Proposed: Manliness is Authority

The essence of manliness is authority. It’s the need and ability to make decisions, to pronounce those decisions, and to act upon them. Strength, power, command, competency, respect, courage, assertiveness…these are all parts of authority, but they lack the spoken component. Good and right speech is indivisible from authority.

When men succeed, they succeed along the paradigm of authority; be it wise decisions, strength, assertiveness, achievement or any of the other forms of authority. The classic example is the Battle of Thermopylae; which is especially poignant because they all died. Because they died in paramount expressions of wise decisions, strength, courage, assertiveness, respect, and achievement we call them manly, and even though they died we mean that with very high respect because of what went into that fight. They were mighty.

A modest modern example is a young man who decides to get a car. He gets a job to pay for a car and buys it. He learns how to maintain that car. That is manly.

We also count men’s failure along the paradigm of authority. Adam listened to the voice of his wife and ate the fruit instead of acknowledging the authority that was given him, acknowledging the authority that was kept from him, and for at least speaking the truth to Eve when she gave him the fruit. We’re still stinging from that one.

The young man who is given a car, doesn’t take care of it and can’t be bothered to learn how: We call him girly. He is not manly even if that car is a $50,000 vehicle.

To Hit Attraction Class 0

There is a connection between the sportsball and RPG surveys, and the law of female attraction. I titled it as The First Law, but the respect of men[1] is so important to attracting females that a man could consider it the only factor and still improve his available pool of women in ways which he could not by focusing on his other attributes.

Sportsball–particularly team versions of sportsball–teach a man how to operate in a social performance context. That’s obvious. But it also teaches him the importance of respecting his teammates. It also confers on him some of the overall respect given to the team. That respect is not zero-sum.[2] A quarterback does not get 80% of the respect while the other 20% is divided among the other players. The distribution of respect is not equal either: Each player does not get the same amount of the team’s overall respect. I could describe the distribution of respect in a few different ways. Keep in mind this is to describe a dynamic; not to define it.

Imagine a simple 1-10 scale of respect. Let’s further imagine a football team with an overall respect (GR) of 8. The quarterback is conferred a personal respect (PR) of 4 when viewed in isolation, e.g., walking around in a crowd while no one has any idea who he is. If he is recognized as the quarterback though–because of the effect of being on a team with a respect of 8–he gets 5 additional points for a total of 9 in situations where he is known as the quarterback of the football team.

A lineman gets a similar kind of boost, but lesser, and he also starts off further down the scale. Most linemen are fat because it helps them do their job. He starts at a personal respect of 2. He’s on the team, but he’s not as integral as the quarterback so only 3 points of the team’s overall respect are conferred upon him for a total of 5 in situations where he is recognized as a member of the football team. Even so–and this is the point–the fat, known lineman’s rating of 5 is more than twice as good as 2, and is even better than the fit, unknown quarterback’s rating of 4.

RPG groups function in the same way, only with lower numbers. You can learn social dynamics in a RPG group even though the social aptitude of the people is likely to start at less. As one YouTuber put it: “D&D is the most fun you can have with your brain.” There is no end to the skills and knowledge which can be applied to a RPG; writing, drawing, tactics, strategy, acting, history, conflict resolution, math, abstract thinking… And like sportsball, RPGs are a social performance activity, and even though the activity itself is done by “dweebs“, there are residual respect effects conveyed upon members of the group if the members of the group known are known as a group; even if the group’s specific activity is hidden… a secret which I might recommend in the case of RPGs.

You aren’t in control of what is cool, but even activities which are less cool can provide benefits. Five dudes hanging out to discuss their RPG is only going to attract a few nerdy girls, but it attracts girls at all it’s because there is a group. (Yes, there are girls out there who want to invade RPG groups. If you don’t like sports: Marry one of those.) And the gamemaster is going to get a greater share of the overall respect (PR 1 + GR 2) than a player (PR 1 + GR 1). A lone guy reading a RPG book or planning a campaign isn’t going to attract even one girl; hardly ever, because he remains a 1. As dorky as RPGs might be, 2 is twice as good as 1.

My example answers to the surveys were my actual answers. I played baseball (I was good.) and basketball (I was terrible.), medaled gold and bronze on the Academic Decathlon team, and played RPGs at least once every two weeks with my friends…and we never–ever!–told anyone–especially girls!–that we played D&D.

