She's got your back

As long as it is safe for her, anyhow:

Video footage of the April 4 murder-suicide has not been released to the public, but sources confirm that Detective Patricia Wilder not only was in the room as the tragedy unfolded, but that she fired a shot at Powell as Smith and the suspect tussled. The video shows Wilder’s shot missing Powell and then the magazine falling from her gun. Her firearm disabled, Wilder left the room. Powell was able to grab Smith’s gun and shoot the detective four times before killing himself.

It is fairly easy to anticipate women's actions so long as you remember that they view absolutely everything through a filter of "will this endanger me in any way?" first.  This is not a bad thing, it is a necessary thing, in fact, because the preservation of its females is the first and foremost concern of any species that wishes to survive.  The female "flight or flight" response is the flipside of the Islamic world's honor killings and general repression of women; the object is to preserve the breeding population.

A population of genuinely fearless women is likely to go the way of those island animals with no natural predators faced with an influx of hungry seamen, rats, and ships cats. Which is to say, extinction.

However, this is also why attempts to instill male virtues into women are destined for failure.  All the training in the world is not going to overcome the natural and necessary instinct to propagate the species. 

Game maxim in action

Never listen to what women say about what women want.  As evidence, I offer this list, by a so-called sex expert, which claims to reveal what women wish men knew about sex:

In order to feel like sex, I need to be emotionally turned on, as well as physically stimulated.

False. Women's sexual desires are hormonally based and triggered by socio-sexual flags. They aren't having one night stands with strangers because some guy whose name she doesn't know managed to appeal to her emotions.

Words are aphrodisiacs to me. If you want more sex, talk to me more.

False.  Talky talk is BETA and a big turn off to women.  Only cosmically dishonest seducers use words as aphrodisiacs, the average guy isn't going to talk a girl into being turned on.  In most cases, a woman will get more turned on by seeing you talk to a younger, prettier woman than by anything you can say to her other than "I am a billionaire."

The more housework you do, the more I will feel like sex. I'll be less tired and will feel more like an equal partner than a slave.

An absolute lie.   The only studies performed on this have shown that the more housework you do, the less sex you will have.  Women aren't turned on by their kitchen bitches.

I also want to initiate sex but I don't have time to work up an appetite if you make a move on me daily.

No, they really don't.  The fewer moves the man makes, the less likely it is that the woman will ever initiate sex.  There are many examples of men who have tried waiting for their wives to make the move waiting MONTHS before she bothered.

It takes me longer to orgasm than you and it's more difficult. Don't rush me.

This is actually true.   The female expert is one for five.

Be gentler. My skin is thinner and more sensitive than yours. What feels normal to you, often hurts me.

False.  The main problem with men, at least men over the age of seventeen, is that they are TOO gentle.


Don't assume I only want romantic sex. I'm also up for wilder, lustier sex now and then.

True.  It's a pity she doesn't give any useful advice concerning how a man is supposed to distinguish between a desire for the one versus the other.  Only half-credit.

Don't hassle me for sex after I've said no. It makes me feel unsexy, rather than turned on.

True, but irrelevant.  Isn't that why God invented porn and prostitutes, so that women wouldn't feel unsexy after they turned down sex? Which, come to think of it, is about as unsexy as one can get; it is actually anti-sexy.  Now, before the Christians get their panties in a bunch, try to recall that the Christian is not supposed to say no to his spouse.  Or, as in this case, her spouse.  The whole point of the command not to say no is to prevent one's spouse from succumbing to sexual temptation and degrading his spiritual life.  If you're going to say no despite the Biblical directive, the Bible is also perfectly clear on what the result will be.   Another half-credit.

Accept that I'm probably not going to orgasm purely through intercourse. I need stimulation of the clitoris by your hand or a vibrator. This doesn't mean I don't enjoy intercourse, it's just the way my body is designed.

True.  Three for nine.  You're better off just reading Roissy.

Short hair isn't sexy

Don't blame me, that's the conclusion reached by Victoria's Secret and many of those who wear its lingerie:

Victoria's Secret has finally embraced Karlie Kloss' chin-grazing hair - but the lingerie giant's fans don't seem so convinced. After covering the 20-year-old's newly chopped hair with mermaid-length extensions for its annual runway show last year, the brand has let Miss Kloss show off her blunt bob in the new Very Sexy ad campaign.

