How to make a supergamma

Assuming that one doesn't simply have a budding young lambda on one's hands. If you don't look at these pictures of smiling, happy young drag queens and see the evil lurking underneath, there is something very, very wrong with you.

The camp, “You Are You” (the name has been changed to protect the privacy of the children and is also the name of Morris’ series), is for “Parents who don’t have a gender-confirming 3-year-old who wants to wear high heels and prefers to go down the pink aisle in K-Mart and not that nasty dark boys’ aisle,” Morris said with a laugh.

It is also a place for both parents and children to feel protected in an environment that encourages free expression.

“[The kids] don’t have to look over their shoulders, and they can let down their guard. Those are four days when none of that matters, and they are surrounded by family members who support them,” Morris said....

Although it is unknown if the kids at the camp will eventually identify as gay or transgender—or even if the way gender and sexuality are defined throughout society will evolve—the camp allows the kids to look at themselves in a completely different way.

“They get enough questioning in their daily lives, so it’s a great place for them to express themselves as they feel. … I feel we hear so many of the sad stories and how LGBT kids are disproportionately affected by bullying, depression, and suicide, and it hangs a heavy cloud over them and kind of dooms them from the beginning. I’m saying this is a new story. This is not a tragedy.”

It's not often that one looks at a youth camp showing pictures of happy children and finds oneself thinking, "you know, those jihadists really do have a point".  This camp for "gender non-conforming" is evidence that decadent Western society deserves to be killed with fire.

Here is my prediction: by encouraging these mentally abnormal young boys to revel in their illness rather than to conquer it, the consequences are going to be exactly the opposite expected.  I hope they do follow the progress of the camp attendees over time, as I predict that as adults, the camp attendees will not only show higher rates of depression, drug abuse, and suicide than the average of the general population, but that they will show higher rates of depression, drug abuse, and suicide than the LGBT average.

I will also bet that at least one of these campers will murder his parents in his teenage years.  Some of these kids are so young that their behavior appears to reflect their mother's desires for a daughter rather than any self-directed inclinations.

Hugo Danger

Alas, poor Hugo.  How little we knew him, Horatio.  And who would have thought the old lecher had so much hypocrisy in him?  The Real Porn Wiki Leaks has the completely NSFW details about the long-expected fall of Hugo Schwyzer:

The embattled 46 year old ‘male feminist’ writer and Pasadena Community College professor who long claimed to be a reformed sexual predator and addict has announced his departure from public life, and, in an interview with The Cut cited an extramarital affair and ongoing mental health issues.

The details of this marital infidelity are not known, but in January 2013, Schwyzer, then 45, had a brief but torrid texting, telephonic and online fling with a 27 year old woman named Christina Parreira, also known is “sex worker activism’ circles as Christina Page — and in webcam/amateur porn circles as Gabriela “Ela” Stone. According to Parreira, Schwyzer acknowledged that revelation of their fling would be “career-killing” for him — Hugo has called older men who are “into” younger women – such as men in their 40s being attracted to and pursuing women in their 20s – dirty old men and “creeps.”

I honestly cannot think of a single individual I am less surprised to hear turned out to be a creepy, adulterous pervert.  As a general rule, the more a man publicly lectures others about the importance of not being creepy, and the more "feminist" he proclaims himself to be, the more likely it is that he is a creepy pervert who is barely managing to keep his urges under control.  It's exactly like the way ex-smokers preach the anti-smoking gospel and alcoholics lecture everyone on teetotalism.

So, how long does everyone expect "his departure from public life" to last?  If Carlos Danger is any guide, he'll be running for the mayor of Los Angeles soon.  This is, of course, very sad news for the androsphere, as I see no way that Roissy is going to be able to survive hearing about Schwyzer's self-immolation without laughing himself to death.

“I’m done,” [Schwyzer] wrote. “I surrender the field to the critics who wanted me gone from feminist spaces.” 

What a pathetic charade.  What a gargantuan fraud.  And what a monstrous hypocrite. But the only thing remarkable about this revelation is how it will surprise absolutely no one on either side.  I do have to salute his "off-brand" comment, though.  That could be useful in a broad range of contexts.  "Yes, I was speeding, officer, but that is very off-brand for me."

Persecuting omega

This white knighting gamma can't figure out why men get so angry when people complain about creepers:

I confess: I still don't get it. We write about things that make people angry: sometimes on purpose (u mad bro?), sometimes because the topic interests us. But few topics are as consistent in their ability to draw anger and trolling and bizarre visitors as the issue of sexual harassment and responses to it.

If I talk about my experiences training clients' employees in how to avoid sexual harassment, I draw nutters. If I talk about sites that discuss bad behavior towards women in gaming culture — great sites like Fat, Ugly, or Slutty — people get angry. Discussions of outing and vigorous more-speech remedies seem to be more controversial when the target is chosen for being a creeper rather than, say, a racist. Even the abstract subject of this post — the meta-examination of why the subject of harassment is so incendiary to some — generates some of the most vituperative comments we ever see here.

This attitude is common among low-ranking men who don't understand the socio-sexual hierarchy.  They don't understand that by talking about the subjective realm of "sexual harassment" as if it is objective, they are usually taking a position that unfairly persecutes the lower-ranking men in society.

