Sex Differences

If you agree with Vox then I invite you to move along when you find that reasoning with a woman proves futile. I trust Vox will do the same.

Actually, when one cannot reason with an individual of either sex, the solution is a simple matter of resorting to superior rhetoric. I prefer the dialectic, but the freedom of the rhetorical level offers its own distinct pleasures. An ability to utilize either at will appears to be confusing to most people. Most capable of dialectic despise rhetoric while most on the rhetorical level cannot grasp the distinction and genuinely believe they are using reason when they are not.

dispensing evil advice

And therein, I suspect, lies the difference. Most game blogs advise. I’m more interested in the abstract and getting at the truths of the matter. My views, to the extent they cannot be substantively supported, are irrelevant and if I can’t substantiate female solipsism, I’ll readily recant. I’m delighted that Susan challenged it. At least it’s not another spin on free trade or any of the other old chestnuts.

@Marellus
Thank you for commenting; you were the only person to comment, I know the post was long, but really. Anyway, yes the book was written in 1896 and the general theme of the book is the ongoing changes in the West that are bringing about decline. One of the changes Pearson cites is changing attitudes toward marriage; he points out how “mariage de convenance” had previously been the only form of marriage found among civilized people. He defines “mariage de convenance” as “an austere union, a partnership in which the wife, as a rule, takes upon herself to provide for the happiness of both”. Not only was this type of marriage normal, but it was considered to be the only moral kind of marriage; for example he says, “I remember being much amused by the indignation of a very beautiful young French lady about a rumour that she had been wedded for love. She reiterated her assurance that it was a baseless fabrication that her husband had only seen her once before her betrothal, and then quite formally in the presence of other people, and that their marriage had been entirely one of convenience. In short, she repelled the idea of love as if it had been a disgraceful and unmerited imputation”. However, he points out that there was a growing tide against “mariage de convenance” , especially in England, and that it was quickly being replaced with “marriage of inclination” or as we would say love. He mentions that many hoped that such marriages would be long lasting and result in fewer divorces; we know and he predicted that it would not, but rather become a form of “legalised concubinage”. So perhaps all the turmoil we find in the modern SMP and MMP is a result of modern Westerners having seen to many romantic comedies; we have confused lust and infatuation with love and esteem while turn our back on the true meaning and purpose of marriage. So all the heartache and handwring we do is over something that has never been nor can never be; as we can see from “mariage de convenance”, it is a man job to provide stability and financial support to the wife and the wife’s job to “takes upon herself to provide for the happiness of both”.
P.S.
Lord, raise up an Oliver Cromwell !

Sex differences expressed in anger -

“Slut-shaming occurs when women are demonized for having sexual feelings and partners”

But not by those partners, of course…

“men are taught/assumed to lust after these skankazoids and then “their women” also become threatened by the world’s trampires”

Wow, what a mess men have made

“slut-shaming was created by men. But the kicker is that it’s primarily proliferated by women…The best way to oppress a large group of people is to train them to oppress each other through internalized self-hatred.”

Oh, those menz! Blame them, they can take it.

http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=15627

.

So if she said no woman should cohabitate….sure I would take it personally and assume it reflected on the actual personal experience of living with me. That said, I could see her saying that from a perspective that isn’t directly related to the experience of living with me. I know in our case, she wanted the engagement earlier, and I think us living together in her mind maybe delayed things so I could see her making that statement from the perspective of wanting to get a marriage committment sooner and not that living with me was a bad experience.

Like I said Athol is very “no marriage till the women proven otherwise” If I remember right there was no issue against this Joe Blow was regretting his marriage entirely and wishing he was single with game to bang multiple chicks hence the answer.

Again, the key thing here is everything is about the SELF. Both Escoffier and Ted D have commented about discussing, analyzing, understanding from a big picture view while the assumption keeps getting made about some inner psychological motivation. This is key. That assumption is being made because that is how most women think therefore they are projecting that same assumption on to men. Yes, we can really discuss and analyze something and be interested in something WITHOUT it having something to do with the SELF. It can be an external focus not an entirely internal one with the perspective of how does this affect me.

I totally believed till a few months ago. You surely did noticed that when Susan published the big ass college survey talking about the 80% disconnect with a sample size bigger than any study ever published or documented on the manosphere there were plenty of male commenter that attempted to deny the results using their personal experience and reports from their acquaintances as proof. And I don’t mean personally you, or Ted it seems like you are just taking your time to incorporate the new info and actually Obsidian seems to be doing the same, while Ted is probably on the side that the results might be demographics and social class.
But it does shows doubt that this is an objective position for most of the manosphere members, it actually does looks like like there is a personal investment on making sure there is a particular POV being accepted as the universal truth? What is the explanation for this if not that?

“Isn’t there a direct parallel for males?”

Absolutely, and it’s much as you say.

However, the phrase “trading up” is not quite right. The situations are not analogous. A man is not looking to “trade up” in the same way that (some) women are. He doesn’t want a wife of higher status or greater dominance than himself. He will, however—at least biologically—be tempted by someone hotter and younger than what he has now. Lots of things pull against him indulging that temptation: love, empathy, character, etc. But the biological impulse is always lurking somewhere beneath the surface, lower or higher depending upon the man. Maybe in rare cases way out on the left tail there are men who never feel tempted at all, not even biologically, but they are rare.

“the concept of hypergamy refers to a woman’s desire to mate long-term with a man of higher status than herself”

True, but not exhaustive.

“Once mated with a male who has met her hypergamy needs, she is satisfied, and barring a change, will not be perpetually tempted to trade up.”

Well, yes and no. She is satisfied, yes, but that doesn’t mean that her attraction triggers can’t be pulled by a man of sufficiently high status, dominance, wealth, fame, hotness, in whatever combination is most likely to turn her on.

Certainly there is a distribution curve here too. On the left tail, you have women of zero or very low natural hypergamy who, once satisfied, simply never feel attracted to anyone else. Move a little to the right and you have women who can feel a general sense of attraction but never feel a genuine temptation to act on it. This might be mistaken for good character but really isn’t in the last analysis. In the middle are women who will acknowledge the attractiveness of a fairly large cohort of genuinely attractive high status males. The ones with good character and satisfactory spouses will be fine. The ones whose hubbies go beta will have a problem that only good character can save them from. The ones with bad character, men need to watch out for. Then over on the right tail are the women of above average to extreme hypergamy. Probably some portion of them can control that, provided they have sufficiently good character AND find a mate who is sufficiently dominant. But the women at the extreme right tail are bad news nearly all the time and their character is probably never sufficient to overcome their natural hyper-hypergamy.

I totally believed till a few months ago. You surely did noticed that when Susan published the big ass college survey talking about the 80% disconnect with a sample size bigger than any study ever published or documented on the manosphere there were plenty of male commenter that attempted to deny the results using their personal experience and reports from their acquaintances as proof.

This isn’t solipsism though. It may be overgeneralizing and confirmation bias. If you haven’t done so, I would highly encourage you to read Ian’s post and the Vox Day thread on this. I think the eulogy example was the perfect illustration. A person died and she delivers the eulogy as if it is about her. I’m not going to argue that men don’t overgeneralize….I’ll concede I’ve probably been guilty of it from time to time. Here’s the difficulty for me….I realize my own personal experience cannot be extrapolated to the total population. At the same time, I know enough about academic research in other areas besides the SMP to know often they are complete total horseshit. Here is an example from the investment field:

http://alephblog.com/2012/09/15/book-review-the-missing-risk-premium/

This book is two things: it is a teardown of modern portfolio theory as posited by the academics, and the establishing of a new theory that suggests that we get better returns by avoiding volatility of investment returns.

Here’s part of the problem: Scientists are human, just like you and me, and they occasionally defend wrong ideas because they propagated in a time where some novel but wrong papers/books were written, and seemed right at the time, and the consensus accepted them, because it agreed with their biases.

The long story short here is that much of the academic theory developed regarding investments from about 1950-1980 from the University of Chicago PhDs regarding efficient markets and modern portfolio theory is complete, utter poppycock, and many people believed that utter crap for years and years because they were respected PhDs who developed the Bible on financial markets.

So for me, when someone trots out that such and such PhD did such and such study and found that women are X or Y or attracted to Z or whatever, it just really doesn’t mean much to me. I’m well aware of how much crap research gets done and published. Unless I read the study myself and can ascertain their premises and methodology, no way, no how am I going to take their conclusions as Gospel. For example, I have no idea how Buss did his research and formed his conclusions. So I’m not going to accept on blind faith that women are sexually attracted to resource provision when everything in my real life experience tells me that is bogus.

And I don’t mean personally you, or Ted it seems like you are just taking your time to incorporate the new info and actually Obsidian seems to be doing the same, while Ted is probably on the side that the results might be demographics and social class.

I think it is a little of everything. There does come a point where I am finally willing to move on from additional debate irrespective of what I actually think, and willing to grant the presumption for purposes of continued discussion. I still believe getting honest information on surveys is difficult…maybe if we could take the surveys with penalty of death for providing false information I’d feel more comfortable that any analysis resulting from them isn’t GIGO (garbage in garbage out). But for purposes of discussion here, I’m willing to go with the 80/20 thing. That said, Obsidian is correct to note if that is the case that the 20 don’t sex up the 80, and here the focus is on the 80, then the question becomes why all the obsessive focus on cads and players. Let them do their thing with the 20% of “sluts”.

