The futility of fat acceptance

A fat man losing weight explains why there is no point in attempting to make the unacceptable acceptable or the undesirable desirable through propaganda:

[T]he upshot is that I realized that in my day-to-day life, when I’m interacting in person with other people, I’ve always — always — had a subconscious awareness that I was fat, and that being fat was disgusting, so therefore I was disgusting. I suspect this may have had some impact on my confidence in social situations.

Of course, I always resented that, and always resented the efforts to shame me into losing weight, which is one reason why I hate calling this change in my eating habits a “diet”.

What this reveals is that all the "fat acceptance" talk is a lie.  It is pure propaganda.  The fat people know, much better than the slender people, that fat is disgusting.  They feel it.  They live it.  To talk around it and pretend otherwise is a lie and it really doesn't fool anyone.

Now, does this mean getting in a fatty's face and telling her to stop being such a disgusting pig?  I don't know, maybe.  I don't know the best way to help a food addict kick the habit.  The only thing that is certain is that whatever approach is currently being utilized in the USA really isn't working.

Alpha Mail: too hot for New York

JG informs us that Alpha Game is too hot and spicy for the tender, innocent, and easily influenced minds of the employees of the State of New York.

Alpha Game blog is trash according to the web filter utilized on State of New York computers. I attempted to go AG only to find it has been blocked under the same category as pornography even though there isn't much explicit discussion on "sex" to be found there:

Content blocked by your organization
Reason: This Websense category is filtered: Sex.
URL: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/

I am definitely citing this the next time I am informed that I need to loosen up and get a little more with it by some urban hipster.  Fortunately, the employees of the SEC will still be able to visit here, assuming they can tear themselves away from their regular porn.

The accidental imperative

Dalrock has an excellent post on the female imperative and the passive-aggressive manner in which women who won't admit to it will nevertheless ferociously defend it:

The seeming passivity of women in the process of rewriting social norms to the exclusive benefit of women is what is throwing Sunshine Mary off.  She can easily test this by coaching one of the boys to suggest that the girls show some reciprocal form of deference to the boys during a future celebration.  Perhaps the girls should serve the boys refreshments during their next celebration, as Anonymous Reader suggested:  

One way to damp down the entitlement princess training just received by the boys / young men deferring to the girls / young women would be to cause the girls and young women to defer in a different way to the boys and young men. For example, at some future time you might consider having the AH girls serve the Boy Scout boys, perhaps by seating the boys at table and having the girls bring trays to the tables.

If this is suggested the lie of the girls’ passivity will come out in force.  It won’t come out in the form of a logical reaction, even if on the surface it appears to start that way.  For example, they are likely to bristle at the idea of having their moxie damaged by deferring to the boys, and make a feminist argument for equality.  However, if this is simply about equality one could then propose that instead of serving the boys the girls have the boys go first through the treat line, and agree to take turns at this from here on.

At this point the reality of the feminine imperative will become evident, because while the girls were seemingly passive when everything was going their way, any deviance from this will be met with emotional outbursts.  Whoever proposes either true equality or simple reciprocity will become the object of great irrational anger, and at this point the passivity turns to aggression.  While the girls (and their mothers) won’t know why they are so angry, they will know that whoever proposed such a thing is a terrible person.

The artificial and non-accidental nature of the female imperative is inadvertently revealed by female attempts to police it, quite often with the help of their usual white knights.  What I want to point out in particular is the way that emotion, particularly anger, is the most reliable weapon in the male arsenal; an angry woman can almost always be provoked into volunteering unsolicited the sort of secrets she would otherwise endure torture to avoid revealing.  This isn't a new revelation; Agatha Christie even mentioned it in one of her Poirot novels.

Encouraging the passive-aggressive to reveal their underlying desire to control and dictate the actions of others can be tremendously revelatory.  Just keep in mind that you may be in for the same sort of shock that men who are forced to recognize the nonexistence of the pedestal upon which they'd been placing women for all these years must endure.  Seeing the black heart and long red fangs of what you'd always assumed was a gentle sheep can be more than a little startling, but any time you see irrational anger arise on the part of a perfectly reasonable request or suggestion, you can be relatively sure there is a font of aggressiveness hidden beneath the apparent passivity.

