Purple vs Red

The Rational Male explains the difficulty in the transformation:

What the Purple Pill anger critics (deliberately) refuse to get is that the Red Pill isn’t (and was never) intended to get men to hate women, but rather to inform men about the inherent nature of women so they wont hate women for what they can never be to them. This is the disillusionment that men who still cling to Blue Pill idealism can’t seem to get past – they cannot abandon those Blue Pill hopes that they believe women are capable of fulfilling for him, but the Red Pill disabuses him of. So they get angry. They get angry at themselves for ever having believed in them. They get angry for having wasted so much time investing themselves in them. They get angry, most importantly, because they realize that women simply aren’t built to fulfill the hopes his Blue Pill conditioning made him believe should be possible.

The Purple Pill coach believes that this Red Pill realization leads to men hating women. The second complaint I read from them is that Red Pill awareness gives men some license to feeling like victims. This criticism is deductive to coaches for two reasons; it serves his ‘get-rich-quick-on-the-internet-by-selling-sunshine’ man-up and do better to qualify for women blog template, and it discourages men seeking answers from becoming Red Pill aware in a way that crushes their still Blue Pill belief set.

For the record, and as boldly as I can put this, if you are Red Pill aware man and still believe you are a victim of some sort because of your previous Blue Pill indenturement to pedestalizing women or the Feminine Imperative, you are only a victim of your own lack of vision. Red Pill awareness has set you free – free from the blur and distraction that a feminine-primary social order would pull over your eyes, free from the delusional Blue Pill hopes that are only greater shackles for a man, and free from never seeing the intersexual pitfalls you were prone to fall into before. But Red Pill awareness comes at a cost; the truth may set you free, but it doesn’t make it pretty. If you have a responsibility as a Red Pill aware man it’s that you are never allowed to play the victim. You now know the rules of engagement. Play it well, change the rules if you can, but you are no longer allowed to say you didn’t know the score.

It is always better to know the truth than remain deceived. Even if learning the truth makes you angry.

Warning: SJW

CEOs need to stop talking to recruiters about their employment philosophies:

This really happened: While reviewing some calibration profiles for an Executive search with the founder and CEO of a company, he tells me that he doesn't think it's a good idea to go after women I've selected because they might want to have children. I was pretty much shell-shocked. Having three daughters, I had to check him on these biases. But it made me wonder how often this might actually happen when selecting talent. And how many opportunities have been lost for women as a result of this exclusion bias? I'm certain this isn't isolated. Has this happened to you?

Executives love to pontificate and lecture about their philosophies of business, hiring, the universe, and everything. In this day of the SJW, who will not hesitate to hang anyone out to dry if it gives them the opportunity to publicly virtue-signal, that is an extremely unwise self-indulgement.

Keep your thoughts to yourself; self-policing is better than being publicly policed. And what sort of service offers to "check you on your biases" anyhow?

I'll pass, thanks.

Lean in... but don't hire women

For all their preaching about the need for diversity, Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg can't be bothered to actually, you know, hire women.

Like other major tech companies, including Google parent Alphabet Inc. and Apple Inc., Facebook has struggled to increase the share of women and underrepresented minorities in its ranks. The absence of women is particularly felt in engineering, which from college classrooms to the workplace has been seen as a man’s field. Women account for 17% of technical roles at Facebook, according to its latest diversity report.

Do as they say, not as they do. I wonder what it is that they know that they're not telling anyone?

She has a right to remain silent

Of course, you have the right to move on. And would be well-advised to do so:

So basically I've just started seeing someone new and as part of the getting to know each other conversation he asked how many other people I've slept with.

I don't really know what a normal number is but I know my number is pretty high compared to my closest friends so I wasn't comfortable telling him

So I told him I wasn't going to answer that and he pushed a bit then left it so I thought that was the end of it. Then last night he asked again. I said I thought we had already had that conversation and he said so it's that many is it?

I don't know if I should of told him or not what do people think?

Have people been in a similar situation and what did you do?

What is a normal number or a high number?

Should I be worried he even asked or is that quite normal?

The reason one is well-advised to immediately end things with a woman who is not willing to be forthcoming about her sexual history is that, as you can see here, deceit is not a sound foundation for a relationship.

Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between relationship and marital success and the number of lovers a woman has had. To refuse to answer the question is tantamount to saying "too high for a reasonable expectation of marital success".

