The epitome of inner Game

I recently mentioned how men can get transfixed by a beautiful woman in my post on appreciating female beauty.

Female beauty is very powerful for men.

Whilst a man's handsomeness is equally pleasant to behold, this is ultimately not that important for most women, at least not mature women. Because women are really not as visual as men. Modern living has made some women far more visual than they ought to be. This is not a good thing, because it takes them off the right path in their choice of mate. It adds to their 'immaturity'.

A display of muscles is perhaps more likely to do it for a woman. Or height. Or whatever else is the local  social 'norm'.

All the above are excellent proxies of masculinity. Essential for female attraction.
But even these have their limitations.

Women can be 'transfixed' by something else where men are concerned.

It is difficult to explain in words.

It has to be felt.


I was reminded of this phenomenon when I saw an interview with actor Mark Wahlberg recently.
.
Now, this man was previously known very much as a 'bad boy'.
In the 80's he was known as 'Marky Mark', a rapper with a tendency to violence.
He had had a rough childhood and admits to being a coke-head by age 14.
He went to prison for an unprovoked racially-motivated attack when he was 16.

Today, Mark Wahlberg is a respectable husband and father of four.

That last statement is not that important in relation to what I saw in this man during the course of the interview.

It was his 'stillness' during the interview that grabbed my attention.

He seemed somehow 'untouchable'. Almost spiritual.
Watching and hearing him speak, you got the distinct impression that you would believe anything he told you. Because he seemed like he knew what he was talking about. He seemed like he had been through something.

He kept saying he was happy. Blessed even.

I believe it. It shows.

There was something about his eyes. They had an intense quality to them, as if he was trying to penetrate the psyche of his interviewer.

And yet he was strangely detached.

He seemed perfectly at ease with himself. It was like he was in some kind of impenetrable 'zone'.

I don't know if Mr Wahlberg's story that when he was in prison, a priest took him in hand and pulled him back from the brink, is what has done it for him.
I don't know if his assertion that his family give him new meaning in his life is what makes him so outstanding .

But something happened to Mark Wahlberg.
And it shows.

I have come to realise that this is in fact what Danny was referring to when he described Game thus:

"game" is simply confidence and outcome independence.

Confidence. Outcome-independence.

Simple words. But it can take a lifetime to achieve these traits.


I am sure Mark Wahlberg wouldn't care to know that someone was struck by his interview on CNN.
The guy is just living his life.

But this 'thing' he exudes is a powerful force indeed.
It is the male equivalent of female beauty.

This 'thing' which I now come to recognise as 'inner Game'.
The right kind of Game.

The kind of Game a worthy woman would respect. Not just 'outer Game', (including the concepts of 'Peacocking', escalation, etc.) which is of course important because it is what gets a man's foot in the door) but the whole package of  both 'outer' and 'inner' Game.

Bellita summed it up well when she commented here:

" I think Game is great inasmuch as it helps men of substance learn to stand out from the crowd, but Game totally on its own is the sizzle without the steak. "

The 'steak' is inner Game.


It is totally hypnotic to a woman.
It commands instant respect. Acute disorientation, similar to how a man might react to a seductively beautiful woman.
It is a wonderful thing for a woman to encounter.


Because it reeks of raw, unbridled, unwavering masculinity.

Tango the dance of love

A colleague of mine is very much into the Argentine Tango. She loves the sensuality and the freedom of this dance.


But alas she has a problem. It seems that some of the men in her dance class are definitely all too happy to be there, Mae West fashion.
But alas, this does not spoil her fun. She continues on her journey to master the Argentine Tango.
Good girl.

I was born with two left feet. Figuratively speaking, that is. Or should that be two right ones? 

I got the rhythm an' all, but it just doesn't translate well on the dance floor, particularly in a 'classical' dance like Tango. I couldn't dance Tango to save my life. It is however on my list of 'to do' things. I thought about joining my colleague at her Argentine Tango class. I just might, one day soon.

Someone tried to teach me the Tango once. I was no good. My teacher did give up after about ten minutes. I am actually surprised the lesson lasted that long.

It was not so much the dancing itself I remember, but the lessons it taught me about the dynamics of a relationship. I am not sure if this was the intention of my teacher. Whether it was or not does not matter. What matters to me is that a lesson was handed to me free on a plate. And I took it on board.

"One step forward, one step back".
"Two steps to the side, two steps back".
"One step forward, two steps to the side and... sweep".

(For those who are unfamiliar with Tango, the sweep is where the man or the woman uses their foot to literally drag the other's foot in a direction of their choosing. It is a highly sensual move).

Each time one partner in Tango moves forward, the other has to go backwards. If one goes backwards, the other has to move forward, for the dance to go smoothly and be enjoyable.

This lesson consolidates what I know about successful relationships.


Another important rule of Tango is that the man always leads. Even if the woman is to go forward, it is because the man has indicated to her that he is about to go backwards.

In Tango, you are never alone.
There is always some contact between the dancers. Usually at shoulder level, but this can vary during the course of a dance.

It is a true dance of life.

The sins of the Mother

This is arguably the most painful post I shall ever write. Because this subject delves into the greatest fears of both men and women. It is almost taboo to 'go there.'

We have all heard of the sins of the father.
Deut 5:9. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

I am not sure the bible ever touches on the 'sins of the mother'. If it does, I stand corrected.
However, I would be surprised.

It is said that the only reason that lesbianism was never a crime in Britain (as opposed to male homosexuality) during Victorian times was that Queen Victoria simply did not believe that women could be homosexual. She did not therefore feel the need to outlaw something which did not exist.

During the Iraq war, the British press went crazy on the topic of 'weapons of mass destruction'. Several comedians picked up on this, some of them making jokes about a certain part (or two) of a woman's anatomy being 'weapons of mass destruction'.

A woman's breasts can never really be her best or worst (whichever way you look at it!) weapons of mass destruction.
In a tragic twist, it could be her motherhood.

A woman's greatest fear is abandonment. Of herself and her children. As a lot of single mothers would testify to, it is incredibly hard to raise children alone.

So a woman who finds herself in this position has to survive somehow. No matter how she got to this state of affairs.
She may have been unlucky. The man she trusted with her body betrayed that trust. She may have been irresponsible. The man she should never have gone near, she defied her innate intuition and did. She may be divorced. She may actually have conceived with another man to break up her marriage. She may have been widowed. She may have been a 'reluctant bride' and chosen 'anyone' because she wanted a child, but not the man. She may have decided to 'go it alone' right from the start and naturally or 'artificially' became a mother with a known or unknown man.

For some women, motherhood is a noble art.
Unfortunately, for some, it is a chance to have a bargaining tool at one's disposal. 
Ugly.

For others, it is totally subconscious what plays out. And for yet others, it is a conscious choice to have a child, a "mini-me" to groom into the role of helper and future provider.


A man's greatest fear is betrayal by a woman. Whilst this often means betrayal by a 'mate' in the form of cuckoldry, consider this:
What if the traitor is his own mother?

The post on MGTOW produced a lively debate on the various reasons for MGTOW. Some of them were due to a man just wishing to live his own life with no disturbances from female influences, some were as a direct result of previous bad experiences with women, some were to do with the anti-male and prohibitive laws regarding fatherhood, child custody, alimony, etc.
All valid reasons.

