The limits of female solipsism

In case you were wondering where they happen to be, this statement by a woman who was not kidnapped and murdered as a little girl tends to indicate they may not actually exist:

The disappearance and death of her best friend never left Kathy. Nothing could fill the space where Maria once was – the games, the laughter, the shared secrets. She was left with survivor's guilt and the social stigma of being connected to a notorious crime.

"It robbed me of my childhood," she said recently. "I was labeled. I was the girl who was with Maria. A lot of parents wouldn't let their girls play with me. They were afraid he'd come back and take their child.

"I couldn't wait to get out of Sycamore. It bothered me my whole life why he took her and not me. For years I would ask myself, 'Was she prettier than I was?'"

Yes, that is clearly the important question, is it not? This spectacular example of unrestrained female solipsism should suffice to illustrate that negs and other forms of rejecting women are considerably more powerful than even the average Game-aware man is capable of grasping.

I am not saying that all women are this solipsistic. They are not. I am simply pointing out that the maximum range of a woman's potential for solipsistic insanity most likely exceeds your ability to imagine it.

Apandopoeia and the feisty female

Feisty Woman might as well call herself Feisty Crackwhore or Feisty Meth Head because her attacks on the androsphere's "royal elite" are so observably toothless:

Being a fool and being politically-minded and curious about these manosphere commandeers, and with innocent kindred spirit, I approached a couple of these manosphere armchair generals on Twitter and ended up cutting off my own nose to spite my own face. I had the gumption to ask these self-proclaimed manosphere gods why they tend to frown upon women who are intelligent, based on this assessment I took on a very popular manosphere blog. Before I’d gotten any type of response from the manosphere-elect royal elite, a seemingly normal, well-adjusted non-manosphere supporting gentleman chimed in first:

@Feisty_Woman @voxday @rooshv @heartiste Fear. Plain and simple. Alot of man equate intelligence with role reversal leading to emasculation
— Radio Richard (@BlazerTalon) August 7, 2013

In a nutshell, there you have it. I could very well end this blog post here because the answer is right there in blood, written in stone by a man, no less. The manosphere is indeed as I suspected, a cockroach halfway house for discarded males who are threatened by intelligence of the female variety and have an irrational fear of amassing shriveled testicles.

But I can’t end it here, people. It gets much better.

Soon after violently shaking the manosphere tree at the root, from atop leaked this gem of machismo volcanic diarrhea:

@Feisty_Woman @BlazerTalon @voxday @heartiste Girl, get off my nuts. I don't want to sleep w/ you. Your prattle has no meaning to me.
— Roosh (@rooshv) August 7, 2013

I felt obligated to give him a pass. All I could do was offer an apology out of clemency that any swipe he could take at a woman, who happened to be me in the wrong place at the right time, was motivation to feed his unfillable ego. All I could do was feel sad for him and implore that the manosphere gods send him a woman to love. One that he could sleep with to his heart and dick’s content because if he did, he wouldn’t be living out his days being such a pent up indignant sexually frustrated buffoon.

That's certainly an original approach by a female critic of Game, is it not?  We've never heard that one before. Meanwhile, Roosh has published a library of books about the vast quantities of women he has banged from the southern tip of Chile to the sunless shores of Iceland.  His mere entry into a country is now greeted with public alarm akin to the sort that the Irish monks once raised when Viking longboats were spotted off the coast. Roissy's capacity for seduction once so concerned a popular female blogger that she showed her daughter his picture and warned her not to speak to any man who even remotely resembled him on the off-chance of an encounter during a visit to his city of residence.

As for me, well, I'm a three-time Billboard top forty recording artist married to a woman who walked away from a prospective career as an international fitness model.  But all of this is beside the point. I merely mention our various socio-sexual successes in order to rub it in Feisty's face that all three of us are not only successful with women, but, as can be seen from her picture, all three of us are successful with women who are more attractive than she is.  She's far from ugly, but she's nothing more than a 7 in her middle thirties who is about to hit The Wall.

Are you familiar with the concept of onomatopoeia?  One might well describe Feisty Woman's behavior here as something similar, as what one might refer to as apandopoeia, or answering the question asked by virtue of one's behavior in the process of asking the question.