Rogue One review

The Dark Herald sees it so you don't have to, unless you really feel you must:

I have heard the complaint that all of the bad guys in this movie were white.  Which is completely true. They were.  There was not one Imperial that was a POC. The Empire is now completely and deliberately White Washed.  Although the POCs aren't exactly good guys either.  Just goodish for the most part. These days it's hard to do a politics free review especially as every SJW blogger in the universe is going to be making comparisons between Rogue One and the recent election.  Casting themselves as the Rebels naturally. In fact the writers of the film began those comparisons themselves the night of the election, right before Mickey the Great and Terrible told them to shut the fuck up and start deleting their tweets.  Yes, this film has feminism's fingerprints all over it.

In conclusion we have decent if completely predictable, Western-made film designed for the Chinese Market.  They took some smallish chances and went gritty with it.  It doesn't feel like Star Wars in the least even though it takes place in the Star Wars universe.  It does have the best battle scene in the entire series to include the assault on Hoth.

Since I haven't seen anything Star Wars-related since The Phantom Menace, I don't think I'll bother with any of the Disney Wars additions either.

Feature, not bug

It is reported that Hillary Clinton voters are cutting supporters of the God-Emperor Ascendant out of their lives:

Many Hillary Clinton voters have ceased communicating with friends, and even family members, who voted for Donald Trump. It is so common that the New York Times published a front-page article on the subject headlined “Political Divide Splits Relationships — and Thanksgiving, Too.”

The article begins with three stories: Matthew Horn, a software engineer from Boulder, Colo., canceled Christmas plans with his family in Texas. Nancy Sundin, a social worker in Spokane, Wash., has called off Thanksgiving with her mother and brother. Ruth Dorancy, a software designer in Chicago, decided to move her wedding so that her fiancé’s grandmother and aunt, strong Trump supporters from Florida, could not attend.

The Times acknowledges that this phenomenon is one-sided, saying, “Democrats have dug in their heels, and in some cases are refusing to sit across the table from relatives who voted for President-elect Donald J. Trump.” A number of people who voted for Trump called my show to tell me that their daughters had informed them they would no longer allow their parents to see their grandchildren. And one man sent me an e-mail reporting that his brother-in-law’s mother told him that she “no longer had a son.”

All of this raises an obvious question: Why is this phenomenon of cutting off contact with friends and relatives so one-sided? Why don’t we hear about conservatives shunning friends and relatives who supported Hillary Clinton? After all, almost every conservative considered Clinton to be ethically and morally challenged. And most believed that another four years of left-wing rule would complete what Barack Obama promised he would do in 2008 if he were elected president — fundamentally transform the United States of America.

Because conservatives and Trump supporters are considerably less likely to be solipsistic, emotionally incontinent, logic-challenged individuals. If a Clinton voter declares that she - and it usually will be a she - is cutting you out of her life, smile and tell her that you are doing the same.

And when she comes crawling back, as she will, don't let her. Never let an opportunity to cut a self-serving narcissist out of your life.

That being said, this is one of those "three people are a trend" stories that the Carlos Slim blog likes to run, so chances are it will, like most of those trends, have absolutely no relevance to your life.

SSH in the workplace

I'd posted this at VP, but it occurred to me that it belonged here, for the record. SSH = Socio-Sexual Hierarchy.

One of the challenges of running any organization, be it professional or volunteer, is dealing with the quirks of its various members, most of which are based on their socio-sexual status. Alphas are going to have inappropriate affairs, Betas are going to get promoted over their heads, Lambdas are going to talk relentlessly, and inappropriately, about their personal predilections and social lives, Gammas are going to preen, posture, pout, and occasionally sabotage projects and people, Sigmas are going to create the occasional intra-organizational upheaval, for good or ill, and Omegas are going to get themselves accused of sexual harassment.

That's all normal. You have to expect it as long as you're going to work with human beings. The key is learning to anticipate the problems and head them off at the pass.

Don't let the Alpha hire a hot secretary, or at the very least, be sure she isn't a married woman. Keep the Beta in a well-paid supporting position and give him a young subordinate Alpha to help him make decisions and don't promote him over his head.

Put the Lambda near the women where he'll entertain them. Try to steer the Sigma's idiosyncracies in a direction where he'll help the organization rather than harm it; they make great leaders of skunk works and horrendously bad middle managers. Give the Gammas tasks that flatter their egos, shield them from any criticism that isn't absolutely necessary, and keep them far away from any managerial responsibilities. Stash the Omegas where they can't creep out the women.

