in advance for your comments and opinions.
Stingray is the hostess nonpareil, and she will never treat a guest without respect. That’s the difference between her and me. We have the exact same message, and in fact she articulates it better to women because she understands it from a female angle. But Stingray has applied patience to her attempt to bring a stubborn student kicking and screaming to enlightenment. I don’t have that patience.
And yes, feeding Connie’s attention maw is not good for her or us. She is getting the wrong idea. She is under the impression she doesn’t have to work for understanding, that understanding must arrive on her terms or not at all.
There is a general lesson in here for the rest of us, which is, not only can you not persuade certain people, they will often also feel perplexed and threatened by your very attempt. They will focus on how injured they are and seek to bring a criminal case against you and thereby “prove” themselves right all along by turning the social scene against them — as Connie is attempting to do by shifting the focus (in a thread that’s supposed to be about questions) to a condemnation of me. The women in my life learned early on not to address me a certain way if they want me to respect or even acknowledge them.
Hey, I’m not everyone’s cup of tea. That I can respect. But I’ve been at this sort of thing long enough to know which haters hate me because of me, and which hate me because of themselves.
Guess which kind Connie is.
Matt
Connie,
A couple of things, 1. That is not enough information, at all. A link or two would be extremely helpful. 2. This feels an awful lot like some weird trap. It does not help your case.
Maybe that sounds harsh, but as always, my experience is not on your side. I know you by the words you choose to type and that is all.
@Everybody But Matt…
No one is trying to bring me kicking and screaming to enlightenment. I am doing the recommended reading in the manosphere because I want to. If the thread was supposed to be for asking questions, what was the point of Matt’s unprovoked attack on me. There was not a question or an answer in it. Apparently I’m not moving fast enough to suit him – too freaking bad.
I don’t hate him. I hate what he said to me – me, personally, not an opinion he stated that I disagreed with or a reply to someone else that had nothing to do with me.
IMHO, he will never persuade anyone of anything because he is self-righteous, condescending, and wants people to conform on HIS terms. If they don’t come around on his terms and, apparently, in his time frame, they are unworthy.
Also, he takes the scripture out of context and uses it for his own purposes and not God’s.
I am now going to (try to) retire from this discussion. He can bash away, rationalize, criticize, and chastise all he wants. Unless he tells me what the point of the post in question was, I don’t care what he says. I just hope the rest of you won’t judge me by his standard.
Meanwhile, I’ll be over at Sunshine Mary’s blog absorbing what she has to say.
Best regards.
@Stingray
That is all the information I have except that it is a town in southern Mississippi. It was posted by a girl I’ve known since we shared the church nursery, and the girl in question is a friend of her niece. It wasn’t intended as a trap. I know how I reacted to it. I was interested in how those in the manosphere community would react. I thought it might speed up my understanding to know how y’all would react to a particular situation as opposed to the slow process of reading and reading and reading about concepts and principles and abstracts.
Best…
Marellus wrote:
You’re right, but in this community the “seduction” word is loaded. I praise virtue where I see it, because I want more of it and because virtue is praiseworthy in itself. I want more women to understand that Mrs. Ray’s beauty is real, even though I have never seen her, and that a woman’s femininity can transfigure her physically. I want to “seduce” Stingray into being more herself and to get her example to women like Connie.
I have a lot of married female friends, and I am very familiar with the danger of even hinting at infidelity: most husbands don’t need an extra push into paranoia, trust me. Wives like Stingray have a tremendous internal compass that helps them master their hypergamy, but above all, they understand the paradox of the attractiveness of their loyalty. What makes Stingray especially attractive is her loyalty, and to even hint that she would betray her husband would make her unattractive and therefore no prize to be won. Moreover, I know that she intuits this and naturally acts according to that principle.
That goes a long way toward maintaining a real friendship (sister love) with someone else’s wife. (For the husband to be comfortable with that arrangement is a different kettle of fish.) In other words, I seduce women like Stingray into being more loyal to their husbands. For all the strengths of true women (in both senses of the word “true”), I also know their devastating weaknesses and hypergamous urges, and I would never rely on a woman to handle them on her own. I am on the man’s side — bros before hos isn’t just a quip to me. We were born into a culture of cringing cuckoldry, and civilization cannot be managed by cuckolded men.
“Would I ever leave this company? Look, I’m all about loyalty. In fact, I feel like part of what I’m being paid for here is my loyalty. But if there were somewhere else that valued loyalty more highly, I’m going wherever they value loyalty the most.” — Dwight Schrute, “The Office.”
Matt
Without more information, it’s hard to react to that. At first blush it seems unfair, but what I’ve come to learn here is that what often seems unfair at first tends to have a whole lot behind the scenes that we just don’t know about. When the info does comes out, it can make sense. On the other hand, I do not have much trust in school systems either, so who knows what they have or have not said.
Basically, my philosophy is, never go with the first blush. It is often unreliable and can change dramatically when more information comes out. I’ve been burned many, many times by not following this rule of thumb, so it’s just not enough to form an opinion for me. Others might have more to say.
@Stingray – Fair enough. If I get more info, I’ll pass it along.
Vaya con Dios, Connie.
I hope we all take an object lesson from this experience. At Dalrock’s, I was the good cop, the rest of those frustrated omegas were the bad cop. On this site, I played the serpent, Stingray et. al. were the doves.
Dozens of posts, every method of persuasion, sympathy, tough love, harsh reality, soft euphemism: all of it impenetrable. She will listen to only one way, her way, even if the message is untranslatable into her way. Now, I believe in planting seeds that will grow later and be harvested much later. I believe if and when a person like her gains ears to hear, she will remember the faint echo of this experience, even if her pride might preclude her from rapprochement.
Whatever you do, don’t water down the message. At the same time, give haters a chance. But once you give them that chance, and they start to manipulate it against you, follow the command of Christ to his apostles:
Whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it, and stay with him until you depart.
As you enter the house, salute it.
And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you.
And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.
Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor’rah than for that town.
Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Matthew 10:11-16
Matt
@Connie
“How do y’all feel about a school district that won’t let a senior walk to get her diploma, because she had a child in tenth grade, but went on to work, take care of her baby and finish high school through classes in school . The young man who is the father gets to walk and receive his diploma.”
To me, based solely on this information, it is unjust. I despise injustice.
@Kupo
Thank you. Me, too.
This is all the information I have.
@Kupo
Sorry – in case you didn’t read my reply to Stingray, I do know that it is playing out right now in southern Mississippi. I do know that is the stated reason for not allowing her to wear her cap and gown and participate in the ceremony. I do not know if the school is public, private, or parochial. It was posted on FB by a girl I have known since we were in the church nursery together.
I hope it plays out that she gets to participate. I thank you for your input.
New question:
What exactly is meant by the acronym “NAWALT” (Not All Women Are Like That)? I have seen it used with both contempt and respect.
It is the reaction a woman has in her head when reading something negative about women that she doesn’t feel applies to her.
Practically perfect,
The respect side of NAWALT that you see is when someone knows personally some women who are not *like that*. Whatever *that* happens to be in that particular conversation.
So it is a contemptuous term when a woman uses it to describe herself but a respectful term when she is being described. Is that correct?
In a nutshell, yes. The reason being is that most of the time women say this they are exactly *like that.* They simply can’t or won’t see it. Not being like that is something a woman does. It isn’t something she can just say. When she shows it, she is respected for her actions.
@practically: NAWALT is most frequently used, however, in reference to the rationalizations of the beta.
“You’re girlfriend is losing in interest in you because you’re being too much of a wimp. She doesn’t really want you to listen to her bitch for five hours about her job.”
“No, NAWALT. Jenny’s different. She appreciates it when I let her hit me because her boss was mean to her. Our relationship is based on respect.”
Essentially, actions being louder than words. I will never misuse that term again.
Another clarification please, hypergamy and solipsism are the two defining essential female qualities that are discussed the most in the manosphere are there others?
@Martel
So it is a term that only men need to use and women should not be using to describe themselves?
The rationalization hamster is another big one.
Oh yes it is! I’d love to hear your take on it, particularly how do you kill it or make peace with it. I have been reading for so long but honestly I still find myself confused on the details.
@ practically: Also, NAWALT is frequently used in describing the mentality of a male who’s reluctant to swallow the Red Pill. When I first read The Game, I didn’t deny that what he described worked on some women. However, I didn’t think it applied to all women. Hence, NAWALT.
In addition to hypergamy and solipsism, you will read many references to the Hamster, an allusion to a hamster running on his wheel.
The Hamster is a female’s tendency to believe that what she wants to believe actually is. If she finds a man attractive, anything he does or doesn’t do reaffirms the idea that she should feel attracted to him. If her friends warn her that he’s bad news, that just means they’re jealous. “They don’t know him like I do. He’s really a great guy.” He can continually treat her like dirt, but once last November he held the door open for her, so he’s really a great and chivalrous guy. Never mind that he’s a serial killer, he had a rough childhood and just needs somebody to understand her like I do.
Males using Game can use the Hamster as an ally, or he can be a fierce enemy. Once a male establishes himself as Alpha, the Hamster is his friend. Even if there’s no objective reason whatsoever for her to like him, the Hamster will fight for him. But the Hamster is also the reason why it’s so important to avoid the LJBF (let’s just be friends). If the Hamster’s decided you’re a nice guy and not worthy of her affections, almost anything you do will reinforce that notion and you’ll be “friends” forever.
@ practically: It can be used in either case, but be aware of its ironic connotations. Usually when we hear NAWALT, whether from male or female, the Red Pill eater immediately assumes that he’s about to see reason to believe that the female in question IS “like that.”
We hear NAWALT and immediately think “bullshit.” Fair or not, we’ve all been burned by thinking NAWALT before and then watching that “special” girl who’s “not like that” bang the obnoxious lacrosse player even though she’s told us repeatedly that she likes nice guys and respects us for being so understanding.
To be honest with you there are three reasons I am looking for difinitive answers. First off as you know I am seriously considering starting a womens study based on orthodox Christian principles and Red Pill insights at my church. Having difinitve definitions will help keep the hamster from running to free. Secondly, I have a daughter who at 19 I introduced to Red Pill thinking and it took hold, but she must still live in the real world. I want to give her more than just an ideology. Lastly while my husband does agree with Red Pill thinking decades of beataisation can be very hard to overcome. He is having difficulty changing himself and can’t guide me.
@Martel
I can’t say how much I appreciate your insights and the clairity of your definitions. Like I said earlier I’ve been reading the manosphere for 3yrs. now and still get confused. Thank you.
Hypergamy: a woman’s desire to procure the best man
Solipcism: a woman’s worldview of how everything exists in relationship to her (and potentially her children)
Good luck with the study group and your family! 🙂
@ practically: Sometimes, the definitive answers are going to be hard to come by. Although we’re dealing with timeless and universal truths, we’re approaching them from an entirely new angle. It’s going to take a while for us to reach an acknowledged consensus on the definitions of certain terms.
For example, alpha and beta. Vox has a hierarchy that’s accepted in some circles but rejected in others. http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/03/socio-sexual-hierarchy.html Rollo took me to task a while back on my definition:
my post: http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/when-alpha-is-not-alpha/
Rollo’s response: http://therationalmale.com/2013/01/14/house-of-cards/
my response to Rollo: http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/rollo-playing/
There IS a definite Truth, but we’re still interpreting it subjectively. It’s probably gonna be like that for a while.
