A new spectre is haunting marriage. Just when you thought you understood all of the diabolical ways women could be trapped in marriage, we learn of the most insidious trap of all; the trap of not unhappiness! Our friends at the Femail section of the Daily Mail breathlessly ask: Not bad enough to leave, but not good enough to fulfil you… are YOU trapped in a half-happy marriage? (H/T W). Yahoo Shine sounds the alarm with Are you stuck in a semi-happy marriage? (H/T Interested). USA Today warns of this problem with ‘Marriage Confidential’ exposes scandalous reality. The Daily Mail weighs in again with: Are you semihappy or a workhorse wife? Five different kinds of modern marriage.
The evil genius of the patriarchy is breathtaking. They have lulled women into a false sense of security, comfortable in the knowledge that her moral obligation to honor her sacred vows could at any time be instantly dissolved if she only uttered the three magic words. Three ancient words with a mystic power so great they cause God Himself to forget about her promise:
I’m not haaaaapy
Now we learn from the Daily Mail that women around the world have been caught unsuspecting by this latest trick:
‘It’s these low-conflict, amiable, but sort of listless marriages that actually contribute the lion’s share to the divorce rate. It’s not the couples who are throwing dishes and screaming.’
Thats right, millions of women are suffering this very day from the fate of not being deliriously happy. Evil patriarchy, I tip my hat to you.
All of these articles and many more like them are prompted by the book Marriage Confidential, written by radical feminist Dr. Pamela Haag. This worry by Dr. Haag that women might not be happy enough seems out of place; in March of this year she argued that while feminism made women less happy, it is more important for women to be radical feminists than to be happy. She closed that piece with:
I pull out Gloria Steinem’s 1973 essay, Sisterhood, from my private archive. She wrote, “I have met brave women who are exploring the outer edge of human possibility, with no history to guide them and with a courage to make themselves vulnerable that I find moving beyond words.”
Cool. That beats happy any day.
This radical feminist longs for the simpler era of the 1950s, when women were free to devote their energy to roles such as decorator, hostess, and being volunteers. Again from the Daily Mail:
She writes: ‘Parenthood is swallowing marriage… Children are at the center of a family now.
‘From a historical perspective it’s a departure. Go back to the Fifties and husbands and wives had many different roles – as hostess, decorator, breadwinner, volunteer. They weren’t just parents. Today, parenting is the sole priority… It crowds out other functions.’
In another Daily Mail piece we learn more about how the patriarchy is making women unhappy:
Haag argues that the dynamic of marriage has changed since the Fifties, when the majority of women did not work and could devote themselves to their marriages and pleasing their husbands.
Husbands kept their marriage alive by giving their wives flowers, complimenting them and treating them to new dresses and meals out, for which they was grateful.
She is also deeply troubled by a modern trend of undetermined origin, where women are trapped working like men. They don’t work simply to entertain themselves or fulfill their own egos, but instead are tricked into having to work to support their family. This has lead to one of the five traps of modern marriage, that of the Workhorse Wife:
Where a wife works a corporate job that she doesn’t necessarily like in order to fund the pro-golfer or musician dreams of her ‘Tom Sawyer’ husband.
Whenever women are on the cusp of having it all, the patriarchy always finds a way to thwart them.
For those men who having learned about the delightful Dr. Haag now nurture dreams of making her your wife, I have good news and bad news:
She admitted that even she herself was semihappy in her marriage, writing in the book: ‘I have a nice marriage, a lovely husband, but you never know. On other days and in other moments I think that this could very well be the last year of our marriage.’
But she won’t be wooed easily. Her brave mangina of a husband is a worthy adversary:
‘I do think that our marriage is better because of this,’ she revealed. ‘We’re paying more attention to each other. I think my husband’s very brave to allow me to write about it!’
Brave indeed. It takes courage not to stand up to your radical feminist wife. But don’t lose heart; even if you can’t make her your wife, you might still have a shot with her:
For some couples she says the answer is to become a ‘new monogamist’ – her term for what is effectively an open marriage, or an ‘Oreo Marriage’ where the couple looks traditional from the outside yet might enjoy something untraditional, such as swinging, in private.
She told the Huffington Post: ‘Many marriages are practising “Free Love Version 2.0,” in which spouses are actually trying to be honest and have decided that their marriage can tolerate some other attachments.’
Whatever.
That’s the best I can offer after linking to some of the articles. The sad part is that when I meet a new woman I always go into the relationship with an open mind hoping that I’ll meet a capable woman who dares some independent thought. But it doesn’t take long before their mouth opens and out comes some nonsense that proves they aren’t worth a long term effort. Why? Because they make it clear that their feelings and happiness are your issue. It’s like they drank some cool aid that rendered them incapable of assuming any responsibility for maintaining a relationship.
Sorry. I bought into that routine once. I’m not doing it again.