Most importantly, keep everyone out of the way of the Deltas who actually do most of the meaningful work. Remember, if they're not actively assisting the Deltas, they're obstructing them. This goes for the women too.

Finding your mission

I spoke with a reader yesterday who was wondering how he can concentrate on his mission when he doesn't have one and doesn't even know what he wants it to be.

My advice was to begin by assisting the missions of others you respect, admire, or whose missions you find worthy of support. Most men are not leaders; most men cannot be leaders of other men anyhow since if everyone was a leader, there would be no one to lead. The social hierarchy is a pyramid, with fewer captains than lieutenants, and fewer lieutenants than soldiers.

So, find your mission by becoming a soldier. Over time, if you prove yourself useful, capable, and interested, you will become a lieutenant. Most men will be content in either role; only gammas and alphas naturally seek leadership and no good leader truly enjoys it due to the burden of responsibility for others it imposes upon him.

This is particularly true of sigmas, who don't seek leadership, but often find it being thrust upon them regardless of what they want. Gammas, of course, inevitably turn out to be a disaster whenever they manage to thrust themselves into a leadership position since they don't even accept responsibility for themselves, let alone for anyone else.

Anyhow, if you're not sure about your mission, go find someone who has one and offer them your assistance. Not me; I have no shortage of high-quality lieutenants and soldiers. But there are many good men out there who are in need of your help in moving their missions forward. Help yourself by helping them.

Doing their work for them

Every man has, at one point or another, dealt with a girl or a woman batting her eyelashes at him while asking for "help". Which, of course, is usually translated as "will you do my work for me?" Luke Stranahan considers what to do when faced with this at the office:

HR demographics are a rigged game. When equality is defined as an excuse to treat men horribly in an ill-considered attempt to balance out a fictitious dystopian vision of the past for women, it is clear that men will never receive fair treatment until significant change occurs. You have to protect yourself.

If you work with a typical female technical type who thinks she knows far more than she does, the best thing to do is to disengage completely. It’s not your battle, nor your responsibility, to make sure her stuff gets done. If she doesn’t ask for help, good; don’t allow her to profit off your expertise. If she does ask, tell her that you’re happy to help, but she needs to go through management to make sure they’re good with you spending time on it. This will probably get her to back off, as she was looking for you to freebie white knight for her while she could take the credit and not look stupid.

If you’re told to work with her, attempt to do so. If she rebuffs you (and she will), document this with your boss. “I offer to help every day, but she simply won’t listen.”

My advice is to simply treat them exactly the same way you would treat a man who asks for help. Since they don't actually want assistance or explanations, but the aforementioned freebies, that's usually sufficient to encourage them to go in search of easier targets.

Of course, I've got a lot of practice at it. As the only male class "brain", I was often targeted as potential "help" by girls from an early age. My answer was always the same, and it was always effective: "I don't even do my own homework, why on Earth would I do yours?"

Alpha Mail: the husband hunt

A woman wonders if she's going about it the wrong way:

I am a reader of your blogs, and some others. What advice would you give me as an early-20s woman from an Indian Christian background looking to marry? I’m currently in graduate school. So far, I haven’t become serious about finding a husband but I feel now is a good time for me to start looking.

I’m part of a church and play in an orchestra. I’m physically healthy (BMI hovers around 21, height 5’7), although my hair is somewhat temperamental. I know many guys through these activities, but have never been asked out. (I don’t know if this is an age thing or a race thing - I’m not what the typical white Christian guy is looking for, but I know exactly 0 Indian Christian men around my age - not in my social circles anyway). I’m still a virgin and have never had a boyfriend. If you know anything about Myers-Briggs types, I’m an INTJ, and so I’m a natural loner. I do know how to clean/cook.

If I want to start attracting men who would be interested in marrying me/ I would be interested in marrying, what steps should I take to towards this? I’m hesitant about online dating at this stage. I have no idea what I should be doing.

The obvious challenge here is the INTJ personality. Women with this personality type tend to find it very hard to meet men because they naturally incline towards what is almost the unconscious female equivalent of MGTOW.

My suggestion would be to start going to the gym, spend her time there lifting free weights, and force herself to talk to men who talk to her. Her INTJ inclination will be to focus on her workouts, so she has to keep in mind that the reason she is there is to meet people.