Miss Kloss chopped her flowing mane off two days before the 2012 Victoria's Secret runway show, and many in the fashion industry hoped she would walk the runway with her new do. But just a few hours later, - after $75,000 worth of hair extensions, according to lead hairstylist Orlando Pita - Miss Kloss' hair was once again long and luscious.

Here is a hint for women. If chopping off her hair makes a six-foot tall Victoria's Secret model look like a librarian with "Mall of America" hair, what do you think it is going to do for you?

If a model like Karlie Kloss can't pull off short hair without looking like a desexed, less attractive version of herself - and if you look at the pictures, it is eminently clear that she can't - precisely how deluded do you have to be to think that you're going to be able to do so?  Or worse, to believe that you already are....

Caveat amator

You should probably keep this in mind when you're wondering how weak your woman's commitment to honesty runs.  The good news is that her Facebook posts offer a fairly reliable clue to her likely trustworthiness in other matters:

Researchers found that at least one in four women exaggerated or distorted what they are doing on social media once a month. The survey of 2000 women found they mostly pretended to be out on the town, when in fact they are home alone, and embellished about an exotic holiday or their job.

The most common reasons for women to write “fibs” included worrying their lives would seem “boring”, jealousy at seeing other people’s more exciting posts and wanting to impress their friends and acquaintances.... Almost one in five women even lied about their “relationship status”.

Another form of female dishonesty is the "See what a great time we're having" photo. It's Life as Performance Art.  And how meaningful is it to declare "I love my life" when you're actually saying "I love my fantasy life"?

It's about as convincing as Jon Lovitz talking about his wife, Morgan Fairchild, who he has seen naked.

Success and solipsism

This is a fascinating article in the New York Times.  In addition to showing how high-flying career success aids women's marriages, we learn the real meaning behind the failure of Lehman Bros.:

At an office party in 2005, one of my colleagues asked my then husband what I did on weekends. She knew me as someone with great intensity and energy. “Does she kayak, go rock climbing and then run a half marathon?” she joked. No, he answered simply, “she sleeps.” And that was true. When I wasn’t catching up on work, I spent my weekends recharging my batteries for the coming week. Work always came first, before my family, friends and marriage — which ended just a few years later....

I have spent several years now living a different version of my life, where I try to apply my energy to my new husband, Anthony, and the people whom I love and care about. But I can’t make up for lost time. Most important, although I now have stepchildren, I missed having a child of my own. I am 47 years old, and Anthony and I have been trying in vitro fertilization for several years....

I have also wondered where I would be today if Lehman Brothers hadn’t collapsed. In 2007, I did start to have my doubts about the way I was living my life. Or not really living it. But I felt locked in to my career. I had just been asked to be C.F.O. I had a responsibility. Without the crisis, I may never have been strong enough to step away. Perhaps I needed what felt at the time like some of the worst experiences in my life to come to a place where I could be grateful for the life I had. I had to learn to begin to appreciate what was left. 

I'm just grateful to learn that the real reason for the collapse of Lehman Bros. and the global financial crisis of 2008 was so that Erin Callan could learn An Important Life Lesson.

More equal than others

The Prime Minister of the UK makes it clear the West is living in an equalitarian society in which female pigs are more equal than their male counterparts:

The Prime Minister also said that his wife, a director of a luxury goods company, often encourages him to promote women.  He said: “My wife likes to say that if you don't have women in 50 per cent of top positions, you are not missing out on 50 per cent of the talent, you are missing out on more than 50 per cent of the talent and I think she's right.”

Not all women are rabbits and more than a few men are, but this perfectly illustrates the rabbity thinking of most women.  Due to solipsism and the female imperative, they never stop ceasing to push for more of their own, until they crowd out everything else altogether.

This may sound controversial, but keep mind that women are STILL pushing for more women in higher education and claiming that there are not enough women in various academic disciplines even though women now already make up 58 percent of all university students in the United States.

The oppression of Valentine's Day

Oppression by men, believe it or not.  It appears there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that some women cannot turn around and attempt to blame on men:

Adding insult to injury, Valentine's Day becomes an opportunity for men, in the guise of romance, to obligate their wives to sex when what their wives really want is time to relax, sleep, and have their houses cleaned by someone else.... For many women Valentine's Day does not bring out romantic feelings, instead, it ignites anger and frustration.  Valentine's Day seems to benefit men while requiring women to smile as they accommodate the desires of another man one more time.