This comment from BeijaFlor* stood out:

I'm very familiar with women's fear of abandonment. I saw it in my (single) mother's eyes, heard it in her voice, when I grew to manhood and could have struck out on my own. I stayed with her instead, but picked up the load of "breadwinner" and even bought a house for the two of us ... she died in that house, died of cancer, with her hand in mine, ten years ago. I was 48 that day, with friends that age who were grandparents. So I believe I know what it is to "man up."

No-one else had touched on this particular issue.

A lone mother sometimes depends on her child(ren) to shoulder the burden. That's to be expected to some degree. I would even argue that it is good for the child(ren) to understand how hard life can be.

But when a son is forced to take on an absent father's role, sometimes before he is emotionally ready, I find that criminal. Because it reveals a certain selfishness in the mother (which, tragically she may not even be aware of).

A son like this will pedestalise his mother. He wants to help a woman, as his male nature dictates. Especially if that woman is the one who gave him life. It may follow on from his natural Oedipus complex.
But if this woman denies him what is rightfully his, i.e. the right to make his own choices in life, follow his own dreams, live his own life, then she is doing him a great disservice.
This man will pedestalise women until one day he will wake up and realise that he was betrayed. His whole life up to that point was a lie.

And worse, the traitor is also the one he loves the most.

This is one of the rare sources of cognitive dissonance in a man. He understands women so well because he was around one a lot, more than was necessary in fact, but at the same time he is seething with rage at a wrong that was done him. Especially if there was no other man around to take him on the road to manhood. Psychologists believe that the Oedipus complex is finally resolved in a boy when, instead of childishly competing with his father for his mother, resolves to become a man, like Father.  But what if there is no Father figure to allow this to happen?

This man often seeks out women, because on principle he loves women. He wants a fulfilling relationship with a woman, just as much as the next guy. But he will struggle to form meaningful relationships with them. Until that is, he finds the key to the riddle in his heart. By himself.

For him, it is not so much a mistrust of women, but an unresolved, sometimes subconscious fear.

A fear that can be entangled with an anger, tangled further with his love for Mother and his shame at feeling such rage. It may remain sealed away, bubbling inwardly like a pressure-cooker. And his efforts to seal it away could leave him sealing away his emotions - or it could erupt inside him, doing who-knows-what greater damage to his own soul.

Outwardly, this man may appear to be a 'principled mangina'. Or the worst woman-hating PUA there is. Or both. At the same time. Which will be confusing, even to him. Until he works out for himself what is going on in his soul.


And there is no guarantee that he ever will ... which could leave him endlessly wandering that dark wilderness, stripped of inward mercy, that is finally all that is left in his scarred, cankered heart.
In the end, that road can be both excruciatingly painful and at the same time headily redeeming. A man who can bounce back from this kind of trauma is the ultimate hero, because, to face one's worst fear and win is the ultimate test of life.


The daughter of a mother like this also suffers.

This woman is usually on one of two trajectories:
On the one hand, she becomes a 'son' in her drive to please Mother. She loses out on her femininity because she is 'replacing' an absent man. She is acting out the role of 'husband' without her express knowledge or consent. This woman will usually have a deep love for men, because she will have lived most of her life as one, but will struggle to form a relationship with (a masculine) one because she is, at least in her head, not feminine enough. She has been too busy playing 'husband' to another woman to know what it is to be 'wife' to a man.

On the other hand, a daughter of a lone mother could also be 'trained' by Mother to become 'strong and independent'. Never need a man! would be all she hears from infancy. They are bad for you. They will break your heart. Earn your own money, kill your own snakes, buy your own jewellery.

Mother thinks she is helping. She wants to 'save' daughter from a fate similar to hers. But she is in fact doing the opposite. Because in this mindset, daughter's worst fear will be realised.

Both these daughters have a saving grace though. Like Mother, they are also women. So they can recover more easily from the sins of Mother than their male counterparts.
One day they will wake up and reject Mother's brand of womanhood as they come into their own.
What they may suffer more from, is the absence of the mitigating influence of Father.

We all know the effects of fatherlessness, in both sexes.

Motherhood is a powerful force.
Rarely, it can be devastatingly destructive.
Strangely enough, I do not believe that this form of destructive motherhood is connected to feminism per se. Although of course it can have a perjorative effect on it.
Because feminism, with its core of rage against men and manhood, is fighting to make single motherhood the norm, and thus multiplying not only the victimisation of the children, but also the power of destructive motherhood.

Let us minimise the risk of destructive motherhood.

And let us bring back Father into the home.


*A massive humongous 'Thank You' to BeijaFlor for his help with this post.

Appreciating female beauty

Code: I am doing it again: I am translating from the french 'apprécier', in the sense of 'to enjoy' or 'to like' and not in the sense of 'to be grateful for'.

I read with great interest Roissy's recent post imploring men not to let a woman's beauty affect them. At first I was alarmed. Even appalled.
I thought this was surely bad advice for men.

Because the whole point of female beauty was that it was the signal men picked up on to suggest to them her youth and therefore fertility and therefore eligibility for the mating game (unless of course, the man concerned is MGHOW).
So, if men were to find a way to ignore or lessen the impact of female beauty, they would be eliminating one of their own very important attraction triggers.
Counterproductive!
This was my initial thought.

Then after a while, I calmed down.

Here's why.

A while ago, Bellita's post What would Frankie do? touched on femininity. What was interesting about this post is that it quickly morphed into a discussion about female beauty.
Someone mentioned the french singer Alizée.

Whilst I had never heard of Alizée before, I was suitably impressed with her when I saw this video.

The first comment on the video is from a man who says, and I quote word for word, "This chick is so HOT my girlfriend just got a boner!!!!"

Whilst this was not quite my reaction, I kind of get it.
First of all, I was asking myself, "how does she do that?"
The very fluid arm and body movements are essentially feminine, and she executes them exceedingly well.
She is also a naturally beautiful woman, there is no doubt.
She is stupefying. At least at first.

(Sadly for you, gentlemen, this woman is off the market, by the way. She got married at age 19. Let's hope her husband agrees she is a 'nice girl' according to my previous criteria, and that she remains that way for life).

Even as a woman, I was struck by her beauty.

There was a time I used to compliment women who I noticed were very beautiful. Out and about, on the streets, in the shops, at college, whenever I saw an extremely beautiful woman, I would go up to her and say it. I usually got one of two reactions:

Some would be very gracious and even compliment me back.
Some would be visibly perturbed that another woman was telling them this. I could see the unease on their faces, and the suspicion of my 'orientation'.

Because of the latter reaction, I stopped doing this.
Because it felt like I was unnecesarily putting these women in a position of superiority over me. And I was not being rewarded for it.

I guess this was what Roissy was alluding to. If even I as a woman can be reduced to a virtual statue for a while, how much more a man?

Appreciating a woman's beauty can lead men to over-pedestalise a woman. A certain amount is fine, because it causes a positive feedback loop in a woman's mind when she knows a man finds her attrractive. But too much, and the attraction she has for him can be killed off.

Also, a man who can retain his composure when faced with a beautiful woman, particularly if she is used to men drooling all over her, will be seen as 'unusual' by her. As per this post, this is good for the man, because that alone gets him in her good books. Especially as his composure prevents him from being lewd.

