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.”

What Do You Desire?

 

From a lecture given by British philosopher Alan Watts, this 3:00 clip encompasses the Crimson life philosophy: “When we finally got down to something, which the individual says he really wants to do, I will say to him, you do that and forget the money, because, if you say that getting the money is the most important thing, you will spend your life completely wasting your time. You’ll be doing things you don’t like doing in order to go on living, that is to go on doing things you don’t like doing, which is stupid. Better to have a short life that is full of what you like doing than a long life spent in a miserable way.”

The funny thing is, these anti-platitudes fit within the bounds of any overarching belief system or life philosophy. The religious, the atheist. The here-and-now, the eschatalogical. The altruistic, the objectivist. Follow what you desire, within reason of course, and don’t hold back. Money should never be used as the ends but merely as a means; otherwise, the cycle of “all retch and no vomit” will continue in perpetuum. Don’t let the goal of “acquisition” consume you; it will die with you.

Types Of Beta: The J.F. Sebastian

There is no greater teaching tool than the real-world example. The next best option is the manufactured example based on a “type” which can be found in the real world–i.e., movies.

The Manosphere is chock-full of references to the alpha-beta dynamic. But what does it mean to be an alpha or a beta? Or, more precisely, what does it look like? How exactly does the alpha succeed and the beta fail in both the hedonistic pursuit of sexual interaction and the romantic pursuit of the fulfilling relationship? In an attempt to answer this, I plan a recurring series of “Types” posts, featuring greater alphas and lesser betas and everything in between. No need to focus on omegas–just flip the channel to TLC on a weeknight sometime if you want a glimpse into that self-inflicted hell.

For my first beta type, I refer you to the sci-fi classic Blade Runner. As I watched it recently, it occurred to me how much one of the characters–J.F. Sebastian–reminded me of oh-so-many guys I’ve come across over the years.

Sebastian’s character, played by William Sanderson, is a genetic designer working for the Tyrell Corporation, which created some renegade Replicants (androids) seeking to confront their maker. Two of these Replicants–the male Batty and female Pris–use Sebastian to gain access to Tyrell, where Batty kills him (and, it is implied, Sebastian as well).

The following transcript is the scene in which Pris, who pretends to be vagabond sleeping in a pile of trash, arranges her preplanned meeting with Sebastian (my comments in crimson):

Sebastian: Hey! You forgot your bag.

Pris: I’m lost.

Sebastian: Don’t worry, I won’t hurt you. (pause) What’s your name?

Pris: Pris.

Sebastian: Mine’s J. F. Sebastian.

Already he has come off as harmless as a three-legged puppy and given out his name unprovoked. Rough start.

Pris: Hi.

Sebastian: Hi. Oh, where were you going? Home?

Pris: I don’t have one. We scared each other pretty good, didn’t we?

Sebastian: We sure did.

Her frame.

Pris: I’m hungry.

J. F. Sebastian: I’ve got some stuff inside. You want to come in?

No challenge, no teasing…no fun.

Pris: I was hoping you’d say that.

As Sebastian walks up to his building to unlock the door, the camera pans on a mischievous Pris, slyly grinning as she realizes her plan is moving along swimmingly. Imagine a spoiled girl getting her daddy to cave into her desires just because she puts on the innocent act. Sebastian falls for it hook line and sinker.

[Pris and Sebastian enter building.]

Pris: Do you live in this building all by yourself?

Sebastian: Yeah, I live here pretty much alone right now. No housing shortage around here. Plenty of room for everybody. (pause)

Being a lone wolf isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s clear he’s not exactly turning on any preselection switches here.

Pris: (cough)

Sebastian: Watch out for the water.

Pris: Must get lonely here.

J. F. Sebastian: Mmm… Not really. I make friends… [Wait a second, maybe he can recover here!] They’re toys. My friends are toys. [Nevermind.] I make them. It’s a hobby. I’m a genetic designer. Do you know what that is?

Another unprovoked piece of information.

Pris: No.

Sebastian: Yoo-hoo, home again.

Toys: Home again, home again, jiggity jig. Good evening.

J. F. Sebastian: Good evening, fellas.

Toy 1: Oooh!

Sebastian: They’re my friends. I made them. Where are you’re folks?

Pris: I’m sort of an orphan.

Sebastian: Oh, what about your friends?

Pris: I have some, but I have to find them. I’ll let ’em know where I am tomorrow.

Sebastian: Oh. Can I take those things for you? They’re soaked aren’t they?