And just as the cruelest school bullies are those who are just above the lowest boys on the totem pole, the most clueless white knights are the gammas who have mastered their creepy instincts and don't see why everyone else doesn't do the same.  Because they a) know they are at least potentially creepy, and, b) have managed to modify their behavior in a manner to control it, they believe that sexual harassment is objective, universal, and intentional.

None of those things are true.

You see, here is the observable fact of the matter.  Men of sufficiently high socio-sexual status cannot sexually harass women.  They simply cannot do it. A man of sufficiently high rank can, in public, grab a woman's ass, squeeze her breasts while making honking sounds, stick his tongue down her throat, sling her over his shoulder and haul her off to a bedroom, slide his hand down her pants and inside her underwear, or tell her to lift her skirt and turn around, without ever hearing a single word of protest.

Millions of women don't read 50 Shades of Grey because they so perfectly hate the idea of men ordering them around.

And a high-status man can do all of those things without having met her or even knowing what her name is. For example, compare the difference in the public reaction to direct complaints that Bill Clinton had raped various women to reports that Anthony Weiner had been sexting land whales.

Clinton not only raped and assaulted multiple women over the years, but inserted a cigar in an White House intern's body in the most power-imbalanced employment relationship that is even theoretically possible in the United States.  He got a pass from the women and everyone else, with female journalists offering "one free grope" and volunteering head, simply because he is an alpha.  Weiner, who is more of a Washington insider than Clinton was prior to his presidency, provokes considerable disgust for far lesser sexual offenses.

It's all about sexual dominance.  The gamma can offend a woman by simply looking at her.  The alpha not only won't offend that same woman by ordering her to lift her skirt and turn around, but the chances are very high that she will obey him even if she hasn't actually met him.  Even if she won't obey on the spot, she will still laugh, slap his shoulder, and tell him "you're so bad!"

So, it is the intrinsically false perspective of the white knight that provokes anger and irritation from a wide range of men.  The higher ranking men are not angry, they are merely expressing contempt for the mouthy gamma and his cluelessness.  The lower-ranking men are angry at the unfairness of how they are targeted and castigated for behavior that is objectively less egregious than what they see their higher-ranking counterparts, and, for that matter, women, are permitted to do with impunity.

Lecturing creepers is, for the most part, bullying of omegas by gammas.  It's wrong-headed and it's wrong.  And it provokes anger for the same reason that most bullying does.

Consider, for example, the average sex scene in a SF/F novel written by a gamma male.  Now reverse the sexes.  I will bet that more than 50 percent of those sex scenes would qualify as "sexual harassment", if not sexual assault, if committed by a gamma or omega male.

Game in national politics

Alpha chaser Maureen Dowd shows how the difference between the Clinton sex scandals and the Weiner sex scandals comes down to Game, and specifically, the second and third rules of sexual harassment:

1. Be handsome
2. Be attractive
3. Don't be unattractive

Bill and Hillary Clinton transformed the way we look at sex scandals. They plowed through the ridicule, refused to slink away in shame like Gary Hart, said it was old news, and argued that if Hillary didn’t object, why should voters? 

Poppy Bush thought Americans would reject Bill Clinton in 1992 because of his lascivious ways, but he learned that voters are more concerned with how their own lives will be changed than they are with politicians’ duplicitous private lives. Americans keep moving the marker of acceptable behavior, partly as a reflection of the coarsening of society and partly as a public acknowledgment that many pols with complicated personal lives have been good public servants. 

Now, defining deviancy downward, Señor and Señora Danger are using the Clinton playbook. The difference is, there’s nothing in Weiner’s public life that is redeeming....

[Huma's friends] fear Huma learned the wrong lesson from Hillary, given that Bill was a roguish genius while Weiner’s a creepy loser. 

“Bill Clinton was the greatest political and policy mind of a generation,” said one. “Anthony is behaving similarly without the chops or résumé.” 

As often as Bill apologized, he didn’t promise he would “never, ever” do it again, as Weiner did.

Maureen Dowd, who never met an Alpha Male she didn't like, was very quick to forgive Bill Clinton his peccadilloes.  Clinton wasn't handsome, but he was attractive to women due to his personal charisma and formidable charm.  Anthony Weiner not only looks like an anti-semitic caricature of a goblin, but he has absolutely no charm that is visible to any woman who isn't into late night sexting on Twitter.

The key phrase is: "The difference is, there’s nothing in Weiner’s public life that is redeeming...."  What Dowd actually means is that Weiner is too socio-sexually low in rank to justify giving him an Alpha pass on bad behavior.  And the key socio-sexual identifier is the word "creepy".

Someone previously asked where Weiner would rank socio-sexually.  Now that he has been publicly denied the Alpha pass, we know he cannot be Alpha.  I would say that he is a Gamma, because he's far too tightly wound to be a Beta and too desperate to be a Delta; he's psycho-sexually juvenile, and he won over Huma through traditional Gamma acts of service.  Even more importantly, he is not only married to a woman who is widely assumed to be a lesbian, he is afraid to follow through on pursuing the women he meets online and he appears to dwell in a delusion bubble.  And then, there is the description of him as "a creepy loser".

The clear contempt that so many people harbor for Carlos Danger despite his fame and political power is a good indication of the importance of socio-sexuality.

The new Chris Brown

What are the chances that Emma Roberts will be as roundly condemned for physically attacking her boyfriend as Chris Brown was for physically attacking his girlfriend?

