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.