Getting back to the imperative, Dalrock's post was particularly insightful in observing how the female imperative is transformational; this effect can be seen in everything from medieval chivalry to the current NFL.

"The feminine imperative took the original idea of chivalry – a code of honor amongst men – and attached to it a code of acceptable conduct for men in relating to women. In doing so it effectively remodeled chivalry to benefit the feminine and limiting the power men held over them by enlisting other men to participate in regulating it."

An excursion into the rhetorical

This Twitter exchange sheds further light on the difference between the dialectically and the rhetorically minded, particularly with regards to the dialectically challenged among the latter.  Below is an excerpt, the whole exchange is posted on Vox Popoli.  For the purposes of this discussion, ignore the subject matter and focus solely on the various dialectical and rhetorical devices utilized by the two primary parties in the discussion.

voxday: Don't be stupid. You can't compare absolute numbers between nations of vastly different sizes. Look at per capita....

mushadamama: The numbers I've given ARE per 100k population. Perhaps the stupid one is one who doesn't read fine print....

voxday: No, you stupid, stupid woman, they are not. The USA is #4 in absolute terms, #27 per capita....

mushadamama: Yes, my chart is total gun murders @ 9369. Does not count accidents or suicides. US ranks 4th! My crime rate chart was per 100k.

mushadamama: Your chart, however, uses some kind of fuzzy math to come up with that ridiculous #. I can only assume it is more of a probability.

For the record, the mysterious "fuzzy math" used to produce "more of a probability" was the following equation: 9,369 divided by 311,591,917, multiplied by 100,000.  Now, if you're a woman, think about how often you dig yourself into similar positions and how many women of your acquaintance you can confirm to be capable of producing a similarly remarkable argument.  Then perhaps you might understand why men tend to regard many, if not most, women as being fundamentally irrational creatures, incapable of logic and ineducable by reason, math, or even the most basic facts.  It should also underline the supreme importance of not behaving in this manner on those occasions when you feels tempted to do so.

Keep in mind that saying "well, I was really upset" justifies these occasional lapses into complete unreason about as effectively as a man saying "well, I was really horny" would mitigate his occasional rapes of the babysitter.  It may explain them, to a certain extent, but it is unlikely to change his fundamental opinion of your character and capabilities.

Men, keep this exchange in mind when you are attempting to convince a woman of something.  Once you have successfully established that she is not, for whatever reason, capable of rationally discussing a specific matter in the circumstances, understand that there is literally nothing within the realm of the dialectic that you can do to convince her to change her position.  However, this does not mean she cannot be convinced, only that she will have to be convinced in a rhetorical manner, using a rhetorical device.

What are the rhetorical devices?  As always, the instruments that can be used most successfully on another individual are those preferred by the individual himself.  We all give away our weaknesses by our attempts to exploit the weaknesses of others.  The scientist who goes right to academic credentials can be easily trumped by an appeal to superior credentials.  The woman who quickly resorts to name-calling is susceptible to being called names.  The statistician can be won over with statistics.  It is the Bill Belichick strategy: attack the strength of the defense.

The discussion begins with a feint, a false statistical appeal.  But the seeds of its rhetorical nature are already there in the first woman's use of sarcasm, which in this particular example is a passive-aggressive device.  By the second post by the second woman, it is already clear that this is going to be a rhetorical discourse due to the  irrelevant questions aimed to discredit the other side.  Note especially her attempt to shut down the debate by the use of declarative statements; she shows her sensitivity to the suggestion of her stupidity by referring to it and ineptly attempting to turn the suggestion around.

Notice too that after being repeatedly hammered on that point, both overtly and implicitly, she begins her retreat into her tortoise shell, but not before revealing that she is entirely impervious to the very facts to which she falsely appealed in the first place.  Now, some less sophisticated observers will argue that it is a mistake to come down hard on the rhetorical, that if the reasoned argument is disguised in a sweet manner it will be more likely to prove persuasive.  But this is simply not the case, the whole problem is that the dialectically challenged are fundamentally incapable of following reason, either because their cognitive capacities are insufficient or because their emotional attachment to their position is too strong.