And finishes it off with a little dose of white knightery. You can see where this is going.

I won’t post any more of the script, as this is enough to demonstrate the J.F. Sebastian Beta. Suffice to say, he goes on to get embarrassingly cockblocked (Batty comes over and kisses Pris right in front of him), talks about why he is physically unable to leave Earth (caused by the “accelerated decrepitude” of Methuselah Syndrome), and gets killed in a naive effort to allow Batty to speak with Tyrell. (You can see that scene–great cinema, by the way– here. Note Sebastian’s bewildered, cowering demeanor at 1:53.)

For sake of argument, I’m treating the interactions Sebastian had with Pris as pick-up opportunities, even if the actual situation was not such. I simply analyze the interactions for what they are and what can be gleaned from them. Also keep in mind the crimson arts are more than picking up women in bars; they compose a suite of traits useful for any social encounter.

Further, I realize Blade Runner is far from being a film one watches to critique the nuances of good and bad game, but I saw in this side character a beta too blustering to pass up as an example. So then, my final assessment of the J.F. Sebastian, categorized by important aspects of game: (Ratings: Very weak, weak, moderate, strong, very strong)

Opening: Moderate. He allowed her to spook him in his territory, but she opened him (albeit for nefarious reasons) and he was, at the very least, engaging.

Negs/Teasing: Very weak. He presents no challenges. He fails to leverage the situation to his advantage by knocking her down a peg.

Qualifying: Very weak. Hmmm… strange girl in an ominous world just shows up out of nowhere and wants to come into your house and you abide without asking her a single qualifying question?

DHV: Weak. He has no friends besides toys, but at least he doesn’t apologize for it. Also, he seems to not give off the vibe he’s miserable in his situation, so it’s not his weakest attribute.

Preselection: Very weak. He is practically begging for a female visitor. Pris knows his sexual loneliness is a vulnerability and she takes full advantage of it.

Rapport: Moderate. Most betas aren’t bad at this; the problem is they focus solely on this and fall into the friend zone. Sebastian does his best to get to know her, but most of it is a barrage of the boring questions girls are all-too accustomed to hearing.

Frame Control: Very Weak. Whether it’s with Pris or Batty in later scenes, Sebastian’s world is always swallowed up by the world of his guests.

Physical (Body Language, KINO): Very weak. He has no sense of escalation, and exhibits mostly docile, even submissive, body language.

Dark Triad: Weak. He is a beacon of nonthreatening passivity, but I’ll give him points for having a mysterious aura about himself and for working for the shady corporation in charge of manufacturing vengeful androids.

FINAL ANALYSIS: The J.F. Sebastian is the guy who would be, coincidentally, the beta most likely to watch Blade Runner by himself in his studio apartment on a Friday night rather than go out. He is warm, independent, and has the ability to gain rapport and trust from a woman. He probably has a mildly interesting vocation and maybe, if a woman is willing to dig deep enough, an enigmatic existence and life philosophy. He has some major sticking points, however. He has no sense of what it means to be dominant, and is easily manipulated. His frame is feeble. He pedestalizes women and hopes they will like him for his dotty nice-guy disposition, to no avail. While he’s not necessarily an introvert, he is content with his enclosed world, and thus, his hopes of ever spreading his seed are low without massive game intervention and some friends willing to pull him out of his comfort zone.

If you have any ideas for an alpha or beta type whom I could analyze using this system, please comment here. There are scores of different types of men; I don’t put limits on how many examples I choose to learn from.

Five Roissy Quotes: Feminism Edition

It’s been awhile since I posted the last “Five Roissy Quotes.” Time to fix that. I present to you five more quotes from Chateau Heartiste, this time on the marvel that is feminism:

  • Chivalry and feminism are in fact mutually exclusive. Chivalry involves a tacit quid pro quo; men are chivalrous to women they deem are worthy of the chivalrous sacrifice. Throughout Western history, (Western only, as chivalry was a knighthood concept invented by Europeans during the Middle Ages), men have considered worthy women to be those who are relatively chaste, pure of reputation, monogamously loyal and delicate of manners. Does that describe the typical modern American feminist? Of course not. To ask the question is to laugh at the absurdity of asking it. (“Chivalry And Feminism Are Incompatible,” 4 February 2011)
  • Women who have been denied the affection and commitment of an alpha lover, or who have been driven insane with spite by the dispiriting attentions of beta males they consider below them, nurse a steady stream of agitation toward, and resentment of, men in general. Exhibit A: a disproportionate number of avowed feminists are butt ugly. Exhibit B: SWPL city girls who yearn for loving, long term relationships with powerful men but get stuck with pump and dumps by players and cloying obsessions by undersexed betas. These women have yet to be broken in; their untamed limbic mania sets the tempo of their higher thinking. They drag their owners for a walk, instead of being walked. They are obstinate, crude, and, when their feminine humours do reassert for a temporary spell, sloppily scattershot in their compassion for indigents a world away while being brutishly curt and spiteful in their dealings with men in their social orbit. Feminism speaks to them because their femininity is suppressed. (“The Training Of The Shrew,” 5 November 2010)
  • Any man who uncoercedly calls himself a feminist has announced his resignation from the order of manhood. I don’t care if you’ve spent 1,000 tours in Iraq and scalped terrorists for shits and giggles, you lop of your nuts when you sign onto the feminist agenda. Please turn yourself into soylent beta. You aren’t moral, you aren’t enlightened, you aren’t open-minded. You’re just a laughable tool. (“September 2009 Beta Of The Month,” 16 October 2009)
  • It’s funny how [George W.] Bush is so unpopular with women, especially young women and feminists, when he did the “right thing” in this situation, and when by all accounts he’s a moral exemplar of the faithful, loyal (beta) husband. And yet a guy like Bill Clinton, who in practice shit all over feminist principles by sexually harassing interns, fucking subordinates, cheating on his wife multiple times, getting blowjobs from women considerably younger than himself, and even coming dangerously close to actual rape, is beloved by women and especially by the very same feminists whose phoniness and moral relativism Clinton showcased for the world. Beautiful. (“Butt Pirates, Butt Pats, A Killer Line,” 22 August 2008)
  • Feminism is not about gender equality but about gender power. We all want a leg up in the genetic race to procreate, and for women the prerogative to fuck around with an alpha under any and all circumstances and have his kid while duping the beta husband or boyfriend to foot the bill for raising it is one they will not surrender without a fight. (“Mandatory Paternity Testing Has Arrived,” 11 March 2008)

I remember once in my first semester at college, my mangina sociology professor asked the class, “Who here is a feminist?” A few hands went up. Then, as if he were revealing the truth to us from heavenly stone tablets, he informed us that feminism is simply the belief in the equal treatment of both genders. “Who here is a feminist now?” he asked. Every hand in the class went up, including mine.

I wish I could go back in time and laugh in the face of that professor and his automaton herd of groupthinkers, but alas, I cannot (yet–the Delorean is in the shop). I’ll have to settle for contributing to the corner of the blogosphere that has opened its eyes and exposed feminism for the immoral power grab that it is.

To see previous Roissy quote posts, follow these links:

The Chateau on Betas

The Chateau on Game

The Barrage Of Boring

I had some extra free time last week, and after discovering new full-length compilations of seminars given by Neil Strauss and Mystery put up recently on youtube (thanks to users johnboy20011 and Sacha Pua), I decided to go old-school and watch them. Granted, much of this stuff is from the mid-2000s, and yes, many other pick-up artists have emerged since, but it still amazes me how clear and sensible these two guys come off. Some of the techniques have changed, but the basic fundamentals are all right here, fellas. This stuff works, as long as you believe in your ability to execute it. Combine it with some of the red-pill advice, philosophy, and science from the manosphere and you’ve got a template for masculine success.

I’ll let the videos speak for themselves (and perhaps comment on certain aspects of the seminars in later posts). But here I would like to discuss a phrase Mystery used a couple times throughout his seminars–“barrage of boring.” It is a phrase that carries with it a lot of weight. Not only does it perfectly describe the Beta Experience® offered to and passed upon by women the world over, it is powerful ammunition in the fight against haters who claim game is subterfuge.

The best arguments tend to be laconic in nature. What better response to some blowhard who rails on about game being a tool to manipulate women, or that it creates fake guys, or that it’s only good for teaching guys what not to do, than “Girls are tired of the barrage of bore.” In this smartphone world of meager attention spans and flaking epidemics, the last thing a man can be in front of a woman is BORING. And they indeed suffer through a barrage of it. As much as we’d like to think that men are slowly gravitating towards the light of truth vis-á-vis women’s primal natures, I can’t tell you how much bad game I witness on a regular basis. The getting-to-know-you questions of the comfort stage are commonplace within the first five minutes (if not as the opener itself). Demonstrations of higher value are as rare as French war victories. Negs and teasing? Out of the question.

