Man Down

man down

A popular conservative blogger, Matt Walsh, has recently joined the male shaming parade of “man up” advocates with this piece Thursday.

Matt is actually a pretty apt dude who writes a lot of top-notch stuff. In fact, I’ve got him on my blogroll. His epic take down of female “logic” in defense of abortion is one of my favorite posts by anybody anywhere. However, this most recent advice, a letter to single men, if followed, will result in only more heartbreak and confusion in their lives. We don’t need more of that.

I’m not going to analyze the entire piece, but I will quote one part that I found most ridiculous. Following that is a comment I left on his site.

No matter what anyone does, or says, or thinks; no matter what we tell ourselves; no matter what society insists, romantic relationships are always serious business. Call it what you want — hanging out, talking, dating — there’s a woman’s heart involved in it. That means you have a responsibility, alright? You have a duty as a human being, as an adult, as a man.

She’s making herself vulnerable to you. You need to honor that, protect it. And if you aren’t looking for anything but cheap sex and another trophy of sexual conquest to hang on the wall in your studio apartment, then you need to protect her from yourself, because you’ll be bringing nothing but disappointment and chaos into her life.

While you correctly identified a few days ago that “rape culture” is a direct result of hook-up culture, you’re way off the mark here, Matt. (I’m usually a fan of your stuff, by the way.) What bothers me most is your appeal to “duty” and “responsibility.”

Duty to whom? THIS shit society? This culture of greed, deceit, and frivolity? This mass (obesity pun intended) of women who have left good men behind for the douchebag or the Ben & Jerry’s? The institution of marriage that has become laughably irrelevant yet soul crushing to those who experience the shitstorm of inane divorce settlements? The future children who will inherit even worse degeneracy and depravity? Tell me, Matt. Who is it that we men owe this commitment to?

Ultimately, men SHOULD take initiative in their lives. They should grow up, learn to take care of themselves, and stop being indecisive pussies. But growing up also means leaving the pretty little lies in the past–particularly, the lie that we men “owe” anything to anyone but ourselves. It isn’t until we embrace that reality that we become true men, and ironically enough, attract more women into our lives than the needy automatons who’ve swallowed the Disney blue pill and wish upon a star for the princess they’ll live happily ever after with.

Sadly, the “man up” phenomenon isn’t exclusively reserved to the feminist leftoid part of the population. It is a surprisingly present mindset in middle America as well, among Christians and conservatives who should know better. And then all the women coming out of the alphawoodwork to congratulate him on setting his fellow men straight. At least some of his readers know the score, though. I leave you with a few adroit musings left by others on his comment section.

From AMM:

Why is this article only about guys needing to “man up”? Quite frankly, I have never had an issue being willing or able to commit to a girl, or call it a “relationship”, or what we were doing as “dating”, it’s always been the women playing those silly games of “well it’s not really a date”, or being unable to commit, or unwilling to. Maybe this article needs to be directed at the young women these days who like to make dating ambiguous, so that us guys don’t know if we’re “dating”, “talking”, or “hanging out”… it’s not just guys who play this game.

The level of stereotyping and generalizing in this article is too damn high.

From freethinker11:

How much more weight do you plan to put on after you’re married and there’s no fear of losing him?

I think the current epidemic of obesity is having a terribly negative impact on marriage.

And a gem from thesvenster:
Let’s stop pretending that most young women WANT a committed relationship while they are “experiencing thier 20s.” Sure, they say they want a loving man in thier lives, but the Actions of American women speak louder than words.
Advertisements

Five Roissy Quotes: Hard Truths Edition

Welcome to another post in the Five Roissy Quotes series. Today I provide you with five Chateau insights on the cold reality of our universe. Five hard (heh) red pill truths:

  • “This is our reality, our world, our universe. Some human beings are worth more than others, and despite our grandiloquent litanies to the contrary, our actions tell us all we need to know, if we are willing to look with open eyes. Remember that the next time a palace guard of the old order tries to tell you what’s in your best interest.” (“Compare And Contrast: Two Bitter Ex-Lovers,” 20 October 2010)
  • “Appearance matters. It is not a social construct that can be willed or legislated away. Cruel human judgment of others based on appearance is an eternal reality of living in this dimension. You may not like it, but reality is never gonna bend to accommodate your tender feelings, so either get with the program and shape up or sink into a silo of snickers bars ticking down the useless remaining years of your fat, foreshortened life.” (“Fat Craps Give Michelle Obama Flak For Telling Uncomfortable Truth,” 5 February 2010)
  • “Some newcomers are aghast when they read my stuff. They think this blog must be a joke or the ravings of a lunatic, a madman driven to the brink by a particularly damaging experience with an ex. No. While I’ve had my joys and sorrows and loves and heartbreaks just like any other man possessing a wealth of experience with women, on the whole most of the women in my life have been and continue to be cherished loves. My lunacy is the clear-eyed vision of Neo after the matrix is revealed to him. Reality makes lunatics of us all, but only those with the eyes to see and the ego to spare ever embrace it unconditionally.” (“Be A Skittles Man,” 19 May 2009)
  • “People often accuse me of being too abstract in my writing; that what I say doesn’t have much real world relevance to the average person, except in the most extreme circumstances and under laboratory conditions. On the contrary, everything I write about has the utmost importance to every one of your lives. The arid world of the theoretical is always lurking there in the shadows, stalking you, ready to pounce and devour you in a flash, leaving you wondering why your dopey new age beliefs or romantic visions of love or confidence that the mudbath of human nature doesn’t apply to normal people like yourself weren’t enough to spare you the claw and tooth attack of reality. You are all slave to your beast masters.” (“A Bike Messenger Lesson,” 28 July 2008)
  • “Women by nature aren’t on your side, the law isn’t on your side, and even lapdog beta males who’ve blinded themselves to reality and unthinkingly toe the PC party line in hopes their status posturing will offer them up a scrap or two of roadworn desiccated pussy don’t have your side as a man. There is every incentive in the world to avoid marriage. It is a fetid corrupt mess, and only radical social change will make it an attractive alternative for men once again.” (“Decivilizing: Human Nature Unleashed,” 23 July 2008)

Once we see reality for what it is, and not for what we wish it was, we can begin the process of tearing down the edifices of falsehood we’ve constructed around us, and become men–men who will naturally become attractive to the opposite sex.

To see previous Roissy quote posts, follow these links:

The Chateau on Alphas

The Chateau on Feminism

The Chateau on Betas

The Chateau on Game

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Image

I can’t go back, can I?

No. But if you could, would you really want to?

-The Matrix

The red pill really is the gift that keeps on giving. Knowledge of how the world really works is something I revere. I define it as an of understanding of the true nature of humanity—an observation from new context—and the application of that knowledge through game, or learned charisma. I’ve thought of five ways in which this knowledge has enriched my life.