As I've pointed out in the past, dialectic is always preferable to rhetoric because it is more objective and tends to be more honest.  But unless the dialectically capable are going to treat those limited to rhetoric as mindless animals and place no more significance on the noises they make than we do upon the barking of dogs, we have no ethical option except to speak to them in their rhetorical language.  This may at times appear cruel, it may even be cruel.  But it is necessary, if we are to grant them any intellectual value as human beings.

Those limited to the rhetorical level of discourse are the Rabbit People.  They cannot be reasoned with any more successfully than one can cure a rabid dog of rabies through discussion.  All one can reasonably do is mitigate the damage they do to those around them by putting them down as soon as they show themselves to be a carrier.

Holidays: Ignore the experts

This is the Alpha Game Holiday Survival Guide part III.  Regarding gifts, here are several "helpful" suggestions offered by the experts on women in the mainstream media:

• Anything that suggests that the recipient is anything less than perfect will go down worse than Frankie Boyle at a kid's Christmas party.
•  Never buy a woman an iron for Christmas unless you want to get hit over the head with it.
•  Guys, this is 50 shades of WRONG. Don't even think about it - or anything else tenuously linked to 50 Shades of Grey for that matter.
• Nothing says "I don't really think that much of you" quite like a handbag by 'Louis Vilton'. If you can't stretch to a designer bag, better to opt for the (genuine) perfume.

Translation: don't buy a woman anything that might be sexy, affordable, useful, improving, or popular.  Only gifts that are rare, expensive, and useless will be appreciated.  Except, as we already know, buying the perfect gift is the worst thing you can possibly do since it will create an unwanted sense of obligation.

It's fascinating, too, that apparently physical violence is deemed a reasonable response to an unwanted gift.  I wonder what the reaction would be if it were suggested that a woman should not buy a man a tie unless she wants to get strangled by it?  Does anyone suppose that the average man wants yet another tie any more than the average woman wants a new iron?

So, ignore the experts.  If she said she wanted X at some point during the year, then buy X.  Don't overthink these things and stop striving for the nonexistent perfect gift.  Remember that presents don't fix relationship problems.

Holidays: postprandial labor

This is the Alpha Game Holiday Survival Guide part II.

The holidays are a time of tremendous stress for women.  They feel a pressure to perform that is driven by the media, their own expectations, and their awareness that they will be judged on their performance by other women.  After all, how is a woman supposed to compete with the Martha Stewart clones who are baking special cinnamon cakes in the shape of each of their family member's faces using spice they personally flew to Sri Lanka to harvest by hand?

Throw in the decorating, the wrapping, the cookies, the meals, the entertaining, and the prospect of having to put on a smiling face for family members they don't particularly enjoy being around, and it should be no surprise that the holiday spirit can prove burdensome to women.  But there is one thing self-respecting men can do to ease that burden, if only a little, and make the holidays more happy for everyone, since there are few things that will spoil them more thoroughly than everyone having to tiptoe around a woman boiling over with holiday rage just waiting to explode.

Don't bother offering to help with anything.  You're not going to be able to do anything her way or to her standards.  Besides, she's going to be judged on her performance, so even if you are a competent cook or gift wrapper, any assistance on your part will not count and thereby is rendered invalid on its face.

But someone has to do the dishes and this is an opportunity at which you should leap.  First of all, your tackling clean-up lets a woman kick back and actually enjoy the meal she's prepared with everyone, without feeling the burden of clean-up looming over her shoulder.  Having gone to the effort to provide such a feast, shouldn't she be able to enjoy it in peace?  Second, it permits you to politely escape the postprandial conversation that, unlike most conversations of the holiday season, necessarily involves the "participation" of both sexes seated at the table, which in practice usually involves the women repeatedly interrupting each other while the men sit in silence wondering when they can escape the performance art and turn on the game.

(Do you think I'm exaggerating?  This Christmas, I challenge you to time the male silence if there are at least three women at the table.  The record thus far stands at 15 minutes of complete silence on the part of the men.)

This is a device I learned from that man among men, the Marine's Marine, my grandfather.  I used to marvel at his selfless generosity, and the way after every holiday meal, he would quietly excuse himself and disappear into the kitchen.  By the time everyone had left the table, the dishwasher would be running, the kitchen would be spotless, and everyone was happy and well-loaded with alcohol.  Including, of course, my grandfather.  When I asked him why he felt he needed to do the dishes, when at his age he deserved to take it easy, he laughed and pointed out that while he'd been happily cleaning up, watching the football game, and polishing off the rum, I'd been sitting there for 20 minutes, nursing my wine glass, staring into space, and listening to people ramble on about other people I couldn't identify if my life depended on it.