Somehow, I have the feeling that if Gallup was to take a poll of both sexes, asking if the respondent would prefer that Valentine's Day did not exist, it would not be women, but men, who would overwhelmingly prefer it to disappear.  Removing one more opportunity for a man to fail to satisfy the expectations of an angry, frustrated woman from the calendar probably sounds like a marvelous idea to most men.

There are certainly no shortage of problems in the world for which men bear the greater responsibility.  But Valentine's Day expectations?  Forget expectations, I expect the average man merely hopes to avoid a catastrophic meltdown triggered by a gift of the wrong chocolate or a floral display deemed inadequate.

However, this assertion gives the alpha yet another weapon in his harem-ruling arsenal.  "Oh, is it Valentine's Day?  I didn't get you the conventional cards, chocolate, and flowers,  because of course I didn't wish to ignite any anger and frustration on your part.  Skittle?"

A question for young women

Captain Capitalism researches the creme de la creme of feminism, the elite, award-winning, bien-pensant New York media figure, the East Coast, Liberal, Feminist Woman Who Lives In New York And Opines About Socio-Romantic Topics, As Well As Politics and asks if they are truly the role models that Sex and the City made them appear to be:

The Question I Have for Young Women

Now, let's summarize all the ECLFWWLINYAOASRTAWAP's into one imaginary "cumulative, average woman."

The average ECLFWWLINYAOASRTAWAP is:

•     a 44 year old woman
•     who is unlikely to be married
•     likely to be divorced
•     likely to have children
•     with a good chance she will be a single mother
•     doesn't have a real degree or a real profession
•     but went to school for 6 years on average for it anyway
•     and is very average looking coming in at a 5.4

Do you REALLY want to become that?

I don't care what they write.  I don't care what they say.  And I don't care how sweet it may sound to your young, naive, gullible and VERY INEXPERIENCED ears.

Do you really want to be a divorced, middle aged woman with a hobby that you desperately try to pawn off as a career?

What is even worse is that there isn't even a remotely reasonable prospect of joining the Dowd Crowd in these days of declining newspaper readerships.  How many slots come open on the New York Times editorial page, one per decade?  Ross Douthat got the token conservative one about five years ago and he'll fill it for the next thirty.  Dowd has is still writing about her dating life even though she has been living in the lonely hell of the formerly attractive for at least the last 15 years, and there is no reason to think she won't hold onto her slot for another 20.

The average crack whore working the central bus station would serve as a better role model for the young woman who seeks happiness and fulfillment in life than these bitter, middle-aged charlatans.

Alpha Mail: the collective is the personal

MM finds it hard to grasp why women take offense on behalf of others:

Why the hell do women get offended on BEHALF of other women? I seriously just DO NOT "get it".  If you can possibly explain this nonsense to me, I would very much appreciate it.  But I'm drawing a serious blank on my end.  It is so non-nonsensical.  I want to be enraged, but I know females typically make no sense whatsoever.  So I'm not THAT mad... just confused.

This is precisely what is meant by female solipsism.  Perhaps you've heard the song "I'm Every Woman".  To a certain extent, it genuinely represents the way women think.  It's mostly subconscious, insofar as I can tell, but most men have observed that a comment made about women in general is usually interpreted by a woman who hears it as applying to her.

For example, I once commented about the mistake that had been made in hiring a young woman who was leaving the company because she was getting married and intended to have children as soon as possible.  My comment enraged a middle-aged woman who happened to be an HR director.  The woman was furious at the thought that the single young woman should not have been hired for that job even though it was her own personal policy to not hire single young women for that very reason.  In fact, the only reason I made the comment was to observe that what had happened tended to justify her policy.

The HR director's solipsism led her to react to my comment from the perspective of being the hypothetical young woman being rejected for a job herself, not the middle-aged HR director who would be held responsible by the executives for multiple failed hires.

Basically, you have to understand that any time you make a comment about any woman, you are believed to have made a comment about the specific women in the conversation.  If you wish to avoid provoking solipsistic reactions, it is very easy, all you need to do is make sure that all of your comments which can be related to women in any way are made in precisely the same way you would talk about a child in front of its mother.