Since she has no idea what to do, her objective should be to mirror the behavior of others. Don't think about it, don't analyze it, just do it. A man smiles at you, smile back. A man says hello to you, say hello back. That's all most men are looking for, a positive and open response.

(Which, of course, is why naturally friendly and open women are often accused of leading men on; because they are, according to the rules of social behavior, whether they intend to do so or not.)

Anyhow, her main goal has to be meeting and talking to men; she's a high achiever and yet she has put zero effort into her primary objective of getting married. This is the great conundrum of the modern woman; she spends absolutely no time or effort on achieving her primary goal.

Stay away from the crazy

This is why you don't marry a cock addict. Not even a reformed one:

On Oct. 3, after telling her husband she was going into the city for a girls’ night out, Kiersten met up with friends at a hotel at 6:30 p.m. The group then went drinking on the Lower East Side. They were out till 2:30 in the morning, drinking hard and allegedly using cocaine.

At 3 a.m., Kiersten peeled off with Marc Henry Johnson, a 51-year-old producer for HBO. She had known him since 2009 — 10 months before she married for the second time.

By 4 a.m., they were in a cab on the way to Chelsea, and the two went up to the cabdriver’s apartment.

Kiersten’s body was found at 8:30 that morning, sprawled in the vestibule, her feet propping the door open. Video showed Johnson and the driver dragging her body down the building’s stairs, leaving her to die alone....

Karina Freedman, a skin-care specialist with a large clientele in Kiersten’s Manhasset neighborhood, says many of these women are, in fact, leading double lives.

The tells: High-T female professional, married twice, girls-night-out regular, drug user (no way her husband didn't know about the taste for coke), and above all, crazy slut eyes.

Don't marry the crazy. Don't even DATE the crazy.

Delta Perspective: Making a Change

Making a change in dating takes three ingredients:

• Information
• Timing
• Catalyst

I don’t think it’s possible to make a significant change in relationships and dating without all three of these things coming together at once. This arguably holds true for many other types of change as well.

Looking back at my life there were times years ago both women and men told me the right information, but the timing was wrong. How many times has good advice fallen on deaf ears in your life? This isn’t just about the Red Pill, but life in general. Once a man has the information it does no good if the timing for change is wrong. There may be legitimate reasons why a sudden perspective change on something significant like women and relationships just can’t happen right then. The guy could be finishing up a degree, moving, looking for work, etc., all which take priority. The man could also be enjoying the easy road of porn, games, and hanging out too much. He has the info because he’s read all about the Red Pill, there’s nothing significant stopping him from acting, but there’s no change.

The most important ingredient in our change soup is a catalyst which facilitates the change. It could be a negative one like a bad breakup, sickness, being put on the friends list one more time, or just intolerable loneliness. Positive reasons for change happen too, like love, the birth of a child, and a dedication to better mental and physical health. There has to be a concrete driver of the change or no action will take place.

If you are wondering why you can’t change then seek out of these three things what’s missing and try to find it. If you have a buddy who’s stuck be a friend by being patient and the helping where you can, but ultimately it’s his life and decision to change. So don’t despair if change doesn’t happen quickly or easily, but instead store up good information, seek enough stability in your life to make a change, and look for motivation. Most of all don’t give up.

Alpha Mail: dynamic sociosexuality

TB had two questions:

1)  In your opinion/to your best guess, is changing sociosexual tendencies (omega/gamma to delta, delta to beta) something akin to homosexuality where it'll be something a person will struggle with their whole life, trying not to fall back into their old rank yet being very tempted to?  Or is it something closer to 'if you're still tempted to do old rank stuff, you haven't quite left it'?

2)  You are of a very different temperament than I.  Regardless, it may be very instructive for me to ask, in your experience how does one deal with a fear of the unknown

Because we are shaped by our experiences, and because those experiences do not disappear simply because we have new experiences, there is always the danger of reverting to previous patterns of behavior. Sociosexuality is dynamic, situational, and relative, so sociosexual rank is neither a life sentence nor carved in stone.

As far as dealing with a fear of the unknown goes, in my experience, the only way to successfully eradicate fear is to face it. When I was young, I quite reasonably shied away from contact on the soccer field. I was half the size of the defenders guarding me and I wore glasses to boot.

It took several years of heavy contact martial arts to shake that instinctive fear of contact, but directly confronting it worked very well. It worked so well that now I'm moderately notorious in our veteran's league for physically punishing defenders; it is a rare game that I don't leave two or three defenders on the ground as a result of challenging me for the ball.