As Solomon II used to say. “NEXT!”
Is it just me, or does this entire article reek of “fitness test”? It’s just “I double dare you to tell me I’m wrong”, spread out over hundreds of words.
Honey, yer wrong…
Dalrock;
The reason that these women from feminized cultures can never be happy in a committed relationship or marriage is because they are at continual cross-purposes with their social expectations and their biological instincts. The first tells them that they are the ‘owners of sex’; that they ‘don’t need a man’; and that ‘marriage is rape, (or slavery, etc.)’; while the second tells them that the opposite is true and that their goal should be to find a strong, suitable mate and build a family with him. Women are usually torn in a relationship between trying to dominate and emasculate a man; while resenting him for supporting and protecting her—and her need for a man to do those very things.
For some couples she says the answer is to become a ‘new monogamist’ – her term for what is effectively an open marriage
LOL, the “new monogamy” is when you abandon monogamy!
@Eric
Increasing numbers of single mothers prove you wrong. It is a biological instict that women want a baby with strong/attractive/dominant/whatever man and it is a bilogical instinct to gather resources for their kids. Single mothers show us that they prefer impregnation from those men than building families with anyone less valueable compared to the ideal.
The long term mating was simply enforced by society or conditions (lack of state protection, welfare state, etc.), it was not the preffered solution.
@krakonos
Single mothers show us that they prefer impregnation from those men than building families with anyone less valueable compared to the ideal …
… so long as they can get all the benefits of family formation (protection, provision, security) from Big Daddy Gov’t (i.e., indirectly from all those boring betas) w/o having to settle for less than the alpha of their dreams.
I think it’s a bit misleading to say that “long term mating” was “not the preferred solution” because it was “enforced by conditions” — all choices are influenced by conditions. Treating as legitimate only those preferences expressed when someone else bears all the negative consequences of choices made is a … very strange way to look at things.
Inasmuch as the welfare state didn’t exist on the savannah, I think it far more likely that women have a biological imperative to secure a dominant man than that they have a more generalized “resource gathering” instinct, which is pretty abstract for the hindbrain. Because of this, I tend to find Eric’s analysis persuasive. It also explains the unhappiness of the modern woman, which is readily apparent anywhere they gather on the Internets.
Another idea is that polygamy is the evolutionarily natural condition of the species, and that the modern woman is, essentially, married to the state. In this model, alpha bad boys are sneaking into the sultan’s harem. Crashing TFRs can be understood as the consequence of an impotent sultan monopolizing (well … sort of) the society’s women.
I am somehow reminded of an old Warner Brothers cartoon. I think it was with Porky Pig. He was flying into “Dark Africa” then into “Darker Africa” then “Darkest Africa”…then finally he came to a sign that said “Anything Can Happen Here.” He goes in to find some crazy bird and all kinds of wierd shit starts happening. I can’t remember if he gets the bird or not. Seems like this is the MGTOW story so far.
Ba-Dee, Ba-Dee, Ba-dee, that’s all, folks…
@Twenty
Several notes: Savannah is only one of many environments which have existed on Earth. When we try to stick by strategies which majority of mankind has not lived for more than 100k years then we are screwed. Plus in savannahs the most common form of existence is cattle rearing not h-g.
Statistically there was only one sultan for hundreds of thousands or (tens of) millions of people.
Greatest levels of polygyny are not in patriarchal societies where men are breadwinners but in matrilinear/matrilocal where women are (sole) providers. These societies really exist but are small, backwards and far between.
I look forward to more posts from Dalrock on the forthcoming Daily Mail Articles:
(1) Trapped in Celibacy (why there are no decent men aka I don’t need a man);
(2) Trapped in Promiscuity (why there are no decent men aka I need more than one man); and,
(3) Trapped in Marriage (why my single friends [see 1 and 2] are having more fun than me aka I only have one man).
Heck, I thought it was funny her last name was Haag. I read it as ‘hag’, old, that is…
What an irritating article. The reason women are disappointed in marriage is because of all the fairy tales they buy into. A good marriage is half-happy. A good marriage also sucks sometimes. We can’t stay completely blissful everyday. I don’t expect my best girlfriend to make me happy, and I don’t expect my husband (my true best friend) to hand me bliss on a silver platter.
It must have been an act of superhuman strength not to write “the aptly named” before mentioning Dr. Haag.
Second – this crapola about how the women think they are happy but don’t really know how unhappy they actually are, is just more of the neo-marxist critique about false consciousness. It’s leftist cant in a dress.
Feminism and its sycophants in the MSM are generally looking for ways to discredit men caught “married while beta” (sorta like driving while black). The hugo schwyzer/amanda marcotte brand of feminism seems to define any dependency of a woman on a male lover other than sex/love/companionship as patriarchy, particularly financial but other things too. Thus the nuclear family is inherently patriarchal unless the husband is alpha (the rules have a way of not applying to them). My prediction of a feminist dystopia (as I’ve roughly outlined here before) is slowly coming true. They are preparing to make the push to finish off the monogamous beta father-husband completely.
