Shall we meet about the meeting?

I don't even understand this form of communication.

Sabrina Schaeffer ‏@SL_Schaeffer
A beautiful morning in Dallas. Ready to talk about changing the conversation about women.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
I really think we should discuss whether it is the right time to talk about changing the conversation first.

What is "the conversation about women?" And why must it be changed?

Irrational discourse

From a conversation on Twitter:

 Vanir ‏@Vanir85
 @voxday the problem (for misogynists) is women CHOOSING instead of being wifebots or sex-slaves. it's almost like they're *people*

Vox Day ‏@voxday
The real objection is to the way so many women are choosing to stuff their faces and evolve into land whales.

Vanir ‏@Vanir85
because looking thin for men is NOT the most important thing in their life, i imagine. and good for them :)

If you want to know how to make an SJW dance like a puppet, just utilize their contrarian instincts. Once you have been identified as a badthinker, they will say literally anything so long it is in opposition to you. And they almost never think beyond reacting to your immediate statement.

One easy way to recognize an SJW white knight is how he will reflexively defend women under any and all circumstances. Think about how objectively silly his response is, it's not even logically coherent.

WK: The problem is X.
VD: No, the problem is Y.
WK: I imagine Z, and Z is good!

I don't know about you, but I certainly find it convincing! SJWs are so haplessly irrational and limited to the rhetorical level that they don't realize an appeal to their own imagination doesn't even rise to the level of logical fallacy. At this point, you already know that there is absolutely no point in even trying to utilize reason or talking to such an individual. Whether you choose to entertain yourself by kicking your interlocutor around or to simply ignore him is totally irrelevant. The point is that you have been informed that any form of rational discourse is not in the cards.

The past has consequences

Rollo astutely juxstaposes Sheryl Sandberg's advice for women to sow their wild oats with Alphas, then settle down with Deltas and Gammas afterwards with one woman's actual experience of having her past unexpectedly disclosed to her husband:

As of this morning, we still hadn’t slept in the same bed or spoken more than 10 words to each other in passing. As I was waking up, he was walking in the front door with two coffees. He sat me down at our kitchen table and finally opened up to me.

Basically he feels that he was “conned” (his word) into the marriage, saying that he wouldn’t have even dated me, let alone married me, if he’d known what he knows now. His view of me has been irreparably changed and he no longer sees me “as someone worthy of being [his] wife”. (quoting him here… fucking prick) Beyond the sexual aspect, he says he no longer trusts me because I “kept something this big” from him our whole relationship. Nothing I could do or say could convince him that these were past mistakes and not reflective of who I am today. He wasn’t angry with me, didn’t call me a slut or anything like that. Never once raised his voice. Part of me wishes he did, although I can’t exactly say why right now. It felt like I was being laid off from a job.

So that’s it. We are getting divorced. My supposed life-partner turning his back on me without a second thought. He didn’t even have the decency to discuss it with me first – apparently he visited his lawyer during the week and “the process is in motion” (his words). Knowing him, there is absolutely no changing his mind.

My husband owns multiple businesses and wouldn’t get married without a prenup. I signed it, honest-to-god thinking we’d never, EVER have to use it. Well, he had the fucking document with him this morning. He said he’d pay off the remainder of my student loans, which he isn’t “legally obligated” to do. While I appreciate that, I am going to meet with my lawyer this week and see if the agreement can be challenged in court. We have built a life together, I gave him 5 of the best years of my life and I’ve been 100% faithful to him – I don’t fucking deserve to be tossed out like a piece of trash.

So that’s it. My life turned upside-down in the span of a week, over something I did 10+ YEARS AGO BEFORE I EVEN KNEW HIM. It’s fucking asinine. The thing is, even as I wrote the original post, in the back of my mind I knew he was through with me. He’s ended friendships and business partnerships over less.

As Rollo points out: "One of the primary disconnects women are conditioned to believe during their Epiphany Phase is that a “good man” will be willing to forgive and forget her past indiscretions. On their journey of self-exploration and discovery women are encouraged to adopt a finely tuned cognitive dissonance with who they conveniently become and what should be the consequences of their pasts. While men are expected to live up to their responsibilities as men, and are expected to own up to the consequences of their failures, at the Epiphany Phase women are encouraged to convince themselves that they become someone else – someone who was “so different” from who she was in her Party Years. Her husband feels “conned” because he was conned; conned after discovering the dual personality of his pre and post Epiphany Phase wife."

It seems to me this gentleman was absolutely, if belatedly, correct about his wife's complete lack of character and he's doing the right thing by kicking her to the curb as quickly and cleanly as possible. Not only did she conceal her past from him, but now that she's been caught out, she's trying to figure out how to escape an arrangement she agreed to even though he's going beyond his legal obligations by paying off her student loans. (Is anyone even remotely surprised that a woman like this has debt?) Her Female Imperative of the right to historical revisionism and the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed has been violated, and rather than regretting her mistakes, she is enraged by the consequences of them.

Women always want to believe the past is irrelevant, which is remarkably stupid because the past informs who and what we are today. And those pasts can only be fully understood and accepted if they are admitted; lying about them is foolish because most lies are eventually exposed sooner or later over time. Not everyone is short-sighted enough to live only for today; most women don't want to be married to such men anyway since they tend to be unreliable and unable to support women and children.