Emma Roberts was arrested for domestic violence in Canada for allegedly hitting her actor boyfriend Evan Peters. The 22-year-old niece of actress Julia Roberts was taken into custody on July 7 in Montreal after getting into a fight with her beau that left 26-year-old Peters bloody, according to TMZ. Police were called after someone reported a fight in the couple's hotel room and found Peters with a bloody nose.

As I have frequently observed, there is no such thing as equality in any material sense, least of all sexual equality.  And any man who somehow manages to get physically beaten up by a woman renders himself a gamma; no alpha would ever accept such treatment regardless of the subsequent legal consequences.  The very fact that a man is physically attacked in the first place is indicative of the woman's belief in his low socio-sexual status.

Women don't dare are much less inclined to attack alphas, not even with the full force of an anti-male legal regime behind them.  They understand that an alpha would much rather spend the rest of his life in prison than live it knowing he submitted to a physical assault by a woman without responding.  It is silly to say that a man who won't defend himself against women isn't a man, but it is a strong evidence that he is a man of average or lower socio-sexual status.

The next time you're tempted to white-knight

You would do well to keep this sort of thing in mind:

Philip, a polite and quietly spoken 26-year-old father-of-one, was plucked out of the blue by a total stranger who spotted his picture on the social networking site and decided to falsely accuse him of rape. In an act of inexplicable viciousness, 31-year-old fantasist Linsey Attridge chanced upon a photograph of Philip and his then 14-year-old brother James and used it to back up a story she’d concocted. She’d done it, apparently, in order to win some sympathy with her boyfriend, when she feared his affections were waning....

It was only two weeks ago that Linsey, a single mother, appeared at Aberdeen Sheriff Court, where she admitted a charge of wasting police time. And her punishment for a callous deceit that besmirched the names of two innocent young men? A risible 200 hours of community service and a social services supervision order.

Women not only lie about rape, but women USUALLY lie about rape.  The "rape culture" that feminists and their white knights decry exists; but only in the parts of the West where third worlders have been permitted to reside.  And the more sympathy that real rape victims are given, the more women who have not been raped crave to get in on that dramatic action.

The statistics are unambiguous.  Most rape accusations are false, by which I do not mean that they are he said-she said cases that may or may not be genuine but unprovable, but are either exposed as false by the evidence gathered or admitted to be false by the accuser.  So, the next time a woman tearfully recounts the terrible awful story of her rape for your wide-eyed and sympathetic benefit, keep in mind that she is probably making the whole thing up because she wants to be the focus of attention.

And if you want to have some fun with such a fantasist, just pretend to take her very seriously and insist on driving her to the police so that she can report the "crime".  The degree to which she demurs is the degree to which you can be confident she is concocting fiction.

Primeval Game

"A kind of friendliness had grown up between Fern-flower and me. Nothing too intimate: I had never dared touch her. But we had long talks. Or rather, she told me all sorts of things about her life; in my fear of giving myself away, of making her suspect my identity, I stuck always to generalities. Fern-flower told me her dreams: ‘Last night I saw this enormous Dinosaur, terrifying, breathing smoke from his nostrils. He came closer, grabbed me by the nape, and carried me off. He wanted to eat me alive. It was a terrible dream, simply terrible, but – isn’t this odd? – I wasn’t the least frightened. No, I don’t know how to say it … I liked him …’

That dream should have made me understand many things and especially one thing: that Fern-flower desired nothing more than to be assaulted. This was the moment for me to embrace her. But the Dinosaur they imagined was too different from the Dinosaur I was, and this thought made me even more different and timid. In other words, I missed a good opportunity."
- Italo Calvino, "The Dinosaurs", Cosmicomics, 1965

The basic mechanics that underlie Game are nothing new. Women have hungered to be assaulted and possessed, seduced and overcome, embraced and swept away, mastered and dominated, for the entirety of their existence.  It is a structural desire; it is a part of who they are.

However, the feminist denial of that female desire is intellectual, (in the technical sense, anyhow, as it's obviously not very intelligent), and therefore an intellectual refutation of that denial is necessary. The science-based aspects of that refutation are an important part of what is now known as Game.  But what this selection from a classic Calvino story shows, and what the critics of Game fail to grasp, is that their contentions are only opposed by some of the sharper minds of the present, but by the greatest minds of the past as well.

It also shows that the gamma male mentality has been the primary character perspective in science fiction and fantasy for a very long time; it didn't begin with Neal Stephenson and Jim Butcher.

"‘You know something? Last night I dreamed that a Dinosaur was to go past my house,’ Fern-flower said to me, ‘a magnificent Dinosaur, a Prince or a King of Dinosaurs. I made myself pretty, I put a ribbon on my head, and I leaned out of the window. I tried to attract the Dinosaur’s attention, I bowed to him, but he didn’t even seem to notice me, didn’t even deign to glance at me …’

This dream furnished me with a new key to the understanding of Fern-flower’s attitude towards me: the young creature had mistaken my shyness for disdainful pride. Now, when I recall it, I realize that all I had to do was maintain that attitude a little longer, make a show of haughty detachment, and I would have won her completely. Instead, the revelation so moved me that I threw myself at her feet, tears in my eyes, and said: ‘No, no, Fern-flower, it’s not the way you think; you’re better than any Dinosaur, a hundred times better, and I feel so inferior to you …’

Fern-flower stiffened, took a step backwards. ‘What are you saying?’ This wasn’t what she expected: she was upset, and she found the scene a bit distasteful. I understood this too late; I hastily recovered myself, but a feeling of uneasiness now weighed heavily between us."

