Monday, April 30, 2012

Fools rush in...

Just Visiting made mention of one of the biggest double-binds for Red Pill women in today's SMP.
That is, that she risks losing sight of her femininity in her quest to understand men (where 'understanding men' is in fact compatible with her femininity in the first place!).

The specific example JV gave was in a woman's communication style.
Here is the full comment:

"As a woman who has tried to bridge that gap by training myself to speak directly, I find a new problem. Men on these forums are complaining that modern women are too direct. That we aren't feminine enough with coy, circular conversation, and don't get them started on our flirting skills. So..on some subconscious level, men are looking for that "connection" part of our communication style. Speaking directly may be fine for work, but in social setting, renders us charmless to men. Apparently."

Hmm. Women run the risk of becoming too masculine by gaining too much insight into men and their quirks.
Do men become more feminine when they figure out women's behaviours?
Strangely enough,  a resounding NO!

I don't understand why this is. Anyone care to explain?

I think it is far easier to masculinise a woman than it is to feminise a man. Yes, femininity is much more fragile than masculinity. I don't know why this is so.
But it certainly explains why feminism was successful for so long.

Anyway, here is another double-bind.
A woman's position in the SMP is determined by the men who approach her.

Also sprach der Manosphere.

I have two responses to the above statement.
I shall give both.
The short one is borrowed from a certain John McEnroe.
You cannot be serious!


The longer version follows:

I get it. It is a widespread neg thrown at all or most women.
With this in mind I am not so upset :-)
So, emotions cast aside, I will calmly evaluate the pros and cons of Manosphere wisdom on this point.

The reason I know that The Manosphere kings are in fact aware that what they are saying is not accurate (and maybe even patently false) is that they themselves know that a man's biological imperative is to pursue any woman who might interest him, at least visually, if not in other ways.

Yes, social and other constraints will prevent him from hunting down anything that is female and moves :-) but the imperative is there. Indeed, these days, it is becoming a distinct feature in women too (what did I say above about being easier to masculinise women?)
It follows that the quality of men who will pursue any one woman will be fairly broad.
The more 'masculine' or 'alpha' or 'cocky' a man is, the greater his confidence. So he will pursue the woman of his choice irrespective of the status of the woman. The greater his pride, the more likely he will chase after a woman beyond his reach (whatever his own crietria of feminine 'status' may be).
But this is a good thing. The man who believes that a particular woman is too good for him is doing the equivalent of a DIY orchidectomy. This is undoubtedly painful in a physical sense, but even worse it strips him of his own (male) identity.

At the risk of entering a male locker room unintentionally, I shall express the sentiment that a man should do whatever makes him male. I cannot tell him what to do or how to do it, because I do not share his biology. The only possible conflict I foresee is when his needs clashes with someone else's sanctity. But I trust that every man knows when he reaches a boundary. Same as a woman knows when she reaches hers. Neither may comply with their consciences, but they know.

Masculinity (unlike femininity) is to go all out and 'get it' whatever 'it' means, no?
So, it follows that  a man will hit on any woman he wants. Whether he gets her is another matter. And in fact she may actually help him a little, by giving him subliminal IOI (indicators of interest) cues to follow because she may already have set her sights on him first, (because a woman can do this sort of thing extremely discreetly if she wants :-)

Some women report (correctly as far as the reporting goes) that they are often approached by men who are 'beneath' them.
I have three gut reactions to this.

1. Yes, sometimes the woman is totally wrong about her own level of attraction and status in the SMP. I can understand that this is true and tedious for a man who has to listen to her moan.

2. The rejection of these men is sometimes rather brutal. This is unnecessary at best and crass at worst on the part of a woman, agreed.

3. Most women do not and will never understand how hard it can be for a man to achieve his goal in finding a great woman for himself, as we do not have this particular natural drive within us. So we can be dismissive of men perhaps too easily. But is this a necessarily bad thing?
To answer that question, here's another:
Would a man want a woman who did not reject him when she should have because she was feeling sorry for him?
I don't think there is a man alive who would want that. I hope I am not wrong on this.

More and more women today are feeling the need to 'chase', but even then, it is 'optional'. The drive to chase after a new mate has never been a naturally female perogative.
Of course, a woman will chase after a man she is already familiar with, or is already attracted to. That's a different imperative - the need to maintain a connection, or 'bonding' akin to 'nurturing' of an infant, both mechanisms being driven by the same hormone (oxytocin).
Sadly, this second drive is being lost in favour of the former more masculine drive - hence what the Manosphere term 'hypergamy' which differs from what mine is.