The man was a genius.  I've since added my own spin to it, which is first making sure that everyone's wine glass is full.  If you do it right, you'll have everything done before anyone even notices you've been missing from the audience.  Women seldom appreciate it, perhaps because they realize on some level that you're doing it for yourself, or perhaps because it makes you look too subservient to others and thereby lowering their own perceived value, but that's irrelevant.  Everyone is happy, everyone wins.  Be a little Christmas miracle.

Holidays: the gift-denigration ritual

This is the Alpha Game Holiday Survival Guide part I.

A significant amount of male stress over the Christmas season can be eliminated by keeping in mind one simple fact: women do not feel gratitude in the same way men do.  This is why they so often receive gifts in a manner that men find irritatingly ungrateful.

How many times have you seen this happen on Christmas?  A woman receives a gift from someone, anyone, and immediately begins to explain what is wrong with it, why it isn't exactly what she wanted, or that she really would have preferred something else.  If she's polite, she'll preface this with a broadly smiling "thank you".  If she's not, she'll launch directly into what men tend to hear as the "here is how you fucked up even though you bought me precisely what I said I wanted in November" speech.  Every single man I know has found himself, at one time or another, thinking "Merry fucking Christmas, why the hell do I even bother?"

It is understandable that men tend to find this superficially ungracious response to be dispiriting, if not soul-killing, which is why most men absolutely hate, hate, hate buying anything for women at any time.  Those guys you see out on December 24th aren't necessarily idiots or procrastinators, (although they may be), they may simply be putting off what they know from experience to be a painful and humiliating experience as long as possible.

However, it doesn't have to be that way.  Enduring the ritual female response to receiving gifts is a lot easier to bear once a man understands that women see gifts as being, first and foremost, obligations.  Think about how a woman responds whenever another woman gives her a gift.  In most cases, she immediately starts talking about how the gift wasn't necessary and promises that she will somehow do something for the gift-giver in the future, presumably because she knows if she doesn't respond in kind, she loses a point in the eternal game of woman versus all women on the planet.

Think about that.  What man ever responds to an unsolicited gift by saying that it wasn't necessary?  Of course it's not necessary, says the male mind, that's why they call it a gift and not a debt!  Why would anyone even imagine that I HAD to buy it?  No one pointed a gun at me and said: give her that there tweed coat or die!  But that's logic, and we're dealing with feelings here.

The promise to repay the newly imposed obligation is one tactic, but it is one that isn't applicable on formal gift-giving occasions such as Christmas and birthdays.  Hence the reliance on the alternative tactic, which is to verbally reduce the perceived value of the gift of to nothing, thereby eliminating the sense of obligation that the woman feels.  I posit this as the source of the ritual gift-denigration; once a man recognizes this pattern at work, it can be tremendously amusing to watch a woman desperately try to find a way to somehow disqualify a gift so that it doesn't count as an obligation on her.  In fact, the truly generous man will always buy women gifts that he knows are imperfect in some way; this will make it easier for her to disqualify the gift and thereby make it possible for her to enjoy it.

It is important to understand that this behavior has absolutely nothing to do with you or your choice of gift.  It doesn't even have anything to do with her per se!  The gift-denigration reaction is sub-rational and instinctual; most women are appalled and embarrassed if they ever come to realize that they are habitually behaving in what appears to be an ungracious manner.  So relax, don't let it faze you, don't let it irritate you, and by all means, don't try to argue with her when she starts nonsensically babbling that although the Porsche you bought her is her favorite color and she really loves it and she doesn't know how to drive stick, she really wanted a manual transmission because this would have been the perfect opportunity to learn how to drive one.

(Of course, if you had bought her the car with a manual transmission, she would have complained that you clearly don't know anything about her, since she doesn't even know how to drive stick.  Women can always find a means of disqualifying a gift; they can be geniuses in this regard.)

The good news is that the fact she's denigrating a gift means that she feels a sense of obligation from receiving it.  So, the ideal response is to smile and say "I'm glad you like it."