I started speaking truth to power early. And my older brothers didn’t like it. They told me that archness in a 10-year-old was not welcome.In other words, she discovered what she needed to do in order to have her brothers like her, but then decided it wasn't worth it. Their preferences didn't justify her behavioral modification. This would, of course, be perfectly fine had she accepted the subsequent consequences with any grace, but instead, she has written literally years of columns complaining that her life isn't what she wanted it to be.
I concocted a plan to prove how boring life would be if you were just nice all the time, how much more bracing it is to have sweetness laced with tartness. I told them I would be very, very nice until they asked me to stop, certain that they’d get sick of saccharine and syrupy in short order.
Except they didn’t. They liked it. After a week, I’d overdosed on sugar myself and gave up, going back to my old ways of being angelic or devilish, depending on the provocation.
But before you judge her and decide that she is stupid, consider if you aren't doing precisely the same thing. If you want to stick stubbornly to your own delusional view of the way women should be, or attempting to appeal to what you think women should like rather than what they do like, that's your call. But then, stop whining about your lack of success.
Game isn't magic, it is, quite literally, science. It is the result of hypothesis, observation, and experiment. It is both fully falsifiable and easily replicable. And it is far more indicative of a predilection for science denial to reject Game than to reject the global warming hypothesis or the theory of evolution by natural selection; you can very easily go out and attempt to falsify the hypotheses of Game yourself tonight.
15 comments:
Heck, you don't even have to go out to test some of it. Go to a dating/chat site and open chats with 20 women. Compliment 10 of them and neg 10 of them, and see what happens. Or create two different dating profiles, one with lots of earnest nice-guy stuff about how much you appreciate women, and one that you're convinced is so rude it will get you kicked off the site, and see what happens.
But once you've done that experiment, do go out and confirm that it works in the real world too, because some anti-game people will move the goalposts by saying that doesn't translate.
She gave into the dark side. Darth Dowd.
Ah, if she was only brave enough to speak truth to hamster.
Patience and Fortitude are still virtues. Both men and women are called to seek them. We need to simultaneously deal with the fact we are fallen, and which form that fall takes (solipcism is a form of hubris), yet call each other to rise above out fallen natures as much as possible.
Yet even Dowd fails. She is not speaking truth to power. She is taking hubris in her superiority.
For reality itself is foinded on truth, and someone who is erring is violating and going to be corrected by a greater power. So proper correction and wise advice are usually welcomed when not coming from a big ego. The gentle and humble "that is not right". Someone wise and virtuous will listen to wisdom.
And so Dowd ends up a barren spinster - truth came to her, but her powerful ego rejected it.
A wise, intelligent, and strong in the feminine way wife as Proverbs 31 would be welcome by and man. But that strength must be in submission. One can easily mistake weakness - submission to anything - as submission to the husband. But similarly submission is easier to someone stronger.
There is nothing more gleeful than throwing the science book at egalitarian science fetishists.
I don't complain, I just don't see the value in voluntarily subjecting myself to womens' whims and the vicissitudes of their captured legal and cultural system. The women in my life have been nigh-uniformly scolds, harridans, feminists and selfish solipsistic beasts, and there are very few that I would count as true friends. I am as polite to them in day-to-day interactions as I would be to police, and try to keep my interactions with them just as brief.
Bitches gonna bitch, players gonna play, and I'm perfectly happy watching from the sidelines, or finding something else to do with my time.
I have always been a natural nicey-nice girl. Quiet, easy going, passive, sugar sweet, not a bitchy bone in my body. Somewhere in my teen years, I decided to play that up, thinking it would get me a lot of friends, praise, and rewards of other kinds. What it actually got me was a whole lot of being used and walked on, being accused of being fake and boring, by both men and women. The only reason why a lot of people liked me was for their own selfish reasons. They knew they could get their way with me and get things from me. This is just no way to live, for anyone. Now I don't advocate going the opposite direction and being a completely unpleasant asshole, but there's a middle ground where people can remain nice, yet assertive enough to let people know what lines they shall not cross.
"(solipsism is a form of hubris)"
You got it. And hubris is followed by Nemesis. Pride goes before destruction. A haughty spirit leads to a fall. Now that is a science, proven by a few thousand years of observation.
@loveashley.net said:
"I have always been a natural nicey-nice girl. Quiet, easy going, passive, sugar sweet, not a bitchy bone in my body. Somewhere in my teen years, I decided to play that up, thinking it would get me a lot of friends, praise, and rewards of other kinds. What it actually got me was a whole lot of being used and walked on, being accused of being fake and boring, by both men and women. "
You have actually hit the nail right on the head there. Nice means being walked on, being taken advantage of, and, quite often, actually being fake because you think people will like you. Spend even a little time around the 'sphere and you will see that as the description of the Nice Guy (aka AFC).