Before I get into that, however, I would like to address my semi-sober Solstice satire post from Saturday. I wrote it in an effort to increase my traffic and to get a reaction out of people with a puerile yet forthright piece. I was successful in both counts. My traffic has never been better (20% of my all-time visit count has come the past three days), and the reactions amused me, though they could have been a bit more clever. Hear-hear to commenter cheesynougats, who lamented:

For one, I am disappointed. The quality of snark in the comments is just subpar. Someone certainly can do better, and this _50 Shades of Grey_ knock-off failure deserves better.

For the record, yes, the post was intended to be stupid and haphazardly written. And no, I’m not that depraved of a human being. It’s not a true story, nor is it based on a true story (though it’s still more realistic than some of the kitsch Hollywood passes of these days).

So anyway, thank you for indulging me in my 50 Shades knockoff–that goes doubly for the haters.

FIVE WAYS THE RED PILL HAS IMPROVED MY LIFE:

It allows me to truly “be myself” around women.

The most common argument against a man learning game is that by doing so, he isn’t “being himself.” That all the scripts, canned lines, and learned actions are somehow disingenuous or even manipulative. Wrong. Game is nothing less than the way a man presents himself to the world. We all practice game in some sense—from engaging in polite conversation with someone who repulses us to dressing up for an interview. There are times that “being ourselves” just doesn’t cut it. So don’t fault the man who, for whatever reason, has failed in his previous relationships and decides to make conscious changes to ensure he doesn’t repeat those mistakes. If it requires a canned line to approach a woman, when just “being himself” would lead him to say nothing, then by all means, he should use the canned line. Any time a man steps out of his comfort zone, whether in his beliefs or his actions, it means he is doing something contrary to his natural self. I consider myself a completely different person than I was five years ago—my beliefs, my behaviors, my perspectives have all changed considerably. In five more years, they may change even more. And that’s okay. A static life is a boring life.

It has improved friendships and work relationships.

Talking with friends about game and having them as a support system has been an immense help to my ability to attract women and live a fulfilling life. It’s been amazing to note how viewing the world with others through the lens of truth, rather than what we wish was the truth, can solidify bonds and increase the desire to help each other achieve competence in our social skills (and I include fellow bloggers in this). This knowledge has also helped me in my career. I am working where I want to work, on my terms, and a major reason I was able to secure the position was because of what I’ve learned about how to present myself to others. Again, it’s not about being fake; it’s about being confident in my abilities and sell myself in a way that shows that.

I don’t take myself so seriously anymore.

I would have never dreamed of publishing an idiotic post like “Story Time” a few years ago, but I did because it amused me. If people have an issue with it, then that’s their problem, not mine. If they liked it (or any of my other posts), then great; it’s my intention to provide entertainment and valuable insights into the blogosphere, but I don’t lose sleep if I fail. The same attitude goes toward my social relationships. I’ve learned that a man who doesn’t take himself too seriously can approach women and get blown out time and again and remain positive, because he’s in it for a better reason than just getting laid. I don’t interact with women socially simply to “score pussy,” I do it because I genuinely enjoy it. And if relationships develop or sex comes as a result, fantastic. I’m never in desperation mode—I’m just having fun with it—and women pick up on that.

I can no longer play the victim card as an excuse.

When I was younger, and I struggled a great deal with attracting women, the first thing that ran through my mind was, “I just don’t have any luck.” It was the woe-is-me approach, and it only made things worse. Blaming outside forces for one’s own misery will do nothing but cause a negative feedback loop that will ultimately cause even more misery. The victim card is dangerous because it allows us to transfer our faults from ourselves to others. When that occurs, personal responsibility goes out the window. The idea of improving one’s self is a mere afterthought. It’s one of the reasons why feminism is a destructive ideology. Everything is based on getting society to improve rather than the individual. Meanwhile, the individual becomes an insufferable lump of stagnation. Neil Strauss, author of The Game, has long advocated the pick-up principle that no women are bitches. Now, that doesn’t really mean there are no bitches; the fields are plentiful and the harvest is ripe with them. What it does mean is that if we view pick-up opportunities from the mindset that no women are bitches, then our rejections are met with self-reflection (and ultimately, self-improvement), not blame or malice towards external foes. You can probably guess which philosophy works better.

It gives me the hope that true love does exist.

Wow, the tone of this article is awfully sanguine (not common in the Manosphere, I must say). Maybe I’m just in the Christmas spirit. Now, to clear things up, by “true love,” I mean true love, as opposed to false, manufactured, or settled-for love. Being socially adept and possessing an understanding of the female nature is exactly what women want from their men, and anything less than this will cause doubt in their love for them. So much of the “love” beta males receive in today’s society is based on rationalization (“this is the guy my mom always wanted me to marry, he must be right for me”) and the drop of standards (“well, we’re both 39 and have never been in a long-term relationship—if we don’t get married, we’ll end up alone”). Their women don’t truly love them. Now, I don’t claim to be an expert on what love really is. Whether it’s intense neuron activity or something more spiritual, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that it exists. As Heartiste boldly declared, “Love is the only thing in this world that isn’t bullshit.” But for it to be true, it must be founded on truth. By knowing the truth, and acting on it, men will indeed find more love in their lives. That’s why women’s love for the alpha male has never been stronger.

Merry Christmas to you all. Hope it is filled with joy and merriment! (That goes doubly for the haters.)

Hot-Santa-Girls-20

The PC-DC Pussy Willows

gay helmet

*A version of this post appeared on the blog Return Of Kings.

The Washington Redskins, winners of three Super Bowls and one of the most iconic franchises in all of sports, will be changing its team name soon. Sure, owner Daniel Snyder vowed he would “never” change the name, but you can bet that’s a promise he won’t be able to keep. (He already backed down from his original avowal.) Political correctness has permeated itself into Western Culture like blubber in the belly of your average Walmart shopper. Which means 80-plus years of history must be flushed away in deference to an offended few.

Nothing illustrates the insanity of this issue better than a recent discussion on ESPN’s “Around the Horn,” a show that features four columnists from across the country who enlighten their lucky viewers not only with their brilliant analyses on the world of sports, but on the social issues that surround it. And by “enlighten” I mean spout left-wing groupthink at a rate that would make even the most strident feminist proud. Not one of these men (using the term loosely) came down in favor of keeping the name Redskins. Not one.

Here’s the transcript (the discussion begins at about the 10:00 mark):

Tony Reali (Host): Last week, President Obama said if he owned the Washington Redskins he’d have to think about a name change. Earlier this week, the NFL moved up a meeting with the Oneida Nation, and today team owner Dan Snyder responded. In a letter to season ticket holders, Snyder maintained his position that the name is a badge of honor and his intention is keeping the nickname. He quoted two surveys, one of them, he says, “90% of Native Americans didn’t find the name offensive,” and also: “I respect the opinions of those who disagree. I want them to know that I do hear them and continue to listen to them, and learn. But we cannot ignore our 81-year history.”

The writing is on the wall. Even the lone person here with a shred of sanity—Redskins owner Daniel Snyder—waters down his remarks with the utmost respect given to the lords of PCism. What exactly do we have to “learn” from the offended, Daniel? That they’re still offended? Newsflash: we shouldn’t care! And 90% of the rest of Indians don’t care either.

