« Heh. | Main | Always Leave 'Em Laughing... »

January 10, 2010

Fact Checking The Futurist

In a post I've been meaning to address, Grim (while expressing great admiration and respect for her) takes issue with several of Dr. Helen's recent posts:

I appreciate that the doctor wants to be on the side of men; but not, I hope, of men who don't merit it. Men who are themselves deeply angry at women ("fatpocalypse") are just as unlikely to produce an insightful methodology for achieving greater understanding between the sexes as the sort of radical feminist that got so much attention in the 1970s. I suppose chivalry seems "pig headed" to those males who view women as a class of self-absorbed parasites, just as it does to those women who view men as a class of hideous oppressors.

The term they sneer at -- "chivalry" -- is an ethic of willful service to one another. This is true in its relationship between men, whether they were equal fighting companions, or lord and vassal, each with clear and binding duties toward one another.

It is probably not an unfair statement to say that I disagree with Dr. Helen more often than Grim does. I don't read many blogs. I read her from time to time because she features topics that interest me and does so in an interesting way. I share her sympathy for men who are reeling from the tectonic changes in the way society deals with traditional gender roles. Where I tend to differ from her is in where I think the solution to these problems lies.

That said, I have trouble stomaching the vitriol that pervades her comments section and the pointless ad hominem attacks that so often substitute for rational discussion. Recently, Beth Donovan dared to suggest (in the comments to this post) that The Futurist's command of the facts might be less than impressive:

I started fact checking stats, and the first one I checked was off by 20 percentage points. I also looked at the links, and they just did not appear to me to be reliable references.

Nota bene: this is not Beth's entire comment, so you should read the comment thread to get the entire gist. If you do, you'll notice that not one commenter responded to (much less bothered to critically examine) Beth's assertion that The Futurist's numerous and sweeping claims are factually inaccurate. Nor did they make the slightest attempt to refute her assertion that the majority of his links are not to authoritative or credible sources.

Rather than accepting Beth's claims at face value, I decided to do a bit of fact checking. First, let's look at her claim that the majority of his links are not to authoritative/credible sources. I went though his post and looked at about 60 links (yes, you read correctly). The author insists his post cannot be understood in full without reading the supporting links. Since by my count there are over 60 of them, that's quite a homework assignment! I couldn't help but wonder whether anyone bothered to read even a tenth of them. Here is a breakout of his supporting links:

links.jpg

The first thing to note is that 63% of these links go to the same 4 sources: himself, Roissy (a pick up artist site), Spearhead (self described men's issues site that also posts about "Game" or PUA tactics), In Mala Fide (another "game" site). Nor were these the only links to PUA sites: when the rest of those links are added up, they amount to 70% of his sources. A stuffed marmoset by parcel post to the astute reader who can identify the common theme.

Here is where I have to stop for a moment and wonder whether Dr. Helen or any of the other female bloggers who linked approvingly to The Futurist bothered to read his supporting links? One of them, Roissy, writes about such lovely topics as "How to Nail a Virgin":

Zeets: No, I’m almost 100% positive she’s never had sex. First, she’s from [southeast European country]. She has that Old World culture still in her. And then there’s the way she reacts when I go to kiss her. She tenses up and kind of brushes my cheek with her retracted lips. She acts like a shy 14 year old who hasn’t been kissed!

...Roissy: imagine the feeling of accomplishment if you stick it out and succeed. There’s nothing quite like the look of shock on a virgin’s face when you first shove it in. Feliz Navidad!

Wow. Here we have two manly men discussing how one of them can take advantage of precisely the kind of woman they claim to respect: a virtuous woman with old fashioned values. But it gets better. Here's Roissy's wit and wisdom on the topic of saving faltering marriages. Note: the original post appears to have been deleted since I linked to it last week. Given that it was written back in October, that seems rather odd.

Here is my five point plan for saving faltering marriages:

1. Stop giving compliments, flattery, and gifts.
2. Come home from work late every night.
3. Buy yourself new, stylish clothes.
4. Cheat. If she asks, deny. No need to confess to the wife. She’ll be able to smell the competitor vaj juice on you.
5. After three months of executing the above four points, unexpectedly tell your wife her ass looks great.

I leave it to the reader to evaluate the objectivity and credibility of "sources" like this. Next, I turn to the examination of a sample of The Futurist's claims:

1. Why marriage used to work:

People married at the age of 20, and usually died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children. The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban feminist norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptly emerges from her trim chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse.

Note the absence of supporting links. The first casualty of the collision with reality actual data on marriages is the "marriage by 20" claim. As the following chart makes painfully clear, marriage by 20 has rarely been a common practice for either men or women in the U.S. In fact, the average age of first marriage in 1890 (back when radical feminists roamed the countryside in packs, all tingly over the prospect of oppressing weak, helpless men) was 22 for women and 26 for men.

marriage_age.jpg

Next up is the "death by 50" claim. As this chart makes clear, the average life expectancy of men who survive long enough to marry (even accepting The Futurist's erroneous marital age of 20) has never been that low at any time since 1845. I'm not even going to address his unsupported claims that women "kept their beauty/slender figures well past the first 15 years of marriage". There is absolutely no evidence provided. Apparently we're supposed to take his word for it.

2. Here's another whopper: "...why are 90% of divorces initiated by women (she files 70% of the time, and the other 20% of the time, she forces the man to file, due to abuse or adultery on the part of the woman)? "

First of all, let's stop and ponder the meaning of the word "initiated". It is not the same as "caused", even if one accepts The Futurist's preposterous and groundless claim. Here I really have to laugh: when the man files, the woman is guilty (again, no need for data - we are expected to accept his opinion) of "forcing" helpless men to file! Which begs the question... when the woman files, it is possible the man might have "forced" her to file for divorce? Even some of the time? Perish the thought!

Conveniently one way "logic" aside, let's look at some actual divorce data from a comprehensive study of 46,000 divorce cases. You may be surprised about the conclusion it draws on the question of why women file for divorce more often than men:

The solution to the mystery, the factor that determined most cases, turned out to be the question of child custody. Women are much more willing to split up because -- unlike men -- they typically do not fear losing custody of the children. Instead, a divorce often enables them to gain control over the children.

"The question of custody absolutely swamps all the other variables," Dr. Brinig said. "Children are the most important asset in a marriage, and the partner who expects to get sole custody is by far the most likely to file for divorce."

THE correlation with custody is so strong, Dr. Brinig said, that she has changed her view about the best way to preserve marriages and protect children. She previously advocated an end to quick no-fault divorces, but she now believes that the key is to rewrite custody laws.

That's right, it's not the expectation of financial gain - nor the ease of no fault - but custody. Moreover, preferential treatment of women in child custody cases is not a recent invention, nor is it tied to no fault. In fact, the rebuttable presumption that the mother is the best custodial parent has always been a strong component of divorce settlements in traditional fault ground states.

This conclusion (i.e., there's no real evidence that no fault divorce increased the divorce rate) has strong empirical support in actual divorce rate data over time. If no fault divorce laws incent more women to leave their marriages, shouldn't we see an increase in divorce rates following the advent of no fault? Unfortunately for The Futurist, that's not what happened. Watch what happens to the divorce rate as no fault divorce becomes more prevalent:

divorce rate1.jpg

Note that before no fault, divorce rates were already rising rapidly. And note what happens to the divorce rate after no fault: it goes down, not up. How inconveeeeeenient.

Now let's look at divorce rates over a longer time period:

divorce_rates2.jpg

Again, note that the steepest rate of increase in divorces occurs during time periods before no fault existed. Beginning with the passage of no fault laws in ONE state - California - and continuing as no fault spreads to 9 states and then to 48 of the 50 states, the slope of the divorce rate curve decreases and then goes negative (i.e., the divorce rate declines).

Moreover, if we extrapolate the long term trend for divorce rates, we find that present rates of divorce are entirely consonant with what statisticians would have predicted long before feminism or no fault came along to harsh the collective mellows of so-called beta males. Not a good sign for The Futurist's argument.

I could fisk and fact check this guy all day, but if the facts contradict him on the things I've cited that ought to raise a big red flag. It ought to have raised a huge red flag that 70% of his "supporting sources" are pick up artist sites that, as Grim states, are not only actively hostile to women, but openly advocate behavior I can only characterize as adolescent, anti-social, and utterly inconsistent with traditional standards of manliness and masculine virtues.

I can't help but agree with Grim that these folks are nothing even approaching objective. They provide no credible underpinning for their arguments. And yet they are approvingly cited by female bloggers (Dr. Helen wasn't the only one).

I'm not arguing that divorce and child custody laws aren't unfair to men in some instances. In fact, I've made that precise argument myself many, many times. But I can't help applying the same logic I have always applied to feminists when they rail against the essential unfairness of living in a world dominated by primitive, heteronormative values: SO WHAT?

We live in a nation where lobbyists can and do influence legislation; where free citizens can and do organize and influence the law making process. Don't like the law? CHANGE IT.

Convince your fellow citizens of the merits of your case. But for God's sake, stop whining. I don't buy whining from feminists and I am no more willing to buy it from disgruntled men. If men are the smarter, stronger, and more virtuous sex (a claim I'm not quite ready to buy off on) they should have no trouble beating their intellectual inferiors. Saying "But I'm afraid to do the right thing - someone might make fun of me!!!!" is crap.

If the fight is important to you, step up to the plate. If you believe (as The Futurist clearly does) that women are destroying Western Civilization as we know it, there is no morally or intellectually defensible excuse for shirking this fight. If you decline to defend your values, they'll be superceded by those of folks who are willing to fight for what they believe in. Perhaps the funniest line in the Futurist's post (and there were many amusing, albeit unintentionally ironic, moments) was this little gem:

I am just an observer, and will not become an activist of any sort. As a Futurist, I have to predict things before they become obvious to everyone else. Regular readers know of my track records of predictions being accurate, and heed my words when I say that the further inflation and subsequent precipitous deflation of the misandry bubble will define the next American decade. So here, on the first day of the '201x' decade, I am unveiling the article that will spawn a thousand other articles.

Translation: the world is ending. But don't ask me to get involved - I'm just an observer.

In a sane world, the inclusion of clearly labeled links like "The Sixteen Commandments of Poon" might have sparked some badly needed critical inquiry. Sadly, I'm not sure we're living in a sane world any more. We're living in a world where men complain there are no virtuous, old fashioned women left and then when they encounter one, scheme and collude about how best to take advantage of her and turn her into the kind of women they claim is ruining everything.

And we link to them and say, "Wow. That's good stuff."

Posted by Cassandra at January 10, 2010 08:09 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3484

Comments

It's sewer out there, Cassandra.

Based on TOTAL anecdotal evidence to which I have done absolutely no research except living, there are two prime reasons for the rising rate of divorce.

It is split in two categories.

The rise and easy access to modern contraceptives has led to the rise in divorce of the "newly married" (less than 5 years married), which are usually the "under 30" crowd.

The second reason for divorce, mostly for people usually over 30 with kids, is money. The expectation of money and wealth, the use of money and wealth, the misuse, mis -spending, mis-allocation, dishonesty and any other thing that you want to attach to it.

One partner has higher expectations of money or wealth (disatisfied), or one partner is incredibly irresponsible with money, and is wrecking the security of the family by its misuse.

I see a lot of divorce, and my sister in law (legal secretary) does a lot of divorce work. This ain't rocket science.

Kudos to Grim for continuing to fight the good fight. Chivalry and courtesy are the lubricants a civil society needs to counter the friction of personal interactions. With these things under attack, there is also an attack on civil society. And when civil society gets weak, it then becomes the law of the jungle, strong over the weak, which I think is the goal of people like "the futurist", who want license to exploit and abuse women. Some future, huh?

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at January 10, 2010 10:13 AM

Chivalry and courtesy are the lubricants a civil society needs to counter the friction of personal interactions.

Bingo. I have quibbled with some of Grim's notions of chivalry, but I also believe very strongly in the idea of willing service of your husband/wife. A good marriage is not possible without that willingness to put the marriage ahead of your personal interests.

I read somewhere in my travels today that most guys spend less time decided who to marry (i.e., considering the character/upbringing of the future wife) than they do buying a car. Given that losing a marriage is far more devastating than buying a lemon car, that doesn't seem too smart.

I wouldn't be surprised, really, to hear that young women don't think enough about choosing the right kind of mate either. I don't think this is solely a male trait, but more a generational phenomenon.

No matter how "sophisticated" we think we are, morals and integrity still matter. In a marriage, they matter a LOT because they go to the heart of whether a person deserves your trust and love. The willingness to provide uncritical attention to folks like this guy, who think morality and integrity make one a "beta male" shocks and disturbs me. The intent of this post is not to put anyone down, but rather to ask people to think a bit more critically about some of this stuff. Otherwise, reading becomes a colossal exercise in confirmation bias.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 10, 2010 10:26 AM

I did a lot of fact checking that didn't make it into this post b/c it would have been too long. But regarding the 40% false rape stat, this may be of interest.

I have tried to research the rate of false rapes for the several posts I've done on the subject and found there is nothing even approaching an empirical consensus, so that link supports my memory.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 10, 2010 10:35 AM

Heh. I didn't bother with arguing with the troll of a retired Lieutenant Colonel whose basic argument is, "I'm Infantry, I went to Airborne School, and if you're a Leg, you're stooopid!"

I just went over an told him he wasn't a gentleman and he was an embarassement to his service.

Next time, it's a steel plate gauntlet to the face, if he talks to my wife the way he did in the comments at Dr. Helen's place. She, clearly, does not have The Rulez. Most of those comments would suffer extinction at my place, because they aren't comments, they're either personal attacks or of the same ilk as the self-licking ice cream cone that is the Futurist's misogynistic view of the world. Misogyny is not the answer to misandry.

Nice takedown, btw. ;^ )

Posted by: John "Still Chivalrous After All These Years" Donovan at January 10, 2010 11:09 AM

Misogyny is not the answer to misandry.

The "if you disagree with me, that proves you're a loser/feminist/beta male/idiot" meme seems to be the default response. Not terribly convincing to anyone but the choir they're preaching to.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 10, 2010 11:16 AM

Heh. I pity da foo' who mistakes my sense of politesse for "beta" status.

Posted by: John "#82" of Argghhh! at January 10, 2010 11:28 AM

Cassandra - what a masterful post! Thank you!

I hope none of those people show up here on your comments. They tire me.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 10, 2010 11:38 AM

Don's observation of a septic system where once was less of one, sums it up.

And it seems, at least to this old methane eruption, that there is more than a little similarity in the views of and attitudes towards women between the cadre of PUA's --had to look that one up-- and the enlightened membership of the Religion of Piece/explosives/beheading/infidels-and-women-as-chattel. What cur.

Posted by: bt_Curmudgeon_hun at January 10, 2010 11:41 AM

They're welcome to show up here, Beth, as long as they adhere to the rules of civil discourse (i.e., debate the question rather than attack the person).

If they can't act like adults, they can take a hike. I'll even be happy to show them the door :p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 10, 2010 11:50 AM

I went to the links the Futurist cited, and it begs the question of credibility when you cite another blogger whose actions toward women are demeaning, belittling and anything but manly.

The NYT I could say would be credible, but given the fact that it is the NYT, we have the issue of bias, agenda, etc. and the stellar fact-checking and retractions and apology record the Times is not noted for. Methings the Times does not retract, fact-check nor apologize because that would destroy their crediblity (as opposed to not doing their jobs), so, if the Times doesn't do any of the three, then the article must be true!

However, given the recent clue bat the Times has seem to run into, I would give that citation the benefit of the doubt.

Dr. Helen's commenters and the good Dr. herself...
Sigh. I would say that I think she deplores the bad behavior of women as much as you, Cassie, but
her support of his points without the thorough fisking that they need threatens her credibility
as a psychologist.

I am raising my sons to be chivalrous; that really
doesn't take a lot because in my experience, most
boys are naturally chivalrous. Plus they take
after their dad, so not a hard job, overall.

My sons are protective of their sister. There are a couple of boys her age who are interested,
but they take one look at her older, bigger brothers and just sort of slink off. The Engineer
snorts with amusement.

But I never taught them that. They do that on their own. They are as protective of me as I am of them and as they get older, I have to let them
do what they were born and made by God to do.

They are guided and mentored, but it is really hard for this mama bear to see her lads that she diapered and would have killed for, changing a tire in the rain and scolding me because I am holding an umbrella over their heads and not in the car, safe and sound.

I am just so proud of them. While I have never had a problem with women working, I hope that when they marry, they will be equally yoked with
someone who will meet them halfway whether my daughters in law work or stay home.

As to the Futurist, I have seen his blog, and he
is hypocritical. He belittles the behavior of the
ladies, but the 'alpha' behavior of him and his sources is no better and thus, his essay has no merit.

Posted by: Cricket at January 10, 2010 05:48 PM

"The "if you disagree with me, that proves you're a loser/feminist/beta male/idiot" meme seems to be the default response."

Yep, unfortunately ad hominem is a way of life on the internet these days. Got this gem, which started off a whole trolling escalade, from the Dr. Helen thread. "you all sound like whiny high school boys who can't get laid. You are pitiful."

Interesting how the person who posted this would attempt to take the high ground over here. Dr. Helen's blog has a fairly toxic community, which is why it's basically "occasional read, don't post" category for me, but don't act like you're part of the solution if you're actually part of the problem.

Posted by: Remove the plank from thine own eye at January 10, 2010 06:31 PM

Hi, I said that - I said that after being beat upon by the jerks who were commenting on that page - and yes, they do sound like adolescent boys.

I did not call any of them personally stupid, as they did me.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 10, 2010 06:47 PM

Also, as far as the whole "I started fact checking stats, and the first one I checked was off by 20 percentage points"+"you'll notice that not one commenter responded to (much less bothered to critically examine) Beth's assertion that The Futurist's numerous and sweeping claims are factually inaccurate" thing goes,
some people actually read at least part of The Futurist's (incredibly inane, imo) piece and understand the concept of using a qualifier in a sentence, which is apparently over Beth Donovan's head.

I'll go ahead and post the "stat" under question, so that people who understand qualifiers will see what I mean. "So why are 90% of divorces initiated by women (she files 70% of the time, and the other 20% of the time, she forces the man to file, due to abuse or adultery on the part of the woman)?"

It's embarrassing that I find myself defending a pick up artist(I had to look up what PUA meant sadly, don't understand the obsession with acronyms), but if there is one type of person lower on my priority list than classless manboys like the futurist, it's sanctimonious internet trolls that will ignore a simple qualifier in their rush to troll.

Posted by: Remove the plank from thine own eye at January 10, 2010 07:03 PM

So, remove the plank from thine own eye - do you have anything useful to say about Cassandra's thesis, rather than just picking on me, which is tangential to it? If not, why don't you just return to the Futurist and make ad hominem attacks on me over there and leave this thread for Cassandra's well-thought out arguments against the so-called stats that The Futurist uses.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 10, 2010 07:17 PM

On the subject of the PUA outlook and dating today, this was very interesting: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_4_darwinist_dating.html

Posted by: FbL at January 10, 2010 07:24 PM

So, if Remove the plank is not a classless manboy like the futurist he must be a sanctimonious internet troll defending a PUA.

Isn't that special?

Posted by: The Church Lady at January 10, 2010 07:49 PM

It begs the question then, if the futurist isn't part of the problem.

After all, if women are treated like dirt by Peter Pans like him, et al, why is he slamming women since he is part of the problem and not the solution?

Posted by: Cricket at January 10, 2010 07:51 PM

Good job, Cassandra. Dr. Helen is very smart, and I find her topics interesting but some of her commenters are barbarians.

Posted by: Retriever at January 10, 2010 09:17 PM

"So why are 90% of divorces initiated by women (she files 70% of the time, and the other 20% of the time, she forces the man to file, due to abuse or adultery on the part of the woman)?"

Daring to disagree with someone is not trolling according to any definition I've ever seen of the practice:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

Beth's first comment (which you reference in your second comment here) wasn't inflammatory, extraneous, or off topic. In fact, it was confined TO the topic with the obvious intent of discussing the post on the merits. What this elicited was a frankly silly personal attack using what anyone who can use Google would know is a humorous literary reference. They obviously looked it up to see what it meant but completely ignored the context. That's about as silly as saying I am a psychic who can predict the future b/c my moniker is Cassandra.

Sheesh :) The phrase 'Lighten up, Francis' comes to mind - SWWBO has never been anything but a joke, and a joke on women at that! Some "proof".

As regards the statistic in question, undermining your own claim ("So why are 90% of divorces initiated by women (she files 70% of the time, and the other 20% of the time, she forces the man to file, due to abuse or adultery on the part of the woman)?") with another unsupported and contradictory claim isn't "qualifying" it.

It's pretty silly to claim that women "initiate" (i.e., file for) divorces 70% of the time, but even in those cases where they weren't the ones who filed for divorce, they still "initiated" (forced the man to file) it 2/3 of the time! The second "stat" doesn't qualify as "initiating" no matter how hard he tries to stretch the definition.

One might, I suppose, claim that in the other 30% of cases (cases were it wasn't the woman who filed) women caused the divorce 2/3 of the time (though The Futurist characteristically presents no evidence to back up this rather startling assertion). But that still wouldn't amount to women "initiating" the divorce 90% of the time. It would be 70% initiated and 20% provided cause for the man to initiate the divorce, and saying something that makes no sense and then offering no facts to back up your assertion isn't a "qualifier".

Posted by: Cassandra at January 10, 2010 11:33 PM

Fbl:

FWIW, I wrote about that article a while back :) It was a good essay (Hymowitz's, not mine!):

The idea that women in general have all the power in a relationship is really rather perverse.

Men and women respond to each other's cues as well as to the expectations of society. To flip Eric's scenario on its head, a woman who maintains high standards must compete in the marketplace with women who are willing to give men everything they want. Does he seriously think such women never get their hearts broken by men who date according to the Darwinian standard? Can't he understand that such self-serving behavior only reinforces the very traits he says he doesn't want to see in women - that it would tend to produce:

...a betrayal of faith when he, rather, goes for other women whose behavior falls short of her standard. When her essential self is rejected, she is forced to evaluate her worth. Women are highly sensitized to the man's feedback. Rejection is very compelling feedback, so when he rejects her in favor of something else, the woman's instinct is to adapt to the preferences displayed by him.

I'm not terribly impressed by the argument that someone else has "forced" you to be the way you are. Character is a decision you make every day, and it speaks volumes about your values. If you disapprove of slutty or self-involved behavior from women, don't reinforce that behavior by sinking to that level yourself. Demand better and lead by example.

There are always good women out there. Giving into cynicism doesn't make the world a better place; it's just a surrender to the very values you despise. I'm not sure how that improves the situation any.

And in fact it begs the question: if you engage in this type of behavior, how are you any better than the women who hurt you? Is that really the standard you want to set for yourself - that just because you were hurt, suddenly two wrongs make a right? I don't think that's what Eric meant to say, but that's the whole premise behind Darwinian dating and it's a morally bankrupt philosophy. Putting fancy words around it doesn't make it smell any better.

The bottom line is that Eric has the cart before the horse. He says that nothing makes him want to be a better person like falling in love with a woman. But that is exactly backwards. If you wish to find someone who is worthy of your love, don't you think perhaps you ought to be a person worthy of respect and love, yourself?

As I said in my last post, it all begins with you and your values. Don't look to someone else to "make" you want to be a better person. Be a better person because that is important to you. None of us can count on finding someone else to share our lives with, but we can decide to live our lives in a manner consistent with our values. If we surrender our integrity to the expectations of others, we truly have nothing.

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2008/12/darwinian_datin.html

Posted by: Cassandra at January 10, 2010 11:51 PM

Cassandra, I think that point was well covered in the movie "Groundhog Day". :)

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at January 10, 2010 11:57 PM

If you wish to find someone who is worthy of your love, don't you think perhaps you ought to be a person worthy of respect and love, yourself?

There's the part they don't understand. They've never been *taught* that-- they've been taught that *real* men are supposed to be assertive and self-confident, but the examples held up for them are merely aggressive and narcissistic.

And they have no other examples to follow, because chivalrous men are uncommon or flat out nonexistent in the self-blown bubbles they inhabit.

Posted by: BillT at January 11, 2010 12:58 AM

Lemme tell ya, blowing that damn "plowing through the snow drifts bubble" was a farkin' effort, too!

Stupid as it seems, I was taking a risk (but betting I could make at leat the halfway point, I admit, where the was another house to bail to) to be home with SWWBO on our anniversary because, among other things, spending a night in a hotel, while perfectly rational, just wasn't... me.

Posted by: John "Pulls only one wing off the fly because I like to watch 'em fly in circles" Donovan at January 11, 2010 01:17 AM

John, I have to tell you that any sensible woman's heart did a little flip when she read of what you did. As one of those women who care about you, I'm relieved that you suffered no ill effects, but were I the woman who inspired those efforts I'd be swooning (between fits of wanting to knock some sense into that hard head, haha!).

Cassandra, it was interesting to read this post and the one I linked, in the context of my attitudes about dating and men. I suppose throwing up my hands up in frustration as I've done lately may not be as indefensible and self-defeating as Eric's choice of response, but it is perhaps not the wisest or most responsible choice. You write:

There are always good women out there. Giving into cynicism doesn't make the world a better place; it's just a surrender to the very values you despise. I'm not sure how that improves the situation any.

I haven't surrendered to the values I despise, but my tired cynicism on the subject certainly doesn't improve the situation. I don't think I'm bitter about men and women, but I don't think I contribute anything positive to the subject or interaction, either. Don't know what a better response on my part would be, but I guess I need to do some thinking...

Sometimes there's a lot to be said for calculated ignorance--reading up people like the PUA does nothing but discourage me in regard to the human race (both sexes), and feed the little cynicism monster that always lurks in the darker corners of my psyche. I wonder if it's okay to simply know that there are ugly, desperate, screwed up corners of society out there suffering in self-induced pain... and then turn away to build my corner of society and pretend they're not there. Reminds me of the Bible text that encourages us to think about things that are beautiful and good and pure...

Posted by: FbL at January 11, 2010 01:43 AM

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I've always read that divorce rates in the USA were like damn near 50%; is that pure garbage then? Or did some other number stick in my head? To be sure, I cannot recall where I read that, regretfully, so maybe I did get it all messed up.

Still, a 23% rate is no joke. And it is entirely possible most people just don't bother to marry anymore.

Mind you, I did have some sympathy for the misogynists, because I do disapprove wholeheartedly of no-fault divorce. No reason to use crappy stats, of course.

Posted by: Gregory at January 11, 2010 02:57 AM

Lemme tell ya, blowing that damn "plowing through the snow drifts bubble" was a farkin' effort, too!

Blow that bubble this-a-ways -- I figger we'll be able to fit all out aircraft *and* half the hangar in it before the sandstorm hits.

BTW, as soon as Carborundum has finished griping about me detatching him to give you second, third, and fourth winds, tell him to get back to the PNW and report to Doc D...

Posted by: BillT at January 11, 2010 05:53 AM

Cassandra: "That said, I have trouble stomaching the vitriol that pervades her comments section and the pointless ad hominem attacks that so often substitute for rational discussion. ..."

Are you sure you're using the term 'ad hominem' correctly?

And -- without taking a position on either "side," except to call attention to the passive-aggressive distastefulness of it -- I note that Beth's piece begins: "Obviously, the guy who writes this crap has had a difficult time with women."

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 06:18 AM

Ilion -- your definition of ad hominem may vary from mine, but *I* call

"Now, go graze in the field of your farm (which is what bovine women do),"

"Racist,"

"Beth : A farm animal with no debate skills.
olga : A pathological liar who lies about easily-verifiable things.
Valerie : A moocher and free-loader."

ad hominem attacks.

Your thoughts?

Posted by: BillT at January 11, 2010 06:57 AM

BTW, The Futurist *does* occasionally write crap, but it's couched in obfuscational prose. Picking one random example, just *what* does "America is sufficiently in control that the War on Terror is no longer nearly the threat it was during the recently concluded decade" mean?

What is it in particular that the War on Terror is threatening, and why is the War on Terror less a threat to whatever it was threatening now than it was previously?

Nice oratory, but with zero meaning.

Posted by: BillT at January 11, 2010 07:07 AM

"I'm not terribly impressed by the argument that someone else has "forced" you to be the way you are. Character is a decision you make every day, and it speaks volumes about your values. If you disapprove of slutty or self-involved behavior from women, don't reinforce that behavior by sinking to that level yourself. Demand better and lead by example."
I've not gotten beyond this comment in my morning reading, but if I may, that little pearl of wisdom, seems to me to be, the point. A variation of what parents must explain to young children when, after being corrected for some unacceptable behavior, the child will whine and try to excuse their act with the inevitable excuse, but they --some other child behaving badly-- did it too...

I'd better hush before I put a dent in some poor individuals self-esteem.

Posted by: bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun at January 11, 2010 07:10 AM

...or a pin in it, more likely.

Posted by: BillT at January 11, 2010 07:42 AM

Heh, I was thinking past the bubble, more towards the boot in the butt.

Must be the conditioning from all of the conversations I've had with young fellows back when they would slouch over to the house to take one of my daughters on a date.

My tendency to share a condensed parable with the young fellows, on the topic of cause and effect as it related to behavior, was not unusual. And as a result, I can recall only one instance where a young fellow brushed up against his mortality. Never saw or heard from him again.

Posted by: bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun at January 11, 2010 08:08 AM

Never saw or heard from him again.

So *that's* why you wanted to borrow a hacksaw...

Posted by: BillT at January 11, 2010 08:17 AM

Rationalization is the oldest trick in the human book. We all do it at some point. I know I have.

What bothers me is when people want to go and turn an understandable (if unhelpful) tactic into a life philosophy. If these folks want to live their lives in a defensive huddle and call that "manly", I suppose they can. But I have to say that allowing your behavior to be controlled/dictated by those you despise doesn't seem very masculine to me. To be clear, I'm not saying they aren't real men. I'm saying the behavior doesn't comport well with traditional definitions of masculinity, which seems an odd defense of same.

Regarding Ilion's comment:

Are you sure you're using the term 'ad hominem' correctly?

An ad hominem argument is one aimed at the speaker rather than the topic at hand. In my book, "We don't have to listen to anyone who calls herself SWWBO - that tells us all we have to know about her" is not even remotely directed at the topic.

And the comment you refer to from Beth is her 4th or 5th one. She ignored quite a bit before that, including several "dears" and "dearies" that were clearly intended to be dismissive. I think most objective observers would agree there was no true affection being expressed there :p

I think in a perfect world no one would ever become upset over being called things like "fat cow". We do not live in a perfect world, however. Moreover I would distinguish between "You ARE a fat cow" (what was aimed at Beth) and "What you said reminds me of boys who can't get laid" (what she eventually responded with).

Yes, that could have been said more delicately, or not at all. But equating attacks on behavior with attacks on the person is a logical non-sequitur. Saying, "You're behaving rudely right now" is NOT the same as saying, "You are a rude person (all the time)".

And more specifically, calling a line of argument childish is NOT the same as calling the speaker childish.

As I stated before, the topic of this post is not Dr. Helen. If I didn't think she was worth reading, I wouldn't read her. And it's not her commenters.

This post attempts to evaluate that Futurist post (which I agree was quite well written, though I found the substance, arguments and supporting evidence lacking). I find it rather amusing that in commenting upon a post in which I pointed out that the commenters refused to respond to Beth's claims, we are once again talking - not about The Futurist's post - but about Beth.

Separate topic. And intended to be a distraction, albeit one that tends to underscore my point :p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 08:35 AM

I'd like to clarify one other thing.

It seems that any time a blogger takes issue with something another blogger either says or links to, that is called "an attack".

This bothers me, because the logical result is to squelch debate and disagreement. I did not intend to attack Dr. Helen. I think she airs an important viewpoint. There are a lot of bloggers on the web whom I consider not worth the time it takes to comment on what they write. There are scads of bloggers I disagree with, but never write about.

If I have taken the time to comment on someone's work, it's usually for one of two reasons:

1. I think their work is worth commenting upon on the merits.

2. In the case of people like Sully, they've either expressed an idea that is gaining traction or they have a lot of influence. Thus, though I may think what they're saying is really dumb (i.e., the obsession with Sarah Palin's uterus), I may also decide enough people are listening that it's worth refuting.

Dr. Helen falls into the first category. It is my impression that she allows commenters to "vent" (even upon each other) in her comments section. She is paying the bills, it's her site, and she has every right to do this. I may think (and I do) that such a tactic results in an atmosphere where dissenters are strongly discouraged from challenging the prevailing meme du jour (the suckitude of women). But it's not my job to tell her how to run her site and she may have very valid reasons for doing this.

For instance, if the purpose of her comments section is not to facilitate discussion but to create a "safe space" for men who think they've been wronged, she's absolutely doing the right thing. I don't see the difference, frankly, between this kind of "safe space" and the lefty ones academia is so fond of, but again, not my bailiwick.

I think a prominent blogger like Dr. Helen is probably not concerned about what I think, nor does she need to be. I also think that a public site with public comments is out there for public discussion. Dr. Helen has always seemed level headed and mature enough not to go ballistic if someone disagrees with her. That's a big consideration for me - I'm far more likely to disagree with bloggers whose sites are well established and have a strong following precisely because I assume they are more secure and less likely to be hurt/upset when their ideas are challenged.

Sort of the "elephant isn't going to get upset over a single gnat" philosophy :p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 09:02 AM

As I mentioned to Grim, the commenters at Dr. Helen's, (never mind libertines like Roissy), are a very bitter, lovelorn crew. Oh, and it's never their fault, too, from what I can see.

Posted by: Eric Blair at January 11, 2010 09:13 AM

"Your thoughts?"

Some of those are simple insults; 'ad hominem' does not mean (personal) insult. Some are factual assertions, unflattering assertions, to be sure; that they unflattering and probably false does make them 'ad hominem' arguments.

Beth's comment (the first sentence of her piece, which I quoted) is both a pointless insult and borderline an 'ad hominem' argument -- it depends on whether she meant to imply: "Obviously, the guy who writes this crap has had a difficult time with women[, therefore, they don't know what they're talking about, or therefore their claim/argument is seen to be false]"


Why is it that so many women (and feminized men) give themselves a pass on pointless insult ... and then go into high dudgeon when their targets respond in kind?

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 09:39 AM

Eric, that is also a big part of why I tend to take issue with things I see over there.

Anyone who has read me for any time at all knows I think relationships involve not one, but two people (each of whose behavior impacts both the relationship and the behavior of the other person). We have a LOT more control over how relationships go than we think, even if we can't control the other person's personality/behavior.

What we can do is make sure we're not inadvertently creating perverse incentives that encourage others to behave in ways we don't like. What so often bothers me about the discussions at Dr. Helen's is that they seem calculated to foster an "it's never my fault" or "I have no control" attitude that practically guarantees what I would euphemistically call "bad relationship outcomes" :p

I have spent considerable time and effort over 30 years trying to understand how my husband views the world (and my actions). It's not easy b/c much of the time I find his outlook - initially at least - counterintuitive. But that's usually b/c I don't fully understand his position yet.

It doesn't make him wrong. It means I have to try harder if I really want to understand someone who clearly doesn't think like I do.

Because I do this with him, he returns the favor. It works.

It seems to me, however, that digging in your heels and refusing to try (especially when you know that men and women are different) is not a winning tactic. What woman is going to want to meet a man halfway when he's coming from the position that the woman's viewpoint is inferior and always wrong?

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 09:45 AM

Cassandra: "... This post attempts to evaluate that Futurist post (which I agree was quite well written, though I found the substance, arguments and supporting evidence lacking). I find it rather amusing that in commenting upon a post in which I pointed out that the commenters refused to respond to Beth's claims, we are once again talking - not about The Futurist's post - but about Beth.

Separate topic. And intended to be a distraction, albeit one that tends to underscore my point :p"

Well, no.

YOU made the accusation about 'ad hominem' arguments; I question whether you're using the term correctly.

And now you're trying to lump me in with those other fellows.

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 09:47 AM

Furthermore, an ad hominem argument is not necessarily invalid; they generally are, but not always.

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 09:52 AM

Ilion:

I've already addressed that.

Why is it so many people would rather get into pointless tit for tat arguments rather than discuss the topic at hand?

Grim said exactly the same thing (the Futurist and his sources clearly don't like women). Why was that not an ad hominem?

By the way, when a guy claims (as the Futurist did) that no man should marry unless he's willing to play manipulative mind games to keep the little woman in line, it's hardly a stretch to wonder whether he's had trouble with women :p That's an extreme position no matter where you start from.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 09:52 AM

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

Being a "fat cow" is an irrelevant characteristic or belief. So is having a humorous Internet moniker.

Resenting or not liking women in a post that says women are to blame for the decline of marriage is hardly "irrelevant". In fact, it's hard to think of something that is more germane.

And you have been "lumped in" with Dr. Helen's commenters only to the extent that you are more interested in arguing about Beth's behavior than The Futurist's ideas and the degree to which they are supported by the facts.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 09:56 AM

"It seems to me, however, that digging in your heels and refusing to try (especially when you know that men and women are different) is not a winning tactic. What woman is going to want to meet a man halfway when he's coming from the position that the woman's viewpoint is inferior and always wrong?"

Of course! And it goes in the other direction, too ... and American women are very bad about treating American men as ciphers, in every sphere of life, but especially in “significant other” relationships.

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 10:00 AM

Some of those are simple insults; 'ad hominem' does not mean (personal) insult.

Argumentum ad hominem means "an argument against the person" -- and the attacks against Beth, Olga, and Valerie went beyond simple insult. Granted that some of them were simple insults, but some were *ad hom*.

Posted by: BillT at January 11, 2010 10:00 AM

"Grim said exactly the same thing (the Futurist and his sources clearly don't like women). Why was that not an ad hominem?"

I haven't looked at her piece. I read yours, and I read Beth's because of the particular way in which you linked to it.

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 10:03 AM

I think part of the problem here is the same thing that affected how both sides saw that Patterico/Goldstein dustup.

I think it's not necessarily out of bounds to question the underlying motivation or bias of someone who presents an argument. That's not sufficient refutation on its own (and indeed that wasn't Beth's entire argument). Impeaching credibility/objectivity is a longstanding practice in trials because it's not JUST the content of what we say that is important. There's also the question of, "Can we believe this person?" (important b/c few listeners stop to fact check every assertion, especially in a post with well over 60 links) and "Were this person's facts cherry picked to mislead/support his/her thesis?"

And then there's the related question of, "Were this person's assertions of fact even supported by anything other than opinion?"

This is why I don't see Beth's remark, though it is in some sense "directed at" The Futurist as ad hominem. It's not irrelevant AND it's not her whole argument.

On the other hand as I pointed out, the commenters ONLY argued "We don't need to listen to you" without refuting the other points she make. It was a fingers-in-the-ears, "Nyah nyah we can't hear you, dearie and oh-by-the-way why can't we talk about Red Herring 1, 2, and 3, none of which address your argument" sort of tactic.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 10:13 AM

Cassandra's emphasis:An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

Cassandra: Being a "fat cow" is an irrelevant characteristic or belief.

Cassandra, you missed or overlooked the critical part of that quotation: “ An ad hominem argument … is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

I’m not so sure that the “irrelevant” really belongs there, or matters. Nevertheless, what makes an argument a ad hominem is the attempted linkage between premise(s) and person(s). I explained this, by way of example, already.

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 10:14 AM

Interesting that Ilion automatically assumes that Grim is a woman.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 11, 2010 10:17 AM

What does being a "fat cow" have to do with whether the Futurist's "facts" were accurate?

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 10:18 AM

Cassandra: "Resenting or not liking women in a post that says women are to blame for the decline of marriage is hardly "irrelevant". In fact, it's hard to think of something that is more germane."