White Knights undermine civilization

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

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

Go me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus endeth the lesson.

If she's hot, she must be fake

It is quite educational to see how the gamma male finds the idea of the existence of a highly attractive woman to be literally incredible:

I noted another odd thing: both times the same old photo of Spacebunny emerged. In fact it appeared to be the only photo of the woman. A professionally-taken modelling photo apparently. Hmm....

Before Vox Day's minions (real and sockpuppety) pop up in here to burn me alive in a wicker model of their leader's phallus, I should add this post is no less spurious, cherry-picked and unscientific as anything on Vox Day's blog. If Vox Day can say NK Jemesin isn't fully human, then I can say Vox Day's wife doesn't even fucking exist.

James Worrad can say whatever he likes, but that doesn't make his statements true.  For example, he is correct to note that the only picture of the woman he has found is a professionally-taken modelling photo, but although I know it is very hard for gamma males like him to believe it, "perfect-ten" women who have such photos taken of them do exist in real life.  Some of them even marry SF/F writers.

They just don't want anything to do with creepy little goblins like him.

Assuming Spacebunny's nonexistence isn't Mr. Worrad's only error.  I never said NK Jemesin isn't fully human, in fact, Ms Jemisin is the one who talked about herself that way. Worrad is claiming the right to do something on the basis of something I never did.  As for the false claim that I have a reputation for sockpuppeting, that is totally untrue and the accusation was nothing more than a figment of the Ghastly Toad of Tor's imagination.

Worrad provides a useful example of how strong the gamma delusion bubble is.  It will actually lead a gamma to deny the existence of an individual whom dozens of people on the blog have met in person, and with whom literally hundreds of other readers have interacted.  The delusion bubble can even lead the gamma to conclude that it is more reasonable for him to assume an elaborate sockpuppeting plan rather than accept the fact that a man much higher up the socio-sexual hierarchy than him would naturally attract much more attractive women.

Why gammas love Star Trek

I've never, ever, been able to figure out the appeal of Star Trek to otherwise intelligent people, nor understood why so its fans are so reliably low in the socio-sexual hierarchy.  But in reading Tom Simon's essay on The Silmarillion, a minor comparison suddenly explained the nature of Star Trek's appeal to the gammas and low deltas of the world, particularly The Next Generation, to me:

Gone, too, are the interesting dissensions among the Valar, for Tolkien in his old age found such things impossible to reconcile with his theological preoccupations. It is duller than the earlier story, for precisely the same reason that Dante’s Paradiso is duller than his Inferno, or that Paradise Regained is duller than Paradise Lost. Or to take another example, distinctly lesser but perhaps more familiar, it is like the difference between the original Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation. The second series was more polished and ambitious than the first, but when Gene Roddenberry laid down the law that there should be no interpersonal conflicts among the crew of the Enterprise D, much salt went out of the work. The friendly sparring of Spock and McCoy, or of Ulmo and Ossë, was an element that should not lightly have been lost.

Gammas hate and fear dissension and open conflict.  So, to a lesser extent, do women. This ban on interpersonal conflicts is precisely why Star Trek was, and is, pure rabbit entertainment. It allows them to indulge in vicarious, collective heroism that does not pay the cost that classic tales usually require of the hero, which is his exclusion from the ordinary folk.

Alpha Mail: IQ has its downsides

For a smart guy, it has taken AB an awfully long time to realize that mere intelligence is no guarantee of anything:

What would you recommend for a high-IQ person who seems to have no ambition or ability to get things done?  Do you know of a resource for smart people with self-discipline problems?  Now the wordy background, in case it helps: I'm a [forty-something] programmer and [retail shop] owner, and have been broke or nearly so most of my life, because I always seem to make just almost enough money to get by.

I was tested at an 8th-grade level going into kindergarten, and at a 160 IQ when I was 13.  I'm not a savant in any particular area.  Though math was my best and favorite subject, I got all A's in everything (when I wanted to) and my ACT scores were 32+ on all subjects.

I don't think I'm lazy exactly, because I'll work hard on a killer sudoku or building something in my back yard when I'm into it.  I tested positive for ADD a few years ago, but the medication seemed to make no difference except reduce my need for naps, so I gave that up.

The problem comes when I have a job to do: if I don't absolutely have to do it right now and will be totally screwed if I don't, I put it off.  I try to make lists, leave myself notes, give myself pep talks, but nothing helps much.  When the creditors are knocking and I need the money to keep from going to court, then I sit myself down and tear through a job to get paid, and feel stupid that I didn't do it much sooner.  So I *can* do the work, and I'm fortunate that I'm smart enough to do it fast, but it's still a miserable way to get by.  Ten billable hours a week would cover my living costs, but I don't manage that most of the time.

It started in school, when I could do the homework during class while all the other kids were still learning the lesson, or in a pinch I could knock out a 3-week essay on the bus in the way in.  Then it got worse, to where I'd turn stuff in late and use the extra credit to get back up to an A.  In real life, the consequences are worse, of course.

As best I can figure from bouncing ideas off a counselor, the problem is that I hate having to do anything on anyone else's terms, and when it came to mental work, I've never had to.  Terminal stubbornness, basically, and having no self-discipline.  I'll spend an hour writing and polishing a comment for someone else's blog, but when I think about spending an hour working on a job that's over deadline, I get tired and start rationalizing a nap.  Even with my own projects, I get started well, but I think I start to balk when I reach the point where I'd be going live soon, because then I'll be obligated to support it.