Remember that women are seldom any more interested in knowing what men actually think about anything than men are in keeping up on the latest celebrity gossip and Hollywood fashions.  They mostly just want to hear that you think all women are smart, pretty, and wonderful.  So, if your objective is to avoid triggering solipsistic responses, just tell them what they want to hear and keep your thoughts to yourself.

Addressing the unintended consequences

It's remarkable that it has taken this long for women to figure out that large companies aren't going to continue blithely hiring women of child-bearing age when women keep getting pregnant and then quitting on them:

Companies should be able to ask their employees about whether they hope to have children, Sheryl Sandberg, one of the most senior women in Silicon Valley, said Ms Sandberg, chief operating officer of Facebook, said that women are held back at work by stereotypes firms are unwilling to talk about. She said employees faced non-overt discrimination as well as overt discrimination and a lack of flexibility.

The 43-year-old mother-of-two called for a much more open dialogue about gender, which included discussing with female employees whether they plan to have children, The Telegraph reported her as saying.

The UK law is particularly bad, as it not only creates incentive to discriminate against all young women, but is shamelessly abused by women who have an incentive to lie to their employers, assure them they are coming back, and then let them know at the last possible moment that they will not be doing so.  It would actually be better for employers if they were permitted to pay women to leave as soon as they got pregnant, otherwise they can find themselves in limbo for more than a year, not knowing if the woman is going to come back to her job or not.

The irony, of course, is that the individual not being hired to replace the new mother is usually another woman.

I am a strong advocate of policies that help women put children ahead of careers.  But I don't believe that most maternity-related laws do so.

Team Civilization

At times, I have been accused of being blindly on the side of Team Man.  This is not true.  I am on the side of Team Civilization.  However, and this is a fair accusation, the steady stream of fire I apply towards Team Woman - which I regard to be fundamentally anti-civilization  in general and anti-Western civilization in particular - at times can lead to the perception that I am actually somehow opposed to women in general.

So, in order to correct that misapprehension and to remind the some of the angrier men of the androsphere that civilization requires two sexes for survival, I think it is important to spotlight those women who are clearly on the side of Team Civilization, even if they are not members of the androsphere or seeing things with post-Red Pill clarity.  Cindy, who is just a mommy, is one such woman:

My teacher broke my heart.  She didn’t do anything mean, really. She just asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. She had us write about it, actually. My paper went something like this:

When I grow up, I want to be a mommy. I think I’d be good at it. I’d like lots of children.

Maybe there was more to it than that. I don’t remember. I turned in my paper, with the requisite poorly-drawn picture to illustrate. Instead of marking it with the usual red check-mark and smiley face, Miss Dixon called me to her desk.

“What else?”

I didn’t know what she meant, so I just looked at her with that slack-jawed, confused look that I still get when I’m dumbfounded. (That’s about twice a day, if you wondered.) She tried again. “What else do you want to be when you grow up? Mommy isn’t enough.”

It is important for even the angriest, most justifiably bitter men of the androsphere to remember that the survival of civilization requires the joint efforts of both the sexes.  By all means, denigrate, shame, and mock those women who are actively, if unknowingly, attempting to bring civilization down.  But it is vital to be able to distinguish between civilizational friend and anti-civilizational foe.

Why men lie

Or, more precisely, why men feel justified in lying to women.

About a month ago, a female reader asked me to lay out a few ideas concerning how she could modify her behavior in order to make herself more appealing as a relationship partner for a man.  Consider this the first in the series.

Let's start with the junior high boy.  He's interested in a pretty girl his age.  He asks her to go steady.  She tells him no, but instead of telling him the truth, which is that she's not interested in him, she concocts a story.  Perhaps she tells him that she's not interested in going steady with anyone, perhaps she claims that her parents won't permit her to do so.

Either way, the lie is quickly revealed when, a week later, she is going steady with a more popular boy.  She's forgotten her little white lie, but he hasn't.

Now we're in high school. The boy is standing right next to his girlfriend when she tells her parents that after the prom, she'll be staying at her friend's house. Later that night, when he's making out with her at the hotel, she assumes that he's forgotten that she lied right in front of him; it's not that he isn't glad she lied, but he's still aware that she did... and did so smoothly and without hesitation or remorse.