So, why do we tend to downgrade the attractiveness of women who are intelligent?  Because women who are intelligent are nearly as prone to lack honor, intellectual integrity, and genuinely intellectual interests as their less intelligent sisters, but due to their pride in their intelligence and their feelings of superiority, they are far more prone to foolishly challenge male intellectual authority in order to validate their self-perceptions and/or get their dominance buzz.  In other words, intelligent women tend to be a massive pain in the ass without providing much to compensate for their disagreeableness.

By way of evidence, let's give Feisty Woman the benefit of the IQ doubt and consider her form of self-identification.  She thinks being "feisty" makes her more attractive.  It doesn't.  Being "feisty" generally detracts from female attractiveness. To the sufficiently experienced man, a woman describing herself in this way is warning him that she is a dominance-seeker; combine that with the postulated above-average intelligence and one can see that by attacking Roosh, Roissy, and me, Feisty Woman is seeking the intellectual domination she is not currently receiving from her current male companion.

The irony is that midwitted Gamma males not only value female intelligence, they fetishize it.  Unfortunately, they simply cannot provide the intellectual dominance that intelligent women crave, as that can only be provided by those possessing both sufficiently high intelligence and socio-sexual dominance, most of whom are men who couldn't possibly care less about the nominal difference between the 132 IQ "Mensa" girl and the 85 IQ "dumb" girl.

It never seems to occur to the +1.5SD crowd that they appear to be even dumber, from the perspective of the +3SD+ crowd, than those of average intelligence do to them. From the position of the highly intelligent male, who outnumbers equally intelligent women something like 12:1, the main difference is that the "smart" girl and the "dumb" girl are both going to say stupid things that are obviously incorrect, the main difference is that the "smart" girl is going to argue and try to defend an obviously incorrect point for hours without admitting that she is wrong, usually while engaging in a long series of intellectually dishonest behaviors.

Which is precisely the sort of behavior Feisty Woman has already exhibited on Twitter.  She asked a question.  She was answered, an answer she could have found by simply perusing this blog as it is a topic I addressed previously.  And yet, she's still babbling and attacking and reinterpreting and insulting and refusing to accept the legitimacy of the answers she was provided.

This behavior tends to illustrate the observable veracity of my answer.  Female intelligence is not a deal-breaker, but neither is it an attractant for most men, least of all highly intelligent men. It is mostly a red flag, which is one reason why intelligent women are statistically more likely to find themselves alone and childless than women of more moderate intelligence.

Hypergamy in action

Hypergamy doesn't get much more blatant than this:

Now that she’s pregnant with Simon Cowell’s baby, scheming Manhattan social climber Lauren Silverman wants the filthy-rich “X-Factor” mogul to marry her, sources said.... Cowell and Lauren had been carrying on their illicit trysts for more than a year, right under the nose of spurned spouse Andrew, several sources noted....

Lauren had pretended to treat Cowell as just a close pal as they yachted and hobnobbed together — only to blindside her real estate developer husband Andrew, 37, well after the affair was in full swing, sources said. “It is an unbelievable story of betrayal. It is a sad story and a tragic story,” Andrew’s brother, Alexander, told The Post.

One friend of the shapely brunette said that the Silvermans “weren’t estranged, as some friends of Lauren have claimed. “The suggestion that she was an estranged wife who fell into another man’s arms is not the case.”

In fact, Andrew had been so oblivious to the sordid, under-his-nose affair that he recently upgraded Lauren’s engagement ring with a 10-karat diamond, a friend said.

“She is a total gold digger,” one pal said.

Another added, “The pregnancy was by design.”

This is why it's a terrible idea for men to involve themselves with gold diggers, even if they have a reasonable amount of gold.  Because there is always someone with a larger supply.  Notice how even years of marriage, a son, and a 10-karat diamond weren't enough to secure fidelity when someone with sufficient money and fame was in the picture.

And I very much doubt Mr. Silverman was completely blindsided.  The gift of the 10-karat diamond was likely a last-ditch attempt to secure her affections which he already suspected, even if he didn't know with certainty, had been transferred to Mr. Cowell. When a BETA is losing a woman to an ALPHA, he almost always knows it is happening, he just doesn't understand why.

