What You're Signing Up For If You Marry an American Woman...

Guys,

It's been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. That begs the question: how many words is a video worth, hmmm? Videos used to be called motion pictures; motion pictures are nothing more than a series of pictures flashed in rapid succession so as to present the ILLUSION of movement. How many words is a video worth then, hmmmm?

What you're about to see is a Target video. I saw it over on Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt earlier today. I thought that my boys would appreciate seeing this. THIS is what you're signing up for if you marry an American woman, fellas!



Did you notice how the woman usurped her husband's authority? Did you notice how she went ahead and bought the TV anyway, even though it's clear that they'd spend LESS this year, thanks to the recession? Did you notice how proud the wife was, like 'Haha, I pulled one over on Hubby!'? Did you notice how Wifey gets what Wifey wants? Did you notice that Hubby's wants, needs, thoughts, and/or desires didn't matter? Did you notice her arrogance, her smugness? I did! Then again, that's what happens when women have all the power.

I know that there are some who will say that the man must be the man, and he must put his foot down! Uh, small note: doing so can get you charged with domestic violence, pal! If you don't believe me, check out The NJ State Bar Foundation's pamphlet on domestic violence. DV basically is anything Wifey doesn't like, guys! Did you deny her money for that fancy, new SUV she wants, even though you can't afford it? Guess what, you're guilty of withholding funds! Did you prevent her from leaving with the car keys while under the influence? Guess what, you're guilty of DV! Being a man and putting your foot down = DV these days guys. IOW, putting a stop to Wifey's excessive spending can land you in jail.

Boys, do NOT marry an American bitch! THIS is exactly what you'll get! American women believe in give & take in relationships; you do all the giving, while they do all the taking. I know that there are women who are the exception to the rule, but they're so rare that they make gold look plentiful as sand on a beach. Finding one is akin to hitting the Mega Millions or Powerball jackpot; you know SOME lucky SOB will hit it, but know it wont't be YOU. Stay single, happy, and free, Fellas! The life and freedom you save may be your OWN...

MarkyMark

Reality 2010 Is Back!

Guys,

The blogger, Reality 2010 is back! Last year, he was known as Reality 2009, when he had an assortment of anti-feminist blogs up. He took them down because he thought that they weren't making a difference. He realized that they were, so he's reposted his classic, The Problem With Women Today. I'll be installing it on the link list soon as I post this.

MarkyMark

A Blog about MTV's Jersey Shore

Guys,

There's now a blog exclusively devoted to MTV's Jersey Shore. Click the link to check it out. It's got good stuff, including the video I featured in my previous post...

MarkyMark

Snookie Gets Cold Cocked!

Guys,

I've been posting about MTV's Jersey Shore a lot lately, and I have another one for you. This is a video featuring Snookie, one of the show's cast members, getting cold cocked in a bar. She got mouthy with a drunken guy in a bar, and he let her know what he thought of her obnoxious comment...



What can we learn from this short video? One, American women have an almost universal pussy pass. Two, that this pussy pass has given American women the impression that they can say or do pretty much anything they want WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES. Why else would some chick get in someone's face, cuss him out, and call him names? As guys, we know better than to do that, because we know that there's a good chance someone will punch us out for saying things like Snookie said. Three, women need to learn that they cannot abuse men with impunity; they cannot continually poke sticks in our cage without getting hurt sooner or later. Those are my thoughts...

MarkyMark

MTV's Jersey Shore as a Petri Dish of Relationships...

Guys,

As you know, I've been following MTV's Jersey Shore as of late. It's so gosh darn bad (in a train wreck sort of way) that I can't help but watch it! Over @ Ferdinand Bardamu's place, there was a post about MTV's new show. In the comments, a chap by the name of Canon's Canon said that the show is a veritable petri dish for studying 'Game'. While he has a point, that's not the tack I wish to pursue.

Canon's Canon is right about one thing: MTV's Jersey Shore is a petri dish for studying relationships. To me though, it's a petri dish of what NOT to do for pursuit of a healthy relationship. In that show, one can see everything that one can do wrong to pursue a healthy relationship, i.e. one that is a blessing & enrichment to both parties involved.