Sorry to go on so long, but as you can probably tell, I've been struggling with this for a long time, and I hate wasting my God-given brains this way (and giving smart people a bad name).  If you have any suggestions, I appreciate them, and also your time in reading this.

High intelligence, superlative athleticism, and great beauty come with the same handicap; the expectation that the mere possession of it is sufficient to merit the high regard of others and material success.  My recommendation is that AB belatedly get over his intelligence, realize that no one but him actually gives a damn about it, and focus on developing his self-discipline so he has the wherewithal to pay attention to a task longer than the average male kindergartener with ADD.

Some very smart people don't seem to realize that talking about their intelligence is no more intrinsically interesting to normal people than listening to strong people talking about how strong they are or pretty people talking about how pretty they are to them.  Nor do they realize that their obsession with one facet of their lives tends to render them rather low in the socio-sexual hierarchy. There is a reason, after all, that Roissy subtracted a point for IQ over 120 in rating male attractiveness.

The chief problem here isn't a lack of focus per se, but rather that intelligent people can rationalize practically anything, no matter how stupid or self-destructive it is. 

If AB really wants to change his life, then I recommend first getting involved in an activity where intelligence doesn't help much, if at all.  Full contact martial arts is a great way of truly understanding the irrelevance of intelligence versus hard work.  Weightlifting is also good; the iron doesn't care and you can't persuade it off the bar.  He doesn't need to develop a work ethic, but rather, a work habit.

The second thing is to learn to start completing tasks.  Pick a small, reasonable goal and do not permit any divergence from it until it is accomplished.  Then pick a larger one, and do it again.  There is a sort of decision paralysis that tends to afflict the highly intelligent; the more options one can see, the harder it can be to choose between them.  But in this case, the perfect is not only the enemy of the good, it is the enemy of accomplishing anything.

The third thing is to get over the fear of failure.  The intelligent often pre-rationalize their failures by refusing to throw themselves sufficiently into their projects and responsibilities.  But this is simple self-sabotage and an exercise in repeated frustration.

AB is starting late.  These are lessons he should have learned by his mid-twenties.  But in such cases, better late than never.  The prime objective is to avoid getting trapped into the high-IQ gamma mindset, in which everything happens to the gamma for reasons beyond his control and nothing is ever his fault.

Alpha Mail: Women Ruin Everything: Cosplay edition

The scales are gradually falling from JD's eyes:

I've been really enjoying AG and VP, although in different ways. While reading VP I find myself nodding and saying "Yes, that's what I always thought!" While reading AG I find myself feeling a growing sense of horror at the thorough and complete incorrectness of everything I'd been taught. I believe the truth of your assertions are self evident once one is aware of them and contrasts them with PC assertions and evaluates which better explains reality. I think you're doing a valuable service for people who haven't heard any other view point.

Anyway, I ran across an article that, using my newly scaleless eyes to evaluate from a new perspective, I found interesting. The woman attends sci-fi cons and dresses up in attractive sci fi costumes, then is upset when (a) other women criticize her appearance (b) men compliment her on her appearance. It's the women's snide criticism that really gets to her, so naturally, most of the article is devoted to bashing the male privilege culture at conventions.

Well, naturally.  Because it must be the men's fault that they don't do a better job of protecting her from hearing judgmental and offensive comments about the shortness of her skirt from the obese shoggoths of the sort that can be seen in the background who resent being reminded of what actual human women look like.

SF/F is escapist literature that possesses particular appeal to those with a lot from which to escape.  There is nothing wrong with that, but combined with feminist dogma, the white-knighting gamma males that inordinately attend these conventions, and the aforementioned shoggoths, it's a recipe for the sort of hilarious Red on Red attacks that result in these sorts of articles and left-liberal authors being castigated for Insufficient Kowtowing to one or another sacred cows.

I've attended one convention in my life, and I have never seen a bigger or sadder collection of fatties and freaks anywhere.  The bizarre thing was that for all of their supposed devotion to inclusion, they were also snarkier, more sensitive, and more judgmental about each other than the gay men working out in the gym at the Northwest Target Center.  There was one post-op transsexual there who looked like a lumberjack hippie and all the shoggoths were glaring pure poison at "her" because "she" was using the women's bathrooms.  I'm not all surprised to hear that the entire scene has devolved into a morass of competitive offense-taking.

UPDATE: So far, the registration requirement has prevented 221 Anonymous spam comments from getting through.

How dumb do they think we are?

To reiterate:  never, ever, ever, pay any attention to women when they give you advice about what women find attractive:

Forget flash cars, expensive restaurants and lavish bouquets - the way to impress the nation’s women is to fasten on a tool belt and get drilling. High maintenance females have voted DIY skills sexier in a man than sporting prowess and cooking capabilities.  A new study has revealed women’s top turn ons - and turn offs - when it comes to a man's skill set, taking in everything from assembling furniture and unblocking drains to scoring on the football pitch or cooking up a storm in the kitchen.

Sure. That explains how Joe the Plumber stole Irina Shayk from Cristiano Ronaldo and why you can't go to a hardware store without seeing more hot girls exposing their implants to men in tool belts than you see at a rock concert.

If this doesn't undermine the perceived legitimacy of social surveys, I don't know what will.  Men, this is how hopelessly stupid women genuinely believe you to be.  "If I dangle even the merest prospect of sex in front of him, maybe he'll put my Ikea furniture together for me."