So the Rationalization Hamster, Hypergamy, and Female Solipsism. Would any of you say that it would be beneficial if a young women to understand these tendencies as they pertain to herself, men and her intimate relationships? Are there others?
You know, I can see how these tendencies also influence our relationship with God.
I am not going to respond for a while I’d really like to see what others have to write, so know that any input is very much appreciated.
Thank you Martel, Kate, and most of all you Stingray.
Practically Perfect,
I am glad I could help . . . some. Though I can’t seem to do so any more right now. I have a pretty bad headache and nothing is getting through onto my key board right now. I apologize for that and I might be able to write more later.
I think Martel and Kate have it covered very well. As per your last question. Yes, i absolutely think it will help young women to understand this. My girls are young and I point their hamster out to them now. “Mommy? May I please have cinnamon rolls for breakfast today? I just know how much YOU love them.” Me: “Heh, nice try kiddo. What the real reason you want them?” “I love them. May we have some please?”
It’s little things, but the more they can see what they are doing the easier it will be. Same as solipsism. They see everything as about them. It’s natural and I point out what I am actually talking about.
@Martel,
Thanks for the links. I have read those, but being a deliberate reader I think I will go back and read them again. You are right about it taking a while to reach a consensus but I think the time is quickly comming when Red Pill thinking will enter completely into the mainstream, however it is at risk of being twisted and corrupted into something hateful instead of noble, but that is a conversation for another time.
Blessings
@Stingray,
Hope you feel better. Enjoy those girls they grow up way to fast!
Oops: forgot to expain the hamster. Its what fuels hypergamy. It finally gets a rest when the best mate has been found and no other man subsequently supercedes him.
@ practically: “Would any of you say that it would be beneficial if a young women to understand these tendencies as they pertain to herself, men and her intimate relationships?”
Yes, yes, yes. Awareness of our instincts and limitations is the best way for us to be able to harness them and keep them from harming us. There are others, but those are the biggies (and you’ll find those hard enough to communicate. The Feminine Imperative is exceptionally difficult for women to grasp, especially if they don’t get those three first.)
“You know, I can see how these tendencies also influence our relationship with God.”
Indeed, and that’s why they’re there. For example, the highest expression of the Hamster is faith. Ruth’s and Mary’s Hamsters allowed them to submit in truly heroic ways that would be very difficult for a male.
The part of the female brain that gets sexually excited is the same part responsible for spiritual ecstasy (Oh my GOD!!!!) This is why it’s so important for a woman to submit to a man who’s in touch with God, because for her it can be very difficult to tell the difference; a man can literally become God to her.
When the man is under proper Authority, this can be a good thing, for he can lead her to Him in a rational manner that might be tough for her on her own. It’s why the man is supposed to be the woman’s head (and his head God). But when the man is Clyde Darrow, she’s gonna be led horribly astray.
For example, the highest expression of the Hamster is faith.
Wow. That’s both deep and true. There’s more theory here to be delved, if the Christian manosphere is willing.
Martel,
Your comment is incredibly thought provoking (and with the negative connotations to the hamster my first reaction was not a good one, but I think I understand what you’re saying now). Are you saying that it is the hamster that allowed Ruth and Mary to rationalize their actions? That without this hamster men find it much more difficult to rationalize necessary yet difficult situations?
Mind if I use it for a post?
Practically Perfect,
Thank you and I try to remind myself everyday how quickly they are growing. Most days I fail, but I try.
@ Raysting: “Mind if I use it for a post?”
Knock yourself out. (not literally–we’ve had our miscommunications before)
Raysting:
Knock yourself out. (not literally–we’ve had our miscommunications before)
HA! Thanks for that. I needed a laugh!
Also, I edited my comment and added a couple of questions. Mind taking a look?
@Kate,
You know I think I am going to try a flow chart for visual clarification. Thanks.
@seriouslypleasedropit,
Amen!
@Martel,
Keep it coming, Sir. I am taking notes.
@Stingray
Can’t wait for that one.
Does anybody have resources or resource suggestions for a study?
@ Stingray: “Are you saying that it is the hamster that allowed Ruth and Mary to rationalize their actions?”
I think so, but I admit I haven’t delved into this too deeply.
However, it seems to me the Ruth somehow got it into her stubborn little head that staying with Naomi was the right thing to do, and there wasn’t a whole lot of tangible evidence indicating that she was going to benefit from it. She was firm, irrational, brave, and correct.
Mary had a bit more evidence in that an angel spoke to her directly, but still, she was in one hell of a rough spot. Somebody too reasoned might think “If God were so great, why would He put me through this mess? Couldn’t He have just waited until a little closer to the wedding day and not given Joseph such an easy way out?”
But it might have been the Hamster that just dumbly said “Okay. Your will be done.”
“That without this hamster men find it much more difficult to rationalize necessary yet difficult situations?”
Men have their own set of tools (and hindrances), but it’s different for us in that in the material sense we’re more self-sufficient. Because we’re the decision-makers, we require more evidence and calculation.
There are plenty of male heroes as well and examples of submission, but a good example of male failure vs. female success in this regard might be Pilate and his wife. Pilate had reason on his side (had to save his own butt, keep the Jews in line), but his wife had a dream and went with it. This is one of the rare Biblical instances in which the man’s mistake was rejecting his wife’s counsel.
Again, I admit I’m no theologian. But I’ve noticed how in the real world how womanly submission can be such a beautiful thing, but it can also be quite nasty (Kate Homolka). Biblically, women tend to be some of the greatest heroes and nastiest villains (Jezebel. So I’m still piecing together in my head how solipsism, Hamster, etc. might fit into this, but I’m sure it does somehow.
quick little thing that shows alpha and beta at once (Superman vs. Clark Kent):
Actually the best thing you could do is look at the Scriptures on where women stand and take them literally. Anything else is gravy.
Also, it’s important to remember The Fall. Obviously there’s more to it than this, but not only did Adam fail the first shit-test, Eve fell for a smooth talking a snake.
She may have been the first woman to fall for Game, but she sure as hell wasn’t the last.
@Martel
You’ve done more to help me understand in one day than all the reading I’ve done in the last week – thank you SO much. But…
Now I’m confused about the hamster again. When I read your earlier comment, I felt something click. I got it. It’s like battered women’s syndrome.
Then you wrote how it can be a good thing, that it prompted Ruth and Mary to run with what God wanted.
Can you help me understand the difference?
Thanks!
@ballista74
“Actually the best thing you could do is look at the Scriptures on where women stand and take them literally. Anything else is gravy/”
I totally agree that (men and) women need to take the Scripture’s definitions of their roles completely to heart. The eternal truths are the same, but understanding how to apply them in today’s world of both-parents-have-to-work and other 20th and 21st century real life settings can be challenging. And that’s not even getting into the things boys and girls are taught and/or absorb!
One of the very best teachers, completely faithful to the Scriptures, is Chip Ingram. His teachings blow me away on a daily basis. I offer his name to all who pass here.
http://www.lote.org
“Five Lies That Ruin Relationships” is especially pertinent to this discussion.
@seriouslypleasedropit
I’m glad to see you here. Love to hear whatever you have to add!
@Martel – a caution when attributing motivation to Biblical characters – God through the Holy Spirit is able to change people’s heart and guide them in the way He would have them to go. As such, if one were to posit that Ruth and Mary’s actions were based on and the result of faith, then no attribute to “the hamster” is required.
@ANorthernObserver
Well put. How do you define hamsters?
How do I define hamsters as it pertains to women?
I’d describe it as a form of rationalization – often based on emotion or feeling – that women use to justify their position on an issue or action in some regard.
The clearest example of this is a woman dropping a “nuclear divorce” on an otherwise healthy and functional family because she was “unhaaapy”, bored, all her friends were doing it, etc.
Because she’s “unhappy” or what-have-you, she feels justified in changing her situation to make herself “happier” regardless of the pain, suffering, and financial cost it causes other people – and what really takes the cake – shows no indication of awareness or concern for what others are going through. (Although the lack of concern / awareness of others experience is more likely about solipsism than hamsterization.)
As a footnote – I’d add “regardless of factual evidence to the contrary” to the definition.
This last bit is often the root of a lot of friction with men – who are generally more “hard facts” based and women who are “generally” more inclined towards the feelings and emotions they’re experiencing.
@ANothernObserver
Thank you for the information. May I ask if you approach these principles from a Christian perspective? It seems like you do from earlier posts. I ask because I wonder what role you think the husband’s actions/attitudes played in said hamster’s decision to chuck it all to be “happier.” Do you think many of these marriages would not have gone off the rails if the husband actually had been functioning according to his God-given role?
P.S. And is there a manosphere-approved term for a man who leaves his wife of nine years, two kids into the marriage, for his hot assistant at work? Just had that case, so it is relevant to me…(I represented him.)
Hi sting. I need to catch up on the comments.
Lately there has been criticism of the “ladies auxiliary” as sort of a mea-culpa self-hating set of women. You and Bb don’t appear to draw that fire. To me, it seems that you allow men their space to vent and not take any of it personally, but how how you view it? Are you a self hater or is there another angle you could explain yourself to those who think you’re associating with woman haters?
@ Connie/Freenortherner: Northerner is correct here: “I’d describe it as a form of rationalization – often based on emotion or feeling – that women use to justify their position on an issue or action in some regard.”
However, this doesn’t mean that their “position on an issue” is necessarily incorrect (although in the manosphere context it often is). The Hamster can convince a woman that her dirtbag Alpha biker boyfriend is actually a sweetheart and charmer, but it can also help cement her love for a worthy husband.
The worthy hubby also has rational evidence on his side, but that’s not the primary source of her excitement, her longing for him. She doesn’t calculate “he’s a quality man, therefore he inspires my tingles”, he inspires his tingles and then whatever positive traits he has simply reinforces her belief that she chose the right guy. So much the better if she’s actually correct.
Granted, if there’s less tangible evidence that the guy’s somewhat decent, the Hamster needs to work a little harder. However, he’s always has to work at least a little bit.
“God through the Holy Spirit is able to change people’s heart and guide them in the way He would have them to go. As such, if one were to posit that Ruth and Mary’s actions were based on and the result of faith, then no attribute to ‘the hamster’ is required.”
“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” (Heb 11:1, NIV) Could not faith therefore be described as a higher variant of rationalization? Rationalization is cherry-picking evidence to fit your conclusion. If your conclusion is an incorrect one (Joran van der Sloot loves me!), rationalization is awful. However, there are times when the evidence for God seems pretty sparse, even though He’s very much there. During such dark times, if we maintain our faith, aren’t we rationalizing? Yes, reason would be on your side, but sometimes it’s really hard to think straight.
Rationalization is an intellectual process that can lead you hopelessly astray, but it might also be the only thing that keeps your head right when everything seems to be going wrong.
Indeed, Ruth’s faith led her to follow Naomi to her homeland, and the Holy Spirit may well have inspired this. In such a case, we might not need to refer to the Hamster.
However, couldn’t the Holy Spirit use the Hamster, a trait intrinsic to females, to advantage? God’s used all sorts of earthly tendencies to forward His plan. Why not that?
Queen Hamster is hard-wired into Woman, so God may have made Her that way for a reason. The examples of the Hamster we cite in the manosphere tend to describe why Rihanna went back to Chris Brown, why women go for Alphas despite a lack of evidence that they’re worth anything at all.
But why can’t that same instinct can help her pine after the Alpha & Omega instead?
@Connie – I am a Christian of the Lutheran variety.
My “definition” is based partly on reading in the manosphere, partly on personal experience, and set on the foundation of Scripture.