@J
Hi J,

I took a break from the internet and beloved HUS recently and swung by today and wanted to offer you support, as well. (Though I am going
going to swing right back to working on personal stuff. There’s a lot of it!)

I don’t know VD or his work, though I do believe he is incredibly IQ-intelligent and has a lot to offer. If he ever takes on Dickens vs The Wire –or, better yet, this Victorian mash-up of them both: http://hoodedutilitarian.com/2011/03/when-its-not-your-turn-the-quintessentially-victorian-vision-of-ogdens-the-wire/ — I will definitely read with fascination and interest!

I wonder, though, if he has heard the adage that my mother told me:

“People won’t remember what you did; they will remember the way you made them feel.”

Seeing as his interactions with you, me, Charm, Courtley, your blog-daughter (who I also haven’t seen since her & VD’s earlier skirmish) plus the feedback from people like Maggie and INTJ, were not exactly positive experiences, it is something for reflection.

I could be completely wrong about this– tone is really tough to call on the internet. And it’s very tempting to want to diminish those with whom we disagree or feel personally slighted by. As in all things, xkcd has the answer:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17eucs1i2p53npng/original.png

Peace

@ADBG

It’s not that men are necessarily invested in one version of the truth or unable to see something outside of it, it’s that it flies in the face of EVERYTHING we see and all established wisdom that we have. Thus it is viewed with GREAT skepticism.

Well, if the response is almost always negative and reactive, it doesn’t really sound like “truthseeking” after awhile. It sounds like orthodoxy.

sometimes I get very fatigued with the debates, especially in that case where every other woman was in hiding.

Oh I wanted to comment that during Ladrockgate I didn’t showed my support because I tried to pick battles that make sense and from my POV it didn’t.

That’s skepticism, not solipsism.

Fair enough.How is female skepticism towards male or a certain male group is different from solipsism?

Unless I read the study myself and can ascertain their premises and methodology, no way, no how am I going to take their conclusions as Gospel.

I actually agree in not taking anything as Gospel and that sometimes methodologies can trick the results but then not taking anything as Gospel should include personal anecdotes, and Game reports don’t you think?
We already established that most happy men are not connecting with this issues so how do we control for that? How do we know the real numbers?

O: Very interesting synopsis – and please note, that once again, *my arguments were never dealt with; only that they made others “uncomfortable” – which is indeed a core “tenet” of the way in which Women do things – and which DO indeed have a powerful “say” in the public square.

Hmm…

Yes…since I’m in a meta-analysis kind of mood…the go to tactics are a sort of indirect ostracization and shaming. Witness the exchange here between Jackie and J

Seeing as his interactions with you, me, Charm, Courtley, your blog-daughter (who I also haven’t seen since her & VD’s earlier skirmish) plus the feedback from people like Maggie and INTJ, were not exactly positive experiences, it is something for reflection.

A pattern? I was sorry to see those gals vote with their feet. I assume that you are busy and will pop back when you’re free, but I’d guess Courtley is gone for good.

So that bad, nasty VD man ran off Charm and Courtley off this site. This generally works well….look at yourself you are in moderation. Now VD is VD so this won’t work to get Susan to take any action towards him, but for most guys it will work. It is that you are part of the herd or you are not. Actually, I’ve developed my knowledge here by Anacoana’s comments. She is very astute when it comes to female group dynamics.

FWIW, I agree with you that your greatest sin was making some people “uncomfortable” and that the things you were saying had a lot of meat on the bone so to speak. FWIW, if we ever went into battle I’d want someone like you by my side. If there is one word I think of with you, it is tenacious.

@O
Fair enough…. How about Alpha (have dark triads, engage on risky behaviour,cheat, no commit) is more likely to be bad and Beta (engage on safe behaviour, commit, don’t cheat, be empathetic…) is more likely to be good?

Actually, I’ve developed my knowledge here by Anacoana’s comments. She is very astute when it comes to female group dynamics.

Heh except that I belong to Susan’s herd that hardly makes me impartial, just more likely to not bring out stuff unless I think HUS benefits from it. Although I consider myself a hybrid, in school I was part of both all male groups (Pack) and all female groups (Herd) depending on the day and then I took at least a day to befriend the lonely kid to keep him/her company.

Heh except that I belong to Susan’s herd that hardly makes me impartial,

Haha….yup….I got kicked out ….thats OK…I’ll still give you *kiss on cheek*

Re: Boobies/Implants

Do not underestimate the power of a good push-up bra!

@HerrKaiser.

Thank you for your response. Now consider that theological curiosity that is Mormonism.

And whatever may be said about Mormonism, this religion’s effect on Utah (70% of the population) is described this way by The New York Times :

There is, however, a notable exception to these patterns. The state of Utah [I know, Suzan] has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country [oh yes, Suzan] and one of the lowest rates of out-of-wedlock births [calm down, Suzan]. It has a high marriage rate, [feeling better, Suzan ?] a relatively low divorce rate, [how 'bout now, Suzan ?] and the highest birth rate (despite a low teen pregnancy rate) [I'm using square brackets, Suzan] of any state.

An America that looked more like Utah [which means Stephenie Meyer would still have written Twilight, Suzan] means you would have more intact families, less child poverty, fewer abortions — and, for that matter, a better fiscal outlook as the Baby Boomers retire.

This is not a case for mass conversions to Mormonism. And theological issues aside, it’s easy for critics to come up with reasons why the Mormon model [which means you're not gonna roast me, Suzan] of family life wouldn’t work for American culture as a whole [thank you, Suzan] — it’s too patriarchal [oh shit oh shit], too conformist, too vanilla, too zealous, and so on [you're gonna add to this list, aren't you Suzan ?] down the list.

But still, the numbers are striking enough [and now you're gonna roast me again, Suzan] that one could imagine an alternative universe [think happy thoughts, Suzan] in which earnest social reformers, confronted with the obvious crisis in American family life, [please Suzan] cited the Utah experience as a model that the nation as a whole [*sigh*] could stand to learn something from. [let's have it then, Suzan]

There is a lesson here methinks, HerrKaiser. And maybe that lesson can be gleaned from that (in)famous saying of the Jesuits :

Give us a child until he is seven, and we will give you the man.

Interesting that women aren’t mentioned there. Women are naturally religious methinks.

And, oh, before the marauder mouse comes a nibbling :

From the Salt Lake Tribune :

Utah’s 9,000-strong Hindu community meets often for festivals and celebrations at a Utah temple, but the home is where they conduct most of their worship. A Hindu’s day begins and ends with traditional rituals and is punctuated throughout with spiritually tinged practices.

Such daily rituals, at once domestic and divine, are conducted mostly by women.

As opposed to this :

During the last weeks and days, Hindu fundamentalist groups have held protests, demanding a papal apology for massacres by Portuguese colonists in the 16th century. Since the end of 1998, Christians in India have been subjected to a wave of violence — bibles burned, churches looted, priests killed and nuns raped. The United Christian Forum for Human Rights says there were 38 recorded incidents between 1964 and 1996. In the last two years, there have been more than 150, including the murder of an Australian missionary and his two young children in January.

Of course, you’re angry. You feel I insulted your friend. If that weren’t the issue, you’d be discussing the predator/prey theory as I invited you to. And BTW the consensus of feeling on this thread doesn’t seem to be amusement at me but annoyance and frustration with you and at the ad homs.

You’re wrong and perhaps even projecting. I’m not the slightest bit angry. I am not a woman. I don’t need to be emotionally involved to refuse to ignore your sort of foolishness. I note you are now demonstrating logical ineptitude by asserting how my imagined emotional state must dictate my actions. It’s all rhetoric and appeal to the emotions with you.

As for the consensus here, that’s of zero concern to me. What matters is Susan’s opinion. Now, I had already decided to be more judicious about commenting here; because so few women here besides Susan are capable of rational discourse my involvement in the discussions tends to stand in the way of Susan’s prime objective of improving female attitudes and behavior. But Susan implicitly called me out on the solipsism issue, so out of respect, I had an obligation to respond to her. You and the others needn’t stay away out of fear that I will call you on what will no doubt be exactly the same sort of errors in the future. I am not the Reality Police.

I’m sure you’ll claim victory, but I think you’ve made an impression on many that differs significantly from one of the superior rhetoritician.

There is no need to claim anything. I pointed out that you falsely categorized what you wrote about Stickwick, then falsely categorized what I wrote about what you wrote. I observe you to be an evasive and dishonest individual; you would have done much better to simply accept being labeled stupid in comparison with Stickwick. Before, it was only your capabilities that were suspect, now your character is as well. And if most people here can’t see that or don’t care about such things, it’s not my concern. MPAI.

“People won’t remember what you did; they will remember the way you made them feel.” Seeing as his interactions with you, me, Charm, Courtley, your blog-daughter (who I also haven’t seen since her & VD’s earlier skirmish) plus the feedback from people like Maggie and INTJ, were not exactly positive experiences, it is something for reflection.

The fact that those interactions with me are seen as negative only indicates that those particular individuals are, as Aristotle wrote, incapable of being instructed by information. Because they refused to learn from the errors that I pointed out, they will continue to make those errors again and again and again. Hence my lack of interest in them or how they feel. I find Ana and Susan worthwhile because, whether they agree with me or not, they are observably capable of instruction.

How is female skepticism towards male or a certain male group is different from solipsism?