Nothing more unpleasant for a woman, especially if she is 'well endowed' than to have a strange man stare at her chest (assuming her 'friends' are not out on open display, that is).

The man who achieves this can go to near the top of the list, if not right at the very top.
But if a longterm relationship is to come of this initial encounter, there will have to be a time when he goes through a 'beta' phase, which essentially includes some degree of pedestalisation.

The problem with being stupefied by a beautiful woman on first seeing her is that it makes a man 'beta' straight away.
It is crucial that the whole 'alpha/beta' thing starts off in the right order. It has to start with 'alpha'.

Does complimenting a woman on her beauty increase her entitlement complex?
I think this depends on the woman. For some women, that's all they have going for them, so their self-worth may be entirely based on their beauty. So for these women, perhaps it is a necessary tool.

Others know that beauty is skin-deep and fleeting, and so understand its place in their value/worth and don't over-rely on it. Such women would not have an inflated sense of self based on their beauty alone.

So Roissy is right afterall. It is surprising sometimes who ends up as an 'ally' on the journey into the unknown.

Appreciate a woman's beauty. But don't let it go to your head.

As Dannyfrom504 says, his approach to pretty women is somewhat like this:
"I often tell women, "ok, you're pretty...now what?"
That's some serious Game right there.
Even the prettiest woman will stop in her tracks with this.

The Quiet Man

The following is a typical scenario:

During a divorce or separation, a woman rallies round her friends.
She tends to be very vocal, even if she is usually not very talkative. This is good for her in many ways. As in, 'a problem shared is a problem halved'. Sometimes it may not be so good for her, as in, the collective rationalisation hamster of a group of provoked women can get unbelievably out of control and become destructive rather than constructive.

The man stays 'shtumm' and goes about the cold business of sorting out the logistics. The legal proceedings, the financial paperwork. The moving of personal belongings from one residence to another.
At least on the surface.
He says nothing. He does nothing. He just ignores and avoids.

Away from absolutely everyone.
Until he can work out something in his head.
Until he rejoins his social setting as a returnee from wherever he went, or he becomes The Angry Man and then The Indifferent Man.
That's how things are. Both men and women revert to their respective natures especially during times of stress.

Neither party is 'wrong'.

But no-one is enjoying this party, so something has to change.

Otherwise men and women will drive each other literally insane.

Albert Einstein said this: 'the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results'.

So what can de done differently?

In general, it is clear that women tend to get more sympathy, from both men and women, during situations like divorce.
There are at least 3 reasons for this:

1. Women are physically and emotionally more vulnerable, at least on the face of it. To this effect, I believe it is right that support in the shape of sympathy is accorded to women.

2. Women are simply more vocal in a social setting. They advertise their needs more. Unlike a man, who is bound by concepts like 'pride' and 'stoicism' and 'honour', a woman has free rein to vent her frustrations in public for all to see. She is also an exceptional spin-doctor, because she is a great rationaliser.

Here's the crossover line between 'nice girl' and 'not so nice girl':
Even when 'not so nice' is in the wrong, and knows it, she can spin it to look like the other party is the culprit.
'Nice girl' will get all emotional too and make a scene. But it will not be as venomous and as far-reaching as the damage done by 'not so nice'. There is a big difference in attitude.

The 'nice girl' will calm down after a 'cooling down' period. She will be civil to the man again. Even if the marriage is irreparable, she will be pleasant again whether or not there are children involved. She might even 'chase' him a bit.
The 'not so nice' will go for the jugular and in fact get the carotid. She doesn't want the man back in the village ever again. She wants him dead.

Most women need a 'cooling off' period after an emotinal outburst, same as most men need  'peace time' after coming home from work.
Some will use this time well. Some will not.

3. The post-feminist world encourages mindless male-bashing.
This is a sticking point for many men, and the women who care about men.

Reasons 1 and 2 can be to some extent explained away as 'female nature'.

Reason 3 is a social 'add-on' and does not reflect female nature.
It is why men are demonised unnecessarily.

Here are examples of specific male behaviours that may be interpreted wrongly by women:

1. A beautiful woman passes by a couple and the man of the couple stares at her for 3 seconds. The woman of the couple gets offended.
This is a natural biological response, like a woman's response to a newborn baby. It need not escalate into an affair. If it does, I agree the man has crossed a line.

2. A man in a longterm marriage is denied sex on a longterm basis outside of reasonable circumstances such as illness, pregnancy, extreme life-changing events like grief and physical separation from partner . He resorts to porn, affairs or prostitution.
No need for explanation.

3. A man takes a good two minutes to answer what to a woman is a simple question.
This I agree is frustratingly difficult on a day-to-day basis. But there is actually a scientific basis for this. Rather than label as 'slow' or 'inattentive' and interrupt his thought processes, a woman would do so much better to wait for the answer.

And so on...

The point of this post is that, in keeping with human nature, we tend to hear and see what's thrown 'out there' much more than what's hidden.
That's the whole point of advertising. If you have a great product to sell, you make sure it is highly visible to your target market.

40+ years of feminism have 'advertised' the 'sins' of men to women. Even to women who weren't looking to buy.
 We now know it was a case of 'false advertising' because feminism was not such a great product afterall. It has made life worse rather than better for everyone concerned.

Women can bridge the gap by taking time to gently probe and try to understand The Quiet Man instead of following the herd and beating him down.

But will the Quiet Man pipe up sometimes and tell 'his side of the story' at the time it is happening and not retreat? Is this an admission of guilt? Is this a way of getting away from a source of stress? Is this because he is being gallant? Is he simply giving a woman her 'cooling off' time? Or is it simply his Nature?'

Whatever it is, the Quiet Man appears not to help his cause. At a time he really needs to.
Self-preservation or wilful self-destruction?

Tim Tebow and the Peacock effect

Continuing on the sporting theme, a female friend was waxing lyrical about Tim Tebow the other day. She especially liked his 'Tebowing'. I suggested to her that she only liked him because he was a famous athlete.

She said this:
"There are lots of famous athletes. Big deal. I like this one because he is different."

I said "yeah, sure" and we left it at that as there was no time to continue our conversation.

I think I now understand what she meant.

Peacocks are magnificent birds to watch. I think they are second only to the King of the jungle himself, the Lion, when it comes to the whole "strutting" thing.
The preening is spectacularly over the top.

Some men might see the peacock as the "dandy" of the animal kingdom, the gay guy.
Some might see him as a true alpha.
I am with the latter group.
A peacock will kill, and I repeat, kill another competitor for a peahen. He ain't gay.

Some studies suggest that the plumage of a peacock is actually nothing to do with attracting the peahen - it is more a case of warding off or intimidating other males.
In any case, a Japanese study concluded, after seven years of watching free-living peacocks, that the female is actually indifferent (read: unimpressed) to the often excessive display by the peacock.
An example of hypergamy if ever there was one!

Male sparrows and other birds are Nature's serenaders. What we know as 'birdsong' is actually a full-on male choir in action. All doing their bit to attract a female.
Although not detectable by human ears, not all birdsong is the same. I have seen phonograms proving beyond any doubt that the frequency of each birdsong is different.

Each male bird is trying to be unique.
The female birds are just there, passive. They all look alike. If they like the sound of a particular male bird, they pick him.

Same story in human terms if each gender is to follow Nature's way.