Woody Paige: I think he’s totally wrong, and I want to address a couple of points. One, in talking about the history and tradition of the franchise, we have seen over the past 80 years, a lot of changes made in this country, including the fact that we now refer to those who are Native Americans as Native Americans, not by a name that they were given by the Italian when he supposedly came to this country and misspoke about where they belong. Number 2, he talks about the surveys. The surveys, were each about 1,000 people. There were 3 million, the last census, 3 million people who registered as Native Americans, so that is a small sample size. I think he should take more consideration and to call it a badge of honor is such a mistake, I think he needs to back off.

Woody’s never been the most eloquent of speakers, but my lord, this statement is a mess. And completely untrue to boot. In his rambling, I think I can safely conclude that he’s talking about Christopher Columbus—you know, the guy who “supposedly came to this country”—and the taboo name “Indians” he allegedly coined. To quote one of the great red-pillers of our time, George Carlin, “Indian” is a dignified term with a history most are completely ignorant of:

I call them Indians because that’s what they are. They’re Indians. There’s nothing wrong with the word Indian. First of all, it’s important to know that the word Indian does not derive from Columbus mistakenly believing he had reached “India.” India was not even called by that name in 1492; it was known as Hindustan.

More likely, the word Indian comes from Columbus’s description of the people he found here. He was an Italian, and did not speak or write very good Spanish, so in his written accounts he called the Indians, “Una gente in Dios.” A people in God. In God. In Dios. Indians. It’s a perfectly noble and respectable word.

Plus, “Native American” is just a derivation of the name of European explorer Amerigo Vespucci with the word “native” tacked on. Ersatz moniker for the win!

Tim Cowlishaw: Yeah, I would have been okay with what he said if he reversed it. If instead of saying, I’m willing to learn, but we have an 81-year history and tradition. If he had talked about the history first, and then said, but I’m open-minded, I want to learn. We need more than these two surveys to find out if it’s really offensive, that would have been okay.

Sadly, this is the most level-headed statement from our esteemed Obama speech writers sportswriters. A pathetic example, I must say. We need to learn! O teach us, great spaghetti monster of relativism, if this term is offensive or not! Let me ask you, Mr. Cowlishaw, at what percentage would it become acceptable for you to feel okay about using the term Redskin to describe the Washington football team? 91%? 95%? 99.9%?

Bomani Jones: It’s a spectacular level of arrogance, this whole show. But the big thing to remember is that this is George Preston Marshall’s team, both a hall of famer in football and a hall of famer in racism. And Daniel Snyder’s trying to tell me that that man was honoring Native Americans. If you really believe that, then what else are you doing to honor Native Americans other than this name? It’s a slur, stop lying to me.

And for our Victims of Racism™ segment tonight, I present to you Bomani Jones. Crusader against racist owners who’ve been dead for 40 years, who knows the only way to fight arrogance is with more arrogance!

Reali: Back to the survey though, what if 90% of Native Americans don’t find the name offensive? What if Native American high schools on the reservation have Redskin as a nickname, as they do, if that’s the case?

How dare you introduce reason into this group, Reali?! We were having a Racist Haters circle jerk and you ruined it with ridiculously factual hypotheticals! (Don’t you just love it how he has to tiptoe through the truth? The entire point is presented as a great “what if” even though it’s completely true that Indian high schools use Redskin as a nickname.)

Pablo Torre: Well let’s grant that that’s true, for example, and let’s say…I mean, let’s remember that this is a category of a racial caricature, right? That’s what we’re polling about. And so I think there’s a principle as much as there is an empirical research element to this. And if 10% of people, 21% of people, are gravely offended, if their human dignity has been stripped from them on a regular basis, we should probably err on the side of protecting that minority. That’s where we are, I think, in this country in 2013.

Yes, Pablo, “let’s grant” that the truth is actually the truth, since it is we as sackless hack sportswriters who ultimately decide the truth. And nice touch on adding the feminine touch of the dramatic—I’m trying to picture someone whose “human dignity has been stripped” because of the name of a fucking football team. Beta males suffer divorce theft at the hands soul-wrenching vulturous ex-wives every day, but we as a nation are more worried that little Dances With Wolves will be eternally scarred at the sight of Robert Griffin III wearing a picture of an Indian warrior on his helmet.

Paige: Why don’t we also survey all the people who are non-Native Americans? Because, even though I’m 1/16 a Native American, I’m offended by the term. I think a lot of the people I hang out with are offended by the term, and will never use it, and I never write it.

Chief Plays With Wood has a point. White people are more offended by Redskin than red people. Ah, the gifts of feminism just keep giving! White guilt is its fundamental premise.

Jones: Hey, go back and check how many colleges changed their names from Native American mascots and see how few of them were even close to being like “redskin.” They were much more tame and people still found the decency to do better.

Or in other words, if everybody else is doing it–in the name of PC, of course–that makes it right! When will we as a nation man up and just give in to the whim of the minority already?

By the way, for those of you counting at home, that’s 11 instances of the term “Native American” in a 3:00 segment. Carlin is rolling in his grave.

Unfortunately, we cannot prevent the inevitable. The Redskins will be no more soon, because it’s been arbitrarily decided that, combined together, the words red and skin are a slur. It doesn’t matter that one means a shade of scarlet and the other means epidermis. It doesn’t matter that it only applies to some—it’s perfectly acceptable to call Blacks black and Whites white. What matters is that THIS is a slur. It’s offensive because we have decreed it offensive. It is an etymological fallacy of the highest degree.

In the mean time, I guess we’d better start thinking about some new names for our nation capital’s football team. Maybe the Gay Marriages? the Reproductive Rights? the Community Organizers? I think I’ll play it safe, and go with the name inspired by our gang of sports analysts—the PC-DC Pussy Willows.

PCDC

The New Manginany

Honey, I’m home from the Manosphere! Hope my food is cooked and you’re prepared for a black eye!

And thus sums up the thesis of “The New Misogyny,” a vacuous piece (of steaming shit) on the Manosphere, written by Jeff Moniker of the Daily Kos. A vapid, cursory glance at a little slice of cold-hard reality, “The New Misogyny” is barely worthy of a rebuttal–but considering the readership of Daily Kos, I’ll pay Moniker’s story its due by shredding it to pieces. And by giving you a glance at the sad state of the blue pill world, hopefully this slander will achieve the purpose it’s so busy railing against.

There has been a growing internet movement of “men’s rights” activists, Pick up artists and others who call themselves “the Manosphere.” While it’s still small it has changed the way hateful ideologies function.

We’re off to a nice start. No surprise “men’s rights” is something that has to be included in quotation marks. But I am admittedly curious as to how we have “changed the way” hateful ideologies function! Perhaps the Jacobins could have learned something from us…

It’s no secret that for the past few years there has been a dramatic assault over women’s rights, re-opening questions that were thought to be settled for decades. From contraception to abortion to basic protection from rape, (seen in Congress’s failure to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act), it seems that centuries of struggle have been re-opened.