Expecting any man who is sufficiently far-sighted to successfully launch multiple businesses and insist on a pre-nup to react like some drug-addled musician who can't remember yesterday or think past tomorrow is cognitive dissonance of the sort that gets Epiphany Phase women in trouble. If a woman is a slut in college, she's still a slut even when she cleans up her act, she's a reformed slut. Epiphany equals reform, not erasing history. A reformed slut is not the same thing as a woman who is not a slut. That doesn't mean the reformed slut can't be a lovely individual, or that she is a woman no man will marry, it simply means she can't marry any man who isn't willing to marry a slut. This isn't rocket science.

Once a gambler, always a gambler. Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. Once a player, always a player. Once a slut, always a slut. It's about the internal wiring, not the external actions. Even when one gets one's behavior under control, the wiring is still there.

And if the reformed slut does marry under false pretenses, she's a con artist, and she should be no more surprised when the man she conned no more wants to continue the marriage than Bernie Madoff's victims wanted to continue their investments with him.

Debate, feminist style

 

Never bother with dialectic when dealing with a feminist. Their use of dialectic is only for superficial rhetorical purposes, and the veil is tissue-thin. Just go directly to rhetoric, flay them, roll them in salt, and then, if you happen to feel like it, address the nominally dialectical point for the sake of any third parties observing.

They're not really laughing

Like SJWs and feminists, women often like to spin the public narrative in order to try to prevent men from learning from positive examples

This text message is being passed around, supposedly because it is so hilarious. And while it does sound a little strange to hear a man complaining about his girlfriend being rude to his cat, let's look at the complaints:

1. She won't admit she's dating him in public. That alone is a good reason to dump her; indeed, given that, he doesn't even owe her an explanation. If they're not in a relationship, then he can (and probably should) walk away in silence.
2. She doesn't bring him as her date to social event. That's just a different facet of the first point.
3. Okay, that's funny. But who wants to be with someone who dislikes their pet? I wouldn't have dated anyone who didn't harbor the appropriate admiration for my viszla.
4. If you're not a woman's priority, she's probably having sex with someone else. Also a legitimate reason.
5. Most men dislike women swearing like a sailor. This is a perfectly good reason for dumping a woman.
6. This is also a good reason to decline a relationship with a woman. If she won't come clean, then the appropriate assumption is that she is a slut and the probabilities of a successful long-term relationship are lower than the norm.

This guy obviously did the right thing in nexting this woman. The only mistake he made was bothering to tell her why. The next time a woman complains about a man not telling her why he's not interested in her any more, just reference the way that this man's reasons were made public and mocked.

Besides, it's a basic principle of Game to never explain your reasons to a woman. Reasons and justifications are ammunition. The more her mind is spinning and inventing various explanations for your actions, the better. The correct thing to do is to simply say, "I don't think this is working, I don't want to continue this anymore." Leave it at that. If she presses, just say, "No, I don't see any point in discussing it to death. It's done."

A lesson in online debate

This Twitter exchange should help illustrate why the critics of Game are so hesitant to directly challenge any of the leading Game bloggers; despite their pretensions they know very well that they are overmatched. It's not even a little bit difficult to expose their inability to intellectually hold their own, let alone beat us, even when using the very limited medium of Twitter.

RedPillPhil
@DavidFutrelle our all-stars like @heartiste, @Steve_Sailer, @ChuckGLP, @Aurini, @voxday would intellectually eat you alive

Vanilla Rose
@RedPillPhil Um, this is embarrassing. For you. @DavidFutrelle has ripped the writing of @heartiste, @voxday et al to shreds. Regularly.

RedPillPhil
he won't directly debate them though. He just makes snarky little hit pieces.

David Futrelle
I've written many times about @heartiste and @voxday. They're (accidentally) hilarious!

Vanilla Rose
@DavidFutrelle exposes the stupidity of the writing of @heartiste, @voxday, @rooshv and others.

Vox Day
Snarking and posturing != ripped to shreds. He's simply not in our league.

David Futrelle
Vox, you rip yourself to shreds every time you open your mouth or type words on a screen.

Vox Day
Irrelevant. Even if true, in that case, you're still not doing it. It doesn't support the claim.

David Futrelle
I'll take on any "dark enlightenment" bloggers (that's hard to say w/ a straight face) in a cat pic duel.

Vox Day
Why not take me on in an actual debate. An easy topic like: should women have voting rights?

David Futrelle
Yes, women should have voting rights, because they, like men, are human. I win the debate! The end. Thanks!

Vox Day
Sorry, David, you haven't won yet. Yes, you are human. Did you vote in the recent EU elections?

David Futrelle
No. I vote where I live, in the US.. So are you contending that no women live in the countries they vote in?

Vox Day
I'm demonstrating to you that merely being human grants no voting rights. Do you concur?

David Futrelle
There are a few basic requirements for having the right to vote besides being human but being male isn't one

David Futrelle
There is no reasonable reason to deny anyone the vote because of gender.

David Futrelle
... and that's preetty much the end of the argument, despite whatever spurious reason you come up with to deny women the vote. Debate over.

Vox Day
You're begging the question.

Of course, their cognitive disadvantage isn't the only reason they prefer to stay at a safe distance and snark and posture rather than attempt to directly engage and destroy our arguments in front of our supporters. Critics such as Futrelle and Scalzi are of low socio-sexual rank, which means that they have the usual gamma male's distaste for conflict that has a clear winner. The reason is that as long as they can avoid losing, they can still claim victory in their delusional gamma style.