How does MTV's Jersey Shore show us what NOT to do? Where do I start?! One, both men & women are pursuing relationships based on attraction only. Two, we don't see anyone really getting to KNOW one another-and I don't mean Biblically, either! Three, guys & gals bed down at the drop of a hat.

The first thing that jumped out at me when watching MTV's new show, Jersey Shore, is that both the guys & girls are chasing one another SOLELY based on attraction; it's the only litmus test being used by either sex these days! I've seen no attempt by either the men or the women (am I being too generous with those descriptors?) to REALLY get to know their partners on the inside. The only question they ask is this: is he/she hot? Does he/she get my hormones racing? WTF are you doing, people?!

The second thing I noticed is this: the men & women aren't getting to know one another. I haven't see ANY substantive discussions on current events. I've seen no substantive discussions about money & finances. I've seen no discussion or even mention about future goals. I haven't seen any discussions about ANYTHING of substance-nothing! These aforementioned issues are what I call 'make or break' issues; these are issues that can, and often do, sink relationships. Men & women are pursuing relationships with one another while having no idea of who the other is as a person-none!

The third thing I've noticed on Jersey Shore is that guys & gals hop into bed with one another almost instantly. What are you doing, folks?! Ronnie & Sammi, after only a few talks and one date hopped into bed with each other! I'm sorry, but that's way too soon to have sex with someone! Even if one doesn't believe in saving it for marriage, doing it right after meeting someone is too damn soon! If younger men (and especially younger women) are doing this, is it any wonder that STDs are so prevalent? Is it any wonder that there's so much angst about relationships?!

What ends up happening is this: relationships are based on little more than sex. In far too many modern relationships, the only glue holding them together is the physical. There is little or no mental connection made between the man and the woman. There is little or no emotional connection made. Finally, there is little or no spiritual connection made. In order for a relationship to last-REALLY LAST-it has to have all four elements present; there have to be mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical bindings holding it together. Only then will a relationship have what it takes to last. When there's only one binding (especially when it's the physical, as is usually the case in modern relationships) holding it together, the relationship simply doesn't have the strength to withstand any serious stress.

Men & women are pursuing one another based on attraction; granted, the attractants are different for men and women, but they're pursuing one another based on attraction nonetheless. Sorry, but attraction != love. It never has, and it never will. I'm not saying that your beloved should be repulsive, but attraction alone cannot and should not be the sole basis of a healthy relationship.

Here's what's happening. Man & woman get involved with each other solely based on their attraction for one another. They do not really get go KNOW one another. The relationship progresses to the point of marriage. The marriage inevitably has tough times, which stress the relationship. Only then do the husband and wife realize that they're complete strangers! Only then do they realize that they do not really, truly know one another. Only then do they realize that they're not at all in agreement on the 'make or break' issues. Is it any WONDER we have so many divorces?! Come to think of it, it's a wonder we have any marriages that survive at all, given the shaky foundation on which they're built.

In closing, MTV's new show, Jersey Shore, shows us what's wrong with modern relationships, and the way that men & women approach them. Attraction is the only litmus test used to determine who's 'right' for them. It never occurs to men & women that there has to be SOMETHING else to get them through the next 30 years. Because modern relationships don't have that something else to survive long term, they end up being train wrecks, littering the human landscape with hurt, pain, anger, and goodness knows what else. In light of this, it's a wonder there aren't more divorces! Until next time...

MarkyMark

Why Do Young Chicks Chase Married Men?!

Guys,

I watched the third installment of MTV's Jersey Shore last night. I know, I know; I shouldn't, but I can't help it. As I said in a recent post, it's like watching a train wreck. You know you shouldn't, but you can't help but do so anyway.

Anyway, I learned that Angelina's (the Kim Kardashian of Staten Island) boyfriend is MARRIED. Here's a nice looking, young gal in her prime, a gal who can have her pick of single, unattached guys, yet she's chasing a married man! WTFITS?! Why do gals do that? I don't understand-not when there are plenty of single, unattached guys around. Then again, Angelina is an attention whore & drama queen; perhaps that's the only way she could get her fix? I don't know; I'm still scratching my head over this one...

Well, it's off to work, so I'll catch you all later...

MarkyMark

A Funny Critique of MTV's 'Jersey Shore'

Guys,

I found this under the 'related videos' header after watching the one about the cast. This guy is good; he cracked me up watching this! Enjoy...