A woman does not have to be überspecial, to attract a man. She does have to be visible to him, and the better her 'assets' the better. Thereafter, he needs to know that she will keep his home, bear his children and keep him company, never betraying him (read: cuckoldry/divorce rape, etc).

Some men believe that women just like the 'bad boys'. Whilst I see this happening sometimes, it is by no means the only story.

A woman's attraction triggers are different from a man's, because they have to be. Otherwise we would all be gay. That wouldn't work for the purposes of propagating the species.
She needs to look at a man and see a king. He needs to stand out because there are many men on the parade, usually.
He has to be unique, to her.

For a woman, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man really is king.
And in the land of the one-eyed man, the two-eyed man is king. And so is the blind man.

It's the difference that counts. In the purely biological sense.
In the land of good boys, a bad boy will become 'alpha' (read: extraordinary) by default.
In the land of bad boys, Tim Tebow is king.

But alas, human beings have higher functions too, as some of you keep reminding me. Social factors do come into play too. I know that.

A woman can go wrong in two ways:
1. She is not yet mature when she makes her 'choice'. So she does choose Mr Top Spot, but her criteria for choosing him are all wrong because they are riddled with adolescent thinking. Next you know, she is on the hypergamy train to the next station.

In the old days, a woman's maturity was nailed earlier in her life.
Feminism has increased the age at which this happens in modern women. Counterproductively.

2. She is mature, but chooses someone who is not Top Spot for a variety of reasons outlined under 'The Reluctant bride'.
So a man's job in this case is to find out where he is on 'the list' if this is a woman he does care enough about that he wants to commit to. Game (the right kind, as explained by Lost and Danny) can help in this regard. This is why I personally respect Game.

The happiest woman is one who is mature and chooses Mr Top Spot as a result of her physical attraction for him combined with the clear thinking her maturity accords her.

So, if many women are being accused of choosing 'the bad boy', consider that she is most likely immature and that that bad boy made himself stand out to her immature mind. In this regard, neither that woman nor the bad boy are appealing.

What's the best strategy for the immature woman with regards to the 'bad boy'?
Avoidance.
There is a good reason girls and boys were largely 'segregated' in ancient times, until a certain age. It is also why I am in accordance with same sex education until a certain age. The goal here is to achieve the necessary maturity in both sexes, but particularly in a girl before she is exposed to the big bad world. By then, her ideas on who is worthy or not are firmly formed in her mind.

For mature women, their default position is that 'there are no good men out there' i.e. every man is a bad boy. So a 'good boy' to a mature good woman is actually a true alpha.  because he stands out. The Private Man has a series of posts advising women to 'see' the good in men. I think this is good advice because it helps this process along nicely.

I think this is what my friend was talking about when she was referring to Tim Tebow as 'different'.
This is why I also think that a 'principled mangina' can be gold dust to a good mature woman if he has enough Game.

Special Request

This is not a real post.

I just wanted to make a general point or two.

The first is, I am still getting a few 'you don't know what you are talking about' comments.

Whilst it does not and should not bother me (because in fact it's true to a large extent), I just wish to draw attention to the fact that it is not really helping me or anyone to get to the point where we really know what we are talking about.
Besides I never made any such bold claims in the first place. Even if I seem sure about something, it is still just an opinion.
I am no expert, just someone who wants to figure out if there is a path to a better way forward.

Because, the 'experts' (read: 'officials') are still standing around scratching their heads, so I figured it's time for the inmates to run the asylum, so to speak. I am right behind the bolder inmates before me who started this process.

Second, every other comment seems to be from an 'Anonymous'.
Again, no problem.

The special request is this:
Like many people, I am still unsure what the relative proportions of the movers and shakers in the game are.
At the last unofficial count it seems the MGTOW and the 'not so nice women' far outnumber everyone else.
It might be helpful to see, at least in our own small population sample if this is verifiable.

Would you mind adding at the end of your comment what category best describes you, (in your own opinion or that of others who know you, if you have access to that information) from the description given in the last post? Or you could make up your own category if it is missing in the last post. Sometimes it is glaringly obvious what category you are in! but sometimes I am unsure.

No matter if you are not so inclined to indulge in this little exercise. Just a suggestion. Please comment anyway.
Thanks.

I'll start:

I am Spacetraveller, and I am in category 3: 'nice girl'.
 (Own opinion. Closest friends agree, others unsure).


(PS: Self-identification does not prove anything. But that's all we've got for now)

Dissidents of the 'Spheres - who exactly are they?

Sports is good. Sometimes we don't particularly excel at it, but it is the participation that counts.

Sometimes we make the mistake of indulging in a sporting endeavour without fully training ourselves first.
As a result, we end up with muscle aches and pains. Because the body has been forced to use muscles, tendons, ligaments and bones that have not been tipped off for the task ahead.

I walked onto a sportsfield with my last post. I wasn't fully trained up prior.

Time for a hasty retreat.
Back to the drawing board.
To reflect on the game a bit.
 Because without the rules we won't know if we are  winning, or losing, or even scoring any points at all.

 Here is a first draft of the description of the game as I see it, with commenters' input. It may need some polishing.

 The terrain
It's pretty rough. This is no astroturf football field. Nor an indoor basketball court. No soft landings here for anyone.
This is off-piste Montblanc. During an avalanche.

As a backlash to feminism, three 'underground' online movements have sprung up.
The first is The Manosphere, where men with all kinds of issues regarding women congregate to vent their particular tales, jokes, woes, problems and solutions. Where the older men teach their younger counterparts or contemporaries the principles of Game. These sites are usually 90% male in terms of readership.

The second is what I will call the Femosphere, where older - but not exclusively - and experienced men and women teach women how to become more feminine, i.e. the best women they can be, by presenting them with beauty, comportment and behavioural tips. Here, 90% of the readers are female.

And then there is a third kind, which, for want of a better term, I will call the Mixosphere, of which this blog, HUS, Bellita, Olive and Danny (to name a few) are part and parcel, and which straddles both camps, with roughly 50-50 distribution of male and female readers.
In this sense, the Mixosphere is the offspring of both the Manosphere and the Femosphere. It is some weird form of 'lovechild' between the two parent movements.
All three groups have the same function: to improve relationships between the sexes.


The players
It is not 'Team Man' and 'Team Woman' anymore. It's becoming rapidly clear that that is a losing strategy right there. It should not be a simple case of 'The Battle of the sexes'. Not anymore.
Because that may be an unhelpful way of looking at things.

Here are some broad categories of allegiances that are forming in the SMP.

1. The MGTOW
I had to start with this group. They are vocal. They are numerous. And they don't even want to play the game anymore.
The problem for a lot of women is distinguishing this man from his brother in category 2, because they are not just brothers, they may be fraternal twins. They share an awful lot of DNA.

2. The regular Manosphere citizen
This man is hard to define. He may straddle the MGTOW group. He has 'inner Game'. He is self-assured. His ducks are all lined up. He may be married or single or in a LTR.
No matter.
He knows he can exercise his options at any point in his life, a distinct feature he shares with the MGTOW. For the non-MGTOW amongst this group, the dating game is not necessarily easy, but they are not (at least not yet) fazed by it.