Notice how Futrelle tries to immediately declare himself the winner. This is normal. It's all about the spin with gammas; substance is to be avoided to the greatest extent possible because the more of it there is, the harder it becomes to spin the selected narrative. They are undefeated in their own minds, victors in a long series of imaginary encounters. But even in a short, character-limited exchange such as this, I was able to show Futrelle's reasoning to be incorrect twice, so it is little wonder he does not dare risk a more in-depth encounter with me or one of the other men. The longer it went on, the more inconsistencies I would have been able to expose. Once he realized this, he promptly repeated his initial position and retreated.

This is why we are winning. This is why we will win. Our critics and our enemies have to run away from us every single time we enter a new arena. All we have to do to continue convincing men of the truth of our perspective is to avoid getting lazy, to keep developing and presenting refined ideas, and to remember that rhetoric is no substitute for dialectic. And every time there is a minor encounter of this sort, more people will see that there is no rational foundation for the feminized dogma our opponents are so ineptly defending.

Female advice and the Sex-22

It's always amusing to hear female opinions on how to solve a crisis caused by female behavior. Mostly because their first instinctive response is to deny it is a crisis:

“I think the fact that the guy communicates via a spreadsheet is the reason why he’s not getting sex,” is the verdict from relationship counsellor Francine Kaye. “If a man wants to be desired, he has to speak to a woman’s feminity. He has to stop complaining and start thinking 'What do I have to do in order for her to want to have sex?’ ”

A good start is the kind of wooing behaviour most husbands assumed they had left behind as soon as the ring was on the bridal finger. Erroneously, they think that compliments and flowers, hand-holding and general attentiveness are not just unnecessary but cheesy once they are married. Cheesy they may be, but necessary – as attested by the short shrift given to Mr Spreadsheet.

Did I not call that yesterday? What is relationship counsellor Kaye's statement, if not a retroactive justification of a woman's action. Translation: start paying attention to other women. Then she'll magically find her missing motivation. There are three things that speak to a woman's femininity.

1. Be attractive
2. Don't be unattractive
3. Competition aka (1) and (2) seen through the mechanism of other women

Choreplay doesn't work. Romance doesn't work. Vacations don't work. Talk doesn't work. Men have tried those things many, many, many times. Here is why it will never work to do what a woman says you need to do in order to make her want to have sex: the moment you do what she tells you is necessary, that "creates pressure" on her to fulfill her end of the implicit bargain. And women under pressure to have sex don't want to have sex, because women don't want to have sex under pressure, ergo doing what she tells you necessarily ENSURES that she will not want to have sex.

Did you follow that? It's a Catch-22, or in this case, a Sex-22.

1. She says she'll want to have sex if you take her to Mazatlan.
2. You take her to Mazatlan.
3. She is now under pressure to want to have sex.
4. Feeling under pressure prevents her from wanting to have sex.
5. Rinse and repeat.

So, don't bother taking her to Mazatlan. Don't waste your time on whatever women advise no matter how many women blithely recite the usual mantras. Go back to the basics. Go to the gym, improve your style, focus on your career and making more money, and either a) she'll be more attracted to you or b) someone else will.

You can't fix someone else. You can't change someone else. You can only control your own actions. If she wants spend her life as a sexless slug parked in front of a television, that's her choice and its on her. No one else.

The relationship terrorists

It should go without saying that the men who are being victimized by these female "relationship terrorists" severely lack Game:

Convention has it that women are the gentler sex. But when it comes to relationships they are more likely than men to be controlling and aggressive, a study claims. Increasing numbers of women can now be classed as ‘intimate  terrorists’, meaning that they are verbally and physically violent towards a partner.

Psychologists at the University of Cumbria questioned 1,104 young men and women using a scale of behaviour which ranged from shouting and insulting to pushing, beating and using weapons.

They discovered that women were ‘significantly’ more likely to be  verbally and physically aggressive to men than vice versa. They concluded that violence was linked to controlling behavior such as checking up on partners and persuading them not to see certain friends.

I have to admit, I don't know a single male control freak of the sort that are so often portrayed in the media. But I do know a number of men who can't sit through an entire football game at a friend's house without receiving at least two or three telephone calls from their wives.

Some handle this female tendency better than others. My favorite was the time that, after a friend received a call from his wife during the game, he responded by giving her the following instructions:

1. Turn on the TV to channel X
2. Do you see there are little men running around? Good.
3. When the little men stop running around, set a timer to 15 minutes.
4. Don't call me again until the timer goes off.

Based on what you know of Game, do you think she is attractive or not?

Alpha Mail: identifying female solipsism

Bob Mando usefully explains the way in which female solipsism tends to manifest itself:

To [a female solipsist] the most terrible reality of all is the one in which anyone OTHER THAN an adult woman has any say or influence on events. This is really the Narcissist's inability to comprehend ( much less respect ) the boundaries of others.

Marion Zimmer Bradley gets off on fondling her own daughter? Okay, because 'children don't have erogenous zones'.

A husband wants to have sex with his wife? Impermissible because it interferes with the woman's absolute control of the relationshit ... and therefore must be characterized in the most ludicrous terms possible ( so if the woman has just given birth after 20 hours of labor the husband can demand to maritally rape her? you sick Christian bastards! ).