Then college.  He's hanging out with a girl, she's just a friend.  He happens to know she's slept with at least three guys that he knows of, one of whom is his roommate, which is why he's astonished when, right in front of him, she shyly confesses to only having had sex with her serious high school boyfriend in front of her current boyfriend.

Now he's married.  He suggests a bit of the old rumpty-pumpty, but she demurs.  "We'll do it tomorrow," she says.  The next day, he's wondering if perhaps she's up for a nooner, or perhaps a little afternoon delight.  She doesn't show any sign of interest, so he waits for her to bring it up.  He's still sitting there, in front of the television, when she yawns, declares that she's exhausted, changes into her least sexy nightgown and slathers a creme pack on her face.

It's only when he hears her snoring that he realizes that she not only has no intention of having sex with him, she doesn't even remember what she'd said the day before.

Now, I'm not saying that men don't lie.  And I'm not saying that women necessarily even realize when they are behaving in a manner that men tend to interpret, rightly or wrongly, as lying.  What I'm saying is that at a certain point, men begin to believe that they have absolutely no responsibility to tell the truth to a woman because she has no regard or respect for it.  This is especially true when telling women the truth of what one is thinking and feeling tends to meet with reliably negative reactions.

There are, of course, reasons to tell the truth even when everyone else is lying.  Moral standards are not dependent upon the failure of others to observe them.  But if a woman wants a man to make a habit of telling her the truth, she is going to have to work very hard to indicate that she is different than most of the women of his experience, and show him that she genuinely values honesty, both in herself and others.  Men value honor, or at least respect it in others, but most have learned that they cannot expect to find it in women.  That is why so many of them feel so free to treat women dishonorably.

Alpha Mail: what is there to flame?

Anonymous appears to want to take exception to the notion of short hair on women being man-repellant:

Sometimes this whole manosphere thing cracks me up. You love to prattle on about how you're all taking the red pill and wising up to the evils of modern women, because there are *NO GOOD WOMEN LEFT* and then you start having a discussion about women with short hair and it descends into mud-slinging about unattractive lesbians and the losers who settle for them (or at least it did the last time you touched on this) and then you wonder why there are *ONLY WITCHES* left and you're better off a MGTOW.

I'll only say this once 'cos I know I'm only going to get flamed. I have no intention of getting into a dialog with you all about how I must be fat (my BMI is just fine, thank you) or whatever. Here's my story.

I had short hair throughout my teens and early twenties. I didn't realise it at the time but my hair cutting off was *ALWAYS* preceded by being treated particularly shamefully by men. And now you all assume I'm talking about being being pumped and dumped because I'm a slut. I was a virgin until 25 because I was reading the same guide to relationships as Tina Fey. My teens and early twenties were one long story of being two-timed, stood up and somehow managing to date men that seemed ashamed to be seen out with me. It was hideous. You're now thinking I must be ugly and very unpleasant personality-wise. The truth is I'm clever and good at STEM. Years spent in laboratories studying physics, chemistry and computing meant I interacted with lots of men, but you know how STEM guys are. I'm shy too. I went on *TWO* whole dates during college (for the record those were mostly long hair years). I heard later that lots of guys on my course thought I was cute but clearly way out of their league.

When I finally met my husband I had short hair and I'd basically given up on dating. You could call me a WGTOW. He didn't mind my hair or my pricklyness towards dating because he liked me personally. And I liked being with him so I stopped cutting off my hair and it was long in time for the wedding.

I don't see why there is any reason to flame this woman.  Nor do I see any contradiction between her experience and what I have posted concerning the man-repelling aspect of short hair on women.

First, note that she didn't cut her hair off to attract men, but as an emotional response to "being treated particularly shamefully by men".  In other words, she was trying to repell them.  It sounds as if the man-repellant worked even better than I've been asserting, because she only went on two dates during college and those few men who did go out with her were ashamed to be seen with her and her ugly masculine hairstyle, which only underlined her STEMmish lack of femininity.