2. The 'not so nice woman'
The MGTOW has a few choice words for this woman, but in the interests of decorum, we shan't go there.
These women, according to the MGTOW are also numerous. They are also vocal. And by the sounds of things, I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that they are also highly visible.
Is this woman on the field? Or is she just cheering on the alpha male?

3. The 'nice girl'
My biggest interest for the moment is in this woman.
According to the MGTOW, she does not exist.

I have an alternative theory.

I think she does exist. And what's more, the MGTOW know that. But their biggest frustration with this woman is that she is hard to find.
She is too 'hidden from view'.

She is not too visible, because she has been misinformed about what 'visibility' means.
She thinks that to dress in a feminine way equates to being a 'siren'. To her, a 'siren' is a word which rhymes with rut.
So she hides herself in unflattering attire.

Some MGTOW have also made the point that this woman is in fact, a phony.
She portrays the illusion of a 'nice girl' but as soon as she gets what she wants, i.e. her claws deeply embedded in him, she unleashes her inner devil on him.

To this I would respond that all along, a woman like this is actually in category 2.
The category 2 woman has many faces.

So, the consensus seems to be that the 'nice girl' needs to come out more. She is in the crowd but no-one is seeing her. And when she comes out, she has to stay nice. Forever.

4. The 'mangina'
This man is derided by his brothers in the Manosphere. He is viewed as a traitor of the worst kind. His brothers would gladly take him out into the courtyard and give him a public flogging.
In fact they figuratively do that to him on Manosphere blogs all the time in a way that is both agonising to watch and fascinating.

Actually, I think there are two other kinds of 'mangina' in addition to the 'clueless whipping boy' described above.
A. The first is what I would call a 'principled' mangina. He is a 'whiteknight' because he genuinely loves women and believes that defending a woman is an honourable thing to do. He may hope it will also help his cause, i.e. to get a woman, but it is not necessarily his primary motivation.
This man, to some women, is actually a true alpha, and to the right woman, he will win. Sometimes though, this man gets disappointed by the very women he is 'whiteknighting' for, and may eventually turn into the other kind of 'mangina'. This man would really benefit from Game.

B. The 'disingenuous' mangina
This man actually hates women, but pretends to build her up when in fact he is only pushing her agenda where it directly or indirectly leads to a fulfilment of his own needs. A good example of this is a PUA who appears to push the feminist agenda. He will happily 'pump and dump' the same feminist whose counterproductive (to her) ideologies he promotes.

The officials
These are the organisations that from time to time, all the above players yell (in true MacEnroe style), "You cannot be serious!" to.

They are supposed to be officiating, but at some point or other, all the players feel aggrieved by their decisions.

1. The family courts
The MGTOW have had dealings with this official. And as a result, he has had several points deducted from his scorecard. This official and his family are now officially under a metaphorical death threat.

2. The Church
All the players, even the 'not so nice' women have their own gripes about this official.
This official's problem, to many, is his inaction. He was looking the other way when the handball offence was committed in football/soccer. And worse, he won't allow the video to be played to refute or confirm the offence.

3. The State/employer
This official, along with official no. 4 is killing the 'nice girl'. She gets married and wants to honour her husband but the State won't let her change her maiden name to her married one without jumping through massive hoops.
She has a baby and wants to go part-time and she is punished. She may not yet be ready to go SAHM straightaway, and wants to do it in stages to test the waters, but she gets a knock on the head for that. She makes a rash choice, and stays at work full time. And then she struggles. And then, because she cannot handle her inner conflict very well, her feminine nature suffers. Nice girl dead.

4. Feminism
This official is not even on the pitch. In that sense, he (she?) is the most frustrating of all. The players cannot even communicate with him (her?). They have to go through all the other officials first.

5. The ballboys and girls
They are not picking up the balls anymore. Because no-one is actually playing the game. These kids are running around the court aimlessly.

Did I leave anyone out?
I am sure you will tell me.

So who are the dissidents?
Some of the players? All the officials, or just some?
Who is playing who?
And why?

MGTOW - good or bad for women?

There are three phrases that strike fear into the hearts of modern marriage-minded women.
'Marriage on the decline', 'MGTOW' (Men going their own way), 'Marriage strike'.

A woman's greatest fear is abandonment. Or worse, never to have been approached in the first place.
Feminism encourages women to hide this fear.
Some do it well.
But here-in lies the problem: a fear will always remain as a fear unless it is resolved.

A quirk of Nature results in the following observations:
A man does not need a woman. He is capable of being a solitary entity his whole life, and he won't care.
His work/passion/hobby is his primary focus.

A woman needs people around her. The most efficient way to increase the entourage who share her DNA is to team up with a man. So technically, a woman needs a man.

A man's greatest physical need is sexual fulfilment (according to Dr Kevin Lehman). A man's greatest social need is his freedom.
These two needs are in direct conflict with each other. Marriage (read: a woman) satisfies one at the expense of the other.
But in the old days, men often chose marriage and hoped for the best with the other need. Sometimes it worked out well.
Other times it did not.

Then feminism separated 'woman' from 'marriage'.

All of a sudden, a man could eat his cake and have it too. A win-win situation!
Being a logical being, he did.

A woman's natural reaction to MGTOW would be something like this:
"Oh no, don't go! Stay!"

Because MGTOW reduces the number of men in her 'parade'.
Because she is a good communicator and needs people around her to communicate with.
But it is a counterproductive reaction.

Because MGTOW is a natural part of manhood. It is a form of 'Initiation'.

In some cultures in the world, initiation practices are still encouraged. Men have their obligatory journey into the forest and women have their preparation rites for womanhood.
There are still remnants of the original deal in modern culture, but usually in a religious context, such as 'Bar Mitzvah' and 'Bat Mitzvah' and 'Confirmation'.

But in the real deal, a boy on the cusp of manhood  would be forcibly taken literally from his bed at night and dumped into dangerous terrain, usually by older men from the same village.

His mother and sisters would cry out, "Oh no, don't take him away" but to no avail.

Because the village elders knew that a man who had not been initiated was not a man.
He posed a risk to the whole village if he did not possess the skills of manhood. He might as well be one of the women, but without her function, either. So this man was useful to all concerned.

The women would protest, of course. But they knew thay had to let the boy go. Because, assuming he survived the rigors of initiation, he would come back a fully-fledged man, a useful member of society.
If he never came back, they would miss him. But he had not made the cut. It was a stigma for that family. They were better off in the long run without him.

There are many false imitations of initiation in today's society. Inner city gangs are a prime example.

Under feminism, many men lost their male 'elders'. Because he was taken away from them by a dominant matriarch. There was no-one to raid their homes in the middle of the night and yank them from their beds into the terrifying unknown, so necessary for the development of their sense of masculine self.

MGTOW might be one of the natural retorts to this male crisis: the lack of initiation.

The motivation for MGTOW in this present clime is certainly not for the purposes of benefiting women.

But in a roundabout way, it could be the best thing a man can do.
It could be the best demonstration of 'inner Game'.

Let the initiation begin.

The heroes will return to the village, with a lot to offer the village.
The women and children and of course the elders will be there to welcome them back to the fold.

The others will not come back.

Women only want heroes on their parade.

Know Thy Man

Knowledge is power, as they say.

In the dating game, women choose, men display. That is how it has always been. That is how it will always be.
It is Nature's way.

A man is on a parade his whole life. From time to time, a woman chooses him. If she makes the right choice and is the right kind of woman, he will get off the parade and will happily stay off.