The reason why [the female solipsist] runs to the defense of all adult women everywhere ( the reason of the Sisterhood, actually ) regardless of the vileness of their actions is simple: possession of the One, True, Glittery Hoohaa. It's the flip side of every specific woman being a special snowflake who should be able to demand undying and sexually exclusive access from the man of her dreams.

Because she doesn't actually respect the existence of anyone else, when confronted with a story about a different woman the only way [the female solipsist] processes it is by casting herself (identifying with ) whoever the adult woman in the story is.

Notice that this gives men an easy way to test for female solipsism. Simply criticize a woman who is not the woman with whom you are speaking, and who shares no significant characteristics with her except for her sex. If the woman leaps to the other woman's defense in a manner that indicates she is identifying with that woman despite their differences, the chances are very high that she is solipsistic to an extent that will cause relationship problems.

The solipsist inserts herself into EVERY topic being discussed.

TOPIC: Marion Zimmer Bradley rapes children?
ANALYSIS: What if SHE were to rape a child? SHE would certainly not want to be held responsible and punished for it.
CONCLUSION: Marion Zimmer Bradley did not do anything wrong when she raped children.

TOPIC: A wife's obligation to have sex with her husband.
ANALYSIS: What if SHE were to get married and find herself bound by an obligation to have sex with her husband? SHE would certainly not want to surrender any control over her sexuality to a man.
CONCLUSION: Marriage does not create any obligation for a wife to have sex with her husband.

Relationship advice

Pro tip: when attempting to make up with a boyfriend or girlfriend on whom you have cheated, do not, under any circumstances*, quote ADOLF HITLER!

*Unless your boyfriend or girlfriend is a confirmed neo-Nazi. Then I suppose it might be all right. But otherwise, no.

30 questions

I'm contemplating writing the first Alpha Game book this summer. Rather than doing my usual thing and writing an esoteric 750-page monster that mostly revolves around abstract principles, I'm going to focus on addressing, in a clear and succinct manner, the 30 primary questions that young men have concerning intersexual relations.

For example, the first question I have addressed is: Why doesn't she like me?

So, here is my question to you all. Given that the focus is on young men from 15-25, what are the questions you would most like to see addressed and answered in this book?

A year in Alpha

Happy New Year to everyone, be ye alpha or omega. 2013 was a banner year for Alpha Game, as the historical traffic measured in Google pageviews indicates:

2011: 546,438
2012: 1,675,300
2013: 3,771,032

Despite the growth in traffic, I can't say that I'm particularly pleased with my blogging here this year. While I got a little better about posting here on a regular basis, I did not feel the quality was not entirely satisfactory. And while I was pleased to bring some excellent posts by others to your attention, I didn't feel that my original contributions were up to par. I'm hoping to do better in 2014, but regardless, I'm pleased to see how AG is developing its own community of those interested in delving deeper into intersexual relations.

2013 saw some big steps forward for Game, from mainstream reporters getting in touch with some of the more significant Game bloggers to Dr. Helen Smith publishing Men On Strike. I hope that the Game community will continue to challenge and support each other as we stand in steadfast opposition to the equalitarian feminist regime that has been imposed upon the men of the West.

The interpreter

Yohami never ceases to crack me up. His take on things is not only unique, but regularly makes me laugh. In this case, he observes, quite possibly correctly, that if a woman is asking a question, the answer she is seeking is not necessarily the answer to the literal question asked:

A lot of these questions change if you ask them from the female perspective. A girl is not going to see “guys” as a gender, she’s going to filter “guys she likes”, “guys she really really doesn't like” and the majority of “invisible guys”.

The guys she likes capture her attention and make her curious, she wants to get them – the subtext question is “how do I get them”. The guys she doesn’t like, the question is “how do I get rid of them”. The rest of the guys, she doesn’t care.

As long as they are nice and do her favors.

The question of “what do men would like me to know” is followed by “and that I can use in my favor.” So this quiz should be renamed to “how to gain understanding in the manipulation of men” and hence that’s how I'm calling my post.

But, girls, first things first, men are people, too. We’re not just cattle to be classifie… nevermind.

* * *

What guys think is important, their perspective on life.
Most men are concerned about how to be a good man / the best man they can be / trump other men. Being a winner / being successful is tied to…. wait what? you’re bored already? that’s because I'm actually talking about men, see, you didnt ask the real question:

What do guys [I LIKE] think is important [ ABOUT ME AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH ME], their perspective on life [ AND IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH MINE?]

This is an important lesson. Every man is familiar with the experience of a woman asking him a question and then rapidly losing interest as soon as he answers it. When that happens, there are two possible explanations. Either you are answering in more detail than she would like - and I am regularly guilty of this - or you are answering the wrong question.

The solution is quite simple. Provide minimal answers. Don't explain. If the question is a yes or no answer, answer only yes or no. Make her pry the answer out of you. If she's interested, she will. If she actually has another question in mind, she'll be forced to ask it.

Top 10 Game blogs Q3-13

Here is the quarterly report on the Top 10 Game blogs for the third quarter of 2013. What is most interesting about it is the way it shows considerable growth across the board, in line with the widespread expectations that the Androsphere would begin garnering more mainstream attention this year.

