Cracks in the pedestal

Just because women can't afford to walk out doesn't mean it is safe to assume they won't walk about:

Rosie Freeman-Jones, of Illicit Encounters, said: 'We've seen a dramatic rise in membership in London as the recession has forced people to stay in marriages they would rather get out of.'

But it seems women are still keen to move on, despite being forced to stay in an unhappy marriage. The site has also seen a 20% rise of women joining in the last year and now active users are three and a half women to every man.

Freeman-Jones said:'In these ecomonic times no one wants to make an investment either financially or emotionally. Many women have expressed that it's an escape from the drudgery that is reality at the moment. Most women would be looking for Mr Right but these woman are looking for Mr Right Now- the thrill that doesn't cost them emotional upset.

This is further evidence that women can be much colder-hearted in their narcissistic pursuit of that ephemeral happiness than most men realize. If a woman can't leave the economic comforts of a broken marriage in what she considers to be reasonable financial condition, it appears she will not hesitate to make do with cuckoldry in the meantime.

I wonder if Illicit Encounters has ever considered exploring its opportunities to produce ancillary revenue? I imagine once its growth begins to slow, it could significantly extend its income-generating lifespan by offering an anonymous search function to husbands and wives who wish to learn if their spouse has ever been a user of the site.

Alternatively, if Internet-enhanced adultery turns out to be a growth market, how long will it be before we see Google introduce Google Cheat.

Fixing Daddy Issues

More than anything I wish my dad knew game. I wish he were open to it. In the last few weeks I have been the reluctant observer to several family situations that could have been avoided had he known game.

It seems so simple at times. I have only a rudimentary understanding of game and yet after applying it with a small degree of regularity I am far more confident than I ever have been. I used to have a mild panic attack if anyone even spoke to me, now I engage in pleasant conversation with complete strangers. To be honest game is not entirely responsible for this state, I have had therapy for years now, but nothing I have learned from therapy or from game has really been in conflict. Both have been about facing fear, and facing it over and over until I overcome it. If I do not I have only myself to blame. I am the only person responsible for my happiness.

As I have learned to manage my emotions, fears, insecurities, and negativity I find that people can tell. When people know you are stable they will look to you for support. I have no claim to being an alpha, but even a slight move in that direction has changed how the people around me respond. Several have commented on the difference they see. They say I am more social, calmer, cooler, and my favorite: zen-like. Significantly, certain family members have decided to lean on me heavily, and in every case the problems these people are facing would either be reduced or eliminated entirely if my dad knew game.

I watch my brothers flounder about trying to maintain stable relationships and know that if my father knew game they would not have these troubles. I watch them struggle to move their lives forward and know that if my dad was reliably alpha they could turn to him for encouragement. I have had to listen to my sisters wondering if he loves them, something I doubt they question with me. They are constantly seeking my company even though (and possibly because) I tease and neg them relentlessly. I listen to my mother complain about her marriage and wonder why she is confiding in me. I listen to all these people and know that if my father had even a rudimentary understanding of game these people would have someone to turn to. As it is I am a poor substitute.

If anything my family's struggles have convinced me that game is not optional. If I would be a man and raise a family, game is an absolute requirement. I have heard some people talk about breaking the cycle of abuse when it comes to their family. As I see it, learning game is breaking the cycle of weakness. Every man should know it. It can be used with everyone, and if used properly it will not only change you for the better it will change the lives of the people around you. Maintaining frame, passing shit-tests, negging, these are not trivial techniques to just get girls into bed. They are means of demonstrating strength, calm, protection, and competence. When you demonstrate value as a man you are demonstrating something that everyone values, something that is rare. You cannot lose by learning game. There is no reason not to.

Yes, she is a girl. So hit her.

Relax, it's a metaphor. Leonidas explains a common female argumentative tactic:

[Here is ] a textbook example of one of the most classic feminist arguing tactics. You’ve probably seen it a million times. It goes like this:

Step 1: Pick a huge fight by being extremely argumentative.