Leaving aside all the 'special snowflakes' who really are clueless as to their own SMP value, I am prepared to wager that there is not a woman alive who has not had a 'pass' made at her by a man she knew would not make the cut with her.
There is even a phrase for that:
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

The kings of Game exploit this phrase remarkably well.
They will wait for the clumsy, inept guys to have their 5 minutes of fame with their intended female target, wait for him to disqualify himself and then move in for the kill :-)
They are waiting for the 'fool' to declare himself as such. And the woman helps them do it. When she rejects the fella.
That's what her 'b*tch shield' is for, afterall. If she doesn't get practice with the b*tch shield' she won't choose correctly when the time is right.
I agree the b*tch shield' does not have to turn b*tchy, though.

Preselection works both ways, no?
The most popular woman is the one that other men want. Or perhaps if there is such a group among men, that another woman (eg. his very own mother) has approved.

So it follows that this woman should have rejected most men before you lock eyes with her and she chooses you :-)

Having said all of the above, I however fully agree with Manosphere wisdom that the 'status' of a woman who finds herself with a man far above her worth is not really elevated at all, unless she gets him to the altar, and even so, that may still not be the case.

In short, a woman's value is never about the man she is with.

Moreover, it's not ladylike to declare that there are men chasing one that one does not want.
Things like this should be discreet, and not worn like some sort of  'badge of honour'.
This has unfortunately become a favourite sport among some women.
It is the proverbial stick they are beating men with.
Not cool.
It is crass.
Yes a woman has to reject a man she does not want.
But to do so kindly and with thoughtfulness for him re-instates his respect and general love for women, even if his ego takes a massive hit from the rejection.
No need to kick a man when he is down.

Because in fact it doesn't help a woman any if she is chased by a man she doesn't want. She is always going to reject him anyway, and that leaves her 'manless' for the moment. So why broadcast it?

A woman who broadcasts her brutal rejection of men to other men is a kind of 'marked woman'. Because of this whole brotherhood thing that men share.
The sentiment is this:
You treat my brother badly and I will punish you for that.

And they do.


OffTheCuff said...

Preselection works both ways, no?
The most popular woman is the one that other men want

No. It's true men might want the women that other men, but it's a coincidence, not the cause. They like her because she's attractive, not because other men like her.

Preselection means that the popularity itself causes or increases attraction.

just visiting said...

Thanks for the quote dear.

Once learned, direct talk is hard to break. But I'm trying. lol. I find that there are a few other communication aspects that I have to break, now that I'm single.

I think the reason that femininity is so fragile is that we've only had about 5000 years of it. Not enough time to make a huge dent in the gene pool. It's there, but it's fragile, and it requires cultivation.

For all the dislike of bitch shields and fitness testing, a woman who doesn't do these things doesn't have standards. Or an understanding of boundaries, his or hers. (reasonable fitness testing comes with practice. Otherwise you have someone who seesaws between push over and control freak.) Since women want men they can look up to, if she can't or wont confirm this to herself, her interest in a man is suspect at best, insulting and life damaging at worst.)

Spacetraveller said...

@ OTC,

Welcome to The Sanctuary!
(I think it is indeed the first time you have commented here? Apologies if I am wrong!)

I see your point.

But I am also puzzled by it.
No, actually, I am frankly confused.

Is it really true what you say?
Assuming it is, why might it be different for women?
I genuinely don't know the answer to this question - this is why I ask.
It's definitely not a trick question...

@ JV,

You are welcome!
That was an enlightening comment you made (as usual).

I have to agree with you that sometimes a woman's actions are just what the doctor ordered, for a man.
If she doesn't know how to reject some men, (using appropriate criteria), the man she ends up with is in trouble. His worst nightmare WILL come true.

It therefore follows that a woman should have a reasonable number of men 'chasing' her throughout her reproductive life. Not all of these reflect her true SMP value of course, because there will be a huge variation in the quality of these men.

But it's true - she MUST not be unpleasant in her rejection.

just visiting said...

@ ST

Cruelty in rejection is an indicator of other unpleasantness in a woman's personality. She may be all sweetness and light to a man she wants, but if he's observed her cruelty toward another, move on.

OffTheCuff said...

Watch this video and ask yourself if men would fall for this. This guy pretended to be a celebrity, and had women throwing themselves at him after enough a crowd formed.

I've read for a while, but blogger's comment system makes me lurk.

dannyfrom504 said...

A girl shot down a good friend of mine and, well long story short. Me and 2 other guys pump-n-dumped her.