1. Return of Kings: 19,257 (+23,568)
2. Roissy: 35,799 (+19,649)
3. Roosh:  40,281 (+22,711)
4. Rollo:   156,390 (+6,244), 230,395
5. Alpha Game: 183,840 (+23,086), 349,623 (+8.2%) 
6. Dalrock:  190,532 (+60,558)
7. Just4Guys: 221,248 (+486,446)
8. MMSL:    286,495 (+57,471)
9. Keoni Galt: 468,052 (175,049)

The first number is the current Alexa ranking, the number in parentheses is the change in that ranking since the posting of the previous list. The bold number is the three-month average in actual traffic over the quarter, as measured in Google Pageviews. Although my previous estimates were fairly accurate, I am no longer going to calculate them, so if you are a blogger on this list, please send me your three-month average for July, August, and September and I will add it here.

I have removed Hooking Up Smart from the list as a result of Susan Walsh's explicit realignment of her blog. If there are any other Game-related blogs anyone feels merits inclusion on this list, please let me know.

Perhaps because the problem of feminism is most acute in the USA, Game blogs are disproportionately popular there. The top-ranking Game blog, RoK, is 6,323 in the USA. By way of comparison, two outspoken gamma males who consistently attempt to assert that Game bloggers are outliers and outcasts, Manboobz and John Scalzi, come in at 37,268 and 46,650, respectively.

What to do when a girl hits you

At some point, men have to realize that the "never hit a girl" strategy isn't working.  Keep in mind that this man is a U.S. Marine:

She kicked my head into the solid wood base. I blacked out, came to, stood up, bleeding. My daughter was screaming, “Stop hurting daddy!”

It was over. We were over. I headed out the door to the police and then the hospital. My daughter stopped me. “Daddy, you need to go to a doctor, here take this,” she handed me a bandage. “I love you” was the last thing I said to her. It’s been almost a month.

I walked into the police station falling apart. What happened? What will I do next? What happens on Monday? What happens for the rest of my life? How will I explain what just happened to my kids? My head was spinning as much from the injury as from the complete collapse of my home life. I knew the officer, I had came by the night before suspecting that my wife was leaving with the kids, he assumed why I was crying, “hey man, it’s alright, you knew this was going to happen….”

I pulled off my sunglasses and revealed my bloody face. “Whoa, what the hell happened?”

I started piecing together what happened. The argument, her throwing the breakfast I was making for the kids on the ground, grabbing my laptop, the stairs, my kids, screaming. I pulled out the Band-Aid and broke down again.

“Is she hurt? Did you hit her…?” No. Never. I waited.

“We’re sending a car over there to talk to her.” I waited some more.

“You wife is telling a bit of a different story, as happens a lot in these situations, she says you threatened her.”

“We’re going to take you into custody now.”

“Stand up and put your hands behind your back.”

An hour later I was handcuffed to a hospital bed waiting for CAT scan results to know if my head was bleeding. I looked at the officer.

“What do you do when a woman hits you?”

“I don’t know what to tell you, man” he confided. “We don’t like doing these things, but our hands are tied."

The solution is simple. It is very simple and it's very effective. If a woman physically attacks you in a manner that indicates her serious intent to harm you, then you beat the living shit out of her. Beat her so badly, so painfully, that she fears for her life.

Afterwards, calmly explain to her that if she calls the police or tries to press charges after she attacked you and forced you to defend yourself, you'll simply do your 30 days or whatever and then you'll come back and do it again. Only this time, you won't be merely defending yourself. You'll be looking for payback, and payback is a serious bitch. And remind her that the police won't be there until after the fact.

She'll believe you. Remember, first and foremost, women are creatures of fear. Because they are so fearful, they have created a system where men are arrested and punished and lose access to their children even when they are attacked, even when they don't defend themselves. The object is to make her understand that simple fact that the vast edifice of the police and the legal system are totally incapable of protecting her. Which, as it happens, is completely true.

Dalrock wrote about the same article and concluded, presumably at least half tongue-in-cheek: "The only answer is to walk on eggshells and keep her from becoming unhappy, and focus on taking precautions to make it harder for her to use the domestic violence system against him."

That won't work. Now, it is true that women have created what is a no-win legal situation for men.  But what is another word for a no-win situation? A can't-lose situation! In other words, carte blanche.  But there is more to it than that.

Haven't you ever notice that the real male predators, the real abusive men, are very seldom arrested for domestic abuse, and are even less often convicted of anything? On the rare occasions they are charged, they are often released without trial because the women they abuse won't testify against them. That's because abusive men instill fear in their women, and as Roissy has often noted, the defensive cringe is the trigger for female sexual arousal. Abusive men don't select women who just magically happen to be too submissive and fearful to even think of acting crazy and attacking them, they make women that way. That's why women fear them so much. They have a sense of the power men who are willing to use force have over them.

In fact, there is some reason to believe that female craziness and subsequent attacks may stem from an excess of male passivity, engendering not only female contempt, but female violence.  That's not the entirety of the case, but there does appear to be sufficient correlation between female aggressiveness and male passivity to suggest some degree of causation there.

But don't forget the most important part once things calm down. Unless the experience of being on the wrong end of self-defense seriously adjusts her behavior, (and I think this is possible since many women respond very well to harsh reality checks), get the hell out of the relationship as soon as possible. Remember, regardless of what the law says, defending yourself is not abuse, assault is abuse. And no man should subject himself to life with an abusive woman, particularly under the current legal regime.