Second, note that she did eventually find a man who didn't mind her "pricklyness" (lack of feminine submissiveness) or short hair (lack of feminine physical attributes), which tells us that she is probably married to a gamma or low delta who must feel that he hit the jackpot to find himself married to a clever, well-educated woman who is even willing to modify her appearance in order to appear more feminine for him.  The fact that she was willing to grow out her hair for him is a positive sign for the two of them, as it means she is no longer in man-repellant mode; her own masculine tendencies and apparent lack of desire for male attention may mean that she is one of those women who are well-suited for men lacking social and sexual dominance.

Or, perhaps she's just found herself a sigma whose anti-hierarchical quirks happen to align with her attributes, which can also be a good sign for a lasting relationship.  Either way, I see her tale as fundamentally underlining my point, not contradicting it.

NB: Charlize Theron and Haile Berry are often brought up as examples proving that short hair is attractive to men.  They are indubitably attractive women, whether their hair is short or long.  But given that both women have serious and much-publicized issues with men, I wonder if they might not also be poster girls for the idea that short hair is man repellant to which women with certain psychological problems subconsciously resort.

Alpha Mail: short hair is man repellant

It's hard to know how the case against short hair on women can be made more conclusively than by women who are considering cutting off their hair specifically in order to reduce their attractiveness and feminine appeal to men.  I noticed this comment was recently added to an old post on women's hair.

Personally, I have seriously considered cutting my hair off (as in really short-pixie cut) precisely because, like some before me have said, it lowers or even completely wipes away "attractiveness". One thing is for sure: it is practically IMPOSSIBLE to objectify a short-haired woman(unless she has a freakishly sexy, hour-glass figure,and shows it off, like Marilyn Monroe did) . Short hair basically makes your face, your features stand out and forces people to look you in the eyes, treat you as a person.

As a person.  Not as a woman, not as a sexual being, just as a desexed, gender-neutral thing.  If you're a woman, you may want to keep in mind that what you're considering because you think it will be "cute" is the same thing that other women do when they intentionally want to AVOID ATTRACTING MEN.  If that comment isn't convincing, consider this one:

As a hairdresser, I am horrified at the comments & judgements that you men & women alike are passing off to women who choose to wear their hair short. But as a heterosexual, 20 yr old, 5'3, 230 lb woman who prefers short pixie style hair for myself, I pity those so ignorant enough to not take personal preferences & personal opinions into consideration.

If you genuinely don't want to be viewed as an attractive sex object, but prefer to be seen as an androgynous creature of no sexual interest to normal, masculine men, then by all means, chop it off.  Put on another 100 pounds while you're at it; even if you have a beautiful face and a nice body, the combination of the short hair and weight gain should suffice to do the trick.  But if reducing your attractiveness to the opposite sex isn't your objective, then you may want to reconsider the pixie cut that your slightly less attractive girlfriends keep saying would look so cute on you.

Conversely, if you happen to wish to attract men, you may want to consider trying what women who depend upon their attractiveness to men to make a living do and see how stripper hair works for you.

The accidental imperative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you support women working?

Then, it logically follows that you also support more domestic violence.  It is Science:

Intimate partner violence is two times more likely to occur in two income households, compared to those where only one partner works, according to a new study.... The study found that more than 60 percent of women in two-income couples reported victimization, while only 30 percent of women reported victimization in cases when only the male partner was employed.

Why do you hate women?  Why?  Naturally, the researchers sail off into airy theories of female empowerment through work and concomitant male insecurity, but the fact of the matter is that if society wants to reduce domestic violence, female employment should be discouraged.

At this point, one has to seriously wonder about the sanity of anyone who actively supports encouraging women to pursue careers rather than family life.  In addition to being less likely to marry, breed, or be happy, a career will also cause a woman to die earlier, get divorced, get cheated on, have fatter, fewer, and less healthy children, and make her twice as likely to experience domestic violence.

I have the impression these statistics about the downside of female employment are seldom cited by high school guidance counselors.

If you're asking, you don't have it

I am often quite harsh on the clueless deltas and gammas of the world.  It's often hard to believe that they are truly as stupid and inobservant as their behavior indicates them to be.  But, when we look at the other side of it and view the way in which the female hamster runs amok whenever she's dealing with a man of higher SMV, it becomes rapidly apparent that the inability to think straight affects both men and women when they find themselves in potentially sexual relationships with individuals whose SMV sufficiently exceeds theirs.