We all played sports and went to parties and absolutely ruled the sand volleyball courts at the park. We never discussed D&D at school. We were not the trench-coat-n-fedora guy muttering over a rulebook in the cafeteria during lunch.

The main thing is we were seen as a team of friends who respected each other and that group dynamic attracted girls. At the same time: We didn’t shoot our own wheels off by telling the unprivileged about our nerdy activities. (I didn’t talk about Aca-Dec much, either.) Later, as girls became girlfriends only then would we nonchalantly let it be known in an organic situation. “Hey babe. Yeah, I can’t go tonight. Me and some guys are going to hang out, watch a movie, and maybe play some D&D.” 

---

[1] I prefer respect to status because the latter has a rhetorical effect in that it conjures up rankings in a way that can mislead. A commissioned officer has more status than a noncommissioned officer, but he doesn’t necessarily have more respect. A king has ultimate status in the kingdom, but a respected general can usurp him.

[2] Professional sports as practiced in the the US perverts team sports into something close to a zero-sum game because of the amount of money involved, and because of formal sports journalism.

 

 

Whore Mother May I

4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. 5 And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.”6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

When I saw her, I marveled greatly.

I’m sure most of my readers are familiar with Dalrock’s repeated skewering of theological cross-dressing. So they’re also aware that in Protestant teaching and churches this happened under the teaching of the theology of Complementarianism. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was formed in 1987 specifically to spread that theology. They have been widely and wildly successful.

But did you know that complementarianism first becomes a thing in a movement called New Feminism? New Feminism is a conservative feminist movement of the 1920s supposedly meant to combat radical feminism by swallowing the radical conceits under a dress. There are overlaps in leadership with the suffragettes. It was also a Roman Catholic movement. The writings of John Paul II are supportive of New Feminism, and I do not know of a retraction from either Benedict XVI, or Francis.

What I observe when I look at Protestant or Roman Catholic clergy is that they are far-and-away more likely to be sons of their mothers rather than sons of their fathers. In short: Clergy are a collection of Momma’s-boys. This makes sense once we realize that the organizing thought of New Feminism, and therefore Complementarianism is around the concept of Mother; not wife, or sister, or daughter. Those are viewed as larval stages. Full-grown woman is Mother. But the Bible, and most of the vastness of Christian theology, teaches men that we are to be imitators of Christ. Christ’s emphasis is on being a son of God; even when full-grown.

Let me say the overarching theology of Christian Complementarianism clearly: The vocation of men is to be Sons of God, and the vocation of women is to be Mothers of God.

What I have also observed of the women of Christian churches is that the majority of them both affirm and excuse the abuse of sex as a means to get what they want (attention, material objects, affection, status, etc.) rather than as the enjoyable work of marriage. They abuse sex by fornicating while unmarried to get what they want, and by refusing sex while married; to either display their unhappiness, or with the full-blown sexual refusal which is divorce. This is the essence of whoredom. The rumors about Catholic school-girls are not unfounded, nor are those about the daughters of Protestant preachers and deacons.

Proposed: Complementarianism just is matriarchy. It was smuggled into churches under the guise of the goodness of motherhood which scratched itchy conservative ears. It has delivered to us whores, and delivered us unto whores.

A Grace for Men

As I’ve maintained: I write this blog for present and future husbands and fathers. Today that sentiment will become more visible. From now on, comments from women will be deleted. My hope is that this will encourage a more brotherly atmosphere. It is doubted in my mind if there has ever been a time or place where men (even Christian men) could talk frankly–and hear earnestly–in the presence of audible women (even Christian women).

Women will probably still read here. They may continue to “Like” posts. They might be in my “Blogs I Read” list. I like women very much, and enough of them like me, but we are made in such a way that men will always react to a woman’s presence, and while it is easy for me to police that tendency in myself, I know it is not for others. This is a grace to them, for a change.

As this goes forward, I won’t be preemptively adding past female commenters to the “moderated” list. My method will be to unapprove them as I see them, and as I am able to discern the commenter is a woman. Some may dress themselves in men’s names and sneak through, but even as they do so they remove the impact of men reacting to a female presence. It would be a meaningless victory for the pretender. At some point I will add this to the tabbed pages, or the “About” tab.