Now, this advice should not be mistaken for general relationship advice. Notice that it is an IF-THEN statement. I have never laid a hand on my wife in anger, nor has she ever attacked me. Fortunately for most of us, violence is simply not an aspect of our relationships. But we're not talking about most people here, we're specifically addressing men who are suffering domestic abuse compounded by  subsequent legal abuse. And, as per Game, it behooves such men to look at other men, men who are naturals, and learn from their observably more effective tactics for dealing with problematic women.

Alpha Mail: Omega dialogue

SW writes in reply to my request for some examples of his problematic dialogue and the possibility that he was either Aspie or somewhat psychopathic:

Wow, I didn’t realize that I come off as such a pathetic creep. In my defense, I was asking not because I want to have the nicest human lampshades possible (which is extremely disturbing, to say the least, so thanks for providing ample encouragement to work on not being creepy) but because this is going to be a slow, uncomfortable process. I wanted to make sure that the end result won’t be that I’ll simply go from creepy to invisible (I think I can already be invisible enough to get by). 

Anyway, my Asperger’s Quotient is 31, I’d give myself an 18 on Hare’s checklist, and I’ve been told that my writing doesn’t seem quite right by most people who have come across it (I always thought it was just lack of skill though). Usually women will ask questions that they obviously know the answer to, I answer them, and then after a few (rarely more than about 3—I don’t time interactions or anything, I just frequently glance at a clock when I’m not doing anything) minutes of small talk we go about our business. For example, the longest conversation I’ve had (less than 15 minutes) was something along these lines (These aren't the exact words, but I'm pretty sure they're close enough, and as is typical, she seemed to become more and more agitated as time went on):

“Excuse me, there’s supposed to be a comedian performing in room XYZ. Can you show me how to get there?”

Me: “Um…(directions)…you’d better hurry though, the show started a while ago.” (I refrained from telling her that it’s impossible to enter the building without going right past not only the room but the large sign that marks it)

Her: “Thanks…I’m Emily.” (I’m not giving you her real name)

Me: “Sam.”

Her: “I haven’t seen you here before, did you transfer?”

Me: “No…we’re probably just in different programs, what’s your major?”

(I don’t think that precisely what either of us are studying really matters, so I’m skipping that part of the conversation, but neither of us are pursuing useless degrees and we talked about what we wanted to do with them for a little while)

Her: “Did you buy football tickets?”

Me: “No, uh, the team was terrible when I was little and I don’t think they’ve improved much since I moved away.”

Her: “Yeah but the student section is so much fun!”

Me: “True, but since I’m on the bowling team I’ll probably be busy.”

Her: “I didn’t know we had a bowling team.”

Me: “Well, we don’t have a very good one. That’s probably why you didn’t know about it.”

Her: “Ok. Are you living on campus?”

Me: “Actually, my grandparents live in town, so I’m staying with them. They’re getting old, so it’s probably good that I’m there. It’s cheaper too.”

Her: “Oh, how far away are they?”

Me: “It doesn’t matter too much since there’s a bus stop in the front yard.”

Her: “That’s nice. Is that why you decided to come here?”

Me: “Well, that and I wanted to get out of hickville.”

Her: “Where’s hickville?”

Most conversations are shorter (normally one of us will break it off before she becomes as visibly uncomfortable as “Emily” did) but my questions are more or less the same (what are you majoring in, what do you want to do/where do you want to work, where are you from—this one I’m careful to phrase in a way that makes “Florida” specific enough—why did you pick this school, etc.).

The most obvious problem I see in this dialogue is something I see with many gammas and low deltas.  They can be RELENTLESSLY disagreeable and are often looking to put a negative spin on the interaction, correct the other individual, or otherwise dispute with their interlocutor.  Look at how SW is shooting down literally everything Emily says, but not in a fun way or in a manner that indicates he is uninterested in her, more as if he is a clerk at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Monotone voice: Would you like to spend a lifeless, depressing evening with me during which time I will repeatedly contradict you and explain to you why everything you do, say, and think is wrong?
Cheerful girl: I'd rather kill myself!
Monotone voice: She doesn't like me. No women like me.  I wonder why?

So, my suggestion for SW is that he experiment with not expressing any negativity in his next 10 interactions with women.  Let's give some examples of things he could have said that would likely have sparked a higher level interest rather than killing the initial interest.

Her: “I haven’t seen you here before, did you transfer?”

Me: “That's good, that means you're not a criminal. See, I spend most of my time fighting crime. For the people."

Her: “Did you buy football tickets?”

Me:  "I would have liked to, but, you know, the crime-fighting thing."

Her: “I didn’t know we had a bowling team.”

Me: “I think you'd be very attracted to them. They're some of the finest athletes on campus."

SW needs to learn that women don't ask questions of strange men in order to receive information. They do it to make contact and open the communications channel. He would do much better to evade answering their questions than to provide one monotonous factual answer after another.  This may be his high AQ sabotaging him: a question was asked, therefore it must be answered.  So, let's see if we can reprogram his Aspie tendencies with two new rules that supersede the old ones:

1. The word "no" is not permitted in casual conversation with women.  You must avoid all negative and disagreeable responses to them.
2. You may not directly answer any question a woman asks you.  Answers must be upbeat, evasive, and preferably misleading.