It is said that the heart wants what it wants.  And what the female heart wants is more.

Seriously, don't cut your damn hair

Still don't believe me?  Then perhaps you will believe the royal hairdresser and personal stylist to the Queen of England:

The Queen’s hairdresser is adamant that most women in their mid-40s and beyond are making a big mistake by having their hair cut short in a bid to turn back the clock. Ian Carmichael, Her Majesty’s personal stylist for the past 15 years, says women of a certain age believe they are too old for tousled tresses. Yet many celebrities would have lost their sex appeal years ago had they chopped their hair short, he claims.

‘Women in their mid-40s and 50s at one time would rush to cut their hair off. It was like they became wives, mothers, a “certain age” and they cut it all off,’ he said. ‘But actually hundreds of women, as long as their hair is healthy and in good condition, look much better with soft long hair.’

Note that Her Majesty's hairdresser is ADAMANT about it.  The reason is that women with short hair are advertising their sexlessness.  Now, that's fine, if that's the intent.  But don't be misled into thinking that it is "cute" or "youthful" or whatever adjective your friends attempting to sabotage your sex appeal are using.

Female sport as parasite

The call for a women's Tour de France is one demonstration of how women in general tend to be parasitical with regards to male creativity:

 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' Bear with me, for it seems this well-trodden phrase can apply to women's cycling too. For years critics have argued that a female Tour de France would have no audience and no sponsorship. Without one (the chicken), you certainly won't get the other (the egg). And vice versa.

But just look at what's happened in the last few weeks, and the first 'reason' critics give for not staging a women's race – a supposed lack of audience – is almost certainly not true.

A petition calling for a women's Tour de France launched earlier this month, now has 70,000 signatures and counting. Surely, if campaigners can prove there is an audience, the egg – sponsorship – will inevitably follow?

That's enough chicken and egg comparisons for now. My point is simple. The petition in question was launched by several key women in cycling – including Britain's former world champion and 2008 Olympic time trial silver medallist Emma Pooley and Olympic road race champion Marianne Vos – and has gained huge momentum in a short space of time.

With Chris Froome in the news for pedalling his way to glory in the Tour de France over the past few weeks, now seems the time to act for a women's race. 

Now, what is there stopping any of these 70,000 petitioners from holding a women's Tour de France at any time they like?  They can do exactly what Henri Desgrange did in 1903, obtain a newspaper sponsorship, attract 60 entrants, and hold a race.  There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone from doing that.

In fact, there are already many women's races which have more entrants than the original Tour de France did.  They tend to be shorter, but then, any of those race directors can simply extend the race if they want.

Instead, what the women want to do is force the Tour de France to hold a women's race, pay it equal prize money to the men, and pretend that it is of the same interest to bicycling enthusiasts and worthy of the same respect.  The Tour is doing the right thing by simply ignoring the parasites, but an even more effective response would be to call their bluff and announce that the Tour de France is neither a men's event nor a women's event, but a race that is equally open to all men and women who qualify.

If they want to be particularly cruel, they can allow one token women's team and demonstrate just how far from equal they are.  The NBA could have saved a lot of money if, instead wasting millions on the WNBA, they turned one franchise into an all-star all-women's team to serve as the Washington Generals of the league.  That would have been hilarious and probably sold more tickets in a season than the entire WNBA ever did. 

The most defensible way to deal with equalitarians is to force them to deal with true equality, thereby rubbing the fact of nature's inequality in their faces.  This won't stop them from babbling about disparate impact, nonexistent privilege and the esoteric fairy tales concocted in women's studies programs, but that's just a fighting withdrawal.  The best way, of course, is to simply tell the parasites to go to Hell and start their own organization.

The fact is that there was a female Tour de France from 1984 to 2009.  And it failed, like most leagues that involve women playing men's sports do.

On the advice of my lawyer

Please be advised that I have no choice but to film this sexual encounter:

The hookup got hot and wild, and one of the two men whipped out his cellphone to shoot a video of the room-to-room romp with the woman they'd just met that night. The sex video may have been the only thing that saved the two from prison.

The woman accused them of rape. The video showed otherwise, police and prosecutors said. What happened that night led to the vicious beating of one of the men two days later.