You're engaging in "Bulverism" ... you're arguing as leftists tend to do: you're filtering the others' claims and/or arguments by what you perceive to be his motivations. You are, in fact, making an ad hominem argument!

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 10:23 AM

We are at the mercy of our biases :p

Ilion:

Actually the word "irrelevant" appeared in the majority of definitions I checked before responding to your comment:

1. A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premises about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

2. An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

3. 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

(IOW, irrelevant to the argument)

4. # Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.

2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

# The "tu quoque" or charging the locutor with "being just like the person" the locutor speaking about, is a narrower variety of this fallacy. In other words, rather than trying to disprove a remark about someone's character or circumstances, one accuses the locutor of having the same character or circumstances.

1. In cross examination or in debate, the point is often expressed as "My point might be bad, but yours is worse."

2. If the subject includes an assessment of behavior, the point can be put "So I do x [some specific action], but you do too."

# Since the circumstantial variety of the ad hominem can be regarded as a special case of the abusive, the distinction between the abusive and the circumstantial is often ignored.

Informal Structure of ad Hominem

Person L says argument A.
Person L's circumstance or character is not satisfactory.
Argument A is not a good argument.

# Examples of the ad hominem:

* A prosecutor asks the judge to not admit the testimony of a burglar because burglars are not trustworthy.


* Francis Bacon's philosophy should be dismissed since Bacon was removed from his chancellorship for dishonesty.


* Prof. Smith says to Prof. White, "You are much too hard on your students," and Prof. White replies, "But certainly you are not the one to say so. Just last week I heard several of your students complaining."


* I can't see that we should listen to Governor Smith's proposal to increase the sales tax on automobiles. He has spent the last twenty years in state government and is hardly an unbiased source.

# Uses of ad hominem considerations:

1. When examining literary or philosophical works, looking at the author's character or circumstances can sometimes provide insight into that person's ideas. In other words, ad hominem considerations can show motives and can sometimes provide explanation. However, these considerations do not demonstrate the truth or falsity of the ideas.

2. The character of a person is often relevant in consideration of the sincerity of views being offered and so is often relevant to pragmatic decision-making.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 10:26 AM

Some of those are simple insults; 'ad hominem' does not mean (personal) insult.

Argumentum ad hominem means "argument toward the person". That is when one makes the person vice the topic the issue: "I don't have to listen to you because _____".

The blank can be filled in with something neutral as in "This is a astrophysics problem and you are an archeologist" or it can be a personal insult such as "You are an unattractive female dog".

That the second is off-topic and irrelevent does not remove it from being argumentum ad hominem. You are still making the argument that the speakers comments are unworthy *not* because the comments are unworthy *on their own merits* but because of *who* the speaker *is*.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2010 10:27 AM

Why is it so many people would rather get into pointless tit for tat arguments rather than discuss the topic at hand?

Because you don't score clever snark points for that? And conveniently don't have to argue your points.

Right out of the Alinsky playbook.

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at January 11, 2010 10:28 AM

I should add, the Goebbels playbook, too. The Left doesn't have a lock on it, they're just the only ones to have published it.

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at January 11, 2010 10:29 AM

Beth: "Interesting that Ilion automatically assumes that Grim is a woman."

Actually, Ilíon did nothing of the sort. At first (before posting), he had written “his or her post.” Then, he recalled that Cassandra’s post had started out mentioning someone’s sex in conjunction with the name ‘Grim.’ However, Ilíon didn’t reread the whole sentence, but only through the parenthetic, thus: " In a post I've been meaning to address, Grim (while expressing great admiration and respect for her) ..."

Interesting that Beth is still playing passive-aggressive games.

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 10:31 AM

Hm. 'American women'. I am an American woman and I have been married to the same man now for over 20 years. If at any time, he thought or felt that I had been unworthy of his trust, he would have left.

By the same token, had he treated me in the caddish manner of your Roissy 'competitor's vaj juice' he would be out the door on his ear.

What contempt for vows or promises. You wonder why society is going to hell in a handbasket and point the finger at women, but don't look at your own behavior as being part of the problem?

Posted by: Cricket at January 11, 2010 10:31 AM

And Ilion, as I've pointed out, you are willfully ignoring part (and indeed, the MAIN part) of my argument (and Beth's) because you don't want to talk about it.

But you don't get to claim that "a part" equals "the whole" no matter how badly you wish to reframe the question at hand ;p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 10:31 AM

"American women are very bad about treating American men as ciphers, in every sphere of life, but especially in “significant other” relationships."

Evidence?

Is this why the audience for self help books on marriage and relationships is overwhelmingly dominated by women?

You might want to read this:

http://working-on.me/self-help/self-help-books-why-women-cant-stop-reading-them

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 10:37 AM

By the same token, had he treated me in the caddish manner of your Roissy 'competitor's vaj juice' he would be out the door on his ear.

Bingo. Yu-Ain addressed this in a prior post with his comment that such tactics only work on women not worth having (IOW, women who conform to very stereotypes these men are railing against).

Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy :p None of these guys want to think about the possibility that they are selecting on the very qualities they claim to despise. But it's never their fault and they have no control :p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 10:40 AM

Cassandra: "Actually the word "irrelevant" appeared in the majority of definitions I checked before responding to your comment:"

I don't dispute that; I said I'm not convinced that the word is really relevant to what an ad hominem argument really is.


Yu-Ain Gonnano: “Argumentum ad hominem means "argument toward the person". That is when one makes the person vice the topic the issue: "I don't have to listen to you because _____".”

You should believe So-and-So’s [or my] claims/arguments because he’s [or, I am] an expert” is *also* an ad hominem argument.

Now, that So-and-So is [or that I am] (allegedly) an expert in the matter is surely relevant, in some way or other. However, to argue/assert that the truth of the claims or arguments is established by that (alleged) expertise is exactly to make a logically invalid ad hominem argument. This is why I said I don’t believe that word “irrelevant” properly belongs in the definition.

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 10:41 AM

I understand you don't agree that "irrelevant" *ought* to be included in the definition but the fact is that it seems to be included in the majority of definitions out there.

Ilion, it's hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone who demands you substitute their own definitions for commonly used terms. At some point we need to have a commonly accepted definition, if only for the purposes of discussion.

I understand that you reserve the right to redefine "ad hominem". And you can do so. But I don't have to accept your alternate definition.

I think we should agree to differ on this point and leave it at that.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 10:46 AM

Ilíon, making a valid generalization:... and American women are very bad about treating American men as ciphers, in every sphere of life, but especially in “significant other” relationships.
.
Cricket, taking it personally and declining to understand:Hm. 'American women'. I am an American woman and I have been married to the same man now for over 20 years. If at any time, he thought or felt that I had been unworthy of his trust, he would have left.
.
By the same token, had he treated me in the caddish manner of your Roissy 'competitor's vaj juice'

.
QED

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 10:47 AM

Cassandra: "Ilion, it's hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone who demands you substitute their own definitions for commonly used terms."

Indeed it is. So why don't you stop doing it?

That "everyone" misuses the term doesn't make "everyone's" usage correct.

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 10:49 AM

that So-and-So is [or that I am] (allegedly) an expert in the matter is surely relevant, in some way or other. However, to argue/assert that the truth of the claims or arguments is established by that (alleged) expertise is exactly to make a logically invalid ad hominem argument.

Except that Beth didn't claim that the Futurist's attitude towards women established the untruth of his arguments or the accuracy of his facts. So it's not really an invalid ad hominem, is it? Even by your definition.

On the other hand, the commenters responding to her essentially said, "You're wrong b/c you're a fat cow, or because your moniker is SWWBO (which clearly makes you a man hater)", or some such nonsense. They didn't advance any OTHER argument.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 10:50 AM

I don't know if you intended for this connection, but I'm thinking back to the post of Grim's you quoted last week.

That of the question of how to move young males from the violent and predatory to the violent and protective.

The PUA sites (and to a much lesser extent, The Futurist) have identified a problem (leave aside whether or not it *is* a problem, what's important is that they believe it to be so) have developed a plan and put it into practice (this is why I said The Futurist to a much lesser degree).

This is not, in and of itself, unmanly: It *is* alpha behavior.

The problem is that those behaviors are being put to use fulfilling selfish instant gratification. They're predators. In the world of Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves they are the wolves.

We shouldn't be surpised then that to the wolf that you are either a wolf... or you are prey.

It is beyond their understanding that the Real Men™ are the Sheepdogs. That they possess all the same attributes and capabilities, but choose to put them to use selflessly because they genuinly love and care for others around them.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2010 10:51 AM

I haven't demanded you accept any alternate definition. In fact, I specifically said you don't have to accept it, even if it's the commonly accepted definition.

I have cited quite a few accepted definitions as evidence of what the commonly accepted definition is. Big difference and the last time I'm going to address this circular argument.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 10:52 AM

Well said, Yu-Ain. I did intend the connection.

That is, in a nutshell, why I thought this was important to write about. If men descend to the lowest common denominator, they are contributing to the decline rather than fixing it.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 10:55 AM

Cassandra:Except that Beth didn't claim that the Futurist's attitude towards women established the untruth of his arguments or the accuracy of his facts. ..

I could *swear* that I explicitly said:

Beth's comment (the first sentence of her piece, which I quoted) is both a pointless insult and [a] borderline 'ad hominem' argument -- it depends on whether she meant to imply: "Obviously, the guy who writes this crap has had a difficult time with women[, therefore, they don't know what they're talking about, or therefore their claim/argument is seen to be false]."

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 10:56 AM

“You should believe So-and-So’s [or my] claims/arguments because he’s [or, I am] an expert” is *also* an ad hominem argument.

That's not "ad hominem", it's "appeal to authority"


That "everyone" misuses the term doesn't make "everyone's" usage correct.

"Everyone" is pretty much the definition of "common". You can't say that you want to use the "common" defintion at the same time saying that "everyone" is wrong. You are, by definition, insisting on the "uncommon but correct" definition.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2010 10:56 AM

Tangent Alert!

I never would have guessed I'd be reading "vaj juice" at Villainous Company, even though it hath been the spoil of me.

Much less over and over again.

Heh.

/Tangent alert

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at January 11, 2010 10:58 AM

Beth's comment (the first sentence of her piece, which I quoted) is both a pointless insult and [a] borderline 'ad hominem' argument -- it depends on whether she meant to imply: "Obviously, the guy who writes this crap has had a difficult time with women[, therefore, they don't know what they're talking about, or therefore their claim/argument is seen to be false]."

Ilion:

Acknowledged. I REALLY do not want to discuss this any more but wanted to acknowledge your qualification. Again, I think we're back to "pointless" and our disagreement about relevancy. Let us, therefore, agree to disagree about whether Beth's characterization was "pointless". To you it was.

To me, it was not (at least on its face). Fair enough?

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 11:01 AM

Yeah well that alone speaks volumes about the quality of the sources this guy considers persuasive, doesn't it?

*sigh*

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 11:02 AM

John:

I thought the "16 Commandments of Poon" particularly amusing as well.

*rolling eyes*

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 11:03 AM

Beth here. I wrote the first sentence of my blog post after reading the Futurist's post because it was obvious that he had a deep and abiding dislike of Western Women. Heck, he advises men not to marry, and if they do marry, to go to a third world country. People who have not had difficulties with women don't write crap like that. (And it is crap) Therefore, I am pretty damn sure, The Futurist, and his minions, have had difficult times with women.

I don't care what you and like-minded people want to call me. I'll stipulate to being a bovine, a fat cow, etc., etc., etc. There, that is off the table - Beth sucks. Does that make you happy?

Good.

Now, if you want to discuss the merits of "The Futurist's" Misandry Bubble Post - go for it.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 11, 2010 11:04 AM

"Let us, therefore, agree to disagree about whether Beth's characterization was "pointless"."

Cassandra,
What I am concerned with is the incorrect use of an important term of logic: sloppy language either reflects or leads to sloppy reasoning.

Ultimately, I am concerned with fuzzy reasoning; that is, with getting rid of it to the extent tha we can.

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 11:07 AM

Yu-Ain Gonnano: That's not "ad hominem", it's "appeal to authority"

It's both, of course. It's the positive mirror to the negative example you gave.

What? Do you think there is no overlap in the categories?

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 11:11 AM

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I've always read that divorce rates in the USA were like damn near 50%; is that pure garbage then? Or did some other number stick in my head? To be sure, I cannot recall where I read that, regretfully, so maybe I did get it all messed up.

I think this is a mismatch of metrics. There is a difference between "50% of all marriages - no matter when they occurred - end in divorce" and saying, "At this point in time, the rate of new divorces per thousand married couples is 24%". The first is a cumulative statistic that takes into account not just the current measurement period but all prior ones.

The second a rate metric that only measures what happened during the current time period.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 11:12 AM

Ilion, I think as long as we both understand what we're saying when we say "irrelevent" or "ad hominem", there is no fuzziness.

That's why we have common definitions - so we can agree upon the meaning of a term before discussing whether a specific incident is accurately described by it. If we disagree on the meaning of the term, we're unlikely to agree on whether the term was correctly applied to the same incident.

Again, enough of this. Interesting. But not what I wish to discuss - I've said what I need to say.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 11:15 AM

Beth:Heck, he advises men not to marry, and if they do marry, to go to a third world country. People who have not had difficulties with women don't write crap like that. (And it is crap) Therefore, I am pretty damn sure, The Futurist, and his minions, have had difficult times with women.

And, even were you inferences correct, this is relevant to his claims/argument, how? This is relevant to your argument against his claims/argument, how?

Does you argument amount to: “Boo-hoo! That mean ol’ boy (who has cooties!) said that girls have cooties!

Beth:I don't care what you and like-minded people want to call me.

Interesting that Beth is *still* playing that passive-aggressive game.

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 11:16 AM

OK, polite and repeated hints are not working here so I'm putting my foot down.

I am not interested in turning the comments section of this post into a he-said/she-said argument.

Any further comments on this topic will be deleted as off topic and irrelevant. This is the only warning you will receive.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 11:26 AM

Ilion,

fine. I'll stipulate to being passive aggressive or whatever you want to think of me.

Now, can we discuss the subject at hand?

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 11, 2010 11:30 AM

Not to worry ... I've lost interest in your blog. I consider it a waste of my time (and I have much better ways to waste my time) to try to discuss anything with persons who behave as y'uns have done.

Posted by: Ilíon at January 11, 2010 11:30 AM

We're hurt. /sarc

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2010 11:33 AM

If I make an off-topic remark, will it be

*whap*

Yes, ma'am...

Posted by: BillT at January 11, 2010 11:35 AM

Ilion:

If your "interest" in this blog depends upon my willingness to allow you to single handedly hijack a discussion, I think you have made the right decision.

This site is not all about you and your feelings. You have every right to decide what your priorities are, but no right to demand that others share them.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 11:40 AM

Gregory, it could also be the difference between all marriages and first marriages. I haven't looked up the backing criteria for the 23% number so I could be wrong, but if that's the case a person married and divorced 3 times would count as 3 on the former definition and only once on the latter.

Again, if that's the case, the take away is that those that have divorced once are far more likely to get divorced a second, third, or even more times.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2010 11:45 AM

Good points.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 11:47 AM

Mind you, I did have some sympathy for the misogynists, because I do disapprove wholeheartedly of no-fault divorce. No reason to use crappy stats, of course.

I, too, don't care for no fault and I've written extensively on the topic. That's what's behind my observation regarding confirmation bias: sometimes, when we actually look at the evidence, it doesn't confirm our pre-existing opinions.

I was frankly surprised that the evidence doesn't show the divorce rate increasing as a result of no fault. That doesn't confirm my pre-existing dislike of no fault and I don't like that.

I'd much rather be "proved right" by the data :)

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 12:01 PM

This may help.

Using the number of divorces per 1,000 married women age 15 and older, rather than the Crude Divorce Rate of divorces per 1,000 population minimizes the problem of compositional changes in the population over time. This is important b/c the divorce rate is different for different age cohorts.

The 40-50% figure refers to the lifetime probability of divorce or separation for an average couple marrying for the first time.

Although a majority of divorced persons eventually remarry, the growth of divorce has led to a steep increase in the percentage of all adults who are currently divorced (Figure 6). This percentage, which was only 1.8 percent for males and 2.6 percent for females in 1960, quadrupled by the year 2000. The percentage of divorced is higher for females than for males primarily because divorced men are more likely to remarry than divorced women. Also, among those who do remarry, men generally do so sooner than women.

source: http://www.stateofourunions.org/2009/Social_Indicators2009_Divorce.pdf

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 12:09 PM

I agree the Futurist article reeks of the "He Man Women Hater's Club". However if you can get though all that the author does make some good points.

Being of the male persuasion for almost 51 years I can attest to the fact that without the demands of a woman, we men would still be living in caves, chasing dinosaurs with clubs.

The unfortunate byproduct of financially successful women who also have the government to provide for their physical safety and a social safety-net is that men aren't needed. Some men will gladly return to their cave (or Mom's basement). These men won't get married, won't work harder than they have to, won't get a high paying job and won't pay a bunch of taxes. Eventually the 'bubble' the Futurist article talks about will burst and we will return to a time when single women will be discriminated against, when an unwed mother will be shunned.

I found several very insightful ideas in the Futurist article. Sadly it is written with such a woman-hating tone, few will take anything good from it.

Posted by: Pearce Wilson at January 11, 2010 12:59 PM

Pearce:

I tend to agree with you. The Futurist did make some good points (though I'm not sure they were anything new or particularly insightful - Dr. Helen makes those points all the time and so have I) regarding the current state of marriage and society's view of men. I especially agree with your statement here:

The unfortunate byproduct of financially successful women who also have the government to provide for their physical safety and a social safety-net is that men aren't needed.

The problem is, "Where do we go from here?"

Do we want to chain women to their Easy Bake ovens once more (i.e, force them to be financially dependent upon men) once again? Should men say, "If I can't make the world work the way I want it to, I'll just take my ball and go home?" Should women say, "Now that I can support myself, who cares what men think/feel?"

I don't think any of those are the right answer.

Do we eliminate the social safety net and let women fend for themselves insofar as their physical safety?

I'm not sure that's quite right either, though I'm more on board with drastically limiting the safety net part :)

I think that when times change, people have to figure out how to change with them. We may not be able to control externalities but we do control our reaction to them.

The essential takeaway from what you describe is that men are having to work harder to "compete" in the mating market now that women are more self-sufficient. Women have to try harder too - they have to try harder to understand men now that their jobs take valuable time/energy away from their marriages and compete with their role as wives, and many women aren't doing this (or aren't doing it well enough).

The single overarching complaint women have in failed marriages is feeling neglected/taken for granted. I think there are many reasons this happens, one of which is that when a woman *does* raise relationship issues, many men dismiss their concerns or shut down/blow them off. The response (if you care) is to try harder/try again, but if the first attempt doesn't work then subsequent attempts are probably doomed to failure too...
unless something changes in the mean time.

It sounds like I'm blaming men here but I'm really not. What I'm saying is that women often go about "fixing" relationship issues in a way that in most cases makes the man do more of what they are complaining about in the first place. That's not entirely their fault, but it's also a moot point because if what you're doing isn't working, it doesn't matter WHY. You need to find a method that produces the results you desire. IOW, due to changes in traditional gender roles and the priorities of both sexes, women need to learn better ways of dealing with relationship issues.

And men also need to learn better ways of responding, because clearly what they're doing isn't working out well for them either. You can sit around complaining that "the old ways" don't work and you're not "wired" to respond differently, or you can decide to deal with the issue at hand. Ignoring problems is a very bad tactic if you value a relationship. Doesn't mean men have to put up with constant complaining, but many guys have found that if they respond in smarter ways, their wives change their behavior too - often in ways that delight and astonish them.

Certainly my husband and I have seen this in our own relationship hundreds of times - one of the other of us does something that's misinterpreted by the other. We stop, ask questions, and adjust based on what we find out. And BOTH of us have to do this or it doesn't work. It's a joint effort, though certainly not a 50/50 effort.

I have always believed that teaching our kids to value, respect, and most importantly try to understand both male and female attributes/roles is the answer. When people have more choices, some are going to make more bad choices. It just stands to reason.

We can either limit freedom or try and teach people to deal with it better. I am for the second option.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 01:25 PM

IOW, what I think I'm arguing for is personal responsibility for both men and women. If we think marriage is a valuable institution, our choices should uphold it and strengthen it rather than undermining it.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 01:29 PM

Pointless Empiric Data Alert

Both my exes remarried before I did.

/Pointless Empiric Data Alert

Posted by: John (Master of Inanity) Donovan at January 11, 2010 01:53 PM

Marriage is a two-way street between equals/peers/partners. It is all right for a man to up and leave a woman or treat her badly because he can?

But do not EVER let the woman he whose trust he abuses file for divorce because she is undermining society in so doing?

Bull.shit.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Ilion.

QED just proves the logic of either partner's actions when being treated badly by the other.
I gave my word before witnesses that I would love my husband and forsake all others, and he gave me his word that he would do the same.

Philosophically, logically and socially, it stands to reason that if marriage is the foundation of the family and society, then BOTH partners work together to keep the vows they make.

Period.

Posted by: Cricket at January 11, 2010 02:00 PM

That may well be, however due to the small sample size I'm not sure what bearing that has on probabilities for the general population ;p

Interestingly, men are more likely to initiate divorce when they already have a new woman lined up.

Women, OTOH, more often than not *don't* have someone waiting in the wings. They leave b/c the relationship is making them miserable. They may be complicit in creating that state of mind, but it's an interesting point that is usually overlooked in discussions of divorce.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 02:01 PM

That also goes for women who abuse their husband's trust.

I make no excuses for them, either.

Posted by: Cricket at January 11, 2010 02:05 PM

"If I can't make the world work the way I want it to, I'll just take my ball and go home."

Not quite but very close.

Allow a lurker (another one of those weird internet terms) to share an anecdote and ask a question.

I am the oldest of three sons from a happy, healthy traditional home. Both of my brothers are single – and militantly so – much to the chagrin of our Roman Catholic parents. My brothers are good, hard working, decent men who (to my knowledge anyway) have not wanted for female companionship. Both my wife and mother are puzzled over their refusal to entertain the thought of marriage and I am often asked to provide some insight. I have asked them both about this attitude and their answers have been revealing. My baby brother simply observed that all his married friends eventually got divorced (and were badly scarred as a result) and he has no interest in repeating their mistake. He also sees the entire institution as a raw deal for a guy, claiming the risks are very real while the benefits are either ephemeral or illusory. My middle brother was more concise – even laconic – “I don’t want to be vested”. I am not convinced that this is the result of cultural misandry, or Hymowitz’ “Child Man” model. Whatever the cause these views are firmly held and seem to be increasingly common among our young men. The more bitter and immature among them certainly carry this idea to the extremes of misogyny.

Can a case for the institution of marriage be made to young men? What is it?

Posted by: MObl at January 11, 2010 02:18 PM

I brought up what I brought up because a lot of members of the He-Man Women Hater commentariat seemed to see their own personal situations as broadly generalizable to the population at large...

Posted by: John (Master of Inanity) Donovan at January 11, 2010 02:18 PM

Interestingly, men are more likely to initiate divorce when they already have a new woman lined up.

Like earlier the cause of initiation and cause of the divorce are not necessarily the same thing.

That the wife retains custody is true from the very time of conception and so it can not be the proximate cause of the divorce. It's just something that makes it "easier" if one was planning on doing it anyway (divorce is never easy).

Such is probably the case with the "other woman". The probable loss of his children is likely to keep a husband from filing for divorce. And if one were planning on getting a divorce already the prospect of having some companionship after the loss of his children's companionship may make things "easier" to act on.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2010 02:27 PM

My baby brother simply observed that all his married friends eventually got divorced (and were badly scarred as a result) and he has no interest in repeating their mistake.

This is like trying to prevent being poisoned by never eating, drinking, or breathing anything.

Sure, it works, but if you were to do so life would be rather short and unpleasant. :-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2010 02:34 PM

"This is like trying to prevent being poisoned by never eating, drinking, or breathing anything."

Well, no.

One must eat and breathe to survive. Assume the risks of a lifelong commitment....not so much.

Posted by: MObl at January 11, 2010 02:37 PM

Laura Shapiro: "Her new career crashed like a meteor into the center of their marriage. New roles sprang up and grabbed them -- she the star and he the support staff -- but they were determined to maintain what Julia called “that lovely intertwining of life, mind, and soul that a good marriage is.”

She was speaking of the late, much loved and very lamented Julia Child.

Posted by: Cricket at January 11, 2010 02:39 PM

THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS!!!

Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog Common Cents? Check us out here....

http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

Posted by: Steve at January 11, 2010 02:50 PM

I didn't get much past the first link in the Futurist's post. I accepted as true that 80% of women reproduce while only 40% of men do. I found his "obvious conclusion" banal and poorly thought out. The idea that human evolution, and a reproductive strategy in a species, could be reduced to women choosing only the alpha males laughably trite.

As I skimmed after that, more of his conclusions were just as poorly arrived at. Even if his statistics were correct they do not neccessarily lead to conclusions about human behavior. So, the whole thing was a waste of time for me.

Posted by: Allen at January 11, 2010 02:53 PM

MOBl, I think you're being overly literal.

That said, a life without lifelong commitments does tend to be shorter and much less pleasant as single men (possibly women too, haven't looked) do die sooner and live less happy lives than their married counterparts.

However, like poison, choosing the wrong one can hurt mightily if not ultimately kill you.

And thus the solution is not to go completely without, but to choose wisely.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2010 02:58 PM

@ Yu-Ain Gonnano

I regret it.

It must by the ORSA pod in me. I don’t like hand waves.

Choose wisely? Sure, that is important but you have skipped a step. Why choose at all? That is the question.

“A life without lifelong commitments does tend to be shorter and much less pleasant as single men (possibly women too, haven't looked) do die sooner and live less happy lives than their married counterparts.”

Perhaps, but I am not sure how you measure “happiness”. Also the assertion that you ‘tend to live longer and may live a more happy life’ is a mighty thin reed to hang this on. Particularly in the face of the very real risks and consequences of divorce (loss of income, property and custody in the case of children etc.) are more tangible and real.

Posted by: MObl at January 11, 2010 03:20 PM

"'... I'll just take my ball and go home?'"

You forgot the *s*.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 11, 2010 03:25 PM

Rather than poison, it might be a better analogy to compare male - female relationships to a minefield. The difference is that if you walk across a minefield, you are more likely to make it across unscathed than you are to marry and not get divorced. In spite of the statistical probabilities involved in the two actions, one is perceived as crazy risky and the other has traditionally been encouraged as the normal thing to do.

I suspect that the fall off in divorces in recent years might be related to the drop off in marriage. If too many young men are seeing marriage as having too high a risk and insufficient rewards, it would seem that our society might want to modify the risk/reward equation. Since very strong, entrenched forces have made the situation the way it is, I am not particularly hopeful that we can do much about it.

However on the off chance that it matters, here are my suggestions: End no fault divorce as a failed "noble experiment" like Prohibition. Allow simple divorces in cases of mutual agreement or even allow unilateral divorce when there are no children. Require mandatory DNA paternity testing and notification of both parents for all births. If a man wishes to take on the responsibility for a child that he did not conceive, that should be his choice. If he wishes, instead, to institute divorce, this is one of those things where "fault" comes into play and a woman should come out of that divorce with very little except custody of her illegitimate child and a DNA record she can use to go after the biological father.

None of these suggestions should be particularly onerous for a woman who is serious about living up to her marriage vows.

Posted by: Mark at January 11, 2010 03:36 PM

I suspect that the fall off in divorces in recent years might be related to the drop off in marriage.

Well, I might buy off on that if the charts I used didn't display normalized numbers (i.e., we're not looking at the raw number of divorces, but the number of divorces per married couples - we're taking the number of married couples into account).

As to your suggestions:

1.End no fault divorce as a failed "noble experiment" like Prohibition.

I don't like no fault at all. However, I think it's interesting that there appears to be no relationship between no fault and the normalized divorce rate. So I'm not sure (and here I genuinely mean "I'm not sure", not "I disagree with you") that this would fix the problem.

2. Allow simple divorces in cases of mutual agreement or even allow unilateral divorce when there are no children.

I think this is a good idea.

3. Require mandatory DNA paternity testing and notification of both parents for all births.

Heh :) Again, not sure I have a problem with this either. I've often said a man shouldn't have to support a child that's not his. But though I'm inclined to agree, I'd want to think about it a bit more for public policy reasons.

4. If a man wishes to take on the responsibility for a child that he did not conceive, that should be his choice. If he wishes, instead, to institute divorce, this is one of those things where "fault" comes into play and a woman should come out of that divorce with very little except custody of her illegitimate child and a DNA record she can use to go after the biological father.

Again, I think I agree with you here :)

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 03:44 PM

Here's another complicating factor that I think is often wrongly conflated with "alimony": living in a community property state.

Some reform of community property laws would also be needed, I think.

But there's another important factor here: the courts only get involved in the division of property when the parties to a divorce fail to negotiate a solution themselves.

Nothing prevents a divorcing couple from arriving at their own negotiated settlement and indeed many do just this. It's when they refuse to deal with each other and cede control to third parties that the problem arises.

Which may well explain why they're divorcing in the first place - they lack the ability to negotiate and compromise.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 03:47 PM

Personally, I think that attorneys would love, love, love, love to get rid of No-fault divorce. Just think about how many hearings they would be able to charge for, how long they could string it out.

Oh, and Private Investigators! Man, they would love getting rid of it also.

In fact, it should be done immediately as it would open up so many jobs in the Private Investigator field the economy would completely recover.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 11, 2010 03:53 PM

I accepted as true that 80% of women reproduce while only 40% of men do. I found his "obvious conclusion" banal and poorly thought out.

I think the Futurist's "polygamy" explanation was laughable too, but I didn't even want to begin to fisk his logic :p

He overlooks a very obvious alternative: centuries ago, women often died in childbirth and the resulting widowers often married several times, having one or more children by each new wife.

This results in the total gene pool having more women in it than men, and given that monogamy has been the standard practice in Western civilization, is a far more plausible explanation. But it didn't fit the narrative :)

I was especially amused at the "women must not have minded". Women mind a lot of things - greatly. For most of human history though, we've often been viewed as chattel whose desires or even acquiescence were irrelevant. Cultures where polygamy is widely practiced tend to take a chattel view of women: their marriages are arranged for them, they are often married off to older men when they themselves are literally children, and if they dare to resist they can be forced or even killed.

I thought there was a lot of truth to bthun's earlier observation of the similarities between The Futurist's view of women and radical Islam's view of women. In fact, I thought the same thing myself when reading his post but I didn't think it would be particularly helpful to say so :p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 03:59 PM

The history of no fault is interesting.

It was intended to solve very real problems with fault ground divorce, one of them being marital collusion to provide fraudulent fault grounds with the willing acquiescence of the "faulty" party. That's not right, but it's what people did before no fault came about.

The law is an imperfect solution to problems caused by imperfect people who don't always behave rationally. Laws that assume we'll always behave rationally generally don't work too well.

In dealing with affairs of the heart, people are generally even LESS rational than they are at other times.

It's funny. In all the time I dated, my breakups were always amicable. That doesn't mean no one got hurt.

It does mean we stayed friends. It's always easier to blame someone else when things don't go well, but the law never gets a crack at anything involved in the dissolution of a marriage unless and until the parties involved refuse to work things out. And even if the law did get involved, the parties can always override any legal settlement by mutual agreement.

That's a fact that is often overlooked, and it makes selecting a partner and working at getting along with him/her even more important.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 04:06 PM

Mobl,

Why choose at all?

1) Because like all things not choosing is itself a choice?
2) Because you asked the question of how to convince young men to make the choice in the affirmative?
3) Because marriage isn't something you passivly find yourself in with no input on your part?

Shall I go on?

I don’t like hand waves.

That's why they're called analogies and not equivalencies.

Perhaps, but I am not sure how you measure “happiness”.

You don't measure it. Perhaps this is also due to the ORSA pod thing, but relationships are not equations. Emotions and quality of life are not quantifiable metrics that can be inputs to an if-then-else algorythm. There is no equation of P*(Happiness,longevity,security,etc)+(1-P)*(loneliness,loss of property,loss of income,etc) where you choose Marriage if the expected value is > 0 and single otherwise.

Mark's idea for a minefield analogy is close, but not in how he used it as there's no context to what staying on your current side of minefield entails.

One side of the minefield is a marshland that has muddy water and only soybeans to eat. The other looks straight out of the Garden of Eden.

Whether you are willing to take the risk of crossing largely depends on which side you think you are on.

Me? I've been single... and I hate soybeans.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2010 04:30 PM

"In fact, it should be done immediately as it would open up so many jobs in the Private Investigator field the economy would completely recover.

In Washington, DC and Wasilla, Alaska at the very least.

0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 11, 2010 04:43 PM

Well, I might buy off on that if the charts I used didn't display normalized numbers (i.e., we're not looking at the raw number of divorces, but the number of divorces per married couples - we're taking the number of married couples into account).

Yes, but if there are fewer marriages occurring, you would expect that the people who did marry were more committed to the institution and so less likely to divorce. The graph (which unfortunately only goes to the end of the 20th century) shows divorces relative to the general population relatively stable at ~5 per 1000 while the divorces relative to married women dropping from a peak of ~23 per thousand as no fault divorce was introduced to a relatively stable ~20 per thousand. The only people who get divorced are those who are married. If fewer people marry, the rate of divorced people to married people might stay the same but the rate WRT the general population would fall.

IIRC the noticable drop off in marriage has been since the year 2000. This would tend to be the young men who watched their fathers get screwed over by their mothers in no fault divorces after the laws changed in the 1970s and 1980s reaching marriage age and deciding against it.

Posted by: Mark at January 11, 2010 04:43 PM

“1) Because like all things not choosing is itself a choice?
2) Because you asked the question of how to convince young men to make the choice in the affirmative?
3) Because marriage isn't something you passivly find yourself in with no input on your part?”

You are reinforcing my point. This is a choice that must be arrived it by a rational process. If you cannot clearly articulate the benefits that will be realized as a result of this commitment then why take the risk?

“That's why they're called analogies and not equivalencies.”

Thank you, I appreciate the distinction. Nevertheless, your analogy was flawed for the reason I stated.

“You don't measure it. Perhaps this is also due to the ORSA pod thing, but relationships are not equations.”

Quite true and I did not state that they were. The quality of happiness is subjective and therefore impossible to quantify. Therefore. telling a guy he should seek to enter into matrimony because it make might make him happier is a silly.

Re: Eden v. Soybeans, not sure what to say (I don’t want to seem overly literal).

I don’t seem to be making my point very well.

When my father was a young man it was expected that he would marry and start a family. For his generation, in many ways, the strength of his family and the ability to provide was the very measure of a man. No such ethos exists today. It seems to me that we must find some way to replace it.

Posted by: MObl at January 11, 2010 04:59 PM

While I generally agree with your post, I believe you are incorrect as to historic common ages of marriage. I can recall reading a text written in the late 50's that the most common age of marriage for American women was 18, the second most common was 17 and the third nineteen (all clearly tying to high school graduation). Imagine a population with three brides at each of those ages and one of 88 (about the age of my stepmother when she married my father). The average age of marriage for the ten women will be 25. The problem is using mean when there will be few brides far below the median and a fair number far above it.

FWIW, one of the difficulties of America and other places is that there is no longer a clear view on when to have sex. When a girl hit puberty at16 and would be married within a couple of years, virginity until marriage (or at least betrothal) was clear and workable. Nothing of remotely comparable clarity has replaced it.

Posted by: levi from queens at January 11, 2010 05:10 PM

I believe you are incorrect as to historic common ages of marriage. I can recall reading a text written in the late 50's that the most common age of marriage for American women was 18, the second most common was 17 and the third nineteen (all clearly tying to high school graduation).

Good point, Levi, but the term "average" can refer to the mean (possibly skewed) average or the median (measure of central tendency that ignores extreme values/skewed data).

The "average" in the chart I displayed is http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html">actually the median, so it accounts for a larger number of older first brides.

The data is from the census bureau.

When my father was a young man it was expected that he would marry and start a family. For his generation, in many ways, the strength of his family and the ability to provide was the very measure of a man. No such ethos exists today. It seems to me that we must find some way to replace it.

I agree. The problem here is that we can no sooner force society to value something than we can force individual young men to want to marry.

Grim has often observed the influence of "art" on societal norms. Hollywood and many modern authors denigrate marriage and actively promote/hype so-called "alternate" lifestyles. The problem is that we don't allow any real limits on free expression these days. The restrictions we grew up with eroded at an exponential pace, mostly in the last 30-40 years.

Over the weekend I bought a set of movies that is "pre-censors". It's interesting to me that the movie industry began (as most things do) unfettered by a lot of rules. In response to the decisions people made and the perceived harm that resulted, we ended up with a situation where you couldn't even see married couples sharing the same bed on TV. I think existential threats to our way of life (the Depression, world wars) increase our sensitivity to perceived harms and predispose us to accept more limits on our freedoms.

And when we get complacent, the opposite occurs: we are numbed to threats to our way of life and won't accept any limits on our freedoms. I happen to agree with Beth - it's not so much feminism that has caused a lot of these problems but a creeping disrespect for "traditional values". You can see that trend in the charts I showed above - the changes were happening long before feminism or no fault gained widespread traction.

Or, as Elise said, unless individuals are virtuous, no system of government works very well. We must learn to govern ourselves (and sadly that involves accepting limits, however imposed) before we can govern an entire nation.

The 64000 question is: where do we go from that realization?

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 05:30 PM

The quality of happiness is subjective and therefore impossible to quantify. Therefore. telling a guy he should seek to enter into matrimony because it make might make him happier is a silly.

The problem is thinking that it has to be quantifiable to start with in order for it not to be silly.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2010 05:33 PM

I read the polygamy stat.

*snort*
*snorted*
*snorting*

Continual source of amusement.

Bwahahahahahahahaha....

Posted by: Cricket at January 11, 2010 05:36 PM

Levi from queens - girls these days hit puberty at 11, 12 and 13 years of age, not 16. I'm really thinking that they should not be thinking of having sex until they are quite a bit older than that.

Also, would you consider the Median Age of Marriage to be more acceptable than average? If so - here is a link for you.http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 11, 2010 05:37 PM

We must learn to govern ourselves (and sadly that involves accepting limits, however imposed) before we can govern an entire nation.

"I've warned you about that tone, Sheena. Do you wish to learn immediately what a Reverend Mother can do to punish you?"

[snip]

How bright eyed Sheena had been in that room about the Great Square, her mind so full of questions. "Why do you always talk of hurting and punishment?"

"You must learn discipline. How can you control others when you cannot control yourself?"

"I don't like that lesson."

"None of us does very much... until later when we've learned the value of it by experience."


-Heretics of Dune

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2010 05:43 PM

That, is spoken as one who knows how polygamy was practiced in this country, and don't none of y'all get self-righteous on me here as I have some historic perspective and first-hand accounts of it, okay?

1) Only 3% of the men who were in Utah at that time practiced it.
2) The man had to be able to support another family.
3) The first wife had to give her consent.
4) A separate house was built for the second wife.
5) Often, families worked together in an enterprise.
6) When the Edmunds-Tucker Act abolished polygamy in the state of Utah, no more polygamous marriages were entered into.
7) The children of such marriages were cared for, and educated.

Posted by: Cricket at January 11, 2010 05:46 PM

Yes, but if there are fewer marriages occurring, you would expect that the people who did marry were more committed to the institution and so less likely to divorce.

I'm not sure that follows logically because I'm not sure marriage is entirely a rational decision.

The graph (which unfortunately only goes to the end of the 20th century) shows divorces relative to the general population relatively stable at ~5 per 1000

But this ignores the changing proportion of married/single people in the general population.

... while the divorces relative to married women dropping from a peak of ~23 per thousand as no fault divorce was introduced to a relatively stable ~20 per thousand.