Because He Said So

Despite devilish and divisive opinions to the contrary, there exist persons explicitly ordained and commanded to say what is–and what is not–modest. They are called fathers and husbands. The reason I said “To get out of this trap is going to take generations. I suspect that my daughters may be among the first Yiayias in a long time” is because Yiayia’s don’t occur out of nowhere. Nor do their standards of modesty arise from the ether. They are the product of long and loving toil from their fathers and husbands.

A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches,
    and favor is better than silver or gold.
2 The rich and the poor meet together;
    the Lord is the maker of them all.
3 The prudent sees danger and hides himself,
    but the simple go on and suffer for it.
4 The reward for humility and fear of the Lord
    is riches and honor and life.
5 Thorns and snares are in the way of the crooked;
    whoever guards his soul will keep far from them.
6 Train up a child in the way he should go;
    even when he is old he will not depart from it.

and

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body.

The generations before us–since at least and including “The Greatest Generation”–have not only dropped the ball, but tossed it out of the park and declared the whole activity of raising children to be a null and boring and even oppressive pastime. The field itself was let to go wild; so now men like Empath, Dalrock, Oscar–and yes myself–are flat lost in a thorny, rocky, arid wilderness that many pretend is still a fit ballpark. It’s a lie.

What seems so mysterious and subjective to women is not to men. That is because while women are well-positioned to police these matters, they are not the arbiters of them. Husbands and fathers are. What makes Yiayias unseemly to modern people–why they work to make them irrelevant, and corral them into oblivion–is that those women bear the beauty of truth from a lifetime of listening to their husbands and fathers; who they did not rebel against and who they did not divorce as our post-modern women do.

Of those husbands and fathers, not one of them was perfect. It didn’t matter because for the person in the position of submission: Obedience unto a husband and father and unto God will itself prove fruitful. Likewise, imperfection in training a child or washing a wife with the Word does not nullify God’s promise. Steadfast faithfulness with what we have been entrusted will bring forth a harvest.

So, modesty is defined and judged by the fathers and husbands, and policed by older women

2 But as for you (Titus, the pastor of the church in Crete, a man) , teach what accords with sound doctrine. 2 Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Likewise, despite raging controversies over whether Christians ought to date, hook-up, engage in formalized courtship, whathaveyou–the main and Biblical thing is to do is: What your own father and husband approves.  Dating, courtship, “the college experience”…these are all systems that may have been put forth as helpful guidelines, but the moment the father becomes subject to them rather than the systems subject to the fathers, then they become corrals to pen in the shepherds. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Patriarchy scares women. More importantly it incites them to harridan heights under the excuse of fear. But like a man must gird his loins even when fear turns his bowels to water, women are going to have to reach deep down insides themselves and kill that rebellious spirit.

If the Christian’s Men’s Sphere proves anything, it’s that fathers and husbands will have discussions among themselves. They will set the community standards; fluidly and organically, but like concerned family farmers with a vested interest and not as eco-crazed nihilists or money-crazed corpo-rape-tions.  These things can remain subjective and mysterious to women (as their nature adores), but to us they will be toiled over and decided in love. At the same time, we depend most heavily on the support of women to uphold us as we undertake these tasks. It is not good for us to be alone. The blessings of Yiayias are hard to overstate. Just ask those of us fathers and husbands who lack them.

Wisdom

My long view, unlike others, is not one where Christian principles take the world (or Western Civilization) by storm and through blood and smoke we right this ship of iniquity. God said that’s His domain, and that He turned it over to Christ, and that Christ’s good work is already being done. We’re just waiting while Our Lord tarries. Yet when Our Lord returns, He most surely will make an end to all those who have not heeded His call.

Before Paul writes to the Corinthians about marriage, he writes of a situation in their church where a man is sleeping with his father’s wife.

5 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. ² And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. ³ For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, ⁴ in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, ⁵ to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Catch that? The flesh belongs to Satan (That’s why we’re all going to die before we are reclaimed and resurrected.), but the Spirit rightfully belongs to Christ. Not only that, but the job of the destruction of the flesh belongs to Satan; not Cane; not Cane’s children; not SunshineMary’s church; not the Roman Catholics; not some future earthly king. Satan. If you are in the business of the destruction of the flesh, you’re in league with Satan. This isn’t hard to understand. It’s hard to hear; especially when you feel like you’re alone. There is no Magnificent Seven coming to save our earthly shells. (Foreshadowing likely posts to come, here).