Remember, the core Game concept is Agree and Amplify, not Answer and Explain.  I encourage SW to give this modified approach a whirl and report back when he has some real world results.

Top 10 Game blogs Q213

The two Rs still lead the way, and at this rate, may soon be considered the three Rs.  In the second quarter, Rollo came on like a hurricane, at least in Alexa terms, moving up significantly from number nine to number five.  The net Alexa rankings for the top ten blogs improved by a cumulative -848,120, mostly thanks to Rational Male. The top ten Game blogs are below, listed in terms of estimated monthly pageviews and actual Alexa rankings.

Remember that Alexa rankings are based on links, not pageview traffic. Actual Google pageviews are listed in bold along with the percentage change from the previous quarter for those blogs reporting traffic.  Italicized traffic numbers are estimates based on previous traffic and updated Alexa rank.

1. TRoK: 2,350,00, 42,825 (-4,813)
2. Roissy: 2,150,000, 55,448 (+187)
3. Roosh:  1,650,000, 62,992 (+8,436)
4. HUS:    450,000, 146,943 (+27,735)
5. Rollo:   425,000, 162,634, (-1,414,514)
6. AG:    323,079 (+6.5%), 206,926 (-20,276)
7. Dalrock:  218,500 (-7.9%), 251,090 (+66,287)
8. MMSL:    140,000 343,966 (+103,486)
9. Keoni:    73,557 (+1.8%), 643,101 (-116,531)
10. Just4Guys: 60,000, 707,694

Alpha Game was up in terms of pageviews and rank, but was passed easily by Rollo anyhow. I was a little surprised to see Dalrock decline in Alexa terms because he's been doing some excellent, widely-cited posts of late, so I suspect their rankings are delayed and we'll see him move up in Q3.  The new group blog, Just Four Guys, featuring Han Solo and the notorious Ted D, among others, managed to crack the top ten at Badger's expense. If you know another Game blog you think belongs in the top ten, please send me the URL and your justification for it.  If you are one of the listed bloggers, please send me the three-month average pageviews for the months of April, May, and June in the comments and I will update the post.  Be sure to mention if pageviews are Google/Blogger, Wordpress, or some other metric.

Note also that MMSL is increasingly focused on its forums rather than its blog, which is why Athol's site is considerably more trafficked than it looks based solely on the blog numbers.

UPDATE: Now that was some fine guesstimation.  I estimated Dalrock at 220k for Q2 and he reported  Wordpress at 262k, 232k and 196k for the three months involved.  Averaged and corrected for Google/Wordpress (.95) and that came to 218,500.

Top 10 Game blogs Q113

White Knights undermine civilization

Yes, Mr. White Knight, white-knighting really is so bad:

I spent a long time in high school and college trapped deep within the ‘Friend Zone.’ (And if you don’t know what the friend zone is, just think about the guy who you can tell everything to, trust implicitly, yet have absolutely no desire to go out on a date with. That poor soul is trapped in the friend zone.) In fact, I was so nice that one evening, when my friends set me up with a young woman of questionable morals, rather than pick her up, I helped her get back together with her ex boy-friend.

Go me.

But you know what? I like being the nice guy. I think it is still important, and worthwhile. And while I know I’m not as nice as I think I am, I am always trying to be that guy, the one who does the right thing. It’s one of the ways I define myself.

 So why am I writing about this? Well, I’m currently working through a book (review to follow next week) and one of the things said in this book is that guys like me, the White Knights, are enabling women to continue to erode away men’s rights. And while I can understand the point being made I have to disagree because there”s a huge whole in the discussion.

Why are men supposed to be polite?  Why was chivalry important? Why did my mother and father hammer home these behaviors?

Let’s start from the simple truth that as a group, men are stronger and more aggressive than women. Yeah, I know, sexist pig, stereotypes, yadda yadda. Deal with it. Pick 15 random men and 15 random women, match them up one on one, and you’re going to find 12 or more men still standing. That’s just the way it is.

So, women are naturally going to feel about as nervous as a long tailed cat in room full of rocking chairs whenever she is surrounded by a group of men, even if she knows them. It will be even worse if they are strangers. She has no way of knowing whether they will take advantage of the power differential in order to take advantage of her. So what can we do, as men, to allay her very reasonable fears?

As Aristotle pointed out, there are people, like this gamma male, who are totally incapable of learning through the receipt of information.  It's obvious that this guy can't do it, not just because he keeps doing the same thing over and over again even though it produces results he does not like, but because his response - women's fears are very reasonable - is not even related to the claim - women are being enabled to erode away men's rights.

So fear is sufficient to override intrinsic and unalienable rights?  That's the case he is inadvertently making, and it is obviously a non-starter.  So, it is clear we cannot respond to him with dialectical reason, we can only resort to crude rhetoric.

WHITE KNIGHTS ARE HELPING WOMEN DESTROY WESTERN CIVILIZATION!  IF YOU DO NOT LIVE TO WISH IN A CAVE BEING RULED BY TOTALITARIAN THOUGHT POLICE, YOU MUST STOP WHITE KNIGHTING!

Thus endeth the lesson.

Alpha Mail: can she handle the truth?

CS wonders if he should tell a moderate chunker the real reason he's not interested in her:

Much respect to you for your recent posts in response to NK Jesmin, the nauseatingly maudlin Shattersnipe and the portly, uberreactive atheist. Recently, its starting to seem like the entire brigade of fatuous leftist ideologues is surpassing peak shriek in that their inane emoting in response to equality blasphemers like you is becoming more widely perceived as pathetic and tiresome rather than alarming.