This stat is also vulnerable to changes in composition (i.e. the ages of married people in the sample, or the racial demographics - risk factors for divorce vary greatly for different races). This is important b/c the "high risk" cohort for divorce is young people who marry for the first time before the age of 25, who aren't highly educated, and who don't have high income. Another major risk factor is having a baby first.

Ironically my own 30+ year marriage hits almost all the risk factors. But the salient point is that the risk of divorcing isn't the same across different demographics. It's actually pretty low for folks who delay marriage until they're ready emotionally and financially.

The only people who get divorced are those who are married.

Hard to argue, there :)

If fewer people marry, the rate of divorced people to married people might stay the same

Actually, the proportion would only stay the same if the number who divorce ALSO falls.

...but the rate WRT the general population would fall.

Perhaps, perhaps not for the reasons stated earlier.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 05:46 PM

Not only that, the ladies had the right to vote.
One of the mandates for Utah receiving statehood besides giving up their odd marriage habit was to take the vote away from the women.

Posted by: Cricket at January 11, 2010 05:48 PM

girls these days hit puberty at 11, 12 and 13 years of age, not 16.

Bingo. As I recall I was in 5th grade. The beginning of 5th grade. Which made me a bit over 10 years old. There weren't many girls in my grade who wore a bra to school but I was nowhere near being ready for sex at that age (not that Levi said I was, mind you!)

It's a real problem, and when you add college and grad school into the mix... aye, chihuahua!

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 05:49 PM

Oh, Cassandra, sorry - I used the same link you did, not realizing you were writing a reply in regards to the same subject.

Feel free to delete that comment.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 11, 2010 05:50 PM

I went to the movies the other night with mrs rdr. It was nice just to sit quetly in the dark next to a beautiful woman with a purse full of chocolates and rice krispie treats. I should expect less more often.

Posted by: spd rdr at January 11, 2010 05:50 PM

I should expect less more often.

I'd shout "BETA MALE!!!" here, but I expect you'd punch me in the nose :p

Seriously you are blessed, mr rdr. I expect that the lovely and talented mrs rdr feels similarly blessed, and rightly so.

*cheers* :)

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 05:54 PM

Levi:

Another thought. Your "most common age" may also be correct. It just measures a different thing. The mode is the most commonly observed value in a data set. That can be significant (as when instances of the modal value are far more frequent than other values) or not so significant (as when the modal value occurs more often, but not a lot more often than many other values in the sample).

That said, if the median 22, then 1/2 of the observed data values were

Anyway, interesting stuff.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 06:01 PM

Not only can average be the mean or the median, it can also be the mode. This can also be a rather attractive choice since it is, by definition, where the "hump" in the data is (Heh, he said "hump"!)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2010 06:04 PM

Oops. Multitasking again!

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 06:07 PM

MOBl,

The point that I'm trying to make is that one side of the marriage question is better than the other.

There are 2 issues.

1) Am I already on the better side?
2) If not, is the other side "worth it"?

There is no quantifiable metric for determining either question.

Given the vast majority of people that try, even if they had already hit a mine in the past, I have formed the subjective opinion that being single is not the better side and that the rewards do far exceed the risk. My personal experience has so far confirmed this to be the case: marriage is better.

Your brothers have come to the opposite subjective conclusion.

There is no more an objective quantifiable metric (how exactly did you plan to quantify "strength of family"?) to convince them otherwise than there is an objective quantifiable metric to convince a Yankee that the proper was to serve Tea is sickeningly sweet and on ice*.


*Though all men of good character agree that chili has no beans. If you want chili with beans, it's just that: Chili with beans :-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 11, 2010 06:39 PM

said that after being beat upon by the jerks who were commenting on that page

I understand that. You don't want to give them any pretexts, however, by making their job easier.

Just get Bill, John, and Grim to confront them in your stead.

It is very hard to make an alpha male emotionally hurt by words from strangers or peacocks. Almost impossible if they feel contempt for the opponent.

That doesn't apply to everyone.

To speak the truth, when you came on the scene with SWWBO and somebody 'researched it', they got so scared they had to attack you unfairly. This doesn't make it better, but tactically speaking, it makes it easier to counter if you know about it.


Interesting that Ilion automatically assumes that Grim is a woman

That's too funny. Wouldn't you say, Lady Grim>

It's still funny regardless of the author's original intentions.

I secretly envy this Illion character. Although that's not Illion's fault.

The SWWBO is too mighty a weapon to carry in strange lands. What's harmless fun to some may be deadly poison to others!

Does that make you happy?

Naw, I think they need some professional BDSM help for that.

Now, if you want to discuss the merits of "The Futurist's" Misandry Bubble Post - go for it.

I suggest if you want a real discussion, you find somebody that is capable of such. Only way, is my thinking.

If you are interested, I said my piece in a comment at Grim's.

Link

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 11, 2010 07:47 PM

Lady Grim, as I've often warned you, is even more dangerous than me. It'd be wise not to pick a fight with her. :)

Posted by: Grim at January 11, 2010 08:12 PM

Lady Grim, as I've often warned you, is even more dangerous than me. It'd be wise not to pick a fight with her. :)

Posted by Grim at January 11, 2010 08:12 PM


Heh... Sounds alot like Walkin' Boss.

"And though she be but little, she is fierce."

Bill somebody or t'other

Posted by: bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun at January 11, 2010 08:42 PM

Lemme tell ya, blowing that damn "plowing through the snow drifts bubble..."

You know, John, you don't really have any reason to care what I think about this; you're too good a man to need my approval.

Just for the record, though, I thought that was a fine thing to do.

Posted by: Grim at January 11, 2010 09:39 PM

I did, too.

Knowing someone loves you that much must be the most wonderful feeling in the world.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 11, 2010 09:48 PM

Hoo, talk about a lot of posts to digest at work, not to mention why I hate stats. You can make them say anything you want.

1. Composition of USA change from almost completely WASP to include Mexican illegals (does that impact the marriage/divorce stats as they import 'conservative' RC views? Damifino.)

2. Addition of civil unions and de facto relationships (do these breakups factor into the 'official divorce rate'? Damifino.)

3. As mentioned, the marriage rate; has it dropped? Damifino.

4. How is it possible that previously, the rate was lower than 50%, now it's lower than 50%, at no time period between 'before' and 'now' was it way above 50%, and yet somehow the general rate is 40%-50%? Damifino.

So I have come to the conclusions that

1. Everybody is using New Funky Maths to confuse me (not to mention the issue) and
2. I am simply too lazy to do the in-depth research required to get to the bottom of it. Especially at work.

Posted by: Gregory at January 11, 2010 10:18 PM

We also have bthun quoting Shakespeare.

*thud*

Posted by: Cricket at January 12, 2010 12:13 AM

Interesting that Ilion automatically assumes that Grim is a woman

I'd say something, but he'd disparage me.

Posted by: BillT at January 12, 2010 01:02 AM

It slipped Miss Cricket. I'll try to avoid it in the future.

Posted by: bthun at January 12, 2010 01:10 AM

No...we need the Bard.

I have the original 1935 version of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' with Mickey Rooney as Puck, Jimmy Cagney as Bottom and Olivia de Havilland as Hermia..If you haven't seen this version, do so. It is a treat. I have it on video, but now it is on DVD, I will have to upgrade.

Posted by: Cricket at January 12, 2010 07:44 AM

We studied that film in high school, Miss Cricket! Along with others such as "The Thirty-Nine Steps", "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner", "Bad Day at Black Rock", "Bonnie and Clyde" and, of course, "Cool Hand Luke". One of the best classes I took that year.

0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 12, 2010 12:29 PM

Cassandra: The problem is that we don't allow any real limits on free expression these days.

I think the real problem is that those who thought otherwise ceded the field of free expression, and if we want to change things, we need to take it back by free expression.

One reason I love your blog is that I think it is part of doing that very thing. In the war of ideas, VC is a bastion of insurgency, one I'm thankful I can visit every day for purposes of training and fraternization, not to mention the morale boost.

Posted by: tom at January 12, 2010 01:22 PM

I appreciate the kind words. I am not advocating a return to the days when you couldn't see a married couple reading books in bed.

But neither am I sold on completely unfettered speech. I suppose I see it as a question of competing interests.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 12, 2010 01:36 PM

Heh. My mom got us hooked on that years ago when it was shown as the Sunday Afternoon Movie or some such thing in LA. When I finally snagged a copy about 15 years ago, it quickly became a favorite and has been watched to rags.

"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is a favorite. Sydney Poitier is terrific. We have 'To Sir, With Love.'

Posted by: Cricket at January 12, 2010 03:57 PM

Egggggcellent movies ladies. They don't make em like that anymore... Or words to that effect.

Alright, an exception to that rule might be a fellow named Kenneth Branagh. He manages to execute right good interpretations of Bill somebody or t'others work. At least IMHO. And Branagh has quite a list of accomplishments, including, but not limited to Bill's stuff.

I like his examples of Henry V, Much Ado, Othello, Hamlet, etc... And I thought Conspiracy was an excellent piece of work.

Posted by: bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun at January 12, 2010 04:35 PM

Hello everyone.
I've been following this debate for a long time, and I just thought I'd add my $.02, particularly with regards to game and its function in society.

Cassandra, I read Roissy frequently, and I also read upon many sites within that general region of the blogosphere(hence how i became familiar with the spearhead and the futurist). You're right to say that, in some ways, Roissy lacks credibility. He seems to speak in an inflammatory manner on purpose at times, even when responding to comments-its just who he is. Given that, he probably shouldn't be used as a source, you're correct.

I have read enough of Roissy, however, to know that he isn't entirely without a point. In fact some of his posts seem surprisingly dead-on with regards to some things, many of which I found myself noticing in real life. The same can be said of many companion blogs(some less inflammatory) like alpha-status and Roosh.

I should probably contextualize this a bit...I'm 18 years old. I'm a freshman in college. I've struggled heavily with women(literally zero success), as have a number of my peers. My profile is not typical of those who frequent these types of websites. I'm a 220 lb black kid playing runningback at a division one Ivy League school. Guys who look like me are usually stereotyped as the "alpha male" jocks or players, even though that isn't always the case. Regardless of this, I find myself identifying personally with many of their concerns. Despite our differences, we still have the same issues.

I say all of this to note that perhaps the tone on blogs similar to Roissy's that you may consider immature or unmanly may simply be a matter of generational misunderstanding.

I'd argue that quite a large number of the people that Roissy and his peers speak to are young males(usually not far past their mid 20's, often younger), not yet completely mature themselves. These same young males are usually only targeting young, usually very immature women, and these same young men are often unsure of how to approach or talk to girls they like.
Quite a few of them, of course, end up very bitter over this.
All Roissy and other PUA's are doing is giving them a shot.

Casandra, you mentioned personal responsibility earlier, how its ridiculous that so many men can, from what you can see, insist on so many problems existing while also insisting that none of them are of their own doing and that they can take action and create their own lot in life.

Isn't that what Game and its followers are trying to do? They know their lot-they don't get girls, they're unsatisfied with their relationship experiences in life thus far, etc. And so they resolve not to continue on being miserable, but rather to change for the better and MAKE their lives more respectable(and contrary to popular belief, many of these guys learn game with the goal of getting a long term relationship with a girl they like, not only to bed hundreds of women...at least that's why I was there).

Just given the nature of our society today(especially my generation with a rather extreme hookup culture being the norm, especially in college), can you really blame these guys for trying to adapt and better their chances a little bit?
Again, maybe some go about it the wrong way. and yes, a lot of the guys who follow this movement are lacking in sexual success. But at its core, does the premise of what they're trying to do really seem all that bad?

Posted by: JLaw45 at January 12, 2010 07:33 PM

JLaw45~

If you haven't found your way over there, you might also be interested in reading Grim's post on the topic - and the related comments.

All I can say is, the behavior these people - I won't call them "men" - advocate is not behavior that would sway me. I have more respect for myself than that. Just as I have to remind myself that there are good men still out there (I've suffered a drought much longer than anything, at age 18, you have experienced). I just wanted to pick just some random guy to ease my loneliness, I could change my behavior to pick someone up, but that wouldn't be the type of man I would want, and I would also be disappointed in myself for compromising my values for something that wasn't really worth anything, in the end.

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 12, 2010 08:46 PM

I've struggled heavily with women(literally zero success), as have a number of my peers.

Modern society has been disrupted and a lot of the things that alpha leaders, male and female, used to pass to their offspring kind of got cut off by things like the Baby Boomer generation, Vietnam protests, Swing Life, and Liberal/Sexual Revolution. Then again, alpha leaders were required because of physical hardships. No physical hardships and threats... no need for alphas, no need to perpetuate alphas. However, human beings are ruled by emotion and genetics, and logic only comes afterwards. So the instincts are still there. People still prefer alpha leadership, regardless of what the thinking is.

To live is to change. But the change for the last century was rather dramatic. Too dramatic.

I recommend you go and download this book.

The Game by Neil forgot his last name. Strauss


Link

Isn't that what Game and its followers are trying to do?

The history of Mystery and Style, the relationship phases for young/old, are in the book. If you want to know what the Game is about, how people have used it, the end goal, if any, of it, then read the book.

And so they resolve not to continue on being miserable, but rather to change for the better and MAKE their lives more respectable

You can do that. The Game is only one way to accomplish it. One tool in the toolbox.

Social friction is a killer. There are many ways to reduce the friction. But here's the core, the reality behind the illusion.

The Game is based upon manipulation and the utilization of illusion, aka psychological tricks. If you wish to step one foot on this path, you need to understand that you can't just pick it up and drop it. Once you use this, it will change you. And whether it is for the better or the worse will depend on just how aware you were of what it truly is, not just what people in the PUA community, says about it.

I don't make an ethical judgment about manipulation. Just as I don't make an ethical judgment on violence or killing [until it actually happens in front of me]. Once you learn the full extent of where such things go, then you can make the decision for yourself.

But an incomplete knowledge, something told to you by others where you can only passively receive and obey, just means you are out of the power balance. You won't be able to modify yourself according to your own will, but must change based upon the will of others. Now this is fine if you got trust, but if your trust is misplaced... You're life's got a long way to go, so any mistakes made now should be your own rather than somebody making you do em for their own reasons.

But at its core, does the premise of what they're trying to do really seem all that bad?

The Futurist has too much hatred. A man that cannot control his emotions is simply a puppet I make dance around until I get bored.

If you know you have a lack of experience, then it is logical to want to get more experience, to get guidelines and practice using a set routine or piece. But you should also be wary of being manipulated against your own best interests, or mistakenly manipulating others against their own best interests based upon what you were taught. To be able to make this decision on your own, you need experience, but the experience itself is not all good to begin with.


If you want the details of how Mystery almost killed himself a few times over, why Style fixed his balding scared of women personality into a magnet, go read the book. It's two stories: how the Game is learned and played and how this actually affects people.

I read it just because the Futurist raised the issue of PUA. I'm not part of any lairs. Have not used these against sets or groups. But if you want to start the Game up, all the knowledge is there for you in the book. Whether you use it for good or evil is up to you. Nobody can say that you weren't informed or given a fair opportunity.

I hope this helps you out. You have very clear thinking/writing, seem to understand/respect the divide between assertion and aggression, so so long as you want to put effort into it, you shouldn't fail in your self-study.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 12, 2010 09:28 PM

Link

That's too funny. He went through it all, got a family at the end, and somehow ended up a survivalist.

You won't know how funny this is unless you read his book I mentioned.

He finally figured out the alpha status that came with a family.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 12, 2010 09:53 PM

C: But neither am I sold on completely unfettered speech. I suppose I see it as a question of competing interests.

Hm. What do you mean? Let's go back: Hollywood and many modern authors denigrate marriage and actively promote/hype so-called "alternate" lifestyles. The problem is that we don't allow any real limits on free expression these days.

My answer is that, if people think positive images of marriage, and / or negative images of "alternate" lifestyles, are important to have out there, they should write those books and make those movies. What would be your ideal answer?

Posted by: tom at January 12, 2010 10:20 PM

What nonsense from 'Cassandra'.

THe Futurist has solid links in his article. He 90% divorce stat was from an article he linked - you were just too lazy to read down into the source.

Plus, your other analysis is weak and amateurish. You dishonestly lie about The Futurist linking to Roissy's 'How to Nail a Virgin Article', which The Futurist did not link to. In fact, The Futurist clearly states that he does not agree with everything written by bloggers he linked to.

But we musn't let logic get in the way of man-hate, can we, Cassandra?

As stated later, you have no evidence for this statement, but it has great amusement value if your goal is to display your utter ignorance of everything I've written for the past 6 years. Adults can tolerate disagreement without resorting to silly, overblown phrase like "man-hate".

Plus, this blog, written by a woman who is anti-feminist, really explains why Cassandra's little head gets confused so easily :
http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/2008/03/feminine-morality-vs-masculine-morality.html

You can learn a lot about women by reading that blog.

I don't need to read someone else to learn about women. I am one.

But at least you made an effort, unlike [deleted - personal insults and playground name calling violate the rules of this site]

Posted by: Right Wing Woman at January 12, 2010 11:40 PM

Ughoo.

Here it comes.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 12, 2010 11:42 PM

More bunk from Cassandra that actually proves Men's Rights Activists to be correct.

Cassandra wrote :

That's right, it's not the expectation of financial gain - nor the ease of no fault - but custody.

This is EXACTLY how women avoid responsibility for their actions. The woman uses the kids as pawns in which to get a big payment from the husband, which the women does not spend on the children. 'Child support' is just alimony under another name.

Cassandra shouldn't attempt to pull this BS that so easily exposes her immoral nature.

Once again, you confuse your opinion with reality.

Posted by: Right Wing Woman at January 12, 2010 11:43 PM

He went through it all, got a family at the end, and somehow ended up a survivalist.

Sorry, have to correct myself. I got a distorted time sense from the book (thought it was several years ago). Neil's still single last time I checked.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 12, 2010 11:44 PM

JLaw45~

Thank you for your comments. I will say right from the outset that my perspective is very different from yours. But in this case, I think it's different in a good way.

I'm a 50 year old woman, mother of two grown sons who are both happily married. I have been married to the same man for over 30 years.

I agree that much of the anger at these sites is due to misunderstanding. That's a great point, and I did pick up on that.

Let me try to explain why I think the "Game"/PUA philosophy is wrong.

There's a reason the word "seduction" is used in relationships: participation is supposed to be voluntary - i.e., not based on shame, insecurity, fear or bullying. Any couple begins with two very different people - a man, and a woman. They don't have exactly the same needs (though I have argued that in general, they want the same things, though not in the same proportions and not always for the same reasons).

Say you are a young man and haven't been "successful" with women. I think this applies equally to young women seeking men. Your goal is to attract a quality mate with whom you can share life and love.

There are different ways to attract/persuade such a mate. Some are based on honesty and straightforward tactics. And some are based on coercion, deception and manipulative behavior. Some are based on a genuine desire to understand and get to know the opposite sex with the understanding that men and women have different needs and both deserve a relationship where their needs are met. And some view understanding the opposite sex as a tool to control their actions for personal advantage, or just to keep the upper hand. Can you see the difference?

The language at those sites is angry, disdainful, and sneering. I can see where a young man might read such a site hoping to gain perspective on how women think without necessarily intending to use that information in a dishonest, manipulative way. I will concede that may be why you're there.

There are two problems with this, however. The first is that any "understanding" you gain is flawed. It's only part of the truth. I can tell you as a woman who was very "successful" in the dating market before marriage and who has a happy and mutually satisfying relationship with my husband that I would never, ever enter a relationship with a man who acted like these men do. There is nothing new about "Game" - it is a man version of playing hard to get combined with bullying tactics meant to tear down a woman's self esteem and make her feel bad about herself.

Is that any basis for a relationship? Even if it works, it will be a dysfunctional relationship. There are many, many good books out there that help the sexes understand each other from the perspective that a relationship should make you feel better about yourself and your mate, not tear you down. One excellent book (though it's geared more towards people already in a relationship) is "You Still Don't Understand Me" by Dr. Richard Driscoll. It's very worth reading even if you're not in a relationship. I learned things about my husband I hadn't figured out in 30 years of marriage and it has helped me change my behavior so I don't unintentionally hurt/confuse/annoy my husband. It has helped us talk less emotionally about conflict areas and negotiate better compromises (and every couple has conflicts - it's how you deal with them that counts).

As for dating, let me say this. We are governed by our rational minds and our biological wiring. Men tend to be highly visual (especially when young) and highly sexed. I can guarantee you that to young women, this makes men seem predatory, shallow, and emotionally cold. But men aren't bad for having certain drives. They have survival value. The key is to channel these drives so they aren't destructive. Men, in general, need to realize that looks aren't everything. Sometimes they strike out because they select women on looks rather than character. Sometimes they strike out with girls because they come on too strong and the girl thinks, "He just wants to get laid, but I want a relationship. He will sleep with me and dump me". And they steer clear.

Young women make mistakes too. They are (as the PUA so astutely - but incompletely - note) wired to respond to good looks, confidence, status. Girls need to learn to look beneath a charming, flashy exterior and appreciate a guy who may not make as big a first impression but will grow on them with time. Young men need to learn that the hot chick with the enormous boobs may make their blood run hot, but unless there's more to her than that, she's not going to make them happy.

We are not controlled by our wiring.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 12, 2010 11:52 PM

"Right Wing Woman", first of all you are flat out wrong about my having read the supporting link. That was, in fact, the basis for my comment.

Nice try, but no sale.

Secondly, I linked to The Futurist. Any reader can easily see for him/herself what his supporting links were. I am not going to do their work for them - it was torturous enough wading through that sewer on my own. Readers should form their own evaluation.

Thirdly, you know nothing about me and are not only factually but laughably wrong if you think I hate men.

Insults are not arguments. This is your first warning. Confine yourself to actual arguments or your comments will be deleted. The insulting parts of your comment will be redacted and any future such comments will be summarily deleted.

Act like a grownup or take your comments elsewhere.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 12:05 AM

I'd like to respond to a few more of your excellent arguments:

Isn't that what Game and its followers are trying to do? They know their lot-they don't get girls, they're unsatisfied with their relationship experiences in life thus far, etc. And so they resolve not to continue on being miserable, but rather to change for the better and MAKE their lives more respectable

There is nothing wrong with this at all. However, learning to manipulate your partner's emotions or beat down their self esteem to control them is no basis for a relationship and I can tell you from reading way too many of their posts that the image of women they present is very badly skewed.

In a healthy relationship, both parties are getting what they want and they have incentive to compromise and negotiate. This negotiation process should be a good faith effort, not a process that relies on intimidation, lies, trickery, and cheating. These are all things these sites recommend. Would you want to be treated that way?

Should your woman lie to you? Should she always keep several men on the side to keep you off balance? Should she withhold affection or sex from you? Should she try to satisfy your needs, or use them as weapons? Should she insult and belittle you to whittle away at your self image so you'll come to believe you don't deserve to be treated decently?

That is the basis of "Game". It's not based on honest attraction. Rather, it is a form of psychological bullying whose aim is to keep the other person off balance so they will be controlled by their emotions rather than thinking.

Nice.

I fell in love with my husband because he was intelligent, honest, hard working, and kind. I love and respect him far more today than on the day I first talked with him. He is my best friend.

I would leave him in a heartbeat if he were to treat me in the disrespectful, dishonest manner these bitter, angry and insecure men teach. I would leave precisely because there ARE good men out there and I deserve honesty and respect. Fortunately, because my husband has made the effort to know me as a person over the years, I don't think about leaving him because I'm better off with him than without him.

That's the right basis for a relationship, and it means you can never stop trying - not to shame, dominate and control your mate, but to understand and meet her needs (as she tries to understand and meet yours).

Honesty and mutual respect, or shame, disdain and cheating. Which sounds better to you? And most importantly, why should any woman settle for treatment you wouldn't accept?

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 12:24 AM

if people think positive images of marriage, and / or negative images of "alternate" lifestyles, are important to have out there, they should write those books and make those movies. What would be your ideal answer?

Honestly, I'm not sure tom. I am uncomfortable with censorship. But I also see why even an imperfect tactic like censorship is effective. You don't have to combat toxic ideas that are never seen by an audience.

Still, like you I hesitate to recommend that course. One can identify how the decline of censorhip has made it harder to preserve certain cultural norms without thinking it's necessarily the right solution.

One factor I think doesn't get enough attention is that we are "wired" to respond to certain stimuli in ways that are socially harmful. Rape fantasies are one example.

The reason I do not watch TV is that I find the constant barrage of violence against women deeply disturbing. When you combine violence with sex and conflate the two, you are feeding natural but very perverse desires we all share.

I would like to see TV and cable content segregated or screened more on a voluntary basis. We have the technology - if every show had a rating (G, PG, etc) and we could block content above a certain threshold and selectively unblock things we wanted to see, I think that's one solution.

Violent imagery is something I don't want to see, and I keep my TV off because I can't escape it. It's everywhere. Sexual content is the same way nowadays. I don't want to see anal rape movie titles when I'm scrolling through the menu. That bothers me. I can't imagine having a child in the house who can read. How do you shield them until they're old enough?

My solution was that I canceled cable the whole time my kids were growing up. We only had basic cable and my kids weren't allowed to watch TV anywhere except in the den where we could monitor what they watched.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 12:33 AM

I read RWW's comment before you got to it. I got to thinking, how can one be both "anti-feminist" and a "man hater", all at the same time?

:-P

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 13, 2010 12:35 AM

It never ceases to amuse me when people who can't defend their ideas on the merits resort to name calling.

It's a distraction - they want you to defend yourself rather than discussing the topic on the merits because they know they'll lose if their ideas are examined too closely. So they scream, "Feminist! Man hater!"

I don't take such tactics seriously because they're not serious arguments :p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 12:42 AM

Cassandra: The reason why censorship no longer works (and indeed, why it never did work perfectly) is because of economics. In this instance, censorship decreases the supply of the censored product so much that the 'value' of the product increases, hence more people are willing to take the risks of supplying it (black markets, more or less). And now, it's even worse, because technology has reduced the 'cost' factor by so much that censorship does not even work as an artificial barrier anymore.

I do not say that everything can be boiled down to economics, but economic principles do seem to be applicable in every part of worldly life. Including the PUA phenomenon. I daresay someone can come up with a better explanation than I would be able to, though.

Posted by: Gregory at January 13, 2010 12:50 AM

Plus, this blog, written by a woman who is anti-feminist, really explains why Cassandra's little head gets confused so easily :

I read the post you linked to, and those are divided along *political* lines, rather than having a male/female chauvinist alignment. Perhaps there are other posts more in keeping with an actual analysis?

THe Futurist has solid links in his article.

The Futurist's links are statistically-suspect. They'd have more of an impact if the sources weren't from bloggers who shared his views, but came directly from dot-gov or dot-edu sources.

Cassandra shouldn't attempt to pull this BS that so easily exposes her immoral nature.

Cassandra sets rules, warns commenters who cross the lines, and notes her deletions of comments and why they were deleted. The Futurist not only deletes comments, but denies he does so; I made a comment pointing out a logical fallacy in one of his replies and asked why a couple of comments had disappeared from the thread. My comment disappeared -- but not before I got a screen shot.

So, who's immoral -- the blogger who sets rules and shows deletions for violation, or the blogger who deletes comments and then denies that he deleted them?

Posted by: BillT at January 13, 2010 12:53 AM

I'd like to say one final thing about relationships in response to JLaw45's comment.

Whenever two different people form any partnership, there will be conflict and misunderstanding. This is normal and natural. Fights are normal and natural.

What matters is how we handle conflict.

The best thing about a good marriage is that it's a safe harbor in a world that is often hostile and harsh. If you can create that fragile atmosphere of trust, you have a powerful incentive for the other person to treat you well: reciprocity. I once read that marriage was a lifetime promise to view the other person through rose colored glasses.

I told that to my boys on the day they married. It's important, because to the extent your partner trusts you, he or she will try to live up to that rose-colored picture you have of them. They actually become a better person because they try very hard never to let you down, knowing you'll do the same for them. That's why abusive language and treatment are so corrosive - they eat away at the central benefit marriage provides: a safe harbor where both man and woman are loved, respected, cherished.

My heart broke, reading the hostile, bitter, angry posts on those sites. My marriage isn't like that. My son's marriages aren't like that.

I went looking for an old post and reposted it here for you. It's called, "What is Love?", and it's about the role of romanticism, illusions, and standards play in helping us create a better world for ourselves and those we love.

I think at heart this is what is most wrong with "Game" theory. It views the world as a harsh, ugly place in which even the person closest to you cannot be trusted not to stick a knife in your back unless you lie to her and manipulate her. Instead of creating a vision of beauty you both strive to live up to, it presents a "worst case scenario" vision of "reality" that brings out the worst in you rather than encouraging you to be a better person.

Both visions - the fragile, rose colored one and the dark, angry one - are real. They are alternatives and both have their own benefits and risks. The prospect of failure is there no matter which road you choose.

The question is, where do you want to end up? And which road is more likely to get you there?

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 01:18 AM

The reason why censorship no longer works (and indeed, why it never did work perfectly) is because of economics. In this instance, censorship decreases the supply of the censored product so much that the 'value' of the product increases, hence more people are willing to take the risks of supplying it (black markets, more or less).

A few observations.

1. Censorship doesn't have to work "perfectly" to provide benefits. A small black market will have less of a general impact on societal mores than allowing some content to be everywhere. There are plenty of people who would never seek some things out on their own - would not take the extra trouble to procure a hard to get good.

But if you bring it into their living room and reduce the effective cost to zero, they will watch it and many will be affected by it.

That was my earlier point about censorship working, but not necessarily being the correct answer.

2. My point was that the default state ought to be more family friendly while allowing those who want to see adult or violent content to opt in. Don't make EVERYONE else opt out.

The natural (economic, if you will) incentives here are properly placed - those who want a good/service are naturally incented to exert the minimal effort required to access it.

The goal has never been to eradicate this content, but to create different zones where those who are too young/offended by it don't have to see it but those who want it can still get it.

And you can't do that without the default state involving some restrictions.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 01:27 AM

I read the post you linked to, and those are divided along *political* lines, rather than having a male/female chauvinist alignment. Perhaps there are other posts more in keeping with an actual analysis?

*snort* :) Bill, I just read that article. That is 3 minutes of my life I will never get back.

I have rarely seen such a virtuoso demonstration of the logical nonsequitur.

The main thrust, as it were, of the so-called argument seems to be that if women are capable of an act, they must support it and if they are incapable of an act they logically must oppose it.

Oh, and if some women oppose traditional morality (never mind that some men do, too) women/feminism are responsible for the erosion of traditional standards. We'll just ignore the male contribution entirely :p

Dumb, dumb, dumb. And so easy to disprove.

Women are all capable of having abortions and yet many vehemently oppose the practice on moral grounds.

Men are capable of going to war, and yet many men oppose war on moral grounds.

The author has succeeded mainly in making women look foolish and illogical - if this is what passes for anti-feminism, we're all screwed :p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 01:51 AM

we're all screwed :p

Not me -- General Order Number One says I can't...

Posted by: BillT at January 13, 2010 02:24 AM

Cassandra: The Internet, then is your frontier which must be defended. Well, not any more, since you're all done with the littles, but in general.

Because the marginal cost of sending anything through them intartubes is, as you say, effectively zero. And searching them out is not even required; you will bump up against all sorts of stuff you don't even want to see.

Believe me; I wasn't looking for 2 girls 1 cup and yet somehow it found me. Filtration goes only so far and might as well be a sheet of sugar glass for all the good it does.

Posted by: Gregory at January 13, 2010 02:45 AM

That is 3 minutes of my life I will never get back.

Took me all of five seconds. I remembered seeing it in an e-mail that was making the rounds while I was in PakiLand -- in 2007.

Posted by: BillT at January 13, 2010 06:02 AM

Curiosity killed the cat with girls and the cup.

Out of all potential and actual dates, only a slice may turn into serious long term relationships. Of those LTRs, perhaps one or two is what would fit the rest of your life. There's a degree of luck, but experimentation and actively loading the deck can create the desired result faster.

The ironic bit is that setting up long term relationships takes different skills than actually being in a relationship.

The reason why the initial PUA systems looked more like wargames than proper socialization is because... the creators were the same people who think up and play complex games. So rather than natural charm or alpha leader status, they had to duplicate the same effect using cunning, slyness, and method.

If you understand why it works, though, you can transition to a natural game. Meaning the things that nature would have produced without artificial human engineering. The entire reason why people get frustrated is because the old game, or whatever they thought the mating or courtship rituals were, didn't work. This is like the police officer that gets taught the super trick of subduing a felon without getting hit, then actually goes to use this and gets punched. Even though this did subdue the felon, the police officer now has lost trust in the technique because it didn't work as advertised. This is obvious and to be expected. Since it is the police officer with his life on the line, not the instructor or the bureaucrats talking about their new shiny justified lethality programs. People with skin in the game pay far more attention to results than platitudes or theory.

Of course, this meant these were substitutions. They were good enough, if you wanted to learn how to get dates with any woman you saw. If you wanted to learn how to help people, then there's no help there. You either learn it on your own or you use what you already got.

An alpha leader or one transitioning to leadership over more and more people, isn't complete until that person has something beyond physical strength or mental agility. Mystery once used the proper defusement protocols against an annoyed Serbian boyfriend that showed his belt handgun as a threat. But that's because his confidence was real. Not to mention narcissistic, of course. Any routine will give you some confidence, the more you work at it, but your inner self is still empty until you set out to fill it as your goal.

The aggressive and physically confrontational, or verbally abusive, boyfriend isn't actually an alpha. He's too insecure to be one, even without a pack following him. If he has a group that follows him, then he is an insecure alpha, meaning a beta that was thrust into an alpha position that he can't handle. Most people aren't leaders. That's kind of obvious. But that also means most people aren't cut out for alpha positions. Since people want leaders, though ,a lot of people get pushed into it that don't want it. Some can handle it, some do better than expected, while others were a big mistake.

The things some of the Game advocate, like netting yourself some Social Status, is just what a natural and certified alpha would do in any environment. He makes friends. He tries to turn enemies into allies. He looks at neutral parties and he pays them respect as an equal, neither inferior lap dog nor superior tyrant. But he isn't a chump. If caught in a situation where a fight might ensue and he doesn't want a fight, he'll leave. And the people that look to him will follow automatically. On the other hand, he has the resources to end any fight his way and he knows it. Because an alpha has resources others do not have, thus the stresses working on his mind are lower than others, allowing him to think clearer even against superior foes with higher intellects.

There used to be this image for males to at least try to emulate. People kind of destroyed it, however. If males want revenge for this, targeting women is what I call a blind man trying to demonstrate why solar power doesn't generate electricity. You got more serious problems than whatever is wrong with solar power.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 08:52 AM

Not me -- General Order Number One says I can't...

You have my deepest sympathy :p

DoD seems determined to protect many of us from being screwed... and not in a good way!

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 09:32 AM

Greg:

I know many companies have content filters for the Internet. Hopefully they will become more user friendly and configurable. I would buy something like that. I'm sick and tired of constantly being confronted with naked/slutty women even when I stay away from sites where one should logically expect to see such fare. I've said this before, but Fox News is a prime example - it's every bit as trashy as the Puffington Host and I no longer link to it or use it for that reason.

What a shame. It used to be one of the first sites I checked every day.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 09:36 AM

Grim's comment thread got heated up again. If you want to know the Evil Ending for this little story we have here, read the latest crisis.

It's amazing how much material I can get out based upon some random thread I picked up from spearhead.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 09:57 AM

JLaw,

Welcome to VC. You say that Game was the product of men taking responsibility for their lack of success with women and doing something about it. This is both true and false.

It's is true that it is the proposed solution to a problem, it's false in that they latched onto the wrong problem.

The problem as seen from the perspective of Game is not getting laid. The real problem is not having a meaningful and satisfying relationship.

Game solves the first, but is mutually exclusive of the second.

For some context of my next comments read "On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves"

Both the Sheepdogs and the Wolves demonstrate "alpha" behavior: They are strong, smart, and take charge. Players in the Game, however, are the Wolves. They approach women from the perspective of "prey". They seek only to satisfy their own desires with no regard for the other person. You can see this in their own writings. Notice how the tactics are all built around "Identify the target --> Aquire the tarket". But like all predators, they exist by preying on the weak, the sick, and the infirm. The predator never gets the strong, the healthy, the prime specimen. The reason why you see in your own experiences that he's right is that there are a ton of weak, sick, and infirm women out there. Not a majority by a long stretch, but they are certainly more noticible. The vocal minority if you will.

The Real Men™, however, are the sheepdogs. Those who put those same attributes of strength, courage, leadership to use on behalf of and for the benefit of those others worth defending. He is not interested in "just getting laid", he is interested in finding the one lady who can make his life whole and for whom he can do the same (and if you do that, the getting laid part will take care of itself).

JLaw, don't be the wolf, don't be the predator, be the sheepdog. Sure it means you won't go to your grave with 100 different sexual partners, but if you find the right *one* she'll never let you miss it.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 13, 2010 10:36 AM

Oh, and don't be a stranger either. :-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 13, 2010 10:37 AM

Hello again. I'm just back to respond once again, and continue the discussion. Please note that this response is very long...I'm sorry about that. Just skip it if you don't have the time.


"I'm a 50 year old woman, mother of two grown sons who are both happily married. I have been married to the same man for over 30 years."


That would explain some of the differences in the way a person like myself views the dating world(slightly less mature, much more cynical) and the way you do.


"There are different ways to attract/persuade such a mate. Some are based on honesty and straightforward tactics. And some are based on coercion, deception and manipulative behavior."


Well, yes, I can see where you are coming from. That being said, I don't think the characterization here is 100% accurate.

I'll concede that many tactics utilized by game can be dishonest and/or manipulative. Some go over the top, there's no question. But i don't believe this to be the standard fare within the game community.

First, let me address the issue of coercion. As defined:
Coercion is the act or process of persuading someone forcefully to do something that they do not want to do...at least, this is how I have defined it.

Can I ask what specifically within the realm of game leads you to believe that negative coercion is a focal point? I don't see the forceful threatening of women to be a central point of game, and I've been studying it for a while now.

From what I can see, game is all about trying to get a girl to WANT to be with you for no other reason other than the personality/traits you have displayed to her. If you have to force a girl to be with you, then you certainly aren't a PUA and you don’t have “game”.

Deception...well, sure, I can see that. Many who attempt to practice game/PUA tactics utilize deception. They deceive the girl into thinking that they are of much higher status than they are by using tactics(excessive confidence displays, script, "negging", which I'll talk more about later) that convey said status. Sometimes these guys aren't necessarily being themselves when they pull out all of these tactics-they're just using them to get the girl. Hence, deception.

Fair enough. But are they truly wrong in doing this? They know that girls respond to these things. They know they don't have them, so they deceive them into thinking they do. The alternative(be yourself and keep displaying traits you know girls don't find attractive) doesn't seem so positive to me.

Again, perhaps you could outline what specific aspects of Game you see as having conveyed this deception. I know that the idea of deception I have written above with regards to game may not have been specifically what you had in mind?

Manipulation...yes, I suppose Game/PUA tactics do utilize a strong understanding of psychology and socio-cultural trends to, in a way, manipulate a girl at times.

Then again, are not both sexes guilty of this? Young women today manipulate guys all the time-its standard fare. It's happened to me...a lot. They know they're attractive. They know we are, by our nature, somewhat naive and rather "polite" to a fault. They certainly know that we aren't the "alphas" or "players", and therefore they know they can take advantage of us. In many cases, they can(and will) lead us on if there is something in it for them(free food, help with schoolwork, access to more attractive guys, etc, etc).

Should said guys who are often getting manipulated simply accept it? I don't see how understanding this process and, perhaps, using it would be such a bad idea for such males.