By the way: “spirit” here means both “why you do what you do”, and “your essence”.

⁶ Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? ⁷ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: ⁸ therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

This is what Dalrock is talking about when he says,

Roissy and the other PUAs aren’t the ones who destroyed marriage. Feminists did with the enthusiastic support of modern Christians. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the very obvious sins of Roissy, but what I see very often is Christians focusing on Roissy’s sins as a sort of smokescreen to avoid accepting the profound failure of modern Christians to honor what God entrusted to us. “Look at Roissy’s sin!” is very often the prelude to “Nothing to see here (in Christianity) folks, move along!” That Roissy has anything to teach Christians about marriage should be deeply humbling to Christians. Very often instead the response is hubris and chest thumping about how morally superior Christians are to Roissy.

And this is true: Most Christians are eating not only with the old leaven of fornication and idolatry, but the new leaven of malice and wickedness; some by their desire to see their enemies dead, some by their desire to see others suffer, and some by their desire to imitate such activities from which we should rather desire to see them redeemed and forgiven.

This leaven was added to the fact that those Corinthians Christians were celebrating a member’s freedom from the Law in Christ to fornicate with his father’s wife since it wasn’t “against the Law”. Yes it was. The Law has been fulfilled, but it still exists, and fornication still goes against it. You might say you never do that because fornication with your mother-in-law is really creepy, but I wonder how many of us have congratulated a Christian brother on his marriage to a Christian woman who was previously married to another living Christian man? Is that man not sleeping with his living brother’s wife? How is it better to celebrate sleeping with your sister-in-law? Because she’s younger, hotter, tighter?

⁹ I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: ¹⁰ yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

Don’t kill yourself trying to get away from non-Christians. It’s a good thing to be among them. This, I see, as the good of the Men’s Sphere. It’s a place where Christian men who are intent on being a witness–a sign–for Jesus Christ can speak freely to non-Christians.

¹¹ But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. ¹² For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? ¹³ But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

So any man who professes Christ, but does not repent of the sins of those sins  should be anathema; he should be shunned. This means that a Christian who says, “I’ll quit later”, or, “Look, the world is the way the world is, and I’m just a squirrel trying to get a nut.” is not to share your company; not even to eat with him. In other words: It is better for you or him to starve than to accept this behavior; this spirit; this essence.

Note also that there is a running assumption that there are no non-Christians in the church of Corinth. You don’t bring a stranger to church to get Christ. You take the Gospel and your witness into the world, and you bring Christians to church for discipleship and communion. What concord does Christ have with Belial?

¹⁴ Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? ¹⁵ and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

Well, here the rubber hits the road for bringing Game into church. Is a church congregation’s problem that its men are weak in understanding women, or is their understanding of women weak because they do not actually believe what is revealed in Scripture that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; that all men and women are full of idolatry, licentiousness, fornication, murder, and other kinds of sin? Have those men been deceived by other men, or have they chosen to believe it because they want to curry favor with women in the hopes of attracting one and getting her drunk enough on pride that she’ll do him the favor of “marrying” (read: sleeping with) him? Now…that’s a different tactic than getting her drunk on pride for having the status granted by a man other women want to have sex with, but it sounds like an applied psychology for seducing women to me…albeit a far less effective one for the tastes of the sinners of our times.

So, now what?

An Eros-driven Christian replacing one worldly system of Game for another is simply a false and vain teaching if Game mean anything  separate than wisdom. In Mansophere terms: It is replacing the lie of Churchianity with the lie of Game. And if Game does mean wisdom, then call it Wisdom, and pursue her. She, unlike Eros and unlike his mother Venus, actually is truth.

²⁰ Wisdom crieth without;
she uttereth her voice in the streets:
²¹ she crieth in the chief place of concourse,
in the openings of the gates:
in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
²² How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity?
and the scorners delight in their scorning,
and fools hate knowledge?
²³ Turn you at my reproof:
behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you,
I will make known my words unto you.

I take True Love, Feminism, Chivalry, Egalitarianism, Liberal Democracy, Churchianity, and Game all as proof that far, far too much credit has been given to Athens. However; I have to give the Greeks credit for at least one thing: Mixing Eros[1]  and Athena[2]  was one androgynous step too far even for the man-boy-loving Athenians. Nor did they enthrone Hera[3] over Zeus. You need modern scholarship to go to rot if you want to fester this false choice between hermaphroditic and pagan gods. You need convoluted systems of thought manufactured by man, and to fail to abandon them when they break down. Honestly: Look at how hard it is to get people to define “Game”.