We started dating when I was 19. This was the second guy I ever kissed. Aside from all the emotional stuff that went on, the physical stuff (sort of sex?) was…Really Good. Ok, so I pretty much went from 0 to 500 in this relationship, and have no real basis of comparison, but as far as I can tell, sex type stuff was really good for both of us. Emotionally: good to ok to godawful. Chemistry: through the roof....

The guy is a starving musician trying to make it big and currently has a harem of six, not counting the ONS. She asked me to play nice. So, Monday, we were all in the same place at the same time. I’m so much on edge that I can barely think straight, but I did my best to be friendly. Boy tries to give me (and assorted other female types) a hug before he goes; I take a step back. Boy asked if he could call me to get a cup of coffee next time he’s in town.  I said: ok.

I called later that night because I wanted to understand what his intentions were.

"I called later that night...." That says it all right there.  No matter how much information the individual with the short end of the stick has, they always seek more.  Why?  Because they need more in order to rationalize away the information they already have!  If you're seeking for "clarification" or trying to "understand" or think that a "conversation" is needed, congratulations.  You're the one without hand.

This is why it is a total waste of time to attempt talking anyone out of a situation where they are being used/abused by an individual of higher SMV.  They already know the situation, they just don't want to accept it.  Of course, if you're the higher SMV individual, this shows the correct way to keep a lower SMV chewtoy on the string: just throw them something with which to rationalize every so often.

Do that and it doesn't matter what you do the rest of the time.  The rationalization hamster will take it from there.

The challenge of intersexual communication

One of the common themes among female commenters at HUS is the inverse of the Sports Guy's mantra, men ruin everything.  And just like the mantra, it's based on legitimate observation.  Susan Walsh writes:

I do know that there has been a constant blurring of boundaries between this blog and others as some have sought to bring ideas from those blogs to debate here. You have done this yourself, mostly using Roissy as an inspiration. Mike C is a Rollo Boy. Others here may be Dalrockolytes. I have referred to the introduction of these “toxic” ideas as “infecting” HUS.

I know you are aware of the effect these conversations have had on my female commenters (crickets), and it’s long been apparent that a sizable number of women elect not to comment here because of the “gloves off” demeanor of the conversations. In addition, female commenters who do stick it out often weigh in with constructive criticism of the male highjacking of threads. Yesterday, both Anacaona and Iggles, I believe, attempted to express their frustration with the tenor of the conversation, and more importantly, the destructive effect it was having on intersex communication.

I regard the problem as a near-insoluble one.  The challenge is that intersexual communication requires two-way communication, and women, for the most part, have zero interest in that.  The reason the young women at HUS have been falling silent is because they have no interest in their opinions being challenged and their assertions being questioned.  They have no interest in changing their lives, instead they want to be comforted and have their decisions confirmed.  For the most part, women prefer to treat their interlocutors as children who must accept Mommy's word as divinely inspired law; it can be more than a little amusing to see the shocked expression on a woman's face when one does nothing more than directly question the factual truth of her statement.  The stuttering, hasty retreat that usually follows her realization that she's been busted isn't without humor either.

Don't believe me?  Try saying this as politely as you can manage the next time a woman attempts to slide an obvious whopper past you: "I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.  Can you provide me with any evidence that is true?"

What I suspect you'll find to be reliably the case is that merely questioning the perfect truthfulness of a woman's word is regarded as rude, aggressive, offensive, and boorish.  In femsprache, "gloves off" means "unconcealed disagreement".  But don't take my word for it, try it out when the next opportunity presents itself.

As long as women are unwilling to accept having their opinions and assertions questioned, and as long as they prefer to fall silent rather than defend their statements, no substantive intersexual communication is possible.  Now, obviously some women can handle it, whether they find it distasteful or not, but the observable reality is that most women either cannot or will not.

And men are well-advised to understand this is an area where most of them fall down.  Most men are often inclined to let ludicrous statements go unchallenged, but they absolutely should not, because the woman making the statement tends to regard a man's acceptance of her version of reality as evidence of her dominance over him.

Solitude and the City

A one-time Sex in the City woman writes about her lonely middle-aged life:

For me, the single girl lifestyle that I embraced and celebrated with so much enthusiasm in the Eighties and Nineties has lost much of its gloss, and is starting to look a little hollow.  I was part of the Sex And The City generation — successful, feisty women who made their own money, answered to no one and lived life to the full....