@krakonos
Oh, FFS. “Savannah” and “Sultan” are both figures of speech — “savannah” stands in for “all the primitive environments in which the human mind evolved for millennia”, and “Sultan” stands in for “high status men who engage in polygamy, and with whom women are willing to consort under those conditions”. Of course, in human history no *actual* Sultan was able to monopolize all the women of his culture because of physical and economic limits … that’s nearly my whole damn point: Female evo-psych + welfare state = trouble.
As for your bit about “try to stick by strategies which majority of mankind has not lived for more than 100k years then we are screwed”, I have no idea what you’re talking about. What are those strategies? Who’s trying to stick by them?
Patriarchy, as has been pointed out many, many, many times is an alternative to polygamy. As for “matrilinear/matrilocal [societies] where women are (sole) providers”, they’re (a.) highly unlikely to exist outside of the fevered dreams of feminist anthropologists and (b.) statistically irrelevant.
Cute post Dalrock.
I’d argue that a good number of single mothers aren’t choosing alpha genes over beta providers so much as just screwing everything that moves and failing to consider the consequences..
Is feminism arguing for trying to drug your wives with LSD or something like it? Because really they keep moving the reasons to stay married and pressuring to make women not get married or not trying to get married till they hit 30.
What does marriage ever did to feminism that it seems they need to keep attacking it at every chance they get?…really I don’t get it.
[D: I don’t think they know what they want. But they are really pissed that they don’t have it, and they want it now!]
” I think my husband’s very brave to allow me to write about it!’”
You may have missed the most important statement of all. What radical feminist worth her salt needs her husband’s permission for anything? He may not be the mangina you think he is if his radical feminist wife requires his permission to write about their marriage.
TDOM
@TDOM
The whole thing is filled with disconnects. She thinks feminism is more important than happiness when writing for the Huffington Post, but publishes a book around the same time which bemoans women’s state of unhappiness. She plays to the feminist base when at Huffpo, but then when being interviewed by Glamour tones it down and gives the impression that she had her husband’s permission. Other times she longs for the roles women had in the 1950s. Like so many of these feminist authors I don’t think she has a clue how disjointed what she is saying at different times really is. The story changes to fit the need of the moment. Not unlike Liz Jones, Sandra Tsing Loh, and Lorraine Berry.
Krakanos:
What the number of single mothers really proves is that feminist ideology has succeeded in teaching women that men are only valuable as sperm donors. They don’t want the ‘burden’ of a husband. According to UNESCO, the US has the highest rate of single mothers in the industrialized world.
As for the assertion that women really want ‘Alpha’ males—it is ridiculous. Half-witted bums, dysfunctional antisocials, limp-wristed metrosexuals, and meatheaded jocks are the male archetypes who appeal to today’s women. It’s weakness, not ‘Alpha’ masculinity, that they seek. This is because, again, feminocentric culture has taught them that they must be superior to men.
My first thought on reading your post’s title was of George Orwell’s _Politics and the English Language_, where he says:
One can cure oneself of the not un- formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.
[D: Good insight. The first sentence deliberately channeled Marx, but the title channeling Orwell was not intentional.]
@Twenty
Sorry, I has taken savannah and sultans literally. So, “try to stick by strategies …” was related to East African savannahs.
Patriarchy, as has been pointed out many, many, many times is an alternative to polygamy. As for “matrilinear/matrilocal [societies] where women are (sole) providers”, they’re (a.) highly unlikely to exist outside of the fevered dreams of feminist anthropologists and (b.) statistically irrelevant.
They are statistically irelevant (too few people) and cannot compete with other strategies but they exist in some hollow parts of the world. They work (to some extent) the way I have described.
Their common attribute is a lack of male investment in society (the more male irrelevancy the less male investment).
I read about the mate choices modern women are making and can’t argue, it’s scary the bad choices made, BUT here is my observation on my fellow men. I’m raising a daughter, I’ve worked hard to craft a woman that is companionable, hard working, willing to help dad in the garage with the car, marksmanship, horsemanship, hunting, well read, politically conservative, Godly, you know, tom-boy stuff. My very hot wife is inculcating her with the womanly traits. I now have a girl who is very pretty but not prissy, a true candidate for “help-mate” not boat anchor in a relationship. My problem…the guy pool is pathetic! The peer group males are wussy, noodle arm geeks, metro-sexual, video game/x-box losers, with no ambition, no gumption, no personality, no sense of humor…it’s sickening. The only testosterone I see on display is with the gang banger thugs.
If women are submitting to alpha pump-n-dumps it is partly because the beta guys (majority of men) are just so pathetic.