But you don’t need much scholarship at all to evade all of that and get wisdom, the truth, and the Truth. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and wisdom is the key to all these things; even lowly things like how to find and attract a wife. Wherever one would find instruction in the fear of the Lord, there is the answer for the question of how to find a good wife: wisdom. One might say good wives come from God.

Game is not the truth anymore than Eros, Athena, Psyche, or Zeus is the truth; none of whom are of Christ, who is the Truth. Yet wisdom is the truth. She belongs to and follows behind and serves the God of Abraham alone.

[1] The vagina-tingle generating fatherless son of the single mother Aphrodite, goddess of physical love, beauty, and pleasure

[2] The dutiful and martial goddess of wisdom and warfare; daughter of the father of gods, Zeus.

[3] Goddess of women and marriage; famous for hen-pecking Zeus. The animals associated with Hera are the cow (dumb women), the lion (beast of beasts), and the peacock (show-offs).

More Human than You, Man

Recently, I’ve given people around $70 for the privilege of watching pictures flit by at a high rate of speed in two respective sequences. One called “Don Jon”, and another with the captivating title, “Prisoners”. (bah-dum-ch!) Reviews will probably be forthcoming, but for now I want to talk about a third film that I saw twice while waiting to retrieve my already surrendered value coupons.

It’s a documentary advert about an appliance that can answer answer obscure questions, build confidence, provide companionship, and instruct mating habits. The appliance is called Nexus 7.

Like Government Check Dad, this app can’t play catch, but it does leave Mom free to live a more empowered and YOLO life than previous generations could afford. I’m not sure how the Treehouse of Solitude gets built under this dynamic, but once it is the kid can just hang there by himself and let Google’s pathetic bastardization of The Young Gentleman’s Illustrated Primer initiate him into the mysteries of life.

Shine ‘Em Up!

Though I would rather be home waking up to the scent of Mrs. Caldo’s daily offering of fresh-brewed coffee, and preparing myself for church*, instead I am on the road and serving my earthly masters at a fashion show.

More on that later, perhaps.

Per my habits, I visited the circle of imperfects. Being that I had nothing to do today but be available, I had put on my navy suit and some snappy burgundy Rockports: standard business fare. It was foggy, which means still, and I was enjoying the peace of it when a security guard followed the sound of her footsteps out of the mist.

“Mornin’ “, she warned. Her face was nearly as lifeless. She was a heavy-set middle-aged black woman, her stiff hair tied back in a severe bun. Wires of it shot out in rebellion of the stricture. Her shirt had taken the same tack, and hung untucked from under her black windbreaker. “SECURITY”, it said. All of which gave me the impression that it was the end of the graveyard shift for her; which did something to explain her Droopy Dog expression. I took Droopette’s challenge, and fired back.

“Good morning!”, I bawled. The main cannon so discharged, I followed up with a full broadside of pearly whites. It was a withering attack, and her morosity immediately sunk into the the watery air. One lone woman survived, and she raised the white flag of a smile.

She really was very black, and so the surrender was quite stark, spectacular, and pleasing.

Victorious, I turned back towards the fog and took a drag from my Pall Mall.

A signal rocket flared up behind me. “Mm oos uu ah shiny!”, it said.

“Sorry. What was that?”

“I said them shoes sure are shiny! Did you do that yourself?”

“I do shine my own shoes, but these are fairly new. I’ve only worn them three times.”

“Oh, ok. Well they look real good. Have a blessed day!”

“You too, ma’am.”

A man that takes the time to run a quick clean-up–on shoes or attitudes–makes them much brighter; though some shoes take much more work than others, and some shoes simply cannot be salvaged.

