[I]t will be found that the fundamental fault of the female character is that it has no sense of justice. This is mainly due to the fact, already mentioned, that women are defective in the powers of reasoning and deliberation; but it is also traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex. They are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. For as lions are provided with claws and teeth, and elephants and boars with tusks, bulls with horns, and cuttle fish with its clouds of inky fluid, so Nature has equipped woman, for her defence and protection, with the arts of dissimulation; and all the power which Nature has conferred upon man in the shape of physical strength and reason, has been bestowed upon women in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman, and almost as much a quality of the stupid as of the clever. It is as natural for them to make use of it on every occasion as it is for those animals to employ their means of defence when they are attacked; they have a feeling that in doing so they are only within their rights.Now, the obvious female response will be an instinctive one that tends to underline Schopenhauer's point, which is to accuse him of having been a misogynist and promptly refusing to pay any attention to what he has written. It's an understandable and perfectly natural reaction to what will almost surely be viewed as an attack. But this would be a massive mistake, because as it happens, Schopenhauer's conclusions are hardly singular when one considers the various great thinkers of human history who have addressed the subject. As a general rule, if you find yourself on the opposite side of the issue from individuals whose intelligence has been highly regarded for centuries, it's probably a good idea to take their position seriously even if you completely disagree with it at first glance.
What is interesting about this conceptual unity from the modern perspective is that these men were writing about sexual equality before the equalitarian era, which has subsequently confirmed in almost every way those statements that can now be reasonably described as prophetic assertions. Consider this statement, which could easily be written today in response to the female relationship with the welfare state:
That woman is by nature meant to obey may be seen by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of complete independence, immediately attaches herself to some man, by whom she allows herself to be guided and ruled.The situation actually played out rather worse than Schopenhauer anticipated here, however, as women will readily attach themselves to an authority or even a mode of thought and obey it as slavishly as any man. This is why the great authoritarians of the world, including Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, and Mao were all strong supporters of sexual equality in politics.
But these are macro level subjects that Schopenhauer addresses, how do they apply in Game-related terms on the practical level? To give one example, Roosh explains the significance of the statement that "to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes."
This is a fact that white knights will never understand. As any game practitioner knows, a woman does not respect you if you respect her. Call this sad or unfortunate but that’s the reality of human nature. Women do not like you if you attribute value to them that is not actually there. Complimenting a woman beyond her appearance, such as on her personality, courage, intelligence, or what have you, is a sure-fire way to not sleep with her. Even complimenting her beauty has become dangerous.I think Roosh takes it a little too far initially and then dials it back to the correct observation. Men habitually praise women for things that do not merit praise in men. Being sensitive to dishonesty for the reasons Schopenhauer mentioned, women sense this and find it supplicating and contemptible in much the same manner men would. There is nothing wrong with granting respect to a woman, or to a child for that matter when it is merited, but it is fundamentally unmanly and dishonest to grant praise or respect for pedestrian actions or nonexistent qualities.