You’ll find a number of references to “alpha” and “beta”. I personally consider “alpha” as showing leadership, positive “dominance”, confidence, self-sufficiency, fulfilling the role of headship of the relationship, and providing a way for a woman to be the helper God made her to be. Many people write about a “pilot/copilot” or “captain/executive officer” model, and I think those are good metaphores.
With respect to how the husband’s actions can contribute to a detonation – you need to start with the Biblical creation account. God created Eve to be Adam’s helper. After the fall, God’s punishment of Eve left her and all her female descendants with both a need for male headship in order for her to have a “helper” role to fulfill, and an innate rebellion of that headship, the place God placed her in, and the authority they represent.
I believe that rebellion takes the form of “fitness” or “shit” tests – where the woman gives a guy grief – with the unstated need to be “dominated”, shot down, told “no”, and put back into a “helper” role. In essence, she’s requiring her man to demonstrate his masculine power to her. If he fails that test, her reaction is one of contempt at his weakness. If he fails these tests long enough, she becomes “unhaaapy” partly because of the contempt, and partly because now she’s having to fulfill a “headship” role God gave to men to fulfill, instead of her God-given “helper” role. And if her sinful rebellion isn’t curbed by a strong man in her life, then bad things follow.
On the other hand, if you read enough, you’ll run into stories of relationships that were on the verge of detonation were brought back from the brink by the man finally drawing a line in the sand and saying “Enough! No More!” The woman finally has a head to help, both are fulfilling their God-given roles, and the relationship becomes much happier.
Do I think men acting like men would make for better marriages? As a life long single who’se chewing on his own red pill, just putting into practice the stuff what I’ve learned with the women I know (including my own mother!) has made a huge difference in my life, and I’m confident the same would hold true for married couples who are still under the “blue pill” curse. Improved social structures which made healthy marriages easier, divorce harder, and raised the consequences for infidelity would also help.
—-
You’d asked originally “why the anger?” As others have alluded to earlier, where you’ll find a lot of the anger is men who’ve been told that “being nice”, attentive, and supplicating to a woman’s needs and desires was the way to win a woman’s heart, when in point of fact nothing could be further from the truth.
You can see this in men who’ve been searching for a partner and who do everything they’ve been told would lead to a spouse, kids, and the white picket fence. Time goes by, nothing works, and years down the road they finally figure out all that “good guy” behavior was actually repellent instead of attractive, and that the reason all the bad-boys and jerks “got the girls” is because the women were drawn to the bad-boy’s “alpha” behavior, even when it was clear the guy would never love her.
For these “good guys” who did “everything right” – what price can you put on lost opportunity? Or dreams of a family that never came to pass because all the institutions you trusted didn’t tell you the truth about how inter-gender relations actually worked? Or of men who become victim of social structures (like no-fault divorce) which actually encourages a woman to detonate the family, take a man’s kids, a good portion of his wealth, and put him in the poorhouse while she gets most of the assets?
—-
As an aside and thinking “aloud” – female fitness testing of men would fit in with God’s punishment of Adam failure “because you [Adam] listened to the voice of your wife…”.
Adam didn’t tell Eve “no”, so he – and all the men who followed – would be tested in a similar fashion by their women, with the only way to pass tests being to tell her “No.” And so the punishment for both sexes continues….
I wrote something about my ideas on the Biblical basis for “fitness testing” here: http://anorthernobserver.wordpress.com.
@Martel – I think you got me and FreeNortherner confused. 🙂
Second, “faith” and “rationalization” are completely distinct from each other – faith is something the Holy Spirit creates and sustains in a person, while rationalization is an intellectual / mental process.
You’ll get into a lot of trouble when you try to use “rational” thought to explain “spiritual” matters.
@Connie :
P.S. And is there a manosphere-approved term for a man who leaves his wife of nine years, two kids into the marriage, for his hot assistant at work?
Roadkill. Dead Man Walking.
Relationships based on infidelity have a terrible success rate.
@Northerner: Sorry about that. But he’s a damn good blogger so don’t be insulted.
A parallel: Suzie loves Brad. He’s cheated on her, insulted her in front of her friends, forgotten her birthday, passed out on top of her after awful sex, ignored her, and been an all-around bastard.
But he was really sweet to her the night her cat died and held her for a good five minutes when she cried. So the Hamster says that Brad loves her.
Emily is a Christian, but she’s having an awful day. Her mother was just rushed to the hospital. Her car broke down in the middle of a sleet-storm and she couldn’t call roadside because he cell died. She’s got a headache from hell and can’t find a decent place to use the bathroom. After six hours, she finally found a way to the repair shop and it’s going to cost her $900 she doesn’t have. And then she finds out that the dog got into the Christmas presents.
But her favorite song was playing she got to the hospital waiting room. And for some reason when the nurse took her name, she got the sense that somebody cared.
She KNOWS God loves her.
Different circumstances? Yes. In one case struggling to believe a lie and in the other case the Truth? Indeed. In one case in working with the Holy Spirit and in the other case working against It? Perhaps.
But it’s the same instinctual process. All things work together for good for those who love the Lord, and that includes Queen Hamster.
I think part of the disagreement (which is partly my fault) is semantic.
The Hamster is the propensity to believe that one’s preconceived notions about reality reflect actual reality. Thus, rationalization is the primary tool of the Hamster, but it’s not the Hamster itself.
Instead, the Hamster is the subconscious instinctual drive to make what is match what one believes. Rationalization is the most common way to do this, but it’s not the only way.
Sometimes the Hamster doesn’t rationalize, it simply doesn’t notice. It might not even occur to her that the reason he never calls is that he sees her as a piece of meat. She’ll start rationalizing only after her friends bring it up.
Likewise, faith might manifest itself as rationalization during challenging times, but faith is not the rationalization itself.
So I would argue that faith is the Hamster infused with the Holy Spirit, the instinctual propensity to believe that whatever happens is evidence of God’s power at work in her life.
But without the Holy Spirit, that same single-mindedness can become an unhealthy and delusional obsessiveness.
@Martel –
Who said anything about being offended? We do have similar names, and things like that happen.
Faith and hamsters have nothing in common. Faith is the work of the Holy Spirit. Everything else is human and therefor subject to error, rationalization, etc.
Are you a self hater or is there another angle you could explain yourself to those who think you’re associating with woman haters?
No. I don’t hate myself and I don’t hate women. I don’t write the things I do or live as I do as some sort punishment to myself or other women. I lived in confusion and sometimes sadness for some time because I didn’t understand things in my marriage that were going on. I came the the sphere and learned where that confusion came from and why. Did I feel pain and even some shame for a while? Absolutely I did. I have done and said some things I am absolutely not proud of. I accepted my mistakes and am trying to learn from them. I am also trying to teach others so that they can either understand for themselves and maybe even be able to avoid the mistakes that I made.
I’m a happy woman and I have a very good marriage. I’m blessed, but our happiness stems much from what Maritus and I have done. Women are, as a group, inherently unhappy today. I think this can change, but women are going to have to accept some things that they won’t like. They are also going to have to accept that happiness is not the same as the high they get when the hot alpha propositions them and takes them home. That is more like a euphoria and it blows up in their faces the next morning when the alpha leaves. I want to teach women how to be happy and to let go of the idea that the short term attention that they receive from men because they are pretty will not last. That they might have a chance of having an alpha marry them instead of one night stand them (or they may be able to inspire the man their with the become the dominant man they want), if they forgo the short term attention.
Trying to explain that the short term euphoria from alpha attention is not hating women. Trying to teach that doing things in the short term (low to no partner count, dressing feminine, not being brash, etc) is difficult as it is seen as taking things from women that they very much want to be able to do. However, what women *want* is to be able to garner that attention and them later marry the alpha. What women want and the reality of life are two very different things. Teaching reality may cause pain and anger. Me causing pain and anger does not equate to me hating them. It is simply a byproduct of the truth. I see that me going along for the sake of getting along as causing more pain and more sadness for a lot more women, than teaching the truth to those who are willing to accept it. I would like to think that some women are happier today for what I have taught even if it may have caused them some pain, sadness and anger in the beginning.
@ANorthernObserver
“After the fall, God’s punishment of Eve left her and all her female descendants with both a need for male headship in order for her to have a “helper” role to fulfill, and an innate rebellion of that headship, the place God placed her in, and the authority they represent.”
I am a Christian of the Southern Baptist persuasion. I have never heard in sermon or Sunday School lesson that God punished Eve with a spirit of rebellion. I went back and read the story of the Fall again:
To the woman Je said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
Is there another Scriptural reference for the spirit of rebellion? It would explain a lot, but I rather thought it was primarily an outgrowth of the societal shift during WWII when so many women had to work and then kept working – and all the years that followed with women in the workplace – so that, being a co-breadwinner, she felt more entitled to have a say in how the money was spent. Likewise, since she worked all day, too, she felt her husband should be more help around the house.
Can you fill me in some more?
Thanks.
Martel and ANO,
Just a quick thought. Faith and rationalizations seem very different to me (just giving my female position here). However, rationalizations can be very useful to follow the commandments of that faith.
@Connie
Genesis 3:16 can be easily explained by comparing it with Genesis 4:7 since the language is the same:
The relationship of a woman to man is like sin to a man. A lot of the meaning behind these phrases could be distilled down to the word “master” or something against the normal will. It’s the mastery of something that is not openly willing to submit (i.e. must be conquered). As sin is rebellion against the Lord, so do wives rebel against their husbands.
There are no other direct references, but one could also make the argument in the NT that the direct command is given to women to submit to their husbands while the headship of the man is stated fact and that this contrast illustrates the “master” issue perfectly. Of course, the SBC-FGA (predominantly) has turned this into a false teaching where the submission commands towards wives have disappeared and the statements of headship have been warped into commands to lead their families (along with calls to “man-up” or “step-up” repeated).
The frightening results of this accepted heresy on the state of marriages is well known and has been repeatedly chronicled all over the manosphere.
@ stingray: “Faith and rationalizations seem very different to me (just giving my female position here).”
Correct. Rationalizations are how we “fill in the blanks” when tangible evidence contradicts what we believe.
However, what we believe can either be nonsense or Truth.
@observer: You haven’t contradicted anything I’ve said; you’ve just restated “You’re wrong.”
You seem to be saying that it’s pointless to observe what we have in common with Biblical “characters” (your word) in order to study how and why they did what they did so that we can try to emulate them.
Ruth was a woman who has much in common with other women. I’m not disputing that the Holy Spirit worked through her.
However, considering that we’re created as Man and Woman, isn’t it possible perhaps that the Holy Spirit would work through our male and female natures in distinct ways?
God used Abraham’s basic male instinctual drive to have lots of offspring as his initial inspiration to follow Him. He used Joshua’s conquering instinct.
Why couldn’t He use Ruth’s feminine imperviousness to reason?
@Connie said: April 26, 2013 at 10:01 AM
I have never heard in sermon or Sunday School lesson that God punished Eve with a spirit of rebellion.
A more accurate phrasing would be that a sin-sick nature was a consequence of Eve’s rebellion in the garden. Sin, by it’s very nature, brings with it an innate rebellion against God’s established authorities.
As Paul wrote to the Romans:
The sin that Paul writes about for himself is the same sin that Adam and Eve brought into the world.
Is there another Scriptural reference for the spirit of rebellion? It would explain a lot, but I rather thought it was primarily an outgrowth of the societal shift during WWII when so many women had to work and then kept working – and all the years that followed with women in the workplace – so that, being a co-breadwinner, she felt more entitled to have a say in how the money was spent.
