Roissy shares a story:
I’m standing in the cashier line.
A young (late teens, early 20s) couple are ahead of me.
Did not see a ring on her.
Dorky man, bombshell blonde.
He doesn’t look like he has a lot of money.
Still, there they are, she’s all over him.
WTF I wonder.
At register, cashier tells dork the total.
He motions to blondie, “Nope, she’s buying.”
He walks off as she’s paying.
She pays, skips after him, all smiles.
Yup, mystery solved, I say to myself.
Mothers (and Churchian marriage gurus) often tell their sons to do the exact opposite of what women really want. Unfortunately in this Golden Age of Soy, many dads do as well.
"Be respectful! Don't be afraid to cry! A gentleman always pays! He always opens the door!"
Be nice!
This of course causes cognitive dissonance in nice guys as they see the jerks taking away the nice girls. Most of them never learn from the experience, though, and double down on the behavior, hoping they'll prove through the Virtue of Niceness that they're a great catch.
Old, old story.
It's not necessarily the case that being a jerk is the best way to get a woman - but it is more masculine than being "nice" and letting the woman lead you around.
A rough and tough outdoor dog is more likely to breed than a tame poodle. He's also less likely to be castrated by the woman of the house.
Moms often try to get their boys to be "nice" to girls, which has the unfortunate effect of handicapping their sons' futures. This is yet another reason why willfully single moms are a pox on the earth - there's no husband and father around to at least give the young man a chance.
Instead they learn to appease. The dork in Roissy's tale had game which overcame his appearance. You can get away with being unattractive, but escaping both bad looks and early "be nice" programming is a tall order.
11 comments:
I think the issue is further confused because a husband has certain duties.
The Churchians feel they need to groom young men to only exhibit husband qualities to women they aren't married to, yet at the same time they undercut the role of the husband/father.
Thus, you get the idea that men are walking ATMs - resources to be donated to civilization without compensation or - sometimes - recognition.
However, a single man is under no Biblical obligation to treat the women he dates as a princess or pearl to be won. Far from it. This isn't to say he has license to treat her unkindly, of course.
We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.
What's really hilarious is when I see Xers telling Millenials to go to church and wife up, as if it weren't the churches we're escaping from.
Great post Mr. Jackson.
I second Mr. "Anchorman" who I perceive to be a fellow brother in Christ.
"However, a single man is under no Biblical obligation to treat the women he dates as a princess or pearl to be won. Far from it. This isn't to say he has license to treat her unkindly, of course."
^ That right there: truth.
"This is yet another reason why willfully single moms are a pox on the earth - there's no husband and father around to at least give the young man a chance."
^ This right here is the main *CRUX* of the problem in Western Society especially.
I have real respect for the "single moms" that are "widows" or "single moms without choice" because the fathers are dead-beat dads who don't care to at least take care of their own progeny. There's respect and understanding for mothers in this sad plight.
What really irks anyone with integrity and decency is single moms by choice that choose to have bastard children with men (i.e. mere "sperm donors") and don't want the "fatherhead" in the lives of said children.
Regardless of what the woman wants in such a horrid ordeal any father who cares about his seed will always make a way to be in their children's lives against the willful rebellion of the mother of their children. Society, government, church, family, etc. have no grounds on the natural rights of a father to be a father to his flesh 'n blood children. Period.
Because Western Society not only "protects" these silly women's foolish decisions of bastard-children breeding (via state enforcement of law enforcement officials as police) but PROMOTES IT women have no "personal consequences" in society for choosing to be feral, rebellious willful single moms.
However, these same single moms often suffer "personal consequences" in their daily lives from many men who will not instinctively want to be "drafted" into relationships with them being already mothers of other men's children who are no where in sight. A natural consequence of their actions.
You shouldn't listen to your mom about anything - not religion, not work, not jobs - nothing. Mom doesn't really have useful advice to give you on those things.
"It's necessarily the case that being a jerk is the best way to get a woman - but it is more masculine than being "nice" and letting the woman lead you around."
Missing a "not"?
Ugh... my mom's advice would only be useful if I'd done the exact opposite of everything she's ever told me.
Funny, she was really irate once telling me how some relative had taken my uncles aside and told them "Never listen to women about anything."
She related this as if it was pure evil, when it was actually pure genius.
@papabear
Fixed. Thank you.
My mom was an alpha widow. She hated, hated, hated any display of alpha masculine behavior on my part, and did her best to stamp it out. I have come to the conclusion that for single moms to raise boys is more often than not child abuse.
And yeah, her shitty BluePill advice was "be nice and you will find your soulmate".
You shouldn't listen to your mom about anything
Well, she does know how to cook, she's well worth listening to about that.
My best friend in high school was the youngest of 4 boys. None of them ever had a steady girlfriend, but had the reputation of being, and I quote from more than one source, "the best lookin' assholes you'll ever meet." They had an impressive notch count. All of them married much younger women, and all have 3+ kids.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.