Buck, the young men you see are a product of the current school system and the culture. They are acting as they have been trained. Feminism has, through its various arms, beaten the masculinity out of them – literally in some cases, figuratively in most. How many of those young men have been on Ritalin or some other drug since they were 6 years old? How many of those young men have been bored to tears in school because the schools are now designed primarily for girls and their learning styles? How many of those guys are responding to all the social cues given on TV, in movies, etc. as to “what the grrls want in a dood”?
Is it really a surprise that after 30-40 years of demonization of anything masculine, most young men are not very masculine?
The only testosterone I see on display is with the gang banger thugs.
If women are submitting to alpha pump-n-dumps it is partly because the beta guys (majority of men) are just so pathetic.
That’s pretty much one of Roissy’s major points. That’s what Game is in large part about: shedding all the feminist brainwashing is one of the first steps. Your daughter perhaps would benefit from understanding the basics of Game, if for no other reason than to help some worthy young man grow more into the man he should be.
Buck:
Part of the problem is the kinds of males you described are the kinds of males most women pursue. Masculinity is scorned by most modern females.
However, every cloud has a silver lining—the real men out there may seem few and far between, but the percentage of them who are single is very high. Try to bring your daughter into venues where she migth come into contact with them; but be sure and let her know that these men are probably discouraged, or the bad experiences they’ve had with women in the past is going to put the burden of proof on her.
Turner Classic Movies is showing a 1939 film based on a stage play, “The Women” that looks to be worth viewing.
The plot is summarized at a wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Women_(1939_film)
And yes, it fits this thread as well as several other threads Dalrock has originated. Quite well, in fact: there are Whispers, media peddling of rumors/divorce, and so forth.
The linked article has left me feeling half angry.
@Buck
Sometimes I wonder why there are so many losers around when so many parents have so brilliant children. Maybe this is a co-factor in creation of entitled princesses.
Some time ago Dalrock posted a chart with mumber of potentially marrigeable men vs marriageable women. There were about 20% more men suitable for marriage. So your daughter does not need to worry.
But you want only the “best” man for your daughter and here we go back to the entitlement complex and seeking for traits found in no-marriage-material men.
The whole thing is filled with disconnects. She thinks feminism is more important than happiness when writing for the Huffington Post, but publishes a book around the same time which bemoans women’s state of unhappiness. She plays to the feminist base when at Huffpo, but then when being interviewed by Glamour tones it down and gives the impression that she had her husband’s permission. Other times she longs for the roles women had in the 1950s. Like so many of these feminist authors I don’t think she has a clue how disjointed what she is saying at different times really is. The story changes to fit the need of the moment. Not unlike Liz Jones, Sandra Tsing Loh, and Lorraine Berry.
It’s because women are not logical creatures but emotional ones. What the modern entitled woman wants is to be fulfilled all their desires every time. But, since women’s desires are contradictory and constantly changing (due to different hormones and the conflict between instincts and social expectations), women have always reason for whining. Their arguments are only rationalizations for this whining and they are not to be treated as logical argument because they don’t make sense and they are contradictory.
A woman can say that marriage is oppression and, at the same time, blaming women for no wanted to commit.
Once you know evolutionary psychology and the things that drive women, women make sense: not logically, but emotionally.
It must have been an act of superhuman strength not to write “the aptly named” before mentioning Dr. Haag.
My thoughts exactly, ha ha ha! These Haags could always just cut this all down to simply, “Trapped in Being Alive”. Nothing I do makes me happy every minute of the day!! This is an abomination!
I’m totally going to write an article:Trapped in Internet “Were was the ME among the blogs and posts and hours of correcting people that is wrong in the Internet…INTERNET doesn’t make me happy! Why should I have to use it?
@imnobody
While there is some truth to this, I think ultimately this frame of mind risks giving women a blanket pass to be irrational. I’m not willing to do this; we can’t afford to treat women with the deference we afford to children. It is one thing to recognize and even practice game in specific relationship settings. It would be something else entirely to allow the kind of blatant contradictions by our friend Dr. Haag to go un-rebutted. Fortunately I think women are very much able to act rationally. Part of the reason the author is freely contradicting herself is she has little fear of being called on it. I’m just one small voice, but I would very much like to change that.
While there is some truth to this, I think ultimately this frame of mind risks giving women a blanket pass to be irrational. I’m not willing to do this; we can’t afford to treat women with the deference we afford to children.
But to some degree, that is the deference demanded by many, many women today. I’m willing to extend that deference to them, frankly, on the condition that they give up the right to vote, the right to own property, and basically accept the legal status of children. Obviously I don’t expect any women to take that offer seriously.
