Category Archives: Sex/Gender

Why Traditional Sex Roles Benefit Women

I am what many call a “sexist”, and the misogynist label has been sent my way a few times before. The sexism accusations usually come when I say something anti-feminist or acknowledge an unpleasant reality (in RL they also sometimes come when I make an off-colour joke).

But I do not hate women, rather I have a generally benevolent, if cynical, attitude towards them, just as I do to society as a whole. While I don’t particularly care about most women (or most men for that matter), I do generally like to see people get the best in life rather than the worst (other than the occasional bout of schaedenfreude or natural justice for the deserving).

And that is why I’m a sexist, because I wish women the best and they have been conned. The forces of disorder have have so manipulated the dominant narrative that many women (and men) now engage in fundamentally self-destructive behaviour.

So, for the purposes of helping women, I am going to clearly lay out the long con that has been played against you by society, the forces of disorder, ideologues, and the well-meaning but unknowing. This post is going to tie a lot of what I’ve written previously together, so links will be many.

****

Dear woman, you are taught to be independent, to avoid “ruining your life” with early marriage or having children young, to go to university and have your own career, and to avoid home-making. You are taught to be economically self-sufficient, to not be “controlled by your man”

In other words, you are taught to make your own life miserable. The jackals are trying to destroy your happiness, your sense of belonging, and your future family so they can economically exploit you. This may seem outrageous to you, but before being outraged, please finish reading, and consider the information I present. I don’t expect to change your mind now, but if I plant a seed of an idea, maybe you will germinate before you wind up miserable, exploited, alone, and beyond the point of no return.

Before I begin, know this: women nowadays are profoundly unhappy. Their unhappiness has been steadily declining for the last 4 decades. A quarter of all women use some sort mental health medication, and a quarter of women age 45 or older uses antidepressants. Women use antidepressents 2.5 times more than men and antidepressant use is rising rapidly. Nearly a quarter of women will get a depressive illness in their lifetime.

Women, particularly older women, are literally drugging themselves to escape the horrors of their life.

If you’re young, the choices you make now will determine if you’re part of that 1 in 4 women who needs drugs in middle age simply to get through the day.

So listen to me, and it may help you may avoid this.

****

Now, like most women, you probably want to get married and have children, if not right now, then at some point in the future. I know there are a few outlier women who never want to get married and never want to have children. If you are one of those women, ignore this, none of this will matter to you at all. But if you’re not one of these women, here is a warning for you. This is the trap that has been set for you all your life.

We will start with university. University, at least the liberal arts program you are probably considering, has turned into little more than a resource extracting scam. If you go to college, there is a one-third chance you will drop out with nothing to show for it. If you do graduate you will owe $23k in debt or so (on average), which may not seem like much, but if you are in the one-half of college graduates who are under- or unemployed (ie. you won’t be using your degree), it will hurt. One-half of young people have a job (or no job) that doesn’t require their degree. Choose your degree wisely; avoid liberal arts programs.

As for going to college to become a better person, there is a high chance you will learn almost nothing.

College is a trap to suck money from you. There is only a 1 in 3 chance you will get a degree and a job that requires your degree. You will be stuck with thousands of dollars of student debt either way.

If you find a job, you will be unhappy, maybe not now but eventually. 70% of people are disengaged from their jobs, 40% of people actively dislike their jobs. 67% of mothers wish they didn’t have to work full-time; among married mothers this increases to 77%. The profile of an unhappy worker is a single, 42-year-old professional woman.

Anecdotal accounts of women leaving the workplace to spend time with your children, or wishing they could and being unable to, are legion. 43% of women leave their jobs when they have children. Leaving your child at child care is often painful for many women. Feeling guilty or missing your children while at work is common (don’t worry you’ll adjust, it won’t always be that bad). 2/3’s of parents regret spending too much time at work instead of with their children. Most working women have difficulties with work-life balance.

To many women working is a hindrance to happiness and family life, but surely the extra money is good for the children?

But there is little extra money.

Taxes will take a good 30% of your income. If you’re married, daycare will take about 10% of your household income, which means it will take up about 20% of what you earn (assuming you and your husband earn the same; if he earns more, it will take up a larger share of your earnings). If you’re a single mother it will take up 30-40% of your income.

So half of what you will earn is accounted before you even earn it.

If you’re like most people (which you are), you’ll spend part of that income on a larger home. In fact, 30% of your “extra” income will go to a bigger house (which you’ll barely see, working full-time).

So, for busting your hump, about 20% (probably less) of what you earn will actually go to disposable income or improving your quality of life. That’s not the extra expenses of working: transportation, work clothes, lunches, coffee, etc. That $20 you earn will is more like $4 in the end.

But maybe missing your children and having only $4/hour in disposable income will be worth it because you will be doing exciting things at work?