Men, our women are bored. Mystery pointed this out in 2005. And it’s not getting any better. If there’s any cause we really need to “man up” for, this would be it. The fact is, most women would ultimately RATHER be manipulated by an exciting, high value man than engage in stodgy conversation with a milquetoast beta playing it straight. Mystery pointed out that the average good-looking 23-year old girl has already been hit on thousands of times in her life. You really think you can come in and play Interview Question game with her and achieve anything beyond a phone number not worth the receipt it’s written on?

Sadly, reality isn’t what most of us wish it was. Men, the true romantics, like to envision a world in which a girl “gets them” after five minutes of dull conversation and they go on to live happily ever after. Unless you’re courting Jennifer Livingston, that doesn’t happen. You have to provide value, real or not, to be interesting to an attractive woman. Like it or not, you’ve got to entertain the hamster, just not in the typical ways it has come to expect.

So, how does one avoid becoming another flying turd in her barrage of bore? A few thoughts:

  • Stand out. Know your situation and calibrate. If all the other guys are stumbling around drunk, keep your head on tight for the night. If you’re at the church social, be the shady guy who’s cool enough to make her forget her parents would never approve of you. Be masculine when the world is turning every other man gynic. Peacock inasmuch as you can exude confidence, while remembering the real reason you’re doing it.
  • Come up with stories illustrating you’re preselected, dominant, a protector of loved ones, fun, and spontaneous. If you don’t have any such stories, start going out more. Or make one up.
  • Demonstrate that you have a sense of humor. Bring an energy slightly above that which is already in the set. Learn to recognize shit tests and stop falling for them.
  • Demonstrate an ability to walk away, even if she’s “hijacked your brain” (great phrase coined by Mystery) during comfort.
  • Don’t be afraid to admit you have feelings for her, but in ways that show you’re not needy or desperate.
  • Develop skills and talents. Be a well-rounded, well-read man.
  • Don’t be afraid to try something new. I’m all for following a pre-schemed path from attraction to comfort to seduction, but you’ve got to learn to trust your gut. The man who can’t calibrate is a man who must masturbate.

“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?

So You’re Suddenly Cocky-Funny?

Over at PUA Forums, there was a concern coming from someone who felt he had failed in transitioning from his old AFC self to cocky-funny at his workplace, noting that the girls there didn’t want to talk to him anymore. There was an insightful comment from LockDown, who expounded on a theory he had about using cocky-funny techniques on girls at work:

Im not a super PUA yet or anything but i had a theory about c and f and work.

I believe when u try it at work, you are dealing with women who have known u for so long that c&f fries their brain. They already have u set up as a friend ( u said they used to hang out). Now they see a new side of u… an attractive side. Its hard to reconcile those two things. So they kinda back off. B4 they were comfortable with u because u were in LJBF zone (unless u have more info to contrary). So it was easy for them to approach u and ask to hang out. However, when u show the alpha qualities, they now want u to lead. They are attracted so they go into ‘ i dont want to give off obvious signs that i like him’ mode.

But trust me its there. U just have to lead now. Take the rains and run with it. Im sure they are at least curious about why/how u had this personality change.

I too have noticed this phenomenon. When you go C&F on a girl you’ve never met before, she won’t bat an eye, because she doesn’t have any preconceived notions of you. But when you do it on a girl who knows you already (particularly at work, where you’re not only pegged as beta but you’re also within the bounds of a “professional” environment), your feedback may not be so welcoming.

The reason I quote LockDown’s post and not the others isn’t because there wasn’t good advice, but that it was predictable — he went “over the top,” he didn’t “calibrate correctly,” etc. But they were all based on the assumption that the girls at work didn’t like what he was doing. LockDown’s analysis adds another possibility — that they actually were attracted to their new and improved co-worker but didn’t know how to “reconcile” it. In other words, the same behavior coming from a complete stranger would have had them swooning, but because it was from their LJBF work buddy, they rationalized against their attraction.

I like the last paragraph of the comment the best. It illustrates the maxim that irrational self-confidence trumps rational defeatism every time. Assume the sale. That is the heart of cocky-funny. Without that attitude as your foundation, your cocky-funny will crash and burn, and will make girls uncomfortable. Also, he is very astute in the observation that the girls are “at least curious” about why the sudden change in attitude and behavior has come about. Even if he did take it “too far,” the female brain can’t help but wonder why. And if they’re wondering about you, that means you’ve gotten into their heads — which puts you above 90% of the ignored whitenoise coming from the scores of betas they sift through every day.