Step 2: As soon as it looks like you’re losing, deploy the “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl” defense.

I’ve seen this one a lot. My sister is an absolute master at it. My sister-in-law is less adept at it but she loves to use it.

Step 1 usually begins with the woman in question stating a principle that of course any right and decent minded person would agree with – never mind that it might be downright offensive to somebody present. In fact, it’s usually part of the point that it’s offensive to somebody. Then when you begin to argue the point they can turn and claim that you were the one who started arguing. Not them, oh no. You had to go and turn it into a fight, and they really don’t want to fight. Cue batted eyelashes, innocent look, and maybe some tears.

It’s bullshit, of course. They start out with an insulting premise. They throw the gauntlet in your face and then act shocked when you dare to pick it up. Sometimes they genuinely are shocked. In many cases nobody else has ever dared to do so before. This is especially common for women who are smart but not as smart as they think they are. It’s also very common for women who surround themselves with like minded thinkers and rarely find themselves in the company of halfway intelligent people with dissenting views.

The second step is almost never actually phrased as “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl.” A good feminist can’t phrase it that way. It implies that women are weak and really can’t compete with the big boys (which, for the women who employ this tactic, is generally actually true; they’re employing it because they’ve already lost the argument and they know it). It’s usually some variant of, “can’t we all just get along?” or, “why do we have to argue about this?” Sometimes you’ll also see it as, “why do you always have to win every argument?”

There is, however, a way out of the dilemma when it occurs. Call them on it.

Leonidas offers one way of responding to such tactics and it's not an unreasonable one. However, it is a little too gentle to be an effective object lesson as it allows a path of retreat. This is why it does not instill the necessary amount of intellectual shock and awe of the sort that women find attractive and men respect. Note that he says he sees it a lot. That's because he hasn't addressed it in a conclusive manner.

First, unless she is holding a loaded firearm, there is absolutely no reason to be afraid of contradicting a woman - or, for that matter a man - spouting nonsense. Especially not when that nonsense is specifically intended to be provocative. But calm and reasoned argument is much less effective, and much less ALPHA, than open contempt and ridicule. While there are times that social etiquette will demand a politely contemptuous reply, there is no reason to hide one's disdain for the nonsensical blather being produced.

Casual: "So, are you actually retarded enough to believe what you are babbling or is this some sort of test to see who will be the first to point out how absurd it is?"

Polite: "You know, what you said reminds me of something PJ O'Rourke once said about Jim Morrison. People like to talk about how he was a poet, but they usually leave out the fact that he was an awful one."

Remember, only high value men hit back. It's the low value men who don't dare. After a woman published an article in our college newspaper accusing my roommates and me of being "sexist pornographers", I wrote an article for the same paper that so viciously shredded both the woman and her argument that I was subsequently informed of how she burst into tears and cried after reading it. An interesting consequence was that men I didn't know started offering me high-fives as I walked around campus, while women also I didn't know started pointing at me and approaching me to ask about the incident.

Consider George Clooney. He kicked both Elisabetta Canalis and Sarah Larson to the curb for little more than talking nonsense about him in public, so what are the chances that he is inclined to sit meekly nodding along in faux agreement whenever a woman starts babbling incoherently about Hollywood or the Sudan in his presence? One of the primary male displays of high value is a refusal to tolerate nonsensical female speech. Now, it's not a disaster if you go to the trouble of factual refutation; I myself am unfortunately occasionally inclined to reel off mind-numbing, statistics-laden mini-lectures in response to fallacious arguments.

But the reality is that since the insulting proposition on offer is not fact-based and is seldom supported by any reason, there is no requirement to utilize objective facts and logic to tear it down. Contempt and ridicule are faster, more effective, and display higher value. Unsurprisingly, women rapidly learn not to play the "don't hit me, I'm a girl" game around men who demonstrate they won't hesitate to smash any such player, of either sex, in the teeth.

Sure, there will be women who will hate you as a result, but don't forget, in the female mind, hate is just another way to say "I'd let him fuck me." In the head is all but in the bed.