Don’t count on it. Here’s a chart of the most common jobs women work:

All these jobs, with the exception of accountants and, possibly, managers (depending on what type of manager), can be divided into 6 categories: secretarial, food services, retail, nursing/personal care, housekeeping, and child-raising.

What do you notice about these six categories? With the exception of retail work, they are all things a housewife would be doing anyway.

So, instead of taking care of your family’s schedule, you will take care of your boss’s. Instead of feeding your family, you will feed other families. Instead of caring for your children and your parents, you’ll care of other people’s parents and children. Instead of cleaning your own house, you’ll clean someone else’s. Instead of raising your own child, you’ll raise someone else’s. Or you may be working in retail, which everyone hates.

It is highly likely that at your job you will be doing exactly what you would have done staying home, except you’ll be serving strangers rather than the husband and children you love.

So, in all likelihood you will be working a job you don’t care about or even actively hate, wishing you could work less. You will be missing your children as they are raised by other people so that you can care for other people’s families, all so that you can make a couple bucks an hour in disposable income to spend on consumerist crap and pills to make the depression go away. In addition, you will go into large amounts of debt for this privilege.

Does that sound like a good deal to you, dear woman?

Does that sound like the good life to you?

****

It probably doesn’t. So, what can you do about it?

First, you have to get a husband. If you do not have a husband you will be forced to work that miserable job or starve (or go on welfare). Remember above, single mothers spend 30-40% of their income on child care. Add on 30% of your income for housing and 30% for taxes, and you will have only 10% of income left for everything else (although, your tax burden will likely be lower than average and government handouts will stretch that 10% a bit further). Even so, you will not have the option to avoid working like a dog at a job you hate.

You’re best chance to get a husband is now. The younger you are, the larger your pool of men to choose from and the more willing they will be to sacrifice to get and keep you. Read this post from OKCupid and truly understand that graph. After age 26 your choices in the marriage pool will start to decline rapidly. The longer you wait, the more likely you are to be stuck with an undesirable man and the less likely you will be to find a man who wants you to stay home with your children.

Marry young.

Second, if you want children you have to be able to have children. Study this graph carefully:

If you wait until your 30s you have about a 1/10 chance of being infertile and it rises rapidly after that. I will repeat: if you do not start having children in your 20s there is a 8-15% chance you will never have children. If you wait until your 40s to have children you are as likely to be infertile as you are to conceive.

If you want children, especially if you want more than one, and you don’t want to run the risk of never having children, make sure to start in your 20s. This means marrying in your early-mid 20s.

Marry young.

(As alternative to marrying young, you could sleep around and party, but there’s a strong chance you’ll regret it anyways and there’s always the chance you’ll wait too long and end up miserable and lonely.)

Third is keeping your husband. If you lose your husband, you will lose your chance to stay at home, you will be forced into working, not to mention the unhappiness, poverty, and damage to children that usually accompanies divorce. I have previously analyzed which factors in a woman lead to divorce. I will share them here as things to avoid.

To keep a husband: don’t have sexual partners before marriage, wait until your 20s to marry (but after age 20 the effects of age are minimal), don’t get pregnant until you and your partner are married, get a degree (although, this is probably just a proxy for being intelligent and diligent enough to get a degree), be devout if you are religious, and make less than your future husband.

So, if you want to raise a family and avoid the trap of working a job you dislike, while serving other peoples families and missing your own family, all for almost no actual benefit, marry young, marry a man who wants traditional sex roles, don’t have premarital sex, and go to church.

Make the right choices now, so you don’t have to pop Zoloft throughout your later years out of regret for making the wrong choices.

You, along with many other men and women, have been swindled. Don’t let yourself be swindled further. Don’t engage in feminist self-annihilation.

If the information and advice I have presented here have caused you to consider marrying early, I have a little bit of advice here on how to find and/or make a good husband.

****

This one’s been sitting half done for months now. In celebration of Traditional Sex Roles Week, I’ve decided to finish it. Women, it’s in your own interest to get #BackToTheKitchen.

Advertisements

Game, Attraction, and Morality

Sarah’s Daughter asks of those anti-game Christians:

I’d be interested to know if those who find it somehow not Christian for men to learn and apply techniques that stimulate a woman’s attraction to him find it as non Christian when women learn to do the same. And if not, what makes it different?”

An interesting question. One made even more interesting by her example of making herself more attractive for RLB:

I remember learning that how I wear my hair matters to my husband. I had not thought of it before, I just did my hair the way I liked doing my hair. When we first met, I liked wearing it long, highlighted, sometimes curly, sometimes straight. When RLB told me he wanted me to color my hair platinum and was willing to pay whatever it took to get it that way, it dawned on me that this is something that is important to him. The same is true about my weight, my physical condition, my attitude, and my submission to him.