The “dramatic assault” on women’s rights the past few years has boiled down to common-sense opposition to bad legislation. Contraception and abortions being funded by taxpayer money, with forced cooperation from religious organizations is wrong. VAWA is discriminatory by its very nature. The only thing being assaulted these days is the Constitution.

However beneath the public debates over contraception and abortion there has been a different kind of struggle over gender.  In the underbelly of the internet, what can only be called a new misogyny has emerged but hasn’t received the kind of attention it needs.

Careful with your suggestions, Jeffy. Too many people see the sensible, reality-based conclusions of the Manosphere, your hippy dippy SWPL edifice will come crashing down sooner rather than later…

The community that characterize this misogyny call themselves the Manosphere, an interlocking network of blogs for “men’s rights” activists (MRAs), pickup artists (PUA) and some online gamers. Unlike the mainstream conservative conceptions of women, the views espoused by the manosphere harkens back to what can only be described as a proto-fascist, and surprisingly, is becoming more popular on the internet.

Mussolini was the first Manosphere blogger. True story.

MRAs often favor policies as regressive as re-legalizing martial rape, preventing women from going into higher education, and with some going so far as to want to abolish female suffrage entirely (yes really) lest it interfere with women’s societal priorities as baby makers.

It should be noted now that Moniker never quotes a single Manosphere blogger in the entire piece. He can’t even be bothered to quote them out of context, or provide a context for any accusations. He’s just going to tell you what we proto-fascists all believe. By the way, Heartiste’s observation that “the worst thing to happen to America was women’s suffrage,” was just that–an observation. There are no calls for stripping such rights away; the main point of most of the red-pill writers is that we as men should take advantage of the situation we happen to find ourselves in. The Manosphere is much too hedonistic and apolitical (as Moniker admits in the next paragraph) to get around to “abolishing” anything. Why? More self-entitled, independent & amoral sluts=more sex.

What’s odd isn’t just the intensity of the regression but also the completely apolitical nature of it. Unlike conservatives who view women’s roles in a context of a broader political project, MRAs only interest is in women themselves, with little regard to politics insofar as it doesn’t affect men’s power over men [women?]. Indeed some of the hot button issues regarding women in American politics, from abortion to birth control are generally superfluous if not outright ignored by the community.

This seems to take the air out of the whole “dramatic assault” on women’s rights argument. “Those FASCISTS aren’t out to take away your rights or anything, they just have really baaaaaad beliefs!”

Originally it started off as a small movement of “men’s rights” activists in the late 1970s. However it didn’t grow until the development of the pickup community in the 80s and 90s. Much like the MRAs, PUAs base their practice on many of the same views, often relying on the dubious work of evolutionary psychology (good critiques of which can be found here and here). After pickup was popularized in the 2000s with the VH1 show The Pick Up Artist and the New York Times bestseller The Game, the communities melded with the MRAs to create the manosphere.

Ooh, two links “criticique”-ing evolutionary psychology! Guess that makes the score 200-2. Search the Chateau for all the science behind game. To say the work of evopsy is “dubious” is just as dubious. Personally, such proofs are not my main focus, as the red-pill truths are obvious to anyone willing to truly observe this culture we live in.

As an aside, I decree that Jeff Moniker’s “profession” shall henceforth only be referred to as “writer.” And you have to overtly do the quote fingers every time you say it out loud.

Recently it seems that the recession has been a major boon to their ideology. Because times are tough on both sexes, but especially hard on positions of employment typically held by men, it has been fuel for gender resentment. As the New York Times points out in an article titled The Myth of Male Decline:

“What we are seeing is a convergence in economic fortunes, not female ascendance. Between 2010 and 2011, men and women working full time year-round both experienced a 2.5 percent decline in income. Men suffered roughly 80 percent of the job losses at the beginning of the 2007 recession.”

First, this statistic is comparing income decline and job loss, two different things. And second, to the NYT, 2007 wasn’t that long ago! 80%?! Good lord! I didn’t even know that. Add a point to the cause!

It also seems the other factor growing this community, especially the pickup community, has been a lack of sex. As Sandy Hingston points out in an examination of twenty-something men, the situation is grim. The economy has made it so that “[y]oung men are now nearly twice as likely as young women to live with their parents; 59 percent of guys ages 18 to 24 and 19 percent of 25-to-34-year-olds live at home.” Indeed according to the Centers for Disease Control, even virginity has increased.

No argument here. It is grim. So men have a choice, they can keep living in the Matrix and doing the same crap they’ve been doing, or they can unplug, see the world for what it is, and improve their time on this planet.

In a way, the manosphere acts like a kind of self-help group for these kinds of problems with a clear sales pitch: “Can’t get a job? Can’t get laid? Still live with your mom? No fear, we’ll teach you how to pick up women and become a true Alpha Male. It’s those feminists trying to keep you down.”

Until Manginaker can deconstruct the techniques used to pick up women and develop alpha personas, instead of relying on sarcastically brushing aside the techniques as a hollow sales pitch, he has no argument.

It’s worth examining the pickup techniques themselves. On first examination, the techniques do seem to be effective. As one German study found, in a small group of 17 men and 23 women, men were able to pick up almost four times as many phone numbers after the training.

Failing so far…

However it came with a catch, in the same study, both men and women said they felt considerably guilt for using the techniques, a reportedly common problem for people in the PUA community.

Ah, guilt. One of the five roadblocks to game. But probably the least worrisome. Think about it this way: if I was to give the average man, one of those guys who “can’t get a job,” “can’t get laid,” and/or “still lives with mom,” a magic potion that allowed him to solve those problems, but the only side effect would be a little guilt, do you think he would take it?

Guilt can be overcome. Guilt does not HAVE to come from “running game.” There are basic things every man can do, from developing better body language to learning to shed his insecurities, that he can and should do to attract women. That should not induce guilt. Anyone who really gets the message of the Manosphere won’t be overly affected by guilt. In fact, the Manosphere helped me place Game (which I knew about for about a year before learning of this world of blogs) into a context that made game much more operable for me.

Also, this is based off one German study. Nicht schlüssig, Geoffrey!

larger study by the University of Kansas came with even more worrying findings. Using 850 national volunteers it was found that pickup techniques have a selection bias: they work best with men and women who already have sexist attitudes.  As it observed, hostilely sexist men (men who hate women) and benevolently sexist women (women who idolize men) were the most likely to benefit from pickup techniques. That is, the techniques create a self-fulfilling prophecy which confirms the sexist biases of the PUAs.

We wouldn’t want a benevolently sexist (aka “feminine”) woman, now would we?! Sounds like an additional point to our “sales pitch.”

I will call bullshit on this study, though, based solely on observation. Game works just fine on women who don’t “idolize” men, probably more so. They. eat. it. up.

On the one hand we might ask why we should even care. While it might have grown, the new misogyny is still a marginal force.

Moniker hasn’t been able to get the term “marginal force” out of his head ever since his first girlfriend dubbed him that.

To put it simply, it is successful because people don’t care; seeing it as an immature self-help tool and not as a full-blown ideology. Most other hateful ideologies operate semi-publicly: pointing to a scapegoat and then recruiting people to attack it. This does the opposite; it appears as neutral training and instills a scapegoat through its methods.