If she chooses wrong, or is the wrong kind of woman to begin with, he will get violently tossed back into the parade at some point in the future, usually stripped of his dignity, assets and children, in what is known as divorce-rape hell.
Or he may be trapped indoors but looking longingly at the parade outside because he is in a lonely, private hell.
Men are on a constant parade to as many women as possible (usually sexually), in the hope that one of them chooses him (read: will care enough about him to be his loyal, faithful lifelong mate).

Why do women choose, and not men?

Because a woman's eggs are expensive. She has a finite number bestowed on her at birth. And she loses them at a rate of one (occasionally two) a month beginning at puberty until she runs out altogether.
Men are continually renewing their supplies. In reproductive terms, their merchandise is 'cheaper' compared to a woman's.
It is simple biology. And economics.

A woman is therefore programmed to seek the highest bidder (whatever this may mean to her) for her eggs. Cue hypergamy.
She needs to be choosy.
Moreover, she gets even more choosy as she gets older.

Why?
Some men scoff at this apparently illogical phenomenon in ageing women.
This is another example of what I will call 'Masculine eye syndrome' from now on.

To a man's logical mind, an ageing woman should take what she can get, because her overall package is less and less appealing to a man. Because men are attracted to youth and beauty.
Makes sense.

But, from the female point of view, she gets choosier because her eggs are getting more expensive. There are fewer left. They are becoming rare. She needs an even higher bidder for them than ever before.
To men, this is a losing strategy.

Yes, and no.

To a marriage-minded woman in this situation, viewing herself as 'expensive' in a mindless fashion with no insight into the intricasies of the market in which she finds herself is indeed a losing strategy. Failure to understand her true value in the Sexual Market Place (SMP) combined with an inflated sense of entitlement will ensure she never succeeds in her Nature-driven goals.

To a marriage-minded woman who correctly assesses the SMP and adjusts her thinking and therefore actions to best place her in a position to allow her enough suitors to choose from, this could be the best time-period in her entire reproductive life.

Because there comes a time in a women's life when she achieves a state of equilibrium. This coincides with a time when she experiences little or no cognitive dissonance. Her youth and beauty are still intact. She feels 'ready' to take her romantic life seriously. Her maturity suddenly shines through. Her conscious mind finally catches up with her subconscious mind in her pursuit of feminine goals. There are no more inner conflicts left. Her thoughts are aligned with her actions. Her ducks are all lined up. Everything makes sense. This woman, if already feminine becomes 'super-feminine'. If not already feminine, she starts to show signs of it.

In the old days, this moment in a woman's life occurred much earlier in her life.
Nowadays, it happens a lot later.
This is one of the unintended consequences of feminism.

This woman will not be atrractive to the PUA types. Because she lacks the allure of the very young. As the french say, tant mieux! (just as well!), because in fact, this woman, at this time in her life is a very poor match for the PUA.
In fact, being with a PUA is against her best interests, and will put her right back into a state of cognitive dissonance.

For a certain kind of marriage-minded man, this is the perfect woman. For she exudes a certain kind of feminine confidence which attracts only the marriage-minded man. It is a kind of social pheromone. This confidence is not to be confused with the 'strong and independent' feminist balderdash.

Nature aids and abets this woman in her quest to do Nature's bidding.

Note: By Nature's bidding, I am not referring only to copulation of course. I mean the whole package. Nature intended copulation as a way to beget the next generation, sure.
The mission to get this process started was clearly assigned to males. The mandate appeared to be: impregnate as many women as possible in order to guarantee a steady stream of offspring.

But Nature also intended the survival of said next generation. Nature accorded this task to women. Not just by way of endowing her with nurturing qualities, but also by way of giving her strategies to keep the seemingly wayward man focussed on her and not the entire female population. This is why relationships are a woman's domain, in general.

Nature's way to aid and abet women is a double whammy approach.

1. Keep the men simple, straightforward, uncomplicated. This makes it easier for a woman to read a man than the other way round.
2. In addition, just in case 1. is not enough, Nature endows a woman with a special 'female intuition' to allow her to sniff out a man's true intentions (read: character).

A man is usually deeply honest with a woman at some point or other during their encounter. In his actions, his words, his behaviour, his thinking. There is always a clue. Of course, women do the same to men too, but most effectively after he has, first. It only works if she follows his lead.

A woman knows a man she is 'studying'. She may lie to herself following her study, but she knows. Because she has to know. Because Nature gave her that job.

But she has to be ready for the job, otherwise she will do it all wrong.

Disrespect? Or a covert display of submissiveness?

Men and women.
They really do live on different planets, don't they?

If it weren't for the often tragic misunderstandings that can result from this, it would be funny.

Poor old Michelle Obama got into big trouble recently.
She offended the Manosphere crowd.
I don't know if she knows or cares though.

Now, I know that if someone feels a certain emotion, be it positive or negative, it's no good telling them otherwise. They feel what they feel.

Sexual harrassment laws use this principle, for example.
If a person feels sexually harrassed, they are.

So I am not going to tell men to not feel offended by Michelle Obama.
To do so would be to get their back up and alienate them.
I don't want that.

But, I can see something they cannot.
And I know that other women can see what I see. I have proof of this on some Manosphere blogs.
I am sure if men see what I am seeing they would rethink their position.

The situation I am referring to is this video of an interview with both the Obamas by Barbara Walters (stolen from Dalrock).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/23/barack_has_no_pet_peeves_of_first_lady_michelle_my_list_is_too_long.html

In this clip, she asks Mr Obama what his biggest peeve about his wife is.
He replies: "I don't have one".
In answer to the same question, Michelle Obama replies:
"My list is too long".

This last statement caused all kinds of furore in the Manosphere.
Men from all over the globe felt 'disrespected' on behalf of Barack Obama. Many accused him of being a 'beta'.

I get it.
Michelle Obama is married to the most powerful man on Earth.
And yet, she is not happy with him.

Wrong.

One could only come to the above conclusion if one sees and hears the interview with masculine eyes and ears.

A little background check on Michelle Obama also gave me further insight into her comment.

Understand this.
(And I tried to make this point as a commenter on some Manosphere sites, but it fell on deaf ears.)

Michelle Obama is a woman best placed to respect a man.
She grew up in a home with both parents. That means she had her father around, growing up.
She asked her 6 ft 6 brother to vet Barack before she married him.
She is unlikely to have man-hating issues. She had a loving father and brother that she got on very well with in her early years.

Understand that this woman's early upbringing is rare in today's world.
Having said that, many women develop good inter-relational skills with men even in the absence of this kind of environment, but with it, a woman is well ahead of the game.

So it should not surprise anyone that this woman got to be the wife of the President of the United States of America. She was already onto a winning streak just from having the kind of home she had as a child.

Back to the interview itself, only a woman can see that Michelle's statement is the female equivalent of chimpanzee-type chest-beating.

Michelle Obama is talking to other women in this interview.
And she is bragging.

And what's more, Barack knows that.

What Michelle O is doing is saying to other women:
'My husband is such hard work..he is such a pain in the ****, but I still love him'.

That last part is important. Look how she smiles when she says "my list is too long".
Look how Barack laughs at the same time.

Michelle Obama knows women. Because she is a woman.