From this my mind immediately went to a particular Bible verse:

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. (1 Peter 3:1-6, ESV)

And to another related verse:

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Timothy 2:8-15, ESV)

So then, the question becomes is SD’s point the exact opposite of the one she is intending to make? Rather than proving men should learn attraction techniques, is she simply proving that both men and women should avoid attraction techniques?

Is SD sinning by ‘adorning’ her hair in ‘platinum’?

I think that by looking at the morality of girl game, we could probably gain some insight into game.

****

No braids, no gold, no stylish clothes; it seems harsh doesn’t it.

Harlot!

Very few outside the most extreme of fundamentalists forbid women from braids, yet this command is given not just once, but twice, and by both Peter and Paul. This would make it seem to be of some import.

Are almost all Christians sinning in this regard?

If we focus just on clothes for a second: “Do not let your adorning be external…the clothing you wear” and  “not with… costly attire”. An exacting, literal reading of the former would be not to dress, yet that would be obviously incorrect. While the latter would be against any costly clothes, yet in Proverbs 31, the virtuous wife “makes bed coverings for herself; her clothing is fine linen and purple.”

If we look to jewelry, there are a number of times in the old testament where it is spoken of neutrally, even positively.

So, a contradiction? By no means.

As in all Biblical interpretation, context is of the utmost importance.

Reading the verses, the focus is not on the hair, jewelry, or clothes rather the focus is on modesty, respect, submission, self-control, and good works.

The attitude is what is important, the attitude is what should be focused upon.

I think this passage from Isaiah illustrates nicely:

The Lord said:
Because the daughters of Zion are haughty
and walk with outstretched necks,
glancing wantonly with their eyes,
mincing along as they go,
tinkling with their feet,
therefore the Lord will strike with a scab
the heads of the daughters of Zion,
and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts.

In that day the Lord will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents; the pendants, the bracelets, and the scarves; the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets; the signet rings and nose rings; the festal robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags; the mirrors, the linen garments, the turbans, and the veils.

Instead of perfume there will be rottenness;
and instead of a belt, a rope;
and instead of well-set hair, baldness;
and instead of a rich robe, a skirt of sackcloth;
and branding instead of beauty. (Isaiah 3:16-24, ESV)

The daughters of Zion lived in pride and purposefully incited the lust of man. The finery was not the problem, the finery was a symptom of a malaise among the women.

So to the NT verses. The gold, the braids, the clothes are not the problem, the problem is women focusing on their external appearance, their vanity, their pride, their ability to incite lust, rather than on living modestly and in submission.

That is what women are to avoid.

****

Back to the original question, is SD sinning by ‘adorning’ her hair?

I would say not. She is displaying (on the internet, I can say nothing of her in real life) the attitudes Paul and Peter demand: modesty, a quiet and gentle spirit, submission to her husband, respectfulness, and pure conduct. (Good works can only be judged in person).

She is focusing on the important matters. She is not using her platinum adornment (at least according to herself) to incite lust in men, to draw attention to herself, or as a crutch for vanity. She is doing so in modesty and respectfulness.

So too with girl game.

Is a woman practicing girl game doing so in pure conduct and modesty? Is she developing in herself a submissive and respectful attitude? Does she practice self-control and good works?

Or is she trying to incite the lust of men? Is she seeking attention? Is she girl gaming to satiate her pride? Is she being wanton? Is she causing her brother to stumble?

A woman who develops and practices girl game within the former attitude will will bear good fruit. Her game is pure. Whether she has braids or jewelry is irrelevant; if she wears them, she does so in right heart. If she doesn’t wear them, her attitude and inner beauty* will still attract the right type of man.

A woman of the second type’s game will bear bad fruit. She will attract the lustful (or no one at all). Whether she wears braids or jewelry is irrelevant; her pride is still her undoing and it will be readily apparent, repelling all but the wrong kind of man.

Girl game should be focused on the internals, the attitudes, first and foremost.

****

From this we can analyze game. The tools and techniques of game (posture, social skills, dress, masculine confidence, etc.) are morally irrelevant. Rather, we need to ask from where are these tools gained and to what ends are they used?

Are these tools being used out of rebellion or out of submission to God’s will? Are they developed from the lusts of the flesh or from godly motive?

Is your masculine confidence born of pride or does it come from faith in the Rock?

Are you learning these techniques so you can further the kingdom or so you can engage in sex?

Do you secretly hope young women lust over you or do you wish to promote modesty, pure conduct, and right-thinking among young women?

Does your physical training supercede your spiritual discipline?

Are you learning social skills to manipulate others or to build others up?

Is a woman (or women) your goal or is God your goal?

Do you wish for a wife as a status marker or for selfish reasons, or are you truly looking to devote yourself to developing her and your family spiritually and ministering to them?

Do you wish to lead your wife for her and the family’s benefit and the glory of God or for your own prideful needs?