Last Friday, a Sacramento Superior Court jury convicted Jasmine Levanna Kurre of felony assault likely to produce great bodily injury and of another count of felony battery. Jurors acquitted Kurre of the misdemeanor filing of a false police report and of another felony count of robbing the beating victim of his cellphone. Unfortunately for Kurre, 27, the man's friend shot the video, showing her laughing and carrying on with the two alleged rapists – hence, the lack of charges against them and the lodging of the misdemeanor false-report accusation.

"This is great stuff," Citrus Heights Police Detective Ron Pfleger told the man who shot the video, according to a transcript of his interview five days after the Feb. 17, 2011, beating of his friend, outside the assault victim's apartment. "This is exactly what you guys are hoping for."

Had it not been for the video, the chances were likely that Kurre's rape accusation against the two men would have been given more credibility by police and prosecutors. Instead, it turned the tables on Kurre, who now is looking at the possibility of four years behind bars.

Many women have asked why a woman would lie about being raped.  The answer should be quite obvious here: to cover up for the fact that she had consensual sex and direct the angry attention of her boyfriend or husband away from her and her infidelity.

Playing on hypergamy

Once you know how female tickers tick, it's not difficult to start them ticking. And it is those who are running cons of their own that are the most vulnerable to being conned:

With his wealth, glamorous lifestyle and friends in high places, Jonathan Price probably seemed too good to be true. Unfortunately for the women who fell for his charms, that’s exactly  what he was. The serial conman posed as a rich ‘sugar daddy’ to trap a string of professional women and fleece them for tens of thousands of pounds....

He now faces jail after pleading guilty to fraud totalling £180,000 – leaving three women and their parents without their life savings. Price, from Darlington, told his unsuspecting targets that he had vast sums of money in offshore accounts and was suffering from terminal cancer.  His victims included Davina Ward, 32, who runs a florist business in Bournemouth, and Sarah Giles, 39, who worked as a manager at a gun retailer in London. His third victim, a high-flying executive in her 30s who cannot be named, became his wife and was pregnant with his child when he was arrested last May.

Notice how much attractive the one woman pictured is in comparison with the fat, older con man.  The "terminal cancer" was a particularly nice touch; all three women no doubt assumed that they'd only have to grit their teeth and suffer his attentions for a year or so, after which time they'd be set for life.

It's also significant that all three women were relatively ambitious and successful.  The more materialistic a woman is, the easier it is to play her without even trying.  Intelligence is no defense, because the combination of high IQ and materialism only means that her rationalization hamster is going to be that much more capable of producing credible excuses for any perceived inconsistencies between the desired perception and the reality.

I was at a nightclub in Roppongi one night after a female friend had happened to stick a shiny woman's circular broach in my jacket lapel earlier that evening.  I have no idea why she did that; alcohol was involved.  I didn't care, I just left it there. Now, this right around the time that the Billionaire Boys Club was in the news due to the murder trial and the TV miniseries, so when a women in the club came up to me and asked what the thing in my lapel was, I said it was a BBC pin.

"BBC, like, in England?"
"No, Billionaire Boys Club.  It's just this investment thing."

The response was like getting hit by a tidal wave of pretty young women.  My two friends were just about dying with laughter, but they were top-flight wingmen; they took the ball and ran with it.  Now, keep in mind that the Billionaire Boys Club was a) a notorious Ponzi scheme, b) defunct, and c) already exposed in every possible way by the mainstream media.  No matter.  It was something that these women had vaguely heard of as having something to do with fame and money, and it amounted to setting off some sort of nuclear tingle bomb.

Lesson: a man doesn't have to be rich for women to believe that he is a rich man and respond accordingly.  Those who desperately want to believe something will believe everything that supports the desired story and ignore everything that contradicts it.  And those who say a woman "is only attracted to a man for his wealth" are failing to recognize they are expressing a tautology, because women are very sexually attracted to wealth, or rather, the perception of it.

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.

Your definition of consent is different than mine!

That is what a feminist looks like....