"Some are based on a genuine desire to understand and get to know the opposite sex with the understanding that men and women have different needs and both deserve a relationship where their needs are met. And some view understanding the opposite sex as a tool to control their actions for personal advantage, or just to keep the upper hand. Can you see the difference?"


As for the view of the opposite sex, claim...well, are you sure it isn't both?
I know that when I first came to visit game sites, I did understand that men and women had different needs that had to be met, and I really wanted to know what it was women wanted/needed because it seemed like for whatever reason I wasn't providing it.

At the same time, I knew that if I could gain an understanding of how relationships work, I could (at least in theory) use it to lure a girl I wanted. In that way, I could actually get an upper hand in the mating game and keep it by becoming more attractive.

By virtue of the attractiveness I would gain, I could (in theory) make a girl attracted to me, or control her actions in a way. This appealed to me, of course, because as it stood (and still stands), I remained a guy on the bottom end of the mating game, with virtually all of the women I sought after entirely out of my reach. All I could really do was pursue and often fail-I was at the mercy of my female peers when it came to the dating game.

I'm sure my story is not uncommon among followers of guys like Roissy. If you seek to become more attractive then, naturally, you seek to gain some semblance of personal advantage or an "upper hand".
And, as it stands, women currently have the upper hand over most of these guys who have no idea how to pursue them properly. Is that ok?

"The language at those sites is angry, disdainful, and sneering."

Yeah, no contention here. There are many bitter guys there. I know precisely how they feel.

When you really and truly come to understand the dating world inherent to my generation and the way women operate in it(many of my elders would be shocked to really know what it’s really like), it’s tough not to harbor some form of bitterness, especially when you've been locked out of it.

Of course, the key to future success is eventually overcoming that bitterness to a degree. That takes time.

"There are two problems with this, however. The first is that any "understanding" you gain is flawed. It's only part of the truth. I can tell you as a woman who was very "successful" in the dating market before marriage and who has a happy and mutually satisfying relationship with my husband that I would never, ever enter a relationship with a man who acted like these men do."

Aye, there's the rub.
You wouldn't. A significant portion(it wouldn't be far-fetched to claim a majority) of young women today would enter relationships with these men, and do so happily. Go to any decently sized college campus or high school and see. Hell, go to any place where young people congregate. Its just standard fare now.

This is something to consider when talking about these guys. Yeah, their behavior can be immature. Yeah, it can be over the top.

But they're never short of female company. PUA's(and the natural players who aren't PUA's but innately display the tactics PUA's seek to mimic) are sexually satisfied people. Women are attracted to them...at least the ones in my generation. Sure, there are a minority who won't tolerate their "tactics", but those girls are just that-a minority.

Now, you can claim unintentional self selection and say that the girls these guys attract are "lower class". I'd call that argument ineffectual for a few reasons:

1. Attraction among women to the confidence/status that these men are trying to display is not limited to "lower class" women.

2. PUA's/Players who are truly good at what they do can read a girl's personality and, if they find that she is not the type of respond to over the top, heavily manipulative "asshole" game(the type you have consistently outlined so far, and the type frequently practiced by guys like Roissy), will adjust their approaches accordingly. There are many, many types of game-which type to use can vary by region or nation, all depending on various differing factors. A PUA doesn't have to limit himself to barhoppers-he can have much higher standards if he wants to and still pursue many women successfully. Granted, this will take him longer since these women will not go with him as rapidly, but it can (and often is) done.

3. Even if PUA's were limited (which they are not), it wouldn't really matter. That limited degree of female company they enjoy far surpasses the amount that guys like me (who end up studying PUA) are accustomed to.

They have a large pool of "immature" women who want them-they rarely go home alone.
Guys like me have virtually nobody-we are usually alone.
When you have a dichotomy like that, PUA is obviously going to have a strong pull.

"There is nothing new about "Game" - it is a man version of playing hard to get combined with bullying tactics meant to tear down a woman's self esteem and make her feel bad about herself."

I agree that forms of game have been around for centuries. There have long been men who have understood the way the female mind works and have attempted to manipulate it in order to have better success with women.

That being said, the "game" of today is new and different. The society people my age occupy now is not the same as the one that you occupied 30 years ago. PUA’s exist now because of these differences.

Don’t take offence to this, but I liken you in some ways to my mother. She is about your age(early 50’s). Granted, she differs from you in that she was born into a conservative Jamaican culture and spent the first 12 years of her life in 1960’s England, but like her, I see in you(and the way you view some of the odd phenomenon that plague my generation) a key display of the generational gap.

Her dislike of game is almost as strong as yours. Her objections are somewhat similar, especially with regards to “negging”(she considers it bullying and manipulation).
And yet it seems so clear and obvious to me. It is interesting.

Now as for bullying and “tearing down” women, I do hear this objection a lot but I feel that said objection is due to a misunderstanding which I’ll try to explain.
‘Negging” is in fact a tactic designed to bring a woman “to your level”, so to speak. It works because when used properly, it is not bullying or openly insulting-it is teasing.
What the neg really accomplishes is the removal of the pedestal so ,many young men place women upon. By playfully “negging” a girl, you accomplish a few things:

1.You show her you aren’t a pushover. Girls don’t tend to go out with guys who compliment everything they do and are unwilling to tease them or take them off of a pedestal and just be normal around them. With a neg, you remove yourself from this group.

2.You lighten the mood. By joking around a bit with her and almost treating her like just another person/friend instead of a sexual interest whom you desire, you can help climb over the wall in your head that often prevents many young men from approaching girls and carrying on normal conversations with them. This will help you establish a relationship later on if that’s your goal.

The girl feels less objectified(at least initially) and you feel less awkward. Win-win.

Here is an example of a neg:
“Nice skirt. I just saw a girl outside with the same one.”

“*after a lost pool/dart/whatever game*
PUA: “Impressive. Now I realize that behind every great pool/dart/whatever player lays a wasted youth.”
(you make it seem that she needed a lot of practice to beat you)

Or when a girl does something silly around you, you can say:
“Geez, you must have driven your parents crazy!”
Or
“You look like trouble."
Or
“How do you guys hang with this girl?”

Or, for another example, say you see a really pretty picture of a girl you like and she shows it to you. Say something like “wow, nice picture! Those are some really nice curtains! (focus on an object in the periphery, regardless of how good she looks. This is a neg.)

A neg when practiced properly is not comparable to bullying(I’d know, having been bullied a bit in elementary/middle school). It’s a playful joke.

Granted, you can use more severe negs and, depending on the girl, she may respond better to those. Generally, negs are like the ones I outlined above. Most PUA’s use similar ones, and I cannot see these as truly warranting the term “bullying”.

“Is that any basis for a relationship? Even if it works, it will be a dysfunctional relationship.”

It is a basis apparently because PUA’s enjoy much female company and negs are startlingly effective when used properly.

I remember back to the fall of this year, in the middle of my first term as a freshman. I came back to my dorm buzzed(second time I’d ever gotten drunk in my life) and met up with a girl I’d known and her friends who were just hanging out. We started casually talking, hanging out, and I remember one particular girl I met who I started joking around with. She was a cute girl, probably a 6-7 on many scales.

By the end of the night, she was basically flirting back, laughing a lot and giving all kinds of signs. I wouldn’t understand this until much later, but I had basically negged her consistently and very well. She had such a good time that she even talked to her(and my) friends about it in class, saying she had an awesome time hanging out with me.

Later I took her on a date and this ended things because then I was sober she saw me for what I was: a “good guy”, a stable but not overly outgoing type, one that would be honest and straightforward with her(aka boring). She promptly began ignoring me after that, but the memories of that night remain. That was the closest I’ve ever come to succeeding with a girl, much less one I just met.

That made me a believer in the neg. Of course, I also realized that if I had game, I could actually have a cute girlfriend right now thanks to that night.

Oh well.

“There are many, many good books out there that help the sexes understand each other from the perspective that a relationship should make you feel better about yourself and your mate, not tear you down.”

You vastly overestimate the maturity of my peers.

Girls of all kinds(from my ivy league school to the state party school and on down to high school and jr. high) respond to negs and PUA tactics. They’re just not mature enough to really desire to want to operate on the type of mature perspectives outlined in these books. For their part, the guys they hang with don’t care either. Neither are willing to grasp these concepts and try to make them work on a large scale.

My generation is dominated by a “hook up” culture. That means alcohol and casual sex on the regular-maturity(and those who ascribe to that novel concept) need not apply. If my generation were willing to use these concepts, of course, I and many of my fellow bitter followers of PUA would probably not be here. PUA wouldn’t exist as we know it.
We would all be in the stable relationships we'd wanted from the get-go(or at least most of us anyway).

“Sometimes they strike out with girls because they come on too strong and the girl thinks, "He just wants to get laid, but I want a relationship. He will sleep with me and dump me". And they steer clear.”

This is ironic, considering the fact that the males who attract the most partners within my generation(therefore the men that, it can be concluded, my female peers tend to find interesting) are the same men who hold just that mentality.
I see it every weekend. What you claim women seek to avoid is precisely what I consistently see girls flock to, and what so many of my fellow single peers complain about with girls. Nevermind the PUA's who rack up hundreds of "notches" using this exact same mindset.

Odd world.

“Young women make mistakes too. They are (as the PUA so astutely - but incompletely - note) wired to respond to good looks, confidence, status. Girls need to learn to look beneath a charming, flashy exterior and appreciate a guy who may not make as big a first impression but will grow on them with time.”

If only they did. PUA as you know it wouldn’t exist.

“ Young men need to learn that the hot chick with the enormous boobs may make their blood run hot, but unless there's more to her than that, she's not going to make them happy.”

I can’t speak for all of my peers, but as for myself, I already know this.

Most of the girls I have pursued have been what many young men would consider 6’s or 7’s. I have tried dating a girl who was an 8-9, and others who were average at best or considered entirely unattractive by my peers(5’s or lower). One of them had large breasts-the others were well below average in that category(I’m not a boob guy anyway). They were all just normal girls, flaws and all, not supermodels.

As for myself, my physical appearance is above average. I got an 8.9/10 on hot or not(dubious source I know, make of it what you will) and have been objectively judged as a 7/10 by peers. I’m not an ugly guy-football has definitely helped with this to.
Judge for yourself.

http://www.hotornot.com/m/r/?emid=E8HLSQH

I don’t have high standards. The reason I was attracted to the unattractive girl I went after this year was because of who she was. The more I learned about her and her qualities, the more attracted I became to them, and thus to her. That alone augmented her physical appearance in my eyes.

Of course, I thought she was different. I thought we could build a more meaningful relationship between us. We’d both be honest and straightforward with one another. We’d both support one another, never undermining the other. Our relationship would be meaningful, much unlike the many we saw on campus.

I went in openly promoting this to her, telling her how strongly I felt about it and how happy I was that I’d found a girl who was “different”, who would feel the same way. In the process, I became somewhat clingy and overly polite in my interactions with her. She later began openly lauding the looks of a couple of my teammates right in front of me.

My teammate(a quarterback) would appear at lunch and, with me right next to her, she would go on and on about how insanely “hot” and “godly” he was, gossiping with her friends like we were on an MTV show. This happened consistently for a couple of weeks(I don’t know why I tolerated it) until, eventually, she decided to end our “potential friendship”(we never officially dated and i guess in her mind we weren't really friends either).

Why? She said she didn’t like how willing I was to be there for her and help her, even when she didn’t ask. She said she didn’t like how I had fallen for her so quickly, how “clingy” I had become. In other words, I was “too nice”.

She then told me that there were too many other interesting kids on campus that she could get to know and that she “didn’t want me in her life anymore”. That was that.

Painful? Yes, especially when I found out she had been f-buddies with one of my teammates for years(the last time having been 2 weeks before we met during football preseason-both came from the same area and went to nearby schools) and started again very soon after our incident. But it was a beneficial experience to.

First, as coldly as she had said it(“I don’t want you in my life”), I realized later that she had just voiced what so many other girls I had pursued felt. It was a behind-the-scenes look into the motives of my female peers.

Secondly, analyzing the whole experience after the fact once I’d learned about game taught me a whole lot of lessons about women and how they work. Game could have prevented the clingy behavior I displayed and given me a much happier ending.

Conclusions: Even the girls without the boobs and the looks require game today in this country. It doesn’t matter who you are. You can be a d-1 football player with big muscles and decent looks or a skinny World of Warcraft player with early male pattern baldness setting in-it doesn’t matter. Ignorance of this fact will bring you a whole lot of hurt and you’ll both suffer together without female company.

Was that a long post? Yes, sorry about that. But I wanted to provide an honest defense of game from someone who isn’t a PUA(I find that I lack the mindset to actually become one and wont attempt to) but who understands and sympathizes with it somewhat.

Just remember, that there are millions of men like me with very similar sob stories of unrequited love like the one I just gave you. Guys who ONLY know unrequited love, guys who feel lost when it comes to approaching women today. Guys who are actually ok looking, and have a lot going for them, but for some reason JUST can't get it to work. So long as this is the case, PUA’s will continue to grow and remain strong.

Count on it.

Posted by: JLaw45 at January 13, 2010 10:59 AM

I just want to say, I didn't write the above comment. So stop looking at me.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 12:18 PM

Act like a grownup or take your comments elsewhere.

Thanks, Cassie. She took your advice and shat in SWWBO's comments again.

I admit, I was um, well, *rude* in my response to her.

Posted by: John (Master of Inanity) Donovan at January 13, 2010 12:29 PM

Ymar -- ROFLMAO! 'Cause, I WAS looking at you.

JLaw45, thanks for the thoughtful explanation. I feel like I've learned a few things. Couple of questions for you.

First, how do you know PUAs are as successful as you claim? Is it their own stories, or have you followed some around and observed for yourself?

Second, in the situation with the girl who was flirting and then later dumped you, would you want to end up with someone like her? What are you looking for long-term?

Posted by: tom at January 13, 2010 12:56 PM

Hi Jason:

Great comment, and no - it's not too long. I think (or at least I hope!) you will like this answer.

I went in openly promoting this to her, telling her how strongly I felt about it and how happy I was that I’d found a girl who was “different”, who would feel the same way. In the process, I became somewhat clingy and overly polite in my interactions with her. She later began openly lauding the looks of a couple of my teammates right in front of me. My teammate(a quarterback) would appear at lunch and, with me right next to her, she would go on and on about how insanely “hot” and “godly” he was, gossiping with her friends like we were on an MTV show. This happened consistently for a couple of weeks(I don’t know why I tolerated it) until, eventually, she decided to end our “potential friendship”(we never officially dated and i guess in her mind we weren't really friends either).
Why? She said she didn’t like how willing I was to be there for her and help her, even when she didn’t ask. She said she didn’t like how I had fallen for her so quickly, how “clingy” I had become. In other words, I was “too nice”.
She then told me that there were too many other interesting kids on campus that she could get to know and that she “didn’t want me in her life anymore”. That was that. Painful? Yes, especially when I found out she had been f-buddies with one of my teammates for years(the last time having been 2 weeks before we met during football preseason-both came from the same area and went to nearby schools) and started again very soon after our incident. But it was a beneficial experience to. First, as coldly as she had said it(“I don’t want you in my life”), I realized later that she had just voiced what so many other girls I had pursued felt. It was a behind-the-scenes look into the motives of my female peers. Secondly, analyzing the whole experience after the fact once I’d learned about game taught me a whole lot of lessons about women and how they work. Game could have prevented the clingy behavior I displayed and given me a much happier ending.

A few observations:

1. Your assessment of this situation - and how your behavior affected her - is dead on. She retreated from the "clingy" behavior b/c she began to feel pressured and that overcame any initial attraction she felt for you.

2. re: "Negging": as you describe it (adopting a light hearted, slightly challenging tone that keeps things from being too intense before the relationship is at a stage where emotional intensity is appropriate and desired by both parties) I have no problem with the practice.

This is just flirting, done well. Distinguish that from the examples I cited where the guy is already in a LTR and "controls" the woman by cheating on her and lying to her. Very, very different tactics.

3. The single biggest problem girls have with guys they fall for is that they are ready for and interested in a committed relationship LONG before the guy is. They attract a guy in the first place by seeming fun. He talks to or dates her a few times, though, and the intriguing, lighthearted woman he was originally attracted to changes subtly. He senses a "trap" - his expectations for where the relationship is going don't match hers and he doesn't want the complications and the hassle b/c he's not in the market - yet - for a relationship yet.

Coming on too strong can take more than one form. One is giving a woman the full court press. But another happens when she senses - long before you have any kind of relationship - that you are trying too hard and worries that you'll become dependent upon her. You accurately identified the problem - she got the wrong message from your behavior and it scared her off.

4. Is a girl who is a "f*** buddy" really an appropriate choice for a long term relationship? It sounds to me as though she is very immature and has character issues as well. No amount of looks will make up for a lack of character or maturity. It sounds as though you are far more mature than this girl was/is. Which begs the question: why pursue someone who's unworthy of your love?

5. Male or female, both sexes want to make the best "deal" they can in the dating market. I think there's a more positive application of the "negging" strategy as you outlined it. What you're doing is not making yourself too available. Not sending the message that you're sitting home by the phone waiting at her beck and call.

You're saying, "Yes I'm interested in you, but I have my own life/interests/friends as well. I am independent and capable of being happy on my own. That sort of attitude is enormously attractive b'/c it implies you have something to offer her. If you let her into your world, you'll add to her happiness rather than being a dead weight on her.

I remember back to the fall of this year, in the middle of my first term as a freshman. I came back to my dorm buzzed(second time I’d ever gotten drunk in my life) and met up with a girl I’d known and her friends who were just hanging out. We started casually talking, hanging out, and I remember one particular girl I met who I started joking around with. She was a cute girl, probably a 6-7 on many scales. By the end of the night, she was basically flirting back, laughing a lot and giving all kinds of signs. I wouldn’t understand this until much later, but I had basically negged her consistently and very well. She had such a good time that she even talked to her(and my) friends about it in class, saying she had an awesome time hanging out with me. Later I took her on a date and this ended things because then I was sober she saw me for what I was: a “good guy”, a stable but not overly outgoing type, one that would be honest and straightforward with her(aka boring).

As Yu-Ain noted, it takes different skills to attract a mate than to make a LTR work, but they are related.

With this girl, you were slightly drunk and therefore came across as more confident. I'll bet you seemed happier too. That attracted her - she saw a fun, confident, lighthearted guy who - drunk or not - is YOU, minus the normal insecurities we all have.

On your date, I'd guess that you were less confident. I do have to wonder: was this girl a good prospect for a LTR? After all, she didn't care about who you are as a person.

I was friends with my husband for several months before we ever went on a date. We are talking 3 months here. I think part of the problem is the hookup culture you mention. It rushes things far too much. It puts a premium on superficial, Darwinistic traits and disadvantages serious, interesting - not boring - guys like you.

I was a freshman at Dartmouth in 1977 :)

I left at the end of my freshman year, in large part b/c, although I had plenty of guys chasing me, they were so badly behaved that my entire view of men was circling the drain. You are at a school where there are, if I'm not mistaken, still more guys than girls. This increased competition means you will have to try far harder to attract and win a girl.

I'd suggest a few things:

1. Stop focusing on dating/relationships and focus on making friends with as many girls as possible. Get to know them as people, first.

Without the heavy pressure of expectations, you may well find that your personality becomes an asset rather than a liability.

2. When I was at Dartmouth, I was in a semi-committed LTR with the guy I'm now married to.

I told every boy I met this, up front. I also had platonic friendships with many boys.

There is one boy I have never forgotten. He was, strangely enough, not terribly attractive. He had a craggy, very masculine face - think Tommy Lee Jones. He hadn't quite grown into his body yet - he still had that puppy awkwardness about him.

This was over 30 years ago, and if there was one threat to my relationship to my husband it was this boy. I was madly attracted to him. Let me tell you why.

He had a terrible crush on me. I could sense it. But he NEVER let on in his behavior. He treated me strictly as a friend. So I was always relaxed and happy around him b/c I didn't have to worry about him hitting on me. And slowly my feelings for him deepened. Though I was not initially (physically) attracted to him, slowly his many virtues became apparent to me.

Here's the kicker. I think I was attracted to him because he was in control of his emotions and I interpreted this as strength. I knew that though he cared very much for me, he had his own life and wouldn't change himself or compromise his values because of his emotions.

Much of PUA tactics features just that idea: the man must be in control of his emotions. He must not seem desperate. He must display a manly reserve. This boy was gentle and kind to me always, but underneath that surface I knew there was an iron will and rock solid character. That is what attracted me to him, because those are the very same qualities that attracted me to my husband.

Practiced as you describe (eschewing the emotionally manipulative crap and simply getting control over your emotions/sexual attraction) I have no issue with 'negging'. I absolutely condemn cheating, lying, and being rude or insulting to put a girl off balance. That's very different from being strong and independent enough not to compromise your own goals and values just to attract women.

But at a more basic level, the problem you face is one most women would instantly identify with. In order to move from the attraction stage to the relationship stage, women HAVE to learn to control their strong desire for a relationship until the relationship has deepened to the point where the man wants this as much as she does. Young men generally have far stronger sex drives than the girls they are dating. So men MUST learn to master their strong desire for sex until the relationship deepens to the point where the woman is just as eager for it as he is. Whether you are male or female, this involves patience and self discipline.

I've told this story before, but after about 3 months of dating my spouse and I knew we were serious. We even discussed marriage, but we were too young. My husband essentially told me, "I love you and think I want to spend the rest of my life with you. But I am in no way ready for marriage and intend to finish school and begin my career first."

Inside, I was screaming, "How could you say you love me and yet say you are willing to risk losing me?"

But I did not scream or cry. I calmly replied, "Well, I can understand that but it's not reasonable to ask me to put myself on the shelf for so many years on the off chance that your feelings won't change."

I said, "I love you, but I also have dreams and plans of my own. So, I will continue to date you but will also go on with my own life and date others as well. If we're meant to be together, that will happen but I'm not going to commit myself to you without a corresponding commitment FROM you."

He didn't like that, but he understood it. And I did date other people after that, but he was #1 in my heart. If I had reacted emotionally, I would have lost him. I would have placed too much pressure on a relationship that wasn't strong enough yet to bear that pressure.

Young people are so impatient. I know I was. But good relationships don't spring up overnight and certainly they rarely spring up from hooking up. You have to build a solid foundation and during that time, you must demonstrate great self control.

Build on firm ground, Jason. Even if you start from physical attraction, don't try to jump straight to a serious relationship without getting to know the girl first as a person - without evaluating her character. It's not just whether she thinks you're good enough for HER.

I think the more important question is: is she good enough for YOU? Answering that question takes time and patience.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 01:02 PM

‘Negging” is in fact a tactic designed to bring a woman “to your level”, so to speak. It works because when used properly, it is not bullying or openly insulting-it is teasing.
What the neg really accomplishes is the removal of the pedestal so ,many young men place women upon. By playfully “negging” a girl, you accomplish a few things:

This is exactly what is meant by coersion, bullying, etc.

The entire problem is that you are trying to take her down instead of bring yourself up. Equality is good, but doing it through lowering her self-esteem is a self defeating strategy. In fact, it's the exact same tactic abusers use. You say that if you had continued, you would have a cute girlfriend.

This is true, but eventually she would either come to resent you or become a doormat. Neither is a positive outcome in the long run. It's like drugs, sure it gives you a short term high but it comes with a lifetime of pain. You trade the valuable for the expedient.

And I say this as an early 30s guy who worked and went to grad school with exactly this type of woman:

Her: "Why is every guy I date a jerk?"
Me: "Because you want an "exiting" guy. Nice guys are boring"
Her: "I don't want no *boring* man"
Me: "Well, then your going to keep dating jerks then."

Even had I not been married, there's no way in helk that I would go out with her. And she was *hot*. I mean drop dead smoking gorgeous. But she wasn't worth having. And yes, there are a lot of them around that they seem to crowd out everyone else. But it doesn't change the fact that you are better off single than with those harpies.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 13, 2010 01:07 PM

Posted by: John (Master of Inanity) Donovan at January 13, 2010 12:29 PM

Your wife is very kind hearted. I would have slapped the RRer down 5 ways to Sunday by now on my blog.

That's why these people pick on her. They see her kindness as a form of weakness. And ignore nastier... people. That's why you're there, John ; )

Bullies somehow can tell which targets don't feel good around them and which are just waiting for them to give an excuse. Funny how that works.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 01:08 PM

*raises hand*
Sorry, Ymar, I was looking at you, too, for a minute or three....
*reaches for bowl of chips*
Guacamole?
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 13, 2010 01:15 PM

‘Negging” is in fact a tactic designed to bring a woman “to your level”, so to speak. It works because when used properly, it is not bullying or openly insulting-it is teasing. What the neg really accomplishes is the removal of the pedestal so many young men place women upon.

"Negging" (adopting a light, slightly teasing tone to ramp down emotional intensity) doesn't bring anyone "down to your level". What it does, practiced this way, is lighten things up and keep them from getting too serious or even threatening to the woman.

It it is used to abuse, unsettle or control another person, it crosses over into emotional coercion (using someone else's emotions to control them) or bullying. You are "beating down" the other person either to make yourself feel more confident or to breach their defenses.

Either way, if it works you have "won" by damaging the other person. It's a predatory tactic and a poor start for a long term relationship. If you have to do that, you're doing it all wrong.

I dated a lot before I married, Jason, and I can tell you that I NEVER dated a single guy I met at a bar or who tried to pick me up. EVERY SINGLE ONE of my romantic relationships started as a friendship - casually, with no pressure - and deepened over time into something better. I didn't get involved until I knew a lot about each boy or man.

I think the hookup culture thing is skewing your expectations. You aren't succeeding b/c there's a mismatch between your tactics and your ultimate goal. And hookup culture isn't designed to produce long term relationships. Sometimes they happen by serendipity, but that's more the exception than the rule.

Start as you mean to go on and I think you'll "succeed" :) It sounds as though you have so much to offer a young woman.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 01:18 PM

First, how do you know PUAs are as successful as you claim? Is it their own stories, or have you followed some around and observed for yourself?

Life stories. Obviously there is a bell curve, but people like Style or Mystery lived the life of Hollywood players. This is authentic because Style would never have written about Mystery's suicidal depression, control politics at the Hollywood mansion, and a bunch of other craptastic events concerning PUAs, if it wasn't true. Authenticity is good. Also, what Style wrote in his book, Neil Strauss, is consistent with youtube interviews and even the 2nd Life interview, down to very finite details. Strauss also writes other books where he 'immerses' himself, unlike any 'real journalist'. So he is part of PUA but didn't plan on being a PUA.

Strauss actually won't contradict much of what people here have said. After all, his book, The Game, concludes some of the same things about PUA. There's no inconsistency here.

It works. And it doesn't work for relationships. If nobody else has admitted this, Strauss has.

I'm very methodical when it comes to checking out whether a person is lying or not. And it doesn't take torture ; ) Too bad not enough figured out how for Obama.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 01:20 PM

"Too bad not enough figured out how for Obama."

Especially when you consider that lie detection in his case comes down to one simple observation - Is he speaking?

Posted by: DL Sly at January 13, 2010 01:28 PM

Ymar -- ROFLMAO! 'Cause, I WAS looking at you.

Strike while the iron's hot. Or something.

Guacamole?

My mom told me not to take food from strangers. I can't even see your face under that dark hood of yours.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 01:38 PM

:)

You guys are cracking me up.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 01:40 PM

Why? She said she didn’t like how willing I was to be there for her and help her, even when she didn’t ask. She said she didn’t like how I had fallen for her so quickly, how “clingy” I had become. In other words, I was “too nice”.

I'll tell you straight up. Since she also seemed to do that as well.

Your intentions are good. Actions not so optimal. Sorry, but in the real world, good intentions aren't enough. (political tangent)

You're pushing her into a leadership position. Or at least a position of maturity. She's not ready. I agree with Cass. You're not ready, that's why you're pushing. Stop pushing outwards, and push in on yourself.

You need to find the things that satisfy you first, that you love first, before you try finding it in others. You can't lead or protect them, if you can't even control your own emotions or desires.

The nice guy is an euphemism for prey in the political lexicon. You need dangerous guys, and jerks are only dangerous in the sense that they can use anger or angst to justify aggression and violence against others. The flip side of that is (points to Michael Yon as an example). Remember that bar fight where Yon tried to get away and the other guy probably interpreted this as weakness and got killed, accidentally, by Yon's strike to his nose? Yon may look soft on the outside, but he's got steel in his spine. That's one of the ideal images of the alpha, it is not so much a persona as a way of living, of being, of acting and deciding. Unlike some other young people, Yon didn't go to jail for manslaughter. He had demonstrated enough assertiveness that self-defense was legally certifiable. Fighting isn't self-defense. Anybody that dies in a fight, survivor gets charged with homicide. They claim self-defense, they get jail.

The point is, it is a societal illusion that violence or dangerous people are all jerks or evil. They're not. People probably communicated that being nice was all there was to societal acceptance. No, being nice is not all there is to it. Unless you got some steel backing it up, it's just gas. And some of it smells.

And, as it stands, women currently have the upper hand over most of these guys who have no idea how to pursue them properly. Is that ok?

You have to erase that kind of thinking. It's screwing you up. You're mixing up fighting with mating rituals. You're seeing them as the enemy, as an opponent, somebody out to get you. This plays on your insecurities. But it is not necessarily true. Even if it is true, feeling insecure about it is not going to make it better.

This is the same in any male vs male social confrontation utilizing violence or aggression. The people with faulty socialization cues will take a spit or a punch in the face, as an excuse worthy of pulling out a gun and emptying the clip into someone. This is called escalation or going from social to asocial in 1s. In car terminology, 0 to 100 mph in 1s. Somebody is going to die. Alpha leaders have to ignore threat displays, prevent themselves from issuing aggressive actions or actions that might even be perceived as such. But does that stop idiot betas from wanting to pick a fight? hell no. You can see those everywhere. They'll pick a fight just because they can't stand being judged, being lowered socially, being dissed, or whatever people call it.

Even if some beta swings at you and knocks you down, it doesn't mean they won. It means your social standing was lowered, their social standing was increased a bit. It doesn't mean that they were inherently any stronger or had more edge than you did. The results will probably tell you different, but it isn't so. There's too many other factors. Now apply this to women or girls. Just because they look like they are disrespecting you, doesn't mean it was either planned or because they want to. Most of them are insecure so they go into the anti-social or the incorrectly socialized behaviors. Being jerks. Just like men do when they feel insecure against other men. They start hurling insults, doing threat displays, and being aggressive rather than assertive.

By acknowledging that you are hurt by this, by acknowledging that what they are doing gets to you, labels you as prey in the jungle. Predators pick up on this. But young girls are not what I would call predators. Probably because I like to study real predators, human or animal. I don't mean to claim that you can think your way out of your emotions. Not really usable. You feel what you feel. So make sure you don't feel it in the future. It's difficult, but not impossible. Maturity is part of it, but only part. Nobody matures automatically. They need experience, building blocks, etc.


The point is, women choose who they want to be with. And the more immature they are, the more they don't know what it is they truly want. They just gravitate towards what feels good. That's always been true. Courtship was either based upon this or based upon arranged marriages. Or something in between. There's nothing that should threaten your sense of identity or even self, if a girl rejects you. But then again, emotions don't care about what we think should be true.

I find that I lack the mindset to actually become one and wont attempt to

Now, that seems very strange to me. How do you, with your rather concise comprehension of parts of the Game, refuse to use it to alleviate what you yourself stated was a dissatisfied condition?

Lack the mindset? What does that mean, exactly. Purely as speculation, do you dislike the artificiality of the Game, putting on a mask, or something? If you're willing to take people out on dates, the same effort could be put into something equally as fun, but without the stress or imposition.

You're in a very weird position. Your maturity is beyond even college level, as I see it, which means you either must date older women or women far younger than you. (cradle robbing in a funny way, because it is only unfunny if the man is interested in sex with below age girls)

But... heh, equality doesn't affect this sphere of the mating ritual. Young women are still expected to date only men older than them, and men are expected to date younger women than them. This kind of knocks off a huge pool of older women that would suit younger men. Creating, somewhat, a 'all the good people are taken'.

Society is imbalanced. This is just one symptom of it.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 01:50 PM

Even the girls without the boobs and the looks require game today in this country. It doesn’t matter who you are. You can be a d-1 football player with big muscles and decent looks or a skinny World of Warcraft player with early male pattern baldness setting in-it doesn’t matter. Ignorance of this fact will bring you a whole lot of hurt and you’ll both suffer together without female company.

I have two sons who aren't much older than you. Just a few years.

They both dated in the same "market" you have to deal with. They didn't use "game" but both found wonderful women who respect them and are happily married. Both relationships began as friendships and deepened over time.

My #1 daughter in law says she fell in love with my son because he treated her like a princess. She chose him precisely because he was different from other boys - because he treated her with respect and consideration. And she waited 6 years to marry him. Part of that time they weren't even in the same state.

Don't lose hope. Changes in society may make it harder to find love, but it's by no means impossible.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 01:56 PM

Ignorance of this fact will bring you a whole lot of hurt and you’ll both suffer together without female company.

That also doesn't make sense to me.

You aren't ignorant of this 'fact' so to speak. But then... why aren't you happier.

If the Game is the solution, but you don't want to use it, then how good of a solution is it?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 02:09 PM

I know, yea, it works for others. But they don't matter. What matters is if it works for you. If it helps you. If it makes you happier. If it makes you stronger. Worry about other people after that.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 02:10 PM

She chose him precisely because he was different from other boys - because he treated her with respect and consideration.

Another thing. The Game is a general concept as well as a specialized one. But nowhere was it defined that only certain tactics or methodologies could be used.

That means natural behaviors are also a Game. A gamble, where you risk some in order to gain a lot more. The thing is, modern society has no 'natural behavior' cues for men or women concerning mating. It's all disrupted. So one has to go back to basics.

If you don't want to act fake or use manipulation, then you have to be the real thing. I don't know which social circles you have connected to in your school, but often there are sub-cultures in any school. Social divisions. I don't know how extreme they are, so it differs from place to place. Perhaps the football social circle isn't for you. Maybe broadening your sphere of friends will help your prospects. But this essentially means going out and having fun for yourself, and making friends coincidentally. Having more interests, more hobbies, more activities, and more people to share them with.

Even if you don't meet anybody you are interested in, at least you got something substantial out of the bargain in the meantime. College is a broader community, of course, but social skills are social skills. It works anywhere.

When I see the Game, I just see another toolbox, like TFT, that makes my life more comfortable. People tell me stuff so I don't have to suddenly find out for myself and maybe panic. If you see it as working on your social skills, maybe you can use the Game for your own goals. I suspect it isn't the fact that you can't find a romantic interest at the moment. It's more of a social status thing. But social status comes in many varieties. Self-respect comes from more things than how many people do the adoration routine.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 02:25 PM

"My mom told me not to take food from strangers."

While it's true they don't come any stranger than I, no one has died from eating my guacamole................yet.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 13, 2010 02:30 PM

Death would be the least of any body's worries...

Now, transformation and transmogrification, those are the things to watch out for.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 02:32 PM

*bats eyes innocently*
(I know you can't see that under the hood and all, [which is why I told you] but trust me, m'kay?)

You talkin' 'bout lil ol' me? Shirley you jest!
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 13, 2010 02:54 PM

I think I saw something disturbing. Did somebody put me in a trance?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 03:26 PM

Hi Tom:

JLaw45, thanks for the thoughtful explanation. I feel like I've learned a few things. Couple of questions for you.

Ok cool.

First, how do you know PUAs are as successful as you claim? Is it their own stories, or have you followed some around and observed for yourself?

I've seen them. I have teammates who can walk into a frat house on any given weekend and leave having hit at least 3rd base. I have many more who can at least get long makeout sessions with consistency. They aren't trained PUA's using tactics or anything, but their natural habits when they approach are congruent with game.

One of my teammates(who regularly had hookups here on campus) also had a number of girls back in his home state in Texas. One of his main girls was from his old town. he'd broken up with her, but he had naturally gamed her so well that she was hooked.

Even after he made it clear that they were broken up, she'd make a point of flying all the way up from texas to New hampshire just to see him and hook up again. Her PARENTS paid for the round trip! They even were ready to pay to fly him down once, just to see her.
He had no value of her really. didn't respect her, kind of treated her like crap. and she kept coming back. Very cute girl, not too bright(low grades, community college, etc) but if you took a look at her, you'd never guess that she was in the situation she was-totally submissive to a guy(who i personally liked, by the way) who really could've cared less about her.

That teammate showed me the most clear display of tight game I've ever seen. and he wasn't the only one.

Second, in the situation with the girl who was flirting and then later dumped you, would you want to end up with someone like her? What are you looking for long-term?

Originally I'd kind of had a thing for her friend, who was actually from close to where I lived in upstate New york. She'd flirted with me a bit when I met her because she was always drunk out of her mind when i saw her. I would tease her about this, and so I just went up to her that night and her friend was there, so I teased her to.

She kind of grew on me as I got to speak with her. She seemed fun to talk to and joke around with, looked ok, was obviously intelligent being at the school we were at, and I was having some fun with her.

It didn't seem like such a bad deal. I thought I would've enjoyed dating her, at least for a while. didn't play it well enough, though. she was looking for fun excitement, and I clearly showed I didn't have it.

Posted by: JLaw45 at January 13, 2010 03:34 PM

I Trust Sly. Mmmm kayy

I Shirley Jest. I Shirley Jest.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 03:35 PM

*snnnicker*
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 13, 2010 03:45 PM

I have teammates who can walk into a frat house on any given weekend and leave having hit at least 3rd base.

This is why I say that Game is predatory, and moreover that it preys on the weak. A Real Man™ can do this, but chooses not to. A girl who will take you to 3rd base the first night at a frat party has probably done so with most of frat row.

As I said on a previous thread: Great, you've found a quick and expedient method for obtaining a worthless prize. Yay for you. /sarc

What Game won't do is find you a woman who's worth is greater than rubies.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 13, 2010 04:04 PM

I Trust Sly.

Ah... but is it *wise* to trust a person called "Sly"**? :p

/running for the barricades

**to say nothing of Dark Lord Sly?

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 04:06 PM

A girl who will take you to 3rd base the first night at a frat party has probably done so with most of frat row.

Bingo. Again, it's worth the time to ask: does she deserve you?

And I did the whole frat row thing (minus the 3rd base nonsense). I had seniors running every move in the book on me, but I can't say any of it worked. I thought guys like that were creepy and I laughed at their attempts to pick me up.

I don't think those tactics work on the kind of girl you say you're looking for. OTOH, if you're looking for a cheap hookup, I'm not surprised.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 04:11 PM

Hmmmm.....I feel a disturbance in the force....as if a certain inbox was feeling *cold* and lonely and in need of *heating* up.....

bwaaahaaahaahaaaaaaaaaa......hack hack.....
*burp*
Oh, ooops, 'scuse me.
heh
0>:~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 13, 2010 04:12 PM

Your intentions are good. Actions not so optimal. Sorry, but in the real world, good intentions aren't enough. (political tangent)

Oh trust me, I know that now.

You're pushing her into a leadership position. Or at least a position of maturity. She's not ready. I agree with Cass. You're not ready, that's why you're pushing. Stop pushing outwards, and push in on yourself.

You need to find the things that satisfy you first, that you love first, before you try finding it in others. You can't lead or protect them, if you can't even control your own emotions or desires.

True enough. A lot of the game sites I've read have said the same thing.

You're right, I suppose. Bitterness is beta, as one PUA I read once said.
I'm trying to get rid of most of this frustration and I assume that the "me vs. them" mentality will go with it.
Hopefully I get over it soon enough.

Now, that seems very strange to me. How do you, with your rather concise comprehension of parts of the Game, refuse to use it to alleviate what you yourself stated was a dissatisfied condition?