*Allow me a brief aside: Get dressed for church. Proper dress for the occasion is a recurring theme in scripture. Do this because it is good for you, and good for those around you. Your nakedness is uncovered by God (for good and bad; for the joy of communion and pain of the need for repentance.) but our dress is an expression of our attitude and spirit towards whatever occasion or event we are attending. Understand that it is the adornment of the spirit that is important, but we are half animal. What we express physically–with clothes–has an effect on our spirit, and vice versa. I lay no undue burden on you to wear a suit or meet any specific standard, but you can at least tuck in your shirt men, and cover your shoulders ladies. This is not a fashion show, but an intimate family wedding rehearsal dinner. (Resale shops are your friend, if you are cash-strapped. There is almost no excuse in America.) Do not get caught undressed. Again: I’m speaking about the spirit, and how your spirit will respond to the flesh. Because every rivers runs into the sea, and our Lord reaps where He did not sow, this habit will overflow from Sunday mornings into the rest of your life. You will reap benefits from being dressed for the occasion at work, school, home ,and–yes–from women. Also, men: Go to church. If nothing else, you can get a sense of the importance to not be an effeminate leader.

A Perspective of Wood and Work

The great thing about writing on men and women, and how they interact, is that these two kinds of people are everywhere.

This morning, as I manned my post at the Circle of Imperfects, another woman got out of a cab. This one was bottle-blonde, in a black mini-skirt, and jacket that accentuated her yoga-fied figure. Her five-foot two-inch frame was girded by five-inch heels and her make-up added as much to her stature. She was about 33-years old and petite; a very well put together careerist. She looked like Kelly Ripa circa 2000.

In her left hand was a coffee, and in her right was her purse–shadows of things to come, when age has washed the inside of her cup. She rounded the back of the cab to open the trunk. Missing that third hand*, she swiveled her head back and forth, searching for a suitable perch for her items, but none was found. She crouched down and set the Stabucks cup on the ground; still clutching her fashionably small purse in her right. Standing up, she reached for the Ford symbol, and tugged. Twice. Satisfied that it was firmly attached, but not the handle to the trunk, she looked around until she found the latch. Her success was brief, as the hatch sprang up, and nearly pulled her off the ground.

Pausing in her labors, she straightened her jacket, and then flipped her hair behind her shoulders–a vain effort because her hair was barely shoulder-length, and her jacket was perfectly fit. She reached into the trunk for her roller-board. Up came the jacket, and down went the hair.

She pulled on the case, but it was not convinced of her intent. Resolved, she lunged into the trunk, her right leg in the air, her purse tucked into an armpit that must be sweating, and both hands on the suitcase handle. She jerked, and the case moved halfway out. She squared her stripper-shod feet and reverse-deadlifted the case onto its wheels. Jacket is jerked back in place, and hair is aligned. Now she can move on into the building.

She bends over to pick up her coffee, and there goes the hair and jacket. Standing back up, hair in her face, she transfered the coffee to the sweaty-pitted arm clutching the purse, and used her left to pull up the handle on her roller-board. It leans it over, and she takes her first step…which goes uncompleted because the case has again lost faith in her capabilities.

The other door opens and a grey-suited man steps out. He’s about ten years older, five-foot ten, and seems to be in decent shape. It’s hard to tell in his well-cut suit. That’s the point of them. He sees Kelly Ripa struggling with the case, and transferring his day-planner to his left he smirks, grabs the handle, and wheels it behind him.

I was with him until he grabbed that case without her asking. His execution was good, but his routine lacked difficulty. I give it a seven.

Finished with my smoke, I walked back to work. As I was walking, I remembered a famous Internet meme that touches on what I just saw:

It struck me that the picture is a sort of rorschach for determining what sort of man one is, by Manosphere/Game standards.

Feminazi: That stupid woman should realize the man is making her carry her own destruction. He’s going to kill her; probably by raping her to death with a stick.

Typical Feminist/Church-goer: Why is that man doing nothing? He’s bigger, he’s stronger, and he has to be dirty, because all men are. He ought to be the one carrying the wood. Doesn’t he know how hard a woman’s life is without him oppressing her with carrying the firewood? I bet he likes beer. Men are pigs!

Player: What a beast. No wonder he makes her carry the firewood. If he doesn’t keep her busy, she may try to mate with him, or catch her breath, and start nagging. Good on him for keeping himself available in case he meets some trim coming the other way. Otherwise, he needs to up his Game if he wants younger/hotter/tighter; as every man does. Smoking can play to the right sort, but Millennials are out on it. He’s got a head start with dark hair, but the llama-wool coat is so 90s.

MRA: Why is there a woman there? Any man with sense knows she is going to use that firewood to barricade the door, and burn his house down with him inside…while he’s sleeping…or knocked-out after hitting him over the head with one…or to cook dinner for his “son” by another man…that no-good cuckolding abusive arsonist bitch. Firewood is the problem, and until we outlaw it no man is safe.