Equality and entrepeneurialism

Say what you will about the public school system, but at least they are teaching girls that they can not only do the jobs that men historically did, but that they can start their own businesses too:

An 18-year-old Hopkins High School senior cheerleader allegedly used her sophomore teammate as a prostitute, according to a criminal complaint filed in Hennepin County. Montia Marie Parker, 18, of Maple Grove was arrested on one count of second-degree felony sex trafficking, and one count of felony solicitation, inducement and promotion of prostitution.

Sure, she might need a lecture or two on the relevant state laws, but isn't this exactly the liberation from the rule of men that feminists have been seeking for the last 40 years?

The real Warrior Women

Unsurprisingly, it turns out that putting young women in the military does not turn them into stone cold killers that are just like men only deadlier.  It seems that they still play dress up, pose, and put their assets on display to attract male attention, only with military gear instead of makeup kits.

Funny how one never seems to read about this sort of thing in any of the military SF that was published over the last 40 years.  Let's face it, not only is the Warrior Woman a fictional concept, these "soldiers" are far more likely to fall on their backs before the enemy than shoot at him.

Women commit most domestic violence

Even the studies cited by feminists to blame men for domestic violence reveal as much:

Take domestic violence, for example. It is almost universally portrayed as though the perpetrators are men. Indeed, in 1989 the Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science published the results of a survey that was celebrated as a classic exposé of ‘battered wives’, and was taken up as proof of typical male perfidy.

However, two years later the Journal acknowledged a different side to the story after the data had been re-analysed. While 10.8 per cent of the men surveyed had pushed, grabbed or thrown objects at their spouses, 12.4 per cent of women had done so too. And although 2.5 per cent of men used serious violence, so did 4.7 per cent of women.

Marilyn Kwong, who carried out the new analysis, also examined eight other studies and found the pattern was universal. Inconvenient facts had been cut out.

I would go so far as to argue that given the redefinition of sexual assault to mean "sexual contact to which express consent has not been given", women also commit the majority of sexual assaults.  I have been groped, on the chest, posterior, or genitals, without giving express consent, by at least 10x more women than I have ever touched myself.

When facing spurious feminist assertions, punch back twice as hard.  When you hear an appeal to domestic violence justifying one form or another of the Female Imperative, remind your interlocutor that as per the Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, women commit nearly two-thirds, (65.3 percent), of serious domestic violence.

Exactly backwards

Someone needs to explain where babies come from to the distinguished Representative from the great State of Illinois:

"Our survival as a species is dependent on women taking charge,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) told a gathering at a campaign fundraiser earlier this month.

It's rather remarkable that she should be able to get it so precisely backward.  Our survival as a species is actually dependent upon women having and raising children, two activities which are almost perfectly inversely related to "taking charge".

A feminist success story

Sure, she died alone, an evolutionary dead end, unlamented and unnoticed under her Che Guevara posters, but the important thing is that she had a Masters degree, she blazed a trail for thousands of childless American spinsters who will die similarly alone, and most importantly, she even managed to avoid being devoured by cats.

Barbara Salinas-Norman was a Chicana activist, a bilingual teacher, an author, a publisher and an artist. She was “intelligent,” “inspiring,” a “trailblazer.” But her life had begun to unravel, and this once well-connected woman apparently died alone in her Santa Fe home, where her body lay undiscovered for several months behind an unlocked door. Her decomposed remains were found Monday at the Zia Vista Condominiums on Zia Road.  Police originally speculated that Salinas had been dead since October, but family and friends said Friday they thought the 70-year-old might have died long before that — a year or more ago. 

Salinas’ body was discovered by her brother-in-law, Louis Ponce, who said Friday that he had become concerned about her because he hadn’t heard from her for a long time....  On Monday, the couple drove to Santa Fe to check on Salinas at Zia Vista and found her body lying in a filthy living room. She was lying near a favorite poster, a takeoff on Rosie the Riveter. This version shows Rosie as a skeleton, with a red cloth on her head and her arm raised in a fist under the caption, “Sí, Se Muere!” Yes, we die....

Though she was troubled, Trujillo said, “she was very intelligent,” and they became friends. Sometimes they went to the movies. Salinas was especially fond of the movie Eat Pray Love and its star, Javier Bardem. “She was so passionate about the movie. That was her dream story,” Trujillo said. 