I find I have a strong ability to identify, analyze and ultimately understand game and how it works in our society. I've studied it for just about 3 months now in order to get to that point.

That being said, my ability to practice it is lacking, unless of course alcohol is involved(which it hasn't been since that one incident back in fall-I don't drink a lot).

Part of it is just fatigue. I've been rejected enough in so many overdone ways that, at this point, I just don't feel like dealing with it anymore. I struck out with half a dozen girls in the space of a month. I know a lot of PUAs go through more girls than this, and I admire that, but I don't really have it in me. It doesn't seem worth it, and it really isn't me.

The other part is my confidence. My understanding of game is higher now, but my confidence has been shot for a bit. I came into college with a lot of hope that I could turn things around from high school.That's why i made so many apporaches. That hope is pretty much gone now.

Then there's the cynicism/bitterness. That just helps me convince myself that girls here aren't even worth it, that i really just don't fit in and never will. I stand out too much.

There are lots of excuses, but bottomline is that i'm not a natural player. I'm too reserved and when I try to mimic it like I did in the fall I usually don't do that well. When I don't do that and just be myself, well...I still dont do to well. Maybe there could be some hope as I age and gain some more confidence, but right now? Not likely.

Lack the mindset? What does that mean, exactly. Purely as speculation, do you dislike the artificiality of the Game, putting on a mask, or something? If you're willing to take people out on dates, the same effort could be put into something equally as fun, but without the stress or imposition.

While I'm never going to be a proper PUA, sitting here and learning more about things will still help me greatly in the future.
There are things I know now about mistakes i made that I can incoporate and use later. I have no real issues with game, I'm just not optimized personally to become a PUA.

That doesn't mean I can't incorporate many aspects of it into my mind to better myself later.

You're in a very weird position. Your maturity is beyond even college level, as I see it, which means you either must date older women or women far younger than you. (cradle robbing in a funny way, because it is only unfunny if the man is interested in sex with below age girls)

At this point, given all i've read and thought about so far, I'm probably just going to go overseas as soon as I can. I may have a better chance depending on where I go, and that'll probably be better than staying here where I know, given my personality, I'll probably enjoy a lot less relationship success.

I do know that things will flip around eventually. The things that make me unattractive now(nerdiness, dependability, stability, politeness, etc) will be a boon to me when I hit 35 and end up with a good career. Women are much more amenable to guys like me when they pass 30 and their "playing days" hit a decline.

Nevermind the black community issues that'll benefit me around 35. There aren't a whole ton of black former football players with ivy League pedigrees and six figure salaries. Black women complain a lot about the lack of "good black men" i.e. blacks with jobs and stable careers, nevermind Ivy degrees. I've heard stories of attractive older black women playing groupies at black lawyer gatherings.

That tells me that the black girl who ran away from me in a frat when i tried to dance with her in the fall and the other black girl who told me to get out of her life will most likely(not guaranteed, but highly probable) sing very different tunes come 2030.

So i know there is some hope for the future. But why stay here and wait for women who want nothing to do with me now when I could probably fly to south America, Asia or (some parts of) Eastern Europe and find a young girl who likes me and enjoy something other than rejection for once?

Yeah, definitely leaving.

But... heh, equality doesn't affect this sphere of the mating ritual. Young women are still expected to date only men older than them, and men are expected to date younger women than them. This kind of knocks off a huge pool of older women that would suit younger men. Creating, somewhat, a 'all the good people are taken'.

That's a really interesting statement there. I'll be sure to remember that.

That also doesn't make sense to me.

You aren't ignorant of this 'fact' so to speak. But then... why aren't you happier.

If the Game is the solution, but you don't want to use it, then how good of a solution is it?

On the contrary, I am happier now knowing more and being less ignorant than I was in the past when I operated with blissful naivete and just got hurt a lot.
I can still use game, I just won't become a true pickup artist. Despite my understanding of game, my personality is not optimized for it and I doubt I would do well.

I can still incorporate aspects of game into my life and make it better as I grow older, and will do that now. So yes, game has made me better, I believe. It is a solution in that it'll prevent situations like the notable rejection I dealt with(due to clingyness) from happening the way they did.

Posted by: JLaw45 at January 13, 2010 04:12 PM

Oh, the links are solid, all right. They send you to the PUA sites, which have no credibility whatsoever, or to the NYT which is getting the benefit of the doubt as it is.

Cassandra has rarely blocked commenters on her site; I think the last time she did was about four years ago.

RWW is a troll.

I disagree with the futurist, but seeing how he treats commenters, he isn't interested in discussing what is fundamentally a flawed premise, instead, he only wants commenters who agree with him. This is called 'consensus.'

Very inept way to prove one's point: "They all agree with me so therefore I am right." He can delete at will anything that he doesn't like or set with his preconceived notions. That isn't scholarly, that's pathetic.

Posted by: Cricket at January 13, 2010 04:26 PM

Oh! *clutches chest as a great emptiness washes past*

I just felt a great rippling in the ooze, as if a million rudderless horndogs just ran out of GHB and roofies.

Or what YAG said...

Posted by: OB1_hun at January 13, 2010 04:28 PM

Jason~

Does your social life consist only for going to frat parties and hanging with your teammates? Maybe - as someone suggested above - you should expand into other social circles. Universities/colleges have all kinds of clubs/organizations you could check out. I know I enjoyed being on the student activities board during my college years (we brought in the concerts, comedians, etc., as well as sponsoring things like bowling/pool tournaments; I went to a smaller state university in Texas, '88-'92). Personally, the frat/sorority thing never appealed to me. I viewed that crowd (in general) as very superficial/shallow. Believe me, I got to hear the frat boys talk - one of the frats hung out right by the information desk where I did my work study job. What I overheard did nothing to make me re-evaluate my opinion of that crowd...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 13, 2010 04:28 PM

bthun, you crack me up ;-)

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 13, 2010 04:30 PM

It is a solution in that it'll prevent situations like the notable rejection I dealt with(due to clingyness) from happening the way they did.

Just keep in mind, you can do that two ways.

1) Genuinely have more interests in your life than her. Student athlete is a tough gig, I did it too. And while my degree was in theoretical Mathematics it wasn't at an Ivy League school. You're not going to have a lot of free time and you will need to spend some of it with your teammates for comraderie but you should make the effort to broaden your circle of friends when possible. It will make you a more interesting person to boot

2) "Neg" her into think you have more interests than her when you really don't.

I think the first is the better plan as it builds you up without having to "take her down" and be deceitful and manipulative and not yourself to do it. And you get a better quality woman to boot. It's win-win.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 13, 2010 04:39 PM

Hi Cassandra:

A few observations:

1. Your assessment of this situation - and how your behavior affected her - is dead on. She retreated from the "clingy" behavior b/c she began to feel pressured and that overcame any initial attraction she felt for you.

I understand that now fully. I suppose I needed the experience.

2. re: "Negging": as you describe it (adopting a light hearted, slightly challenging tone that keeps things from being too intense before the relationship is at a stage where emotional intensity is appropriate and desired by both parties) I have no problem with the practice.

This is just flirting, done well. Distinguish that from the examples I cited where the guy is already in a LTR and "controls" the woman by cheating on her and lying to her. Very, very different tactics.

Ok, I think we can agree on this.

3. The single biggest problem girls have with guys they fall for is that they are ready for and interested in a committed relationship LONG before the guy is. They attract a guy in the first place by seeming fun. He talks to or dates her a few times, though, and the intriguing, lighthearted woman he was originally attracted to changes subtly. He senses a "trap" - his expectations for where the relationship is going don't match hers and he doesn't want the complications and the hassle b/c he's not in the market - yet - for a relationship yet.

Coming on too strong can take more than one form. One is giving a woman the full court press. But another happens when she senses - long before you have any kind of relationship - that you are trying too hard and worries that you'll become dependent upon her. You accurately identified the problem - she got the wrong message from your behavior and it scared her off.

And there's the problem that creates so much confusion for young guys.

Girls want commitment from guys...but they run from guys who are too willing to show such commitment early on.
The guys just do a simple logic conversion.

Girl wants guy + commitment = I'll show it to her.

Then they fail, don't understand why and end up bitter about it.
I'm trying to learn and slowly incorporate this mentality now so I won't make the mistake again. But its a tough thing to overcome.

4. Is a girl who is a "f*** buddy" really an appropriate choice for a long term relationship? It sounds to me as though she is very immature and has character issues as well. No amount of looks will make up for a lack of character or maturity. It sounds as though you are far more mature than this girl was/is. Which begs the question: why pursue someone who's unworthy of your love?

I should explain more...

She hadn't really been completely honest with me early on. She'd said that she had one partner, one "boyfriend", who had been her first and only sexual partner. I interpreted that as perfectly normal.
She didn't tell me that this guy was the same dude I had to line up across the line from and block every day in practice.

I did ignore some key warning signs. These two were close. They interacted in an oddly affectionate way...it was about as close to boyfriend/girlfriend as you can possibly get without actually crossing that line. They seemed kind of like really close siblings, except...they weren't. I wrote it off quickly, partly because of this and just assumed they'd been really close for so long that he was practically family.

They'd become close friends early in high school and got close enough that the sex happened...but they never officially dated.

They were f-buddies, but not in the traditional sense. He saw her almost as a "little sister"(told me once if i messed with her he'd be 'big brother"...probably should've been more wary of that in hindsight), but he just happened to have screwed her roughly a month before he said that, and happened to have done so regularly.

The way she told me threw me off. she gave me a hypothetical scenario:

"So what happens when its january, and let's say...I'm pregant."
Me: "WTF?" (Alarms go off her beause I had, in my clingy/beta way, made a "deal" with her that we wouldn't date until January. Of course, I couldn't be the father then.)
Her: "And the father is XXXXX."
Me: "Huh?!"

While I was putting her on a pedestal she was getting screwed condomless...amazing.

Their relationship was odd enough and I was naive enough to have really just been thrown off by it. Combine that with all of the other qualities i saw in her(smart, middle class, well spoken, etc) and the risk was easy to overlook initially.

I assume they've been back at it again in recent months, though I don't think they're "officially dating" as of yet.

Yeah, odd world.

5. Male or female, both sexes want to make the best "deal" they can in the dating market. I think there's a more positive application of the "negging" strategy as you outlined it. What you're doing is not making yourself too available. Not sending the message that you're sitting home by the phone waiting at her beck and call.

You're saying, "Yes I'm interested in you, but I have my own life/interests/friends as well. I am independent and capable of being happy on my own. That sort of attitude is enormously attractive b'/c it implies you have something to offer her. If you let her into your world, you'll add to her happiness rather than being a dead weight on her.

I agree.

Wow, you might wanna be careful Cassandra.

You sounded almost like a couple of PUA bloggers I've read with your description there. :)


With this girl, you were slightly drunk and therefore came across as more confident. I'll bet you seemed happier too. That attracted her - she saw a fun, confident, lighthearted guy who - drunk or not - is YOU, minus the normal insecurities we all have.

Yep. For one night...I was an alpha male.

Twas but a brief glimpse into a privileged existence.

On your date, I'd guess that you were less confident. I do have to wonder: was this girl a good prospect for a LTR? After all, she didn't care about who you are as a person.

Heh, I'm losing faith in the notion that there are any girls my age who really care for my particular personality.

Anyway, she was pretty(about a 7), fun and I enjoyed hanging out with her and talking to her. when I first walked up to the group, I'd had eyes more on her friend(who I knew better), but she grew on me.

I was friends with my husband for several months before we ever went on a date. We are talking 3 months here. I think part of the problem is the hookup culture you mention. It rushes things far too much. It puts a premium on superficial, Darwinistic traits and disadvantages serious, interesting - not boring - guys like you.

Bingo.

I was a freshman at Dartmouth in 1977 :)

Wow, we're everywhere!

I left at the end of my freshman year, in large part b/c, although I had plenty of guys chasing me, they were so badly behaved that my entire view of men was circling the drain. You are at a school where there are, if I'm not mistaken, still more guys than girls. This increased competition means you will have to try far harder to attract and win a girl.

Yes, dead on. Some of my upperclassmen teammates were warning us freshman about this phenomenon. Girls here are difficult, no question.

I'd suggest a few things:

1. Stop focusing on dating/relationships and focus on making friends with as many girls as possible. Get to know them as people, first.

Without the heavy pressure of expectations, you may well find that your personality becomes an asset rather than a liability.

This will probably happen on its own. I've really given up trying to pursue reltionships at this point-my expectations are at about zero.

2.
There is one boy I have never forgotten. He was, strangely enough, not terribly attractive. He had a craggy, very masculine face - think Tommy Lee Jones. He hadn't quite grown into his body yet - he still had that puppy awkwardness about him.

This was over 30 years ago, and if there was one threat to my relationship to my husband it was this boy. I was madly attracted to him. Let me tell you why.

He had a terrible crush on me. I could sense it. But he NEVER let on in his behavior. He treated me strictly as a friend. So I was always relaxed and happy around him b/c I didn't have to worry about him hitting on me. And slowly my feelings for him deepened. Though I was not initially (physically) attracted to him, slowly his many virtues became apparent to me.

Here's the kicker. I think I was attracted to him because he was in control of his emotions and I interpreted this as strength. I knew that though he cared very much for me, he had his own life and wouldn't change himself or compromise his values because of his emotions.

Much of PUA tactics features just that idea: the man must be in control of his emotions. He must not seem desperate. He must display a manly reserve. This boy was gentle and kind to me always, but underneath that surface I knew there was an iron will and rock solid character. That is what attracted me to him, because those are the very same qualities that attracted me to my husband.

Practiced as you describe (eschewing the emotionally manipulative crap and simply getting control over your emotions/sexual attraction) I have no issue with 'negging'. I absolutely condemn cheating, lying, and being rude or insulting to put a girl off balance. That's very different from being strong and independent enough not to compromise your own goals and values just to attract women.

But at a more basic level, the problem you face is one most women would instantly identify with. In order to move from the attraction stage to the relationship stage, women HAVE to learn to control their strong desire for a relationship until the relationship has deepened to the point where the man wants this as much as she does. Young men generally have far stronger sex drives than the girls they are dating. So men MUST learn to master their strong desire for sex until the relationship deepens to the point where the woman is just as eager for it as he is. Whether you are male or female, this involves patience and self discipline.

I've told this story before, but after about 3 months of dating my spouse and I knew we were serious. We even discussed marriage, but we were too young. My husband essentially told me, "I love you and think I want to spend the rest of my life with you. But I am in no way ready for marriage and intend to finish school and begin my career first."

Inside, I was screaming, "How could you say you love me and yet say you are willing to risk losing me?"

But I did not scream or cry. I calmly replied, "Well, I can understand that but it's not reasonable to ask me to put myself on the shelf for so many years on the off chance that your feelings won't change."

I said, "I love you, but I also have dreams and plans of my own. So, I will continue to date you but will also go on with my own life and date others as well. If we're meant to be together, that will happen but I'm not going to commit myself to you without a corresponding commitment FROM you."

He didn't like that, but he understood it. And I did date other people after that, but he was #1 in my heart. If I had reacted emotionally, I would have lost him. I would have placed too much pressure on a relationship that wasn't strong enough yet to bear that pressure.

Young people are so impatient. I know I was. But good relationships don't spring up overnight and certainly they rarely spring up from hooking up. You have to build a solid foundation and during that time, you must demonstrate great self control.

Build on firm ground, Jason. Even if you start from physical attraction, don't try to jump straight to a serious relationship without getting to know the girl first as a person - without evaluating her character. It's not just whether she thinks you're good enough for HER.

I think the more important question is: is she good enough for YOU? Answering that question takes time and patience.

wow, that was very well written. definitely a former Dartmouth student here. :)

I am going to keep working to internalize the mentality you mentioned here, hoping it will displace some of the bitterness/frustration I'm harboring.
If anything, i'll be better for it. I'm hoping I can be a lot more like the "Tommy Lee Jones" you mentioned. I just have to get rid of the neediness first.

And again, I don't think you and some of these PUA are as divergent in opinion as some(including myself) originally thought.

Posted by: JLaw45 at January 13, 2010 04:51 PM

JLaw,

The attributes themselves are not in and of themselves bad. It's what you do with them.

The attributes are like a brick. A brick isn't good, a brick isn't bad, a brick simply is.

It's what you do with that brick that is good or bad. It's good when you use it to build a home, it's bad when you use it to smash someone elses window.

The PUA sites aren't describing bad attributes, just bad uses.

It's not bad to not be clingy, it is bad to use disrespectful behavior (a 'neg' such as telling her how beautiful her roommate is) to convince her of such.

The real 'alpha' doesn't have to.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 13, 2010 05:07 PM

Jason~

In your #4, you never really answered the question "Which begs the question: why pursue someone who's unworthy of your love?". If I was a mom (I'm not, though I'm old enough to be your mother...), I don't think I'd have a problem a daughter of mine dating a young man like you. Don't sell yourself short. Don't date someone just to be dating someone. To hell with what others may think of you, if you aren't "hooking up" with some random girl every weekend/at every party. Look outside of where you've been looking in the hope of finding a young lady worthy of your affections. The girls you have described who have rejected you don't seem to me to be someone you'd really want a relationship with, in the long run.

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 13, 2010 05:09 PM

You sound smart enough to pick through the muck, discard the dross and retain only the gold. As I said, you are obviously a very intelligent and mature young man.

I don't disagree with any philosophy that advocates self discipline, not letting your appetites overrule your reason, and not rushing into relationships.

My only exposure to this "Game" stuff has been to read appalling posts that advocate cheating on your wife, beating down the self esteem of virgins to overcome their moral objections, etc.

Yes, I do see good elements of this Game nonsense but that is why it works: there's a grain of truth in there somewhere. But it's not the whole truth - not by a long shot.

I think many of the PUA confuse the feminine desire for male leadership with a desire to be trashed and dominated. Not the same.

My husband is a Marine. Good leaders make people *want* to follow them. There's a great line from one of my favorite movies (Kingdom of Heaven). The villain - a big bully - is trying to intimidate the protagonist. He assails him in a market and pokes him with his riding crop.

The protagonist grabs the crop out of his hand calmly. As the villain leaves, the protagonist says to him, "You forgot your riding crop".

The villain replies with something like, "Keep it. It was contaminated by your touch."

As he strides away, the protagonist calls after him,

"My lord - how will you ride if you cannot beat your horse?"

Best. Put down. Ever.

I was reminded about that reading these Game sites. Instead of leading women, these angry, bitter guys want to beat women into submission by inflaming their emotions and eroding their self control. But that doesn't appeal to a woman's higher nature, but to her worst instincts. She's not coming along with you because she enjoys the ride, but because you have made her doubt herself.

Yes, leadership is harder. But the rewards are greater also.

You are so much better than that. I can tell by your comments. And I wish you good luck :)

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 05:09 PM

Perhaps a change of perspective would help.

When you see your teammates hooking up with the new lady for the night don't look at it as missing out, look at it like they're the bottom feeders cleaning out the scum of the dating pool.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 13, 2010 05:33 PM

To riff off YAG's good advice, one might even use "Catfish" as an appropriate moniker for the bottom feeding cleaners.

(noun: pl., catfish, -fish·es or horndogs)


1. Any of numerous scaleless, chiefly freshwater fishes of the order Siluriformes, characteristically having whiskerlike barbels extending from the upper jaw.

2. Hominid Erectus Horndogus who will hit anything. Noted by smooth lines of improbable seepage, and a whistling noise produced from wind passing through the ear canal and exiting over a slack mandible.

Usage: "Hey Catfish, after your exploits in the shallows last night, don't forget to visit the clinic!"

Synonyms: Pimps, Stump-trainers, Ichy-droolers, and RachaCrachoffs descended from the Eurasian nation of Russia.

Posted by: Dan el-Webster at January 13, 2010 06:03 PM


I know a lot of PUAs go through more girls than this, and I admire that, but I don't really have it in me.

I don't think it is what you lack. It is what you have a lot of. You have a lot of empathy and you feel emotions stronger, for whatever reasons. That's something you often find in lone wolf alphas. People who are strong but don't tend to like to be around humans or civilization. They're not predators, but they like to avoid the complex interplay of human emotions that is found in high population densities.

A lot of PUA either use 1. robotic script to reduce their anxiety or 2. actually de-value women in their eyes in order to make the Encounter not a big thing. It is true that once you've met a woman the same way a few times, and they react the same way, you start maybe losing respect for them as humans and thinking of them as toys or puppets. This is why it's important to develop up your core strengths first, because no leader can be trusted with power if he can't control himself first. The desire to abuse power is in all of us. Getting more power without the restraints is like buying a chainsaw without knowing how to switch it off or lacking the strength to hold it while powered so it cuts through things (or bodies) you didn't want it to.

Rejection fear is pretty nasty. If you have tried it out and keep getting rejected, your energy and motivation will evaporate without a counter force.


It doesn't seem worth it, and it really isn't me.

You're right, a lot of the automatic scripts wouldn't fit you.

I'm too reserved and when I try to mimic it like I did in the fall I usually don't do that well. When I don't do that and just be myself, well...I still don't do to well.

The people who you mimic are pretty obsessive compulsive, to a degree, and most aren't alpha material. If they are naturals, they can't teach you anything. Cause they never had to learn it. Most are not born as confident leaders, as most of us aren't born as such. When you think of mimicing others, your body language will probably go into lack of confidence mode right there. You have to be a really good actor not to do so.

But you have a resistance to change because you see it as hostile to what you actually value. Best I can describe it. Normally it shouldn't be this way, but it can be if you are mimicking the wrong people. I mean, if you go around the internet, statistically speaking, a lot of PUAs are ungood people. Even if they have good wishes, they have psychological issues or instabilities. They get points for drive and initiative to change themselves, but the very fact that they don't like themselves is a problem itself. Turning youself into one of them, may not be what you wanted originally.

I'm trying to learn and slowly incorporate this mentality now so I won't make the mistake again. But its a tough thing to overcome.

Think of the relationship as a business. There's an initial investment. Some stranger you don't know comes up to you and wants you to invest 5 million. You see the problem, do you not. How can you trust? Even if you give her your trust, how can she reciprocate? An uneven relationship is not a relationship, but a master-slave binary set.

So people want to build up some experience, resume, or trust indicators. Character, strength, and persona indicators. Right now you've been rejected, so you want to find the kind of woman that won't reject you. So you can't trust them right off the bat, cause the risk is too high. As they can't and shouldn't trust you. If they trust you too readily, that's a recipe for almost all the women latching unto abusive boyfriends. It's not your fault. It is the fault of the women for giving their trust too soon, without verification feedback, and NOT pulling the trust away after the investment has soured. The fault of the boyfriend is that he's gutter material. These are the people who engage in high risk behavior. They may mature out of it, or they may end up hurt or dead. It depends.

But business, any business, is still a risk. You still have to contribute something. But you don't need to contribute everything. You still need to keep a reserve, something that is yours and only yours, that is safe from others. If you don't have that, Jlaw, then you need to get it. If every woman you try to meet is the one, then you've invested a lot and will lose a lot if you fail. Right now, without getting to know a lot of girls there, you probably shouldn't make an investment, an emotional investment, at all. Keep your reserve. Not because you distrust, that's aggression, but because you are waiting for reasons to trust.

When two men meet on the street and they distrust each other, their body language shows it. When they are just neutral, it shows as well. The entire dynamic is different.

Girls want commitment from guys

Most people don't really know what they want. Don't pay attention to any declarations of this sort. People don't declare this until 1. they are mature and 2. are in a relationship where trust and loyalty flows both ways. The human mind is infinitely capable of making up rationalizations based upon emotions. The younger people are, the more adrift they are. "Commitment" is only an idealization concept. When you bring it down to reality, things are different. You have the skill set to know the truth yourself. If you don't pay attention to what things look like superficiality and just investigate the truth, you should find it. You might even find that this empowers you and protects you against being surprised. (Good intel is a resource on its own)

The mating ritual sets up conditions where various men compete to give a limited supply of women, value enough to creative incentive for relationships like marriage. In a lot of cases, fun is a value. For different people, what they value must be different. If you lost in a competition, it may be because you didn't give enough value or maybe because what you were offering wasn't what the woman wanted at all. The distinction is important. You seem to have your career lined out. That's value. But you can't just give it up. That's valuable. What is valued should be protected, not just spread across the public commons. That's why you got to search, discriminate, and filter out. See what it is people actually desire, as opposed to just what they think they want or what you think they want or what others think they should want. Judge this based upon their priority: people will act differently towards something they value more. If a woman literally doesn't care about planning long range, or thinks she will use up the best decade of her life in terms of youth and energy, 20-30, on a career... then you'll want to avoid those women. Because they probably won't value marriage or long term support until after they are 30. Then again, regions of the US still have people marry as young as 16 or 20. But you'll never meet those people, if your social circles are stuck somewhere else.

It is far better for you to crash and burn now, than crash and burn by choosing the wrong woman who will cash you out. Something to remember. And this is not going to change by moving to a foreign country. Human nature is still human nature. It's your duty to make sure your goals are accomplished. I think you know that already.

While I was putting her on a pedestal she was getting screwed condomless...amazing.

You violated a good rule of thumb, what some may call a principle. Don't mess with other men's women unless you're prepared to kill the competitors and their family relations. Harsh, but keep that in mind. Get some intel actively through human sources and try not to just observe passively. If he is your friend, he'll help you out. If he is jealous, he'll show it. If he's got something else going on you wouldn't like, it'll come out. If this is a harem situation, and he isn't serious about her, and he approves of your relationship, then your only obstacle is to convince her that she should be with you rather than him. You can get a lot of info from observation. That's intelligence, meaning IQ. But it isn't wisdom, the ability to choose the right path/decision.

The good news is. 1. you aren't lacking in perception, just experience and 2. you have enough empathic capability to pick these things up, if you were paying attention to people rather than oneitis.

Btw, he did give you a friendly warning you mentioned. Alphas don't try to intimidate each other. They either leave each other alone, fight to kill, or treat each other as friends or just neutrals. Alpha leaders are also notable for protecting others. Forget about the word 'dating'. It is meaningless. Human behavior is hard to label, especially by idiots in the education system, or your gossiping peers.

Also, the language you are using here conveys your bitterness. No matter how much it was a surprise or how much it hurt, your primary duty was to ensure that the person telling you this, giving you enough trust not to strike back at them, was 1. thanked and 2. felt secure and confident in her choice. If you thought it was uncomfortable for you, look at it from her perspective. She felt pity for you, not attraction or love. And she could have strung you along for a long time if she wanted to. She did you a favor by finally telling you. She wasn't smooth about it. It's pretty pathetic to do the 'hypothetical what if game'. It gets kind of obvious what is going on there. The more discipline you have, the more power you will have over a situation.

Any panic reactions, any voice raises, anything that conveyed you were 'losing it' is your fault. Alphas don't often blame others. It helps keep the bitterness to a minimum (self-sufficient people are not bitter). Because for the most part, they beat on only one person: themselves. And if they can't beat on themselves cause.... their feelings hurt too much from being around people, they just go away and be by themselves. They don't express their emotions out of frustration by 'acting out'. They don't talk badly about the people they had problems with. They just go live their own life.

If you can do something like this, then you'll have something to be proud of. If the woman and man were manipulating SObs out to get you, even better. People who crack cause of emotion are even more vulnerable to SOBs. Check up on malignant narcissists, con artists, etc.

Yes, putting her on a pedestal and finding out she wasn't who you thought it was, is troublesome. But whose fault is that. She did not want you thinking that of her, did she. Her partner didn't go out of his way to mislead you, either.

This isn't an argument. If you disagree with me, it won't cause me to try to convince you otherwise. I'll state it once and let it go. Anything more would be aggression, pushing on other people's boundaries. If you are to accept responsibility, it has to be your decision. If somebody forced it on you, you lost.

Normally, this type of discussion would be impossible. Which I think is interesting. I say impossible because you'd either say something or even worse do something that trespasses on me or I'll do something that triggers the same. Then it escalates. One duty of the alpha leader, male or female, is to find ways to avoid such things, between them and others, between others and them. Because nobody gets a better life through meaningless conflict and misunderstandings. We are all human. We all fail at times. Nobody is perfect. People have triggers and if you step on them, they probably will explode. Some people have higher detonation yields than others, though.

I won't say whether your expectations of a relationship there are accurate or not. But if you do make such an assessment, don't make it with emotion. If done with emotion, use positive emotion rather than negative ones. This should be a choice you have made, not one you were pushed into because of rejection episodes.

I think you have a very clear ability to self-analyze and knock down walls of self-deception. It'd be a shame if emotion corrupted that ability. Many people don't have this ability. Most people have rationalizatons. They justify what they do as being right cause that is how they would wish it to be so. This gives them confidence. So long as they keep up the walls of self-denial.


P.S

Becareful of bolding stuff here that has a line break. The bold format will disappear on the second line, making your multi line bold quotes confusing.


I have a little game that might be fun.

Let's all watch this pick up video and list the things we would have done differently based upon what was said, what wasn't said, etc.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 06:17 PM

I will say this: when I was at Dartmouth the frat scene really made me doubt my own values and my view of how things should be.

It was a very perverse environment. Within the frat community there were boys (young men) who were chivalrous and kind to me, who protected me and treated me with respect. Sometimes I saw these same boys treating other women like crap. That confused and depressed me.

College is the biggest peer pressure environment out there, and for the first time in your life you're not coming home from school at the end of the day to your parents - to an environment consonant with the way you were raised. It's like being immersed in a big pool where there is never a chance to climb out and regain your equilibrium.

If you have good values, they are under assault 24/7. The single biggest reason I left school is that I knew if I stayed, I wouldn't like the person I would become. Also, I wasn't serious about my studies and there are far cheaper places to drink beer than Dartmouth.

I saw some girls who were very out of control. All the male attention went to their heads and they were constantly getting hammered and then abused by guys on frat row. They are partly to blame for putting themselves in a position where they lose control over their own bodies, but the young men are also wrong to take advantage of them. When I was there, some guys would spike girls' drinks with grain alcohol or make the amount of liquor twice as much for a pretty girl's drink as they did for the guys. They wanted us to be drunk out of our minds.

I was always very self confident but this really depressed the heck out of me. I went off to school loving and respecting boys and left doubting their worth. Seeing their predatory and amoral side hurt me very deeply and made me wonder if the world wasn't actually a very hostile and bad place?

So I understand disillusionment - when you are hurt and disappointed, it's hard not to become cynical and bitter. But the thing is, these boys weren't monsters. They were just very immature and their hormones were driving the bus.

The point of this is, as you grow older your peers will catch up to you. Hang in there.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 06:36 PM

Again, the gaping flaws in Cassandra's amateurish and man-hating rant are :

1) Accusing The Futurist of stating what Roissy said, in a link The Futurist did not link to. The Futurist pre-empted this in his original article by saying that linking to an article does not mean agreeing with EVERYTHING the person wrote.

I assume Cassandra agrees with the feminists who say men should be enslaved, etc.

2) Avoid responsibility in pure feminist fashion - refusing to admit that many women use the children to extract money from the man, and then don't spend that money on the children. This is where real women like Dr. Helen are a world apart from man-hating bigots like Cassandra.

3) Strawman arguments. The Futurist has not stated many of the things you claim to want to dispute.

4) Taking a US-centric worldview, when The Futurist's article, which is clearly worldwide in scope.

5) Slandering a respectable magazine like The Spearhead (which is NOT a PUA site, so don't lie), without having the guts to go and comment there.

In short, Cassandra's screed is very amateurist, dishonest, and gender-bigoted.

Plus, this woman-written blog will give Cassandra's confused little head much thought:

http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/2008/06/are-women-naturally-amoral.html

I doubt Cassandra will have the courage to analyze this blog.

Posted by: Right Wing Woman at January 13, 2010 06:50 PM

I've never been a drinker, really. I would go out with my friends in college to bars or parties. They'd get drunk and often times hook up with some guy. Not the case for me. I suffered from the problem of being the "nice girl", and that didn't get me any play. Of course, I don't think I'd really have wanted to kind of guys they hooked up with. Unlike one friend of mine, I never had to hide ear-to-ear hickeys so I could go to church Sunday morning....

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 13, 2010 06:54 PM

I can't believe I forgot where to get the youtube video.

*burp*

*wakes up* What happened? I felt like I went to sleep and woke up.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 07:05 PM

You didn't hypnotize me and implant some suggestions, did you Sly...

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 07:06 PM

I already commented on your silly link. It's not worth the time to read it, however I'll repeat my earlier comment over there.

I assume Cassandra agrees with the feminists who say men should be enslaved, etc.

Putting words in my mouth is not an argument. You know what they say about assumptions (or maybe you don't).

Accusing The Futurist of stating what Roissy said, in a link The Futurist did not link to. The Futurist pre-empted this in his original article by saying that linking to an article does not mean agreeing with EVERYTHING the person wrote.

Nowhere in my post do I "accuse" The Futurist of stating what Roissy said.

Learn to read. And do let me know when your reading comprehension skills are up to snuff.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 07:08 PM

Okay. I found it.


Link

Comment away peeps. Here's some guidelines.

Notice any negs and if you don't like them, criticize them in detail.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 07:10 PM

The comment is up at your site, RWW. In your parlance, let's see if you have the "courage" to publish it.

Your comments are all moderated. I don't moderate my comments. Interesting. Like The Futurist, it would appear that you don't care much for opposing views :p He doesn't post the comments of folks who argue with him.

I wonder: will you?

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 07:14 PM

Of course, I don't think I'd really have wanted to kind of guys they hooked up with.

Getting drunk is funny. For other people that aren't that is. I didn't like the fact that I lost fine motor controls while tipsy, and I kept trying to find out how much I could drink before either the taste killed me from disgust or I couldn't stay awake.

But when I saw how people act while drunk, that's the entertainment value.

I hated the thought that I couldn't control my reflexes in such a state, and it was pointless to me to drink, unless for taste, unless I was at the point where I had to control it. Drinking was a sort of challenge and a danger to be avoided, all in one.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 07:19 PM

I will say this: when I was at Dartmouth the frat scene really made me doubt my own values and my view of how things should be.

This is giving Dartmouth a bad name ha.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 07:27 PM

I read something recently that said while you are drunk, your nervous system has a delay of some odd seconds. That's why police who subdue drunk idiots with a shoulder bar, will get the guy down, handcuff him, and then suddenly the guy leaps up screaming that his shoulder hurts like hell.

Man, with those shot to hell reflexes, I wouldn't have a chance at all of defending myself in a fight. 10-15s neural delay? You might as well take the steak knife and shove it in your arm if you want to lose so badly.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 07:29 PM

Link

here's an interesting video on people's insecurity concerning their physical looks and some social encounters.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 07:39 PM

One reason I never really drank in college (I can still count on one hand, not using my thumb, how many times I've been tipsy/drunk - I've only ever been drunk once, and I remember everything and didn't have a handover/get sick) is I never wanted to not be in control, especially if I was someplace I would be around people I didn't know/couldn't be sure I could trust. At this point in my life, I don't really see the point of drinking to drunkenness. I will - on the very rare occasion - have a drink; it's usually limited to one, and I like the ones that also qualify as dessert (ice cream, whipped cream & chocolate syrup). My (much younger) sisters give me crap about my not drinking. They don't understand my avoidance. Mostly, I look at it as empty calories.

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 13, 2010 07:48 PM

Link

Interview of Neil Strauss by Dennis Prager. Politics and dating!!

Too much, too soon?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 07:52 PM

"I assume Cassandra agrees with the feminists who say men should be enslaved, etc."

Actually, that's Mistress Mandy's department.


"You know what they say about assumptions..."

*thrusts hand up in air repeatedly*
Ooh....OohOoh!
Oh, I know!
Pick me!
Pick me!!


"Learn to read."

And then move on to something more challenging like forming a relevant thought and writing a complete, coherent sentence.
"Taking a US-centric worldview, when The Futurist's article, which is clearly worldwide in scope.
Methinks there is something dangling here, and it ain't a pick-up line at closing time.


Those simple tasks alone should take long enough for the stench of your troll crap to fade from here.
Now run along....you've got some learnin' to do.

Posted by: DL Sly at January 13, 2010 08:14 PM

"Methinks there is something dangling here, and it ain't a pick-up line at closing time."
Yikes! Participle akimbo!

Looks someone should have bought a longer kilt.

Lola
L.O.L.A. Lola,
la la la la la Lola...

Posted by: bt_channeling-Tommy Smothers_hun at January 13, 2010 08:21 PM

JLaw,

Ivy's are crazy places full of crazy people. If they aren't crazy going in, the stress combined with the intelligence makes them that way, for a while. Things get a lot more sane when you aren't living in that crowd all the time.

Regarding searching for love outside the US, it can be a lot easier to meet girls and get first and second dates, but it opens up whole new vistas of misunderstanding, bizarre expectations, and, unless you are fluent in her language and vice versa, can end up with you being attached to someone you not only don't understand very well, but will never have much chance of getting to know better. Not saying don't do it, but, in my experience, it's never quite like the story in "Love Actually."

Posted by: tom at January 13, 2010 08:34 PM

OK, Ymar.

I listened to the Dennis Prager interview with Neil Strauss. Again, though I'm unquestionably a man hating, feminazi gender bigot from Venus, I have absolutely no problem with ANYTHING Strauss said.

I think it's smart for a man to pay close attention to how women perceive their overtures, just as I think it's smart for women to pay close attention to the way men view them. If you know that saying X will make the other sex think you meant Y, you're not getting your message across.

The sexes really do not understand each other. Men do X, thinking, "That would work with me" but a woman may perceive his intent quite differently b/c she applies her own experiences (which are so different from his) and draws a different conclusion from the same "data".

I think where this "game" business goes awry is when (as we saw on the threads I linked) men use their observations in a manipulative or destructive way. I used the analogy at Grim's place of the initial encounter or the opening phase of a relationship being like two gears, rotating at very different speeds.

Unless at least one of the gears adjusts to the other (and in a perfect world they both adjust) they will never sync up. Traditionally women have performed most of this "syncing" process b/c they're just more inclined to observe and think about human behavior and relationships.

Now, b/c women have their own careers and are less interested in marriage, men have to put in more effort.

I don't actually think this is a bad thing.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 08:41 PM

Ivy's are crazy places full of crazy people. If they aren't crazy going in, the stress combined with the intelligence makes them that way, for a while. Things get a lot more sane when you aren't living in that crowd all the time.

Bingo. My youngest son wanted to attend an Ivy. He could undoubtedly have gotten in.

I discouraged him, however. Looking at his personality, it was my belief that he'd be miserable there. Instead he attended a smaller school with people more like himself. His confidence and poise SOARED. Today he is extremely successful both in his career and in his personal life.

There were some very nice people at Dartmouth who I will always remember. But man, many of those people were wound waaaaaaay too tightly. Too impressed with superficial things, too hungry for money or prestige. Not nearly independent enough in their world view. They seemed (to me at least) very preoccupied with status and other people's opinions.

But in the end, you have to respect the person in the mirror. If you don't have that self respect, you have nothing. I think it takes a special kind of person to thrive at the Ivies - competitive, very extroverted, a networker. My brother also graduated from Dartmouth and after finishing grad school he told me it was a great school but he would have been happier at the school where he earned his PhD. Unsurprisingly, he met his wife there and they've been married for 20 years.

Very happily.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 08:46 PM

I pity women like Right Wing Woman. It struck me that she is so desperate to prove that the Futurist's ideas are right because she is very likely seeing a married man who claims that he cannot leave his wife because he would be ruined financially by having to pay for child support.
Poor RWW has no self-respect at all. She can feel worthy only if she can get this man to leave his wife and marry her.

Just a hunch. But ask John - I am really, really good with hunches.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 13, 2010 08:59 PM

I just think it's funny the way she keeps repeating the same lame lines over and over again, as though saying the same thing in the same words 6 times will make it more convincing :p

And then.... [flourish!!!].... THE LINK. Which was also lame beyond belief.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 09:08 PM

Hmmm, RWW's moniker appears to be a woman but RWW talks like a very young, temples throbbing, thoughts colliding man (just another hunch)

Lola, L.O.L.A. Lola...