After each one of us banged her, we completely ignored her. Then let one of her friends know why we quit talking to her when she asked.

Dude was a cool guy and really liked her, so we had ZERO issue with what we did.

Anonymous said...


Leaving aside all the 'special snowflakes' who really are clueless as to their own SMP value, I am prepared to wager that there is not a woman alive who has not had a 'pass' made at her by a man she knew would not make the cut with her.

My reply:

I think it is difficult for a number of women to understand their own SMP value, and for that reason I can tend to cut them some slack, but that depends upon their frame of mind.

Especially if they did not grow up being the type of young women who were raised to "find a man at any cost," ie., those type of women are overly attuned to what men want, what their own attractions are to men.

Some parents deliberately do not raise their daughters to be that way because they don't want them to be hypersensitive to their looks, ie., developing eating disorders , all in the attempt to "fit in" with whatever beauty standard it is, one which they might never fit.

In addition, they know that no woman is guaranteed marriage and that a marriage might not last forever, so they encourage their daughters to focus on developing their inner character and intellectual achievements, since she will always need these.

What else? When I think of hypergamy, I tend to think of women who believe they should marry men who are at their level in terms of education or higher, as an example, so the well-educated woman has been primed to believe that she should be with a man who is like her in terms of achievement. These are the men she was in school with; she knows them, she has much in common with them. That will be the first place she looks to find men who attract her.

On the other hand, the man who is like her might have a totally different perspective on who he should be with. He might be thinking that because he is well-educated, he is in a position to attract the most attractive woman available to him, ie., looks and age.

He is not necessarily thinking to date a woman who is within his educational cohort, especially if he is advantaged by the sexual marketplace, ie., fewer men of his caliber. He might be busy having fun.

Space traveler: A woman who broadcasts her brutal rejection of men to other men is a kind of 'marked woman'. Because of this whole brotherhood thing that men share.
The sentiment is this:
You treat my brother badly and I will punish you for that.

Danny: Your story about you and a friend pump and dumping a woman who rejected your friend; is that what happened? What was the context?


Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

You are right. Sometimes a cruel streak in a woman is the first and only clue as to how she will be in the event of a bitter divorce. Men who are not vigilant enough pay the price. Same goes for women who ignore a cruel streak in a man.

@ OTC,

Ah, OK, I see what you mean.
A man decides he likes a woman with no input from anyone else - and his decision is initially made on her level of attractiveness.
But I would think that it adds to his male ego if other men also find her attractive. But I agree with you that this probably comes later, and is not a prerequisite for his initial attraction.

About the video, I had seen it before.
Might I say that it may not actually help your argument any, because in fact for shops to be closed and security guards to be assigned to this threesome of pranksters, a lot of men would also have been 'fooled' by this cleverly orchestrated prank.
Surely the mall did not consist entirely of women?
The women who were running after this 'celebrity' were mostly adolescent females who frankly will believe almost anything! This is just a teenage girl's fantasy. It gives no pointers as to serious mate selection. As you know, young girls are herd creatures (and usually until she learns to discern who needs to be outed from her herd, she will follow the large herd into almost anything).
Thirdly, even if a wannabe 'groupie' fell for it, it is not necessarily because other women were running after this man. Could it not simply be that she saw a potentially rich man/celebrity, perhaps young and good-looking to boot? This is just plain old hypergamy, no?
The same qualities that make him attractive to one woman make him attractive to all other women, too, no?
In this case, his 'celebrity' status is a proxy for money and power. Yes, dubious criteria, but such are the rules on Planet Teenage girl.

@ Danny,

Whilst I accept that this woman was complicit in her own 'pump-and-dump', (i.e. she was not forced against her will by any of you), I wonder: If she had shown remorse for whatever she did to your friend, would you still have done what you did?

Of course some men do not need a reason to hurt a woman, or for that matter he could decide to hurt one woman for another's 'sins'.
Did you ever see the film 'In the company of men'? Two men decide to 'pump and dump' a deaf co-worker because one of them felt he had been treated harshly by women in the past, i.e. sexually rejected.
In this film, interestingly enough, one of the men actually falls for the girl in the end.

Out of interest, Danny, what would have stopped you from doing this to the girl in question?
A simple apology - would that have cut it for you?

@ PVW,
You make great points about the mismatch in the SMP and attraction triggers for men and women.
It is somewhat frustrating for young women to be told to 'start looking' early in life, i.e. early twenties. If she is intelligent, she will know that men her age are not yet ready for marriage, even if she is.
An older man is not a guarantee either. If he is divorced he may in fact be even more marriage-shy than his younger counterpart.
If a woman does not want to be on the 'carousel', she is really in No man's Land - quite literally.
The beta men out there think they are the only ones who are in some sort of 'desert'.
Sure, there are more of them (80%) as opposed to the so-called beta females who are not on the 'carousel' (20%) but to each individual, their situation is untenable, perhaps even unlivable.