Shed no tears for Ms Salinas-Norman.  Her dream was to divorce her husband and she lived the dream, not once, but twice!  Sic semper feminnis....

Who needs men?

When you've got cats....

Because they can

And because it is a lot easier than excelling at one's job. A woman asks why women still have sex with their superiors at work:

There’s a long and distinguished list of stupid boy things I’ve done over the years, but boffing my boss isn’t one of them. Actually, that’s not quite true. When I was 17 I started going out with my former manager at the branch of the well-known fast food chain we both worked at (golden arches anyone?). However, he’d already left to work in a call centre before we got together, so I don’t think it counts. Either way, I certainly didn’t get an extra star for my efforts.

Anyway, all my grown-up jobs have been in the female-dominated world of women’s publishing, so whether through lack of opportunity or design, I’ve never slept with my boss.

It’s possible I’m behind the curve here – in 2010, the US-based Centre For Work Life-Policy found that 15 per cent of women, even at executive level or above, admitted to sleeping with their boss. Just as tellingly, 37 per cent of workers surveyed felt that those women who had slept with their superiors improved their career chances by doing so.

If 15 percent admit it, you can be certain that the real number is closer to 45 percent.  Women have sex with their superiors for two reasons.  The first is hypergamy.  They want the situational alpha, and at the office, in most cases, that is the boss.  The second is preferential treatment.  Women know perfectly well that the easiest way to get ahead is to have sex with the person who is in charge of making decisions.  Those who can act on it often will.

And this is simply one more reason why the concept of workplace equality is an incoherent impossibility.

This is an area of Game that hasn't been much explored, but perhaps it could be called Executive Game.  Arrange to put yourself in a position of power over women and you will magically become more attractive to them.  Of course, it is a game fraught with danger, from women who receive preferential treatment but want more, to women who don't receive it and want it, and women who don't receive it, don't want it, but resent it being given to others.

Alpha Male: the magic preference

A commenter on the timeless female hair post goes in for yet another futile attempt to shame men into claiming they find short hair attractive:

I am a female and I have cut my hair short several times. My experience has been that the quality and 'interestingness' of the men I attract goes up significantly when my hair is shorter. Men who are easily attracted to short haired women tend to be less conventional, smarter, better read, more cosmopolitan and self-defined, bolder and more fun, and not to mention better in bed! I have talked about this with numerous other women and many have said the same thing about their short-hair experiences.

My hair is longer now. This has advantages in that I think more men are attracted to me overall. However there are also more bland, tedious and annoying men in this mix. Longer is fine for now, but I often think about cutting my hair short and suspect at some point I will. It is a fun change of pace -- and, as I am sure any human being who has an ounce of awareness or empathy for how stifling conventional feminine beauty expectations can be for women -- liberating! All women should try it at least once -- regardless of what this cranky, silly, and might i add unabashedly self-centered, author-boy thinks.

Wow, that's amazing!  Merely possessing the ability to be easily attracted to women with short hair will magically make one smarter, better read, and not to mention, better in bed!  I'm surprised she didn't go for the whole enchilada and inform us that being easily attracted to women with short hair who are more than 30 pounds overweight will add $100,000 to a man's annual income and three inches to his sexual organ.

(Seriously, men.  This is how stupid women believe you are.  They genuinely think you will jump through any hoop just to win their approval.  Why do they think this? Because being surrounded by deltas and gammas constantly kowtowing to their every momentary whim has taught them that you will.)

Read between the lines. All women should try it at least once... because that will make this long-haired woman more attractive by comparison. And more importantly, note that women will readily say anything, no matter how ridiculous, in their attempts to get you to submit to their frame. The most effective way to deal with this is ask for explanations about their reasoning, which will of course rapidly reveal that it is sheer rhetorical nonsense.

How does reading more make a man attracted to short hair?  Precisely how does a preference for short hair make a man better in bed?  Exactly what is more fun about a man who prefers short hair?

Business Game

Game has broader utility than most of its advocates imagine.  But regardless of the application, it always unwise to pay excessive attention to women telling you what they want, regardless of whether the subject is business or inter-sexual relations:

A leading German women’s magazine praised for dropping skinny models in favour of 'real people' has reversed its decision after two years - because sales dropped as the lbs piled on. This month's e-edition of Brigitte features slimline pro-models again.