I’ll be addressing that as part of my next few posts on solipsism. Short answer: Susan’s position on female solipsism is skepticism. The male bloggers’ doubts about self-reported female attraction are skepticism. Believing that someone is talking about you, personally, when there is no evidence whatsoever that they are actually doing so, that is solipsism. Ian Ironwood’s post is an excellent example of it.

Oh, Jackie’s back!

@HerrKaiser
Augh, it really happened like that? Somebody needs to be fired or jailed or both.

@INTJ
I didn’t realize health played such a big part in attractiveness! I knew it was important but not THAT important.
How much do scars detract? I have some remnants from chicken pox, which with a lot of moles make me look like Satan threw an inkwell at me.
(Sadly, I am on the larger side and those suckers have started to droop early, which is why I wanted repairs… How much do guys hate that? If I could do anything about it I would.)
Sorry for TMI…

Bastiat #591 complementarities….consider a business startup, organized as a 2-person partnership…in one case, the partners have differing skill sets…say, one is a software developer and the other is a marketeer…versus another case in which they both have very similar skill sets. It seems likely that the partnerships of the first sort will be more successful & stable. And if they *do* have the similar skill sets, then success will probably require them to specialize their roles anyhow.

Jackie – ““People won’t remember what you did; they will remember the way you made them feel.””

Not to argue with your grandmother, but this sounds very much like how a WOMAN remembers someone. I, as a man, actually care very little about how someone makes me feel, and much more about what they have to say, and if it is true and useful to me. No one makes me feel anyway, *I* make myself feel however I decide based on what someone says or does to me.

So the corrected statement IMO is: “women won’t remember you for what youdid; they will remember the way you made them feel.” That I can agree with.

J – “People really underestimate how important people skills are, especially people who have been served well by their IQs.”

Nah. I’m painfully aware of the fact that I am not further along in my career because I don’t “play” office politics. I understand the “importance” of people skills, I simply do not feel that the rewards for such BS is worth the effort. If and when I must be a “people person” I manage the task just fine. However it drains me and frankly puts me in a very pissy mood every single time. Needless to say, the years I spent working on IT help desks were VERY difficult for me. (And perhaps a small part of why I ended up divorced actually)

“I’ve known a lot of people IRL with tremendously high IQs but little ability to empathize or fit in with others. They generally overestimate the importance of IQ to others, who are often impressed but not necessarily enamored.”

Not all of those people overestimate the importance of IQ. Some of them simply don’t care about what other people find important, and THEY feel their intelligence is indeed their best attribute, people be damned.

“That’s OK as far as it goes, but I’m not sure that the only thing that would cause a woman to cheat is betaness.”

How exactly is that “OK”? If a guy is working and taking care of his family, how is it “OK” for a woman to cheat simply because she isn’t “excited” about her life and her husband? It seems to me that the moral and ethical thing to do is figure out WHY they aren’t happy WITH THEIR HUSBAND and fix it. But, that would require them to actually think about what their own motivations are, what their faults are, and what part of their unhappiness THEY are responsible for. And it seems that most people simply can’t be bothered to be responsible for themselves and their own behavior.

Mike C – “FWIW, I agree with you that your greatest sin was making some people “uncomfortable” and that the things you were saying had a lot of meat on the bone so to speak. FWIW, if we ever went into battle I’d want someone like you by my side. If there is one word I think of with you, it is tenacious.”

Cosign. To be honest, you, Cooper, INTJ, Escoffier, and Obsidian come to mind as people I would want on my side. I may not agree with you or any of them 100% of the time, but I know you can think and reason, and you all strike me as “stand up” guys, for lack of a better term. (I’m gonna need an extra cup of coffee today. Brain is NOT revving up today…)

Also regarding breast implants. In your fiancés case it makes perfect sense. I’ve known women that lost a bunch of weight, and you are indeed correct that without some type of breast augmentation (either a reduction or implants) most women would be VERY unhappy with how their chest looked. In short your description was pretty accurate. I should have been specific regarding the “type” of surgery, as there are certainly medical and even cosmetic reasons for such surgery beyond the idea of having stripper boobs.

Susan – “As for the herd, would you describe Dalrock’s fan base as comprising a herd? If not, why not?”

I’d describe them more as a pack of rabid wolves. Well, not all of them. But there are at least a few individually sick wolves in that pack.

“Interesting, what would you name as the key differences between pack behavior and herd behavior?”

I know this was directed at Ana, but my solipsism is kicking in…

HERD mentality – always stick together. Protect each other from aggressors (even if the aggressor may have been provoked, protecting the herd member is primary). Try to present a solid wall of defense against any invader. Only go on the offensive if a herd member is attacked, otherwise generally on the defensive and cordial with other nearby animals.

Pack mentality – always stick together. Go on the attack together as long as the initial attack was justified (generally do not come to the defense of a stupid pack member doing something stupid, they’ll learn the hard way.) Tend to attack from multiple angles despite a unified plan. Work with each other’s strong points to make an attack more successful. ALWAYS on the offensive, or at least always ready to spring into action should something occur. Can peacefully co-exist with other animals and herds, but NEVER forgets that those other animals are prey.

Shorthand: Herd – defensive. Pack – offensive

“Respectfully, as a capable thinker with a vagina, I believe I edge you out there. Frankly, you have embraced some back asswards notions that are so clearly DLV it compromises your credibility, IMO. It is perhaps significant that you do not implement in your own relationship some of the tactics you defend.”

Well, as long as his mate doesn’t do anything to prompt such behavior, why would he? But, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t know about and be able to use such tactics, if the need should ever arise. Knowing how to kill somebody with my bare hands doesn’t mean I MUST kill people.

You may want to characterize that interchange in a snarky way, but it does appear that these gals no longer come here because interactions of that sort became unpleasant.

I think it would be much more accurate to say “they no longer come here because they found a single interaction of that sort to be unpleasant”, at least insofar as I was involved. I don’t even remember them except to recall that one girl was extraordinarily narcissistic. That being said, I’ve reached a similar conclusion. Such women really do need to hear what Susan is saying and it is unrealistic to expect them to be able to deal with unadulterated logic.

Ohh I didn’t expected this kind of…compliment.

I think your curiosity serves you well, as long as you don’t let it get you into trouble.

Yeah don’t get implants. They can cause back problems, and cause your breasts to sag faster, which is a much bigger issue than breast size.

This is wildly untrue. While implants placed over the chest muscle can cause the breasts to sag, implants placed under the muscle do not and will cause breasts to remain more or less perky for life. Women with very large breasts, of the Pamela Anderson or Katie Price variety, may have two sets of implants, one under the muscle to maintain lift and another over it to provide the size.

Jackie…“People won’t remember what you did; they will remember the way you made them feel” answered by TedD…”Not to argue with your grandmother, but this sounds very much like how a WOMAN remembers someone. I, as a man, actually care very little about how someone makes me feel…”

Jackie’s original comment closely paralleled something written by Raytheon CEO Bill Swanson:

“You remember 1/3 of what you read, 1/2 of what people tell you, but 100 percent of what you feel.

If a parent tells a young child not to touch a lightbulb, the child generally won’t remember. But after the first time he touches a lightbulb, he’ll never forget that it’s hot. A leader needs to communicate in a way that makes people feel what they need to do. I was reminded of this a couple of years ago during a visit to Nellis Air Force Base. I introduced myself to a pilot, and he looked me in the eye and said, “If it wasn’t for what you all do, I wouldn’t be here today.” A missile had been launched at his F-15, but we make a decoy, which he deployed. The decoy didn’t come home — but he did, to his family. I use that feeling to remind everyone that people’s lives depend on the reliability of our products.”

Susan…”So why is the herd mentality always used to describe a negative, if its main purpose is survival without aggression?”

Maybe because herds are prone to collective panicking in a way that is actually detrimental to their survival. Some North American Indian tribes, for example, were skilled at driving herds of buffalo over cliffs, thereby ensuring a source of buffalo meat, buffalo robes, etc, in a much more efficient way than killing their prey one-by-one. Absent strong herding instincts, the tactic wouldn’t have worked so well.

David Foster – “A leader needs to communicate in a way that makes people feel what they need to do.”

LOL no wonder I make a bad leader. I don’t know how I feel about things unless I take the time to examine it. How the HELL am I supposed to figure out how to say something in a way that promotes the right “feeling” in others?

It just seems so much less messy and complicated to give the facts and let everyone figure out how to “feel” about it themselves.

I can see how this makes sense for most people. I think us Thinkers simply don’t put so much stock in feelings. In fact, if I could, I’d turn my feelings off entirely and leave it that way 80% of the time. But I’m trying to work on my feelings and paying closer attention to them. To be frank, it makes me feel like a whiny little bitch though…

I value credentials because they signal that a person has met some standards of intelligence and academic rigor. Although plenty of professors do have agendas, mostly of the liberal variety, the opposite is true in the area of mating. Most of the academics studying sexual behavior must be prepared to go up against feminists regularly and defend their work.

The idea of lending equal credence to the sales pitch of a YaReallyPUA is laughable.

Well….suit yourself. In this thread, I provided a number of examples where highly credentialed academics were very wrong. To be clear, that does NOT mean I think all academic research is worthless. That would be an absurd position. But what I suggest is not accepting it unquestioningly.

As far as YaReallyPUA’s sales pitch, and the thousands of other anecdotes provided by real men out in the field….here is my thought.