But isn’t that one of the core issues that comes up over and over again? Women who want the freedom to act in the most childish of manners while at the same time demanding “Take me seriously! Take me seriously!”. I’ve never met a woman, ever, who really deep down inside was willing to stand by her words, all of her words. Every woman I’ve ever known has had moments of temper when she said something that was a deep, deliberate, vile insult – the kind of thing that from a man would end a friendship permanently, and maybe start a fight, possibly even a physical fight. And when called on those words, every one of them dissembled in some way — “Oh, I was angry” — well, toots, I get angry too, but I don’t say fighting words when I do unless I’m prepared for the consequences — “Oh, I didn’t mean it” — ok, fine, I’ll just note that none of your words actually mean anything, no problem — “Oh, you’re just being sensitive” — maybe so, but if I said stuff like that to you, you’d not be exactly happy — “Oh, I didn’t mean it that way” — ok, just exactly how did you mean that deadly, personal, insult?
Far too many women demand to be treated as adults when it pleases them, and to be given a great deal of slack when it pleases them. They should be told over and over again what they are really saying is “I’m not capable of telling the truth, of standing by my word, or of acting like an adult”.
It is one thing to recognize and even practice game in specific relationship settings. It would be something else entirely to allow the kind of blatant contradictions by our friend Dr. Haag to go un-rebutted.
Agreed, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that Dr. Haag may be incapable of actually seeing that she is contradicting herself. Her rationalization hamster may well be of the Humpty Dumpty variety, i.e. “A word means what I say it means when I say it”.
Fortunately I think women are very much able to act rationally.
Please consider rewriting that as “I think some women are very much able to act rationally some of the time, some women are very much able to act rationally all of the time, and some women hardly ever act rationally at all“. Sorting out which bin a given women goes into is part of the task of a rational man.
Part of the reason the author is freely contradicting herself is she has little fear of being called on it. I’m just one small voice, but I would very much like to change that.
You could be right. Or I could be right and she’s blissfully unaware. Either way she needs to be called on it, because of those who read her stuff. If more women realized that some of their behavior is simply unacceptable to the vast majority of men, and if they realized that most men will simply vote with their feet (or by tuning them out, same thing) then some of them might even attempt to modify their behavior.
Maybe.
Dalrock:
That’s part of the problem with Game Theory; it leads to exactly that kind of thinking about women’s evolutionary psychology. The social aspect of irrational female behavior is simply explained away and accepted as the norm.
Female psychology is part of their gender, and they DO behave rationally—in a rational environment. But our culture is irrational; it preaches to women that the evolutionary/biologically-driven aspects to their psychology should be resisted and even countered. That’s why there’s no rationality to their behavior, on a general scale.
Feminized culture works against men too. Look at these feminized, mangina political figures who spend their time in a subordinate, submissive position to domineering women. Sooner or later, they’re caught in a ‘sex scandal’. These ‘scandals’ happen when male sexuality is constantly repressed and has to find an outlet. That explains the irrational behavior these politicians commit; like undressing on Twitter, having affairs with interns, or disappearing from governors mansions for weeks incommunicado &c. Ministers and businessmen fall prey to the same cycle.
Eric
That’s part of the problem with Game Theory;
Eric, it is long past time that you did a little research about the words that you choose. First of all, you need to learn the difference between Game Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
and Game (Start here)
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/
Mathematical concepts and applied psychology are not the same thing. They are not the same thing. When you repeatedly make the same mistake over and over again, it shows that you are ignorant of the topic at hand; you do not know what you are going on about. This, in turn, reduces your credibility. Do you understand why that matters?
it leads to exactly that kind of thinking about women’s evolutionary psychology. The social aspect of irrational female behavior is simply explained away and accepted as the norm.
Again, you do not know what you are on about. If you read Roissy, or Athol, or other men who write of the applied psychology known as Game, you would learn that this statement is not true, that there are different strategies for different goals: Roissy himself bifurcates women into those that are good for a few rounds of sex, and those that are acceptable for a long term relationship, and irrationality that may be acceptable in a one night stand is clearly not acceptable in a long term partner. Since Athol writes for married men, he’s out of the one night/ short term sex business entirely, and thus has different and higher standards for women’s behavior.
Female psychology is part of their gender, and they DO behave rationally—in a rational environment. But our culture is irrational; it preaches to women that the evolutionary/biologically-driven aspects to their psychology should be resisted and even countered. That’s why there’s no rationality to their behavior, on a general scale.
You have just summed up some of what both Roissy and Athol say, as well as what Dalrock says here. You are, therefore, agreeing with some of the tenets of Game.
Really, you need to go spend some time learning what Game is, what it can and cannot do, and what its basis is, before sticking your foot in your mouth yet again. If nothing else, you’d learn why dirtbags such as you have described before often have no problem getting some number of women to hop in bed with them. Although I dare say, if you ever met any of those women , you would not want to touch them with a 3 meter pole — or stand downwind of them, either. But that is a different topic.
Anon:
“mathematical concepts and applied psychology are not the same thing”
Yes they are. Kurt Koffka, Max Wertheimer, and others of their school based applied psychology on the underlying principles of physics and mathematics.