Hugo Schwyzer Proves the Need For the Sexual Double Standard

Cringeworthy Hugo Schwyzer

"We treat men with the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Of course, the real price for those low expectations is paid by women, who become responsible for managing and redirecting what we refuse to expect men to manage for themselves."

Hugo Schwyzer

Oh yes, there's been some major managing and redirecting by Hugo and his former FWB gal pal Jill.

This morning longtime reader GudEnuf tipped me off to a piece that feminist apologist Hugo Schwyzer wrote for The Good Men Project, which has been reprinted at Jezebel. Many other bloggers will be taking a crack at this story today, so I may not be able to add insight or originality to this horrific tale, but I feel compelled to stand up and be counted anyway.

I May Have a Son, But I'll Never Know For Sure is a story from Hugo's past - 14 years ago. He collaborated in a scheme to cuckold another man. He notes that he was not sober until 1998.

"That doesn’t mean I can’t be called to account for what I did before July 1, 1998 (my sobriety date), but it does mean that the decisions I made before that time were made with an entirely different moral calculus."

How thoroughly cowardly and predictable that Schwyzer falls back on moral relativism.

With three failed marriages behind him, Schwyzer had a FWB he was seeing on the reg named Jill. On one occasion, apparently, Jill banged Hugo and another guy within a 48 hour period. Shortly thereafter, she learned she was pregnant, and had no idea which man was the father.

She and Hugo decided the other guy should raise the kid, leaving the guy in complete ignorance that the child might not be his.

"A paternity test would be needed, and Jill didn’t want one because she had made the gut decision that Ted was the father. Perhaps that was hope, perhaps that was intuition, perhaps that was practicality. Perhaps it was all three."

Jill made the gut decision that Ted was the father.

"Jill wanted to be a mom. Ted wanted to be a dad. I wasn’t sure what I wanted. In her mind, these facts settled it: the baby was Ted’s. Or it needed to be Ted’s."

It needed to be Ted's.

Jill and Ted are still married and have two other children. The 13 year-old boy has the coloring that both men share. As far as we know, Ted is none the wiser.

"Women have it harder, and not only in terms of pregnancy, labor, and delivery. It is Jill, not I, who carries the burden of an unresolved question through her relationship with her husband and her first-born son. Perhaps that weight has become so light that she’s forgotten it altogether. I hope so.

...The solution to the problem isn’t suspicion or frantic demands for paternity tests, Jerry Springer style. The solution isn’t even the rigorous use of contraception (though that’s a very good idea.)

The solution is to remember that it is love, not sperm, that makes a great dad."

What complete and total crap. It's easy for him to say, having contributed nothing but possibly his sperm. He shrugged off a potentially expensive and emotionally demanding responsibility, at the expense of another man. A man who has the right to know whether the child he has loved and supported in every way is genetically his.

"I’ll say it again: Heloise is my daughter and I am her father. That’s a relational statement, not a biological one. And if I were to discover that she and I did not share genetic material, that wouldn’t change a thing. As far as I’m concerned, a man for whom it would make a significant difference doesn’t deserve the title “father.” Sperm doesn’t make love."

Knowingly raising a child whose genes you don't share is a very different thing than being cuckolded. Hugo and Jill made a fool of Ted, and now Hugo writes proudly of this fraud, claiming that any resentment on Ted's part would make him unfit to be a father.

"And people, to call this cuckolding is absurd. Jill never cheated on Ted; the first time she slept with him was 48 hours before she last slept with me, when she and Ted were just starting to date. (And yeah, in the real and imperfect world I lived in once and a lot of people still inhabit, people have sex on the first date and don’t use condoms even though they should.) There was no infidelity, no cheating, no promise broken, no lie spoken. There was information withheld that perhaps shouldn’t have been — but that was NEVER my call to make, and it still isn’t.