****

Chad has said repeatedly that game is based in pride. Secular game is run through with pride and the lusts of the flesh. The entirety of secular game is based on pride.

While game itself is not sinful, it is was developed from pride and the flesh, most of the conversation comes from a place of sin.

Some men of strong faith, such as Vox, may be able to learn and practice Christianized game without falling to temptation. Others, such as Keoni, may be struck by the truths found in game, leading them to explore further truths. But for many, the pride and impure motives of most proponents of game will be a stumbling block.

While reading the flurry of activity on this topic the last few weeks, I was convicted. I have found that for myself, my motives for my self-improvement were often misedirected and occasionally sinful. The impure attitudes was seeping into me.

For this reason, I embrace the (re)development of masculine Christianity that the Christian manosphere has embraced.

I hold nothing against those who practice Christianized game and don’t think there is an inherent moral conflict between Christianity and game, but I think a Christian masculinity based explicitly in Christian values will be better than repurposing or Christianizing game, especially for younger and weaker brothers.

But even as we do so, we should avoid sniping each other too much. For all the enemies of Christ, masculinity, tradition, and civilization out there, those of us who support those values should focus on our enemies rather than on our friends with whom we disagree.

****

* The concept of inner beauty exists, yet I use it here not as it is usually used, as it has been much abused. That’s another topic for another time.


On Triggers and Bullies

Scott Alexander has a interesting post on triggers and safe spaces (h/t: Jim), in which he writes:

The rationalist community is a safe space for people who obsessively focus on reason and argument even when it is socially unacceptable to do so.

If you are the sort of person with the relevant mental quirk, living in a society of people who don’t do this is a terrifying an alienating experience. Finding people who are like you is an amazing, liberating experience. It is, in every sense of the word, a safe space.

If you want a community that is respectful to the triggers of people who don’t want to talk about controversial ideas, the Internet is full of them. Although I know it’s not true, sometimes it seems to me that half the Internet is made up of social justice people talking about how little they will tolerate people who are not entirely on board with social justice ideas and norms. Certainly this has been my impression of Tumblr, and of many (very good) blogs I read (Alas, A Blog comes to mind, proving that my brain sorts in alphabetical order). There is no shortage of very high-IQ communities that will fulfill your needs.

But you say you’re interested in and attracted to the rationalist community, that it would provide something these other communities don’t. Maybe you are one of those people with that weird mental quirk of caring more about truth and evidence than about things it is socially acceptable to care about, and you feel like the rationalist community would be a good fit for that part of you. If so, we would love to have you!

But if you want to join communities specifically because they are based around dispassionate debate and ignoring social consequences, but your condition for joining is that they stop having dispassionate debate and take social consequences into account, well, then you’re one of those people – like Groucho Marx – who refuses to belong to any club that would accept you as a member.

This would be a good time to admit that I am massively, massively triggered by social justice.

I know exactly why this started. There was an incident in college when I was editing my college newspaper, I tried to include a piece of anti-racist humor, and it got misinterpreted as a piece of pro-racist humor. The college’s various social-justice-related-clubs decided to make an example out of me. I handled it poorly (“BUT GUYS! THE EVIDENCE DOESN’T SUPPORT WHAT YOU’RE DOING!”) and as a result spent a couple of weeks having everyone in the college hold rallies against me followed by equally horrifying counter-rallies for me. I received a couple of death threats, a few people tried to have me expelled, and then everyone got bored and found some other target who was even more fun to harass. Meantime, I was seriously considering suicide.

But it wasn’t just that one incident. Ever since, I have been sensitive to how much a lot of social justice argumentation resembles exactly the bullying I want a safe space from – the “aspie”, the “nerd”, that kind of thing. Just when I thought I had reached an age where it was no longer cool to call people “nerds”, someone had the bright idea of calling them “nerdy white guys” instead, and so transforming themselves from schoolyard bully to brave social justice crusader. This was the criticism I remember most from my massive Consequentialism FAQ – he’s a nerdy white dude – and it’s one I have come to expect any time I do anything more intellectual than watch American Idol, and usually from a social justicer.

Scott hovers around a good point and gives it a light jab or two, but doesn’t go for the throat, so I will.

Bullying is not a regrettable by-product of social justice, social justice does not resemble bullying, rather:

Social justice is bullying.

The purpose of social justice is, was, and always will be bullying. Social justice warriors are bullies, nothing more, attempting to use social, economic, and, occasionally, physical force to enforce group conformity in favour of their ‘one true faith’ of ‘equality’.

SJ is the attempt of the weak and vile to force their abnormalities and disorders on the rest of us to make us as broken as they are. When we are all as pathetic as they are, we will all be equal.

To put it in social justice terms, the purpose of the non-normative discourse is to colonize and occupy white male space.