Of course it’s possible that the guy who made the original post didn’t calibrate properly, and the advice of the other posters was spot-on. But as far as what we can take and apply from his experiences, LockDown’s theory is what should be kept in mind. Just a few caveats:

  • Don’t bother trying this on unattractive girls, and keep it to a minimum on average girls. The hotter the girl, the better C&F game works. And while every girl, fat or thin, ugly or pretty, will be curious about the change, why bother if she’s not worth hooking up with?
  • It should be obvious, but save your best C&F game for when you get together outside the workplace. The core of your workplace game should be about leading with authority, constructing an unbreakable frame, and not being overly accommodating to others’ demands. So in other words, demonstrate alpha much more indirectly than directly. The last thing you need is some bullshit sexual harassment suit. But then again, if you’re really C&F’ing correctly, they’re going to feel so disqualified that if you do get in trouble, it will be for simply being an asshole. Not necessarily a bad thing. Calibration is of utmost importance on this one.
  • Don’t actively chase any girl who has LJBF’ed you. Your pursuits should be going towards a new crop of girls. Let the co-worker chicks chase you if they like your game enough. But remember, the best way for that to happen is to combine your C&F with a little dose of preselection.

Female Rock Singer Comes Clean (Dirtily)


Once in awhile, when the planets align just so, the world of red pill truth is made known by someone of the female persuasion. Metal band In This Moment, led by Maria Brink, has a new song, “Blood,” which does just that.

First of all, I must give a shout-out to the ditty itself. In This Moment hasn’t found itself at the top of my ipod playlist before, but “Blood” is an aggressive and melodic journey of a song that will no doubt remain a favorite for years to come.

Beyond the unique sound, there’s something else very revealing in this song — its lyrics. It’s rare enough to get the truth out of males in the entertainment industry, many of whom reflect the current sad-sack state of our society by pedestalizing women and demonizing men, but to hear it from females is a virtual non-occurrence (aside from Rihanna). As such, I feel obliged to post the lyrics here, with brief input of my own (in crimson font). Behold, a glance into What Women Don’t Want®, and What Women Really Want®…

I hate you for the sacrifices you made for me

I hate you for every time you ever bled for me

What Women Don’t Want: a man who puts her before himself. “He obviously can’t attract any other women,” says the Hamster.

I hate you for the way you smile when you look at me

What Women Don’t Want: a man who has fallen head-over-heels. “Now he’s going to start failing my shit tests,” frets the Hamster.

I hate you for never taking control of me

What Women Don’t Want: a man who is submissive. “I want to feel as though I am nothing,” muses the Hamster.

I hate you for always saving me from myself

What Women Don’t Want: a man who’s stable enough to save her. “He’s so boring,” mutters the Hamster.

I hate you for always choosing me and not someone else

What Women Don’t Want: a man who isn’t a player. “If he makes me his everything, I could obviously do better,” utters the Hamster.

I hate you for always pulling me back from the edge

I hate you for every good word you ever said

What Women Don’t Want: a man who compliments her. “He’s just saying that to get into my pants,” suggests the Hamster.

Blood, blood, blood, pour more through my veins

Shut your dirty, dirty mouth, I’m not that easy

Blood, blood, blood, pour mud through my veins

I’m a dirty, dirty girl, I want it filthy

I love you for everything you ever took from me

What Women Really Want: a man who takes what he wants. “He’s so powerful,” swoons the Hamster.

I love the way you dominate and you violate me

What Women Really Want: a powerful man. “I orgasm freely when he takes me completely,” smiles the Hamster.

I love you for every time you gave up on me

What Women Really Want: a man not hypnotized by her games. “I can’t use sex as a bargaining chip. He must know how to get it elsewhere,” imagines the Hamster.

I love you for the way you look when you lie to me

What Women Really Want: a douchebag. “I like douchebags,” affirms the Hamster.

I love you for not believing in what I say

What Women Really Want: a man socially savvy enough to see through her bullshit. “He knows how my mind works. How sexy,” decides the Hamster.

I love you for never once giving me my way

What Women Really Want: to submit. “Maybe happiness isn’t what feminism tells me it is,” realizes the Hamster.

I love you for never delivering me from pain

What Women Really Want: pain. “Why don’t I want to fuck him whose shoulders I cry on?” asks the Hamster.

I love you for always driving me insane

What Women Really Want: drama. “I’m a spoiled American whore who needs chaos in my life,” says the Hamster.