I’ve said all I’m gonna say on the matter... I’m at peace with this, my family is at peace with this, and the consensus of the very large number of people I’ve consulted (including people with more expertise in this than you) over more than a dozen years is to leave it be."

As far as I'm concerned, it isn't Hugo's decision to "leave it be" at this point that is so troubling. It's his cavalier parading of his part in this deception that rankles as much as his original culpability potentially passing off the responsibility of his own child to another man.

By the way, Hugo Schwyzer is writing under his real name, and it's by no means out of the question that the poor sucker Ted, or even his son, will learn of this. Anyone who knew Hugo and Jill could easily report it to them, especially anyone who thinks Hugo deserves to go down, hard. Schwyzer's article is pure selfishness and self-aggrandizement.

A commenter at Jezebel had this to say:

"Presumably he's writing under his real name, so he's kind of just outed the fact he might have a lovechild somewhere. If the child ever gets curious or someone lets something slip, bam...instapain. I am kind of saddened this coward even has a voice."

Most of the comments have been deservedly critical, both at Jezebel and GMP, but some people, including men, are offering this feminist BS:

"Either Ted's a good guy and nothing would change, or Ted's an asshole and would abandon his son, who shares his values and morals and traditions, simply because they are insufficiently biologically related. And if the latter is true, he DESERVES to be lied to."

"This is a perfect illustration of the difference between a father and a dad. Any guy can be a father, but a dad? Those are special. If you were a father but couldn't be a dad, and could recognize that distinction, then I think you did the right thing. Now that you're able to be both a father AND a dad, everybody seems much better off."

"I think Hugo did it right. Jill made the best decision for her, Ted made the decision he wanted to make and he might be objectively correct. Hugo should have used protection but so should have Ted. Either man could potentially be paying child support and the one supporting the kid volunteered. Win-win.

Way to go." (by a male)

"Not really much to add, except some variation on “Love to you, Hugo” You might be a socialist git, but you have style. And principle.

(Kiwi) John"

"I would say it’s a more patriarchal view to think that a man should have a “right” to a child based on genetics. The rights of a father are earned, not genetically determined...However, Hugo at the time was not a good feminist, or even a good man... He has not earned the right to participate in that child’s upbringing."

One of the best rebuttals I read was by well-known manosphere commenter Dragnet:

"This article is 110 percent pure unadulterated bullshit.

If biology makes no difference whatsoever, then why do hospitals devote hundreds of hours and millions of dollars to implementing systems and checks to ensure that mothers get their biological children when it’s time to go home? If biology was irrelevant and love was all that mattered then what’s wrong with just giving any child to any new mother and sending them home together? Oh that’s right—biology is only irrelevant when men are concerned!! The whole idea is just so transparently misandric and illogical it makes your head spin.

Articles like this are just more proof that feminism really isn’t an equality movement. It’s really about enhancing women’s rights and alleviating the responsibilities that accompany those rights—at the expense of men.

This is revolting.

And also, a child has a right to know his genetic heritage. So many illnesses and health conditions we now know have a genetic basis, and we will soon have genetic treatments for them. It’s in the child’s best interest to know his or her true genetic heritage. The real question is whether a mother’s wishes trumps her child’s well-being.

Pretty soon, the feminists and their male apologists are going to run out of excuses and rationales for protecting women at the expense of men & children. We men have our own hopes and dreams, our own ideal of fatherhood. We cannot and will not be fathers on someone else terms."

That's the story, and here is my only original contribution to it:

The sexual double standard evolved for good reasons. If Ted had had an inkling his wife was banging this asshat casually when she was getting together with him, he might have made a different choice than to flip a coin and marry her.

Hugo Schwyzer and Jill schemed to steal that choice from him.

If you want to screw around, have at it. But be prepared to stand up for what you believe in - your right to have sex without consequences. Then prepare for the consequences. As Helen Fisher said, "Sex is never casual."

Marriage, love, and money

Many women, and not a few men, have taken great exception to my advice to not take anything that women say literally. To such people, I pose a simple question. If a man wishes to take everything that women say literally, how is he to reconcile two seemingly mutually contradictory statements?