Like you, I would like to know the context behind Danny's story.

dannyfrom504 said...

I have in fact seen "in the company of men". However I think it's a poor reference in this case. In te movie the protagonist had a general beef against women, in MY case I didn't. We just had a beef with her for hurrying a decent guy.

And for the record, the girl in question was a vapid hole. She rejected a guy that wanted a relationship, and banged guys that made ZERO offers of commitment.

What does that tell you?

And the "if she had shown remorse" is your hamster talking.

dannyfrom504 said...

What would have stopped us from doing what we did- her not treating him like shit them ridiculing him afterwards.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Danny,

Yes, my hamster is back, alive and well, and all fattened up.
It needs to go on a diet now :-)

I see the context now - thanks for the further details.

But I wonder - this woman you describe - if she was indeed in the habit of sleeping with men who showed no signs of being interested in LTR, then perhaps your 'pump and dump' wasn't really a 'punishment' for her?

(I fail to see how this could be possible, but then again, my hamster is not only on steroids right now, it owns the drug company).


Bellita said...

I think it is far easier to masculinise a woman than it is to feminise a man.

I think it's easier to masculinize a woman than it is to feminize . . . . a woman! ;)

A few weeks ago, I found myself wondering whether the reason many societies have bent over backwards to make sure their women could be as feminine as possible (with extremes ranging from Chinese footbinding to the intricacies of Victorian etiquette) was not to keep us "down" but to keep us attractive. Without any physical or social constraints, I think most women would end up being like men--not because we want to be "offensively masculine" but because we want to be "one of the guys." And because we have no idea that to many men, there is little distinction between the two when it comes to turning them off.

So at some point in every culture's history, someone figured out the magic formula of femininity and how to pass it on to his/her daughters, and enough others caught on to make it a widespread social institution.

Do you remember my "Masculine Women" post, ST? It attracted a male commenter who said he believed that femininity is natural to women and that "masculine women" are just fighting their own natures. I understand why he wants to think that, but I think the realism of our ancestors--and there are millions of them--is against him here.

dannyfrom504 said...


no....she wasn't happy she got P-n0-D'd. we knew what we were doing.



Spacetraveller said...

@ Bellita,

Good to see you back!

"I think it's easier to masculinize a woman than it is to feminize . . . . a woman! ;)"

I have come to the conclusion that this is in fact, true!
But I chastised myself from believing this because I thought it was too 'radical' a view.
But it's nice to have it confirmed by you too.

There are so many facets of femininity that a very masculine version may be considered 'normal'. If however, this consists of core values which are good, then that's acceptable, as long as the woman concerned does not forget that she is in fact a woman.

@ Danny,

" no....she wasn't happy she got P-n0-D'd. we knew what we were doing."

If this is the case, then I am truly sorry for that woman.

For the simple reason that as a woman, I feel bad for any woman who is punished by a man in a sexual way.
I don't expect any man to fully appreciate this sentiment, however. It's a 'woman to woman' thing, I guess.
But full marks to any man who in fact understands this.

Don't by any means take this as a reproach, though. There is a reason why women have to protect their own selves.

The last paragraph of this post just states the status quo as is.
I know this does happen.
So hearing yet another case of this is not surprising at all.

But I still cannot help feeling bad for the woman involved.
Even if 'she brought it on herself'.
My hamster won't allow me to feel any different. Even if it is on the brink of a cardiac arrest.
Let alone when it is healthy to the point of taking part in the hamster Olympics.

Caelaeno said...

So, a question that I've had recently--how does one politely turn a guy down without making him think you'd be interested further down the road?

Spacetraveller said...

@ Caelaeno,

I am no expert, of course...
But my understanding of this is that there is no set rule, no 'one size fits all'.

For man A, it may be better to tell him, for man B it may be better to just ignore.

The situation/the man/the related circumstances are all variables that can dictate how you proceed. But the one constant can and should be you.
If you are coming from a place of fairness and justice, even if others, including the man believe you are being harsh, you, at least can look yourself in the mirror and not squirm.
You mention polite. I agree with you that polite almost always does it. For the few for which this does not work, a different tactic is required, but STILL in the spirit of fairness. Tough to do for sure...

Hope this helps.

Caelaeno said...

Thanks. It was helpful. =)