If I were looking at a mall retailer as an investment and trying to get a handle on trends, I’d definitely pay attention to market research, but I’d also drive down to the mall for several days and observe store traffic. In investing, there is something called mosaic theory where you try to put together the big picture from different sources of information.

But whatever, conclude whatever you want based on whatever sources you deem Biblically authoritative. YMMV. You have helped me to answer questions for myself that I’ve wondered about.

So, to speak for myself, I care about understanding this stuff for several reasons. One, because I like philosophy and I want to understand the world.

Completely cosign.

Two, because understanding it has VASTLY helped me to analyze past events in my life and see them for what they were.

I’ve gained some insight in to my past, but I wouldn’t call it vast.

Three, because it might help me not to blow it in the future.

Again, I’ve gained some insight, but a hiuge percent of what is said on these blogs is not really relevant to my future.

And four because I have kids and I want to help them too.

There I think one really has to pick and choose. I think it’s very important to keep in mind that worst of the college SMP applies to a limited number of people. When I have shown the blog to college students they just sort of shrug and say things like, “J, when you were in college there was a lot of drug use. How much directly affected you?’ Many kids opt out of the hoook up scene and still do very well socially. In terms of helping my own kids, I’m more interested in learning how those kids function than in tut-tutting about the dysfunction. Sure, it’s out there, but not everyone is playing into it. It’s more fruitful to how the kids who are succeeding are doing that.

I find these blogs fascinating in that they give a wndow into some areas of human experience that I wouldn’t have a lot of access to, eg. I’ll never be a divorced man. OTOH, I not so sure that middle aged people’s blogging is necessarily going to make life better for the kids. It’s a good goal and I do realize that many are helped by these blogs, but I think the real answers to that generation’s issue will come out of that generation, perhaps on blog’s that they run and frequent. I do think that several of these blogs have a definite ax to grind and a negative vibe that isn’t helpful. If I were seeking to teach my son’s about marriage, I would (and actually do) try to put them in contact with people who have actually succeeded at it. Some of the venting just is not productive. When you look at many of the individuals who had posted over over long periods of time, there’s a hard core of people who are just as unhappy now as they were two years ago.

That said, there’s some good stuff here but you have to pick and choose.

Of course you are. Your defending your friend.

Here we have a timely and illustrative example of female solipsism, Susan. J cannot imagine the possibility in which one can defend someone – in this case, a reader I have never met – without being angry. She believes I must be angry, presumably because she could not defend someone else without being angry; thus she appoints herself the measure of Man. This is despite the observable fact that I have been known to defend HUS from its critics without being angry.

Nonsense, your initial response to me was schoolyard insult, not a critique of my logic. It was clearly emotional, no matter how many memes you want to throw out. I find your inability to admit that you defended a friend disingenuous and frankly odd.

I never claimed my initial response to you was a critique of your logic nor denied my initial response was ad hominem. But I only later called your logical capacity into doubt when pointing out that “you are now demonstrating logical ineptitude by asserting how my imagined emotional state must dictate my actions” in response to one of your later comments. And you are lying again, as I never denied that I defended anyone, I only denied that Stickwick was my wife or my girlfriend. While you may claim to find nonexistent actions to be “disingenuous and frankly odd”, I find it all too predictable to observe that you are evasive, error-prone, and dishonest.

You are observably a woman of very poor intellectual character. It is no indictment of the androsphere that you should be unwelcome on a number of the blogs there. Regardless of how warmly other women may enjoy hearing your advice, I think it unlikely that it will serve them well.

So why is the herd mentality always used to describe a negative, if its main purpose is survival without aggression?

Because it so readily leads to dishonesty, hypocrisy, and inequitable treatment of non-herd members. For example, J has now repeatedly shown herself to be dishonest. An instinctive herd response in defense of her false statements would render the herd necessarily complicit in her dishonesty as well. That’s why a herd mentality is fine for musk oxen, not so great for women who would like to be taken seriously intellectually. One weak member can commit the herd to rationally indefensible positions.

@ Mike C

I think he would be the first to tell you ignore the credentials and focus on the quality of the argument. FWIW, I think you have a strong tendency towards credentialism. I think this is a serious error. Obtaining a certain credential often means you were able to jump through a certain sequence of hoops. I’m not saying they are meaningless, but academic pedigree doesn’t guarantee correct thinking or analysis. Ben Bernanke said in 2006 at the height of the housing bubble that home prices were justified by the economic fundamentals. Alan Greenspan (The Maestro) testified before Congress not too long ago that apparently he had been operating under incorrect theoretical principles for the past few decades:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwpnH_OTZio

In my view, over the past several months to a year, you’ve started to rely way too heavily if not exclusively on academic, credentialed analysis to completely form your view of the SMP.

Strongly cosigned. Credentialed social science is often wrong.

Specifically, I feel that recently at HUS there’s been an over-reliance on large-scale statistical studies. These studies create the illusion of preciseness, when in reality they obscure the underlying phenomena. Here’s an exchange I had with my mom:

Me:

In general, what amazes me is the extent to which social scientists rely on large statistical studies instead of in depth interviews. It only scratches the surface and shows symptoms without giving you insight into the causes. I would think physical science is far better suited for statistical analysis than social science, but it’s the social scientists who use it so much.

My mom went even further:

I agree. Social science people may not like the rigor and preciseness for in depth analysis. Do something fuzzy and make it look like “science.”

The statistical studies are interesting and often useful, but they can’t replace anecdotal experience and reflection (nor do I think Susan is suggesting that they can.)

There was an interview somewhere this week with a guy who develops/maintains mathematical models of forest fires for the US Forest Service. Forest fires are much more deterministic than human behavior, but they’re evidently still pretty hard to model. The guy pointed out that sometimes, it helps to actually go look at the fire.

@ szopen

When I was at 2nd year, we had a party. It was cool party until we get drunk. At this point all girls have left, except one other, who was also computer sceince chick.

You may not believe it, but we started to talk about the best structures to hold data for a graphic analysis. I think the last girl left when we tried to explain her what pointers are.

Until we were sober, no one would even consider to do this to cool looking chick. Even now I can’t understand why somone, even when drunk, would think it’s a appriopriate thing to do at the party.

Sounds like a cool party.

But I’m confused. Why was it bad to tell her what pointers are? They assumed she didn’t know but she actually did?

It’s ironic that on a female-oriented blog, personally harrassing women until they either agree, shut up, or leave (all forms of submission) is not only considered par for the course, but also intellectually justified.

Oh, this should be informative. Let’s investigate see if it is justified or not. Do you assert that I personally harassed Courtley or Charm, just to name two women who reportedly shut up and/or left as a result of my criticism?

I agree with Susan, re: dread, at least tactically. If my wife started to be publicly flirtacious with other men, I would very directly tell her to cool it. I would not want to get into a retaliatory war. For one thing, how would I know that wouldn’t simply cause her to “escalate” and flirt more?

I want to convey my displeasure in no uncertain terms so that she can’t have any doubt as to what I meant. If after that she didn’t stop, I don’t see how my flirting would make anything better.

Mind you, this is not a moral objection of the kind that Susan often voices about instilling dread, I guess if I thought it would work I might think differntly. But even then I am not so sure. It comes down to the fact that a woman on whom I have play such games to keep her is not a woman I would want.

@ Megaman

It’s ironic that on a female-oriented blog, personally harrassing women until they either agree, shut up, or leave (all forms of submission) is not only considered par for the course, but also intellectually justified.

Things change, I suppose. Perhaps the blog mission statement is in need of revision?

Agree. I think an important part of intellectual maturity (and something that INTJs especially need to learn) is to constructively participate in a community without insisting on an aggressive confrontational communication style.

“I wonder if that isn’t because the potential for very high status isn’t there. It’s like a lottery ticket with a huge prize. Chances of winning are small, but for a small investment you potentially access a taste of the very good life”

Rings kinda false to me, I mean, I doubt that most young women who go for wastrels are thinking that far ahead. They are just having their triggers pulled and being young, impulsive and (likely) of weak(er) character, they enjoy it and don’t think much past the moment.

@ Mike C, Vox Day

So you are saying that VD personally harassed Charm and Courtley into leaving? Is that your position?

Oh, this should be informative. Let’s investigate see if it is justified or not. Do you assert that I personally harassed Courtley or Charm, just to name two women who reportedly shut up and/or left as a result of my criticism?

Yes. That was not his intention, but it was what happened.

I’m not assuming she will listen to reason. If I say “stop” and she doesn’t stop, then some consequence must follow. I’m just saying that my flirting in retaliation probably wouldn’t help.

In the end, if I said “stop!” and she refused over a reasonably long enough period, I would leave her.

Escoffier – “In the end, if I said “stop!” and she refused over a reasonably long enough period, I would leave her.”

And now we find ourselves at the edge of a discussion about: Family court system!

You see, a man can’t simply “leave” his wife because she “won’t listen to reason”. Good grief are you a sexist pig?! (that was sarcasm…)

It just isn’t that simply man, and you know it. Should guys be more careful about getting married? Hells yeah! In fact, my advice is: don’t do it until you are ready to have kids. Period.

And yes, I realize I say that having just remarried for no reason other than the fact that *I* believe in the institution itself. It is one thing to offer myself up on the block as a sacrifice. It is completely different to try and convince other men to do the same, including my boys.

I didnt see much point in arguing back in forth with VD because, if you all hadn’t noticed, he won’t stop.