****

This is why you never give the SJW’s an inch. These are not simply well-meaning but broken people who need a bit of respect. These are not simply sensitive people who should be given a bit of compassion out of politeness. In normal life some minor accommodations to those naturally predisposed to sensitivity driven discourse is simple politeness, but SJW’s are not these types of people and they should not be given even the smallest of accommodations.

How can you tell that the SJW’s are bullies, rather than simply broken, but well-meaning people?

Simple, they seek to enter where they don’t belong. They purposefully seek out things to feel victimized.

A normal person who is sensitive to something (and might be worthy of some accommodation) generally seeks to avoid that something. As a trite personal example, I find emotional outbursts and certain forms of strong emotionalism uncomfortable; it could be fairly said, I am ‘sensitive’ to them. Because of this I tend to try to avoid situations where they occur and I avoid the type of people who are prone to them. It’s basic common sense.

The SJW, on the other hand, purposefully goes out of her way to intrude in other people’s spaces where she knows she will be uncomfortable and condemn them for making her uncomfortable.

We can see that in Scott’s example above: an SJW tries to enter a rationalist community devoted to a safe space for dispassionate discourse and demands that everybody stop with the dispassionate discourse.

You can see it in all the women offended by RoK or Matt Forney. They intrude on a male space dedicated to masculine discussion, where they know they will be offended and feel ‘victimized’.  We can see this with SRS on Reddit, who intrude into RPR and act offended.

In real life, the colonization of male space can be exemplified by the current concerns of the military; the SJW types demand women be allowed into the military, then whine when the military doesn’t bend over backwards to cater to their every whim.

It would be like me going to an Emotions Anonymous (I was only mildly surprised that existed) meeting and demanding they all stop being so weepy and emotional. It would be simply wrong. It’s not my place to be there and, if I am there as a newcomer or guest, it’s not my place to demand they change for me.

This is who you can know the SJW’s are bullies. They refuse to live and let live; they barge into other’s spaces and demand that these spaces change for them.

Never accommodate them.

****

I’ve outlined a number of ways they attempt to bully their allies (and others) into conformity, but of all these, the trigger warning is the most insidious attempt at colonization.

Not only does the SJW demand you kowtow to her will in her own spaces, she demands you kowtow to her will in your own space.

****

As an aside, Scott, if you end up following the backlink and reading this, I know I still haven’t got around to addressing your response to my response to the antireactionary FAQ. I still plan to. Hopefully, eventually.


Goldie Blox

Aaron linked to this ad for toys called Goldie Blox.

Unlike Aaron, I’m not quite so dismissive. I like the commercial, but I’ve always had a fondness for Rube Goldberg machines.

I also think the toys are a theoretically good idea. While most women don’t like math and won’t go into non-biology STEM, a few do and will. Why not make toys for those atypical girls?

My sisters had pastel-coloured Legos and they played war with them with my brother and me as we used our primary-coloured blocks. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with girl versions of boys’ toys.

On the other hand, there is something wrong with these toys.

THere is an interesting incongruity between the toys themselves and the purported feminist message. Whatever Goldie Blox’ intentions and advertisements and despite all the hype the toys are getting from the feminist-types, when you actually observe the toys you can’t help but notice the makers don’t really buy the message they’re selling.

Pastel Tinkertoys

These toys are essentially Tinkertoys and Tinkertoys have always been fairly gender-neutral, which makes them an odd target to feminize. Rather than being a leap forward for gender-neutral toys or equalism, these Goldie Blox are actually gendering toys and promoting inequality.

What idiot made Tinkertoys plastic and colourful?

The toy makers are banking on the fact that girls don’t want to play with gender-neutral Tinkertoys, but would instead prefer these gendered, feminine-themed Goldie Blox. That seems to be putting little girls even further into the gender box rather than moving them out of it.

Second, despite their anti-pink attitude, the colours of the toy are simply changed to other feminine colours, particularly a golden-yellow and a pastel purple. There’s not the primary colours of Legos and browns of (old, real) Tinkertoys. I don’t see how changing the gendered pink to gendered pastels is a particular “leap-forward” for getting girls out of the “pink ghetto”. Merely painting the ghetto a different colour is not going to change anything.

Third, look at the toys themselves. Tinkertoys are just Tinkertoys, they have no themes, while Lego’s are occasionally without theme but usually something boyishly cool like rockets, planes, or pirates. The Goldie Blox sets available are a parade float and a girly ribbon “spinning machine”.

Parade Floats – The Height of Imagination

The joy of Tinkertoys was simply building whatever came to your mind at the time. The imagination and the ability to build was the lure. Even with Legos sets, how many kids actually concentrated on the sets themselves, rather than tearing them apart as soon as they were built to build something else or play war?

These toys have been dumbed down. Look at how few pieces you get and how limited they are. And a parade float, really? You makes toys that can be used to build anything the imagination can conceive and a parade float is the best you can come up with? Is that the best you think young girls can aspire to?