With that, I'm signing off. Until next time...

MarkyMark

The Cast of MTV's 'Jersey Shore'...

Guys,

I ran a promo clip from the new MTV show, 'Jersey Shore'. I watched the first two episodes, and the show is as bad as it looks! WTF did I watch that garbage? For me, it was like a train wreck; you know you shouldn't watch, yet you feel compelled to do so anyway. Anyway, here's the vacuous, vapid cast of MTV's 'Jersey Shore'...





I don't know if I'll watch the subsequent episodes; I have a feeling it'll be more of the same as what I've seen already in the first two. Oh, and watch for Angelina, 'the Kim Kardashian of Staten Island', at 0:38. Actually, they're all outrageous, but some are more outrageous than others. Have a good night now...

MarkyMark

Dees on Dancing...

Guys,

I've run stuff from Dees before, and I'm about to do so again now. He's one of our stalwarts @ Mancoat, and he has good stuff to say. Dees gives us the lowdown on women who dance at nightclubs and parties. Without further ado, here's Dees on dancing...

-----------------

I agree. Dancing is supplicating. When men dance, they are basically begging women for their attention.

I speak from experience: I idiotically took a dance class in 2000. It got me nowhere with women. Actually, the more good I became at dancing, the more gay I appeared.

Men dancing serves to further inflate women's already over-inflated egos.

I hate the whole idea of dancing. I would never marry a woman who did any kind of dancing as a hobby. A Serbian friend of mine here in the USA, who is an expert salsa dancer and instructor, told me that every single woman who likes dancing is fucked-up in the head, and there are no exceptions. He said he wouldn't say the same about men, because men who like dancing are often times normal guys who are just trying to get laid.

Women who like to dance have major emotional problems, and that is why they are addicted to the emotional rush of dancing. Such women also like to dance in order to get ego boosts from guys who ask/attempt/proceed to dance with them.

Men need to rid themselves of the idea that dancing has any benefit to them. If they are looking for a decent woman, they should remember that no such women dance. If they are looking for a skank for casual sex, then it will be easier for them to obtain that if they acquire a seduction skill set that does not include dancing.

----------------

Can't say I disagree with it. I've always disliked dancing, though I could never articulate why. Thanks to Dees, now I can. Have a good night now...

MarkyMark

Yet Another Good Blog!

Guys,

Thanks to Albert on Mancoat, I now have another good blog to share with you: Battlefield of Love. Think of it as Female Misogynist with a British, Muslim, libertarian flavor. It's good stuff! It's going in my link list as soon as I post this...

MarkyMark

Sarah Palin Inspires More Wives & Mothers to Try Having It All

Guys,

I'm not as big a fan of Sarah Palin as I used to be. That's what happens when you have your eyes opened to certain things; you see that things aren't what you THOUGHT they were. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Thinking Housewife was right: Sarah Palin puts a pretty face on feminism. Not only that, Sarah Palin is more dangerous than any screaming radfem ever was. This article will show you why. I'll intersperse some commentary thoughout the piece...

---------------

Palin Motivates Mothers to Launch Their Own Political Campaigns

Sarah Palin is keeping a tight lid on her political ambitions for 2012, but her influence on other would-be politicians can by seen by the growing number of women she has inspired to seek public office.

Come on, we all know that she's running for president! That has to be the worst kept secret in the world! Why else would she write a book on the heels of the 2008 campaign? Why else would she be doing the talk show circuit, including that of uber feminist, Oprah Winfrey? Come on!

The 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate's conservative philosophies and her folksy, hockey-mom approach to politics have galvanized other mothers to launch political campaigns -- at all levels of government -- aimed at reducing big-government spending.

Are you talking about the conservative philosophies that include the 'grrl power' talk? Do you mean the conservative philosophies that have the president of the LA NOW chapter endorsing you?! You mean the conservative philosophies of working outside the home? You mean the conservative philosophies that encapsulate being the feminsts' wet dreams?! I just have to shake my head at this drivel...

Even Palin's real-life family dramas -- like her teenage daughter's pregnancy -- add to her appeal, her followers say.