Brian Billick gave the best advice anyone has ever given on confronting fear.

"When you go in the lion's den, you don't tippy-toe in. You carry a spear, you go in screaming like a banshee, you kick whatever doors in, and say, 'Where's the son of a bitch!' If you go in any other way you're gonna lose."

Alpha Mail: divorce and disclosure

TA asks about the right time to tell a woman about his marital history:

 I am a 28yo man who believe in the red pill teachings and have been learning from many bloggers, including Heartiste, Rollo, and you, for a number of years. I have come across your post "No disclosure means divorce" the other day. You mention that, "young men should start expressing a firm No Disclosure Means Divorce policy, as this… permits men to make informed decision with regards to whom they will or will not marry." I have a similar scenario, but in reverse, and I want to seek for your advice.

I made the biggest mistake of getting married when I was 25yo only to find out that my "wife" cheated on me shortly after our marriage. Needless to say, I separated from her immediately and am in the process of filing a divorce. Fast forward to now, I am ready to go into a more serious relationship. I am wondering if I ever find a woman that is worthy of my time investment and with whom I see a future, when I should disclose my past history of marriage and divorce to her. And how would you suggest me disclosing without jeopardizing the relationship?

I think the right time is on the first date. I don't think it is necessary to go into details concerning precisely why the marriage failed; a light-hearted statement like "she failed to understand the concept that marriage entails the end of one's casual dating life" will suffice.

Women aren't like men. They don't view divorce as the turnoff that men do. Quite to the contrary, they see it as evidence that a man is "the marrying kind", so long as he isn't wounded and bitter about it. The longer TA fails to disclose his divorce, the more likely it is that the woman will be troubled by it when she finally learns about it. The less concerned about it he appears, the less interested and bothered by it she will be.

If asked about it, TA should simply shrug, give a wry smile, and say: "Oh, she was young and silly. It was hardly the end of the world. Anyway, that was a long time ago, so what about you? Any secret marriages into a polygamous Mormon household or an Arab harem?"

The one thing to absolutely avoid is the temptation to cry on the new woman's shoulder and tell her what a wounded bird he is and how he'll never be able to trust again. Women are attracted to rocks, not wounded birds.

Tolkien on intersexual relations

JRR Tolkien explores the mistaken avenue of chivalry and the backwards nature of pedestalization.

There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes 'love' — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, 'service', courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned 'his divinity' = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God's way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly 'theocentric'. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man's eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of 'true love', as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a 'love' that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).

Women really have not much part in all this, though they may use the language of romantic love, since it is so entwined in all our idioms. The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point – and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him. But this is their natural avenue to love. Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing) she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit.

Things women should know about men

This isn't the list of 50 things I would compile, but it's not bad place to start. Here are some of the particularly good bits of advice:

2. You Can’t Change Him

7. Don’t Ask Questions You Don’t Want To Know The Answers To

18. If You’ve Been Living Together For Longer Than Three Years, He’s Not Going To Marry You

25. You Should Always Take His Side

28. He Hates That Short Haircut

35. Don’t EVER Emasculate Him

47. Make Sure You Look Just As Good When You Go Out With Him As When You Go Out With The Girls

The primary point that was missing was this: Be Submissive, Not Challenging. The one vital thing women most often fail to understand about men is that men are made for conflict. When we are challenged, we instinctively want to vanquish and crush the opponent, no matter who it is. But bat your eyelashes and ask for something sweetly, and it makes us want to launch a thousand ships on your behalf.

Athol Kay on Violence

Athol considers the various options a man has when faced with a violent female partner:

[Y]ou have to accept that once someone starts being willing to use Violence against you, it will continue until something breaks the cycle.

There are four possible outcomes…

(1) You do nothing, she keeps smacking you when you’re insolent. You learn to be whatever she decides is “good” and figure out ways to apologize for things that are her fault, lose all sense of a personal identity, clean up the messes she makes and generally turn yourself into a human shield if she ever looks sideways at the children.

(2) You respond with greater Violence and hit her back harder than she hits you. Well… this might work briefly, but honestly the more predictable outcome is simply an escalation of both of you playing the Violence strategy toward the full colonoscopy of emergency services and interventions. There’s not really a winner here.

(3) You quit the relationship. Actually this may not be a bad option. If there are no kids involved and no particular reason to stay, you really may as well bail on someone who displays this level of poor judgment. I’m betting she’s not exactly a peach in the other areas of her life either.