Talk about a Catch-22: while being unemployed provides the free time many engaged couples trying to plan a wedding would kill for, turns out tying the knot isn't on the horizon for most recession victims.

According to a recent YourTango and ForbesWoman survey, 75% of women wouldn't marry someone who was unemployed, and 65% wouldn't tie the knot if they themselves were jobless. Ironically, 91 percent of single women say they would marry for love over money.

I have no doubt that a poor, overworked hamster will produce something concerning the inherent unlovability of an unemployed man, but the statistical fact is that if a man loses his job, there is an increased chance that he will lose his wife as well. Nevertheless, if one is genuinely marrying for love rather than money, what difference does a man's employment status make?

As usual, one has to ignore the literal words in order to understand the meaning. In the same way that women assume ALPHA status when describing the BETA traits they theoretically favor, women assume a basic level of employment and income when describing how love is more important than money. What they actually mean, of course, is that love is more important than wealth... so long as it is understood that an ability to provide for a basic standard of living is more important than either.

Alpha Mail: you are not the Reality Cop

A gamma working his way up the hierarchy poses a question:

I'm a former gamma, still working my way up and out. I recently married a smart, sexy woman and erstwhile bitch. Sometimes my gamma and her bitch come out together to remind us what a horrible couple we would have made 10 years ago. For example, yesterday while driving home from a friend's house and discussing something completely innocuous, she said a particular thing had never happened, which I thought was improbable in the extreme. (It's not important what it was that did or didn't happen.) I didn't want to say "That's absurd," so I said something like "It probably happened and you just forgot about it."

Then followed an argument of the yes it did/no it didn't sort until I stepped back and asked why we were arguing about something that didn't matter. She responded with, "What do you mean it doesn't matter? You're telling me that I'm stupid and don't have a fucking clue about what goes on in my own life!" (She actually has a higher IQ than I do, but her intelligence is frequently eclipsed by her emotions.) I denied it and then we argued about that for a few minutes before I said I was done and nixed the topic.

We rode the rest of the way home in complete silence and didn't speak more than two words to each other at a time until the next morning. The entire night I knew that this was exactly the wrong thing to be doing, but I couldn't for the life of me think of the right thing. I know that we'll be in this situation again, and I'd like to be able to handle it better. What are some better responses?

The best response was to simply let it go from the start. This is why sigmas tend to find women so much easier to handle than gammas, we're too caught up in our own narcisstic interests to be overly concerned about whatever their latest whims happen to be. To recap, she said something completely trivial and he not only took it seriously, he actually went out of his way to be disagreeable and start an argument. Consider this to be the requisite slap to the back of his head.

What the gamma needed here is Indifference Game, which is all about letting the wookie win. Did it matter what she said happened or didn't happen? Did he care one iota about the matter before she brought it up? It's hardly unheard of for women to say absolutely stupid and provably false things for no reason. So let them. You are not the Reality Police. Unless a woman has asked you to refine her mind or is showing an active interest in improving her capacity for reason, always leave her to her Happy Unicorn Land. Unless a woman is actively disagreeing with me or is opining on a substantive issue, I don't care if she wants to assert that the Yankees won five Super Bowls or Brad Pitt is sexier than George Clooney. What does any of that have to do with me or my interests?

Gamma: "Um, I think you mean the Cowboys or the 49ers. Or maybe you were thinking of the Steelers, they won six."

Sigma: "Are you a Yankees fan too? I love the Yankees! Do you think they should have drafted a quarterback this year?"

That doesn't mean to ignore a woman when she is talking or to communicate solely in the form of wordless grunts, it simply means that you should go along for the ride. You can have a perfectly lovely time discussing practically anything with practically any woman so long as you don't take them seriously. This is why women consider gay men to be such great conversationalists; most gay men could not possibly care less what any woman thinks about anything and they are perfectly happy to ride along on whatever flight of fancy happens to present itself.