THIS shows just how sick a society we are. If a family's daughter had had a bastard child out of wedlock (and that's just what happened here) even a generation ago, they would be ashamed of themselves! If a candidate for any office, let alone for president, had had an unmarried, pregnant daughter, his career would have been finished-finished! There would be NOTHING-and I mean nothing-appealing about the situation! You call that conservatism?! God help us!

Patricia Sullivan, a mother of four who is running in the Republican primary to take on Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson in Florida's 8th Congressional District, says Palin's authenticity and rejection of Washington elitism inspired her to launch her own political run.

"She is real America," Sullivan said in an interview Wednesday with FoxNews.com. "She's brought more recognition to the fact that moms can do it all."

Man, I don't even know where to start! Where do I start here?! The sad part is that Sarah Palin IS real, modern America today. That's pathetic! Oh, and the part about mothers being able to do it all? Oh, please, you've got to be kidding! No one can do it all; no one can have it all; no one can be it all. It's akin to being a jack of all trades and master of none.

Sullivan announced early last month that she would seek to challenge Grayson, whose first term in Congress has been marked by several controversies, including calling a female adviser to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke a "K Street whore."

There's another feminist tactic-crying foul when someone speaks the truth. There are many whores in Washington-duh. Sounds to me like Mr. Grayson called a spade a freakin' shovel.

"I think that for a long time people see politicians as part of an elite establishment, and our nation's at a crossroads where the American people realize that the elite establishment has gotten us into a mess," Sullivan said, sounding themes associated with Palin.

And you're going to clean up said mess, Little Missy? Sure you are. As Bill Simmons once said, women ruin everything.

Lisbeth "Liz" Carter of Atlanta is planning a run for the Republican nomination to battle Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson in Georgia's 4th Congressional District. She said Palin possesses a quality that many career politicians lack: common sense.

"Her views are simple and basic," said Carter, a 40-year-old mother and CEO of a small consulting group that assists private companies in executive recruitment. "She's a leader who inspired people to step up and say we've had enough.

Oh how sweet-another married, ball busting feminist! Here we have yet another feminist in conservative clothing...

"She doesn't put herself up in an ivory tower and say 'I know what's best for you,'" Carter said, adding that she thinks Palin was "mishandled" last year by both the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee.

"She was sort of put into a box, and her true spirit and her passion were not allowed to really shine through," she said. "She wasn't just a pretty picture standing next to John McCain."

Palin's post-campaign popularity has soared in recent weeks as she has barnstormed the country on a whirlwind book promotion tour.

A book tour staged to boost her presidential aspirations...

A Fox News poll conducted Nov. 17 to 18 found that 47 percent of respondents are more likely to give Palin a favorable rating than they are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And about six in 10 polled said the former Alaska governor has been treated unfairly by the press.

ANYONE could get a more favorable rating than Comrade Pelosivich! That's not hard to do...

Even Palin cites her simplistic approach toward government and her down-to-earth demeanor as qualifications for public office.

Oh really? Not to take anything away from you, Mrs. Palin, but your state's population is LESS than that of Bergen County, NJ! Bergen County has 900,000 in population, while Alaska (the entire state now) has some 600,000. And you want to try leading a country of almost 300 MILLION people?!

"I have common sense and I have, I believe the values that are reflective of so many other American values," she said in a recent interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. "I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism."

You mean traditional, American values like quitting? Sorry, I couldn't help myself there. Sarcasm is off. I have to tell you that Palin's departure from office still doesn't sit well with me. It smacks of quitting. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

I know that, thanks to a quirk in Alaska law, Palin's detractors could file nuisance lawsuits and ethics charges, all of which had to be answered. I know that this cost Palin time & money. But, if she thinks that Washington, DC is going to be any easier, she's got another thing comin'; she ain't seen NOTHING yet! Shoot, those vultures will eat her alive.

Denel Wardell, who is running for a state senator seat in Lauderdale County, Ala., told FoxNews.com that Palin's views inspired her to seek office.

"My first obligation is to the people who elect me, not to the party I'm running on. And Sarah Palin made her first obligation the American public," said Wardell, who has recently worked as a tea party organizer.

That's what Palin SAID; let's see what she actually does. Both politicians and women are notorious for saying one thing, then doing another.

"She's not manufactured. She's one of us," she said.