Smart girl. This is nothing. The great Japanese Naval Invasion debate of 2004 is still mentioned in hushed and fearful terms around longtime VP readers… it came up as recently as yesterday. By the end of that, we were getting IJN documents translated and interviewing Marine generals, and playing through vast simulations. It was awesome.

@Ted, Susan

“Jackie – ““People won’t remember what you did; they will remember the way you made them feel.””

Not to argue with your grandmother, but this sounds very much like how a WOMAN remembers someone. I, as a man, actually care very little about how someone makes me feel, and much more about what they have to say, and if it is true and useful to me. No one makes me feel anyway, *I* make myself feel however I decide based on what someone says or does to me.

This is an example of a non-judgmental observation about sex differences. See? It is possible to be direct without resorting to shaming. I agree with Ted here.”
======
Hey Ted and Susan,

A quick correction: Ted, this is something my mother said, not my grandmother. (Trust me– she was not the slightest bit concerned about other people’s feelings– unless they bolstered her own! Especially in response to her version of “truth.” )

Secondly, your assertion intrigued me to find the source of this quote. It has been attributed to Carl Buechner, Neale Donald Walsch, Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh, Maya Angelou and Dr. Thomas L. Garthwaite. Interesting!

Ted, you may appreciate this quote from Buechner, a Presbyterian minister and writer:
“Many an atheist is a believer without knowing it just as many a believer is an atheist without knowing it. You can sincerely believe there is no God and live as though there is. You can sincerely believe there is a God and live as though there isn’t.”

I definitely will be reading some of his work after browsing his wiki
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Buechner) — he taught John Irving!

Later, gators

INTJ – “I don’t think the girl that runs off with the alpha asshat intends to hurt the nice guy or intends to get hurt by the alpha asshat. It still happens though, and I hold her accountable for it. I will make allowances based on intentions, but there’s a certain point at which ignorance is not an excuse.”

Ahhh I see! I went about that a different way. I got over my anger at such women by accepting the fact that they are simply too self-absorbed and shallow to understand that they are hurting the “nice guy”. However, as far as it goes, the “nice guy” is still ultimately responsible for feeling “hurt”, as it is how he reacted to the shallow girl’s actions.

Now, when she gets hurt by the alpha? Well, part of me believes she is getting exactly what she deserves, and part of me hopes she learns from the experience and doesn’t do it again. Since it is very common for people to keep making the same stupid mistakes without learning, you can see why “people” disappoint me often.

Ted, yes the family court situation is terrible but I can’t see staying decades in an awful marriage just to avoid that ringer. And who’s to say she wouldn’t eventually dump me anyway?

If her behavior is awful, I think once I’ve concluded that it can’t be fixed the best course is to bite the bullet, front-load the pain, and get out.

Escoffier – “Ted, yes the family court situation is terrible but I can’t see staying decades in an awful marriage just to avoid that ringer. And who’s to say she wouldn’t eventually dump me anyway?

If her behavior is awful, I think once I’ve concluded that it can’t be fixed the best course is to bite the bullet, front-load the pain, and get out.”

As someone that found themselves in an unhappy and shitty marriage, I can tell you that at least for awhile I seriously considered simply staying and being miserable, at least until my son turned 18. The thought of not seeing my kids was MORE than enough to make me knuckle under. In fact, the reason we finally divorced was because my ex wanted to move back to Ohio, and I couldn’t leave my job. (and didn’t want to relocate with her knowing she would eventually leave me.)

For me it was fortunate that despite her flaws my ex IS a good person. Instead of using my kids against me we actually sat down and discussed what would be best for them, and we both decided that staying with me would be best as all of their friends were here, and it was the home they’d known for so long. Additionally, my ex knew she would be in no financial shape to take care of them, and didn’t intend to even try to get alimony because she was working. (although it was a simple factory job at the time)

When your entire world rests in the hands of a woman you KNOW is unhappy with you, it is surprising just how much shit you will tolerate to keep her from pulling the plug. I’m ashamed at myself for just how much I let the situation beat me down. But, in the end, it really was about my kids.

As it turns out, my ex is filling the role normally occupied by the ex-husband: that is, feeling like she is missing out on her children. I hear from her at least once a week asking how they are doing. (my daughter moved back right after she graduated from HS. My son never left me) They don’t call or text her regularly, and she has to check with me to see how they are doing. I remind my son to call her on occasion, but I won’t make him. She left, she can deal with his reaction to it.

Not to argue with your grandmother, but this sounds very much like how a WOMAN remembers someone.

LOL. I think too many women have gained too much by making men feel good to really believe this.

Nah. I’m painfully aware of the fact that I am not further along in my career because I don’t “play” office politics. I understand the “importance” of people skills, I simply do not feel that the rewards for such BS is worth the effort.

A lot of people feel this way. If you are bright enough to write your own ticket then it works for you. BUT it is significant that the most successful men are shmoozers. Bill Clinton is the ultimate example. He was certainly bright enough, but his real talent was making people, men included, feel like he could “feel their pain.” It’s one thing to say it’s not personally important to you, or even to go to the length of proclaiming yourself above all that, but most people pay the price for not being good at office politics. AND the rewards for being good at it are phenomenal. As a kid, I was led to believe that “my giftedness” would be a key to success. Frankly, I’ve found it to be just as much a gift and a handicap.

If and when I must be a “people person” I manage the task just fine. However it drains me and frankly puts me in a very pissy mood every single time.

I hear ya. It drains me to. I hate dealing with other people’s bullshit.

Needless to say, the years I spent working on IT help desks were VERY difficult for me. (And perhaps a small part of why I ended up divorced actually) .

I would actually guess that your INTJness was a bigger contributor than your “betaness.” It’s hard for a lot of people to relate to that sort of personality. Not a cut; remember that I’m INT myself.

Not all of those people overestimate the importance of IQ. Some of them simply don’t care about what other people find important, and THEY feel their intelligence is indeed their best attribute, people be damned.

I’ve had periods like that myself, but intelligence is an attribute, not a virtue. I’ve alluded vaguely in the past about having attended a gifted and talented school. This really gave me the impression that my IQ was the best thing about me. As I’ve spent more time in less segregated environments, I’ve come to see that other things matter more. I love my intellect in that it broadens my world and keeps me entertained, but I no longer expect to be universally valued for it. It bores some people and confuses and intimidates others. It excites a treasured few, but it has made the search for compatible people so much harder than it is for average people. One thing I love about my UMC neighborhood is that smart people are easier to find.

I’ve also learned that smart doesn’t necessarily equal good or wise. The ultimate example is the ex-fiance I broke it off with. He had an IQ in the 160s, but he’s had lifelong difficulties in dealing with people–three wives and six kids, two-thirds of whom hate him. (His son actually badmouthed him in the local press.) He would say that he didn’t care about what people thought and affected a superior attitude, but let’s just say I’ve never regretted breaking off that engagement.

I now tend to seek about people are good as well as bright–as you can well imagine, that further limits the pool of available friends. I actually wish I were less bored by average people; goodness really is more important than brightness in the long run.

How exactly is that “OK”? If a guy is working and taking care of his family, how is it “OK” for a woman to cheat simply because she isn’t “excited” about her life and her husband?

Noooo. I was saying that the comment was OK as far as it went, not that cheating was OK. I wanted to expand on the comment. Sorry about the confusing pronoun reference.

It seems to me that the moral and ethical thing to do is figure out WHY they aren’t happy WITH THEIR HUSBAND and fix it.

Yes, I agree.

I’d describe them more as a pack of rabid wolves. Well, not all of them. But there are at least a few individually sick wolves in that pack.

LOL. Seems that Ana’s metaphor has really caught on!

I really like your HERD/PACK analysis, but I have one caveat. A pack doesn’t attack because the outsider is wrong but because the outsider is different. As I said above, wolves will routinely drive out a wolf that looks different. That’s why we have dogs. We domesticated the most neotenous of the packless outliers. The same dynamic happens when a group of bouys picks out one to bully. There’s no adherence to moral principle involved. They just go after the kid who doesn’t fit in, tease him in an attempt to get him to conform and then attack him if he doesn’t.

@ J

LOL. Seems that Ana’s metaphor has really caught on!

I really like your HERD/PACK analysis, but I have one caveat. A pack doesn’t attack because the outsider is wrong but because the outsider is different. As I said above, wolves will routinely drive out a wolf that looks different. That’s why we have dogs. We domesticated the most neotenous of the packless outliers. The same dynamic happens when a group of bouys picks out one to bully. There’s no adherence to moral principle involved. They just go after the kid who doesn’t fit in, tease him in an attempt to get him to conform and then attack him if he doesn’t.

This exactly describes a lot (though not all) of the manosphere blogs/commenters. They will attack those who’re different.

It’s ironic that on a female-oriented blog, personally harrassing women until they either agree, shut up, or leave (all forms of submission) is not only considered par for the course, but also intellectually justified.

I’m not sure what you mean. I generally find the majority of women here to be supportive of other women, but I tend to skip the high conflict stuff because it gets tiresome. What did I miss?

I think an important part of intellectual maturity (and something that INTJs especially need to learn) is to constructively participate in a community without insisting on an aggressive confrontational communication style.

That’s a great observation, INTJ. As an INTP, I’ve had to work on that myself.

@susan

“Agreed, but I wonder if that isn’t because the potential for very high status isn’t there. It’s like a lottery ticket with a huge prize. Chances of winning are small, but for a small investment you potentially access a taste of the very good life. Prestige and fame are obviously key components of status, so access to them is currency.”