If a woman ever tries to pull the "you know what I think is really sexy" line on you, and you not only buy it, but actually perform the supposedly sexy task, you're a delta. At best.

Oh sweet Oprah

We're not just talking a lack of Game here on McRapey's part, we're talking national class anti-Game:



Clearly the pick-up artists are going about it all wrong. If you want to score with a woman, it only makes sense that your best move must be to sit around, look inoffensive, and hope that some high-T manjaw with furry arms will ask you to dance. Also, rocking a sweet sweater like that can only boost your odds. Notice how quick he is to show off his ring and to mention his wife's name. (Subtext: she's a real live woman, honest! I didn't build her in my basement or anything!) This is not exactly behavior indicative of a man accustomed to female attraction.

It's telling that a man so openly opposed to the simple concept of a socio-sexual hierarchy would have previously been opposed to the idea of The Rules. I don't know what the actual Rules are, but the distaste for them makes it apparent that what we see here is the Gamma's female-wired, narcissistic mind at work. One might understandably be in denial about the concept of the hierarchy due to distaste for one's low place in it. But to object to The Rules as well tends to indicate an intrinsically effeminate view of oneself as a Unique and Special Snowflake.

It is trivially true that every couple has to come up with their own rules that suit both parties. That's simply a practical reality. But such a step can only come well AFTER the fact and is irrelevant with regards to attracting or successfully navigating the first relationship steps with the opposite sex. And to deny that both sets of rules, relationship and pre-relationship, will necessarily be based on some sort of common male-female relations template, the formulation of which is the result of observing human behavioral patterns, is indicative of the conventional Gamma male reality warping.

Alpha Mail: why are the geek fallacies wrong?

Some Dude is attempting to grok his gammatude in order to surmount it:

Being a geek/rabbit who would like to escape his nightmare, I saw that every single fallacy you wrote is something I believe in. In all truthfulness, I simply don't understand why they are false.

I believe you that they are false, because I can look at outcomes, what I feel is one thing, but how does it relate to the result?

So my question: could someone elaborate a little on WHY those are fallacies?

This is a fair challenge.  Let's look at each of the five fallacies. And keep in mind as we do that although I agree they are fallacies, this is not my list.

1. Ostracizers Are Evil

It is impossible to have a functioning group without an ostracism function. In Japan, they have a saying: "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down". Unless the group has the ability to ostracize, it has no ability to perform its primary role and establish its identity.  Now, this does not mean that ostracism is intrinsically good, only that it is a necessary tool and can be used for either good or evil.  Ostracizers, therefore, can themselves be good or evil. The irony, of course, is that no group ostracizes more instinctively or vehemently than low-SS geek groups of the sort we see at Whatever and in the present SFWA.

2. Friends Accept Me As I Am

Friends care about you and have your best interests in mind. This can be, but is not necessarily, synonymous with accepting you as you are. Also, since humans are dynamic beings, what you are changes over time and not necessarily in a good way. A true friend will not simply accept your incipient descent into depravity and depression because that is who you are, he will attempt to arrest it. Accepting you as you are is an excuse for inaction and indicative of indifference, not friendship. And substantive and legitimate criticism is one of the greatest gifts a friend can give you; who else cares enough to be honest with you?

3. Friendship Before All

Friendship is important. But friendships are transient, as they are heavily dependent upon time, place, interests, and maturity level. I was all but inseparable from several friends in high school and college, but I haven't had contact with them in literally decades. To put friendship before all is to remain in a state of developmental retardation. There is a season for everything, and friendships need to be allowed to go through their birth-death cycle just like everything else.

4. Friendship Is Transitive

It's not.  It's that simple. In high school, I had my jock friends and my geek friends... and none of them even met most of the girls I was dating. In college, I had my freshman year friends, my best friend, my independent friends, my Greek friends, my teammates, and my roommates.  There wasn't a whole lot of overlap between the groups. After college, there was the night club scene, the band, the dojo, and the workout crew.  Again, some overlap, but not a great deal.  Some of my friends liked each other, others might as well have been aliens from different planets speaking different languages as far as they were concerned.  If a pair of friends get along, great.  If not, it's no big deal.  So long as everyone is civil, it's fine.

5. Friends Do Everything Together

To the Sigma, this doesn't sound ridiculous, this sounds "we had better lock you up so you don't kill yourself trying to lick the lawnmower blade" insane.  Everyone needs their space. Everyone has divergent interests. Everyone will be close to different people at different times in their lives. The idea that friends must do everything together is fundamentally indicative of fairly severe social immaturity and a complete lack of observation.

Are geeks simply feminized males?

It is illuminating to peruse this well-known list of the Five Geek Social Fallacies and substitute Girl for Geek:

Within the constellation of allied hobbies and subcultures collectively known as geekdom, one finds many social groups bent under a crushing burden of dysfunction, social drama, and general interpersonal wack-ness. It is my opinion that many of these never-ending crises are sparked off by an assortment of pernicious social fallacies -- ideas about human interaction which spur their holders to do terrible and stupid things to themselves and to each other.

Social fallacies are particularly insidious because they tend to be exaggerated versions of notions that are themselves entirely reasonable and unobjectionable. It's difficult to debunk the pathological fallacy without seeming to argue against its reasonable form; therefore, once it establishes itself, a social fallacy is extremely difficult to dislodge. It's my hope that drawing attention to some of them may be a step in the right direction.