Sarah Palin IS one of you; she IS a typical, American woman. That's what makes it so sad. If this weren't so sad, it would be funny! I guess it is funny-in an ironic sense, anyway...

But Sullivan and Carter face an uphill battle in challenging incumbents whose name recognition and financial might make them tough opponents.

Good, hopefully these men will keep the women away from where they don't belong. They don't belong in public office!

Grayson, who represents a swing district, has enjoyed a flood of monetary support since assuming office in January. The self-proclaimed "Democrat with guts" raked in $100,000 the day after he said on the House floor that Republicans want sick patients to "die quickly." He has said his brazen statements will likely help win him re-election.

Mr. Grayson, who called Fed Chairman's female stafffer a 'K Street whore', is rare for a politician; he actually has the balls to speak the truth! Since that's so rare these days, I think people will respond to that.

Johnson has also garnered widespread attention in recent months. Referring to South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie" outburst during President Obama's address before Congress, the Georgia Democrat said in September that people will be putting on "white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside" if emerging racist attitudes are not rebuked.

Oh, that's a crock of you know what!

Johnson, who was elected to Congress in 2006, serves on both the House Armed Services and Judiciary committees.

---------------

Those are my thoughts on Sarah Palin and all the wannabes she's inspired. Have a good day now...

MarkyMark

Sexual Catastrophe

Guys,

I've been trying to read the recent, great game debate over @ View from the Right. While doing so, I found an insightful post by Ian B., who renders his opinions & observations about what caused our dating wasteland, and what we can do about it. This is some of the best stuff I've read thus far...

------------------

Ian B. wrote:

I thought I'd throw my own two cents into the whole debate over Roissyism and the socio-sexual disaster, and offer my diagnosis of the problem and how to solve it.

The Roissyites, and Mark P. [see Mark's explication], do share one profound insight: the ones who are most proximately to blame for the social chaos are women, not men. While men do the wooing, it is women who make the choice to accept a relationship.

Typically, when a woman throws herself at some "alpha male" and gets burned, society places all the blame on the guy for being such a callous, uncaring cad as to sleep with a poor innocent woman and not commit to her. But who is he supposed to commit to? Her, or one of the several other idiot women throwing themselves into his path?

And consider this: For every stupid woman throwing herself at the same jerk that several other women are throwing themselves at, there's a guy who is probably responsible and quite willing commit, but who is being ignored by the tramp. So who is really being more callous, the "alpha male" being enabled by the women, or the vain, selfish women ignoring the decent guys? The problem here is not the existence of a few cads (a few cads, unfortunately, have always and will always be with us), but rather the behavior of women towards them.

So, I've just said who I think is at proximate moral fault for this mess (the women), but I haven't said what the root cause of it is. That is, what changed that allowed this mess to happen? These are two different things. For instance, imagine a town in which all the policemen pack up and leave one day. Subsequently, the town falls into a morass of violent crime. The ones to blame for the crimes are the criminals, but the root cause of the mess is the cops leaving. The solution is not to hope that the criminals will suddenly start behaving responsibly, but rather for the cops to come back.

With that distinction out of the way, let me say that the cause of the disaster is that the cops, by which I mean the majority of masculine men, have left town, and this was caused by the acceptance of feminism.

You may have noticed a common thread in these discussions. The term "alpha male" is used interchangeably to refer to both worthless, no-count cads, and to the men that women find most attractive. The term "beta male," on the other hand, is used interchangeably to refer to both the responsible men, the builders of society, and to the men that women find less attractive.

This might seem strange. There is no necessary logical link between these things. In fact, you might tend to assume that the responsible builders would be stronger, more authoritative, and hence more attractive in general. However, there is a contingent link between these two things within current society.

The problem is that because of feminism, men have been taught for decades that they ought to be sweet, sensitive doormats, attentive and deferential to women's needs, seeing women as goddesses on high pedestals. This message has been preached by the schools, in the media, and even by their families. Unfortunately, this is precisely what turns women off. Regardless of what they think or say they want, most women are actually attracted to (and happiest with) a strong, independent, assertive man who will dominate and lead them.