(4) You get Outside Force involved. This is the only possible route if you want to try and address the situation and also keep the relationship intact. The trick here is that you have to make this as defensively clear that you are not the abuser as you can. Video or audio of her acting violent and/or verbally aggressive, while you are clearly not doing anything other than defensively trying to block and dodge may be helpful. If you are injured and she isn’t, head to the Emergency Room and say what happened, which will then trigger a police visit to follow up on your defensive injuries.

Being more cynical about the system than Athol, I very much disagree with his conclusion. From what I have seen and read, (4) is skipping past Go and going directly to the full and aforementioned colonoscopy. If one reads Theodore Dalrymple's chronicle of witnessing violent abuse and intersexual relations as an emergency physician, it is apparent that (2) is actually the smarter bet.

Why? Because the woman is always more malleable than a system that relies upon and profits from a continuing supply of "abused" women. Any contact with the system, even voluntary contact from a genuinely abused man, permits it to manufacture an "abused" woman, even from a woman who is herself the abuser. And it will not hesitate to do so.

Men simply cannot rely upon Outside Force. It is too treacherous and too readily turned against them. Therefore, the only real options are (2) and (3), which means the only option if one wishes to salvage the relationship is (2). My disagreement notwithstanding, I must note that there is genuine wisdom in his concluding statement: "once someone can hit you and get away with it, they don’t stop hitting you."

Alpha Mail: "Put off career" says female PhD

A woman who is more accomplished academically in a much more intellectually challenging field than nearly any feminist you will ever meet speaks against the feminist fetish of career aspirations. She writes in response to a quote from yesterday's post:

"The idea that women are too focused on being intellectual, or shouldn't have career aspirations that would allow them to earn more than their (potential) husbands is absurd and patently offensive."

She's wrong. It's not absurd or offensive, it's straight-up truth. And it's not even so much about the money (although, for the health of a marriage I do believe the husband should be the breadwinner), but about sacrificing career aspirations to do the single most important thing a woman can do, which is to get married and raise a family.

I am a highly intellectual woman with a successful professional career, and I realize now what a mistake I've made by not settling down and having children early. I married 12 years ago, but put off having children in order to finish graduate school and establish my scientific career. Last December, at the age of 42, I had a baby daughter. I realize now that this would've been MUCH easier 10 or 20 years ago. It's not only a struggle to care for a newborn at my age, but making the sudden shift from a woman who has, for decades, been very busy with intellectual pursuits and relatively unencumbered by responsibility to a stay-at-home mom has been unexpectedly difficult.

My own dear departed mother got married at 19 and had me and my brother at 21 and 22 years of age. I look at old photos of her with us as babies, and she looks deliriously happy. She LOVED being a mother. She had that crazy young-person energy you need to raise babies and no established adult life that she felt like she was losing in order to become a mother. Later, when my brother and I were older, she went back to university to finish her degree and enjoyed many happy years as a teacher.

I regret putting off children for so long. I wish I had put off my graduate education and career in order to have had more healthy children. (My first daughter had a fatal chromosomal abnormality and was stillborn. The risk for such problems increases sharply with maternal age -- another reason to start having children young.) The one thing I did right was to learn to cook and keep house, the love and skill of which I learned from my mother at a young age. But motherhood has not come easy at 40+. For that reason, I will tell every girl I know (including my daughter) to not make the same mistake I did. Put off the career. Learn to cook and keep house, find a good man and get married young, and start having babies as soon as possible.

So, who are you going to listen to, young women? Who do you think knows what she's talking about, the woman with both the PhD and the child or the crazy cat ladies with neither physics degrees nor children?

The desexualized church

Deti of JustFourGuys warns Christian men of some of the perils that may await the man who looks for a Christian wife at church:

–The “Desexualized Zone”.    Women increasingly expect churches and church functions to be places of freedom from “unwanted” interactions. Translated, this means women expect unattractive men to know their place and not to ask women out or otherwise talk to them at church.  They expect men either to avoid them completely, or to be eunuchs, existing to serve them.  There have been reports in the manosphere of women actually complaining to pastors about “unattractive” men asking them out at church. It is as if women expect pastors and church staff to punish and rebuke men for “sexual harassment” at churches, merely because in a social situation they acted like men and pursued someone/something they wanted.   Of course, none of this applies to attractive men, who are never the subject of complaint or sanction no matter what they do.