I want to note that I'm not trying to say that every geek subscribes to every one of the fallacies I outline here; every individual subscribes to a different set of ideas, and adheres to any given idea with a different amount of zeal.

In any event, here are five geek social fallacies I've identified.

1. Ostracizers are evil
2. Friends accept me as I am
3. Friendship before all
4. Friendship is transitive
5. Friends do everything together

It seems to me that with the exception of number four, which isn't applicable in the romantic sense, these fallacies could not only apply as readily to the female perspective on friends, but on romantic relationships as well.

This tends to offer some support for the idea that gammas are men who, for some reason, have gotten their internal wires crossed and react to both men and women in an essentially female manner.  They're essentially handicapped by socio-sexual retardation. I don't know if it is genetic, the result of one's upbringing, or as is so often the case, some combination therein, but the handicap may help explain the total inability of gammas to understand men who rank higher in the socio-sexual hierarchy and vice-versa.

You can't get what you won't admit you want

Captain Capitalism exposes the instilled cowardice of today's young Deltas and Gammas:

I did a seminar recently at the U of MN Duluth.  It was my "Why Gen Y is Completely, Totally and Hopelessly Screwed" seminar.  And while admittedly the seminar is not the politest or most adroit speech, when it came to the "What were you told you SHOULD like in the opposite sex" portion of the lecture, an interesting thing happened.  I asked the young men in the audience what they found attractive in a woman.  Not what they were told to like, but what they in fact did like.

Not one of them answered.

OH, they KNEW the answers, their sheepish faces and smirks gave that away, but they couldn't answer for they feared what the repercussions would be.

Observing this phenomeon right in front of me, I took the opportunity to point out something so sad, but so very true.  I said

"My god, look at how brainwashed they have you guys.  You can't even speak the truth."

I then bellowed out the truth....

This illustrates the primary difference between ALPHA and BETA. It is fear. Women can sense male fear. They can practically smell it. They don't find it attractive, in fact, it is a distinct turn-off to them. They often despise it. However, this doesn't mean women are going to come right out and say that they are attracted to men who aren't afraid of them, or at the very least, signal that they are not afraid.

Now, remember, feelings are difficult to articulate, especially to the opposite sex, so it is often necessary to translate cross-sex statements.  In this vein, we can decode what a woman means when she says the following:

Be yourself. Believe in yourself.

I find confidence attractive. I find fearlessness attractive.

So much of Game simply revolves around conquering your fear in order to behave more like the naturals who simply don't feel it for one reason or another. Whether it involves initial approaches or marital relations, fear is the sex killer.

It's understandable why so many men are afraid.  Fear has been instilled in them by 16 years or more of relentless feminist propaganda in the educational system, in the ruthless reinforcing of the female imperative by their parents, their teachers, their pastors

But it's all a lie. Bad things are not going to happen if you refuse to avoid offending and upsetting women. You are not committing to living a monk-like existence devoid of female companionship if you fail to regularly kowtow to the female imperative, in fact, in case you haven't noticed, those of us whose default position is open contempt for that imperative tend to do considerably better with them than you do. And if you have reached the point where you are so fearful that you can't even admit that you find a long mane of wavy hair or a tight, well-formed female posterior to be attractive, you can't reasonably call yourself a man.  You're nothing more than a sad, pathetic drone.

So stop being afraid.  It isn't masculine. It isn't attractive. It isn't even Christian, for that matter. Conquer your fear, and that is the first step in developing Game and moving up the socio-sexual hierarchy.

How to be not married

It would be very difficult to do a more thorough job of ensuring one's eventual divorce than this man has managed:

Now my heart is broken once more due to a swath of life events culminating in my wife’s recent confession of her ongoing infidelity. My wife is an honest woman, and says she is truly in love with this other man, and she does not love me anymore, so she does not want to reconcile. She told me the man she loves is a more solid man, an assertive mature man who makes her feel like a woman and confident to be around.

People tell me I need to let her go. I tell people that marriage is a covenant which people need to take seriously. This is not a situation of abuse, but rather my wife had a change of heart because she no longer saw me as a man she can be with. I left my job in marketing a year ago with my wife's consent and support, due to stress as my job was making me miserable. My wife then became the breadwinner while I was actively seeking new employment....

I am devastated and feel empty inside. I am working through a range of emotions and find it difficult to think clearly. I am working to acknowledge my responsibility (or rather irresponsibility and sin) in the events leading up to her falling out of love and leaving me. I am working on improving myself. I want to save my relationship and marriage, and I want to make it stronger.

Wife is from Bulgaria. Her religion is Greek Orthodox. I'm Catholic. She came to the U.S. seven years ago to work and study. We met through a mutual friend back in 2007. We've been married for 3.5 years, together for over 5. She received her permanent green card in the mail a few days prior to her confessing having an affair.

While it is true that Christian women are considerably less likely to divorce, there are no shortage of those who put their female imperative above the Bible's marital directives.  Look at the things this guy balanced against his wife's Christian commitment to marriage:

1. Green card seeker
2. Non-dominant husband
3. Left his job because he was unhappy
4. Let her become the breadwinner

Men seem to think that it matters when a woman agrees to something that she doesn't like.  It doesn't; it merely means that she is intellectually repressing her feelings, but she isn't going to be able to do that forever. The fact that she agreed to let him quit his job and agreed to become the family breadwinner doesn't mean she was genuinely okay with it; that was probably when the thought of finding a man who would actually behave like a man and the head of a Christian household began to occur to her.