“There are different strategies for different goals”
Which makes sense in warfare, I suppose; but the goals of a relationship are mutual cooperation and productivity. Strategies could only be necessary in an irrational culture like ours where the genders are pitted against other like opposing forces. Which leads to another question: what goals could justifiably be worth pusuing under such conditions?
“if you ever met any of these women, you would not want to touch them with a 10-foot pole”
Exactly—which is why I see no purpose in Game. The majority of Anglo-American women would (and do) willingly jump into bed with such dirtbags. The problem is, again, cultural—they’ve shamed men into believing that, in spite of the they really should be avoided like you described, they are STILL worthy of decent men’s attention or effort. Game seems to follow that same trend: that Anglo-American women who despise men and prefer jerks are actually worth the effort of learning/applying Game ‘techniques’.
As a side note, though, some Game practioners have advocated using Game on women from non-feminocentric cultures. I have my doubts that it would work, or even be necessary with such women since they aren’t educated to compete with and dominate men like our women are. But I’m a little more open-minded about Game on that particular aspect of it. It would be interesting to read some anecdotes about men who’ve tried this.
Anon:
“mathematical concepts and applied psychology are not the same thing”
Yes they are. Kurt Koffka, Max Wertheimer, and others of their school based applied psychology on the underlying principles of physics and mathematics.
You have to stretch pretty far to link Wertheimer and Roissy, Eric. If you are really interested in communication, you should avoid attempting to link Game to Game Theory, unless you are prepared to demonstrate the mathematical linkage. And even then most readers are not going to get it.
“There are different strategies for different goals”
Which makes sense in warfare, I suppose; but the goals of a relationship are mutual cooperation and productivity.
So? The goals of an LTR vs. a short term relationship still imply different strategies, therefore Athol’s goals/strategies are different from Roissy’s. Consider the neg; in a pick up environment, interacting with a typically entitled modern woman, a neg is essential. In an LTR, negs are very likely to be counterproductive. Different goal, different environment, different strategy.
Strategies could only be necessary in an irrational culture like ours where the genders are pitted against other like opposing forces. Which leads to another question: what goals could justifiably be worth pusuing under such conditions?
Well, just off the top of my head, a married man whose wife has become too immersed in modern culture, might want to Game her back out of that. A married man who has become too Beta to be attractive to his wife might want to display higher value in order to re-attract her. A married man whose wife has made their children the center of her life might want to use applied psychology to help her make the marriage the center of her life instead. Do you consider these goals worthy, or too base? I can think of other examples, these are just off the top of my head.
“if you ever met any of these women, you would not want to touch them with a 10-foot pole”
Exactly—which is why I see no purpose in Game.
Shifting the goalposts does not impress me, and taking a snip out of my text out of context does not, either. I’m pointing out the validity of the psychology of Game – that it enables thugs to attract some women, although they may not be women you would find attractive – and you take that out of context. Evidently it is more important to you that you refuse to learn about the topic?
The majority of Anglo-American women would (and do) willingly jump into bed with such dirtbags. The problem is, again, cultural—they’ve shamed men into believing that, in spite of the they really should be avoided like you described, they are STILL worthy of decent men’s attention or effort. Game seems to follow that same trend: that Anglo-American women who despise men and prefer jerks are actually worth the effort of learning/applying Game ‘techniques’.
Once again you are conflating a number of things. Game can be used by pick up artists (PUA’s) to snag carousel riders in bars. But it also can be used to revive a long term relationship, such as marriage. It can also be used to spark the initial attraction that can lead to an LTR. A man who wants to get married has to be able to attract the kind of woman he desires, and like it or not the initial attraction for the vast majority of women – not just the sluts, the vast majority – has to do with signaling Alpha qualities to some degree. All those things women say they want – kindness, generosity, sense of humor, etc. – are things they want in men they are already attracted to, but those are not necessarily the things that generate initial attraction.
Athol’s demonstrated that married men need to be a mix of Alpha and Beta – commanding presence (not domineering, not dominating, not a jerk) and reliable, comforting caring. Too much Beta and the sexual attraction wanes. Too much Alpha and the woman becomes uneasy in any of several ways.
So once again, we see that Game simply provides a tool to attract women’s attention, to generate the ‘gina tingles. What happens after that is up to the man in question; just as fire can be used to grill meat or burn down a house, Game can be used to revive a marriage, or start an affair. It’s a tool.
As a side note, though, some Game practioners have advocated using Game on women from non-feminocentric cultures.
Actually, men use Game on women from all cultures, because it is not culture dependent; the various details vary of course (an Indicator of Interest can be more subtle or less subtle, depending on the culture) but Game deals with the way women are regardless of culture.
I have my doubts that it would work, or even be necessary with such women since they aren’t educated to compete with and dominate men like our women are.