This is code for the 'real people' experiment being a failure. During the two year trial over 1,000 women aged between 18 and 68 had been used in fashion and beauty features - 'to give beauty its naturalness back and show that attractiveness has many faces'.

Think about this.  The German magazine, Brigitte, sells almost exclusively to women.  The publishers were no doubt assured that eliminating those offensively slender models from the magazine's pages would increase sales, and probably found themselves subject the usual point-and-shame pressure of the sort that women have directed at a wide range of organizations and institutions for the last forty years as well.

The publishers almost surely believed that by giving women what they were actively demanding, they would benefit from in the form of more positive press and increased sales.  They got the more positive press they were expecting, as the media around the world covered their action favorably.  But they didn't get the sales; the best-selling magazine that once sold 700,000 copies per month saw that its subscriptions "dropped by nearly 22 per cent while 35 per cent fewer copies were sold in shops".

The magazine would have been in much better shape had its publishers kept this basic principle in mind: women cannot tell you what they want because they do not consciously know what they want.  Their desires can only be ascertained by their actions, not their assertions.

Communication and la difference

It's been an interesting and informative few weeks at Susan's place, and one which underlines some basic differences in male and female communication. Both male and female commenters have shared their dissatisfaction with various events in their lives, which were subsequently the object of comments by different men and women.

While the men whose behavior, and in some cases, character, was subjected to criticism took it in stride, the women not only reacted very badly to even the most mild criticism, but in several cases announced their intention to refrain from commenting in the future. This then led a few commenters to suggest that all personal criticism should henceforth be banned in the future. Susan, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, responded with a solid post entitled Women Need Men:

We need to shift our way of thinking to acknowledge sex differences, and how the sexes, though different, can complement one another perfectly when we’re honest about the different wants and needs of men and women. In my opinion, this complementarity is a key part of successful relationships and, ultimately, marriage.

Men know that women think very differently than they do, and for the most part, they accept this even if they don't necessarily like it. I'm not so sure most women do. But women can't have it both ways. They can't declare they don't need men and then expect to rely upon them. They can't share their personal problems which stem from personal choices and behavior and then expect to avoid personal criticism. They can't declare themselves to be the equals, or perhaps even the superiors, of men, and then run away crying the first time someone tells them that their decisions and actions were sub-optimal. They can't engage in discourse with men and expect men to talk to them in the same way other women do.

Some women understand this. But a surprising number, perhaps even most, simply don't. This is why I think some of Susan's critics - you know who you are, gentlemen - have been too harsh on her, because I don't think they fully grasp the severe difficulty, perhaps even the impossibility, of the task that she has voluntarily taken on. This isn't white-knighting, this isn't even defending a friend, it is a straightforward factual observation. What she is attempting to do matters, because men cannot fix the SMP on their own, except by old school force.

Think about it. How does one help young women question their assumptions and rethink their actions when they are hyper-resistant to even the appearance of judgment, let alone actual criticism? It is a real challenge, approaching the level of dichotomy, and I fear that Aristotle may have the only valid answer, as those who cannot bear the dialectic can only be convinced through rhetorical manipulation.

The old school may ultimately prove to be the eventual outcome. But at this point, it is not inevitable. If men are willing to be strong and truthful with themselves and others, if women are willing to be open and honest with themselves and others, it will possible for couples to escape the choice between the Scylla of the brothel and the Charybdis of the burqah that today's equalitarian society is presenting to us.

And if a man and a woman can escape it, so too can a society. Perhaps that is too optimistic. Most likely, the die is already cast in this regard, just as it is with regards to US demographics and the global economy. But we don't know that yet, and so we don't have to accept it.

I think it would be a mistake for Susan to shut down criticism and transform her site into a more intelligent Jezebel with math. But I don't think that is a mistake she is likely to make, and in any case, I would still support her mission of trying to help young women make the choices that will allow them to be marriageable in a society that sometimes appears to be doing its worst to eradicate the institution. Regardless of whether one thinks she is doing an optimal job of it or not - and I happen to think that she's doing rather better than anyone could reasonably expect - that is an objective worth suppporting.