I’ll see your parade float and raise you a rocket-ship.

How much of an “improvement” for gender neutrality in toys or for getting girls out of of the pink ghetto is it for little girls to simply be building girly things?

How much engineering/building skills and imagination will such simple, limited sets instill in young girls?

Finally, look at the sets, what do you see?

That bear has some swag.

Cute little animals. There’s a dolphin in a tutu, a bear in a pastel suit, and a cute little doggy with big floppy ears.

What do you see in Tinkertoys? Nothing but blocks and sticks (or plastic in the new and crappy form; that annoys more more than it should. At least I’m not the only one).

What do you see in Legos? Articulated figures capable of action (with guns and swords).

The girl-oriented engineering product is not enough of a draw in itself; it needs something cute, something personal to draw the little girls in. To increase the narrative and personalization, each even comes with it’s own storybook.

Every machine needs a back-story.

How much do you want to bet that most little girls who receive this toy will spend more time playing house or tea with the little animal figures rather than building, destroying, and re-building weird contraptions?

Here we can see the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the whole ‘girls and boys are equal meme’ displayed in one little children’s toy.

Even the equalists who specifically created a feminist-vaunted engineering toy to get girls into engineering know that most little girls don’t want to build and destroy for the sake of building and destroying like little boys do. They know full well they can’t just market Tinkertoys to girl straight-up; they know they can’t simply tell girls build this and make a profit.

So, to convince most girls to give an engineering toy a try they have to regender a gender-neutral toy, make the toys as girly as possible (while avoiding the dreaded pink), dumb the toy down while destroy the creativity of the toy, and introduce cute little animal figures in tutus simply to make them palatable to little girls.

I’m an evil supporter of the patriarchy and I would be hard-pressed to think up a toy that is more patronizing to little girls than this.

If you want pastels and dollies for your daughter buy some My Little Pony toys; there’s nothing wrong or inferior with young girls liking pink, pastels, and relationally-based toys.

But if you want an engineering toy by some Tinkertoys or Legos.

Uncountable hours of fun.

Avoid this drek; it’s insulting. “Hey little girl, you can’t handle 65 pieces of Tinkertoys ($16.40), so here’s 35 pieces to build a parade float ($20) because that’s all we expect you to be able to imagine and create. The boys will go over their and play with their underwater base.”

When even the gender-warriors implicitly state their cause is lost whenever it comes to something that actually effects reality, you know there’s something flawed with their ideology.

****

I must say though, I do admire the business acumen of the creator. What an idea:

I’ll take a classic toy, make it worse, colour it in pastels, attach some feminist ideology to it, and sell less of it at a higher price, then have the feminist press rave about my awesome new toy providing scads of free publicity.

That’s a pretty good business plan.


Omega’s Guide – Women

We come to the last part of our guide, learning basic interaction with women. I left this for last on purpose; being attractive to women is primarily about demonstrating value to them and the prior advice will turn you into a (more) valuable man. (Game, or at least outer game, succeeds by mimicking the traits that demonstrate value; better to be than to mimic). If you’ve been implementing the previous parts of the guide, your value will already have increased, and you may have already noticed more success (or at least less failure) with women.

Before I begin, I’m going to be honest with you, as I’ve been rather uncomfortable about writing this part. I am mostly a failure in this area; I’m not sure if I’m even qualified to write this, but I have to, because this part is essential to any self-improvement guide for awkward males.

So, you should know that I’m not a player, a master of seduction, or any such thing. I’m not even all that successful with women. In fact, my romantic efforts have proven mostly fruitless in finding myself a wife and I haven’t been in a relationship in about four years. Everything I write here is stuff I’m still working on implementing (theory is a lot easier than practice).

What I do have is experience from being a total loser who wasn’t even in the dating game to having some success. I went from, literally, not being to speak with most women to, a couple of years later, having a couple short relationships. Now, I get occasional dates (one every few months) with moderately attractive women (6-8s). A vast improvement over the nothing I had prior.

So, the advice given here is not about game, it is not about becoming an alpha male, and it’s not about becoming king of the club. This advice will not help you find a smoking-hot 9 for a girlfriend or keep a rotating harem of 8s. I do not have the knowledge or experience to help you with that. If you’re looking for something like that try Roosh or Greene.

What this advice will help you accomplish is to go from being the loser who hasn’t had a date in three years (or ever for that matter) or is forced to date fat or unattractive girls to being a normal, socially well-adjusted man who can get the occasional date with a cute girl and, maybe, a moderately attractive girlfriend. If you’re the kind of person I’m making this guide for, that will be a large improvement over whatever you had (or more likely didn’t have) previously. Even if you’re not as total a loser as I was, some of the advice still might be useful to you.

This advice will not get into game in the sense of gimmicks, tricks, or “mind-games. It is simply about building yourself the social skills to be the kind of man a women of decent value might like to be with.