And since this is what is taught everywhere, only the sociopaths and renegades--that is to say, the unteachable cads who scorn the wisdom of everyone else--manage to avoid absorbing this lesson, and hence end up being the most attractive to women. The potentially responsible leader types are instead conditioned into being feminized squishes by the time they reach adulthood, and so end up being "beta males."

So, here's my two step solution:

1) First of all, men need to be taught to be strong and independent again, from an early age. They need to be taught that women are attracted to assertive, dominating guys rather than suckups. They also need to be taught to see women for what they are: fallen and flawed humans, possessing merits, but also emotional and emotionally manipulative, to be led, and not shining goddesses of wonder to be appeased. This would at least put these men on an even playing field with the cads and the Roissyites, in terms of attracting women, which is half the battle.

Of course, the idea that we should just start teaching men differently is easier said than done. There is one place where it is possible, however: Within the conservative Christian community. There is Biblical precedent for men as leaders, and the conservative Christian community has shown itself surprisingly capable of coming alive and quickly embracing a new movement when it is clear that Scripture is on the movement's side. Witness their rapid mobilization with slavery and abortion, for instance.

What about the secular "beta" males? Well, there's really no hope for them. But really, it's no big loss. There's really nobody more pathetic and shameful than a person who both rejects Christianity and gets immersed in and emasculated by feminist dogma. Like the contraceptive-using cads, Roissyites, and slutty women, they will die childless and alone, and be outbred by the Christians even more than they already are.

2) These newly-minted masculine men need to start engaging in shaming, to establish societal order again. right now, when a woman gets burned going after a bad boy, most sweet, sensitive "beta" males sympathize with the poor besotted woman, and blame the heartless jerk who did it to her, hoping that they can get her affection with their sensitivity. It doesn't occur to them that while she was throwing herself after the jerk and being subsequently left high and dry by him, other men were being left high and dry by her.

A man who has been trained to see women for what they are will recognize and shame the primary guilty party: the woman. Rather that join her in her pity party, he will blame her.

Honestly, step (2) isn't really a separate step, and should come automatically with step (1). The shaming doesn't even have to be overt. It simply has to take the form of attractive men rejecting women for being sluts.

Women already insult each other all the time for being whores, but that doesn't really bother them. What really shames a woman, what really frightens her deeply enough to modify her behavior, is the prospect of being rejected and found unattractive by desirable men.

If women think that being slutty will make them generally less attractive to desirable men, they will be shamed into not being slutty. And if there are a good number of desirable men out there that happen to be Christians, this should start to take care of itself.

--------------------

That's some of the best analysis as to what caused our dating & mating wasteland; not only that, Ian B. offers some suggestions too. Have a good night now...

MarkyMark

Some Old School CCR

Guys,

I have to tell you that I have a soft spot for CCR-good stuff! Here's one of my all time favorite songs, Born on the Bayou, for your listening pleasure...



Have a good night now...

MarkyMark

Stick a Fork in Us: We're Done!

Guys,

I was over at Elusive Wapiti's blog, and I saw this video. It's a promo for MTV's new reality show, Jersey Shore. No wonder why America is taking a swan dive into the sewer...

---------------



---------------

As I said, it's no wonder America is taking a swan dive right into the sewer...

MarkyMark

The Catastrophe in Sex Relations: A Roissyesque Account

Guys,

I've been reading A View From The Right for a few days now in a belated effort to read more of the 'game' debate that occurred this past summer. When reading fans of Roissy (such as In Mala Fide), I'd see allusions to Lawrence Auster's website, A View From The Right. Being the curious guy that I am, I checked out what Mr. Auster had to say. Though I read what others had to say about Mr. Auster, I wanted to see for myself what the man had to say; I wanted to read the other side of the argument; I wanted to see if there was any good points against game, or if there were ways I could better articulate my views. I haven't been disappointed! I agree with a lot of what Mr. Auster has to say; philosophically, ethically, and in other ways, he and I are on the same page.

During one of his debates with the pro-game crowd, he received this reply to an e-mail he sent to one of them. The exchange is below. Mark P., a reader of Roissy's, succinctly diagnoses the problems between men and women relating to one another. Mark P. articulates what I would have said if I could have found the words to articulate my diagnosis of the chasm between men & women. This is good stuff! Read & learn, Grasshopper...