Posted by: bt_channeling-Tommy Smothers_hun at January 13, 2010 09:13 PM

Her second comment was pretty much a cut-and-paste from yesterday...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 13, 2010 09:15 PM

Jlaw, looks like you somehow ended up in a minefield college ; )

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 09:21 PM

pick-up line at closing time.

That has a very ironic double meaning. Good job with that one.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 09:30 PM

She posted pretty much the same thing over at Beth's place :p

Ymar, Dartmouth is not a bad place. A lot of my family gradumacated from there.

But at least when I was there, the male/female ratio was 1:3. There was a whopping 1 sorority. I just checked and WOW has it changed!

Undergrad student body 4,147

Greek life: 48% fraternities and 40% sororities

5 year grad rate: 92%

Male/female ratio: 49% / 51%

Out of state students: 97%

Students living in campus housing: 85%

Lovely campus. Good teachers, at least when I was there, who actually held office hours and were accessible. Good opportunities for foreign study: I took Russian it is was great.

It just wasn't a good match for a middle class military brat, that's all. I didn't mean to knock it. It's less "Ivy" than most Ivies.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 13, 2010 09:41 PM

Oh, and jlaw - I'm a really, really old phart. Older than Cassandra and probably everyone else here. Now, I never attended an Ivy League school and I have never lived on the East Coast. My experiences are different than Cassandra's and yours. But, I would like for you to please think about this - I have found that when you least expect it, love suddenly just appears. The more you seek it, the less likely you are to find it. And once you find it, you have to work to keep from losing it.

My son did not even have one date all through high school. Yes, he is a nerd, a smart young man, he read and still reads at least 3 books a week.

His sophomore year in college, he joined a couple of clubs - chess and Anime'. He ended up meeting his wife through these clubs. They were friends for at least a year before they realized how important each of them had become to the other. They are really soul mates, and a good match.

And his best friend, like a second son to us, never dated either. But then, in college, a girl that he had had a crush on since 7th grade asked him out. They have been dating ever since, and I expect that some day they will also marry
The thing is ... yes things are different now. Your generation is so much more sexualized than my generation was, but there are still good people out there. You do not need to be someone you are not to find love in your life. On the contrary, you need to be yourself. Things are not nearly so bleak as you believe.

You do not need to leave the United States to find the love of your life. You need to work on your education, your interests, and believe me, some lovely young woman will notice you at some point and if you pay attention, you will notice her.

Best wishes to you and your future.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 13, 2010 09:43 PM

I read the link. Since genes are not fixed, but can activate repressed elements due to environmental stimuli, what does it matter what happened millions of years old.

The need to defend the young is still there. Look at bears. Part of the reason the women of Rome abandoned Bhaal worship or some other human sacrifice religion for Mithras/Catholicism is because they banned child sacrifice.

Once scientists realized genes could actually be activated by the environment, this shifted the entire nature vs nurture to... nurture.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 09:53 PM

Oi, oi. Looks like a furore here while I was away.

Look, I've seem a lot of this analogies about alpha this and beta that, and wolves and sheepdogs and sheep, and whether you got game or not, and all other kinds of stuff.

I think all of these analogies may describe certain aspects of human behaviour, but something fundamental is missing...

Humans are NOT animals. Sheepdogs and wolves are essentially the same species, and you can interbreed them. Sheepdogs are sheepdogs because HUMANS have been breeding certain desirable traits into them. Cross a sheepdog with a dingo and watch what happens to your flock.

And therefore, while humans are social creatures, we are not pack or herd animals. The American culture may very well fit pat into the 'top dog and followers' category; other cultures in the world do not necessarily do so. Nor is it that only 10% of human males are 'alpha' and the rest 'beta'.

The question is simply one of individual personality. Which is why, Cassandra, the boys treated you well and treated other women not so well - individual preference. Not all 'alpha males' will score with all chicks. And certainly, I detect a lot of 'no true Scotsman' in this thread.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just a 30-year old Chinaman virgin who's always had permanent commitment in mind whenever I pursue a courtship.

Posted by: Gregory at January 13, 2010 09:57 PM

he joined a couple of clubs - chess and Anime'

Ohh. Did you remember which chess opening was his favorite and which anime show or series was his most highly rated?

I think where this "game" business goes awry is when (as we saw on the threads I linked) men use their observations in a manipulative or destructive way.

It's just like a firearm or justified lethal force training for H2H.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 10:04 PM

Gregory~

Are you not familiar with LTC Grossman's essay "On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs? That's where the sheepdogs vs. wolves thing is coming from. No one is trying to say humans are animals...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 13, 2010 10:10 PM

Cross a sheepdog with a dingo and watch what happens to your flock.

I think you missed the origin of the metaphor.

Nor is it that only 10% of human males are 'alpha' and the rest 'beta'.

There's never been a statistical count down, as far as I know. And I wouldn't trust any if they claimed they had one.

There was a tribal leader in Afghanistan that Steve Pressfield interviewed. That tribal guy is an alpha leader. You can easily tell by the answers he gave. The reason why statistics don't matter on this score is because that tribal leader may have some lieutenants, who are also alphas, but there's only one alpha top slot available there, the tribal chief. So the others take a slightly subordinate role or branch out and do other things. Any statistical exercise would ignore those, and it'd be wrong. Cause any leader should at least have some successors.

The animal world has a very strict and objective standard for what an alpha is. Dog hierarchies even stricter, in a sense, relating to human hierarchies. It is very convenient because it is very true. It forms a very good base to add all the human complexities like deception and anger on top of it. But if you strip it all away, humans still obey their First Nature.

To be able to give the right orders, it's good training to take orders, right. But in the animal kingdom, there can only be one alpha. In human society, there's no land restriction or rule for this. If a village can only have one chief, then the excess chiefs can just go elsewhere and found their own villages. Or obey the recognized leader.


Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 10:18 PM

But then, in college, a girl that he had had a crush on since 7th grade asked him out.

The thing I notice about the 'high school' sweat heart deal is that you have a huge amount of time involved here that allows the two to get familiar.

In other places, people change geographic locales, if they are lucky, every school level. Some are unlucky enough to skip every odd grade instead.

I noticed that whenever you see somebody from where you came from, at a new social area, they always gravitate towards you because you're like a comfort magnet from the old days. This is actually a big plus for social networking at new places, cause both of you can exchange contacts and not feel as isolated. But it sucks if you just completely take out your roots and go to a place, like a college, far the hell the away that you don't know anybody there. Your relationships from before, if you take high school, was four years. That's a lot of time, especially to those that are young. Starting from scratch means not having that bulk behind ya. That sense of support or solidness.

This ties in with the having lots of friends deal. Even if you can't find a romantic interest, one may crop up just by having lots of friends or knowing a lot of people. And even if nothing crops up, at least you had a social circle you could actually do some fun stuff with in the meantime.

And if fun starts getting boring, then there's always people in need of help. Maybe they're insecure about getting hit on all the time. Maybe they got problems with physical violence. Maybe they got academic issues. To help solve these problems would require that you become a better person, somebody with resources and wisdom.

Since a lot of people have no idea of how interpersonal relationships work, there must be scores of men and women that could use the help.

On the interview and other places, I keep hearing about the nice guy not wanting to learn to manipulate and what not. This is like people saying they don't want to learn how to kill people because they're scared of becoming evil or actually killing somebody. It is not logical, because it is emotional. If you want to help people, you got to learn what the hell is wrong with them to begin with. If you want to protect people, you have to learn about the problem.

I always had a compulsion to tell the truth back in grade school, even when it cost me personally and didn't really help anyone else. Certain social niceties like white lies or little tricks were something I disliked accepting, for it felt like it was a violation of principle.

Eventually I figured out two things. Ideals are meaningless if they don't help people and honesty is actually most of what constitutes deception anyways. Since it was the same thing, and the only difference was how people interpreted it, then by making sure people didn't take things in a way that harmed them, you can maintain the conditions of honesty, conduct the social maneuvers, and never slide outright into deception. And even if you did, it would be justified if people, other than yourself, gained in the process.

I kind of get the feeling that a few of the people that objected to using coded scripts for their approaches just don't like making stuff up that they know are false. But if that is so, then they don't have to .They can just ad lib on the fly. If you can't read people's body language, voice tones, and facial expressions for their reactions, then you might as well start learning now.

I would never use tricks like talking on a cellphone with a (fake) person. I don't have the self-deception capabilities to pull it off smoothly and I prefer something more substantial than that.

Deception, for example, can be used with 100% truth. All you do is to not mention certain things, giving a false impression. Or at least a slightly incorrect impression. People start lying and things get complex. Way too complex. That's why scripts and artificial routines seem very popular. They can't or don't want to create their own stuff, so they just do the copycat routine. But when you're copying somebody else, you're not yourself.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 13, 2010 10:54 PM

Yes, I've read the essay. And I'm only semi-convinced. It does explain some things, but not really everything.

For one thing, sheep are really, really contrary creatures, and you do NOT want to mess with the rams.

For another thing, I don't believe that some people are just innately protective, or evil, or useless, or whatever. There has to be free will involved, and I'm certain that a so-called 'sheep' can learn to become a 'sheepdog', and a 'wolf' can do the same. Similarly, a so-called 'beta' can learn to become an 'alpha'.

Also, I'm just making the numbers up. Should have made that clear, I guess. But I figure all men should be masculine and 'man up' and act as leaders. Because that is who and what we are... leaders of ourselves, if no one else.

Posted by: Gregory at January 13, 2010 11:59 PM

Cassandra,

er....the reason you won't read the blog written by an anti-feminist woman is because you know you have been intellectually outclassed.

Here it is again (the woman-written blog Cassandra is afraid to discuss) :

Plus, you didn't mention my other 4 points of how you are being dishonest, which means you have conceded them.

Just like you didn't discuss the other 80% of The Futurist's article, effectively admitting you can't answer those points.

Lastly, you are yet to apologize for mischaracterizing The Spearhead as a Game site. You have to issue a correction.

There is a reason that Dr. Helen is well-regarded by intelligent people, and you are not. Even Cassy Fiano cleaned your clock.

You still don't see what is wrong with you.

Posted by: Right Wing Woman at January 14, 2010 12:06 AM

Last i checked. Libs were contrarian. Ever see code pink.

a sociopath has perfect free will. it's not that he can't help himself. it's that he's a danger and should be culled for the good of humanity.

'wolf' can do the same

You already said it was done through inter breeding.

Also, I'm just making the numbers up. Should have made that clear, I guess.

I didn't expect otherwise. No real numbers, equals no real numbers.

But I figure all men should be masculine and 'man up' and act as leaders.

See what happens with too many chiefs, not enough braves.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 12:20 AM

This link is getting spammed here.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 12:33 AM

Nah, just getting trolled.

Posted by: BillT at January 14, 2010 12:45 AM

Gregory~

Reread the essay (as I did this evening). He addresses the fact that it's a choice. Specifically, he cited the passengers on Flight 93. Under other circumstances, they were sheep. But, on 9/11, some of them became sheepdogs. They made that choice.

Just a side commentary: no analogy is perfect, I will grant you that...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 14, 2010 12:50 AM

Cassandra, please check your email. You should have one from me.

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 14, 2010 12:51 AM

Ymarskar: I dunno. Aren't all armed and uniformed military personnel supposed to be a potential leaders, so that in the event that the chain of command breaks down, they are still able to carry out their missions and whatnot? I don't think of it as 'beta' switching to 'alpha' at that stage, just a bunch of 'alphas' working together.

And insofar as humans have a 'First Nature', it's one of original sin. In the sense of everyone wanting to go their own way instead of God's way, I guess that does make us all 'alpha', heh.

Miss Ladybug: Sure, I re-read it. I see your point, definitely. I just don't think that the people who use these terms define it as carefully as he did. But it's entirely true that my biases get in the way, so there's that.

Posted by: Gregory at January 14, 2010 02:05 AM

...just a bunch of 'alphas' working together.

More like sheepdogs and wolfhounds working as a team...

Posted by: BillT at January 14, 2010 04:39 AM

...in the military, the term "Alpha" is meaningless -- except as the phonetic designation of the first letter of the alphabet.

Posted by: BillT at January 14, 2010 04:42 AM

The thing is, everyone isn't military. So I wouldn't say all.

In a specific emergency that requires action, decisive action, a confusion as to who is in the lead produces ungood results.

Once a decision has been made, it must be followed. So it doesn't matter what numbers are alphas. There will always be leaders and followers, and most of em are following.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 07:17 AM

*sigh*

RWW, you are an annoying troll. I am under no obligation to respond to your inane diatribes.

er....the reason you won't read the blog written by an anti-feminist woman is because you know you have been intellectually outclassed.

Again, you are factually wrong. I have read both links and already responded to one - a response you ignored, by the way. By your "logic" that means you conceded my points :p

Even a 5 year old can see what's wrong with that line of "reasoning". I wonder: can you? As far as being intellectually outclassed, that's an opinion. One cannot refute an opinion since it's not based upon fact. You consistently confuse your opinions with reality. Suffice it to say Im not particularly worried on that score.

Plus, you didn't mention my other 4 points of how you are being dishonest, which means you have conceded them.

No, it doesn't. It means I'm not interested in responding to your inane drivel :p

Just like you didn't discuss the other 80% of The Futurist's article, effectively admitting you can't answer those points.

Another logical non sequitur that was addressed in my post. Learn to read. I hear it's fundamental.

Lastly, you are yet to apologize for mischaracterizing The Spearhead as a Game site. You have to issue a correction.

Since I didn't mischaracterize the Spearhead as a Game site, there is no need for me to apologize. Again, learn to read:

Spearhead (self described men's issues site that also posts about "Game" or PUA tactics)

As to your other 4 points:

2) Avoid responsibility in pure feminist fashion - refusing to admit that many women use the children to extract money from the man, and then don't spend that money on the childrenThis is where real women like Dr. Helen are a world apart from man-hating bigots like Cassandra.

Where do I refuse to admit this?

3) Strawman arguments. The Futurist has not stated many of the things you claim to want to dispute.

Impossible to comment upon since (typically) you provide no examples or evidence. Because your opinion is all the facts you need :p

4) Taking a US-centric worldview, when The Futurist's article, which is clearly worldwide in scope.

Wow. "US-centric worldview". This sounds like feminist speak to me. You must be a man hating gender bigot. Again, read my post and do try to understand it this time.

5) Slandering a respectable magazine like The Spearhead (which is NOT a PUA site, so don't lie), without having the guts to go and comment there.

Again, since I didn't claim it was a PUA, this requires no comment. Perhaps some day you will flash upon the meaning of the word "also", however given the dense nature of your comments so far I'm not holding my breath. The "lie" here appears to be you, saying I said something I clearly did not say. Get your facts right.

I am not going to waste any more time responding to you. You're a classic troll. I've read your blog twice now and we're up to 10 minutes of my life lost in a puddle of stupidity.

You have presented not one fact in response to anything I've said. Your opinion may carry a lot of weight with you, but I find your "reasoning" shallow, one sided, and full of holes one could drive a truck through.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 14, 2010 07:18 AM

RWW, I don't think anyone has heard of this Cassy Fiano you keep referring to.

Nor do we care.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 14, 2010 07:19 AM

...in the military, the term "Alpha" is meaningless -- except as the phonetic designation of the first letter of the alphabet.

Does that mean General Casey is an Alpha? ; )

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 07:37 AM

Plus, you didn't mention my other 4 points of how you are being dishonest, which means you have conceded them.
***********************
No it doesn't. It means that your points are irrelevant, not based on facts and presumably, come from your fifth point of contact.
********************************
Just like you didn't discuss the other 80% of The Futurist's article, effectively admitting you can't answer those points.

**************************
Cassandra addressed all of his links. What don't you understand about graphs, charts, reading and processing data?
***********************
Lastly, you are yet to apologize for mischaracterizing The Spearhead as a Game site. You have to issue a correction.
****************************
Why should she? It is her opinion, not yours.
She didn't 'mischaraterize' anything. You have yet to issue an apology for being a troll, not getting your facts straight and posting points that are inane.
****************************


There is a reason that Dr. Helen is well-regarded by intelligent people, and you are not. Even Cassy Fiano cleaned your clock.

***********

*yawns and gets herbal tea* Not everyone agrees with Dr. Helen and they are intelligent. Regard for someone's thinking is still a matter of opinion. We here, say the futurist is wrong. We have said why. You are still a clueless moonbat.
****************************************
You still don't see what is wrong with you.
*************
See above clueless moonbat reference and quit projecting.


Posted by: Right Wing Woman at January 14, 2010 12:06 AM

Fisked by Cricket at 7:53 am

Posted by: Cricket at January 14, 2010 07:53 AM

Sidebar: I for one grow increasingly weary of twits who use terms like US-centric. Having had the opportunity to see much of the world, I would invite any individual who is anxious to toss out the "US-centric" comment, apparently as a trendy slur of some sort or another, to take the first step and leave the U.S.
Permanently.

Live the global lifestyle elsewhere.

Delta is ready when you are.

Posted by: bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun at January 14, 2010 07:54 AM

Gregory,

In reference to this:

"Ymarskar: I dunno. Aren't all armed and uniformed military personnel supposed to be a potential leaders, so that in the event that the chain of command breaks down, they are still able to carry out their missions and whatnot? I don't think of it as 'beta' switching to 'alpha' at that stage, just a bunch of 'alphas' working together."
Not that I'm attempting to answer for Ymar, wouldn't do it. And another qualifier is that I've been out of the military for over thirty years, so I'm more than willing to defer to the current knowledge of active duty or recently separated folk.

That said, I would venture that the short answer is yes. Not much of a stretch there...

And I'd like to leave aside the alpha and beta labels for this comment since I think the beta per capita has risen since the forties. Grist for another discussion...

What I will say about the potential leader piece is that I've heard and read historians who believe one of the reasons the American forces prevailed against the Japanese in WWII was due as much to differences in the two cultures, as it was to industrial might and resource availability.

On the one side were the rabid individualist, the Americans. Now the American forces being comprised of Euromutts and Euromutts being of a rebellious sort who, by nature, chaffed at authority, as did folk from the four corners, who became Americans, made the following possible. This character flaw, this predisposition of contention with authority, once integral to the make up of the average U.S citizen, in concert with the U.S. military command structure, allowed for the next in rank to assume command, if the situation required it due to the death or injury of their immediate superior(s). It was not a option, it was a duty to lead those under your rank.

And since you mentioned the Scots earlier, I'll throw in a gratuitous reference to our inner Jacobite, snarling to be free. =;^}

Now the Japanese conscript on the other hand, was immersed, from the point of conscription, in instant Bushido. And the conscripts were never allowed to forget the Japanese caste system. These lowly warriors were also reinforced with the Japanese notion of honor that made a death for the Emperor number one on their hit parade. Not a lot of forethought or duty to lead your subordinates to victory required to execute on that end, eh?

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

General George S. Patton

As in love and war, different motivations yield different results.

Now to tie up the trailing portion of this comment, with an alpha/beta reference by offering the following observation. Most folks in todays United States military, volunteers that they are, ought to be considered alphas. As is said, these men and women have signed a blank check on their all and potentially, their ever will be and they have handed that blank check over to Uncle Sam. Betas don't have the spine for such commitment.

I probably should call my outsourced Costa Rican proof-reader before I post this, or at least get a whole cup of coffee down the gullet first, but this is only my 2¢, adjusted for stagflation... YMMV.

Cheers.

Posted by: bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun at January 14, 2010 08:28 AM

She doesn't even attempt to back up any of her arguments with anything so mundane as, oh I don't know... evidence.

If you all weren't such a bunch of feminist gender bigots (especially you, bthun and John) you'd understand that RWW Has Spoken! Her opinion is law! And if you aren't instantly convinced by the self evident self evidentness of her transcendent shinyness... you're a man hater!

Hmm.... now where have we heard that logic before?

*snort*

Posted by: Cassandra at January 14, 2010 08:29 AM

She Who Must Be Obeyed

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 08:35 AM

"Hmm.... now where have we heard that logic before?"
See definition of "catfish" above.

Uggg.

Posted by: bt_Alley-Oop_Hun at January 14, 2010 08:40 AM

Not that I'm attempting to answer for Ymar, wouldn't do it.

I don't mind the help. More people provide more pieces of the puzzle.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 08:44 AM

Btw, the spear head, one article, sees United States military men as 'cannonfodder'. Courageous guys, yes, but used as fuel for a political purpose.

How is that different from the feminist perspective or the pro-tyrant factions?

Without positing a true and real and strong Ideal Image, The Spear Head has already done an epic fail on 'rights'.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 08:54 AM

Let me explain: the one particular motivation for why they say this is because just like political whores and tyrants, they have no inner faith in anything greater than themselves. They sit on a fence, pissing on both sides, justifying it as being their 'right' to express their 'anger'.

To believe is to, in their minds, sell yourself short. Strauss himself did a self-analysis on this part. He wants to be a father, but he is also afraid to be tied down by a wife and not be able to become all he can become. Now since he is around 35, he's still got time to mature, and certainly his brand of journalism is like Michael Yon's, not particularly suited for stable domestic conditions. Military wives had handled similar conditions, but that was with men that were already committed in mind and body.

Whatever psychological flaws there exists in the leaders and shakers of this movement, and I am specific to mention the ring leaders not the commenters or readers, leads them to have political positions similar to ours vs feminism or Democrats. But it is only a superficial agreement. They have a similar lack of belief in the promise of Dems, but they don't have anything to replace it with. Not religion, not faith, not belief in anything other than themselves. And some, not even that. Some believe in their wealth or status, as their identification and worth.

Theirs is an alliance of convenience. But it is a pointless alliance. Much as the Left allies with Islamic fanaticism, it is a pointless alliance. Only one of them will come out ahead in the end. But they get together because their enemies, us, are more powerful than any one of them alone. By isolating themselves, this movement about GENDER WARFARE and sexual injustice, they become a fringe movement on the level of the KKK, white separatism, or Black Panthers. Meaning, without political backing from another source, they have nothing to offer. Nothing to offer except the power to pick up girls, that is. And that's not exactly something those interested in political power is all that interested in. Since political power itself does much of the same things. Don't even make me talk about Ted Kennedy.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 09:03 AM

Actually, they don't even talk about PUA tactics that often. Which is the funny part. There's a big difference on PUA sites that try to teach guys how to overcome their inner and outer problems, and the semi-sphere of blogs the Futurist linked to. And they are linked, btw. They all seem to comment on each other's blogs, talk about similar subjects, even post together sometimes, cross post, and so forth.

In PUA sites, they don't really care about politics. Check out Dennis Prager and Strauss. Pick up can cross political spheres. But they're not talking about PUA. They're some specialized political movement. That's a distinct difference when you connect it to the Futurist article. Take a moment to think about that connection.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 09:08 AM

Actually, they don't even talk about PUA tactics that often. Which is the funny part.

Which is why I deliberately used the word "also" rather than "often" :p

It's pretty amusing when I derive my "mischaracterization" from actually taking the time to read their "about" page and append the demonstrably true statement that (though their self described main focus is men's issues) they "also" post about PUA stuff. Somehow that's a "lie" I should "apologize" for.

Whatever.

RWW seems unable to understand the difference between opinion and fact. She will continue to link to posts that present opinions thinly supported by anecdotal examples which are then illogically applied to the general population (because of course if you can find a single example of something, it must "prove" a universal truth). If she's that ignorant, I don't have time to educate her on sampling bias, confirmation bias, or logical fallacies.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 14, 2010 09:24 AM

If Delta offers wifi and RWW takes her other than "US-centric" carcass to greener pastures overseas, maybe RWW can wiki on sampling bias, confirmation bias, or logical fallacies... And, undoubted, post her unique insights and corrections to wiki.

Posted by: bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun at January 14, 2010 09:32 AM

link to posts

I think that should be singular, rather than plural.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 09:40 AM

I saw a video of Tyler Durden, the megalomaniac narcissist Strauss wrote about in his book. Incidentally, Durden had taken up the mansion and crazy house Strauss and Mystery had setup in LA, using the classic insecure move of pushing competitors out of your territory. But instead of using physical force or intimidation, which TD lacked, he used cunning and manipulation instead.

Strauss wrote that he, the best player ranked at the time, got played. Lol

The thing is, Tyler doesn't even have the charm of a snake. He's like some albino roach that got sprayed with chemicals so it is running around, spazing out, with the chitin, outer shell, of the cockroach all distorted/warped.

That's nasty. Scripted routines were made for people like that. Those without an inherent warm personality, cause they're more or less dead inside. How he ever entertained any woman, while never learning a thing about vocals or public speaking, I have no idea.

My guess is that it was never a priority. If you only see women as targets to be crossed off, then anything you say to them is meaningless. So when publicly speaking or trying to teach, when conveying real information and real value, there's nothing there there in the delivery.

And the guy is creepy too. Even though I feel no physical threat from him with what I have learned by now, he is just creepy. Like Michael Moore if you ever heard him give a public speech to a small audience. Dementia worthy. Yes, you can break their skulls open and remove the threat, but would you want to get your hands dirty? ewww

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 09:49 AM

Besides that, that link is completely irrelevent. At no point had anyone taken issue with anything said in it. It's off-topic. Secondly, even if it were on topic, it is also irrelevent.

Let's say that, miracle of miracles, that the author's post was brilliantly researched and so well written that it was blindingly & obviously correct to any and all sane readers and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that The Futurist's conclusions correct. That still doesn't excuse The Futurist for using bad stats (when they weren't made up out of whole cloth) and false evidence from non-credible sources. All it would mean is that a blind squirrel will find a nut every now and then. Doesn't mean he isn't still blind.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 14, 2010 09:56 AM

Hun,

"Catfish": I like it!

And for an alternate context, how about Garbage Men: Takin' out da Trash!

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 14, 2010 10:03 AM

"Doesn't mean he isn't still blind."
Does too!

Posted by: Mr. Barnard aka RWW at January 14, 2010 10:04 AM

That was a very good skit.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 10:31 AM

Besides that, that link is completely irrelevent. At no point had anyone taken issue with anything said in it. It's off-topic. Secondly, even if it were on topic, it is also irrelevent.

*Clearly*, being a man-hating, gender bigotous err... man, you don't understand the self evident self-evidentness of RWW's brilliant reasoning, a central tenet of which is that whatever she says is considered proven beyond doubt even if there is copious evidence to the contrary. Because, yanno, women are illogical like that :p

I don't have to have ever argued any of the things she thinks I said. It doesn't even matter if I've said some of the same things. She knows what I believe. I mean, who are ya gonna trust?

What I've actually written? Or the opinion of someone who is clearly unfamiliar with my writing?

And there you have it :p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 14, 2010 10:37 AM

Oh come now. Just because you are incapable of understanding RWWs logic proves that women are illogical.

It's nice, neat, tidy, and fully encompasing with no breaks at all in the reasoning. It's downright circular.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 14, 2010 10:50 AM

What do you know, you man-hating... umm... MAN!

MAN HATER!!!!!

Posted by: RWW's bratty little sister at January 14, 2010 10:57 AM

Hmmm, would a self-loathing Sadistician actually be a masochist?

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 14, 2010 11:05 AM

bthun - I agree: L-O-L-A, Lo---la ... NTTAWWT, mind you.

Is it possible RWW is here for comedic affect? Absurdity, repeated over and over in the face of reason, is a valid comedic method, I believe. Or maybe she came to the wrong door?

Posted by: tom at January 14, 2010 11:12 AM

Oh, fer crying out loud. Mr. Bernard posted the link to the same MP skit I did. Sorry, I got carried away watching skits and forgot to refresh the page before I posted.

I now feel morally obliged to post my second choice of analogous links, the parrot sketch.

Posted by: tom at January 14, 2010 11:20 AM

Did not!

Posted by: Mr. Barnard aka RWW at January 14, 2010 11:24 AM

Which, of course, none of you need to watch because you've seen it before, but at least I've done my moral duty and can now get back to attempting to do something productive with my life with a clear conscience.

Posted by: tom at January 14, 2010 11:32 AM

Indeed, Mr. Bernard did not.

Mr. Barnard, however, did.

Posted by: BillT at January 14, 2010 11:39 AM

Time's up!

Posted by: Mr. Barnard aka RWW at January 14, 2010 11:44 AM

5. After three months of executing the above four points, unexpectedly tell your wife her ass looks great.

Right.

Like, I'd still be alive after point number 4...

Posted by: BillT at January 14, 2010 11:44 AM

Three months!? I thought it was supposed to be three hours...

And preceded only by Ju rook mahvehlus! Absolutely mahvehlus.

Followed by, hold me while I tango.

Posted by: bt_Alley-Oop_Hun at January 14, 2010 11:53 AM

Like, I'd still be alive after point number 4...

Isn't that why helicopters and Afghanistan are for?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 12:17 PM

This is super good stuff.

I've only read one book by Neil Strauss, haven't practiced this stuff given that's I only heard about it for a few days, and my explanations or statements about it here are based off what I believe to be true.

For a smoother public speaking source, check these out. You won't regret it. If you do though, tell that other guy about it. hah

Link

It's like they're talking about what we were talking about here. For the same reasons.

Primary importance: Neil Strauss 7 park speech there deals a lot with Inner Game, the ability to make yourself stronger and better.

Alex speaks about the darker side of the coin. What we all recognize when we see a firearm. The logical part may say that it is human constructed. The emotional part or the cultural part, may say that it is designed to kill and may jump up and shoot anybody. Logic vs emotion. Perception vs reality. This can lead many people, call em libs or whatever, to fear guns and try to lock them out of other people's hands on the hopes that (reactively) they can be protected from fear and danger. Others, US military and red necks often times, train in the use of the firearm and teach it to everyone they meet, almost, in order to freeze out this fear and make the person in control.

What does this mean? Knowing how to kill people is easy. It may not be common knowledge, but it is not that hard compared to say... brain surgery or rocket propulsion or differential mathematics. What this means is that the training matters. The training, the philosophy, and not just acquiring the skill set, is what differentiates whether something, a gun or H2h, is used for Good or Evil.

A tool doesn't choose its user. If it did, we'd call it sentient and self-aware. That'd be interesting, but also scary.

Alex does a good job of talking about the dark side of things. We've spoken some about it here. Everybody should learn things, an offset of their IQ. But training up your wisdom is critical to putting the prior stuff to good use.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 12:26 PM

"I read somewhere in my travels today that most guys spend less time decided who to marry (i.e., considering the character/upbringing of the future wife) than they do buying a car. "

Maybe it is because cars come with ratings, instruction manuals, and can be understood in a lifetime. :-)

Posted by: Tom B at January 14, 2010 12:39 PM

It is funny and ironic, though, what Jlaw said. Many of the stuff we say is what the top PUA or former PUA say, like Strauss.

That's validation. Meaning, you can check the truth of words against reality by seeing whether it is consistent/congruent. If there are inconsistencies, something is up. Of course, propagandists can pain a whole world view that looks consistent, from your point of view, but it takes a lot of work and is normally like a con man. He cons you because you wanted to be conned into a super good deal to begin with. You think your world view fed to you by the propagandist is true and consistent because you want to be deceived.

This is what I said. Mixing up the fighting rituals with the mating rituals. The mental act of preparation to do violence to kill, to get what one wants, to the mating ritual that sets up a relationship where a man can get what he wants and a woman can do the same.

If you are young and inexperienced, you don't start off knowing this stuff. You literally have to have some experience with death and with being trained to kill people, to destroy them, to know what this stuff is. What it can do to people. What PTSD means in reality, not in theory.

Guess what. The Left banned any cultural transfusion of education on real violence. All you get is Hollywood violence, which is really porn, not violence.

Teaching people to control their inner demons, for those that aren't naturally happy and sappy, kind of lost its influence with the Great Pop Culture of "If it feels good, do it".

Well, if all this violence works to get rid of people, why not do it. If the law gets in the way, then it'll be okay when the law isn't there, right.

A very useful and wise thing I'm thank to TFT instructors, my instructors that passed on Target Focus Training to me, was this. They never dehumanized the target or threat. The target was always the same as you. Whatever worked on him... works on you. You're just as mortal as he is. Or she is. You can die just as easily. And that gives you confidence, but a confidence that allows you to see reality for what it is, what risks and rewards really are at the time. They trained using some military offshoots by programming your brain to see your targets as striking targets, not humans, because you want to function in the asocial with as much speed and purity as a serial killing monster. But to teach that, and not cause their students to lose their humanity, but to gain even more of it, now that was something I think they should always be proud of.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 12:45 PM

I took a moment to think about that connection.
IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!! LEAVE YOUR WIVES AND CHILDREN BEHIND!!! SAVE YOURSELVES!!!

Whatever you do, don't look back!

Posted by: Cricket at January 14, 2010 02:33 PM

Haven't been around for a while. Lots to do on campus.

@Miss Ladybug:

Jason~

Does your social life consist only for going to frat parties and hanging with your teammates?

Yeah, unfortunately that's most of what's available. People here congregate at the frats. They have parties every weekend and its just where about 80% of the people go.

There are smaller get togethers within different dorms and stuff to, but those are just miniature frat parties.
Social life here is 90% beer pong and frat mingling/dancing.

Maybe - as someone suggested above - you should expand into other social circles. Universities/colleges have all kinds of clubs/organizations you could check out.

I may give it a shot. That all depends on time, though. Football season here never ends, and I mean that quite literally. Add to that the fact that you still have to actually deal with Ivy league courseloads and time runs short.
That being said, I may still find a way.

Believe me, I got to hear the frat boys talk - one of the frats hung out right by the information desk where I did my work study job. What I overheard did nothing to make me re-evaluate my opinion of that crowd...

A lot of my teammates are in frats. Here different frats are associated with social groups. so there is a lacrosse frat, a black frat, a hispanic frat, a football frat, etc. I'll probably end up joining the football frat.
They're not bad guys. Can go crazy sometimes, but generally good dudes.

Posted by: JLaw45 at January 14, 2010 04:00 PM

@Miss ladybug again:

In your #4, you never really answered the question "Which begs the question: why pursue someone who's unworthy of your love?".

While I've done that on occasion with a couple of girls, I honestly do believe that the majority of the girls I pursued were probably worth it. They weren't bad people and didn't really show themselves to be afterwards. They were smart and interesting to.

They just didn't like me is all. Girls in general at my age(regardless of their worthiness or character) aren't attracted to what I(and other guys like me) have to offer. This dating market is a hookup market, and we're not equipped to be profitable in it.

If I was a mom (I'm not, though I'm old enough to be your mother...), I don't think I'd have a problem a daughter of mine dating a young man like you.

I get great compliments from elders somewhat consistently. Its nice to know.

Their daughters tend to disagree, though.

Don't sell yourself short. Don't date someone just to be dating someone. To hell with what others may think of you, if you aren't "hooking up" with some random girl every weekend/at every party. Look outside of where you've been looking in the hope of finding a young lady worthy of your affections. The girls you have described who have rejected you don't seem to me to be someone you'd really want a relationship with, in the long run.

Yeah, some of them definitely weren't worth it.

In either case, I'm not going out of my way to "hook up" all the time and become a player. The investment would simply be too great for me. I've accepted that I don't generally fit in with my generation when it comes to relationships and how they're viewed. I have no choice but to wait.

But I understand guys who aren't willing to do that.

Posted by: JLaw45 at January 14, 2010 04:08 PM

"I took a moment to think about that connection. IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!! LEAVE YOUR WIVES AND CHILDREN BEHIND!!! SAVE YOURSELVES!!!"
Ma'am! Whoa just whoa fer a cotton pickin' minute...

#1 t'ain't a consparacy till Jesse Ventura says it's a consparacy

#2 I'ma already in the hills

#3 the young'uns is gone. Theys hit 18 and done got thar own CDL license and split

#4 ifn I leave the old lady, who er gonna tend, mend an befriend me?

You know I jus ain't built fer tha speed of this wild and crazy wurld of US-centric, man hatin wimin.

Posted by: Larry at January 14, 2010 04:09 PM

@ Cassandra:

I don't disagree with any philosophy that advocates self discipline, not letting your appetites overrule your reason, and not rushing into relationships.

My only exposure to this "Game" stuff has been to read appalling posts that advocate cheating on your wife, beating down the self esteem of virgins to overcome their moral objections, etc.

I think you'd see it all slightly more favorably if you read more different sites. There is a wide variety within the "game" movement, and there are many, many different types of game.

Even just looking at the blogs associated with Roissy and linked to his site, there are many diverse opinions. The Futurist is just one.
Some are bitter. Some are far from it. I try to read all of them and form my opinion based on what I see in the aggregate.

I think many of the PUA confuse the feminine desire for male leadership with a desire to be trashed and dominated. Not the same.

My husband is a Marine. Good leaders make people *want* to follow them. There's a great line from one of my favorite movies (Kingdom of Heaven). The villain - a big bully - is trying to intimidate the protagonist. He assails him in a market and pokes him with his riding crop.

The protagonist grabs the crop out of his hand calmly. As the villain leaves, the protagonist says to him, "You forgot your riding crop".

The villain replies with something like, "Keep it. It was contaminated by your touch."

As he strides away, the protagonist calls after him,

"My lord - how will you ride if you cannot beat your horse?"

Best. Put down. Ever.

I was reminded about that reading these Game sites. Instead of leading women, these angry, bitter guys want to beat women into submission by inflaming their emotions and eroding their self control. But that doesn't appeal to a woman's higher nature, but to her worst instincts. She's not coming along with you because she enjoys the ride, but because you have made her doubt herself

I think this is another thing causing a disparity.

You mentioned earlier that operating in a hook up culture may have skewed my own views. You're right, and I'm not the only one.

But I think the distasteful aspects of game you are seeing are a result of how our culture has evolved. We moved from an emphasis on committment and stability to a reliance on "excitement", "variety", and larger degrees of promiscuity. A hook up culture.

Game as we know it today arose in response to this. Guys were caught off guard by this transition(women made it happen as they began to exercise more freedom and choice with regards to sex, careers, etc). Game and PUA was supposedly designed to help them deal with the disparity and still find sexual success.

Granted, there are different types of game. Some are designed for longer relationships, and are rather mild. But I think that most of the PUA phenomenon you're describing is the way it is because it is designed specifically for use in the hookup culture.

Many of the techniques promoted within PUa may seem distasteful, and as many have pointed out here they might not create wholesome, stable long term relationships. Neither the men nor women within these relationships benefit long term from the use of these "tactics". True.

But we live amongst a generation in which the long term relationship is, for the most part, a very distant second thought. Hooking up is the norm. Casual sex is everywhere.
These tactics won't create good long term relationships...but then again, in such a culture, they don't need to. If your goal is simply to be able to operate within the context of this culture successfully(hookup, casual sex, no serious focus on LTRs), it'll probably suffice. Roissy's tactics might not make for a really awesome LTR and/or long marriage, but they'll do if his goal is to have a ton of hookups interspersed with a few medium-term relationships here and there.

Maybe its just a case of Two Wrongs interacting and, as usual, failing to make a right. Hookup culture rises. Hookup culture has many fault. Game rises in response and is also faulty.

Nobody really wins, I guess...

I was always very self confident but this really depressed the heck out of me. I went off to school loving and respecting boys and left doubting their worth. Seeing their predatory and amoral side hurt me very deeply and made me wonder if the world wasn't actually a very hostile and bad place?

Hmmm...yeah, sounds just about how I felt about girls once I got here and started learning about game.
I wasn't even close to a misogynist until then. Lots of bitterness.

So I understand disillusionment - when you are hurt and disappointed, it's hard not to become cynical and bitter. But the thing is, these boys weren't monsters. They were just very immature and their hormones were driving the bus.

The point of this is, as you grow older your peers will catch up to you. Hang in there.