It will take a lot of work, and it will be a slow, grinding process. Don’t give up, keep trying. Simply remember how psyched you have been and will be in the future when you find yourself doing something you never thought you’d be able to do.

****

Before we being, we’ll talk on the friendzone, a trap many men near the bottom of the socio-sexual hierarchy fall into.

The friendzone is a self-inflicted misery; stay out of it. If you value a woman as a friend, and only as a friend, be her friend and expect and desire nothing else. If something happens, it happens, but do not work towards it, do not look for it, do not desire it, and do not expect it.

It is highly unlikely you will get a relationship out of a friendzone friendship and it is very costly in terms of time and emotional effort. It is simply not something any reasonable person would pursue.

So don’t.

If you are friends with a women because you want a romantic relationship with her, then be forthright. Next time you see her, tell her straight, “I desire a romantic relationship with you. I can not remain friends with you because of my romantic emotions towards you.”

Maybe you’ll get a romantic relationship, maybe you won’t, but it is far better for you (and her) if you are rejected and end the “friendship”

If you don’t get the relationship, simply cut off the “friendship”. Stop spending time, resources, or emotional energy on her. You have better things to do with all three than waste it on a forlorn and pointless hope. Do not try to change her mind (you won’t); simply accept the rejection and move on.

If she asks why you cut her off, tell her the truth. You want a romantic relationship with her, not a friendship.

You can be friends with a woman, but only if the friendship is the end in itself. If the friendship is a means to a romantic relationship, it’s not a friendship; end it.

****

The next little trouble many men who are are socially maladapted fall into is that of “nice guys finish last” while jerks get the girls.

The problem with this type of thinking is twofold: “nice” and “good” are not equivalent and the underlying factor is not jerkiness/niceness but rather a combination of manliness, charisma,and desperation.

Whatever their other flaws, the jerks who get women exude masculinity, which attracts women and often charisma (of a sort); they also rarely exude desperation. “Nice guys” are generally deficient in both, as rather than assert their own purposes, they defer to other’s, particularly women’s, purposes. This is decidedly unmasculine. Nice guys often also lack charisma, it’s boring to have someone who is always nice and agreeable with you and never challenges you.  Being nice often gives of a vibe of desperation as well. As with the friendzone predicament, if you’re willing to do many nice things for a woman, she will see you as trying to “buy” her affections because you are desperate for his attention.

You want to avoid that, but that does not mean you have to become a “jerk”. Simply, try to be a man with your own purposes and make those purposes good ones.

Be a good man dedicated to good causes; don’t be a nice guy willing to defer to everyone else.

****

With that friendzone and nice guys nonsense out of the way, we’ll get to the actual meat of the issue.

The first thing you need to do is decide, “what kind of woman do I want?” and “for what purposes?” What kind of woman or women do you want to invite into your ideal life?

“I’ll take whatever I can get” is the wrong answer. It shows both that you are low value and that you are desperate for female attention, both of which are inner failings on your part which will repel women.

Women want a man of high value; what type of high value each woman will care for will depend on her particularity, but all women want a man of high value. The type of women you want to date will likely be of high enough value to be able to demand that.

Also, every women wants to feel like she was chosen because she’s “special.” If she thinks you stuck with her because she’s the only one you could get, she’ll reject you (unless she’s such low value herself that she thinks you’re the best she can get).

So, now be honest with yourself, what kind of woman do you want in your life? What kind of relationship(s) would you like to have?

Think on it a bit.

****

Now that you have an idea of what you want, picture the type of man who has what you want. Look around at your friends, your church, your neighbourhood, your social group, etc. What type of men have the kind of woman you want?

Be that type of man.

Success with women starts well before you even say hi to any women.

It starts by being the type of man the type of woman you desire would desire.

This is nowhere near as easy as the little phrase makes it sound, but it’s the goal. You may never reach it, but work towards it.

I’ll repeat it, because I can not stress this enough:

To be successful with women, you should first be successful with the other areas of your life. Success is attractive to women.

There is no secret to attracting women, there is no shortcut, there is no magic technique; to attract a women simply requires

So keep on improving in all the other areas I’ve already written about.

****

One last piece of theory before we get to practice.

Know your value on the dating market and act accordingly. If you are a short, ugly man, you will likely never get a “9” (barring becoming a billionaire). On the other hand, with enough self-improvement, social skills, and value-building you might get a nice “7”.

If you spend all your time pursuing those 9s who will always reject you, but ignore that sweet little 7 with a crush on you, you will die alone.

Shoot for something attainable, but don’t settle. You want to work on finding a women on the upper edge of what you are able to obtain.

Look for a winning hand, not a perfect hand. If you hold out for a royal flush, you’ll almost surely lose, but that three of a kind will let you take the pot.