Of course it works. Ask “Uncle Elmer” on Spearhead if gaming his Vietnamese wife works or not. Because the whole Alpha/beta issues are independent of culture: women want a man who displays a combination of traits that suggest on the one hand he’s able to protect them and any children, and on the other hand that he’s willing to stick around to help with children. You know, the kind of trait combinations that likely would lead to successful child raising during the Neolithic – bold enough to go on hunting parties, loyal enough to bring part of the kill back to camp for his woman and children. There are many issues with evo-psych, to be sure, but at this level I believe it holds up. In any event, it works.
Why is it needed? Because being a steady, loyal provider is not enough now, it is too Beta for many women. And men are heavily beta-ized by the feminizers in schools and universities. Honestly, if you read the comments at Roissy, from time to time you run across a normal fellow who had zero luck with women for years, who is the same guy but carries himself more cocky than before who now is having plenty of girl friends. Game forces a man to take women off of the pedestals that they are still on. Game also can make a man look at himself honestly, without blinking or ignoring weaknesses.
But I’m a little more open-minded about Game on that particular aspect of it. It would be interesting to read some anecdotes about men who’ve tried this.
Ask Elmer. Ask expats in east Asia, for that matter.
Anon:
I’m not trying to link Wertheimer and Roissy. I’m saying that Wertheimer is correct and Roissy is wrong. Field Theory is based on mathematics and physics; and one its core teachings from those sciences is that perception is not the same as reality. Roissyism doesn’t teach that at all; it teaches that whatever is, is the norm.
Which leads into what I was saying about the ‘goals’ of Game. Why SHOULD men continue to treat women as entitled pedestal princesses; e.g. change their behavior to suit female whims? Or, wouldn’t be more productive; instead of teaching men Game, to start teaching women how to behave like civilized human beings?
Pingback: The plankton generation | Dalrock
Anon:
I’m not trying to link Wertheimer and Roissy. I’m saying that Wertheimer is correct and Roissy is wrong. Field Theory is based on mathematics and physics; and one its core teachings from those sciences is that perception is not the same as reality. Roissyism doesn’t teach that at all; it teaches that whatever is, is the norm.
You really don’t know anything about what Roissy says. You don’t have a clue.
Which leads into what I was saying about the ‘goals’ of Game. Why SHOULD men continue to treat women as entitled pedestal princesses; e.g. change their behavior to suit female whims?
Game does not teach that. As I have pointed out to you multiple times, Game takes women right off of the pedestal, not only in a man’s mind, but also in reality. Look, let me offer some really simple clues to you:
“Game” is to “entitled princess” as “pin” is to “inflated gasbag”.
“Game” is to “entitled princess” as “Kryptonite” is to “Superman”.
“Game” is to “entitled princess” as “cross” is to “vampire”.
Too subtle? Why do you keep posting this totally misinformed stuff on a topic you don’t understand? Why don’t you just go read Roissy’s site for a week, or the last year of Athol’s postings, and learn something?
Or, wouldn’t be more productive; instead of teaching men Game, to start teaching women how to behave like civilized human beings?
Why are you so proud of your ignorance, that you cherish it so much?
This is another thing I don’t like about Game—the way you guys treat it like it’s some kind of religious cult and the rest of us are heretics.
“Why are you so proud of your ignorance that you cherish it so much?”
I don’t know. I’ve often wondered why you ‘Gamers’ spend so much of your valuable Game-time attacking men who, by your own logic, aren’t any threat to you. In fact, the more of us who drop out of the US relationship scene, the less competition for you Alphaboys.
“Game takes women right off the pedestal”
Uh huh….so you’re saying that Game doesn’t teach that ‘women are certain way’ and that men need to accomodate themselves to women’s attitudes if they want to be ‘given’ sex?
Of course, to Roissyites, this isn’t ‘pedestalization’; just like thugs are ‘Alphas’.
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: It BURNS Edition
@ Eric
Allow me to translate your last few posts from “ignorant bullsh*t” to English.
“I’ve repeatedly put my foot in my mouth by talking about something I had little or no actual clue about, and am pissed at others for pointing that fact out. And despite people willing to try and educate me, I’ve willfully acted like a petulant child by trying to change the definition of words and what the purpose of what Game is.”
Well, I happen to agree with Eric , here.
Of course gamers put women (sluts because that’s what they mostly get) on a pedestal.. It’s called the poon pedestal and, contrary to what may be said, they are completely enslaved by poon game.
Victims of the bearded clam.. 😉
It seems fairly obvious that making the end goal sex with petri dishes isn’t exactly the freedom it’s cracked up to be by the “game” community. Being a slave to lust and having to play some stupid game to stick it to a bunch of gross sluts is pretty sad. Real freedom would be to eschew that altogether and do something more useful with your time and energy.
Pingback: Crazy, Stupid Love: Neither Crazy Or Stupid
Real freedom would be to eschew that altogether and do something more useful with your time and energy.