Not so sure I'll be willing to wait for them. Sure, these girls may get older and want me when I'm 35 with a career and some money, as opposed to now when they really don't.

But why should I wait and accept them then? Maybe that's unfair. Yes, its true that I am different and thus can't expect my peers to operate the way I do. Maybe, then, I shouldn't be so hard on them.

But why wait here in the US when I actually could, realistically, go overseas and probably be accepted by girls whose same-aged peers here don't want me and wont until they age significantly? Are they even worth it? Maybe that's a cynical thing to say, but are they?

I'd be surprised if many men like myself are reaching older age and aren't considering this. If you have the means, why not?

Now, b/c women have their own careers and are less interested in marriage, men have to put in more effort.

I don't actually think this is a bad thing.

I'm a child of a single mother. Father left just after i was born.
I owe much of my wellbeing to the fact that my mother was able to establish a good career and operate independently. Thus, I agree with you.

There will be many other side affects, however. Game is just one of them.

@Tom:

Yeah, "Love Actually" isn't necessarily a likely outcome if I do leave. But, then again, I'll probably still be better off abroad than I would here in the aggregate.

Posted by: JLaw45 at January 14, 2010 04:40 PM

wow, messed up the line break again on the quoting. Sorry, guys. Repost below:

@ Cassandra:

-----------
Quote:

I don't disagree with any philosophy that advocates self discipline, not letting your appetites overrule your reason, and not rushing into relationships.

My only exposure to this "Game" stuff has been to read appalling posts that advocate cheating on your wife, beating down the self esteem of virgins to overcome their moral objections, etc.

-----------
End Quote

I think you'd see it all slightly more favorably if you read more different sites. There is a wide variety within the "game" movement, and there are many, many different types of game.

Even just looking at the blogs associated with Roissy and linked to his site, there are many diverse opinions. The Futurist is just one.
Some are bitter. Some are far from it. I try to read all of them and form my opinion based on what I see in the aggregate.

Quote:
-----------

I think many of the PUA confuse the feminine desire for male leadership with a desire to be trashed and dominated. Not the same.

My husband is a Marine. Good leaders make people *want* to follow them. There's a great line from one of my favorite movies (Kingdom of Heaven). The villain - a big bully - is trying to intimidate the protagonist. He assails him in a market and pokes him with his riding crop.

The protagonist grabs the crop out of his hand calmly. As the villain leaves, the protagonist says to him, "You forgot your riding crop".

The villain replies with something like, "Keep it. It was contaminated by your touch."

As he strides away, the protagonist calls after him,

"My lord - how will you ride if you cannot beat your horse?"

Best. Put down. Ever.

I was reminded about that reading these Game sites. Instead of leading women, these angry, bitter guys want to beat women into submission by inflaming their emotions and eroding their self control. But that doesn't appeal to a woman's higher nature, but to her worst instincts. She's not coming along with you because she enjoys the ride, but because you have made her doubt herself
------------------
End Quote

I think this is another thing causing a disparity.

You mentioned earlier that operating in a hook up culture may have skewed my own views. You're right, and I'm not the only one.

But I think the distasteful aspects of game you are seeing are a result of how our culture has evolved. We moved from an emphasis on committment and stability to a reliance on "excitement", "variety", and larger degrees of promiscuity. A hook up culture.

Game as we know it today arose in response to this. Guys were caught off guard by this transition(women made it happen as they began to exercise more freedom and choice with regards to sex, careers, etc). Game and PUA was supposedly designed to help them deal with the disparity and still find sexual success.

Granted, there are different types of game. Some are designed for longer relationships, and are rather mild. But I think that most of the PUA phenomenon you're describing is the way it is because it is designed specifically for use in the hookup culture.

Many of the techniques promoted within PUa may seem distasteful, and as many have pointed out here they might not create wholesome, stable long term relationships. Neither the men nor women within these relationships benefit long term from the use of these "tactics". True.

But we live amongst a generation in which the long term relationship is, for the most part, a very distant second thought. Hooking up is the norm. Casual sex is everywhere.

These tactics won't create good long term relationships...but then again, in such a culture, they don't need to. If your goal is simply to be able to operate within the context of this culture successfully(hookup, casual sex, no serious focus on LTRs), it'll probably suffice. Roissy's tactics might not make for a really awesome LTR and/or long marriage, but they'll do if his goal is to have a ton of hookups interspersed with a few medium-term relationships here and there.

Maybe its just a case of Two Wrongs interacting and, as usual, failing to make a right. Hookup culture rises. Hookup culture has many fault. Game rises in response and is also faulty.

Nobody really wins, I guess...

Quote:
--------------

I was always very self confident but this really depressed the heck out of me. I went off to school loving and respecting boys and left doubting their worth. Seeing their predatory and amoral side hurt me very deeply and made me wonder if the world wasn't actually a very hostile and bad place?

Hmmm...yeah, sounds just about how I felt about girls once I got here and started learning about game.
I wasn't even close to a misogynist until then. Lots of bitterness.

So I understand disillusionment - when you are hurt and disappointed, it's hard not to become cynical and bitter. But the thing is, these boys weren't monsters. They were just very immature and their hormones were driving the bus.

The point of this is, as you grow older your peers will catch up to you. Hang in there.
--------------
End Quote

Not so sure I'll be willing to wait for them. Sure, these girls may get older and want me when I'm 35 with a career and some money, as opposed to now when they really don't.

But why should I wait and accept them then? Maybe that's unfair. Yes, its true that I am different and thus can't expect my peers to operate the way I do. Maybe, then, I shouldn't be so hard on them.

But why wait here in the US when I actually could, realistically, go overseas and probably be accepted by girls whose same-aged peers here don't want me and wont until they age significantly? Are they even worth it? Maybe that's a cynical thing to say, but are they?

I'd be surprised if many men like myself are reaching older age and aren't considering this. If you have the means, why not?

Quote:
-------------------
Now, b/c women have their own careers and are less interested in marriage, men have to put in more effort.

I don't actually think this is a bad thing.
---------------
End Quote

I'm a child of a single mother. Father left just after i was born.
I owe much of my wellbeing to the fact that my mother was able to establish a good career and operate independently. Thus, I agree with you.

There will be many other side affects, however. Game is just one of them.

@Tom:

Yeah, "Love Actually" isn't necessarily a likely outcome if I do leave. But, then again, I'll probably still be better off abroad than I would here in the aggregate.

Posted by: JLaw45 at January 14, 2010 04:46 PM

Btw, sometimes you post a comment and it doesn't show up immediately. Just refresh the page. It's got stuck in your cache.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 05:20 PM

Yeah, Ymarsakar. My last two posts are duplicates, but one was hard to read because I didn't quote properly. The quotes are more clearly outlined in the second one. So anyone looking should read that if they have the time and/or are so inclined.

Posted by: JLaw45 at January 14, 2010 05:47 PM

I think the and / command still works. ALthough I don't use it often so I'll test.

22222222222222

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 05:50 PM

I know the blockquote opening and closing tag work, though they're kind of a pain. MT won't apply tags across paragraphs though. So you have to format each para separately.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 14, 2010 05:55 PM

What did you think of the DeAngelo seminar speeches, by Neil Strauss, Alex Allman, or Wygart, Jlaw?

The one I linked to at youtube, with multi parts.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 05:56 PM

If you don't have the link, you can search using "Neil Strauss Man transformation"

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 05:59 PM

Indeed, Mr. Bernard did not.

Mr. Barnard, however, did.

It's just not my day here on the intertubes, is it? My apologies, Mr. Barnard. And since we're all smart enough to recognize and compensate for my error, did too!

@Jlaw: Yeah, not trying to dissuade you, just saying.

Posted by: tom at January 14, 2010 06:25 PM

So let's see here...

The article at The Futurist gets approving reviews from Dr. Helen, Instapundit, Kim du Toit, HotAir, etc.

While a mental midget like Cassandra avoids the vast majority of the facts in the article, erects strawmen that The Futurist did not utter, and is too afraid to discuss blogs that Right Wing Woman posts.

The whole thing makes perfect sense. Cassandra wants to be smart, but just can't manage to demonstrate it.

The Futurist already pre-empts this by explaining at length why some women overuse the practice of calling everyone misogynists because they cannot actually be logical. Cassandra's hissy fits are examples of this.

And why is Cassandra afraid to actually comment either at The Futurist or at Dr. Helen's? Well, we know why.

Posted by: Janine at January 14, 2010 06:43 PM

And why is Cassandra afraid to actually comment either at The Futurist or at Dr. Helen's? Well, we know why.

I double dog dare ya.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 14, 2010 07:00 PM

Well, as has been shown, if you bother to read the comments here, that comments at The Futurist's that disagree with him are deleted.

Using the lack of commenting at a place that you are not allowed to comment at as proof that you are wrong is as stupid as saying that Blacks during the time of segregation were happy having different bathrooms than the Whites because you never saw Blacks in the White bathroom.

If that's your idea of "logic" it's no wonder don't have anything other to say than insults.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 14, 2010 07:01 PM

But I think that most of the PUA phenomenon you're describing is the way it is because it is designed specifically for use in the hookup culture.

This is essentially the crux of the issue. The hookup culture is detestable. Most PUA sites, including The Futurist, also claim that the hookup culture is bad. Even to the point of blaming it on the downfall of Western Civilization.

But then in the very same breath openly advise men on how to become part of that same hookup culture they decry so much.

So we are left with this:
Women participating in the hookup culture = OMG IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!!111!!!11!!1
Men participating in the hookup culture = It's all good, a guy's gotta get him a piece of ass somehow.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 14, 2010 07:14 PM

Janine wouldn't know logic if it came up and bit her on the ass :p

Some people are their own punishment.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 14, 2010 07:15 PM

So we are left with this:
Women participating in the hookup culture = OMG IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!!111!!!11!!1
Men participating in the hookup culture = It's all good, a guy's gotta get him a piece of ass somehow.

*snort*

You left out the part where they claim that if there were only a few virtuous women in the world, they totally wouldn't act the way they do... as they're telling each other how to treat virtuous women like sluts.

Moral relativism: it's not just a breakfast drink anymore.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 14, 2010 07:17 PM

And others are like slinkies. They don't really have a purpose, but it's fun to push them down the stairs.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 14, 2010 07:17 PM

Janine wouldn't know logic if it came up and bit her on the ass :p

Translation : Cassandra feels bad, but she is not smart enough to come up with a counterargument.

Then again, everyone knows this. That is why Cassandra is not brave enough to actually debate in good faith.

And what is this pretending to not know who Cassy Fiano is?

Yu-Ain :

Well, as has been shown, if you bother to read the comments here, that comments at The Futurist's that disagree with him are deleted.

Except that there are many such comments there that are not deleted, which I just checked right before coming here. (Yu-Ain's 60-IQ response : "um...Duuhhh!")

Keep on lying. No wonder serious bloggers applaud that article, and you dumbshits are befuddled.

Posted by: Janine at January 14, 2010 07:45 PM

Except that there are many such comments there that are not deleted, which I just checked right before coming here.

Translation: though several people have complained that their comments are deleted, I went over there and didn't see a single comment that was deleted! Liars!!!!

What a maroon. And stop attributing your own or other people's comments to me and then demanding I apologize for or retract things I never said. I didn't say I don't know who Cassy is.

Christ, woman. Learn to read.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 14, 2010 08:13 PM

Awww, man, I just started getting the stench cleared out of here.
*sigh*

Posted by: DL Sly at January 14, 2010 09:20 PM

Good God, is it a full moon or what? Where did that "RWW" wench slither out from? First you have some moron, "Ilion", whose moniker should more likely be "Mental'Ilion'" practicing the gospel of Herr Goebels, Comrade Alinsky and their acolytes - as correctly noted by John (I believe.) Then RWW. Cass, I love ya to death, but don't let them hijack threads. One warning then their IP address is locked out on the second infraction.

I appreciated the comments of the young Dartmouth lad, and the information exchanged from that. And as always, I appreciated your "regular" commenters. Theres' always room for more CIVIL discussion and HONEST disagreement. But to paraphrase Sir Winston, we can be civil to a civil person. There is no point in being civil to a cro-magnon male or female. It's like 'rasslin' with a pig. You are going to get dirty and the pig is going to enjoy it.

Semper Fi. And to those who feel the need to post jovial bovine excrement, find someplace else - like your own blog. Or better yet, use your PC/Mac word processing program to spew your venomous thoughts and words to your own hard drive. Save them and read them later. Maybe the reader there will admire your prowess and vokabalarry, as well as your power to persuade the reader, namely yourself!

Now go away malcontent. I don't care if you go away mad. Just go away.

My opinion. I only speak for myself.

Posted by: kbob in katy at January 14, 2010 09:35 PM

This is why I love men.

...err... even though as a man hating gender bigot, I really should hate you all.

So confusicating. Anyway, not to worry. I banned her a while ago. It's kind of sad when trolls can't even manage to piss you off, but we live in a sadly diminished world :p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 14, 2010 10:13 PM

...we live amongst a generation in which the long term relationship is, for the most part, a very distant second thought. Hooking up is the norm. Casual sex is everywhere.

Casual sex is nothing new, Jason. I grew up during the 60s and 70s. If you think people weren't having lots of casual sex then, I have a few books I could point you at.

The thing is, there are other groups of people (yes, even at Dartmouth) who don't make frat row the center of their social lives. Do try to branch out.

It may take a while to find a group of people you like, but when you do you'll be more comfortable with people who are mature enough to think for themselves. By my 3rd quarter at Dartmouth I had slowed way down on the parties and began hanging out with small groups of people I'd met and liked.

No culture - not even hookup culture - is all pervasive. Any institution will have lots of separate groups of people who are interested in different things. Don't define yourself (or how "successful" you are) by what others are doing.

This was the hardest lesson I taught my sons: to stand on their own two feet and not be overly swayed by other people's opinions. It paid off for both of them - high school was harder, but once they hit college their confidence and self reliance put them miles ahead of their peers.

I have a feeling you're just fishing in the wrong pond :)

Posted by: Cassandra at January 14, 2010 10:19 PM

Eh, lots of tl;dr here.

You see, I do not think it accurate to describe anyone as 'alpha' or 'delta' or 'phi' (except God, the Alpha and the Omega). Maybe others have different meanings, but every time I read that it's as if the 'alpha male' is uber in everything or somesuch.

I don't much like to fight (nor particularly want to) but get me riled up and I will fight to WIN.

Posted by: Gregory at January 14, 2010 10:32 PM

"It's just not my day here on the intertubes, is it? My apologies, Mr. Barnard. And since we're all smart enough to recognize and compensate for my error, did too!
*Checks into office anticipating a wonderful day of abuse and arguments, checks watch, leans back in chair, looks at ceiling, begins singing*

I met her in a blog
on the intertubes
Where you discuss ideas
like the ancients did in Minoa
M-I-N-OA Minoa

She attacked Cass as too lazy to read
But she didn't grok the thread
So Cass said focus your screed
or say goodbye RWW or Janine or
Lola L.O.L.A. Lola
la la la la Lolaaaaaa....

Well I'm not the world's most critical guy
but why she ducked the point?
ah, she musta smoked her mind
oh that Lola
la la la la Lola

Well I'm not dumb
but I can't understand
why she poses as a woman
but defends any PUA boyman
oh that Lola
la la la la Lola
la la la la Lola

She drank koolaid
and tap-danced all night
avoiding Cassandra's points with empty spite
she continued return just be a blight
slapping herself on the back thinking she was right
while braying, 'silly Cass admit your fright'

Well I'm not the world's most patient guy
but when I read her shat
I fell to the floor laughing at
Lola la la la la Lola
la la la la Lola
Lola la la la la Lola
la la la la Lola

I pushed her comment away
I crawled to the door
cause I fell to the floor
down on my knees
then I laughed at her until I wheezed
oh, I'm sure that she was thoroughly peeved

Well that's the way
that I want it to stay
and I always want it to be that way for our Lola
la la la la Lola

Girls will be boys
and boys will be girls
it's a mixed up
muddled up
shook up world
except for clueless Lola
la la la la Lola

la la la la Lola...

Posted by: Mr. Barnard at January 15, 2010 12:49 AM

Argh! No more, please!

That song is a damned earworm, is what it is. The original, I mean. And it was ambiguous enough that it didn't /have/ to mean Lola was a guy.

Posted by: Gregory at January 15, 2010 03:33 AM

And what is this pretending to not know who Cassy Fiano is?

I have no clue who Cassie Fiano is.

On the other hand, I'll bet Janine has no clue who Husayn Al-Bassam is. Fiano has zero relevance in my world, Al-Bassam has none in Janine's.

Except that there are many such comments there that are not deleted, which I just checked right before coming here. (Yu-Ain's 60-IQ response : "um...Duuhhh!")

So, you verified that he *didn't* delete any comments by looking at the *remaining* comments? Note that Yu-Ain didn't say that he deleted *all* the comments expressing disagreement, merely that he deleted comments from people who disagreed with him. I can verify that he *does* do just that, because I managed to snag a screenshot of one of the three I posted right before he deleted it. And most of the comments he deleted were from -- *koff* -- men...

Awww, man, I just started getting the stench cleared out of here.
*sigh*

It's the new disinfectant KBR put in the water. Sorry -- it takes a good sandstorm to blast the smell off.

Time's up!

Isn't.

Posted by: BillT at January 15, 2010 04:52 AM

And it was ambiguous enough that it didn't /have/ to mean Lola was a guy.

No, it wasn't.

Posted by: BillT at January 15, 2010 05:01 AM

Well, this is typical of her arguments:

The article at The Futurist gets approving reviews from Dr. Helen, Instapundit, Kim du Toit, HotAir, etc.

Want to see an "approving review"?

Check out Instapundit's link. You can find it by Googling "A Misandry Bubble?"

That was the entire "review".

Posted by: Cassandra at January 15, 2010 06:26 AM

I'm pretty sure that Lola was a man! Anyway, Mr. Bernard, I enjoyed your song.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 15, 2010 07:48 AM

The article at The Futurist gets approving reviews from Dr. Helen, Instapundit, Kim du Toit, HotAir, etc

Come on Cass, don't you know, those people are GODS! They are never wrong! If they link to it, it must be correct!

...avoids the vast majority of the facts in the article...

Because once you get 70% of your facts right, that's when your argument is really good.

This must be the same rubric used for the RatherGate Memos. After all, "the vast majority" of the characters could have come from a common typewriter at the time. Pay no attention to those tiny minority of characters that are wrong, the Great Janine has spoken!

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 15, 2010 09:29 AM

I thought the point about not checking every single assertion in that long post with over 60 links was especially idiotic, especially since I explained right in my post why I wasn't even going to attempt such a gargantuan task.

My post would have been 12 times longer than his (since he conveniently didn't provide any sources whatsoever for most of his assertions, but to fact check them I'd have to provide what he didn't bother to - evidence).

Trolls are more fun when they aren't so ridiculous.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 15, 2010 09:39 AM

The other funny one was "go read the woman-written blog that disagrees with Cassandra!!!"

Because if one woman disagrees with me, that proves I'm wrong.

*rolling eyes*

I will say this for her: she's a one-woman adverstisement for her own assertion that women are incapable of logic.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 15, 2010 09:41 AM

Is too.

Posted by: BillT at January 15, 2010 10:23 AM

Ooh, let's take that logic of 'woman disagreeing with you' one step further: I disagree with RWW and Janine (if they are the same persyn) so they are wrong.

Posted by: Cricket at January 15, 2010 10:28 AM

Whooo -- 340 comments.

Face it -- your melieu *is* sex and relationships.

And troll-baiting. Your melieu *is* sex and relationships and troll-baiting. And fact-checking.

Your melieu *is* sex and relationships, troll-baiting, and fact-checking. And posting pictures of animals in embarrassing costumes.

Your melieu *is* sex and relationships, troll-baiting

*whap*

Yes, dear...

Posted by: BillT at January 15, 2010 10:30 AM

So, when did Kim du Toit start blogging again? He quit about a year ago. Or is he using another medium to get his message across? Do tell.

Posted by: Cricket at January 15, 2010 10:32 AM

Do *not*.

Posted by: BillT at January 15, 2010 10:58 AM

Uh huh!

Posted by: DL Sly at January 15, 2010 11:25 AM

YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!

Posted by: RWW's bratty little sister at January 15, 2010 11:45 AM

Bill:

Nobody expects the fact checking Inquisition!!!

Posted by: Cassandra at January 15, 2010 11:46 AM

Am, too.

Posted by: BillT at January 15, 2010 11:46 AM

I disagree with RWW and Janine (if they are the same persyn) so they are wrong.

And I'm secretly a man. Since women are immoral and incapable of logic, my manly disagreement w/RWW trumps all!

Posted by: Cassandra at January 15, 2010 11:47 AM

Mr. Barnard:

Your song was masterful. Didn't have time to read it earlier this morning b/c I was at the DMV. You are conversing with the proud owner of a renewed Md. driver's license.

WOO HOO!!! Street legal at last!

(Carrie just dropped dead of shock)

Posted by: Cassandra at January 15, 2010 11:49 AM

Posted by: Cassandra at January 15, 2010 11:46 AM
Posted by: BillT at January 15, 2010 11:46 AM

"Ladies first."

*waiting for RWW's head to go pop*

Posted by: BillT at January 15, 2010 11:50 AM

You're such a gentleman, Bill.

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 15, 2010 12:07 PM

"Mr. Barnard:

Your song was masterful..."

*Consults Protocol Handbook for Community Organizers and 33rd Degree Peter Principle Grand Masters -- then Bows deeply*

Seeing how well your appeals to reason and logic worked out with your vacuous, albeit woman written guest snipe, I decided that a few moments invested in a snarkAssault® was the next, dare I say logical, step. Apologies to the Davies brothers.

By the bye, congrats on that Md. license. =8^}

Posted by: Mr. Barnard at January 15, 2010 12:10 PM

You are conversing with the proud owner of a renewed Md. driver's license.

Okay, no-brainer.

I'll spend the additional money to *fly* from Dulles to Philly...

Posted by: BillT at January 15, 2010 12:21 PM

You're such a gentleman, Bill.

Coming from anyone but you, Miss L, I'd have taken that for sarcasm.

Lately, though...

Posted by: BillT at January 15, 2010 12:25 PM

I'll spend the additional money to *fly* from Dulles to Philly...

WHAP! WHAP! WHAP!!! :)

Actually, my driving record is superlative. Not bad for a notorious scofflaw.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 15, 2010 12:36 PM

Are you saying I was being sarcastic?

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 15, 2010 12:46 PM

Are not.

Posted by: BillT at January 15, 2010 12:51 PM

After taking the time to watch the Monty Python skit...LMAO

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 15, 2010 12:53 PM

"You are conversing with the proud owner of a renewed Md. driver's license."

Huh, never thought I'd see the day I was *glad* to be driving in Southern Coliformico.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 15, 2010 12:55 PM

Are too.

Posted by: DL Sly at January 15, 2010 12:56 PM

never thought I'd see the day I was *glad* to be driving in Southern Coliformico...

Pppppptttthhhh :)

Posted by: MidWestern Corked Bat out of Hell at January 15, 2010 01:06 PM

Bwhahaha..I got my *first* driver's license in California...way back when the Gipper was governor.

I still have my driver's handbook with his pic and signature in it. He was a good 'un.

Posted by: Cricket at January 15, 2010 04:28 PM

I first *legally* operated a motorcycle in Northern California. North of Sacramento even. Late in the 60's.

Ah, the good old days of mis-spent youth, complete with bugs in my teeth... It still puts a smile on my mug.

Posted by: bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun at January 15, 2010 04:48 PM

Wow. Do you realize that y'all have expended 58,311 words comprised of 267, 598 characters (not copunting spaces), collected in 2,097 paragraphs totaling 5,515 lines before somebody, (Cricket!) finally worked in a reference to Ronald Reagan? That means it's safe again for guys like me, right? Thanks, Cricket. I had almost forgot my blogging name.

HEY EVERYBODY! IT'S FRIDAY!

Posted by: spd rdr at January 15, 2010 04:52 PM

Posted by: bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun at January 15, 2010 05:02 PM

"... copunting..."

Is that a Boston word for throwing a fifty yard interception on first down?
*snnnicker*
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 15, 2010 05:39 PM

bt, you're starting to get predictable.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 15, 2010 05:42 PM

but every time I read that it's as if the 'alpha male' is uber in everything or somesuch.

To start off, how much pack hierarchy or herd hierarchy do you have down? General descriptions don't count. You want to get the info from somebody that has worked with such systems. Horse tamer, animal whisperer, horsemanship, etc.


Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 15, 2010 06:35 PM

Btw, Janine ignored my double dog dare. I feel sad now.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 15, 2010 06:44 PM

"bt, you're starting to get predictable.
0>;~}"
Maybe so, but it's Friday, past five o'clock... I prefer to think of it more as a ritual. =8^}

You know how old coots like me get in our ru... er, grooves.

Posted by: bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun at January 15, 2010 07:18 PM

Well, then, let's see if I can help ya find the rhythm.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 15, 2010 07:51 PM

To start off, how much pack hierarchy or herd hierarchy do you have down? General descriptions don't count. You want to get the info from somebody that has worked with such systems. Horse tamer, animal whisperer, horsemanship, etc.

That would be me, you know, the bovine.

Actually, I have a way with critters. In a herd, the alpha is not *always* the alpha.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 15, 2010 08:07 PM

Whoa! I'd better check the oil in the Wayback Mosheen after that one DL!

"That would be me, you know, the bovine.

Actually, I have a way with critters. In a herd, the alpha is not *always* the alpha.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 15, 2010 08:07 PM

More than a few of us are running in that herd Ms. Donovan.

My dearest Walkin' Boss is a critter magnet too. She has her Elly Mae Clampett merit badge for attracting, adopting, and caring for animals. *Considers that for a moment, looks in mirror, drops the thought*

Yup, Walkin' Boss and I completed our afternoon chores down at the barn a while ago.

Walkin' Boss still gets to ride, and has a nice, little, 15.3 hand, Walkin horse for the purpose.

My back no longer allows me to ride, but I do get to help with most of the other associated duties. =8^⁄

Posted by: bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun at January 15, 2010 08:30 PM

Ymarsakar -
Call me ..... Chicken Whisperer.

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 15, 2010 08:42 PM

bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun, well, I would get along well with your Walkin' Boss. My horse is a mutt, Willy is, but he's got a heart o' gold. He's about oh, 26 or maybe 28? But I can still saddle him up and go for a ride from time to time. I need to find another good horse, a few years younger.

I am really learning a lot about how herds work from my Angora Goats, though. I hate to break it to all you guys, but the alpha in my little herd is a Doe, Serafina - John calls her the Devil's Handmaiden. She bosses everyone around, including my two bucks!

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 15, 2010 09:27 PM

What!?!?! Heresy! Wimmin aren't supposed to be alpha anything!!! Especially goat wimmin.

*thud*


I love animals too, but I am more the 'care and feeding' type.


Spd, you're welcome.

Posted by: Cricket at January 15, 2010 10:28 PM

The good old boy... Saddled up and waiting to go.

Now about that

"...the alpha in my little herd is a Doe"
Nature is strange that way.

When it's just the boys, it's all beer, tall tales, and derring-do.

Return to mixed company, and the harmonious override of the primitive brain kicks in executing the yes dear routines. =;^}

Posted by: bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun at January 15, 2010 10:35 PM

bt, that's a mighty fine looking horse.

I'm not *allowed* to go into pet stores or see puppies. I'm a sucker for puppy breath. That was one of the reasons we ended up with the pack we had. They're kinda like Lays potato chips, I can't have 'just one'.
FWIW, the female is the dominant one in any dog pack, too.

Posted by: DL Sly at January 16, 2010 01:18 AM

Focus, people, *focus* -- topics for this thread are sex-and-relationships, troll-baiting, fact-checking, posting pictures of animals in embarrassing costumes, and the vulcanized highways of Maryland.

Ready? Continue.

Posted by: BillT at January 16, 2010 02:17 AM

The good old boy is a handsome lad!

Posted by: Beth Donovan at January 16, 2010 06:43 AM

Focus, people, *focus* -- topics for this thread are sex-and-relationships, troll-baiting, fact-checking, posting pictures of animals in embarrassing costumes, and the vulcanized highways of Maryland.

Gee, Bill, I'm trying to focus. But-my-brain-keeps-tripping-over-the-hyphens. All I can see is a headline. "Fact: Maryland checking posting pictures on highways of troll sex costumes baiting animals; Embarrassing relationships vulcanized. Developing....

Posted by: spd rdr at January 16, 2010 10:25 AM

Sheesh. After 380+ comments on sex-and-relationships, troll-baiting, fact-checking, posting pictures of animals in embarrassing costumes, and the vulcanized highways of Maryland, give or take the odd comment vector, Victor, about momma,
trains,
trucks,
or prison...
it was all I could do to keep from cryin'.

I'm taking a cigarette and chit-chat break. And I don't even smoke.

Posted by: bthun at January 16, 2010 11:35 AM

Maryland checking posting pictures on highways of troll sex costumes baiting animals; Embarrassing relationships vulcanized.

Film at eleven.

And I don't even smoke.

How about odd smoke?

Posted by: BillT at January 16, 2010 11:54 AM

"How about odd smoke?"

That's illegal in this country, Mr. DeBille.

Posted by: DL Sly at January 16, 2010 12:13 PM

Although......that may explain the going's-on on Capital Hill this year.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 16, 2010 12:16 PM

While the designation 'Alpha' is normally applied to men, it does apply to women. Only if you isolate it to the harem situation do you exclusively single out the male gender, otherwise it is encompasses far more. Since people normally speak of dominant sexual roles for men, it's easy to get into a habit of conflating the two. There's another way to look at it, however.

The process of evolution resulted in behavioral modifications. But those models, such as the harem, buck, rooster, pack, herd, water buffalo, prey, or predator routines are not ends in themselves. They weren't created, adapted, or modified just to be. They were there to do something: a job, a goal, a function.

Essentially, nature has no preference for some style or form of power or order. If things work better, that is the way it is. There is no self-deception in the fabric of reality. It does not have fetishes, preferences, or ideological goals. It doesn't need things to be one way rather than another, for fear of the things we fear.

If you review modern Hollywood esque culture, you might notice that sex is marketed almost as an end in itself. Money, fame, glory, lack of inhibitions are all designed to produce pleasure, but only one specific type: sexual.

People who have grown up with this dream or utopia in their minds, tend to judge worth and value, especially self-value, in the number and quality of sexual partners. Anything that gets in the way, inhibitions, religious mores, self-control, self-discipline, awareness of risks, must be bypassed to get to the End Goal: sexual pleasure.

When they encounter the harem situation, one man being orbited by many attractive or young women, they immediately make the value judgment that this is high class or high value, something equated with strength or survival or whatever jumble of emotions one would call serenity/happiness.

Regardless of how many times they may speak with their mind about seeking the one thing that would make their life worthwhile, these archetypes, illusions, and utopian esque dreams are embedded in their unconscious thoughts from the time when they were very little and had no resistance to external stimuli. Children do not reject the world, but rather embrace it in the form of curiosity. They have no inhibitions, normally, that would prevent them from learning. They lack a formed political or self identity that would be threatened by the presence of new, counter-factual, or inconsistent datum. Because this was absorbed early on without question, the conscious and logical mind has a difficult time when it is necessary to challenge such premises. These were accepted as reality, with no resistance in the core of the self, much as one accepts that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Not only is the answer not sought, but the question never even comes up. There's no point questioning the fabric of reality, so people don't do it. Not even when they should. Fables are at least recognized as not entirely true by adults. But when the whole world agrees that sex sells, there is an implicit assumption of power and validation there. There's no reason to question, if one has imbibed this philosophical premise from an early age. But there is a reason.

The very act of life requires basic necessities. To get a clump of organisms together such that they are working together, providing security, food, water, and reproductive capacity for sustainment, requires functions: jobs that must be done. Cooperation requires more than just the intention or agreement of need, it requires an actual function or ability, a bridge, that must be created and then used. Over the eternity of this universe, this work in progress has been done, whether guided or unguided by a conscious determination.


Our single cell progenitors didn't do their work for aeons just so we can reproduce ourselves. If reproduction was the end goal, that could have been accomplished a long time ago. Yet, single cells sacrificed their own existence for something greater. Never aware or aware in a way that cannot be perceived, during the aeons of existence on planet earth pure existence was sacrificed in favor of shorter, more complex, states. Reproduction, the sexual act and the incentives for it, is a means to an end. Because the ultimate goal of life cannot be accomplished in a year, or a thousand years, preparations must be made to continue beyond mortality. And while it would have been simple, in comparison, to simply reproduce a cell endlessly through copying and reproduction through splitting or duplication, it would not have produced more complex life. It would not have been able to serve the function of adapting to the world or to the fabric of reality. It would not have gotten stronger, nor have become self-aware.

It would be a mistake to lose sight of this goal in favor of what got us here in the first place. What got us here isn't the end goal, it was the means to allow us to get here and it is the means by which we can use to create better functions to get us even farther. Getting stuck now, wasn't the Game Plan to begin with.

When you see it that way, when you can look into the future and draw a line from where you are at to that point in the future, regardless of how nebulous the initial vision was, then you can reverse engineer what sex, relationships, and alpha leaders were supposed to be. There were seemingly unsurmountable problems dealing with how to create cooperation where there lacked a will or desire. But they were solved. If a plant cannot reason, it at least has one clear desire: sunlight. Its very being is designed for it and it will change itself to better acquire it. Failure or success is almost beside the point compared to that all encompassing desire.

The concept of hierarchy can be seen as a tool designed to deal with the problems of getting life together and making something out of the raw material. No single cell could produce, on its own, the necessary functions of life. Cooperation was mandatory, not an ideological whim. The moment the laws of the universe cooled down to this state, it became so. Yet, it was one thing to tell a hive or a clump of obedient cells what to do, another thing entirely to convince people with complex self-aware thoughts to do something specific. An alpha role was adapted for this purpose: the more complex the life, the more complex the coordination required. Any systemic failure will result in warfare, where organisms destroy each other rather than cooperate. This deficiency in resources could mean ultimate failure, so there preserves a motivation to fix failures using whatever was available.

If your cells could sing, all you would need to do was to listen to your own blood to see an example.

If it wasn't for the magnetic shield this planet has, life would either not exist here or would have taken a different form entirely. Yet the end goal would never have changed, even if at the end of the universe, final entropy, that goal was still without concrete and precise form.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 16, 2010 01:33 PM

So if we got Chicken Whisperer, quote unquote, and Horse/Dog Whisperer, then where's the Cockroach Whisperer?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 16, 2010 01:45 PM

Odd smoke? That would have been the occasional Macanudo cigar around the evening camp fire, at the deer camp. Otherwise nada...

Oh wait, there are those occasions when... but I'm wearing ear and nose plugs, so that doesn't really count, does it? =;^]

Posted by: bthun at January 16, 2010 01:47 PM

Jeez, guys. I can see that I need to post something else :p

Posted by: Cassandra at January 16, 2010 01:55 PM

For once, someone else provided the setup for the punch line, thanks Bill! =8^}

*hoists the trivet deflector, aka, trashcan lid and hobbles away as fast as possible*

Posted by: bt_NeanderthalsЯUS_hun at January 16, 2010 02:10 PM

Macanudo, now that's a prime smoke.

Oh, sorry! Sex, Drugs, Rockin' Troll!

Wait, that was supposed to be relationships ...

Posted by: tom at January 16, 2010 02:17 PM

"...then where's the Cockroach Whisperer?"

She got banned the other day.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 16, 2010 02:42 PM

I thought that was just a single cock... roach.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 16, 2010 03:16 PM

If you want an example of alpha person or the role, in the female gender, look at this.

Link

She is having a conversation. But she isn't allowing the theme or propaganda set pieces to be set by anyone else, except herself.

She doesn't allow herself, unlike Steele, to be led into verbal traps based upon a need to 'please' the audience or the person in front of the seat.

Alphas don't talk about people behind their backs, to alleviate their own stress. If there is a threat, it is taken out quick and efficiently. But if there isn't a threat, they avoid opportunities to create friction. Try and see if you notice the verbal traps avoided. There are many opportunities to snicker about someone, see how many are taken.

In human affairs, there is such a thing as the bell curve. This curve applies to even rare phenomenon, such as the alpha leader role. Those cut out for it, must fit exacting requirements. But even amongst that select selection, there is a bell curve. The 68% average middle, the 95% super super majority, and then the 1% outliers at the very high end.

Since not every person is the same, not every leader is the same. Some are stronger than others, some have more or less flaws, while others have different flaws. Some may be objectively qualified as bad leaders, but amongst either spectrum, there's a scale where most are sitting near the middle with extremes on either end. And this even applies specifically to a situation, rather than general description. Some leaders are good at diplomacy and social harmony, while others are good at warfare and siege.

No one is perfect. Anything that lives will die. Anyone that is mortal, can be killed. In this select sphere of political criteria, there are also proverbs that relate.

Dominance is not a luxury. It is something you acquire through work or qualifications. If you are not qualified, then you don't get it. This is something money cannot buy; it cannot buy the real thing. It would be so easy to become bitter or go into the pit of self-pity. To lash out at others and lose sight of the original goal of helping people succeed.

The Left says religion causes wars. That if nobody believes in God, then no wars will be fought. That if freedom and liberty are not something so valuable that men and women would sacrifice their lives for, then wars could be avoided because peace becomes just as good as slavery.

Don't believe what you hear from the Leftists. Enemies of humanity are a serious threat to all that is good or will be good in human history.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 16, 2010 03:40 PM

Part of the reason why psychological manipulation should, in my view, be taught along with sex education and methods of violence/killing, is because to learn psychological manipulation you have to learn the strengths and weaknesses of a human.

This ensures that a person seeking a mate will be able to recognize that which they seek, should they find it. This also ensures that a person can recognize their own weaknesses and work to eradicate them, while working on their strengths.

People often choose the wrong boyfriends and the wrong politicians, mass murderers or con men like Obama, because they have no idea what real leadership is. What real strength is. What real dominance and alphas are.

They have no idea and the media they pay such great attention to, including internet media, won't tell them. It's like the knowledge set involved in killing. It's there and on the surface it looks very simple or even easy with the right tools. But there's a systematic attempt to suppress such knowledge. It's like a taboo subject. Something not to be talked about in polite circles. Yet, it would do a lot of people a lot of good if they actually knew enough to make a decision on whether they want to know more or not. It would do a lot of good, and that's why it isn't allowed.

As before, manipulation doesn't result until the manipulator learns the target's strengths and weaknesses. But if you could control their strengths and weaknesses, then doesn't that solve the problem before it even arises. Compared to this great and successful project, the Caliphs - that kept a harem full of illiterate women that would get agoraphobia if they went outside the paradaiza's walls - can be considered amateurs.

Don't forget about the link at top.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at January 16, 2010 03:55 PM

or gittin' drunk... but I think someone else covered that already...

I love that song. They'd play it at The Silver Bullet, the country bar across the street from campus when I was in college. Pretty much the whole bar would sing along with that last verse...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 16, 2010 06:02 PM

Okay, as long as no one else has mentioned it, it think it's entirely appropriate the the links above this post's title read

« Heh. | Main | Always Leave 'Em Laughing... »

Posted by: BillT at January 17, 2010 05:20 AM

Whoot! Only three more to hit 400!

Do I do it, or do I don't do it?

Posted by: BillT at January 17, 2010 11:29 AM

Silly question.

Posted by: BillT at January 17, 2010 11:32 AM

Bet'cher sweet patootie, I'll do it.

Posted by: BillT at January 17, 2010 11:33 AM

Next question, please...

Posted by: BillT at January 17, 2010 11:34 AM

Do I hear five?? lol

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at January 17, 2010 11:51 AM

Ju know what I alwahs sah,

Let's run for de border! or az jur El Presidente say, *tilts hed back un squeents down nose to get de smug working*"Cinco de Cuatro!" or wana beer el Paco bobo? I invite my begot freens... or somting like dat.