What’s happened since WW II, the sexual “revolution”, the advent of cheap and widespread contraception, abortion, and welfare support for single moms is that the social structures that used to keep such behavior at bay have been eroded or even eliminated. In fact, it’s gotten so bad that this “female” version of sinning has contributed to an abundance of male sin, since (for the alphas out there) there’s always a plentiful crop of women who think they’re “just like men” and can do whatever they with whomever they want, with no consequences.
Sadly for these women, research is bearing out that Scripture was right –
but that’s grist for another post….. 🙂
@maertel –
The point I was making is that “Faith” and “Reason” are two distinct aspects of a person, and cannot be co-mingled together. Faith is spiritual, and discerns spiritual things. Reason is of this world, and is for discerning things of this world.
Second, God, as the author of all creation, is the one who made people “male” and “female”, so for Him to work through each person according to their gender is certainly within His ability.
Onward….
God used Abraham’s basic male instinctual drive to have lots of offspring as his initial inspiration to follow Him.
I beg to differ – Abraham and Sarah were barren (ie childless), and the child Isaac was a result of God’s personal intervention at a time of His choosing. (Gen 18:9ff)
He used Joshua’s conquering instinct.
Be careful of giving glory to men that rightly belongs to God – the victories that Israel won against their enemies was as a result of God fighting for them, not any “instinct” on any of their part.
When God withdrew from Israel because of sin in their midst, it’s wasn’t a pretty picture. (Numbers 14 – the whole chapter and Joshua 7)
Arg – Sting can you edit that blockquote down and trim out the blank lines? Thx!
@aNorthernObserver
Agreed that rebellion is part of the sin sick nature. Love your writing. Looking forward to the next grist!
I have always been taught that Eve was deceived, but Adam made a clear choice to sin, that he saw that Eve was now separated from God and chose (in one verse) her over Him. How say you, Sir?
@Connie – indeed Eve was deceived, while Adam knew what he was doing. Whether he chose to join Eve in her sin, or for some other reasons – it doesn’t matter – disobedience is disobedience, and the result is sin in this world.
Point of fact – the “First Adam” gets hit with bringing sin into the world, while Christ “The second Adam” pays the price for all mankind’s sin, and is why we have an assurance of an eternal peace with Him.
And thanks for the kudos – Sola Deo Gloria and all that though. 🙂
ANO,
I’m not sure what you mean by edit it down?
Just removing the extra blank lines in the block quote is all, which I see you’ve done. Thx!
@ANorthernObserver…
Bravo. Couple of questions:
1. Do you have your own blog?
2. As a Christian, who presumably respects women, what do you think of all the (what I can only describe as) hate speech directed towards women on the manosphere?
3. Why are so many of the same guys who claim to be looking for a virtuous woman on Dalrock,etc, also posting on Roosh V? Do you think they will find a virtuous woman with HIS techniques?
4. What is your take on the alternative history suggested by “The DaVinci Code” and “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” and (if you have read it) “The Jesus Mysteries?” I have always, courtesy of the pastor at my church when I was growing up, been fascinated with the context of the scriptures and what was going on in the world when they were written. This evolved into a lifelong avocation as an armchair archaeologist specializing in ancient religions. Nothing in “The DaVinci Code” was new to me, but I loved the way in which Dan Brown presented it. I would truly love to hear your thoughts.
P.S. I like Margaret Starbird, but I believe she goes too far.
connie
“2. As a Christian, who presumably respects women, what do you think of all the (what I can only describe as) hate speech directed towards women on the manosphere?
3. Why are so many of the same guys who claim to be looking for a virtuous woman on Dalrock,etc, also posting on Roosh V? Do you think they will find a virtuous woman with HIS techniques?”
I’m not ANO, but I can offer my own thoughts on this.
First off, much of the hate towards women (and yes, there is flat out hate) is not coming from Christians. Most of it comes from Men Going Their Own Way, who tend to be atheist/agnostic and tend to despite women with a passion that matches any radfem. Some of them frequent Christian manosphere blogs, and since the manosphere tends to be fairly lenient in comment policy, most are able to express their views without restriction. For myself, I won’t tolerate it, and should any spew their hate on my blog, i will erase it and ban them. If only for no other reason that it doesn’t add to the debate.
As for guys frequenting Roosh, I can only guess. Some of it might be to learn and understand general game techniques. The truth is that attracting women is attracting women, and from what PUAs have demonstrated, in most cases it doesn’t matter whether the woman is a Christian or not. I’m not really sure who those men are who are looking for virtuous women but also post on Roosh, but I can’t imagine there are a whole lot of them.
I think most everything else has already been covered, including Hamsters, solipsism and whatnot.
@Connie –
1. Do you have your own blog?
I do, although it’s pretty new and I haven’t posted much there. It’s at http://anorthernobserver.wordpress.com/
2. As a Christian, who presumably respects women,
I respect _good_ women who are or are trying to do the right thing, just like I would any man. Flakes and their ilk, though, are another matter…
what do you think of all the (what I can only describe as) hate speech directed towards women on the manosphere?
“hate speech’ is such an over-used and misapplied imprecatory term. If you provided a more precise definition and/or some examples, then we could discuss it. I’d also caution you about using “shaming language” to put down people who hold a position that you’re opposed to.
Continuing and speculating a bit, I fully understand that there’s a lot of anger and frustration in the manosphere, and guys can be pretty colorful in expressing their anger.
It’s one thing, though, to spout off anonymously – and another to stand up and be counted. The internet is also the breeding ground of multiple versions of trolls – people who post outrageous and hurtful things because they can, and for the reaction / attention such posts bring.
So how does one discern ‘hate speech’ from ‘troll speech’? Is there much benefit in doing so? I personally don’t try to as it’s just too depressing. Instead, I work to filter out the noise, and look for the gems in the manosphere – like the back-porch environment our gracious host provides us with here. 🙂
Turning the question around, though – what do you think of the way men are treated today? And the incessant ridicule of generally “masculine” qualities?
Why are so many of the same guys who claim to be looking for a virtuous woman on Dalrock,etc, also posting on Roosh V? Do you think they will find a virtuous woman with HIS techniques?
I think such men are looking for any port in a storm. Society isn’t giving them the answers they’re looking for, so they’re going to places where they think they can get guidance, filter out the stuff they don’t agree with, and use what’s left to find and keep a virtuous woman.
The danger in such an approach is that the ends of people like Roosh et al permeate the means they use to get to those ends, so anyone who follows and implements their techniques risks becoming like the people of who’se teachings they study. As Christ told His disciples, “Beware the leaven of the Scribes and the Pharisees”
4. What is your take on the alternative history
I take it the same way I would any other form of fiction – useful for entertainment purposes only, and dangerous if they’re held forth as truth to people who don’t know better.
Margaret Starbird Anyone who seriously says Christ married and had children has to be confined to the realm of the heretics. Ditto for those who commit the “gnostic” error of positing “secret knowledge that only they posses.”
If you’re interested in history, I highly recommend Paul Maier’s stuff. http://www.paulmaier.com/
He’s also written a decent work of fiction I think you’ll like.
http://www.amazon.com/Skeleton-Gods-Closet-Paul-Maier/dp/1595540024/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1367196809&sr=8-7&keywords=paul+maier
@Donelgraeme
Thank you for your comments. For me personally – and I don’t pretend to speak for all women – it has been a huge stumbling block to understand/sympathize with men who speak so … hatefully towards women. I don’t care that they say/know that NAWALT … as a female, it hurts. And I have seen women on Dalrock who called me a “skank of a whore” who claimed on another site to be Christians. I don’t buy it.
If the manosphere is ever to go “mainstream,” I hope they can find a better spokesperson than Roosh V. The mainstream media will eat him alive, and good riddance.
Do YOU have your own blog?
connie
Connie:
And I have seen women on Dalrock who called me a “skank of a whore” who claimed on another site to be Christians.
Here’s the post / comment thread in question:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/started-with-a-bang-ended-with-a-whimper
I don’t know if FH is a woman though – from my interactions I take the author to be a man.
From the overall thread, I get the impression that there was plenty of “name-calling” blame to go around on all sides.
@ANorthernObserver:
I meant to say “man” who called me that.
I certainly admit that I reacted badly to my first foray into the sphere. I was just looking for information on an author and was not expecting the comments to the article. So I went to another article to see if it was just that they all hated her. Obviously, that was not the case.
I was shocked and angry, and I wish I had just left without commenting or exploring further. But if I had, I would not be here talking to you.
@ANorthernObserverI
“Turning the question around, though – what do you think of the way men are treated today? And the incessant ridicule of generally “masculine” qualities?”
I have not observed in my own life – or in my extensive reading – any “incessant ridicule” of “generally masculine qualities.” (I make an exception for burping at the table, scratching their genitalia on a sports field, and the scatalogical humor put forth by Larry the Cable Guy.) Please note that I have not done any “feminist” reading except during a psychology course at Ole Miss. I admire masculine qualities.
“The way men are treated today” in my world is with deference. I don’t think there is anything wrong with expecting a man to help with the household chores when his wife works as many hours as he does. I deplore sexual harassment laws that go so far overboard. For a better answer than that, I need more specifics in your question.
Thank you for the book recommendation. I will download it on my iPad today.
I went to your blog and also checked out “Sarah’s Daughter.” I only had time to read a little bit, but I liked them both.
@ANorthernObserver
One big whoops – I left something out about the way men are treated. There are numerous rural counties around the one where I chiefly practice. They are populated primarily by white male judges in their sixties. I find that they are harder on men when it comes to parenting time with their children. It makes me ill. One of them firmly believes that women raise kids, men work and see the kids every other weekend and on Wednesday nights. This is his position in spite of the fact that every single woman on the other side of the cases I’ve had in his court works and every one of the men were good dads who wanted 50/50 parenting time.
The family court judges in the county where I primarily practice are two enlightened females who follow the law on getting as close to 50/50 as possible and one man who is struggling to follow their example.
I will say that these judges only get to make the decision if the parents can’t come to an agreement; most of my custody cases settle, and I think that it for the best.
SO – I hate when men are treated like that. My original answer was based on my away-from-work life.
@ Connie
“One big whoops – I left something out about the way men are treated. There are numerous rural counties around the one where I chiefly practice. They are populated primarily by white male judges in their sixties. I find that they are harder on men when it comes to parenting time with their children. It makes me ill. One of them firmly believes that women raise kids, men work and see the kids every other weekend and on Wednesday nights. This is his position in spite of the fact that every single woman on the other side of the cases I’ve had in his court works and every one of the men were good dads who wanted 50/50 parenting time.”
That is something that the manosphere has noted in the past, the tendency of “White Knight” men to be harsher on other men than a woman would be in the same circumstance.
As for your experiences, unless I am woefully mistaken, you live in a rural area of the South. Feminism has made very few visible inroads into that part of the country, as compared to others, so you experiences will be different from those living on the coasts, or in big cities.
As for the name calling, understand that this is largely a “male space.” That means it will be rude, crude and abrasive at times. That is just male nature. Expect to find yourself attacked personally, a lot. It is the nature of men to be more direct, more confrontational. Given the relative anonymity of the internet, that nature is magnified. You will just have to learn to live with it (although it doesn’t mean you have to like it).
@donalgraeme…
“unless I am woefully mistaken, you live in a rural area of the South.” Color yourself woefully mistaken – lol. That describes where I grew up, but for the last twenty years, I have lived in the Midwest in the 4th largest “city” in this State. The county has approximately 150,000 people, and 115,000 of them live in this town. It is a blue town in a red state.