You holding firm to the truth, no matter how offensive, got me thinking: I just went out on a date with a girl and, long story short, the only real flaw with her is that she is too heavy (not fat fat but needed to drop 10-15 lbs). We have communicated enough that I'll actually have to provide an explicit reason why I don't want to go out again. The only honest answer I could give is that she is too heavy.

Do I tell her this (even if gently hinted at in euphemistic language)? I know doing something like this sounds completely socially retarded (a couple friends have told me as much) but think about it; if I tell her "we just want different things", "we live too far apart", "I'm seeing someone else" or some other bs, her hamster will be fueled by one of these excuses and she'll fail to confront the real problem which has lead to her being rejected by me and likely any other man with at least a modicum of SMV. Plus, any other excuse I give is a lie. If I tell her the truth she'll likely cry and be upset but at least she can confront her real problem. What do you suggest?

I suggest that this is an excellent application for the Golden Rule.  It's not your responsibility to fix her.  It's not your job to convince her to stop needlessly stuffing her face.  All of us who could stand to lose a few pounds, (and I could stand to cut about five myself), know perfectly well that we're carrying extra weight and what we need to do to get rid of it.  It's just a matter of willpower and lifestyle modification.

Most men have been rejected by women before.  So, do you appreciate the truth or do you prefer the white lie?  If you'd rather have a woman tell you that the reason she isn't interested in seeing you again is that you're too short, or too poor, or too laddish, then be straightforward with her.  That sort of honesty is appropriate for an individual of your straightforward nature and she will likely expect it from you.

If, on the other hand, you tend to prefer the face-saving deception, then that is the tactic you should take. But don't insult her intelligence; if you're going this route the decent thing to do is to make it credible and give her hamster something with which to work.  The one thing to avoid doing is to tell a lame white lie, which only compounds the rejection with an insult.

Alpha Mail: Truth is worth the price

AC is a little surprised at my willingness to be forthright about the physical realities of combat:

I came across your blog via Vivalamanosphere and was stunned to discover that you're an author. The fact that you have this on your blog for all of your fans to see is mind-blowing to me:

"Of course, if we're going to start bringing reality into swords and sorcery, we should probably also take into consideration the fact that even a large, well-trained woman couldn't last thirty seconds against the average warrior.  The correct and realistic portrayal of an armor-era woman is either one who is dead and buried after her brief foray into warrior womanhood or at home, caring for the children that she started bearing in her teens.

"Awkward and combat-inefficient breast plates are the least of the problem. What it is time to retire is the absurd and ahistorical "warrior woman".

"The amusing thing is that throughout the comments, no one even stops to realize that the entire premise of women attempting to fight with swords is physically ridiculous.  If you doubt me, just hand a sword to the closest woman the next time you're in a medieval museum."

This kind of talk sounds like Red Pill wisdom (reality). I would never expect this from someone who writes successfully enough to have multiple books out (and fantasy books!), especially when their pen name and blogging name appear to be one in the same.

You have my utmost respect; how do you do it? Don't you have potential publishers you alienate when you call something out for what it is like this (assuming they even matter anymore).

I'm slaving away at writing terrible trash so that I can one day refine my craft to a point where people might actually want to buy my work, but even if I am able to work hard enough to reach such a point, I can't imagine being bold enough to blog in a way which might alienate potential readers. And yet, here you're doing just that with not just a radical opinion (truth), but one that might get you thrown in jail in some parts of Europe.

It's inspiring; again, how do you get away with it? I feel like a coward now for believing I must not allow a pen name to be married with opinion, and yet I can't bring myself to stray from that when I'm still working out not writing mountains of trash.

I'm definitely going to start reading your work; in fact, I just bought A Throne of Bones. Is there a better book to start for a new reader like myself?

I don't get away with anything. Of course I alienate potential publishers.  I've been told by numerous people, including Tor authors, that Tor Books will never publish me because Theresa Nielson-Hayden has openly declared that I am a very bad, evil, dangerous, and mentally deranged individual.  I've had signed book contracts cancelled because a woman in the marketing department took offense to something I wrote on my blog.  I have lost jobs and job opportunities alike as a result of failing to toe the equalitarian line.  I just lost the SFWA election by what must be near-historic margins, with more than 90 percent of the voters supporting my opponent.

So what?  I have nothing about which to cry or even to complain.  There are always ways around the gatekeepers, and truth combined with talent and perseverance will eventually triumph in the end.  I have it easy in comparison with a great mind like Ludvig von Mises, who was blackballed from nearly every university in Europe and the United States while writing the books that upended both Marxian and Keynesian dogma.

I just keep writing and my audience keeps growing.  Today, it is one million monthly readers.  Soon it will be ten million. Every attempt to marginalize the writer who sticks to writing truthfully about reality is bound to fail in time, because truth is always more compelling than lies.  Write what you believe, write what you want, not what you think others might want to hear.  And never write out of fear.

In answer to the question, unless you are already a fan of epic fantasy, I would recommend starting with either The Wardog's Coin or A Magic Broken before diving into A Throne of Bones.  At 850 pages, it is perhaps a bit of a beast for the casual fantasy reader.