Ándale! Ándale! Arriba! Arriba!"

Wats wer ju talkeng about in de phurst place enyway?

Posted by: Juan Motime at January 17, 2010 12:20 PM

WOW! What a strange discussion!

Posted by: philip at January 18, 2010 12:39 AM

Fine. Go all off topic 'n' stuff, why don'tcha...

Posted by: BillT at January 18, 2010 12:43 AM

BillT clinches the 404 Award! "It does not exist".

Bill, incidentally, the only thing that indicated Lola was a guy *for reals* was outside the song, where they admitted it came about after they saw a tranny.

Within the song itself? There were plenty of hints;

"Walk like a woman but talk like a man"
"I'm glad I'm a man... and so is Lola"
"Girls will be boys and boys will be girls, it's a mixed-up, muddled up, shook up world except for Lola"

but none of which, taken at face value, necessarily said Lola was a man...

Posted by: Gregory at January 18, 2010 04:56 AM

You made that point very well.

*koff*

A little bit *too* well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QodB0BObiZo&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: BillT at January 18, 2010 05:14 AM

(surveys wreckage)

I love the smell of YouTube links in the morning. It smells like ... Villainy.

You know, it demonstrates that there is justice in the world when a thread dedicated to factchecking a Futurist post on gender relations resolves itself into a debate and personal insinuations (using puppets and Prius jokes) over the song 'Lola.' *sniff* I love you guys. (In a purely hetero sort of way, of course. (At least, as far as anyone can tell. (Now if I wrote a song about it ...)))

Posted by: tom at January 18, 2010 09:30 AM

*Prius? PRIUS! bwaaahahaha, drys tears and suppresses laughter, starts to make a comment but recalls Chris Matthews' Don't Ask, Don't Tell contract stipulation just as the camera goes live with the network feed*

Breaking... This just into the newsroom.

During the speech yesterday in Massatoo... Massachew...
*refers to Marcia Coakley's campaign notes*
Massachusettes, during which the President was heckled by a person obviously not of The Pod, the President was left at a loss for words.

We now know that the President's delayed recovery was due to TotUS difficulties. Yet again...

We now send you over to Ana Gentry for more on the ongoing TotUS problem.

Posted by: Ron Burgundy at January 18, 2010 10:31 AM

Since it now takes a good five minutes to scroll down here, this thread will be continued here:

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2010/01/blogging_3.html

Quick, before she gets back!

Posted by: BillT at January 18, 2010 04:02 PM

Bwaahaaahaahaaha.......

Posted by: DL Sly at January 18, 2010 05:21 PM

Well, if Lola is about a guy, then who was 'Killer Queen' about?

Inquiring minds, yanno.

Posted by: Cricket at January 18, 2010 05:24 PM

You appear to be making three basic claims against the Futurist:

(1) You indicate that his claims about marriage age are false.

(2) You indicate that his claim that 90% of divorces are caused by the woman is false.

(3) You indicate that his claim that No-Fault divorce is a driving factor behind the divorce rate is false.

Your refutation of the first claim is disingenuous: his claim that people married at 20 and died by 50 is clearly intended to refer to the period when marriage, as an institution, began. These trends were already shifting by the 19th century, and I do not expect (nor do I think he expects) that genie to find its way back into the bottle (with regards to life expectancy, I certainly hope it does not). Further, the primary sources of increased human life expectancy--near universal availability of nutrition, and the development of penicillin and other modern public health mainstays (see, for example this source)--primarily arrived in the first half of the 20th century, while the marriage age has seen a marked increase over the second half of the 20th century (see this).

His second claim might be literally true and I would still find it even more disingenuous than your first refutation; he has included a figure for divorces caused by the woman's behavior, but not disincluded those divorces among those filed by women directly caused by the man's behavior. Nevertheless, his assertion that 70% of divorces are filed by women is, roughly speaking, accurate (as you have noted). This is a very different picture than what is often portrayed in the media.

Regarding his third claim, I again find your refutation lacking. Certainly the presence of No-Fault Divorce is not the only factor behind divorce--the custody expectation issue is indeed important, which is why shifting to a default of equally shared custody is important (and why it is opposed by, for example, NOW). Of course, it seems reasonable to conclude that custody would not matter as much if women could not divorce men without cause (as is permitted under No-Fault divorce); even your own source (which you link to when divorce rates over a longer time period) suggests that changes in the legal structure of marriage and divorce is one of five "driving forces of family change." That said, your source also indicates that the effects of this change in legal structure on the divorce rate result in an immediate increase in divorces, followed by a gradual return to previous levels, leaving the result negligibly higher a decade later. I posit that this indicates a fundamental shift in the actual nature of marriages--one that presumably factors into the falling marriage rate. Prior to the existence of No-Fault Divorce, the expectation that, if a man was caught cheating on his wife, he would be divorced and lose access to his children (but still be expected to pay for them), strongly disincentivized him to cheat (although many wealthy men doubtless did so anyway). However, with the arrival of No-Fault Divorce, this incentive structure was warped out of proportion; a wife could threaten to take the children, half the man's assets, and a lien against the man's future earnings, for any reason or no reason at all. This takes away some of the man's disincentive to cheat (since he may now expect, at some point, to be divorced and lose all that anyway), and supplies little or no incentive for the wife to remain attached to the marriage.

Posted by: Arbitrary at February 1, 2010 11:58 AM

You really need to read more carefully.

A simple reference to the Futurists' own words is sufficient to refute your first objection:

his claim that people married at 20 and died by 50 is clearly intended to refer to the period when marriage, as an institution, began.

Really? He must not have gotten the memo. The lead in to that precise part of his essay:

The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were:

I went back over 150 years. Now unless the meaning of "not too long ago" has changed drastically, I was more than generous in going back so far.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your comment b/c it's clear you haven't read either my essay or the Futurist's carefully.

Words have meaning.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 1, 2010 12:18 PM

When it began it was as he said. Not too long ago, it was close enough to that for marriage to still work.

Words do have meaning. If you want me to care about yours, you might want to try reading some of mine.

Posted by: Arbitrary at February 1, 2010 05:05 PM

*snort*

You weren't kidding about the "Arbitrary" part, were you? :p

Posted by: Cassandra at February 1, 2010 05:29 PM

My claim is not completely arbitrary, as the sentence before the one you quoted makes significantly clearer:

We earlier discussed why marriage was created, but equally important were the factors that sustained the institution and kept it true to its objectives.

Even a cursory read of the list that follows makes it clear that all four elements are things that became less true over the course of more than just the last few decades.

Your choice to focus only on the sentence immediately preceding the list (and your refusal to read my other two points), strongly suggests that it is you are not interested in reading carefully.

Posted by: Arbitrary at February 1, 2010 05:48 PM

Your comments don't make a whole lot of sense and frankly it's not worth my time to untangle everything that is wrong with them.

You have been allowed to speak your mind on a site I pay for. Unlike The Futurist, I don't delete comments from folks who disagree with me. But that doesn't obligate me to re-engage on an old thread :p

Have a super day, Arbitrary.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 1, 2010 05:58 PM

I regret my inability to convince you of the incorrectness of your position: you certainly are not obligated to consider any of what I have to say.

I will make a final effort to be somewhat clearer (and thus, unfortunately more verbose)... but I respect your decision to ignore this, if you choose to do so. I will not post again in that case.

The Futurist points to four properties of marriage that he indicates made marriage "work" not so long ago, but are less present now:

1) Earlier age of marriage and lesser duration of marriage. You have criticized this point in its particulars, as being less extreme than he indicated. My response is that it once was that extreme, and has accelerated away from that point to where we are now.

2) A sizable fraction of the male population was killed in war or in work, and the women whose lives were shattered by this served as a visible reminder of the importance of marriage. Both war and the workplace have been getting less and less deadly; this, like the previous point, is a trend that has lasted much longer than the past few decades, but has accelerated in the last century (for the West, at least).

3) Limited contraception limited the availability of sexual relationships. This, too, first began to change centuries ago with the development of condoms (at least 400 years ago), and their continuing innovation (rubber condoms 150 years ago, and latex condoms almost 100 years ago), before the acceleration in this field in modern times.

4) Divorce carried a social stigma and resulted in extreme financial loss. The trend of divorce being less and less frowned upon by society is also one dating back for quite some time; one might point to it beginning with the 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act.

Given that the second, third, and fourth items all begin at least a-century-and-a-half ago, it seems not unreasonable to give the same leeway to the first.

Posted by: Arbitrary at February 1, 2010 06:28 PM

Even a cursory read of the list that follows makes it clear that all four elements are things that became less true over the course of more than just the last few decades.

The problem is that that metric is not one "that has become less true over the course of more than just the last few decades" It has both risen and fallen over that time span. It has been both closer to his claim and further away.

It has not even closely approached monotonically increasing. There simply is no trend away from the "working" baseline. Furthermore there is no correlation between the age of first marriage and the divorce rate.

The major increase in divorce rates came during a relatively minor increase in age and if you look at lags (as most people won't marry and divorce in the same year so prior years data is more relevant) Divorcing couples came primarily during *reductions* in the age of first marriage and during a local *minimum* to boot.

Furthermore, in looking at the 25 years between 1980 and 2005 where divorce rates were *decreasing* is the time when the age of first marriage was *increasing* at ever more rapid rates (A 25 year lag would be extreme as the mean time to divorce is nowhere near that high so pick any lag you want and divorces still decrease while age of first marriage increases).

Even then, I would hesitate to posit an inverse relationship between the two because the magnitudes just don't line up. Dropping the age of first marriage 3 years for men and 2 for women produce a near doubling of the divorce rate, but increasing the age nearly 5 years for both only produces very mild reductions.

Even if you take into account the appearent underlying increasing trend (the red line on the divorce rate graph) the effect of changing the age at first marriage is assymetrical. That is, if you lower the predictive variable 2 years and then raise it 2 years the response variable does not return to it's normal baseline value.

To assert that 3000 years ago people married younger than they do today and that divorce rates were less 3000 years ago than they are today imply a positive relationship between them is just plain bad statistics.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 1, 2010 06:35 PM

I mean, even the ClimateGate statisticians know better than that.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 1, 2010 06:51 PM

The point is not to claim that they are statistically related. The point is to say that the incentive structures surrounding marriage in ancient times were different than they are today; changes in the marriage age imply a change in psychological perspective of the participants, and changes in life expectancy directly result in changes in the expected duration of marriage commitments (absent divorce). This does not inherently suggest any particular correlation between marriage age and divorce rate, but it does suggest that the institution is fundamentally different than it once was.

I think that the increasing marriage age, and changes in life expectancy, both have much greater effect on the falling marriage rate of the last several decades (with which they rather more accurately coincide) than they do on the divorce rate; these are factors that enter into the marriage decision in the first place--they are already known issues that have been factored into the situation by the time the marriage actually exists. I admit to having applied no particular statistical analysis to this issue.

Posted by: Arbitrary at February 1, 2010 07:07 PM

I regret my inability to convince you of the incorrectness of your position

*sigh*

I don't see much evidence, from anything you've said, that you understand "my position". I appreciate your clarification, but you seem to be under the impression that you have to convince me of several things I have not disputed.

I don't wish to get into a tail chasing exercise. You seem like a reasonable sort. Here are a few questions for you:

1. Do men have any stake in/responsibility for preserving the institution of marriage?

2. Do men bear any responsibility for the decline in traditional morals?

3. Just what is your solution to all of these problems?

Posted by: Cassandra at February 1, 2010 07:54 PM

The point is not to claim that they are statistically related. The point is to say that the incentive structures surrounding marriage in ancient times were different than they are today;

And that that change is related to the change in the institution. If it were unrelated, there would be no more need to address it then there would be to address that the number of pirates have also changed during said timeframe.

This does not inherently suggest any particular correlation between marriage age and divorce rate, but it does suggest that the institution is fundamentally different than it once was.

But that's exactly the relationship you said wasn't being claimed. So which is it.

In any case, as I just showed, the data does not support that conclusion. Marriage age is not a fundamental aspect of the institution as it has absolutely no effect either on marriage rates nor divorce rates. You can't claim something is fundamental when you go around changing it and nothing happens.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 2, 2010 10:03 AM

1. Do men have any stake in/responsibility for preserving the institution of marriage?

This is really two different questions.

As it currently exists, men have essentially no stake in preserving marriage; that is, individually, a man is ill advised to enter into a marriage contract (why enter into a contract that the other party can end at any time--for any reason, or no reason--yet still collect the primary proceeds, take half your assets, and assess a lien against your future earnings?).

Society, however, benefits dramatically from the existence of marriages (it creates a much better environment for the raising of children, it provides much stronger incentives for individuals to produce more than they consume, etc.). In this sense, there is a social responsibility to take the bad deal offered, despite the fact that the deal is generally not in the individual's interest.

2. Do men bear any responsibility for the decline in traditional morals?

Yes.

There were many men involved in the creation of perverse incentive structures that have lead to the decline in morals.

There were also multiple ideologies involved in creating incentives for this decline; feminism is merely one of them.

3. Just what is your solution to all of these problems?

I don't exactly have a magic solution to all of society's problems. However, if we want to reduce the presence of moral hazards, the first thing to look at is what incentives people have. For example, the only regulations needed to fix the problematic incentive structure in the finance industry are requirements of transparency (so that a consumer can tell if a bank is betting against the financial products it is trying to sell) and protections against fraud. Anything more is pointless government meddling. Anything less is likely to result in repetition of the same behaviors, since the incentive structure will not have changed.

But that's exactly the relationship you said wasn't being claimed.

I have two problems with this.

First, when I said no statistical relationship, I mean that I am not trying to assert that I have a predictive model of change in marriage age to degree of change in marriage rate, merely that I believe that the former significantly effected the latter.

Second, I made a different claim than the Futurist. He asserted that the changes in the marriage age affected the divorce rate; I assert that the change affected the marriage rate. While there are several features of the marriage rate not predicted in this model, for the first half of the 20th century (the decline in marriages during the Great Depression, and the spike in marriages as GIs returned from WWII, followed by a trough as they all started families), the comparatively flat decline in marriage age from 1890 to the 1920s coincides with slow growth in the marriage rate, and the rising marriage age since 1970 corresponds with the declining marriage rate since then.

I do not believe that marriage age is necessarily a useful predictor of marriage rate (for one thing, it seems difficult to measure one without the other); I am also open to an interpretation that suggests that these are simply correlated results with a common cause. But it is not accurate to say that changing the marriage age had no effect on marriage rate based on its apparent lack of effect on divorce rate.

(Similarly but tangentially, while the introduction of No-Fault Divorce coincided with essentially flat divorce rates, marriage rates fell significantly over the period in which No-Fault was introduced, from 28.2 to 25.7 marriages per 1000 women over 15.)

Posted by: Arbitrary at February 2, 2010 12:27 PM

First, when I said no statistical relationship, I mean that I am not trying to assert that I have a predictive model of change in marriage age to degree of change in marriage rate, merely that I believe that the former significantly effected the latter.

And I have shown you data that shows that conclusion to be incorrect. Your belief about such doesn't change that.

the comparatively flat decline in marriage age from 1890 to the 1920s coincides with slow growth in the marriage rate, and the rising marriage age since 1970 corresponds with the declining marriage rate since then.

Two problems with this
1) The rise in marriage rates comes all at once around 1900. It's flat before then and flat after then. The marriage age trends over the entire timespan. So unless you claim there is a "cliff" value (within which there is no change but beyond which there will be), marriage age cannot be related to marriage rates.
2) Even if we ignore this we still have the problem of asymetry. When the marriage age increases, we A) don't see the cliff event that happened in the decrease but rather a steady slope and B) the magnitudes for similar increases and decreases in the explanatory variable don't produce similar magnitudes of changes in the resultant variable.

Marriage age has absolutely nothing to do with either marriage or divorce rates. Whether that's a "statistical predictive model" or a back of the napkin rule of thumbish relationship, it's just not there.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 2, 2010 01:07 PM

Hmmm...at this point I was tired of staring at the same data trying to make sense of your claim (having only fetched the data regarding number of marriages and divorces to avoid just trying to make sense of the chart), so I figured I'd inject more data into the discussion--only to discover that we're both wrong.


Based on this CDC report from 2002 (see figure 19 on page 18), marital age does matter to the probability of divorce...the likelihood of divorce decreases for marriages that begin at a later age (suggesting that an increase in mean marital age, without changing the shape of the distribution, should reduce divorce rate).


This does not necessarily conflict with my claim that, with marriage as a delayed expectation, more people will choose not to bother, but I will agree that there is insufficient evidence to support this as a large factor in the determination of marriage rate. Similarly, this does not address other issues that exist with delayed marriage (reduced fertility, etc.), but those are not within the scope of commenting on the Futurist's original piece.

Posted by: Arbitrary at February 2, 2010 03:03 PM

Based on this CDC report from 2002 (see figure 19 on page 18), marital age does matter to the probability of divorce...the likelihood of divorce decreases for marriages that begin at a later age (suggesting that an increase in mean marital age, without changing the shape of the distribution, should reduce divorce rate).

Heh. The USA Today link in my post said the same thing (i.e. that later marriages and having a degree make it *less* likely a first marriage will end in divorce).

That was a big part of my point in this post - that it's fine to have opinions but that it's better to test your opinions against facts than to use biased sources that conveniently confirm what you already think.

That was my central criticism of the Futurist's post.

For instance, this is a far more plausible cause for the increase in the marriage age/decrease in marriage rate than no fault divorce:

http://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/w12139.html

My problem with the Futurist's post is that he made a great number of groundless (and here I mean that he didn't back them up) but no doubt emotionally satisfying assertions. The whole thing struck me as an exercise in confirmation bias rather than a serious attempt to grapple with a serious issue.

And goshdurnit, it sure didn't hurt him any that he managed to bash those evil feminists while he was at it :p

Having suffered through too many mandatory Women's Studies courses in school, I understand the frustration with gender feminism. But his analysis was so shallow and one-sided that even I couldn't swallow it.

When things go wrong, it's always tempting to find a scapegoat and as scapegoats go, it's hard to beat the appeal of bashing angry feminists. The problem is that real life isn't that simple.

I'm all for looking at incentives. That's what my recent posts on female virtue are all about - they are an attempt to bring responsibility and a more balanced perspective into the discussion of the problems facing society.

I think your statement that men have "no incentive" to support marriage is problematic. Any adult male who has an ounce of sense should understand these things (and I suspect from your comments that you do):

1. Children need a stable, two parent home and living together doesn't cut it.

2. If all the smart folks stop having kids, well... you do the math.

3. Despite the problems with divorce, married men report being happier than single men and they have more sex too. So there are still plenty of positive incentives to marriage.

Recent changes in marriage haven't changed the fact that men DO have an incentive to support marriage from both a personal happiness and a societal perspective. These changes have increased the incentive to choose wisely, consider the legal climate, and above all, work as hard on keeping your marriage strong as you do on your career/business relationships.

Finally, the division of marital assets is in no way as draconian or one sided as you state. I know - I worked in a family law practice that primarily did divorces in a no fault, community property state. So I'm quite familiar with typical settlements.

The fact of the matter is that any man can protect himself (if he's planning on letting his marriage go to hell in a handbasket) by getting a good prenuptual agreement, but most of all by selecting a mate wisely and committing himself to making the marriage work.

I've been married over 30 years and it ain't brain surgery. My sons are both under 30 and they are also happily married to women who are just as committed to making things work as they are.

We aren't promised a rose garden in life.

Circumstances change, and we can change with them - adapt and overcome - or climb out of the gene pool. From where I sit, taking your ball and going home mad really isn't an option.

Adaptation is how evolution happens. I understand how easy it is to pine for the good old days, but would you want your daughter to have that few choices?

Freedom is hard. It requires us to balance liberty with responsibility. We have embarked on a brave experiment where women are - for the first time in centuries - being offered freedom. We have erred in not demanding of them a commensurate responsibility, but I think that in many ways the same could be said of young men - we don't demand that they act responsibly either.

I don't think the answer is to go back and chain women to their Easy Bake ovens again. I think both sexes need to do a better job of adapting, and simplistic explanations (complete with scapegoat) don't encourage that to happen.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 2, 2010 03:33 PM

1. Children need a stable, two parent home and living together doesn't cut it.

I've taken to recommending religious marriage without the civil contract as a stopgap measure. This protects asset division better than prenups (which are often thrown out, though you seem to prefer them), but hopefully creates more social pressure than unmarried cohabitation. Of course, laws in some states are changing to try to close this sort of loophole (and it's already meaningless in states that accept common law marriage).

2. If all the smart folks stop having kids, well... you do the math.

Ignoring the question of heritability of intelligence, you get population collapse--as is now expected to be unavoidable for Spain, for example.

3. Despite the problems with divorce, married men report being happier than single men and they have more sex too. So there are still plenty of positive incentives to marriage.

I have not seen any effort to disambiguate cause from effect on this issue; are married men happier, or are men who report being happier more likely to get married?

This also doesn't consider the question of total expected happiness, given that between 40 and 50 percent of first marriages end in divorce--a state that dramatically lowers happiness.

I don't think the answer is to go back and chain women to their Easy Bake ovens again.

No, but actually practicing equality instead of simply preaching it while practicing sexism might help.

Posted by: Arbitrary at February 2, 2010 04:22 PM

No, but actually practicing equality instead of simply preaching it while practicing sexism might help.

That's not inconsistent with anything I have written for the past 6 years :p

...are men who report being happier more likely to get married?

Men who are happy and will get married are called... still single. If your theory is correct and they are just happy people in the first place, isn't their happiness accounted for already in the sample of singles?

Posted by: Cassandra at February 2, 2010 04:38 PM

I've taken to recommending religious marriage without the civil contract as a stopgap measure.

My oldest childhood friend and her husband have precisely this kind of marriage. They have been married for over 10 years. I have no problem with that sort of arrangement in principle.

However, as a matter of law informal arrangements like this don't preclude the awarding of alimony and they absolutely don't negate the duty to support any children one fathers in many states.

Given how many divorced Dads don't understand the difference between alimony and child support, the benefits would seem to be marginal. My only thought here is that if you do this, you'd better have an ironclad medical POA and will in place.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 2, 2010 04:47 PM

That's not inconsistent with anything I have written for the past 6 years :p

Unfortunately, feminist organizations such as NOW and the AAUW are actively inconsistent with that principle. For that reason, I stand opposed to feminism; I suggest that other egalitarians do the same.

If your theory is correct and they are just happy people in the first place, isn't their happiness accounted for already in the sample of singles?

Not if being a happy person increases the chance of getting married (since then you would expect a higher concentration of happy people in the married population than in the overall population). What I'd really like to see is a longitudinal study on the matter (preferably one that goes all the way from before marriage, up through the probable years of divorce) but all I've ever found on the question are surveys.

However, as a matter of law informal arrangements like this don't preclude the awarding of alimony and they absolutely don't negate the duty to support any children one fathers in many states.

No agreement, verbal or written, precludes the awarding of alimony, or of child support. Many states still don't have laws allowing for the awarding of alimony for non-marriage relationships (which would preclude alimony), but that can change and is changing. Child support is a right of the child, and no circumstances (not even if the father is a minor who was raped by the mother, nor if the child is later found to not be biologically related to the "father") circumvent that entitlement.

These are currently unavoidable legal risks for a man getting involved in a relationship with a woman (technically, alimony can be awarded in the other direction, but only 4% of alimony payers are women).

Posted by: Arbitrary at February 2, 2010 05:24 PM

Based on this CDC report from 2002 (see figure 19 on page 18), marital age does matter to the probability of divorce...the likelihood of divorce decreases for marriages that begin at a later age (suggesting that an increase in mean marital age, without changing the shape of the distribution, should reduce divorce rate).

Which 1) is the exact opposite of what The Futurist claims, but 2) you notice they didn't include the confidence limits in those probabilities and 3) it stops at 24+ which is still really young when the median age at first marriage is in the 26-27 range and 4) there's still no historical data to see if the shape of the distribution changes over time and with changes in the population distribution.

So even though the data would appear to "support" my case and "refute" The Futurist, I'm still not buying it.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 2, 2010 05:34 PM

So even though the data would appear to "support" my case and "refute" The Futurist, I'm still not buying it.

The data support neither your claim (that marriage age is irrelevant) nor the Futurist's claim (that greater marriage age leads to greater divorce risk).

you notice they didn't include the confidence limits in those probabilities

Actually, they do. The standard errors on those probabilities are listed on table 21 on page 55.

it stops at 24+ which is still really young when the median age at first marriage is in the 26-27 range

I agree that this makes the general claim that "later marriage reduces the probability of divorce" suspect. All we can say is that first marriages where the woman is under 24 ended in divorce within 10 years more often than first marriages where the woman was above 24 (actually, the table data enable us to say a little bit more than that...but not much).

there's still no historical data to see if the shape of the distribution changes over time and with changes in the population distribution

Given the granularity of this data, we don't exactly have a good sense of the current distribution (let alone past distributions)...for example, marital age (in this range) is not well disambiguated from educational level, which also has an effect on the probability of divorce.

That said, this objection is more than valid.

Posted by: Arbitrary at February 2, 2010 06:53 PM

The data support neither your claim (that marriage age is irrelevant) nor the Futurist's claim (that greater marriage age leads to greater divorce risk).

Ok, I'll cop to imprecise language on that one. Statisticians technically never say two things are equal. Technically 2.0 and 2.000...0001 are different*. We only say that we find no support for the two numbers being different (given a specified probability of error).

Similarly, we never say that a variable has zero effect, only that we find no support for it having an effect.

Which, I think has been demonstrated.

Actually, they do. The standard errors on those probabilities are listed on table 21 on page 55.

Good deal.

And at 10 years none of the groups overlap. So that's a plus for them.

I did notice, however, that at 15 years, the confidence bands on the 20-24 and the 25+ do overlap quite a bit, with the only significant differences between the less than 18, 18-19, and 20+.

And again, given that marriage before 20 has never been particularly common I still think the 20+ range need to be broken down into smaller buckets to be truly informative.

*and though this drives my dad nuts, given a sufficient sample size you can almost always find a statistical difference no matter how small a difference that might be. Even if such difference is of absolutly no practical importance at all.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 2, 2010 07:53 PM

it stops at 24+ which is still really young when the median age at first marriage is in the 26-27 range

It occurs to me that this is somewhat misleading. This is data from women who have divorced after a 6 to 10 year marriage, from 2002 (but an unknown amount of time may have passed after the divorce, before the survey). This means we should be looking at these marriage ages in the context of the early 1990s marriage ages (or earlier), at which point the average age (for women, which is the spouse whose age is being measured) was still around 22. This, frustratingly, means that the average is in the middle of the 20-24 bin, but it also makes the 25+ group slightly less ridiculous (since it isn't really half the population).

I did notice, however, that at 15 years, the confidence bands on the 20-24 and the 25+ do overlap quite a bit, with the only significant differences between the less than 18, 18-19, and 20+.

This is partially because the uncertainty in the 25+ number at 15 years is so large (presumably due to not having a particularly large population).

And again, given that marriage before 20 has never been particularly common I still think the 20+ range need to be broken down into smaller buckets to be truly informative.

I agree that the 20 to 24 bin is not especially helpful, but your claim that marriage before 20 has never been particularly common is not quite true; as is indicated above on this page, the average marriage age in the 1960s was just over 20 (for women), suggesting that a sizable fraction of women married before 20 then (although it is possible that the average was brought that low by a very large number of women marrying at 20). Some of them may have even been in the survey.

given a sufficient sample size you can almost always find a statistical difference no matter how small a difference that might be

The contrapositive is an amusing(ly common) sentiment: if you didn't find a difference, it "must" be because your sample just wasn't big enough.

Posted by: Arbitrary at February 2, 2010 11:24 PM

This, frustratingly, means that the average is in the middle of the 20-24 bin, but it also makes the 25+ group slightly less ridiculous (since it isn't really half the population).

Agreed, slightly less. And maybe this is in the document (I really don't care enough to search a 100 page doc looking for stuff) but it matters why they capped at 24. It makes a difference if they capped it there because the 24+ all performed the same or if it was capped there for sample size. Given the thin data for that bin at the 15 year mark, I'm afraid it was the latter.

But this brings up another problem: truncation. That is at what point do you say that a divorce after a given point still counts as a "good"? It's a common problem in most survival analysis. Very rarely are studies allowed to run long enough to obtain time-to-failure for every subject (GE ain't leaving a 1000 light bulbs on for 2 years or more to test their 10,000 hour [14months] claim on their CFLs)


the average marriage age in the 1960s was just over 20 (for women),

Yes. For women. For a very short time. That those caveats are needed seems to make my point for me.

The contrapositive is an amusing(ly common) sentiment: if you didn't find a difference, it "must" be because your sample just wasn't big enough.

You have no idea how many fights I've had with my Dad over pretty much that thing. He keeps wanting "There is a significant difference" to mean "It's a big deal". When in fact it's quite possible to be able to determine two things are different when that difference is completely and utterly irrelevent to anybody whether they have a pulse or not.

I mean, does anybody really care that machine A produces balls 0.1mm smaller than machine B when those balls are for a child's burp gun?

Sounds like something that needs a $5mm gov't grant to me.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at February 3, 2010 10:01 AM

And maybe this is in the document

If it is, I haven't been able to find it.

I'm afraid it was the latter

While I agree, this does not stop us from making sufficiently limited statements about the relationship between marital age and divorce.

Yes. For women. For a very short time. That those caveats are needed seems to make my point for me.

Given that the data presented are about age of the woman at marriage, the gender caveat seems of limited relevance.

Year by year census dataindicates that median age at first marriage for women was below 21 in 1947 (when the year by year data began, instead of just decade-long census data), and did not rise to 21 until 1973--26 years later. This does not seem like a negligibly small fraction of recent history.

it's quite possible to be able to determine two things are different when that difference is completely and utterly irrelevent to anybody whether they have a pulse or not.

Yes, but differences shouldn't necessarily be dismissed as irrelevant just because you don't see their relevance; a tiny change in the size of a burp gun ball, for example, could be the difference between a child choking or not (though at 0.1 mm I doubt it)--or, relating back to the rest of the discussion, a change from marrying immediately at the end of one's childhood education (whether that ends after high school, undergraduate school, or some sort of graduate work), vs. even a single year later might meaningfully change the average cultural outlook on marriage, work responsibilities, etc.

Posted by: Arbitrary at February 3, 2010 01:28 PM

Johnny come lately here...
At the risk of duplicating someone else's thoughts:
The author "takes down" the Futurist, primarily on the basis of his overuse of certain sources-
"misogynist" sources.

Just a thought here, but maybe he would have more sources available if the more mainstream sources actually cared, which they do not- and why should they, when they're making plenty of money on the status quo?

At any rate, even if one doesn't like, for instance, The Spearhead, it does represent how a significant and growing number of men feel about women and their chances of fair treatment where women are involved.
That's scientific enough in itself, for the purposes of The Futurist, since the entire point of his essay was NOT that two plus two no longer equals four, but that the way the genders (in Western culture) have been taught to view each other is leading to a terrible end- where there will be a purging.
Men are enduring this "purging" on an ongoing basis-and many men agree with that(some women too); women's purging will come when the last "beta" standing finally gives up (his prediction). As the father of four daughters, I hope he's off on his prediction.
From what I see though, I don't hold out much hope.

Posted by: woggy at June 13, 2010 01:16 PM

Hi,

I have not read all the comments so I don't know if it was addressed before.

I am do not consider myself MRA, nor PUA or any other group. I simply found this topic very interesting and are spending a lot of time going deeper in it mainly for analytical reasons.

What I found in this post is what I have witnessed so many times now in opposition in any pro-MRA statements - that people seems not to bother reading everything (maybe rereading).

"Sources":
First, why are you suggesting that links in original post are facts, they are only for gaining more detailed information on specific subject. This is not scientific work it is blog post which focus is not to prove every statement, but predict future.
So your analysis on "sources" have no point at all.

Your point 1 (marriage and age...):
As I understand, in original entry it was not about America and not about times of 18xx-1900, as I understood it was about much older times (my guess is - ancient to something like 1600), explaining why marriage as a whole developed and worked.
So, in my opinion, there is completely no point here.

Your point 2 (no-fault):
In my opinion, something more serious, however it pretty much has no point. Analysis of is no-fault divorce is the cause of marriage being bad deal for men, in my opinion, has no meaning and has nothing to do with idea of original entry. Fact is that marriage is bad deal and in my opinion it is combination of both - no-fault and bad laws.

Doing something:
So now everything, even analytical future prediction attempt, are considered whining?
And, in my opinion, spreading information is doing something.
So, in my opinion, nothing worth attention in this part are said.

Sorry for my bad English, from Europe here.

Posted by: Observer1 at August 16, 2010 08:10 AM

why are you suggesting that links in original post are facts, they are only for gaining more detailed information on specific subject.

"Information" that isn't based on facts? That's not information - it's opinion.

This is not scientific work it is blog post which focus is not to prove every statement, but predict future.

If the Futurist means to predict the future based on opinion, he can certainly do so. But the "fact" is that he did make several factual assertions. Those are what I addressed. If your argument is that it doesn't matter whether these factual assertions are accurate or not because you agree with the conclusion, it would seem you're saying that you evaluate arguments based on your feelings rather than on an objective factual basis.

in original entry it was not about America and not about times of 18xx-1900, as I understood it was about much older times (my guess is - ancient to something like 1600), explaining why marriage as a whole developed and worked.

Radical feminism is a recent construct. If the Futurist is arguing that radical feminism and the devaluation of men is destroying western civilization and the facts show a long term trend that began at least a 100 years before feminism supposedly ruined the world then his argument is lacking from an evidentiary standpoint.

Analysis of is no-fault divorce is the cause of marriage being bad deal for men, in my opinion, has no meaning and has nothing to do with idea of original entry.

In this case it seems that you are the one who needs to read more carefully. The Futurist specifically cited no fault divorce. I responded to his arguments.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion of the worth of what I've written, just as I'm entitled to my opinion of what the Futurist wrote :p

In the absence of facts, everything is opinion. There is no objective basis for evaluating an argument unless your goal is to come up with abstract arguments that have no relation to the real world. The real world deals in facts.

It seems to me that you want to dismiss the facts because they don't support your feelings, but emotion and opinion are a poor basis for rational decision making.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 16, 2010 09:16 AM

Isn't the stereotype that women argue from feelings and men argue from logic? Huh... go figure.

;)

Posted by: MikeD at August 16, 2010 09:42 AM

People married at the age of 20, and usually died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children. The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban feminist norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptly emerges from her trim chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse.
Note the absence of supporting links. The first casualty of the collision with reality actual data on marriages is the "marriage by 20" claim. As the following chart makes painfully clear, marriage by 20 has rarely been a common practice for either men or women in the U.S.
. . .
Small problem, - the futurist is writing from INDIA. He didn't make any limitation of his claim to the USA.

Posted by: John Walters at September 2, 2010 11:57 AM

Small problem, - the futurist is writing from INDIA. He didn't make any limitation of his claim to the USA.

So you're saying that because he's from India, we should assume his observations are limited to his country of origin as well?

Yeah. I thought not.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 2, 2010 12:04 PM

He is not writing FROM India. He is born in the US, writing from the US, and of Indian ancestry.

You people have to learn how to read before you aspire to loftier opinions.

Posted by: Julie at January 19, 2011 06:29 PM

I expected more. All I found were some irrelevant bar charts and a typical "he hates women" thesis.

In regards to the PUA stuff, if the shoe fits, lady. All that stuff works to a T on women, so uh yea they make very credible sources.

Just watch and wait as a generation of young men like myself refuse to marry with the cards so heavily stacked against them, and eventually leave this country for one where we're valued. Just look at Italy.

Posted by: yawn at February 9, 2012 09:29 AM

I can't shed too many tears over the prospect of men who are impressed by the PUA nonsense not marrying. Who would want such a man?

Men worth having don't do things only if they get a cookie for their pains. They decide on the right course of action and persevere until they win.

Those are the kind of men I know and admire: the ones who fight. If you believe a society where stable families and children with two parents isn't worth fighting for, perhaps you should move to Italy :p

Posted by: Princess Leia in a Cheese Danish Bikini at February 9, 2012 09:39 AM

YAWN-

I would like to ask, how are the bar charts irrelevant? I thought the author was using them as a visual representation of the sources used by the Futurist. She then went on the explain why she thought the majority of sources used were not fully credible. Since this is the main point of her article, could you please explain how you find them irrelevant?

Secondly, could you also explain how you've come to the conclusion that an entire generation of your male peers will have less marriages than the generation before? Do you have sources that show statistical analysis for this?

Lastly, could you also please enlighten us on how the cards are heavily stacked against you?

Please do not forget to source all your information, because it seems that anybody else who has made these arguments (ie- the futurist) has used hyperbole and weasel words along withe misleading or completely erroneous figures to prove your point.

I would love nothing more than for you or someone else to actually show facts backing up your point.

Thanks a bunch!

Posted by: megan at April 29, 2012 06:26 AM

Personally I thought the Futurist article funny. It was vitriol, it was opinion, it was speckled with inconsistencies. It portrayed frustration and angst.

The author managed to upset alot of people, without having to cost 3 Duke University students the rest of their lives, their sports careers, their educations. Even though the author was supposedly doing alot of lying.

Im not rebutting anything, it was opinion. Reading a man pine on about Women is a gentle reminder of the genders already being equal.

The comments here are almost as amusing. Thank You for having this awesome site.


“The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for.”

― Bob Marley

Posted by: Delphine LaLaurie at August 18, 2012 11:37 AM

I'm late to the party, I know. But an intersting question was asked further up the thread, that I never saw answered:

To wit, what are the benefits if any, in today's environment, for a man to be married?

As the OP put it, what is the case to be made to a young man as to why it would be a good thing for him to marry?

Posted by: McLovin at April 4, 2013 09:59 AM

1) Committment, despite stereotypes to the contrary, are a huge benefit to men.

A) It reduces stress because it provides a safety net in the relationship. Divorce, as easy as it is, is still much more difficult than breaking up which can and does happen over trivial and transient reasons. Having to be on your toes for fear of doing something wrong is stressful.

B) It provides a safety net from which risks may be taken. It's easier to take that promotion you aren't sure you are ready for if you have back-up, both emotionally and financially (see A.).

2) Children. The benefits to the children are massive and well documented. Better academic performance. Less behavioral problems. Higher earning potential.

3) Financial. The largest predictor of financial well-being is getting married. In fact, a great proportion of the increase between the rich and the poor is directly attributable to marriage. Don't want to be poor? Graduate high school, get married, don't have children until you are married.

There are plenty reasons to get married. It is just that the question to answer before marriage is not "Do we love each other?" it's "Do we both have the work ethic required to make the relationship work?"

Marriage is in the state it's in, not because of divorce laws, but because we as people think that love is an emotion and not a verb.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at April 4, 2013 12:16 PM

I couldn't agree more.

We just celebrated our 34th anniversary at the end of March. We married quite young (I was 19, he was 20) - long before "they" tell you you're old enough to know what you want out of life.

But if you love someone enough to marry them and are willing to put in the required time/attention/work, you can make anything succeed. Of course, you need to choose the right partner in the first place. If you marry for looks, don't be surprised when pretty on the outside doesn't guarantee pretty on the inside.

Looks are important to both men and women, but they're a wasting asset. If you're attracted to the person, though - who they are: their values, intellect, character, personality - that only gets better as you both mature.

Here's a few more benefits (slanted towards men, since you asked, "Why should a man marry"?):

1. Married people have sex more often.
2. Married men are healthier than single men.

Like anything else in life, you get out of marriage what you put into it. It's an investment.

Posted by: Cassandra at April 4, 2013 12:28 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)