What none of us spent too long thinking about in our 20s and 30s was how our lifestyles would impact on us once we reached middle-age, when we didn’t want to go out and get sozzled on cocktails and had replaced our stilettos and skinny jeans with flat shoes and elasticated waists.  When I look around at all my single friends — and there are a lot of them — not one of them is truly happy being on her own. Suddenly, all those women we pitied for giving up their freedom for marriage and children are the ones feeling sorry for us....

Any man who didn’t conform was to be kicked to the curb until the next poor sap came along.  What I never considered, though, was that one day they’d stop coming along altogether. I really wish I’d known that once you’re in your late 30s, men are pretty thin on the ground. And once you’re in your 40s, it’s as though they’ve been wiped off the face of the Earth.

When one is young, it is very, very hard to imagine that things will not always be, more or less, as they are now.  But being more involved in athletics, men tend to be far more aware of the fact that one day, things will change and they will not be able to run and jump as they can now.  They know the price of age.  Every guy who plays any sports, even casually, knows the old guy who can't drive to the hoop or defend anyone anymore, but can still hit from three, and realizes that one day, if he's lucky, that will be him.  I remember being in my twenties, talking to the guys in their forties at the gym, and marveling at how they were still pretty strong despite never seeming to do very much in the weight room anymore.

They just laughed and assured me that one day, I'd understand.  In your twenties, you're at your peak and you don't need any recovery time.  In your thirties, you lose your speed and your ups, and it takes a day to recover.  In your forties, you lose your peak strength and it takes you two days to recover.  You can still do 90 percent of what you used to do, but you have to listen closely to your body at all times or it's going to break down.  You have to take it easy or you'll do nothing at all.  And now, twenty years later, it is so clear that they were telling nothing but the truth.  Fortunately, because I listened to them, I can still work out, I can still play soccer at a fairly high level, and I can still score goals with a strike rate of around .33 per game.  Not bad for one of the oldest guys on the veteran's team.

I don't know if older women have been responsible about telling younger women that their youth, beauty, and fertility are not going to survive their twenties.  It seems, from this article, that they have not been.  In fact, the younger women still appear to be receiving precisely the opposite message from the media and the older generation alike.  Ours is one of the first female generations in human history to actively spurn marriage and children in favor of education and careers, so it is very important for younger women to seek out middle-aged single women and find out if they are genuinely content with their solitary status in middle age and beyond, or if they regret their youthful priorities.

There are, of course, real societal issues that have arisen as a result of this demographic transformation, and they are important, but on the individual level, what will transform the mentality of the younger generation is the personal regrets of those who took the path that they were socially pressured to take.

The cost of credentials

Western women are obtaining more educational credentials, albeit increasingly at the cost of motherhood and healthy children:

The average age at which a woman in the UK starts a family has hit 30 – an increase of almost two years since 1995.  But experts warned last night that the growing trend for late motherhood could be putting the health of babies at risk. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said that women who waited longer to give birth needed to be informed of the potential problems, such as the risk of Down's syndrome and complications during delivery.

The figures, from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, show that the UK and Germany are tied at the top of a league table of average maternal age.  They also reveal that British women tend to wait an extra five years to have their first child compared with those in the United States, where the average age is 25. The latest figures show that almost 350,000 children are born every year to women above the age of 30 in the UK. Of these, almost 28,000 mothers are above the age of 40. In 2010, some 141 babies were born to women above the age of 50.

It has been suggested that the increasing tendency for women to delay motherhood is because they are more likely go to university and pursue a career.

What is the point of encouraging more women to obtain academic credentials if that means they are going to be producing a smaller number of unhealthier, less cognitively capable children in the next generation?  Even if more female credentials were materially beneficial to society, (and Roissy's post on the latest Baumeister paper casts a great deal of doubt upon that idea), the benefit would be short-term and last only a single generation.  Are the much smaller number of women in the next generation, a statistically significant minority of whom are retarded, born out of wedlock, and otherwise handicapped, going to be able to maintain and continue the societal benefits established by their mothers?

That is highly improbable.  Once more, we see that the structural inconsistences of a feminist society are even more powerful than those that caused the Communist societies to collapse.