–“Reformed” sluts.    (Not to be confused with actual, genuine reformed sluts, who really are trying to improve their lives.  This concerns the faux reformed.)   Every church has these as well.   These are women in their late 20 and early 30s with decent jobs and colorful pasts.  All have had multiple sex partners.  Most have never been married and have no children. Most show up at church, or are returning to church, after a parade of alpha sex partners, an abortion, contracting a sexual disease, a bad breakup with a long term boyfriend or fiancé; or occasionally after a brief failed first marriage.   She’s had her “come to Jesus” moment, she sees “the error of her ways”, she’s “tired of the games and the playas”, and she “wants to do it the right way this time”.  

Characteristics of a “reformed” slut:

1.   Speaks fluent Christianese.
2.   Extremely defensive about her past.
3.   Refers to her past as a series of “mistakes”.
4.   Has at least one alpha relationship in her past.
5.   Excuses, explains, justifies and defends her past.
6.   Quick to defend sluts.
7.   Actively looking for a husband, and enlisting the help of anyone and everyone she can find in this task.
8.   Her taste in men has markedly changed.  She used to like motorcycle riders and investment bankers.   Now she’s decided she really, really likes nerdy accountants and guys who sing in church choirs.

When Mark Driscoll and other pastors talk about “great” women in their churches who are over 30 and who really want to get married, these are the women they’re talking about.   These women are using church as a desperate last resort to find a husband.   Pastors and other women tout the “reformed” sluts as prime marriage material.   It’s done as a well-intentioned gesture to get these women married off.  It’s treacherous for men because too many of those marriages are destined for failure or sexless misery. 

I have to defer to Deti on this one, since I have literally never met a woman I dated at church. As an alternative strategy, I once suggested this:

1. Meet a woman at a bar or night club
2. Ask her if she's interested in attending church with you

One of my brothers took that advice a bit too literally. My thought was that he could ask a woman if she was up for attending church after going out with her a few times. My idiot brother instead walked up to a girl he didn't know in a nightclub and asked her if she wanted to go to church with him. She said yes, less because she was interested in church than the fact that he is extremely handsome.

But hey, it worked. And the punchline? They're still married.

Holiday survival guide

It's Christmas Eve. The round of parties are reaching their climax and the gift-giving is about to begin in earnest. It may be helpful, therefore, to consider the how to approach the social aspects of the celebrations from a socio-sexual perspective.

If you are a man:

1. Remember that the women are putting in a lot of work and are feeling a lot of stress. This is not the time to remember things at the last minute or lament how things were done differently when you were a child. Avoid throwing curve balls.
2. Don't tell her to relax. She's not going to do so anymore than you are during a hard fought basketball game. Holiday-hosting can perhaps be best understood as a competitive sport for women, even if the only competitors are in her mind.
3. Ask her if there is anything you can do twice per day, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. Simply having someone willing to run out to the store once or twice, if necessary, can save considerable time and reduce tensions.
4. Pour yourself a glass of wine as soon as it gets dark. Offer her one. She'll probably need it.
5. Don't let her get away with snapping at you or anyone else. The objective is to be helpful and considerate, not a doormat.
6. It's Christmas. She cooked it all. After dinner, pour the wine, put the game on in the kitchen, and clean up.
7. Don't get bent out of shape if anyone accepts gifts with all the good grace of an entitled welfare queen. Just smile and be content in the knowledge that next year, you can achieve exactly the same results for one-quarter the cost.
8. Save the receipts. Enough said.

If you are a woman:

1. Try to remember that it's a celebration, not a competition, and the world will not end if a particular dish is not served or something doesn't go exactly the way you planned it.
2. The only person who can ruin the holiday for yourself is you. In fact, the only person who is likely to ruin the holiday for everyone else is you. Don't be that woman.
3. If someone is taking pictures or video, just smile. Drawing additional attention to yourself by complaining and protesting looks far more ridiculous than your bedhead or lack of makeup does.
4. It's Christmas. This is not the time to maximize the amount of familial drama or attempt to take center stage.
5. Sit down and take a deep breath from time to time. Remember the story of Martha and Mary. No one is watching in admiration and awarding you martyr points.
6. If you need help, ask for it. Don't wait for volunteers.
7. Save the opinion editorials when you open a present. Don't explain why it's not quite what you wanted or why it's almost perfect. Be gracious. Smile and say thank you.
8. Red lingerie. Enough said.