----------------

Since reader Mark P. has often expressed a kind of law-of-the-jungle view of sex relations which I have found both interesting and disturbing, I wrote to him the other day:

I'm surprised you haven't had more to say about this whole Alpha male / Beta male discussion going on at Mangan's which I've been linking.

Mark has replied with this very instructive comment:

I've actually been reading Roissy's site for the past year or so. It's been on my rotation of websites.

I'm not so certain that reducing women to sex objects and playing on their emotional vulnerabilities is really a good description of "Game." It is probably more accurate to call Game the re-initialization of Men as they used to be...a method of "de-programming" men from what they've become. I would suggest reading this. It's an interesting application of game by a practitioner within his own marriage. How true it is, I don't know, but it is a worthwhile read.

As far as the alpha/beta distinction and the various other theories are concerned, I believe I can explain it better without resorting to biological reductionism. Basically, what's been introduced into the relationship environment is an imbalance in how men and women interact. Within marriage, like tends to marry like. If people can be ranked hierarchically on a scale of 1-10, then we would see 3's marry 3's; 7's marry 7's; and 10's marry 10's. This is what we have scene throughout Western history when relationships between men and women were confined within a marriage. Men and women sorted each other according to comparable attributes of physical appearance, charisma, status, etc. Previous generations would've called this finding a suitable mate. When marriages occur today, this suitability principle still holds and it is rarely broken.

Cracks in male/female relationships began when men and women started interacting outside of marriage. As many of the commentators have noted, anonymous urban living, contraceptives, the breakdown of social shaming, etc., has allowed women to pursue men in bars and clubs without the worry of rumors and unwanted pregnancies spoiling reputations. This brought in the first problem threatening men: the system of like marries like breaks down. Just like men, women cannot marry above their station. Unlike men, however, women can easily date and sleep with men above their station. This means that a woman who is a 5 or 6 can sleep with a man who is a 7, 8 or a 9. Consequently, the vast bulk of men face the problem that their female equivalents do not want them, simply because the women can do better. In a sense, the women are right...up to the point of marriage. That is why women are racking up such huge body counts.

The second problem that men face is that women can out-compete men in the workplace. Affirmative action and gender quotas means women will soon make more money than men. The vast bulk of men will not only not be wanted by their equivalents, they cannot even sell themselves as effective providers.

The third problem is the divorce industry.

The fourth problem is the cultural "emasculation" of (white) men. Men are being taught the wrong things and society is reinforcing that teaching.

All of the above problems have consequences. The vast majority of women have entered a tournament where they are leveraging their prime years trying to snag a man that is either too attractive or too successful, or both, for them. When they fail and inevitably reach north of 30 without a husband, they then scramble around and marry a man they would've ignored before. Unfortunately, a woman with a history of dozens of sex partners all more attractive than her current husband is not fit for any long-term relationship. Divorce is inevitable. This is probably why women are surveying as very dissatisfied.

Larger social consequences loom, of which demographics is the least worrisome. Wives and children are the glue that holds society together. It makes men invested in the society around them. What happens when you have armies of unattached men with no investment in society? You have men who will not care what happens to that society or the women in it. This sheds some light on the recent mass killings where men did nothing to protect the women being shot. Unlike the men on Titanic, today's men see no reason to sacrifice their lives for a feminist, PC-addled girl who thinks men are rapists.

LA replies:

Your Roissy-like analysis of the problems, particularly the first problem, is cogent and fascinating. I don't know whether it's true, but it's fascinating.

However, once we get beyond the analysis, how does the Roissyite "Game" come in? You haven't discussed that. Based on your diagnosis of the problems, particularly of the breaking of the bonds of sympathy between men and women that you describe in your last paragraph, one must assume that the purpose of "Game" is not to end this alienation between the sexes, but to help men acquire sex partners who are above their "station," just as women are already acquiring sex partners above theirs. It's hard to see what else the vaunted de-programming you mention consists of.

And if that's all it is, then, since you mentioned Titanic, it would appear that the Roissyite Game is about nothing more than getting the most and the best sex partners one can get while Titanic is sinking.

----------------

That's as good a diagnosis as I've read WRT the rift between men and women. Mark succinctly lays out the problem, its history, and why 'game' has arisen as a response. I hope you all learned something; I know I did...

MarkyMark