The best way for a woman to boast about her alpha male (if she really really loves him) to other women is to give the impression that he is 'hard work', a jerk (translation into manspeak: alpha) but despite that she still loves him! She is prepared to take his 'crap' because he is special.

In other words, she submits to his dominance of her. And she delights in it.

Because he is special. Full stop.

Mrs. Obama really would have 'disrespected' her husband if she had given the same answer as he had. If she had said something about how "nice" he was. Women all over the world would have been secretly unimpressed. Because as you all know, women don't really want plain old 'nice', at least not all the time.
Women want a mxiture of alpha and beta, in the right sequence.


Michelle Obama is boasting to other women that she got the prize bull and kept him.
She is telling us that she was never a reluctant bride.

That is the ultimate compliment to a man.
Barack was laughing for a reason.
He gets it.
What's more, he also tells us that he got the 'nice girl' who loves him, so he has no complaints.
No need to be angry on his behalf.

Men and women really are different in what they want in a relationship, how they see the world and how they think.
This couple is doing it right.
Long may their marriage last.

The reluctant bride revisited

Sometimes you get an unexpected helping hand from an unexpected source.

Two of my last three posts have touched on the subject of The Reluctant bride, even though this was not meant to be the main focus of the posts.

And then I found this on Dalrock:

'The one that got away'

where a Katy Perry video showing an elderly married woman pining away for her ex-lover is shown and analysed.

This is what Dalrock advises:
This should serve as a warning to men considering marriage; check very carefully for this sort of vibe. Women often feel entitled to nurse this sort of “poor me” feeling, regardless of how good a husband you are. This is also why you need to take your potential wife’s past sexual history very seriously.

It is precisely because I am privy to female nature that I agree with Dalrock's advice to men.
But I spot a potential fatal flaw.

This is also why you need to take your potential wife’s past sexual history very seriously.

This refers to the truism that if a woman has had many sexual partners, she may be less likely to bond to any one man.
On the whole, I cosign this. But I am well aware that there are two important caveats here:

1. There are always exceptions which prove the rule.

2. Very importantly, sometimes the individual circumstances in which a woman engages in sexual activity are crucial to decipher her motives.

Some men might respond to No 2 that whatever the circumstances, the risk of potential cuckoldry remains high, as history can always repeat itself. I cannot argue with that.

What caught my attention with Dalrock's last sentence was the implication of the reverse situation.
That if the woman is a virgin, you are relatively safe.

He does not actually conclude this, but I think it is a possible assumption.

The assumption that a woman needs sex to bond with a man.

Like Dalrock's wife, I too abhor the situation where a reluctant bride forges on into marriage/longterm relationship only to destroy that relationship because she cannot get another man out of her mind.
Like Dalrock's wife, I too have seen this play out and it is not pretty to watch.

In some of the cases of this nature that I know of, the woman was a virgin at the time of marriage.

Of course it is true that the hormone oxytocin which surges into the bloodstream post copulation promotes bonding. It is indeed the same hormone which promotes attachment of mother to baby too.

But...

A woman does not have to have sex in order to bond to a man.

There is a reason this hormone is also called the 'cuddle hormone'.
Sometimes, that's all it takes. A cuddle. A kiss. A handhold. A look.

If you are having trouble believing it, consider this.
An adoptive mother can bond incredibly well with her adoptive child. She never bore that child in her own womb. And yet she can bond to that child better than the child's own biological mother.

In the old days, women were able to properly bond to their prospective husbands prior to marriage. Sex was not required to make this process happen.

I know it's only a film, but it illustrates my point.
In my post on Pearl Harbour, I state that Evelyn would most likely have gone on to become Danny's reluctant bride had he not died in the war. And yet Danny is the one she had slept with. She had never slept with Rafe, her true love.

A woman truly bonds with only an incredibly small number of men in her lifetime. Usually, there is one at the top of the list.
She does not need to have slept with him for him to get there, way up above all the rest.

Gentlemen, make sure you are at Top Spot with your woman before jumping into longterm plans with her. (I know you already do!)
Even if she is a virgin.
Especially if she is a virgin.

Unless you are happy with No 2 spot.
Which is not a fun place to be.
The bitter men from the Manosphere already know that.

It's hard to be a woman

Tammy Wynette's famous song 'Stand by your man' hits it on the head.
Sometimes, it really is hard to be a woman.

I remember once, I was in an algebra class at school. I must have been around fifteen years old.
It was an all-girl school.
The teacher was a middle-aged man. A father-figure type.

One of my classmates was obviously having a bad day. I forget what her problem was, but I am willing to bet it was related to the time of month.

The class was dead quiet until she started speaking. We had a test coming up and we were trying to work hard for it.
The girl looked up at the teacher and said, "Oh sir, how I wish I was a man!"

The teacher regarded her for a moment.
Then he turned to all of us and said, "Yes sure, it's hard to be a woman. But you do not want to be a man. You are blessed in being women. Embrace it."

Now, I remember feeling stunned that a man was talking to us like this. Years later, I realised how nice and important for our feminine development that a man was telling us to enjoy womanhood.

But as we were to discover in later life, it would turn out to be hard to enjoy womanhood.
Feminism saw to that.

Women have their biological role to play in life, with all its complexities. Navigating that alone is hard enough.

In addition, many women have taken on the roll of the man too. By way of brutally exhausting careers.
Which she may not be fully equipped to perform. Think women in the Armed Forces and their physical capabilities relative to men.

All these factors collude to disrupt a woman's journey through life.

Another unintended consequence of feminism is the delay in the maturation process of the modern woman.
In previous generations, women matured much faster than men. Nature was keen to make sure that by the time she had children, she would be well equipped to care for them.
Not so anymore.
By the time a man matures nowadays, his female counterpart is still lost at sea.

But whilst a man has all the time in the world to mature, women don't.
Because there is one more Nemesis to tackle: Mother Time...

And then she seeks compassion.
But would a man show compassion?

Generally not.
At least not in the way a woman wants it.

But here is the good news.

The solution for a woman who is finding it hard to be a woman is simply to use male and female nature to her advantage.

It is a mistake to seek compassion (read: pity) from a man.
Men don't do pity.
One look at the Manosphere and that becomes clear very quickly.
It would appear on the surface that men are harsh critics. Very harsh critics.
But actually, they simply are seeing the world through masculine eyes. Naturally.
Men judge everyone including women by masculine (i.e. their own) standards.

He won't stand another man crying and feeling sorry for himself. He might soften if a woman he is attached to (mother, sister, wife, longterm girlfriend) appeals to his soft centre.

Otherwise, it is 'get up and get on with it'. End of story.

Take advantage. Let us use the harsh criticisms of the Manosphere as the first step in our Recovery Programme.
In the end, they are doing us a favour.
Even if they think otherwise.

Ladies, beware of herd mentality

I was drawn to Olive's blog primarily because of her concerted effort to distance herself from negative influences which prevent her from achieving her goals in life. I am a big fan of that.

In her recent series of posts "The quest for supportive friends" she describes in vivid detail why a certain friend or other was a bad influence on her, particularly in the dating environment.

All these friends (so far) have been other women.

One thing I have learned from the godfathers of the Manosphere is the concept of Women and their herd mentality.
I had never heard of this before.

I mean, I knew vaguely of the importance of 'the herd'. In the field of immunisation, for example, the principle of herd immunity is exploited to good effect.