Blood, blood, blood, pour more through my veins

Shut your dirty, dirty mouth. I’m not that easy

Blood, blood, blood, pour mud through my veins

I’m a dirty, dirty girl, I want it filthy

I hate you for every time you ever bled for me

Admittedly, this post may be a bit tongue-in-cheek, sure, but the one underlying truth that we must come to grips with is so perfectly illustrated in it: what women say they are attracted to and what they’re actually attracted to are completely different things. Thank you Maria Brink for the honesty.

Tomorrow The Sun Will Rise

“And I know what I have to do now. I gotta keep breathing. Because tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?” -Chuck Noland, Cast Away

—-

We all have those nights.

I was tired. I was inside my head. I had a few too many drinks. My game sucked. And I wanted out. Not just of the venue, but of the game entirely.

I was sick of women. Sick of the hoops, the entitled attitude, the flaking. And yes, I was blaming them. They were the reason I was striking out. It was their fault. I was the victim.

—-

[the sun rises]

What a counterproductive mindset that is. The victim mentality is the most cankerous psychological struggle we face when trying to improve our social interactions. It provides a tidy little excuse why we shouldn’t improve, or worse, why we can’t improve. Once we convince ourselves that something is beyond our control, it is. The victim card is the subterfuge for a weak will.

I believe the antidote is hope.

I have a different view on hope than some of my fellow bloggers, who tend to criticize the concept. Hope is what drives me. Not the phony hope of a fantasy world so many of us have constructed. But hope grounded in truth, like that tomorrow the sun will rise. Or that I am capable of attracting the girls I desire.

Keep breathing, gentlemen.

The “Original” Roissy: Still Around

There have been grumblings of late around the Manosphere that the blog Chateau Heartiste (formerly Roissy in D.C.) has been taken over by authors other than the original Roissy. While it’s true that the blog changed web addresses last July, the blog has itself hinted at multiple bloggers, and he was “outed” by Lady Raine, Roissy is still the main man over there. His influence continues to be direct, not indirect.

All it took to figure this out was a quick scan through some of his early writings. No one will disagree with the premise that anything written in 2007 was a Roissy original. So, as a side project (language studies has always been one of my minor hobbies), I started searching for unusual phrases, words, and writing tics used in the first few months of Roissy in D.C. What I found was pretty clear evidence that the same guy who started the blog in 2007 continues to write for the blog in the 2010s. It is my stance that he, at the very least, writes a considerable majority of the posts at the Chateau in 2012.

Here are some of the words and phrases from 2007 posts that I found repeated in posts from 2010 (about the time people started wondering if something was up) or later. Some are repeated more than once. I have simply posted the earliest and most recent uses of each word/phrase:

I find it interesting in particular that five of these examples have all been repeated in posts from the past month or so. And this is just with phrases I happened to search (who knows what I missed) mostly from the first three months of his blog. So unless Uncle Rois is passing down specific writing styles to new blood along with his shrewd philosophy, it’s obvious he’s still the one manning the ship at the Chateau.

Some other things I noticed:

  • Without fail, when Roissy has posted in the comments of his blog, he’s always written, with the exception of a handful of posts a couple years ago, in exclusively lowercase letters. He did switch from making individual posts as Roissy at the blog’s inception to simply adding bold-styled comments at the end of others’ posts, but the style of response remains the exact same.
  • The blog has consistently provided examples of strikethrough font as sort of a sarcastic “correcting” tool. This can be seen in some of the first posts and as recently as June 2012.
  • Roissy has never followed the APA rules for putting commas inside quotation marks. All punctuation has always been outside. This is something I’ve noticed throughout the blog’s history.
  • Most importantly, the same tone is still there. The short sentences. The verbose eloquence. The facund vulgarity. The smugness. A consistent message. I’m not saying it couldn’t be duplicated, but when I read new posts from the Chateau I’m hearing the same voice that came out in his early stuff. Maybe not in every post, but most of them.

Now, as a pre-emptive strike against the haters, this endeavor took me two hours to complete — a fun little task after one of my most prolific weekends meeting girls. I thought it was necessary for anyone who considers Roissy a major influence. I know I do. The combination of the pick-up arts and certain blogs, particularly his, changed the way I perceived the world. And it’s important to me to know if the message is coming from the same person or not.

It’s also an interesting look into human thought to see how quickly people jump on the bandwagon assuming something, like that the original Roissy isn’t blogging anymore, when it’s clear to anyone observant enough that he is still alive, well, and posting some reallygoodstuff.