As for the name-calling, I am trying hard not to take it personally, but you are right – I will never like it.
@ Connie:
“For me personally – and I don’t pretend to speak for all women – it has been a huge stumbling block to understand/sympathize with men who speak so … hatefully towards women. I don’t care that they say/know that NAWALT … as a female, it hurts.”
There are a few who speak in that manner but in my experience, only a few.
Frankly, MGTOWs have something to shout about. Society has royally screwed them over, they’re pissed off as hell about it, and they are venting. For you or anyone else to tell them they’re being hateful, well… they don’t care.
It has been difficult for me to sympathize with women too. One of those things is the carousel phenomenon and the “I’m putting out to get that great guy to love me” response. Whenever I confront women on why they sleep with the guy(s) or otherwise slut it up, the response I get back is a variation on:
“If I sleep with him, I increase the chances that he’ll want to see me again.”
OR
“I want a boyfriend and if I sleep with him he’ll be my boyfriend.”
OR
“If I sleep with him, he’ll love me or fall in love with me.”
I have to believe there is at least a kernel of truth in that. I believe it because in this SMP, when a woman finds a man she’s really attracted to, she immediately gets put under enormous pressure to put out as soon as possible. As soon as interest is shown and there’s kino or a hookup of less than P in V, the clock is ticking and if she doesn’t put out very, very soon, she’ll probably lose him.
But I have a very, very hard time empathizing when girls make the same mistake over and over and over again. I get it when she gets pumped and dumped once, even twice.
But five times? 10 times? 20 times? 30 times?
How many times does it take before she figures out that the “I’ll sleep with him to make him love me” strategy SUCKS?
@Deti…
I have no reason to doubt your research, but I see more of women sleeping with men because either they already “love” him – which means they have feelings for him that they think are real love – or because he says, “I love you,” which means, “I want to get in your pants and hang out with you until you start boring me.”
I’ve heard that men give love to get sex and women give sex to get love. It is an all-around sad state of affairs.
I also know guys who have a three date rule – if she doesn’t give it up on the third date, there is not a fourth date…and they wonder why they can’t find a woman they really respect!
I don’t think some women ever figure it out. I think some of this is attributable to movies, books, and television shows that have boy and girl meet, fall madly in love at first sight, and live happily ever after. Some of it is just … stupidity.
I am not familiar with the terms “kino” or “less than P in V?”
Connie:
What usually happens with such women is that they figure it out somewhere between the ages of 27 and 32. It’s around this point that they can see The Wall – that time in every woman’s life when she knows she’s getting older, the really hot, top men are not interested in her any more, and if she’s ever going to get married it’s do or die time.
She needs to find a man NOW NOW NOW and she starts shifting her focus from Jersey Shore style dickbags and hot six figure salary investment banker types; to Camry-driving nebbish accountants and churchgoing men working as lower or mid managers for MegaCorp.
It used to be that men gave love to get sex; and women gave sex to get love. That’s really how it is supposed to work; it’s just that you’re supposed to get there at around the same time.
Now, sex and love and commitment are all decoupled from one another. The new rules are sex for sex, love for love, and commitment for commitment.
The “give it up by the third date” rule seems to be getting increasingly common. The main reason for this is that the man figures if she will not have sex with him by then, she’s not really attracted to him and she never will be. These men are applying the general truism that a woman decides in the first few minutes of meeting a man whether she will ever have sex with him. Thus, she’s had enough time by the third date to decide whether she’s willing to have sex with him. Besides, men like this also know that most women like for a man, and expect a man, to push for what he wants, and that includes sex. If he’s not pushing for what he wants, he’s not aggressive enough and not masculine enough; and thus she will lose attraction.
Kino: The light touching associated with dating. Men do this to show interest. Touch on her arm, on her shoulder to get attention; on her back to guide her into a restaurant or a cab.
“P in V” Penis in vagina sex. Intercourse. The Male Goal.
“Less than P in V” Sexual contact involving anything less than intercourse. Anything from kissing to groping to dry humping to oral sex with or without ejaculation or orgasm.
@donalgraeme…
As for the name calling, understand that this is largely a “male space.”
The name-calling I saw on Dalrock wasn’t quite something I’d attribute to being in a “male space” – it was a bunch of bullies with a script of accusations, and whenever a female shows up, they run through them like a program regardless of whether or not there’s any basis for the allegation.
“Male space” conversation is direct, factual, pointed, and can seem “mean” to outsiders. The dalrock thread was largely missing the “factual” part… Connie wasn’t the first woman to run into that, and doubtless won’t be the last.
I suppose it makes them feel better, or empowered, or something. It certainly doesn’t help advance their cause. (As Matt K so aptly observed in that thread “You guys are lousy salesmen…”)
@Connie –
For me personally – and I don’t pretend to speak for all women – it has been a huge stumbling block to understand/sympathize with men who speak so … hatefully towards women.
Connie, you have to understand this – the manosphere isn’t interested in your sympathy. Respect, on the other hand, is worth it’s “weight” in gold.
And the fact that you don’t understand is – well – understandable. You’re not a guy, so you don’t have to live with the kind of societal abuse that men have to deal with.
@deti…
Thanks for explaining the lingo…I am now thinking DUH about P in V.
@ANorthernObserver…thank you for your response to donalgraeme. I finally feel like someone understands how I felt. Also, I downloaded the book, but I haven’t had time to start it … looks really good!
@Connie
@ANorthernObserver…thank you for your response to donalgraeme. I finally feel like someone understands how I felt.
I hope now that you can recognize this behavior for what it is – not about you, and maybe next time you can “haha, nice try loser” instead of taking it – and responding – personally.
Like I wrote earlier, it’s not always about you, regardless of how you feel about it.
Also, I downloaded the book, but I haven’t had time to start it … looks really good!
I have to warn you – don’t start reading it if you have any chores, etc. to do for the next number of hours. 🙂
In that instance it certainly did go well beyond the “male space” phenomenon, but it is the important to remember that this part of the web is relatively brutal and unforgiving. Think of it as the Wild West, without the lawmen around (of course, in the real Wild West the lawman and the criminals were largely indistinguishable, save for the presence or absence of a badge).
Connie,
Now that it’s been a few more days, how are you doing with everything? I hope no more weird blue pill/red pill dreams that end with nuclear weapons? 😉
Stingray…
Good morning! No more dreams about pills and weapons. I’m doing better, mostly because of the posts here. I couldn’t stay away – I’ve roamed a little. I have found some good reading, but,some of the comments still make my skin crawl. When I they are so upsetting, it makes me feel really anxious, so I just leave that site and come back here!
Thanks for asking…hope you have a blessed day.
Connie,
Regarding the comments, you’re going to find that anywhere. You will find commenters that you like and others that you don’t. You will learn to skim and skip those that you don’t and stick to the ones that you do like. Over time, I think that you will find that you will rather get used to it (more or less) and just move on with your day. There are some true haters, there are some men who have been rung out to dry and there are those that ride on their coattails. There are those that love women, but are not going to hide the hard truths. There are several men whom will be very civil to those whom they deem deserve it and will not be to those who show they don’t deserve it. You may find that after some time you actually find it refreshing that, for the most part, people say what they think here. They don’t have to be afraid of that. It doesn’t mean they will be rude, but they don’t have to be careful with everything. It is nice to able to have a place to go have a serious conversation without having to worry so much that you might hurt someone’s feelings for simply stating something rather obvious. When you can’t go out into the world and opening state “Boys and girls are different” without getting the stink eye, it’s nice to have a place to say that and have a good conversation about it.
Pingback: Over a the “On the Rock” blog I | A Northern Observer
Pingback: Husbands, Marriage Detonation, Headship, and “Helpingship” | A Northern Observer
Pingback: Why the Anger? | A Northern Observer
Pingback: Eve and the Spirit of Rebellion | A Northern Observer
Pingback: The Dangers of “God used someone’s ‘drive’” | A Northern Observer
I got a question for you guys. If I ever decide to settle down with a good woman, how would I go about introducing her to the red pill?
I really want a red pill wife, I think the best possible marriage would be with one. On the other hand, it doesn’t look like a simple task. It seems women also have a difficult time swallowing the red pill.
imranmilkyway,
I think the very best way to ease her into it is by demonstration. You are going to be dominant; the leader of the relationship. She will obviously respond to this. When you start to explain things to her, use actual situations from your own relationship to show her examples of what you are explaining. When you are dominant, “Love, please get me a sandwich”, and she happily does so with a smile on her face, use that to show how women respond to confident men and how we truly like to care for you. Explain that this is being submissive, but that in no way equates with being a doormat. That just because she is submissive (and be clear that this is what you want from your wife) that doesn’t mean she has no backbone and that she is still expected to be strong and back you up. That you have true and real respect for submission and what it takes.
Same with any of the other difficult to grasp terms. Make it clear that these things are part of being a woman and that in and of themselves they are not a bad thing. It is how many women act when confronted with these drives that is bad.
A woman wants to be admired. If you make it clear that you, the dominant and confident man, admire a woman who is submissive, controls and recognizes her hypergamy, uses her solipsism for good, and embraces her femininity she will be far more open to the red pill. It may take some time for her to digest and accept, but depending how you frame the conversation, it will go much smoother for both of you.
I have a game related case study up on my blog. It was suggested that you might be a good source of a women’s perspective on the matter. I would appreciate your input if you are so inclined.
Thanks
Pingback: One Year Ago | On the Rock
Men are generally physically stronger than women, and are therefore capable of greater brutality than we are. That doesn’t make them inherently more brutal; women can be plenty brutal themselves.
My question is this: could we say the same thing about what is discussed in the manosphere as women’s inherent selfishness or solipsism? I definitely have a greater capacity for selfishness, as I tend to see details and to want to optimize everything. I always see which piece of pie is bigger. I can’t help that. But I can help what I choose to do with the bigger piece. The selfishness is in the choosing. My ability to be “better” at selfishness than my husband doesn’t make me any more inherently selfish.
Regarding the solipsism: would it be better to discuss women’s ability to particularize rather than their inherent solipsism or self-centeredness? The ability can obviously be turned in that direction, but I don’t think it’s inherently negative. I think I understand the reaction many have against the feminist notion that men’s physical strength or ability to generalize is evil. They are both things that can be used to good or bad ends. What I am wondering is if it wouldn’t be more helpful to discuss feminine characteristics in the same way.
I’m new to the manosphere, so I apologize if I’m making a bad argument. Feel free to call me out on any logical problems or latent feminist assumptions. I won’t be offended. 🙂
Thanks.
Sarah,
I wrote about what you are talking about here. I very much agree with what you are saying (sorry, I don’t mean to drop a link and then leave. I am feeling poorly today and not thinking well). Please feel free to ask any more questions you have about this (or anything else) and I will comment more, hopefully tomorrow. My brain is not up to it today. 😉
Also, don’t be hesitant about making a bad argument. It is relatively easy to tell when someone is arguing in an effort to learn and when one is arguing for the sake of trolling. Please, argue away as it is readily apparent that you are here to learn. Arguing is the very best and most thorough way to do that, so ask and argue away!
Feel free to call me out on any logical problems or latent feminist assumptions.
I don’t thinking calling out latent feminist assumptions will be any problem for you in the manosphere, regardless of whether you’d be offended. (The notion that you being offended would stop someone else from telling a hard truth is, IMPO, a “feminist” thing of letting a woman off the hook because of her gender.)