But with educated eyes, I soon discovered evidence of 'the herd' all around me.

Women go around in packs much more than men. In a social setting, several women will leave for the bathroom together even if one or several of them do not need to go. Men will go one at a time.

Women tend to have many friends. Most men are solitary creatures.

'The herd' serves a useful biological purpose for women. In hunter-gatherer times, women stayed together for support (mutually free babysitting needs got fulfilled, for example), communication (if all the men were out hunting who would listen to her talk all day but the other women in the community?) and emotional connectivity (ditto). It was a great opportunity also for older women to pass on advice and tips to younger women (sadly today a lost art). The system worked very well.

In modern times, we have kept up this tradition of sorts and for the most part, it works.
What woman hasn't revelled in the support and building up that only her friends can provide in the aftermath of a catastrophic event in her life (read: aka boyfriend trouble)?

I am all for 'the herd'.

Except for two things.

Firstly, as Olive explains, the herd can lead a woman so far off the beaten track she is practically out of the woods altogether.

Some women are more savvy than others. Years of feminism has resulted in women competing with each other for men and not the other way round as in previous generations. Some women play dirty. They deliberately sabotage the efforts of their sisters in the dating game.

Beware who is in your herd. Distance yourself from those who are not helping your cause. Any source of conflict with your best interests will result in a state of cognitive dissonance within you. Eliminate internal conflict.

 Secondly, herd mentality in women can be used against them on a much wider scale than a few bitchy friends.

Think feminism.

The effects of feminism have been much worse on women than on men.
This is because women pass on 'messages' to each other much more effectively than men, precisely because they are good communicators. To use cell biology analogy, men could be described as distinct cells whilst women could be seen more as the 'gap junctions' or cell membranes that make cells 'stick together' and communicate effectively with one another.

As women go, so goes society.
Because feminism was so successful at getting into the mindset of women, the consequences became disproportionately widespread.
This is why feminism is not just a western disease. Even remote parts of the world are subject to its effects as long as its women are reachable by some means or other.
Paradoxically, any effective measure to reverse the effects of feminism would essentially have to rely on this same herd mentality.

Think Pick Up Artistry (PUA).

The seedier aspect of PUA exploits this potential 'flaw' in women. In both ways.
This is why concepts such as 'negging' particularly when executed in the presence of other women works so well. The woman needs to feel part of the herd - if a trait of hers which deviates from the herd's modus operandi is reproached, in front of the herd, she feels a deep sense of isolation. She does not want to be isolated, so she conforms.
A good example: 'all your friends are sleeping with guys on the first date - why won't you? What's wrong with you?'
In the other way herd mentality can be exploited, a skilled PUA understands the need to actually isolate a woman from the herd: her support mechanism needs to be eliminated if she is to be effectively manipulated.

The herd can be a useful and marvellous tool for women.
Ladies, use it to your advantage.
Beware of the risks therof.

Film Review: Pearl Harbour

I seem to be stuck. On war films. Specifically Far East war films. A few days ago, I posted a review on the film Empire of the sun highlighting the specific lessons I had picked up from it.
It seems I cannot get myself out of the Far East.
This time, I shall discuss a lesson from Pearl Harbour.

Two young american men, Rafe and Danny are best friends since their boyhood. They both enrol in the Armed Forces when they get older and are transferred to Pearl Harbour. Rafe (who is undoubtedly the alpha of the two, perhaps because he is older (?)) meets a Navy nurse, Evelyn who he falls in love with. Before the two can establish their budding romance, Rafe volunteers to join the war effort in England. Whilst there, his plane gets shot down by the enemy and he plunges into the cold waters of the English channel and is presumed dead.
Danny has to break the bad news to Evelyn. She is clearly devastated. Many months pass and Danny begins to show signs of falling for her. Evelyn resists his efforts for a long time. Then one day, Danny takes her for a ride in his plane - an action which could have got him kicked out of the Air Force. On their return to the Airfield base, Danny narrowly misses being spotted. He and Evelyn have to hide in the terminal building. One thing leads to another and they become intimate for the first time.

Evelyn is still reluctant with Danny. He is clearly smitten with her and wants a relationship with her, but Evelyn is not really attracted to him. She tries to resist him but in the end he seems to be making headway with her.
Unfortunately for her, she soon discovers she is pregnant by Danny.
This, on the same day that Rafe shows up in town. Turns out he didn't die afterall. He was rescued by a french fisherman and being stuck in Occupied France, so he could not get word out that he was indeed alive.

Evelyn is happy to see him. But she is now torn between her true love, Rafe, and the father of her unborn child, Danny.
The two men unsurprisingly become enemies. But not for long. The events surrounding them collude to repair their relationship, and in the end, Rafe relinquishes Evelyn to Danny, in compliance with her wishes.
The two later volunteer on what turns out to be a suicide mission to Tokyo and Japanese-occupied China.  Danny loses his life, but not before Rafe reveals to him news of his impending fatherhood.

Rafe returns to Pearl Harbour with Danny's coffin, and is greeted by a heavily pregnant Evelyn yet again devastated by loss.

The film ends with a family scene of Rafe and Evelyn and  'little Danny'.



I was thinking the other day about 'honour'. Not the negative kind, like where some traditional families kill their daughter for refusing to marry a man of her father's choice and call it an 'honour' killing.

I am talking here about the distinctive masculine concept.

Honour is a deeply masculine virtue. At least, defending honour is.

It is why men can die for their country without a moment's hesitation. It is why a boxer will keep going until he is almost comatose, rather than quit.

Speaking of which, take a look at this scene from Pearl Harbour.

Two men are in a boxing match (starting at 03:39). The smaller guy looks like he may need a doctor soon. His friend and supporter says to him at 04:59: "He slept with your Mamma, remember? Be a son of a bitch!"
The smaller guy wins the match.

'Honour' to a woman is about protecting her own dignity, in general.
I don't know any woman who sees it as her duty to protect another's honour. If those same words that were directed at the boxer were directed to a woman, the only way it would affect her would be how those words reflected on her.

A good example, however of how this sense of honour can extend to 'other' rather than 'self', is Evelyn's decision to stick with Danny when she discovers she is pregnant by him, even though it is really Rafe she loves. In this case, she is being selfless. She does the 'honourable' thing, not for Danny per se, but for her unborn child. She never truly loved Danny. She was always going to be a reluctant bride for Danny. Which makes her decision all the more heroic.

The young guy in the boxing ring won because he was protecting his mother's honour. His friend knew he would react that way. That's why he said what he said.

Defending (a woman's) honour makes a man vulnerable.
To women, it should be a beautiful thing.

(Incidentally, although not the focus of this post, the young boxer arrives at Nurse Evelyn's hospital to have his cuts sewn up (05:35). She asks him how he acquired his wounds.
There follows a little lecture on what 'Respect' means to a man.
Her comment 'Well let's hope you never have to' demonstrates how much she misses the point of what he is trying to say to her. Like so many women do, including me).

Out with the old, in with the new

Goodbye 2011.

You were a wonderful year, full of light, laughter, joy and new experiences.
You were also a painful year, full of despair, anguish and tears.

Welcome 2012.

With hopeful hearts we look forward to meeting you.
Like little children we cannot wait to see your box of tricks.