Sweet, on the other hand, is being pleasant, not necessarily a pushover, and is an extremely desirable trait in a woman. I have met plenty of nice women - I've met very few who had a sweet disposition.
I concocted a plan to prove how boring life would be if you were just nice all the time, how much more bracing it is to have sweetness laced with tartness. I told them I would be very, very nice until they asked me to stop, certain that they’d get sick of saccharine and syrupy in short order.
Except they didn’t. They liked it.
Heh. As per usual, a woman assumes that male preferences are the same a female preferences.
She thinks niceness and sweetness are boring - which they are, to a woman - and that "archness", "tartness", and unpredictability ("being angelic or devilish") are attractive - which they are, to a woman.
This is the same basic error as a man trying to attract women by being sweet and nice and doing things for her because that's what he wants in a mate.
Exactly this.
It's hard to drum up sympathy for a woman who shit in her own bed, then pissed in it, especially as she continues to wallow in her own filth.
I am thankful that she serves as a perfect example I can use to educate my daughters of how not to proceed through life.
Compare Dowd with Megan Mcardle who, probably in the process of scraping herself off The Wall, has realized that snark is not good for you and doesn't reflect well on your character: "Sarcasm and outrage are easy, which is why they tend to peak in adolescence, unlike, say, mastery of nuclear physics"
Of course Down was certainly prettier than Mcardle at their relative peaks, so she had a little more room to sabotage her SMV without disaster.
Game may not be magic but I don't think it's science either. It's more like a religion and judging by the reaction of PUAs when you question their religion it could get beheaded as an infidel.
"If you want to stick stubbornly to your own delusional view of the way women should be, or attempting to appeal to what you think women should like rather than what they do like, that's your call. But then, stop whining about your lack of success."
And here we have it! The definitive statement that should give every man from here on out the answer to the question, "why is this MY fault??!?
I do have a different angle, though. Men state they want sweet women, and we actually do want sweet women. Women advertise, teach, preach, whisper, scream, and in all other ways but one that they want a nice guy. One that can make them laugh. Prince Charming.
That last way, you know the, one way they don't indicate that they want a nice guy, that is in how they act. Yes, the old "actions speak louder than words" meme. Even sadder, and even more maddening, is that women do not accept that their actions REALLY DO speak louder than words. "Women Dig Jerks" through their actions. The guy that hits them, cheats, lies, steals from them. The guy that beats up the nice guys for no reason. That is the one she digs.
That aint your fault. Women (taken on the whole - I have found a couple in my multiple decades of experience that were not) are mostly crazy. I say "mostly" because you can sometimes have a moment with even the bat sh*t crazy ones that let you know that somewhere, deeeeeeep down, hidden under the skank gene, which is behind the b*tch sheild genes, protected by the Great Wall of China barrier of lie genes, deep down there is a woman. Sweet and soft.
(good luck with that)
Men want what we want. Sweet, feminine, caring, gentle, nurturing, (and let us not forget hot) women. Now, when we are alone, we prefer things to look more like that scene from Scooby Doo where Shag and Scoob are holding on to the run-away fire hose, but up until the time when we are alone we prefer chaste women.
The pump-and-dump has been a learned response to women's desires as portrayed through their actions. I don't subscribe to the theory that we should all become pump-and-dump artists.
I do, however, strongly suggest that you learn game for two reasons: 1. Spotting and recognizing the lunacy in women. If you can fathom how deep the current goes, you can judge whether or not you could spend a lifetime navigating it. 2. Navigation. You HAVE to learn game to navigate even the mirror-like pond of a feminine woman because anyone or anything might be a boulder thrown into that pond and you need to be able to navigate like the sea-dog of old.
THAT is what can be considered your fault. If you don't learn to navigate the waters. If you have a condition, that is not your fault. Nobody faults a man for catching a cold, or cancer, but if you KEEP getting the same thing, somebody somewhere will ask you, "Don't you think you ought to do something about that?"
Game is indeed a science in that it's tenets are falsifiable. As a comparison, although there is not a lot of peer reviewed classically academic work devoted to hunting or fishing strategy, theories about what works to efficiently and consistently put meat on the table are nevertheless immediately testable.
Whether you are talking meat or sex it's the same -- are you starving? If yes, then your strategy is flawed.
Game is indeed a science in that it's tenets are falsifiable. As a comparison, although there is not a lot of peer reviewed classically academic work devoted to hunting or fishing strategy, theories about what works to efficiently and consistently put meat on the table are nevertheless immediately testable.
Whether you are talking meat or sex it's the same -- are you starving? If yes, then your strategy is flawed.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.