Wait, we’re already wrapping up? Where was the supporting evidence behind the “hateful ideology” accusation? This little drivel-filled essay would get an INCOMPLETE stamp in a freshman English class.

Imagine for instance if people gave supposedly non-ideological training to “Avoid Money Manipulation” (AMM). As part of AMM training it gives characteristics of people that will try to manipulate your money, and that these people just happened to be Jewish; you see it’s not anti-Semitic, it’s because of evolutionary-you get the idea.

Aaaaand we’ve come to the reductio ad Hitlerium portion of the show. Really, Jeff? Why don’t you look in the mirror before “giving the characteristics of people” you disagree with?

Indeed we may be witnessing a shift for hateful ideologies; no longer able to function publicly, they now rely on supposedly neutral, private training to instill and spread their values.

This in a sense has always been the refuge of hate groups, to keep their mode of operation secret, even if this now means making their beliefs a semi-secret as well. Thus, the best we have to confront these kinds of attitudes is to make them known to the public.

The first reaction the mangina has to the cold truths of reality is to dub it “hateful.” So he makes it his mission to expose this dangerous ideology, which must be confronted. And how exactly? I get the feeling the solution to that has a lot more to do with “proto-fascism” than do red-pill beliefs, centered around the idea that “love is the only thing in this world that isn’t bullshit.”

“That Man’s Words Mean Nothing To Me”

Well, it seems the pretty little lies aren’t going away any time soon. There’s a video spreading like wildfire online of Jennifer Livingston, a morning anchor on the CBS affiliate in Wisconsin, ranting on-air about a “bully” who wrote her the following email:

Hi Jennifer,

It’s unusual that I see your morning show, but I did so for a very short time today. I was surprised indeed to witness that your physical condition hasn’t improved for many years. Surely you don’t consider yourself a suitable example for this community’s young people, girls in particular. Obesity is one of the worst choices a person can make and one of the most dangerous habits to maintain. I leave you this note hoping that you’ll reconsider your responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.

Short yet powerful. Tenacious yet placid. But most importantly, true. So what do we get in response to such a thoughtful message? Perhaps a humbled newswoman committed to making a positive change?

Pfft… not in 2012 America. Dream on.

What we get instead is four minutes of some of the most prolific feelgood hamster spinning of all-time.

So then, I must interject. Here goes (from 0:54 on):

Now those of us in the media, we get a healthy dose of critiques from our viewers throughout the year, and we realize that it comes with having a job in the public eye. But this email is more than that. While I tried my best to laugh off the very hurtful attack on my appearance…

Wait a second, what attacks? That her physical condition hasn’t improved for many years? I’m not from Wisconsin, but I would have to assume this is mere observation. That she’s obese? She admits it later in the video. I’m not sure where exactly the “attack” is. I don’t doubt the comments are hurtful, but, then again, constructive criticism tends to be, particularly to those who need it the most.

…my colleagues could not do the same, especially my husband, our 6 and 10 anchor, Mike Thompson. Mike posted this email on his WKBT facebook page, and what happened next has been truly inspiring.

Thousands rushed to his aid and organized an Obese Wives 5K?

Hundreds and hundreds of people have taken the time out of their day to not only lift my spirits, but take a stand that attacks like this are not okay.

Damn. Sorry, Mike. Guess you’re not too popular over there.

Now we’re gonna have more on that in just a second, but first, the truth is, I am overweight.

Good, admission is the first step to recovery…

You could call me fat.

Apparently not without being harangued as an intolerant bully on your televised soapbox…

Even obese, on a doctor’s chart.

Those pesky “doctor’s charts,” they’ve never brought ya good news, have they?

But to the person who wrote me that letter, do you think I don’t know that?

Yes, I believe he knows you’re aware of your problem. Hence the injunction to “reconsider.”

That your cruel words are pointing out something that I don’t see?

The only cruelty here is what you’re doing to your body, Jen-nay. When Mama said life was like a box o’ chocolates, she didn’t mean literally.

You don’t know me. You are not a friend of mine.

Which is why he doesn’t feel the ultimately destructive desire to tiptoe around your feelings instead of telling you the truth. His words could potentially bring more happiness into your life than anything your “friends” have done for you.

You are not a part of my family, and you have admitted that you don’t watch this show.

Would him being a part of your family or daily audience actually cause you to reconsider your lifestyle choice?

So you know nothing about me but what you see on the outside. And I am much more than a number on a scale.

I wonder if she’s ever uttered the words “much more” while on a scale.

And here is where I want every one of us to learn something from this: if you didn’t already know, October is National Anti-Bullying month.

If she’s going to change the subject to bullying, then I will follow suit. I’m so sick of all these “months” promoting  “awareness” for something or other, from autism to breast cancer to, what next, gonorrhea? And the color pink does not belong on NFL fields. I don’t need Tony Romo making me “aware” of breast cancer. Just play the damn game.

Anyway…

And this is a problem that is growing every day in our schools, and on the internet. It is a major issue in the lives of young people today, and as the mother of three young girls, it scares me to death.

Bullying is an irrevocable part of human nature. The strong will weather the storm. The attractive won’t need much more than a windbreaker. The rest will break.

Now I am a grown woman, and luckily for me, I have a very thick skin. Literally, as that email pointed out, and otherwise.

She says as she fights off the tears.

And that man’s words mean nothing to me.

Her hamster is running in full spin mode right now. Now, if only she could get her legs to do the same.

But what really angers me about this, is there are children who don’t know better, who get emails as critical as the one I received…

Dear Johnny,

It’s unusual that I am able to personally write a probation letter, but I did in your case today. I was surprised indeed to witness that your grades haven’t improved for many years. Surely you don’t consider yourself a suitable example of this university’s high academic standards. Ditching class is one of the worst choices a student can make and failing to study for tests one of the most dangerous habits to maintain. I leave you this note hoping that you’ll reconsider your responsibility as a potential college graduate to make better choices and focus harder on your studies.

All the best!

The Dean

…or in many cases, even worse, each and every day. The internet has become a weapon; our schools have become a battleground. And this behavior is learned. It is passed down from people like the man who wrote me that email.

Note the correlation between being an out-of-touch upholder of the blue pill world of self-deceit and adherence to blank slatist philosophy.

If you are at home, and you are talking about the fat news lady, guess what? Your children are probably going to go to school, and call someone fat. We need to teach our kids how to be kind, not critical, and we need to do that by example.

Critical is not the opposite of kind. The person who wrote that email avoided all temptations to call you names or resort to base insults rooted in the underlying stance that you’re beyond hope. He was petitioning you to take your life into your own hands, and be an example to the thousands who watch your show.

So many of you have come to my defense over the past few days. I am literally overwhelmed by your words. To my colleagues, and my friends, from today and from years ago, my family, my amazing husband…

…who wasn’t amazing enough to keep from letting yourself go…

…and so many of you out there who I will probably never have the opportunity to meet, I will never be able to thank you enough for your words of support. And for taking a stand against this bully. We are better than that email. We are better than the bullies that would try to take us down.