Patriarch: Where in Hell is his weapon? Collecting firewood is women’s work, so if he’s there, it must be either because its an unsafe area and he’s there to protect her, or she’s a lazy broad who has to be minded. Regardless, she’s got it under control. If there is trouble, better that he not be loaded down and unable to respond. He’s walking in front so there are no surprises ahead, and she doesn’t have to think about which direction to go; except his.

*Calling all evolutionary psychologists: When did that other hand disappear? You know, the one we keep expecting to grab the third object. It has to be significant. What does it mean?

There is no Poon III: Ain’t No Wang Either

This is the last post in the TINP series, and I wanted it to be as punctual as possible. Up until now, virtually all of the links to Game philosophy have been to Heartiste, but are actually Roissy’s older work. It was the Chateau’s original curator who laid (hey-o!) the foundation* of Game that the Manosphere builds upon. (No offense: Mystery, Neil Strauss, et al.) It’s time to get up to speed.

One of the current heavy-hitting Game writers is Rollo Tomasi, the author of The Rational Male. This is a lengthy quote, but worth the time. You can read it in context here.

[M]ore sociopathic men, being entirely self-concerned and outcome indifferent, are primarily the types of men women feel the most arousal for and attraction to. In other words, the sociopath, in his self-importance, can’t be bothered to observe the process of attraction in women.

That said, I can’t help but find a similar parallel in women’s cognitive ignorance of their own attraction cues. Women’s innate solipsism (further reinforced by fem-centrism), like the self-importance of the sociopathic man, predisposes her to be oblivious to her own pluralistic sexual strategy (Alpha vs. Beta attraction). A woman’s solipsistic nature suggests she can’t be bothered to observe her own process.

In fact I would argue that evolution and hypergamy has selected-for women who are more predisposed to being oblivious to their own attraction cues, thus allowing them more cognitive brain-space to be devoted to filtering for the best mating option and the best long term provisioning option among prospective males.

Here he breaks into some seriously convoluted evo-psych theorization. What’s really stunning** is that Rollo never links the “solipsism” (actually Dark Triad traits) of the these cave women to the their male children. In other words, he never gets the clue that Cads aren’t good at being men, they’re the wreckage of Bad Women.

Recently Professor Mentu had a twitter debate with a manosphere-aware female wondering if there were in fact ‘red pill women’. Naturally in her self-congratulatory solipsism she wanted credit as a woman figuring out the Men who’d figured out women. I got a good laugh out of this, as I do with bloggers like Aunt Giggles and a few select other manosphere women because in truth, all women are red pill women – it’s dragging the truth of the red pill out of them that’s the trick. (all emphasis in original)

Translation: The Red Pill man should imitate the Dark Triad man, because the Dark Triad man is successful at sleeping with women. The Dark Triad man is successful sleeping with women because he thinks like his single mother–he is the wannabe rocker, the aspiring rapper. He is the disaffected ne’er-do-well of a single mother. He projects onto everyone else what he has always and only known: how to make mother happy, and get what he wants. This works very well in our society, for obvious reasons.

That does not make it healthy, and admiration isn’t even a goal.

In the previous TNIP post, I showed how what we in the Manosphere call female solipsism–hamsterization–is really a low-to-mid-level expression of the Dark Triad traits left uncured in the minds of uncivilized women…which in our era is nearly all women. The two most well-known people (in terms relevant to the subject of the exhibition of solipsistic/Dark Triad traits) are Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton.

They are but two nipples of the many teats of an ancient Feminist. The peaks of those bulbous hills are pink and brown with rockstars, and rappers, and every shade of nervy and undeserving celebrity; each roused to harder heights by the removal of the cloth of Christian civility. But it is only among the round and fatuous globes do these protrusions seem cocky. Their penetration into the world are fleeting, and bear no fruit.***

The daughters of Artemis are absurd, and her sons choose the life of a eunuch.

*I had started a very long work of de-coding Roissy’s always relevant Sixteen Commandments of Poon back into their original Feminist languages, but I’ll probably cancel that. I’m itching to move on to something else. Besides, if the changing tenor in recent posts of Game-friendly blogs is any indication…

**Who is very sharp. That’s what makes it stunning.

***I sincerely hope this story ends with a reversal of fortunes.