Sarah,
If you get a chance to read that Solipsism post and want to discuss your idea more, let me know. I think you were correct in your comment in that it is what we do that matters. We cannot help our solipsism. It will always be there. What we can do is make ourselves aware and not act on it unless it is appropriate to do do. This awareness is what makes of capable of telling the difference.
I don’t know yet if I’ll do anything with this personally, but I’m sure someone of the female red pill variety would find interest with this:
http://formysomeday.wordpress.com/
Especially this:
http://formysomeday.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/my-list/
If she’s earnest, she’s starting at the right age (20), but has a lot of the wrong motives and interests behind it.
Should I introduce her to this guy? http://letterstoachristiangirl.wordpress.com/
ANorthernObserver, you are, of course, correct. I included that bit because I wanted to make clear that I am hear to learn and to understand, not to troll. I’m trying to work out the feminist kinks that have gotten themselves in my brain, but I’ve only been here for a few weeks, and it’s a long process. 🙂
Stingray, I’ll read it when I get my kids down for their nap. And thanks for fixing the link.
Stingray, your post was really helpful. I was unaware the term “solipsism” was being used in a slightly different sense here than its strict philosophical meaning.
How do you think this tendency plays out when a woman is thinking philosophically? I have trouble, for instance (and yes, this is my tendency to relate everything to myself talking ;)), really grabbing hold of any particular philosophy or explanation for how the world works, because the exceptions and outliers stand out so brightly in my mind. Obviously, this is where my husband’s ability to generalize comes in handy. Relating the ideal to the particular is an age-old philosophical problem, and it makes sense that men and women would generally fall on either end of the spectrum. I ask about this because the two tendencies seem related, but I’m not sure whether the second fits well under the term solipsism.
ballista,
Oh man. That girl is, well, she has some things down. Introducing her to that other blogger would be . . . interesting. Many of the things she has on her list he would be more than willing to give to her and I am afraid she would resent him for it. She’s 20, how do you tell to a 20 year old woman that the last thing in the world that she wants is to be treated like a princess (at least in the way she most likely thinks of the word)?
Sarah,
I think it plays out exactly how you describe it. Women tend to focus on the outliers. An outlier like any highly accomplished woman to prove the point that women are just as capable as men and the outlier like the abusive husband to prove the point that men are not trustworthy and therefore we should not submit to them. I think women do this because these outliers 1) convey high emotion. We tend to notice high emotion anything more than your run of the mill person or event. 2) Outlier women prove that some women are, indeed special (you’ll see the term snowflake used to describe women who wish to come across as being *special* and different). If some women can be special, then I can be special and should be noticed as such. It’s a form a female competition to be seen by others as being special.
Men tend to be much, much better at generalizing. I think they have to be as if they are to be builders (or really any other traditionally male endeavor), they must build to the top of the bell curve (stair are more common than ramps because most people walk). Even the great thinkers, they had to understand people not the top .01% or the bottom .01%. This may be one of the reasons these men works have stood the test of time.
I don’t know if it will catch through (or if she’ll even read it), but I did a post responding to it. If not valuable to her, it should be valuable to some woman that comes along who is willing to listen.
I’ve been enjoying your blog for some time now and I was wondering if you could give me some advice. My husband and I believe in traditional sex roles for marriage, and always have, but putting it all into practice is not as easy as it seems.
I am a stay at home mother and housewife, and that has always been the intent for our marriage. But there have always been issues that I have ‘rationalized’ away when I was younger and he was very naturally ‘alpha’ (without having read these ‘red pill/PUA’ websites. He is still quite naturally ‘alpha’ but, as they say, it’s true that marriage has beta-tized him in a few ways and I guess that’s why the issues are more clear to me and I don’t rationalize them away anymore.
I am wondering how a wife can influence her husband to make him a better man. I appreciate that he wants me to stay at home with our child, and we want to have more children, but we’re quite poor, and to a large extent that is due to his selfishness.
I want to be supportive, cheerful, optimistic, and uplifting. But our life together has been a never ending cycle of him starting businesses/get rich quick schemes, which always fail, and leave us poor. He sees working normal jobs as being beneath him. I would go to work to help provide, but he is absolutely against it.
How can a woman inspire a man to become a better man and provide for her family, and how can she do so in a respectful way? I just can no longer fake any enthusiasm for these schemes. With every promise that ‘this time’ things will be different, I can already foresee another ruin for us. And I find it hard to respect him when he is always full of blind and naive pathological optimism, and when I see him constantly fail us. I want to somehow save our marriage and save our family from complete ruin.
You seem like a woman who enjoys giving advice to others and helping them with relationship issues. I thought that perhaps you would have some specific insight as to what a woman should do in my particular situation.
M,
I am working on a response to you. I am sorry it is taking so long, but I will get it to you as soon as I can. With your permission, I would also like to open this up as to more people by putting up a post to direct people back to your question. I think it would be very helpful to hear some responses from some of the men.
M,
I have a few thoughts to get you on your way, but for the sake of full disclosure, step by step advice is not my strong suit. You should check out Athol Kay for more advice than I am able to give. He has a blog, a forum in which to ask questions, and he has written a few books as well (one is brand new). Athol and some of his readers might be able to give you a far more detailed, step by step guide than I am able to.
My thoughts:
1) You can help him to see that “normal” jobs are not beneath anyone. One can understand him wanting to be his own boss and that is a very worthwhile long term goal (and a good mission in life). However, there is nothing about a self owned business that is “get-rich-quick”. It takes a whole lot of hard work and part of that work might be working a normal job to earn the capital to start a good business. Now, why does he feel the need to get rich quick? Is for himself or for your family? If it is for your family, your job is to reinforce the fact that money has nothing to do with why you are attracted to him or why you love him. What you find attractive is a Man. Many Men work blue collar or desk jobs and it is not the job you find attractive or the money, but the Man doing it. Hard working Men are attractive (a man working hard towards his goal/mission). This is what drives your feelings of respect toward him. This will hopefully inspire him to forget about the high income and focus on a steady one. If it is for more selfish reasons, then your task will be more difficult. You must pull him out of himself and into your family.
2) Faking enthusiasm is not respect. For a woman, love comes from respect and love is something you do for his good. Respect should be the same. Giving him respect should not be faked. Now, the feelings of respect and giving him respect are two very different things. One might not feel respect but still give it. I’m guessing that when it comes to work and money, you no longer feel respect but still very much wish to give it. So what I suggest is not faking enthusiasm, but sitting him down and calmly telling him all of your concerns (which you have likely done already). But, if you have to, do it again. But this time, respectfully make it clear that you believe things have to change this time. Let him know specifically why. Also, let him know that you want to be very supportive of his desire to work for himself, but for that to happen, a plan of hard work and sensibility will have to happen for the sake of your family (you may not want to use the word sensible, though. You need to phrase it in a way to not question his intelligence).
3) You said it was naive and pathological optimism. Are you completely sure this is what it is? If this is the case, what you need to do is somehow show him that his unfounded optimism is hurting the family. How to do that respectfully? You need to talk to him like a man. Optimism is great, but it has to be realistic. Part of loving him (as in the verb, doing best by him) is helping him to understand reality. This is where Athol can probably help you with details more than I can. He can better tell you how to do this in a respectful, yet appropriate way. You may need to do some rather drastic things to help him and your family. The first step is to have a serious conversation with him about all of this. Let him rationally know about all of your concerns. You want to support him in being his own boss, but the way to reach that goal has to change. It will take a lot of hard work and you are willing to stand by him and support him anyway you can through that work. But what he has been trying up to this point is just not working. Make it clear that you want him, that you want nothing more than to support him, but the way things have been going something has to change for the family to thrive.
4) You are also going to have to (if you have not already) look at yourself. Ask yourself, what is poor? Are you living in a situation where it is hard to feed your family? Are you not making the rent/mortgage? Are you taken care of in your needs but lacking little things you want? Are you getting little things you want but it’s the bigger things? Now, I don’t mean to demean, but I don’t know you and these are important questions. Don’t tell me, but answer them for yourself. If you are having all of your needs met, it might be that you are having to change more of yourself. If it is a situation where you are having difficulty with everyday needs, then you are going to have to focus on him and your family more.
They key to all of this is loving him for his sake. That is so much easier said than done. I know this. But this is where they basis of all of your decisions should come from. If he needs to grow more beyond himself to wake up from the get rich quick schemes, then make sure it is truly for his sake. From experience, it can be very difficult to tell sometimes, if what we do is for their best or for our own. You can absolutely inspire him to be a better man. It should be for himself and for your family that this comes from. If you try to make the focus, your own perceived happiness (contentment is different), then you will go down a very hard road. Work hard to maintain your respect, but honesty is respectful. It’s a fine line (one that I have failed at finding at times myself) but walk it with him in mind and your family in mind. It can work out very well for you. You try to be his example.
I wish you well. Please feel free to ask anything else and I hope I was able to help at least some.
Please don’t feel obliged to have to answer my question quickly. I am a little embarrassed to be sharing these intimate details of my life publicly, but I also feel that the benefits would outweigh any embarrassment I would feel, so if you’d like to turn this into a post in order to get some male opinions, I am ok with that.
A little more background info if it helps, is that we are both from upper-middle class WASPy families, which adds to making me feel very deep shame about being poor. It has destroyed my relationships with friends and extended family because he absolutely hated their meddling. His personality is such that if anyone disagrees with him or tells him that he’s wrong, he is quick to cut them out of his life and he only has use for “yes-men” who tell him that he’s right and tell him what he wants to hear. He believes that he has the right answers to everything, so it is very difficult to make him listen or give him any advice.
I don’t want to come across like I’m trash-talking my husband. I love him from the bottom of my heart and there are many things I admire about him. I really just want to try to influence him for the better. My expectations aren’t extremely high, I just want to live in a nice community and be in a good place for raising my family, and have some sort of stability so I’m not worried about rent and groceries all the time.
Hi Stingray,
Thank you for your response and advice! My above response was written before I saw your long response, I believe we were actually writing at the same time.
As you advised, I will try checking out Athol Kay’s site. I was always under the impression that it was more of an advice site for men, but maybe I was wrong and they advise women there, too. Looking at that forum, it seems really good.
In regards to your first point, I believe he just has pie-in-the-sky thinking and is not grounded in reality. There are many things I love and admire about my husband, but I get frustrated by this and I really feel like nothing I ever do or say to him makes any impact! He really believes that ‘this time will be different’ every. single. time. And why does he do it? The answer is just that he wants to work for himself. He does not want to work for a boss. And I wish he could just function like a normal man and succeed in a normal job. He has worked normal jobs many times, and things happen like he gets fired over conflict, he is too cheeky in trying to get a raise, or he quits all of a sudden the moment he sees greener pastures. We move a lot (as in once or twice a year), also, because of the ‘greener pastures’ thought process he has.
My feelings started out as real enthusiasm. I used to think that, well, maybe it was just bad luck this time. But the same thing happened over and over and over again. I have also told him my concerns over and over again, calmly and, unfortunately, at times not so calmly.
It is unfounded optimism. He believes that he is the best, and makes reference to others who have succeeded in similar things to what he tries to do, without perhaps considering that those other people may have different skills, may be better at him in some things, may have better business sense than him, and so on. He has wasted so much time, energy, and money in these endeavours that he lacks the skills and education to be employed in a steady normal job and has problems competing with others who do have extensive work experience and education. And I just don’t know how, after all of this, he can continue to feel optimistic.