The letter-writer was trying to lift you up. By rejecting his admonition, you are showing that you are not “better” than him. You’re showing that you’re nothing more than a mediocre human being afraid of making a real change in your life, hiding behind the guise of tolerance.

And I leave you with this: to all of the children out there who feel lost, who are struggling with your weight, with the color of your skin, your sexual preference, your disability, even the acne on your face…

Struggling with obesity isn’t even remotely close to struggling with race. Lumping that which is a choice with that which isn’t, blurring the line between the two, is one of the signs of a society in decay.

Listen to me right now. Do not let your self-worth be defined by bullies.

By taking this route, Ms. Livingston has done just that. Real bullies are those who tear down with the motive to keep down. And with her refusal to change herself or at least acknowledge that losing weight is a GOOD thing, those bullies have won the fight. She remains unhealthy and unattractive.

Learn from my experience that the cruel words of one are nothing compared to the shouts of many.

“Reconsider your responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.”

“YOU’RE FINE JUST AS YOU ARE!” “YOU’RE BEAUTIFUL!” “MEN LOVE CURVY WOMEN!” “A FEW EXTRA POUNDS IS NO BIG DEAL!” “YOU CAN’T CONTROL THE WAY YOUR BODY IS!”

Which voice would you rather listen to?

Great Scenes Of Game On TV

The rise of feminism in the West has manifested itself in many outlets, perhaps none more overt than in the entertainment industry. For the most part, American television and cinema has become an egalitarian wasteland flooded with stories of empowered chicks having their pick in the sexual market into their menopausal years and beyond, spineless men being forced into puppydog submission by their domineering wives, gender roles being completely reversed, beta persistence paying off to “win” the girl at the end, and beautiful young women pining over glittery vampires.

However, once in awhile, a gem stands out. And in this case, it comes in one of the unlikeliest of places — the long-running hit sitcom “Friends.” While cleverly written, “Friends” consistently parroted the popular feminist shibboleths of its day underneath the warm exterior of humor — that the player life was not one to be desired, that single motherhood should be celebrated, that past sluttiness shouldn’t be a deterring factor in committing to a girlfriend or wife, that pompous wedding ceremonies and ravish rings were the only legitimate way to kick off a marriage, etc.

The diamond in the rough came in a Season Nine run of episodes featuring a romance between Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) and her co-worker Gavin (Dermot Mulroney). Gavin, the “jerk” (Rachel’s words) who filled in for her while she was away on maternity leave, displayed some excellent examples of Alphetiquette in his brief run on the show. Needless to say, if you’re someone who enjoys seeing solid game (as opposed to beta pandering) winning over the girl, you’d probably wish NBC replaced the hapless Ross (David Schwimmer) with Gavin as Rachel’s ultimate choice at the end of the series.

Here is a clip of the scenes of the episode in which Gavin is introduced, with dialogue and the Colonel’s commentary below:

Scene 1: 0:00-0:36

[Ross and Rachel, with their newborn child, head to Rachel’s office at Ralph Lauren, where she plans to be returning in two weeks. They discuss how their girl keeps being mistaken for a boy.]

The only problem with the entire pickup is unveiled right away: Gavin’s about to go after a single mom. But since it’s Jennifer Aniston, who maintained her looks well into her 30s, I’ll cut him some slack.

Rachel: Who the hell are you!?

Gavin: Who the hell are you?

Hoop 1 avoided. Gavin immediately shows he’s in charge of the conversation and he’s not playing by the rules of beta social convention by eagerly answering every question like he would in a job interview.

Rachel: I’m the hell person whose office this is!

Ross: Good one, Rache.

Guy: I’m Gavin Mitchell, the person who’s taken over your job.

Now he answers, brimming with confidence and authority.

Rachel: Excuse me?

Gavin: Oh, your baby’s so cute. Why did you put a pink bow on a boy?

Probably not a neg you’d read in The Game but it achieves the same result.

Scene 2: 0:36-2:31

Rachel: Wait a minute! What do you mean, you’re taking over my job?

Gavin: Well, while you were on your baby vacation I was doing your job.

Game principle displayed: reframing.

Rachel: A vacation? My idea of a vacation does not involve something sucking on my nipples until they are raw.

Gavin: Clearly you’ve never been to Sandles Paradise Island.

Game principle displayed: wit.

Rachel: Alright! Don’t get too comfortable there, because I’m back in two weeks! And I want everything back to the way it was. I can’t say that I care too much for the way you’ve rearranged my office.

Gavin: I can’t say I care too much for that smell you’ve brought in with you.

You’ll notice he never lets her lead the conversation. And he never goes on the defensive; he simply reframes.

Rachel: Excuse me?

Ross: Rache, we have a code brown situation.

Rachel: Can you please, please take care of it for me?

Ross: Alright, but you have to do one sometime.

Meanwhile, in Betaland, Ross is stuck changing diapers for his born-out-of-wedlock child while his baby’s momma gets hit on by an alpha right in front of him.

Rachel: Let me just get this straight! So I go have a baby and they send some guy in to do my job?

Gavin: Well, there was talk of shutting down Ralph Lauren all together.

Funniest line of the episode. He’s slowly chiseling away at the pedestal guys like Ross took years to craft for her.

Rachel: That’s right. You’re very cheeky for a temp.

Gavin: I’m not a temp. I was transferred here from another department.

Rachel: Oh yeah, what department was that? The Jerk department?

If a girl calls you a jerk, especially while bantering with you, you know you’ve activated her tingle sequence.

Gavin: Oh, they didn’t tell me about your quick wit.

If only betas understood that respect must be earned. A bad comeback deserves teasing, not feeble supplication. And women wouldn’t have it any other way.

Rachel: Did they mention that I’m rubber and you’re glue?

Mr. Zelner: (Enters) Gavin, Ralph loved your ideas.

Rachel: Oh, hi Mr. Zelner.

Mr. Zelner: Ah, Rachel, I see you’ve met Gavin. I must say, when you left us we weren’t sure what we were gonna do. But then, Gavin to the rescue. Super Gavin!

His boss is a great wingman. DHV for him so he doesn’t have to.

Rachel: That’s great. So now, Super Gavin, when I come back where are you planning on flying off to?

Gavin: Well, that’s up to Mr. Zelner. I’m sure he’ll make the right decision.

Rachel: (To herself) Oh, wow. Super ass-kissing power.

Mr. Zelner: Incidentally, when are you coming back?

Rachel: Uh…today.

Gavin: You said two weeks.

Rachel: No, I said to-day! See, for a superhero, not so much with the listening.

Scene 3: 2:31-3:20

Rachel: Alright. Now that I’m back, why don’t you just fill me in on what you’ve been up to?

Gavin: Well, I’ve changed your screensaver from that picture of N-Sync.

More teasing. Excellent.

Rachel: Hey, they were popular when I left!

Gavin: But mostly I’ve just been working on this big presentation for tomorrow.

Rachel: Well, I should be involved in that, so why don’t you get me up to speed?

Gavin: That’s gonna take weeks. Why don’t just let me take care of the presentation?