Now you tell me. I wish I’d known that when I was younger and tried to score chicks by joining a polka band.

I’d have to go back and verify, but I believe it was J who asserted this in the objective of characterizing VD’s comments negatively….that he was running people off.

Actually, Jackie pointed it out and I said, based on her comment, that people were voting with their feet and that I missed certain commenters. I took her word that you did not return for the reasons she stated because I myself had skipped over a lot of the conflicts and assumed that she had read something I didn’t.

I don’t think people are “run off”.

I myself wouldn’t characterize people choosing not to participate as being “run off” in the sense that they fear confrontation in coming here, but I do agree with this:

“I think that after while, people get tired of reading posts by certain commenters, and they just stop coming back. That has happened to me on other sites as well as a few of the ‘sphere ones. When I came back to HUS, I just started scrolling past posts made by certain commenters that I had no interest in reading.”

It can be frustrating to read the same stuff and write the same replies over and over again. It also is a waste of time and energy to be sucked into the same conflicts again and again. Nothing is ever really resolved, and frankly, the people who you are dealing with are just random people who you’ll never met (and sometimes you’re grateful for that fact.) There’s no big investment in arguing with them or convincing them of anything. They will log off and live their lives and so will you. Unless you really enjoy debate for its own sake, that’s not enjoyable or worthwhile to engage those people. For that reason, I think a lot of the high conflict posts do make this a less enjoyable place than it normally is. And, if coming here isn’t pleasurable, if you aren’t relating to people you like or learning something of value, why spend your time here?

What? OK, this must be the male version of solipsism. Attaching some motive or logic to me that is 180 off the mark. I used the term ages ago in explaining why I thought the instilling dread is a poor strategy. Because it requires an obvious attempt on the part of the male to solicit female attention, rather than the much higher value behavior of graciously receiving female attention without stoking it.

Your original statement about me DLVing was in the context of believing “bass ackwards” ideas about hypergamy, solipsism, etc. “Instilling dread” wasn’t even part of the it until you introduced it. You do this quite often. You say A, I respond to A with B, and then you come back with C that has absolutely zilch to what you said in A. I believe you are an intelligent woman with strong reading comprehension skills so when you respond with something that has nothing to do with the previous few comments/points I can only assume there is some tactical motivation at work. The only other alternative is that you are responding with a non-sequitur because you are not understanding exactly what is written.

As I said, if Rollo had his way, intersexual communication would stop.

Why are you repeating this again? I got you the first time you said this. This statement has absolutely zilch to do with our exchange.

He has a very poor understanding of women.

OK. If you say so.

Now logically that argument is an appeal to authority so it isn’t valid, but to the extent I hold “back asswards” views SO DOES HE.

Have I ever suggested that you should read Vox Day to learn about female sexuality? Why are you appealing to his authority over me? He does not have any.

This is a gibberish response.

Premises:

1. Susan Walsh postulates I hold “bass ackwards” views about female nature, hypergamy, solipsism, etc.

2. Vox Day’s views on these matters are basically the same as mine

If premises 1 & 2 are both true then

Conclusion: Vox Day holds “bass ackwards” views on these matters

This above is very basic logical thinking 101. Premises and the conclusion that flows.

So I ask you….do you believe that Vox Day holds “bass ackwards” views on these matters? If you do not believe that, then you are contradicting yourself with the assertion that I do. Please answer this question DIRECTLY without sidestepping it with a non-sequitur response.

An ultimatum is not instilling dread if you’re prepared to carry it out. Dread is the fear or apprehension that something bad is going to happen in the future, and that you cannot control it. An ultimatum gives you the choice of behaviors as well as the predicted outcomes.

Sounds good. I can accept and agree with that distinction.

@Mr. Nervous Toes #717:
“Too many manosphere bloggers desperately need to learn some tact and act diplomatically. Diplomacy is the art of separating what you think, what you say, and what you do. When someone has a blind-spot, being direct and trying to shine a light on it isn’t going to be effective. It’s called a blind-spot for a reason. You have to be indirect, and play a patient game. Watch Escoffier, he’s great (and I’m actively trying to learn from his posts). Most of the guys in the manosphere are totally clueless on the value of being indirect and it shows. Einstein said doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is stupid. Bashing people over the head over and over again with the same heavy-handed arguments and having no positive results?”

O: All of that might be well and good, IF indeed, that were the Manosphere’s goal – but it is not.

As I’ve said several times here and elsewhere, the goal of the Manosphere is for Men to gather and express themselves, THEIR WAY. Make of that what you will, but I for one think there is indeed some value in this. Simply put, Men don’t have venues where they can do this – and I say this as one who isn’t particularly wanted in most of said ‘sphere. The Manosphere is a place where the fears and pains of White Guys can be heard, unimpeded. No, that won’t include guys like me; I have come to learn and accept this. But I still think they have some importance.

That not a discussion can go by here, or most of the Women-led spaces in the blogosphere, without *someone* bringing up the Manosphere, is proof if there ever was any, that their “mission” is being achieved. For better or for worse – and to be sure, there’s a bit of both – they ARE indeed being heard.

And I think, that’s a good thing.

O.

“the biggest problem that femininsts have with men these days is;
“How do you shame someone that just doesn’t care?”
“The blaming and shaming has gotten to feel like a nagging old shrew of a wife. You know that you can’t make her happy, so why would you even try?”

Feminists and women in general don’t get befuddled over the fact that men don’t care UNTIL a particular gripe cannot be remedied with law or other sideways attempt to get men to come around.

That is why promiscuous women and their feminist advocates try so hard to control the message about how men view sluts. If they can show that men do not care when commitment is being considered then, their theory goes, other men will feel like outcasts living on the shameful fringe.

Is the twisted propaganda rhetoric working?

.

@Mike C #629, @Ted #653:
” “FWIW, I agree with you that your greatest sin was making some people “uncomfortable” and that the things you were saying had a lot of meat on the bone so to speak. FWIW, if we ever went into battle I’d want someone like you by my side. If there is one word I think of with you, it is tenacious.””

“Cosign. To be honest, you, Cooper, INTJ, Escoffier, and Obsidian come to mind as people I would want on my side. I may not agree with you or any of them 100% of the time, but I know you can think and reason, and you all strike me as “stand up” guys, for lack of a better term. (I’m gonna need an extra cup of coffee today. Brain is NOT revving up today…)”

O: I am truly honored that you two would think of me in this way; it reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile…”

Thank you both.

O.

J – “A pack doesn’t attack because the outsider is wrong but because the outsider is different.”

Absolutely! And, they tend to see everything else as either insignificant, or dinner.

Susan – “An ultimatum is not instilling dread if you’re prepared to carry it out. “

This is really how you feel? To me, it is still instilling dread with the addition of extra teeth, because you knew beyond all doubt he meant it. THAT is dread to me, and it seems to Mike and a few other guys here. It is irrelevant IF the man intends to carry out the “threat” or not, it is the doubt the actual threat creates that causes the women to self correct.

“Dread is the fear or apprehension that something bad is going to happen in the future, and that you cannot control it.”

If you husband decided to leave tomorrow, could you control it? Doesn’t that leave you in a constant state of dread thinking he might? Look. A guy making a woman feel scared and unsettled for no damn reason is a douche in my opinion. But, a guy doing the EXACT SAME THING to get his mate to acknowledge and respect his boundaries is completely in the clear morally speaking to me, even if his “dread” is false bravado. As long as SHE doesn’t know it is bravado, it will likely work just fine.

You are once again concerning yourself with morality of the subject and how YOU feel about it. How you feel about dread is irrelevant, even if it is used on you, as long as it gets the intended outcome. Now, we can judge the morality of that outcome if you’d like, but I don’t have a problem here with the means.

“Athol does suggest dominance, but not any Machiavellian tactics, and when he tends to go “dark” he is indeed trying to help men rescue their marriages, not preemptively trying to get the woman feeling insecure so she’ll be a good little scared wifey.”

“good little scared wifey”?! Are you projecting your disdain for Rollo just a little bit here? I disagree with you on Athol. He advises that “dark” should only be a last resort. But, I think if you pressed him to answer, he would tell you straight up that it would be better to “instill dread” (even massive dread) in your wife to save the marriage as opposed to getting a divorce.

MNT – “It’s called a blind-spot for a reason. You have to be indirect, and play a patient game. Watch Escoffier, he’s great (and I’m actively trying to learn from his posts). “

I’ll admit that Escoffier’s ability to communicate does impress me. But he goes FAR and above any effort I’d put into it. Hell, Hollenhund recently pointed out that I am constantly trying to “be nice” when I post, and I still feel like I’m upsetting people anyway. So, perhaps people really just need to get a slightly thicker skin if they intend to banter with strangers on the internet.

“Most of the guys in the manosphere are totally clueless on the value of being indirect and it shows. . “

Not at all. Most of the guys in the ‘sphere simply don’t care that women (and some men) can’t take the heat.

Interesting, what would you name as the key differences between pack behavior and herd behavior?