My expectations are not unrealistically high. All I want is a decent house in a nice community, somewhere that is a nice place to raise my family. We live quite badly, and while my husband and child don’t go without the things they need, I often do (i.e. medical care, dentist, food, etc). I am not trying to start a pity party for myself! But it’s the reality of the situation, and I just feel as though I’m the one making sacrifices.
I often do (i.e. medical care, dentist, food, etc).
Does he know this? Straight up know it? Sometimes in an effort to support our men we hide from them things they really should know. And I ask if he straight up knows it because men do not take or understand hints in the way women do. If you haven’t come right and and told him specifically of these things he might not even know it.
I don’t think you are having a pity party. If you were, I don’t think you would have asked it here.
Also, Athol has begun helping a whole lot of women. Like I said, he would probably do a very good job of giving far more specific advice and he has a lot of experience doing it.
Pingback: New Question | On the Rock
I started a discussion asking for advice about it on Athol Kay’s forum. I already got a person accusing my husband of being abusive… I really didn’t mean to make it come across that way…
Male perspective here. Keep at it on Athol’s site. Specifically, make sure you check out the forum section that is designated for “First Officers”. I believe that only you can truly know if your husband is abusive. However, from the description you have provided, it seems that he is quite arrogant and blind to reality. You have every right to be concerned about the future of your family. And I applaud your efforts in trying to maintain your respect for your husband. However, it is not disrespectful to show your concern to your husband.
M, I am really very sorry. I didn’t think it came across that way. It came across to me more like your husband is not seeing reality. I should have thought that it might turn In that direction there and warned you. Stand strong and keep reading the comments. Respond as you deem appropriate. You might still get some very good advice there. Also, you could email Athol directly.
I put up a new post here as well. I just don’t get neat the traffic. That might be best give. How you have been responded to. Again, I’m sorry that happened.
Encourage your husband to keep trying the various schemes, however, suggest that he take up a normal for basic support until he makes it big. That is what my uncle does.
Most entreprenuers spent months and years doing boring jobs before making it big. The ones who didn’t have to do that grind were the ones who were born rich. Suggest that he use some of the money from the normal job to fund whatever plan he has, since all new endeavors need capital.
On the Athol Kay forum they say that my husband is financially abusing me because he doesn’t want me to get a job. They say that I should get a job anyways, but my husband really does not want me to, and we don’t believe in daycare. Who would look after my baby if I were to go to work? And I have no education or skills so I would only be able to get minimum wage anyway, and my paycheck would just cover the daycare. They have free daycare for low income families, but they are likely full of riff raff from the ghetto, and I don’t want my child associating with the likes of that. On the Athol Kay forum they are saying that I might end up having to be a single mother.
M, I don’t have anything worked out in my head yet (and I can’t promise I will), but in the interim I’m praying for you.
Your predicament encapsulates part of why marriage has broken down. Back in the good ol’ days, irresponsible men gave marriage a bad name. In response, we threw out the baby with the bathwater and ruined the whole damn institution.
So as one who hopes to preserve both her own well-being and that of her vows, I can’t guarantee I can help, but you truly have my support.
God bless you.
Another one who may or may not have decent advice on this is Vox Day. But be prepared, he’s Christian, but he usually gives the man the benefit of the doubt and he doesn’t mince words. If he sees a flaw in what you’re doing, if he responds you’ll hear about it.
M,
I believe you are correct. Getting a minimum wage job is only going to keep your baby in daycare. Also, putting your child in free day care is a very bad idea, as you said.
There are things to try before any nuclear option and only you can decide if that option is something you are willing to ever try. There are many of us who would never go that route barring very real danger to ourselves or our children.
You are worried about disrespecting your husband. This is very noble. However, I think you might need to wrap your head around the fact that countering his opinions during conversation is not disrespect (going out and just getting a job would be incredibly disrespectful and solve nothing to boot). If he insists on you staying home, then he must provide enough for you to be able to do that. It is not disrespectful to make this known in a very clear manner. It is not disrespectful to let it be known that while you are holding up the marriage in your wifely ways, he has to make it possible for you to do that. It is literally impossible for you to do what he expects without him providing the means to do it.
I think ar10308’s idea is a good one. Let him know that you don’t want him to give up completely on his get-rich quick ideas. But, he may need to put them on the back burner for awhile. If he gets s steady job, he will need to work hard to keep it (it sounds like it’s hard for him to not snark and maybe he is doing this on purpose because he really doesn’t want the job?) Once he’s established and you are getting what is really needed for you to do your side of things, then start setting aside a certain amount each pay period to apply to his next idea.
Be supportive in his endeavors, but don’t be afraid to be firm in pointing out reality to him. You cannot be the wife he wants if he won’t see it.
Also, Vox Day might be another good person to ask as Martel says above. He will be brutally honest, but he is a man that uses his honesty to try tell help others. Some cannot see this, but I believe that is his intent on people honestly looking for help. Some of his commenters will rip into you and your husband. However, there are many very good christian people there who would do there best to give you good advice. If you are good at weeding the helpful but straight honesty from the junk, it might be a good place to go.
You should not be going without dental care. Ask your dentist about free dental care and if there is a time of the year when they do public service exams for free. You have to wait in line a long time, but I know these happen yearly where I live for those without insurance.
Also, you shouldn’t be going without food, there are many food pantries around and there’s also agencies that specialize in giving fresh food to the needy. Food and dental are things you should be able to get for free. I believe there are programs to help needy people with medical also, but I’m not sure how they work.
Rent is your husband’s responsibility, are you in charge of the bills? Maybe he needs to be responsible for them
I think it is a perfectly reasonable request for the husband to want you to stay home with the kids. When we don’t have enough money to buy something big (like braces) that I think we need, we cut back on groceries. We eat very cheaply until we do have the money.
Is there anything you’re leaving out? drugs or alcohol addictions, stuff like that????
M:
You’ve gotten a lot of good advice here.
I wonder if a good way to approach this with your husband, in keeping with being his First Officer, might be to say something like this:
“You know I love you very much, and I care about you. I also care about this family. Because of that it’s my job to alert you to what I see in you and in us.
“While I appreciate your desire to work for yourself and not for a boss, your business schemes and plans haven’t worked to take care of us, and your family. We need money to take care of the day to day things we need. Maybe you haven’t noticed this, but I sometimes go without food and medical care because we cannot afford it. We cannot afford it because I don’t work, and you aren’t bringing in money. We cannot continue this way, not because I don’t want to; but because we literally do not have the money.
“As a family, we need to try something else. I suggest that you return to working a steady job and earning a steady paycheck. I’m suggesting this in large part because I need to remind you of your obligation to provide for yourself, for me, and for our children. I expect you to carry out that obligation, just as you expect me to care for you and have sex with you.”
This serves the function of first officer: You alert your husband clearly and plainly to the problem; you do so in a respectful way; you suggest a clear course of action; and you remind him of his obligations and the consequences of failure to meet those obligations.
Now, if this doesn’t work, the question becomes whether you will stay with him out of respect for him (this being the “for worse” part), or seek alternate means of support. See, it’s not that he is willfully refusing to support you; it’s just that he’s not very good at it. So in that sense it’s not entirely analogous to the situation in which a wife willfully refuses sex to the husband. His intentions are good; he just sucks at the execution. Like I said – the “for worse” part
Might I recommend that we post all further comments regarding this on the other thread? This one’s long enough as it is, and for somebody who wants to pay attention, hopping back and forth is a bit of a challenge.
Then again, browser tab-hopping is an invaluable skill and this is one of the best ways to hone it.
That’s a good idea, Martel. I am trying to figure out how to organize this thread so newbies can come in and easily read some of the questions. Having 250 comments is not conducive to that, but neither is a bunch of random posts. I am thinking that I may just link additional posts to the bottom of this one so as to make the searching easier.
The situation sounds kind of grim. What always concerns me are statements like this: “It has destroyed my relationships with friends and extended family because he absolutely hated their meddling.”
How did they meddle? Offer money? Support? Criticize him? It is very hard to lose one’s family out of “loyalty” to a spouse. Whatever happens, keep in mind that they are probably waiting and hoping for you to turn to them. Don’t forget that they are there and most likely wanting very much to be able to have you back in the family. Whatever may have caused the estrangement, they will want to help you. They may not, however, tolerate him continuing to drive you into ruin. In a worst case scenario, you could live with family and find a job to support yourself while he gets himself together. At which time he might be better prepared to provide for all of you. I am sure that would be a hard hit to his pride, but it is alright to ask for and accept help.
Again, remember that as helpful as people on the internet can be, do not forget that there a people in your real life who would gladly extend a hand if you ask them to. Treat yourself like your best friend and imagine what you would do for her in a situation like this. Then treat yourself just as well.
“This time it will be different.” Well, then, different how?
Will there be a market study? A business plan? A mentor?
Will he start small and work up, paying as he goes?
We all hear about people who started a business and really “made it.” Well. how did they do it? Some of them have written books. Will they be read? And acted upon?
In principle, a successful business is simple- find a need or want and meet and/or fulfill it. In practice it is difficult. The people with the need or want must be informed that you have “the answer.” You must provide “the answer” (your product or service) at a perceived value great enough to get them to part with their money and be happy about it.
All the things above take thought, time, energy and money to develop and deliver. When everything has been thought out, a market study done to identify the potential customers, when those potential customers are understood enough to offer them an “answer” that meets their real needs and/or wants, and the product or service is delivered in a way that adds value, only then will success be likely.
So yes, it will likely be necessary to have some sort of income during the development process, and further, some savings accrued to finance the start-up. For this reason it is natural to take a “job” simply for the dollars while the business is developed.
The goal is not a “career” doing what one is doing for dollars, the goal is the business that is being developed. Athol Kay worked long and hard at nursing while he was developing his program and his books. It is only recently that he quit that to move into his new project full time. But he did it! You can too, if you are willing to do it right.
My name is Brittany and I am a publicist contacting you on behalf of an author I’d like to put you in touch with.
In The Man Who Made Love to More Women than Casanova, author Lorenzo Baccalá interviews the prolific lover known as “G” who admits to having made a lot of love. Feeling that not enough people know about the art, science and medical aspects of keeping a partner satisfied, Baccalá shares his interview with G, explaining his lifetime of experience so readers can enhance their own knowledge without needing to make love to 300 people themselves.
Baccalá, a physician and social philosopher, ponders the impact of sex, both on individuals and on life in general. He is provocative, engaging and ready to discuss topics no one else will.
Often humorous and always informative, the book serves as a practical sexual manual. From unbelievable antics across countries and cultures to broad discoveries, Baccalá, through G’s extensive experience, guides readers to a greater level of sexual literacy, from individual situations to general techniques.
For a review copy of The Man Who Made Love to More Women than Casanova, or to arrange an interview or guest blogging opportunity with Baccalá, please feel free to contact me.
You can also visit his blog at: http://lorenzobaccala.wordpress.com
Many thanks for your consideration,
Brittany
Can you explain to me a woman’s social equivalent of “social proof” or DHV? I think I understand, but I’d like your take on it 🙂
It depends on the situation. We have to look at it from men’s perspective and women’s.
For men that are not interested in a relationship, the social proof is a woman’s looks and if she is tolerable. For men looking for a relationship, it is looks and what she will bring to the relationship. In this dynamic, while looks are still important, a man will go into a relationship with a woman who is not as pretty but brings things a man wants to the relationship (a lot of women truly don’t understand this, sadly). Things like, cooking, cleaning, support and above all else, respect.