Never forget the critical importance of body language and vocal tonality in pickup. If you were to just read Gavin’s previous line of dialogue, you’d probably imagine him whining this line, pleading with Rachel to allow him to take care of the presentation. But when you watch the video, you see he gives her a back turn, throws out an authoritative hand, and speaks the question as though it were a statement.

Rachel: Oh, no no no no. I see what you’re doing here, alright, listen, this is my job buddy. Okay, I’ve had it for five years, and I know how it works, so why don’t you just catch me up?

Gavin: Fine.

Notice how his responses are almost always more terse than hers. Game principle displayed: the 2/3 rule.

Rachel: (Sits down in her chair) Oh god. You’ve totally messed with the back support of my chair. How do you fix this?

Gavin: Hey, you’ve been here five years, you figure it out.

He wins an Asshole Game gold medal for this line (and the delivery by Mulroney is perfect). In a situation where most guys would rush at the chance to aid (or, more accurately, impress) the damsel in distress, he doesn’t. Game principle displayed: Don’t be like everyone else.

Rachel: Fine, I will. (Pushes lever on chair, making it collapse) Alright, fill me in!

Note the smug, shit-eating grin at 3:15. Mulroney’s got his alpha body language down pat.

Scene 4: 3:23-5:15

Gavin: (Enters) Wow, you’re here already.

Rachel: Yes. Emma and I came in a little early to do research on the presentation. I actually made a few changes, but I think I’m caught up on everything. So ask me anything!

Gavin: How do you fix the chair?

The best way to psychologically maintain your status above hers is through humor. Never take her too seriously.

Rachel: Except that! (Mr. Zelner enters) Oh, hello, Mr. Zelner. We’re all ready for our presentation this afternoon.

Mr. Zelner: Good, because it’s in ten minutes.

Rachel: What? I can’t do that! I have the baby, and Ross is not gonna pick her up for another hour.

Mr. Zelner: Well, then Gavin can give the presentation, okay, we have to do it now. Ralph needs to leave early today. He’s going helicopter shopping.

Rachel: Alright well, there you go. You win, you win. You get to do the presentation, you’ll knock ’em dead, no one will ever remember that I worked here, and then Ralph will buy his helicopter, and Super Gavin will just fly right along side of him!

Gavin: You can do the presentation.

This is where Gavin switches gears, displaying his nice guy side. This works because he has already demonstrated enough value at this point. This is a prime example of Contrast Game. He continues to defy her expectations, which is actually more attractive to her than had he plowed through a constant onslaught of a-hole game. Game principle demonstrated: Push-pull.

Rachel: No, I can’t, I have a baby.

Gavin: I’ll watch her.

Rachel: Why would you do that?

Gavin: Because you worked really hard, and it’s your job, and you’re a little crazy.

Once he transitions, however, he makes sure to not abandon the tactics that got him to this point. This shows her the original approach was not an act, that he’s genuine.

Rachel: That’s really nice.

Gavin: I should tell you that crying women make me very uncomfortable.

Rachel: Well you’re not gonna like what’s coming. (Starts crying) I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. Thank you, thank you.

Gavin: I’m really fine, don’t worry, I’m great with children. (To Emma) Gavin Mitchell. Pleased to meet you.

This is the first (and only) time he qualifies himself to her in the entire episode. I wonder how long it would have taken most men confronting the snarky, attractive woman whose job they’d taken over. And if you are going to qualify yourself, at least demonstrate a game principle while you’re doing it — in this case, protector of loved ones.

She leaves, smitten as a schoolgirl.

——–

There are no more videos on YouTube of Mulroney scenes from the other two episodes he was in (barring a grainy 46-second clip, again in the office, featuring mostly Rachel and Monica), but Gavin eventually kisses Rachel on her balcony. As a bonus for my readers, I’ll post the dialogue of that scene here as well:

[Rachel and Monica are standing outside on the balcony of their apartment. Rachel’s birthday party has just ended.]

Monica: Well, at least you have one thing to be happy about. That jerk Gavin from your office didn’t show up (Gavin shows up at the balcony windows).

Rachel: Mmm-hmm.

Gavin: Yeah, hey. (He comes in to the balcony)

Monica: Oh, we weren’t talking about you… No, no way to recover.

Rachel: No.

(Monica goes back inside)

Gavin: Nice party.

Rachel: Well, it was, and you would have seen it if you didn’t showed up at (looks at his watch) … 9:30? God! Oh, this party was lame!

Monica: (from inside) Again, you’re welcome.

Gavin: Look, I’ll just give you this and go.

Rachel: Oh, you bought me a present! Why?

Gavin: Well, let me explain how birthday parties usually work. There are presents, and a cake, perhaps a fourth or fifth person… OK, I… got you the present to make up for being such a jerk to you earlier.

More push-pull.

Rachel: Aww. Well, ok, well that’s very nice. And you wrote a card (opens the card). “From Gavin.”

Gavin: I really mean it.

Most girls view romantic gestures from a guy who hasn’t slept with her yet, much less kissed her, as not only unnecessary, but creepy. And certainly not a tingle generator. The card (and the accompanying joke) is perfect. And he did a good job rooting (by explaining how birthdays work — plausible deniability!) why he got her a gift.

Rachel: (opens the present, it’s a green scarf) Awww, awww, it’s beautiful.

Gavin: You don’t mind? (puts it around her neck) Well, what do you know, it fits!

He doesn’t just give her a scarf; he puts it around her neck. He is unafraid to kino escalate.

Rachel: See, Gavin, you’re capable of being a nice guy. Why did you give me such a hard time?

Gavin: I’m not sure.

Rachel: Well Monica seems to think it’s because you have feelings for me.

Gavin: I do have feelings for you.

Rachel: You do?

Gavin: Yes, I feel that you are a little annoying.

Reframe, push-pull, takeaway, all melded together. Great example of well-rounded game.

Rachel: See? Why, Gavin, why? Right when I’m about to change my opinion of you, you go and you … (he kisses her) and you do that … (they kiss again)

And one more push-pull to top it off. The kiss is the inevitable icing on the cake. He had this one-set on lockdown from the second he stepped onto the balcony. With PUA lessons like this, “Friends” might have been watchable in the final season had they kept Mulroney around.

This Video Tells The Truth…And Makes Me Laugh

Don’t have a grandson with a dog collar.

Why Men Need Not Listen To Pedestalizing Blowhards

Even though left-wing ideology (and the feminist ilk that regurgitates it) is the root cause of the sad state of the modern American sexual market, it doesn’t mean religious conservatives don’t have blood on their hands either. As evidenced by this vacuous piece by The Washington Post‘s resident pastor Mark Driscoll, a great deal of damage can be done by taking this worldview seriously as well.

For starters, I believe people like Driscoll have their heart in the right place, and science to back up their case– their underlying point, at least– that marriage is good for society. Indeed it is. Children raised in strong, two-parent households are less likely to fall into lives of crime and other assorted ne’er-do-well behavior. The stronger our families, the stronger our society. It’s a simple point many liberals refuse to concede.