This is my opinion I could be totally wrong but this is how I see it works:

HERD
Basically herds purposes is to grow in quantity not quality, they examine and individual and try to find a place for it as long as she obeys the herds maxims, that most be respected at all times, the member is regularly observed to make sure she is following the commands a different member will be shamed into adapting as much as possible by adapting herself to the herd’s commands. This is why you see that women start with “Love those shoes!, are you reading this book is great!” they are homogenizing the herd, if any of the girls starts drifting away they do thinks like start talking about the book she is not reading all the time so she will be forced to conform to not feel excluded is a subtle but very effective tactic. They can have a Queen Bee but she will be assisted by other females as long as they don’t pose a thread so that is why you see the plain girl being friends with the really hot one not the second hot one she can become a Queen easily and she won’t let it, there is little personal loyalty in the herd, more convenience of how the herd works for the individuals making them feel good and safe. Herds are actually very good in times of peace but as mentioned before in times of chaos and war they will lose many members because they don’t have any inner strength or cohesion hard to shame your members into fighting a predator and the echo chamber wouldn’t know how to react.

PACK
The pack purpose is quality and strength. They are optimizing themselves to attack a thread or defend themselves from predators in the most effective way by collecting the stronger members and kicking out the weak ones. Most of the guys commenting on the manosphere dynamics had notice that. They pick the favorite male commenters that are considered a strength because their views align with the Alpha and attack whatever weak ones very directly, even though what they label weak could be a good asset to have. The weak one can adapt or leave although if he disagrees but shows strength in his disagreements this could allow him certain level of dissension because a strong individual that is loyal to the pack is a good asset. As mentioned before men don’t need to agree with your lifestyle to support YOU, if they are loyal to you and know you have the same loyalty towards them.
Packs are great for threats and war but they are a mess on times of peace, because in absent of a real enemy they start to attack each other for minor weaknesses and to check loyalty levels and end up cannibalizing themselves unless a predator that bonds them together arrives on time or becoming the wanking circle Susan mentioned when no new members are added because they are young and inexperience and refuse to vow quickly to learn the ways of the pack.
Their blind spot is the Alpha they are loyal to him so if he is wrong there is no way to overcome sans mutiny and for that it need to be organized by the second strongest member a small ranking member that sees that they are in the wrong would be labeled “weak” and attacked accordingly till driven away, or shutting him up. The need to having only the best ones without considering other factors makes the pack easy to age, become ineffective and get taken over by a new fresh pack more adapted to the new times, instead of trying to incorporate a fresh take on themselves.

So IMO both models are imperfect, and prone to bias, issues and work against themselves to a point that they can get destroyed. There should be a balance of adding as much members as possible, but also to correct the weak members and help them to become stronger at their own pace and not weakening the group, and have ways to incorporate new knowledge or techniques replace an noneffective Alpha or a toxic Queen Bee with a better choice without losing the experience they have already. Like in marriage the goal is to keep it functional not to make everyone happy/satisfied all the time, but that most of them get what they need of the group most of the time even if they need to wait for their needs to be satisfied in a timely way. Balance is the key, YMMV.

Ted/Susan, I think you two are getting hung up on the word “dread” when that’s really not what’s at issue.

Susan is drawing a distinction between a justified ultimatum on the one hand, and deliberately creating uncertainty and doubt when the man has no reason to complain about his woman’s behavior.

Roissy recommends the latter. Even if she’s being very good to you, you have to throw her psyche off balance, he says. Susan is saying that’s wrong.

All I can say from my end is that my own wife does not act in ways that require me to deliver ultimatums and I, in turn, do not act to instill dread without cause.

@Ms. Plain Jane #395:
“Obs,
” That so many, despite attempts here and there – Amanda Marcotte’s stab(!) at the matter comes to mind, as do “Female PUAs” like Charlie Nox and Kezia Noble (I think that’s their names), and even Fisher’s “Chemistry.com” – the bottomline is that no one on the female side has yet to improve or supplant, that which Mystery et al hath made. ”

>>> Not even Erika Awakening and Sasha Cobra???”

O: *Especially not Erika Awakening and Sasha Cobra*.

“Obs,
“Having said that though, lemme ask you this: how would you feel about dating guys who were say, a 5-6? Would/could you be cool with that, or not, and why? ”

“>>> Nope. I’m not physically attracted to average or plain looking men. I’m an artist, beauty deeply moves me. My men are my muses and archetypes.

For this reason I’ve had to become more pro-active in dating than most women hotter women, which has, ironically enough, landed me better looking boyfriends than my considerably hotter friends who wait for the guy to approach first.”

O: I can dig it – but as you noted yourself at #151, there are very real drawbacks to what you’re aiming for. Simply put, a solid 8-plus guy on the scale isn’t going to long “settle” for a passable 5-6 “Plain Jane”; he’ll hang tough for a minute and bounce at the first sign of being able to upgrade; that, or he’ll cheat on you. Such is the reality when a Woman gets with a Man who is much more attractive than herself – and we can easily cite several examples in the public square where this has applied. John and Elizabeth Edwards comes to mind, as do Bill and Hillary Clinton.

By the way, I happen to know a “couple” who are artisans like you, and who recently opened an art gallery in my ‘hood. The guy is not only handsome, he’s also “exotic”, while the gal, while a very nice and sweet person, simply ain’t on his plane attractivenesswise. I’d say she’s at least two points downward, easily.

Annnnd, they don’t sleep together; each have their own rooms. Among other things.

I’m just sayin’.

Look Plain Jane – I get that you’re the exception to all the “rules” that are laid down in the Manosphere; much of what they say you have a great desire to debunk. I get all that. But for real though, what you’re gunning for here is nothing but heartbreak, to which you’ve already had a small taste. I know artists tend to be gluttons for punishment given their lifestyles, but do you really have to do this to yourself?

“>>> WOMEN PAY TAXES TOO! Even lower income women (considered the scum of the earth by some in the HBD/Manosphere sites) pay taxes too! All those Baby Mamas working at fast food drive-thrus? Huge chunks are taken out of their bi-weekly paychecks. THEY THEMSELVES are paying into their own WIC and whatever little EBT money they get for food.”

O: Of course they do; I never claimed otherwise. However, your point still doesn’t address mine: “My Body, My Choice” is one thing; “My Body, My Choice – And You Pay”, is something else. Simply put, I and quite a few others (not just Men btw – please see Ms. Walsh’s response to this point), do indeed have a problem using taxpayer funds to underwrite what has been emphatically laid down as “private decisions” – and Women have made it clear that her sexual life/decisions, are indeed private – to the point that her own partner (read: Man), can have no say in the matter. Why now the change up?

“You yourself cleared this up many a time on the HBD leaning blogs when the Great White Male Readership was complainin’ about all their fellow non-white American citizens who they assume don’t work, pay no taxes yet get free stuff from the Gubmint 24/7, remember? You, Obsidian, had to explain to them Clinton’s Welfare Reform. Ain’t nobody gettin’ a free ride no mo’ son!”

O: True; what you leave out however, is the fact that the Welfare Reform debate got started, *precisely because of the Welfare Queen Factor* – something that didn’t just attract White folks. Plenty of Blacks were on board with this, too.

“The societal contract doesn’t mean Da Gubmint assigns us a mate.”

O: But it DOES mean that it guarantees a Baby Daddy – in the form of welfare payments, WIC, daycare, et al? Because that’s what we have right now, despite the aforementioned Welfare Reform, and it *is* a legitimate issue to discuss. So too is the nothing that the gov’t/taxpayer must/should underwrite things like a Woman’s birth control and/or abortions. Again, “My Body, My Choice – You Pay”.

I say that’s whacked. What say you?

“Sheesh! To hear the Manosphere you’d think that they were the only ones to ever pay a single tax on anything. And guess what? When Roissy lost his paper-pushing cubicle GUBMINT JOB – it was your’s truly moi who payed the taxes so he could collect an employment check every month!!!!!!!!”

O: I am not sure – and neither are you – whether Roissy did indeed find another gig or was unemployed for some time. But what we both do know, is that unemployment bennies are NOT welfare; employees and employers both pay into that system. Completely different kettle of fish from what you’re saying.

“Thank god Roosh is slumming it up in Europe and I’m not paying taxes to keep his ass alive.”

O: By all accounts, Roosh left a highly lucrative gig in a STEM field in order to live the life of his dreams, and by all accounts he is doing that; he’s a successful writer with several books to his credit, and is able to fund his lifestyle as a direct result. If artists were so lucky…

O.

“they want to paint the world in pink and make it a “woman’s world”, men be damned.”

That pink world is merely a small soap bubble floating above the “real” world that will not pop while a sufficient number of men (the captive audience) float along with it.

Is that sustainable?

.

Escoffier – “To qualify what Roissy says, a bit: he says the hotter your GF is, the more dread you need to instill. Also, the greater the disparity between your SMP and hers (hers being higher) the more dread you need to instill.

Sound logical, it’s a tool for making up what you don’t have naturally. I wouldn’t want to live that way but to each his own.”

Meh. I don’t read Roissy because he isn’t interested in LTRs in the least. I’m sure his “dread” tactics work great short term for a less than hot guy trying to punch above his weight. To me, it is a lot of effort for very little payout, but I don’t derive much pleasure from sinking my penis into as many beautiful (yet mostly vapid and shallow) women I can.

As you said, to each his own.

Still doesn’t change the fact that dread is a useful tool to know how to use. Like you, I don’t suspect I will EVER need it with my wife.

Ana,

Awesome post on the distinction between pack and herd. You’ve given me some good stuff to ponder. I think what you see in these discussions often is that some men (probably including me) react strongly against herd-like behavior while some women react strongly against pack-like behavior.