And while everyone does it from time to time, arguing about arguing is totally pointless. It merely leads to absurdities like the gamma's wife demonstrating that she is, at the moment, at least functionally stupid and without a clue. Hint: if you are beginning a sentence with "are you saying that" or "you're telling me", then the chances are the accurate response will be "no, I'm doing nothing of the kind." Once the argument reaches that point, stop talking, stop listening, and enjoy the fact that you have an evening of guaranteed free time on hand.

On a tangential note, I suspect one reason that many women instinctively dislike online games is that they have entirely defanged the threat of the silent treatment. "Okay, I understand that you're mad. But let me get this straight. You're not going to lobby me to go shopping, watch a romantic comedy, or even interrupt me while I play Call of Duty online for six straight hours? I shall endeavor to survive the punishment."

Alpha Mail: don't be a passive-aggressive bitch

While this advice applies to women too, it is absolutely vital for a man:

How's this for starters. As she left for a grocery run I told her we were out of a personal item. She protested and said I should get it. At first I tried to explain why she should then quit and said OK, I'll get it. Later she came back and said she'd get it, she didn't want to be difficult. I gave a cheerful chuckle and smile and said "too late".

To be blunt, it is terrible. It's bad enough when women behave like passive-aggressive bitches. It is MUCH worse when men behave that way. Think about it. If you wouldn't say something to another man, don't even think about saying it to a woman.

Anonymous made no less than three mistakes here. First, he should have ASKED her to pick up whatever the item was. Think about it. How do you prefer to be informed about something that is needed at the store when you are going out. "We're out of milk" is not a request, it is a statement. "Will you please pick up some milk?" is the correct and civil way to ask someone to do something. Information is not a request.

Second, if she is being a bitch about it - and admittedly, many women are completely hypocritical about refusing to do for others what they regularly demand others do for them - it is a huge mistake to argue or attempt to explain why she should behave like a civilized human being capable of reciprocity and enlightened self-interest. If she's in the mood to act like a useless animal, you are not going to be successful in attempting to reason with her as if she is a rational human being. You made the request, she said no, so leave it at that. Don't get mad, don't show your irritation, don't make any idle threats about future consequences, just calmly accept her response at face value and know that you'll have to do it yourself.

Third, while Anonymous did the correct thing in simply taking care of business himself, he subsequently blew it by acting like a nasty little girl. Saying "too late" and flashing a bitchy, passive-aggressive smile shows neither alpha strength nor sigma indifference, but gamma weakness. The correct response would have been to say calmly, "thanks, but I already took care of it."

The right time to act - not speak - is the next time you go out to run some errands. The delta tendency will be to silently acquiesce to her requests and do her shopping in the hopes that the positive example will change her behavior in the future. Hint: it won't. The gamma tendency will be to get into an argument about why you shouldn't have to pick up things for her if she's not picking up things for you. The alpha response is to simply say "No" and go about your business without regard for hers. Rest assured she will know exactly why you are refusing to act as her errand boy and she may subject you to the silent treatment for the rest of the day. But the next time she leaves the house, there is a very good chance she will politely ask you if there is anything she can pick up for you while she is out. Don't ask any questions, don't discuss it, simply respond with any requests that you might have.

Based on my experience, the sigma tendency would apparently be to completely forget the previous incident, agree to pick something up for her, get distracted and end up buying something that is completely unrelated to any of the planned or requested errands, and return home without anything that was on anyone's list. Today I went out to buy a gas cap and see about the car tires. Naturally, I came home with a portable roll-up hose system... it was half-price and came with a free jet attachment. You can't convincingly fake nonchalance, so if it doesn't happen to come naturally I would not recommend it. Go with the alpha approach and Just Say No.

Anyhow, there is really no excuse for men or women to refuse to behave in a reaonable and civil manner. A man can refuse to play along with a woman's self-centered and hypocritical behavior, in fact, he should refuse to go along with it. But it is counterproductive for him to stoop to her uncivil level, still less to utilize feminine tactics, in doing so.