Is she to blame for her infidelity?  Of course.  Is it his fault?  No, she's the one who voluntarily elected to permit another man to penetrate her.  But he did do the male equivalent of a wife inviting the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders to move into the house, instilling a pole and a jacuzzi in the bedroom, then leaving for nine months for Tibet in order to "find herself".  While moral failure cannot be justified in this manner, in circumstances such as these, it should hardly take one by surprise.

Also, I've seen so many of these "green card" marriages fail at administratively significant times that I think they are to be avoided by men and women alike.  Unless the foreign spouse is completely fine with the two of you moving to the foreign country instead of living in the USA, the chances  that she is marrying American residence and not you are likely more than fifty percent.

As for what this guy should do, I believe he he should divorce his wife for infidelity, move on, and learn to become a man before he seeks to become a husband again.

An embarrassment of Gammas

I believe that is the proper collective term, is it not? Gammas absolutely love it when things go poorly for attractive women, because they see it as a great romantic opportunity to rescue her and outkick their coverage thereby.  Witness the grotesque behavior of men reacting to one woman's attractive mug shot:

The woman whose attractive DUI mugshot took the internet by storm has been beset with unwanted attention by lovestruck admirers who have offered marriage proposals, declarations of never-ending love and trips overseas.

'I hope if you have a man he takes care of you and showers you with love and tenderness. If we were together you would need for nothing. I would go to the ends of the earth just to make you happy,' one man posted on Reddit after Meagan Mccullough's mugshot went viral....

'The eyes of the sky. And hair like woven silk. I have taken photos of thousands of woman and never seen one with what you have in those eyes breath taking you are,' another posted told her.

Another asks her to move to Ireland: 'What's up with that surname, you must have Irish heritage? You got bar work experience? Come to Ireland, I'll put you up for a while and you can work in my friends pub while you find your feet, look up your family history and then move on to something better. Over here, we don't call you a criminal for driving drunk (unless repeatedly caught). I'm not joking by the way.'

Meagan said the sudden attention has been 'weird' and she has received a lot of 'gross' messages from guys as a result.

Dozens of men fashioned memes featuring the police shot with captions such as 'GUILTY - of taking my breath away', 'Arrested for breaking and entering - YOUR HEART' and 'Tell me what she did so I can end up in the same jail'.

This is literally world-class anti-game. And note, in particular, how the woman is reacting to this over-the-top desperation: with precisely the same sort of horror that women do when faced with it in person.  Women are the unromantic sex. All things being equal, they are much more turned on by a laconic "yeah, I suppose I'd hit that... if I had enough to drink" than "I would go to the ends of the earth just to make you happy."

Alpha Mail: is sigma the alpha of gamma?

The League of Bald-headed Men posits an interesting theory in light of the discussion of Thrift Shop Game:

An interesting ditty. It shows that the hipster irony culture has filtered down to the proles, wiggers and normals. 'I could take some Pro Wings, make them cool, sell those."

This hipster irony culture is pure gamma, it's the acme of gamma. "You made fun of me for being a geek, and now I'll make geekdom cool."  This goes hand in hand with my theory that "sigma is the alpha of gamma", ie that sigma is what happens when gammas enact their will to power. 

I, on the other hand, have tended to be of the opinion that sigma is what happens when OMEGAS successfully enact their will to power or otherwise transform themselves into sexual dominance.  Let's consider the evidence for the One Man Riot's theory, pro and con:

PRO:

• Sigmas often appear to have intellectual interests more in common with the average gamma than those of the average alpha.
• The gamma-sigma antipathy appears, in some circumstances, to be even greater than the gamma-alpha version. A product of similar traits clashing?
• Neither sigmas nor gammas tend to be socially dominant.
• Both sigmas and gammas often appear to be vengeful.

CON:

• Gammas are extremely concerned with hierarchy.  Sigmas and Omegas are not.
• Hipster irony culture is pure gamma, but it is extremely fashion-conscious and therefore hierarchical. While it may be the acme of gamma, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with sigma.
• Gammas are bitter, jealous, approval-seeking, and rule-abiding. Sigmas are contemptuous, disdainful, and rule-breaking.
• Gammas find conflict painful and tend to avoid it. Sigmas find conflict enjoyable and tend to thrive on it.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot of applicable observations; feel free to add more, either pro or con, in the comments.  In summary, while I don't think the League's theory is absurd, I don't think it holds up when considered in sufficient detail. And I can't honestly think of a single sigma of my acquaintance that I would have considered to have been a gamma in the past.

Speaking only of my own experience, I can say that one thing that separated me even as a pre-adolescent proto-sigma from the omegas and gammas alike was my supreme confidence in my intellect and in my athletic abilities.  The refusal of my age peers to value the former and the inability of my coaches to understand and utilize the latter never caused me to doubt either for even a millesecond.

So perhaps that imbalance may be a key to understanding why a sigma develops such indifference towards the hierarchy.  He is aware that he is objectively superior in one regard or another but also knows that the hierarchy is incapable of recognizing that superiority or valuing it fairly.  It also would explain the apparent similarity between the sigma and the gamma that The League has observed, the important difference being that the gamma's belief in his proper social rank is subjective and intrinsically delusional.