For women, DHV is going to be status. Where one lives is going to effect this as the status markers will be different.
If I may, I’d like to clarify that social proof and DHV (demonstrations of high value) are different. You probably knew that, but I know that men trying to get a grip on the concepts can mix things up like that pretty easily, so I figured mentioning it might be good. The mixup comes, I think, in that social proof is DHV delivered by someone else: a voucher that it exists even if not visible. For men, even DHV is often an indirect marker, which is why it can be faked by things like Dark Triad personality wackiness.
For women, personality cues can be faked (infamously, so) but are generally out there on the surface: if you are kind, sweet, fun, feminine, you simply do it. There’s none (or nearly none) of the, “He’s confident because he knows to his bones that his abilities can provide” business. Yes, we read body language, and more fluently than most of us are consciously aware of, and know very well that a lovely, fluid hip swing is very promising even if most really don’t know why. So yes, there is a fair bit of subtlety. But the cues are still all out there to be seen, no need for someone else to act like they’re in there somewhere.
All that is an explanation of why social proof means so much more to identifying a good man than good woman. Being around good people speaks well of someone regardless of their sex, and saying good things about someone who isn’t even there certainly improves the opinion of the hearer. The difference in effect and effectiveness between men and women, though, is orders of magnitude. As a performer, I’ve often seen the reaction from the audience – even when meeting an actor after a show – affected by how other characters react to him. An objectively regular-looking guy gets fawned over and giggled around if lines in the show say he’s hot. The only time I’ve seen it happen with female characters is when it’s based not on other characters’ reactions but on the actions (not words) of the character herself. This plays out in regular life, too, just not as obviously.
Peregrinejohn,
Thank you for explaining that. I don’t want men to come here and get confused.
Hey, we can get hung up on the weirdest stuff really easily. Defying the programming can lead to gaps in the ol’ logic modules. Observing differences in the way people behave while clinging to equalist brainwashing can almost literally hurt.
Thank you for answering 🙂 DHV makes sense when you say its about status really… and different men are looking for different kinds of “status.” And it makes sense that the DHV is more important for a man than a woman, because most men don’t care if the woman is able to afford designer clothing and shoes and handbags (that cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars). Some men may appreciate that, but probably most would view it as a waste of money (you would think).
Now for the clincher question. Why are we (as women) drawn to this sphere (that is often a kill/war-zone)… I got drawn in when a man started linking my articles to his, and he put my blog on his blogroll – with a bunch of manosphere blogs/red pill blogs.
I checked some of them out… really identified with what Rollo was writing because of my younger brother having MAJOR girl issues and complaining ALL THE TIME to me. So that’s how I got drawn in. Now I’m addicted. The stories, the people, the commenters, I really love reading what they have to say. But as a woman, its so easy to be attacked here. I’ve been attacked twice in the last 2 months pretty viciously… called a whore, slut, attention whore, etc…. I don’t need that! I just freaking had a baby – but its hard to walk away from a fight with people you want to dialogue with. (in other words, its hard not to care – but for the sake of my children, especially the baby, for the sake of my breast feeding, I need to not care)
Maybe I just need to grow a thicker skin (I am trying believe me). I love most of the sphere (especially the commenters), but… I find if I comment even a little, I tend to set off at least one nutcase that then tries to misjudge, criticize, or character assassinate.
You’re a woman… have you had these experiences with men trying to fight with you online here?
I was introduced through an article someone sent me from Vox Day. I thought, PSSSSHHH, this is bogus. But I couldn’t get it out of my head and the more I thought about it the more it all rang true. Then I expanded my reading looking through his blog roll and hit Roissy and was stuck. That was almost 5 years ago. I can only think of one time, really, that I got called nasty names and that was at Roissy’s and it was very brief. Here’s what I do. Those men that tend to get mad and call women names? The vast majority of them have very good reason to be angry. Many of them have been through unspeakable things that as women, we cannot understand. Also, a great many of them have been burned by many, many women and sometimes even their mothers. If one is bit by the first three dogs, cats, birds, pick-your-animal, that person is going to have a very difficult time ever trusting that creature again. This is exactly what has happened to a whole lot of these men. I cannot begrudge them this anger and pain. I am a woman. I simply do not expect them to trust me and am very understanding of that. And I don’t think, for many of them, it is their fault. It is the fault of the women who burned them and I won’t blame them for that. Most of the time that means, when I see something I don’t necessarily agree with I most often just stay out of it. It’s often a man venting or looking for help from other men. I watch for tone and if I sense anger or frustration, I usually just leave it alone as the men will address it. That’s what is needed.
If I do enter the conversation and I am dismissed, it doesn’t bother me too much. On some levels it makes me happy because they are doing what they need to do to expand their masculinity. Alas today, that often comes with the price of women not being trusted. But as a group, we did it to ourselves. As I said before, I don’t begrudge the men that and it’s translated into no online arguments with the men.
(I did pick a fight the other day with a raging feminist at Alpha Game, but it was very intentional in trying out a rhetorical style of argument just to see how it would go)
As to your specific question, why are we drawn in? It’s a huge room full of men. Men are fascinating and even those women who say they don’t like men, like men. We’re drawn like moths to a flame, especially those of us who do like men. We can learn a tremendous amount, and one of those things is when to just sit back and listen and let the men speak their piece.
Observing differences in the way people behave while clinging to equalist brainwashing can almost literally hurt.
Yeah, I’ve been there.
Thank you, you answered so well 🙂
Great explanation, huh? She’s pretty brilliant, really, though way too modest to realize the full value. Which reminds me: your “art of seduction” article was pretty brilliant as well, Dragonfly, and sparked some really insightful comments. As soon as I can (this afternoon, likely) I’ll be perusing the blog in depth. You two remind me that I need to step up my writing, regardless of the lame excuses I give myself.
peregrinejohn,
Thank you very much!
How does a woman deal with men who often have multiple girls at once (i.e the advice often given to men is to keep at least two girls around). Is a woman supposed to vie for his attention and live with it when at any one time she isn’t at the top of his list; even though he may be hers? What if the woman isn’t the type to chase?
In a similar vein, could being ‘feminine’ be interpreted as being too ‘boring’ or ‘nice’ and not ‘challenging’ enough?
How does a woman deal with men who often have multiple girls at once
This is typically referred to as being a plate. A woman should never never allow herself to be a plate. I understand that in the red pill community that men are told to have plates as that would be men’s sexual strategy. It is decidedly not in a woman’s sexual strategy to ever be a plate. You should visit the red pill women reddit. This is addressed there often. A woman who has been plated, the vast majority of the time, will remain a plate until the man moves on to another woman. You would be left an alpha widow.
In a similar vein, could being ‘feminine’ be interpreted as being too ‘boring’ or ‘nice’ and not ‘challenging’ enough?
By men? Again, the vast majority of the time . . . No. This idea comes from feminists. Feminine does not mean boring subservient doormat. It means to be woman like. Men like women and to enhance your womanly qualities draws men to you. Challenging most often means abrasive and men do not like abrasive women. They like sweet women. This doesn’t mean that you have act unintelligent or boring. It just means that you don’t throw intelligence in his face. You use that intelligence to enhance your femininity, not push it to the forefront of who you are. Again, with these questions, I highly recommend RPW for you. It would be right up your alley. It is not Christian so if you are, read it with the knowledge that you have to take some and leave some, but much of it is excellent even for Christian women. You just have to be careful.
Worth noting: If he thinks he needs someone who is “challenging,” he is someone easily bored. You cannot maintain the interest of someone like that indefinitely, and he will move on. A mature individual wants someone who is with them rather than against them. The rest of the world is conflict enough.
Believe me: though it is possible to be feminine and boring, it’s not particularly likely.
I’ve been lurking on and off here for a year or two now, and I’ve grown to appreciate your insight into the intricate workings of marriage. My question for you is this: how can a stay-at-home wife and mother best support her husband when he’s out of a job? I’ve tried at various times being helpful (as best I could, though I’m not sure it was received as such) and staying out of it entirely. I’ve also suggested finding a job myself – this, I think, was a mistake, or at least the way I phrased it was a mistake. My husband definitely took it as criticism of his abilities.
My current strategy – keeping my mouth shut and staying up all night worrying – is neither helping nor particularly healthy, I imagine. We’re not facing eviction or anything yet, but we are burning through our retirement savings. Is there anything (aside from scrimping as much as possible) I can do to help the situation, or is this simply a ride-it-out and trust moment?
If this has already been addressed here, I apologize for repeating the question.
-Emily
Emily,
Thank you for your kind words. If you don’t mind, I’d like to address your question in it’s own post as I think it could help others. Is that ok with you?
That’s perfectly fine by me! I think it’s likely an issue that many of us have dealt with, and it’s difficult to know how to help without sounding critical, especially when you do feel critical (which can come out no matter how hard you try to disguise it) or have expressed criticism in the past. I look forward to reading your post!
I’ll try to get it out soon but it might take me a couple of days.
Pingback: How can I support my husband when he is out of a job? | On the Rock
I had to divorce my beautiful young wife almost a year ago. She fell victim to the feminist imperative. I could expand on that statement at length but I will save you the time. Now almost a year later, she has decided that the grass is not greener on the other side and wants to come back to me. She says she has seen the error of her ways.
I love her. I wouldn’t have married her if I didn’t but I fear she still doesn’t full grasp what her role should be in a healthy, traditional marriage. Do you have any advice on where she could start?
I would have her start with The Surrendered Wife. Also, if she is Christian, she should read what is expected of a wife in a Christian marriage. In a traditional Christian marriage. Not today. If she reads anything recent, then she is not getting out of the feminine imperative. Thirdly, send her over to the https://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/new/ subreddit. It won’t be all she needs if she is Christian but it will help pull her out of the feminine imperative. Watch how she reacts to it.
Do you know how hard it is for a woman to actually see the feminine imperative and pull herself out of it? I’m more concerned about you. It is none of my business and I do not expect you to reply, but what are you doing to protect yourself from divorce a second time? You being here and knowing what the feminine imperative is means you’ve thought about this, but I would be remiss not to ask.
Thanks for the response. I will float the book title past her. Yes, I know how hard for it to pool the curtain back on the feminine imperative. She is seeing small glimmers. For example, all the friends that she thought were living the good life and having a great time, she has now come to realize they are all miserable. She used to laugh at the concept of being a stay at home mother. Now she says she doesn’t want to waste the first half of her life working in some cubicle on her way to middle management.
Some lessons she’s learned and some she still needs to.
To answer your question, I don’t plan on marrying her again unless I am confident she has internalized these concepts as well as learned more about what it means to be a good wife. I have done very well with women in the 11 months I’ve been single so I am not communicating with her from a place of scarcity or desperation. I genuinely want to help her.
It’s hard when she has no positive female influences in her life and all of her piers have cosmo disorder.
It’s hard when she has no positive female influences in her life and all of her piers have cosmo disorder.
It is hard, but you can be that positive influence in her life that she cannot get from like-minded women. A strong husband is invaluable. You be her herd. She’s going to need you if she is able to open her eyes. I can’t stress this enough. Only, don’t let this need weaken your frame. It is all the more reason to continue to strengthen it.
“Cosmo disorder” – Fantastic phrase! I’ll adopt it immediately.
Stingray,
Do you have an anonymous email where people can write you privately?
stingrayontherocks at gmail dot com Don’t forget the “s” after rock. I took it off before the blog went live and never changed the email.