Agreed 100%.
Pingback: Feminist nostalgia for traditional gender roles. | Dalrock
Pingback: Feminist nostalgia for traditional gender roles
Thank you, Kathy, Thag and Elizabeth for demonstrating that once again, women have no clue about Game. I’d point you all to Athol, except that I’ve already done that multiple times and you just won’t learn.
Horse. Water. Etc.
Anon Reader:
I like your thoughtful posts. I suspect Kathy, Thag and Alcest know better than to suggest game is all about sleeping with sluts. That’s just not true.
It’s getting tiresome how some people deride game and its study as nothing more than men trying to slum it up with sluts. Not everyone who studies game or evo biology or evo psychology becomes a pickup artist. Most men don’t even have the capacity to learn game. Even of those who master game, there are only a small amount of men who can become true PUAs. I suspect that most men who learn game are doing so to:
1. Shed behaviors that don’t work and haven’t worked for decades
2. Improve their own lives
3. Improve their dating lives
4. Improve their qualify of their dating lives and the quality/quantity of women they can meet and pull
5. Improve their LTRs or marriages.
Frankly, after 6 months of study I’m still on number 1.
Yes, I do realise exactly what detinennui32 said. I was talking about those PUA bloggers who seem to be lost in pussy worship and how it’s damn pathetic.
detinennui32, I’m somewhat ahead of you in time, by maybe 6 months to a year. I’m still working on 1, 2 and 5. Let’s face it, shedding behavior that doesn’t work is a difficult task, and the longer the bad habit existed the harder it is to get rid of. In an LTR/marriage, to pick one example, it takes a lot of effort to stop catering to a woman’s bad behavior. It takes conscious work to respond to manipulative tears with no visible emotion, or to respond to displays of temper with placation. It is too easy to slip back into deferential behavior when things are improving, too. Basically, it’s work to become a masculine man again, when one has slid into too much betaness.
I don’t know if this is useful to you or not, but I actively run experiments. I actively use inner and outer Game techniques in public places like coffee shops to see if I become more or less visible to women, purely in a mild flirtatious mode. I make a note of what works, and shed what doesn’t work. I chat up women all the time – barristas, bank clerks, and so forth. I also deliberately run experiments in my LTR, in order to determine how much Alpha aggressiveness it takes to get compliance on some issues. I do not do this very often, but it has had useful results.
It is worth it, in the long run, for both physical and mental health. I strongly suspect that one reason men do not live as long as women in the aggregate is we are exposed to far too much “fight or flight” hormone on a daily basis. Learning to deal with shit tests early and quickly prevents escalation, and that reduces the tripping of “fight or flight” in the LTR/marriage.
Self improvement that makes me more desirable to women means that I will be able to flirt with women more, and in the context of an LTR/marriage that ought to make crystal clear to the l’il woman that by golly, that man has other options besides me. In addition to requalifying the man to the woman (“he could be with other women, but he’s with me!”) it can also induce a little dread (“Is he going to leave me for her?”) that can only help dial back the bad behavior on her part.
Plus, as Athol points out, self improvement is a good thing in the long run no matter what. If a woman in an LTR doesn’t respond to self improvement, then the next one will.
Thag, it looked and looks to me that you were/are agreeing with Kathy in her usual “Game only works on sluts” routine. That particular bit has way outlived its stale-date. As for “pussy worship”, you don’t understand PUA’s, maybe don’t understand men. Let me ask a question: Do you know any men who hunt big game, like deer, elk, moose? Would you consider them to be into “meat worship”?
As for “pussy worship”, you don’t understand PUA’s, maybe don’t understand men. Let me ask a question: Do you know any men who hunt big game, like deer, elk, moose? Would you consider them to be into “meat worship”?
Yeah, I get your point. I’ve given it some thought and point conceded. I hadn’t thought of it in “sport” terms.
For what it’s worth, I’m not a PUA. Not the type. And I would not urge any young man to go that route, either. But because I’m a man, I do understand them to some extent. Just as I understand young men who engage in street racing (definitely a bad idea) for that matter.
It’s possible to understand a behavior and still not regard it as a very good idea. FYI.
Pingback: The Sheila Wray Gregoire School of Hamster Acrobatics | The Society of Phineas
Husbands kept their marriage alive by giving their wives flowers, complimenting them and treating them to new dresses and meals out, for which they was grateful.
Dalrock, I’m not sure if this error was on your part or the Dailymail’s, but I thought I would make you aware of it.
I think that if someone is unhappy that they are only semi-happy, they probably have deeper issues, and are simply finding something (or someone) to project it on to (i.e. marriage/husband).
Good article.
Pingback: Three Time Divorcee Tracy McMillan on Monogamy | Red Pill Theory
Pingback: ROCD: A clinical case of the Whispers. | Dalrock