Beyond that, however, people sharing Driscoll’s mindset are severely misguided. In the article, the pastor employs the “man-up” method of guilt-tripping guys into taking the plunge into marriage. Add that to the fact that he never specifies why exactly men need marriage, and you have something in serious need of the Colonel’s critical scrutiny.

His intro is laughable to anyone who’s ever taken a step back and put two and two together:

She was smart, funny, interesting, successful, attractive, kind, in her 40s, and still single.

After my wife Grace and I spent some time with the woman from our church, we could not fathom why no one had married her.

I’ll take Marky for his word and believe this 40-something was attractive. Regardless of whether or not it is true, her looks are nowhere near what they were at 25 and she is on the brink of sexual irrelevancy.

There is one subtle clue pointing to the reality of this poor woman’s situation, though– she is described as “successful.” More than likely, she followed the script so many females of her generation before her did– working her way up the corporate stepladder focusing on her “career” while in her 20s, meanwhile falling for and getting plowed by alphas, proceeding to get her heart broken by those alphas, ruining her forever to provider betas, continuing her ultimately pointless pursuits along the stepladder, seeing the alpha love slowly wane, causing her to develop a personality (becoming “smart, funny, interesting”), turning 40, and then suddenly realizing aloud, “Hey, wait a second! I’m not married! What gives?!”

Driscoll then solidifies my point by pointing out the statistics, which include the fact that more women are currently attending college and working a career track job than men. But instead of coming to the realization that it is women choosing these things over men, he predictably follows the pattern of all the other pedestal crafters like him. He absolves them of all blame.

What are the guys doing? Often, they’re acting like boys who can shave, getting drunk, watching porn, attending sporting events, and treating responsibility like Superman does green kryptonite.

Attending sporting events? Oh the humanity!

He continues:

So, many women are waiting longer to marry. Eventually, some get tired of the fools parade and settle for some guy who is more likely to act like a baby than help raise a baby. These guys make the worst husbands: gambling away the money, out late with the boys a lot, unfaithful, can’t seem to fit a full-time job in around his hobbies, and eventually trading in their 40-year-old wife for two 20-year-old girlfriends.

Basically, his argument is that the beta provider is a woman’s first choice, but because they’re too busy avoiding responsibility and getting drunk at baseball games, they “settle for” the cheating, aloof, immature badboy alpha.

Sorry, Mark. You’ve got it turned around. Those “babies” are choice numero uno in the ids of attractive women the world across, all to the detriment of the hard-working, responsible, ready-to-be-a-papa-for-scarce-pussy betas. And the effect of this rejection? You got it! Shunning responsibility and watching porn!

Even though he correctly points out the dynamics of the situation, his analysis of it is all fucked up. He’s not understanding what is the cause and what is the effect.

Seeing this dismal fate and unwilling to settle [read: marry a niceguy] or suffer [read: dump an alpha even though they’re still hopelessly in love with him], other young women just give up hope and decide it’s better to be single than sorry.

And ultimately, it is that decision that is the cause of the whole problem of men resorting to becoming boring directionless betas or arrogant asshole alphas. It’s not an effect.

Rather than some public outrage against irresponsible addictive selfish boys who can shave, what do we have? Comedies. From inane television shows like “The Big Bang Theory” to “How I Met Your Mother” to bromance movies and pull-my-finger comedies from Seth Rogen, Andy Samberg, Zach Galifianakis and the like, we just laugh. Many men are not funny, but they are a joke.

For every caddish TV protagonist like Barney from “How I Met Your Mother” there are at least three celebrated female characters living life by the same standards. How else would you describe the “Sex and the City” phenomenon?

If you want to rage against irresponsible addictive selfishness, Mr. Driscoll, be my guest. But don’t pin it all on one sex. And just remember that where the ladies go, the men follow. Not the other way around.

Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load. Young men are supposed to load themselves up first by being responsible for themselves and not expecting their mom to fill up their sippy cup with beer and push them in a stroller to the unemployment line. Young men who take responsibility for themselves are then ready to marry and take responsibility for the life and joy of their wife. And, as they grow in that responsibility they are then ready to take on the additional responsibility of being a father, invested in and devoted to their child or children.

It’s fine to become a responsible adult, but it would take an ignoramus to look at the current state of marriage in this country and conclude that it would be a responsible decision to leap into a lifestyle in which everything is suddenly stacked against him.

I know plenty of good-hearted men who would be good husbands and fathers. And these guys aren’t as rare as guys like Driscoll would have you believe. Now, disregarding the fact that most of them are ultimately rejected by those girls they find most attractive, why should they gamble the life they’ve built on the shaky foundation that is modern marriage?

After appealing to the Bible to make his point about marriage being necessary, he finally adds in the standard slap-on-the-wrist chastening towards the ladies:

To be sure, there are some terrible women in the world. But, if you believe the statistics, men have been on the losing end of this cultural ‘evolution.’

Ladies, are you part of the problem? Are you the mom or girlfriend letting a boy who can shave live at your house eating your food and mooching off your hard work? Are you enabling some guy who is using you to live foolishly without having to suffer painfully?

Are you the girlfriend who has allowed one of these guys to be with you although there is no clarity regarding what your relationship is or direction for where it’s going?

Again, he’s treating it like it’s a problem caused by men while women are only responsible for allowing it to flourish or etiolate. Women hold the cards in the sexual market. And in the end, they’ll obtain what their animal natures crave. Men must either adapt (learn game), settle for less (further skewing the SMV of females in the direction of more bloated egos), or go into hiding (watching porn and letting their lives waste away as career celibates). Whatever road they choose, marriage isn’t going to do them any favors unless they luck out in the wife lottery.

And I would ask the men, do you want to leave a good time or a good legacy? Do you want to one day be the dirty old man alone in the strip club on Christmas, or the grandpa who loves his wife and has their children and grandchildren to their home to share in their joy? Do you have a plan to get there, or are you expecting the life fairy to take care of that for you? Would you want your sons to be like you? Would you want your daughters to marry someone like you?

Why must this argument always be framed as a false dilemma? One who avoids marriage does not necessarily have to become a “dirty old man alone in the strip club on Christmas.” He can find fulfillment in relationships that don’t involve the government and a ridiculously expensive rock on his girlfriend’s ring finger. And granted, as he approaches old age, he may not continue to have the experiences he once had, but those he did have will have been worth it. And probably much more memorable than cold, once-a-month sex with a nagging wife. Not to mention age is far from being the SMV killer to men like it is women.

On the other side of his fallacious scenario, marrying a woman and having children and grandchildren is no guarantee of happiness. That is, if a married man is even able to achieve such a legacy, what with the whimsy of his bride and the no-fault divorce laws that exist all over the place.

He concludes with a continuation of his exhausting rhetorical admonishments:

Are you a fool? Was your father a fool? When will the folly stop?

To answer your last question, when women decide that their careers aren’t the be-all-end-all of female happiness on this planet and stop rejecting good men for cocky badboys. Don’t hold your breath.

And to answer your first question last, no. Because I don’t plan on getting ass-raped married any time soon…