@susan
“Actually, it was my husband who said that, but we must take his loyalty to me into account. He’s not unhinged, as he appears to function. For laughs, I glanced at Hare’s Sociopathy checklist. I’d say he ticks 7 of the 20 criteria for sure, but I know too little about him to weigh in on the other aspects. It may be that he just plays a sociopath on the interwebz.”

I think you and Mr. HUS are letting personal animus seriously cloud your thinking on that. What I have observed, however, is that guys who start posting on the internet, and then start their own blog or website on the topic that results in a following, tend to get a hugely inflated ego and sense of importance and intellectual invincibility. Something about a whole bunch of guys sucking up to another guy tends to bring out the AMOG in a guy. I saw it in spades when I used to read and occasionally post on certain college sports forums. I see some of that in ladrock. Don’t get me wrong, I like his blog and think he’s a perceptive guy, and I really like certain articles (even if he has over focused on the niche he stumbled into regarding the american churches’ approach to women and divorce). But his tone has changed over time, especially in the comment threads. Honestly, though, I can’t say that I wouldn’t be worse – it would be tough to be as awesome as I am and not get full of myself in that context.

Some guys avoid that – Welmer (Bill Price) comes to mind. He just doesn’t seem to have it in him to be anything but beta. lol

Also, believe it or not, Roissy seems to be about the same guy as when he started writing. Maybe that’s because he already had such a huge ego, and it couldn’t get any bigger. But his sense of humor suggests to me that most of that is tongue-in-cheek.

, the guy who pwns his WoW guild, for instance, will almost certainly be repulsive to the sorority girl but might drive a chem major completely batty.

But this doesn’t leave space for variations. A woman not always need the top of the top, she might be attracted to the healer in the group not only the guy that owns the guild. I think that is part of the issue with the disconnect. You cannot be the best at everything but showing passion for something should get you in on women that value passion more than status, YMMV.

I think your curiosity serves you well, as long as you don’t let it get you into trouble.

Heh too late. Heh just kidding I’m also naturally paranoid I never get myself into a situation without an ejection plan just in case things don’t go my way.

LOL. Two things.
1. Give the ‘sphere some time. This shit is new and they are gaining traction.
2. Attacking a more powerful/strategic foe can teach you a LOT about how to win next time.

See my Pack explanation the winners of the sphere are not among the whiners or the ones that think that women “should man up and grow a thick skin because that is the way men communicate” the ones that are going to make change effective are people like Athol, Glenn Sacks, Susan… Barring war or revolution systems must be destroyed from the inside and given that all this is driven by women telling them “You are a solipsistic idiot” will only end with her shutting out and labeling you misogynist and the message will be lost. If you find a way to go all Cosmo on her she will listen and learn.

I don’t think people are “run off”. I think that after while, people get tired of reading posts by certain commenters, and they just stop coming back. That has happened to me on other sites as well as a few of the ‘sphere ones. When I came back to HUS, I just started scrolling past posts made by certain commenters that I had no interest in reading.

I agree I liked the-spearhead system of voting up and down the commenters that come here with an agenda will quickly lose interest and power if they just don’t see their comments. I don’t remember why Susan didn’t liked that though.

Hopefully, you don’t have to go there, but once the cancer is there and metastasizing, you”ve got no choice but to go a bit darker, try and kill the cancer realizing you might create some temporary sickness but hopefully get healthy and cancer free on the other end

But you can also become an hypochondriac many diseases start the same way if you think you have cancer every-time you got a fever and reach for the chemo you can end up using a cannon ball to kill a fly. Moderation in everything sometimes a cigar is just a cigar…

J – “That’s not over-sensitivity; it’s just not wanting to bother with banging her head against a wall. Now ask yourself how many times that happens to guys in real life. I wonder how much “He’s just not my type” comes from that place.”

Touche. I can go on and on endlessly on a subject unless I feel that it reached a logical conclusion, or everyone else quits the topic. *shrug* I’m OK with it. I know I come across as arrogant, ” aloof and superior”, and abrasive to many people. The truth is, I actually believe I am superior to most people, and the fact that I believe it means I am actually at least a little arrogant. I’m good with that too.

What you are saying is indeed good for people that aren’t aware of how others perceive them to be. I’ve gone out of my way many times to communicate in a “gentler” fashion, and it does no good. I am unwilling to try harder, and I’m fully aware of how that appears to most people.

I truly do believe that the rest of the world should learn to deal with me, not the other way around. The fact that I make any effort at all to meet someone on their terms should be seen as a huge sign of my good will and earnest desire to have them around, because I simply don’t make that effort for anyone. In fact, I usually make that effort for no one. (work being the exception. I do what I must to collect my paycheck.) My repeated attempts here to “plead my case” is often driven by my belief that if you (or Susan, or whoever I’m engaged with at the moment) could simply understand my point, it would be obvious that I was right. I try hard because I like you (as well as Susan and most of the regulars) enough to make the attempt. But, I will only try so hard since this is all just electrons floating through the ‘net. I enjoy our debate, but I’ve already put far more effort into improving my communications here than I do with most people I know in my day to day life.

In the end I’m OK with being seen as an arrogant asshole. And, in many ways I truly am.

@Ms. J & Ted #705:
“Nah. I’m painfully aware of the fact that I am not further along in my career because I don’t “play” office politics. I understand the “importance” of people skills, I simply do not feel that the rewards for such BS is worth the effort.”

“A lot of people feel this way. If you are bright enough to write your own ticket then it works for you. BUT it is significant that the most successful men are shmoozers. Bill Clinton is the ultimate example. He was certainly bright enough, but his real talent was making people, men included, feel like he could “feel their pain.” It’s one thing to say it’s not personally important to you, or even to go to the length of proclaiming yourself above all that, but most people pay the price for not being good at office politics. AND the rewards for being good at it are phenomenal. As a kid, I was led to believe that “my giftedness” would be a key to success. Frankly, I’ve found it to be just as much a gift and a handicap.”

O: I can see what both of you are saying here, and I mean that in the most personal of ways. I too, like Ted, have elected not to play the “office politics game” for precisely the reasons he has mad clear; and like Ted, it has cost me. I’ve told bosses to their face that I had no intention of laughing at their corny jokes, told other bosses flatly that they were incompetent et al, and have paid the price for it (in case anyone’s curious, they never dealt with the “truthiness” of what I said, LOL). I was always regarded as among, if not thee most competent, and hardest working, Man on the team – one who could do the work of an entire team myself, and often did; my performance was above reproach. But, it wasn’t enough to stave off the consequences for my, shall we say, candor, LOL. Nor do I have any regrets for any of that; while I cannot speak for Ted, I for one would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.

Having said that though, Ms. J is also right to note that in the world in which we live, those with “people skills” can and will get further ahead. Her mention of Bill Clinton is most fitting as well, because as she rightly points out, he’s an exemplary example of what she’s talking about; in so many ways, he is the ideal of what “A Woman’s Nation” leader looks and sounds like; qualities like empathy and consensus building, are hugely important to Women. To take another example, Picard was in no way like Kirk, LOL. The former was much more in line with Clinton, than Kirk will ever be, except in one respect, and we all know what that is (cue the Green-skinned Babe).

And even there, we know that there is a key difference between Kirk and Clinton – Kirk had no shame, in his Game, while Clinton was quite a sneaky you know what. And so, while I would be the first one to acknowledge his great intelligence and political skill, I also wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him. His “female traits” make him suspect in Guy World. Scarface/Tony Montana wouldn’t trust him either.

What really got me about Clinton, was how all the Feminists reacted to his Monicagate scandal – to them, it was no thang; they were more than willing to overlook it – Eric Jong even offered to fellate him(!). Of course, Bob Packwood was deemed a peckerwood by the ladies, LOL. Just goes to show, that if you’re a Favored Male, you can and will get away with quite a bit. I’m just sayin’.

O.

Ana – I liked your pack/herd post a great deal! Good stuff!

“See my Pack explanation the winners of the sphere are not among the whiners or the ones that think that women “should man up and grow a thick skin because that is the way men communicate” the ones that are going to make change effective are people like Athol, Glenn Sacks, Susan… Barring war or revolution systems must be destroyed from the inside and given that all this is driven by women telling them “You are a solipsistic idiot” will only end with her shutting out and labeling you misogynist and the message will be lost. If you find a way to go all Cosmo on her she will listen and learn.”

You are assuming that *I* want to BE one of those people that “bridge the gaps” and lead us into a new great future. I’m not, and I’ve said before that I know I wouldn’t be good at that task anyway.

To be honest, I like the “war/revolution” method better than the “work within the system” method when it comes to fixing things as screwed up as Western Society is. If I had to choose between a lifetime of hard work trying to convince others to change, or a decade of pure misery followed by the perfect world, I’d take that decade hands down. I don’t have patience, and I don’t like taking things slowly (once I’ve decided to actually DO something. THAT process can take forever…)

So, while you, Susan, and others here are hoping for a diplomatic solution, I’m actually hoping for a crash and burn. I have no faith in people, and the only way to HAVE a diplomatic solution is to work WITH people. What you propose would be good advice if I wanted to make peace with and allies of young women behaving badly. I have no desire to do that. I’d much prefer to call a spade a spade, and let their discomfort at being called out push them to change their behavior.

Like I said, I really do tend to lean towards negative reinforcement when it comes to curbing bad behavior.