****

Theory is over, now for more practical advice.

The first thing you need to do is to talk with women. You’ll never get any romantic success if you don’t start talking with women.

Start with that girl you’ve been mooning over for the past 6 months, but have been unable to talk to (you know full well who I’m talking about). Next time you see her, go up to her, say “Hi, how’s your week been?” Then simply follow along, nod your head where appropriate, and ask questions or interject with your own stories (if you can). Let her carry most of the burden of conversation.

Your first time will probably be pathetic and you’ll probably be scared the whole time.

Good; face the fear.

Next time you see her, do the exact same thing, but a little better. The next time, do the same thing. From now on every time you see that girl, go up to her, ask her how her week (or day, or month, or whatever) has been, and try your best to talk along. (Remember your Dale Carnegie).

After a few weeks have gone by and you’ve talked with her a few times, ask her out. It’s simple: “Would you like to go for coffee (or in summer, ice cream) with me this Friday at 7?

She’ll probably say no because you didn’t interest her enough with your pathetic attempts at conversation. Accept that she’s going to reject you before you ask and don’t worry about it.

She’s rejected you: that’s great. I know it hurts, but what is far more important is that you tried, you asked her out.

Accept her answer, accept that she doesn’t like you, hurt for a few days or a week or two. Then get over it.

One woman rejected you and there are millions of cute girls out there. Go find another one.

If there is a women you moon over, who you already talk with regularly, just ask her out. A simple, “Wanna go for coffee with me Tuesday night at 6?” will do. See my advice in the friend zone section above.

****

So now we’re at the point where you don’t really have any girl you particularly like, because “she” rejected you.

Good. Time to meet some women.

If you’ve been following along in the guide so far, you’ve probably been meeting lots of new people at your new social activities; I’m sure at least a few of them are pretty girls. Talk to them.

Do exactly what you did with the first girl. “Hi? How has your week been?” Nod where appropriate, ask questions about her (remember your Dale Carnegie), and talk when you can.

Your conversations with women will be awkward and painful at first. Don’t expect success right away. Simply talk as best you can. Every conversation you have will make you slightly better at it. Over time, without even really realizing it, you’ll become proficient. Just keep at it.

Talk with as many girls as you can. The more practice the better.

If you develop a particular fondness for a girl after a few conversations, simply ask her out. Same as above: “Let’s go for coffee for Sunday afternoon.”

You’ll probably get rejected a number of times before you get success. That’s fine, simply accept it and move on.

Don’t get too attached to any particular girl. If you find yourself getting attached to a girl, ask her out. From personal experience I know it is far less painful to be rejected immediately then to drag it out.

Keep talking to the girls in your social circles and keep asking out the ones you like; keep getting rejected.

As you do this, remember what you learned about body language and try (as best you can) to observe the body language of the girls you talk to. It can be a great help to pick up on her tells of whether she’s attracted to you or not.

Then, at some point one will accept your offer of a date.

****

So, now you have a date. Here’s how to go about a first date.

Depending on where you and her live and your transportation systems, you can either pick her up or meet her. Either works, but if she doesn’t have a car and you do either pick her up or meet near her. She will not appreciate having to bus or walk long distances to meet you.

Arrive on time, but do not arrive more than a minute or two early (wait in the car or around the corner if you have to). Arriving early makes you seem desperate and is rather awkward for her. If you’re picking her up, get out of your car and get her; don’t just sit outside and honk.

A good general idea for first dates is gelati/ice cream in the summer or hot chocolate/coffee in the winter for a few reasons:

  • They’re cheap, this avoids the “who pays?” awkwardness. $4 coffee won’t cause you much fiscal pain and she won’t feel bad about it. Simply pay for both of you; don’t ask her, don’t consult her. Simply tell the clerk you’re paying for both of you and ignore her “objections”.  Pay in cash if possible; little will be more embarrassing than your debit not working because the bank is undergoing maintenance.
  • The atmosphere around these is relaxed, unlike dinner dates which are more formal, and ideal for talking, unlike movies.
  • Girls love ice cream; I’ve never met a girl who didn’t like ice cream (or a vegan alternative). Go for gelato if you can though. It’s enough like ice cream that everybody loves it and it won’t be off-putting, but just foreign enough that a lot of girls haven’t tried it, giving you a tiny amount of “worldly man” edge.
  • Everybody loves hot chocolate on a cold day; it just feels right. Most places that serve coffee serve hot chocolate and vice versa. Order the hot chocolate, and let her choose whatever drink she wants.

When choosing an ice cream/coffee place choose one that is either near a larger park or is in a “walkable”, attractive neighbourhood, preferably a place you’ve been around before.

Once you have your beverages, don’t sit down, instead, go for a walk through the park/ neighbourhood. This has a few advantages:

  • You’re doing something. Awkward pauses in conversation are far less awkward when you can both simply walk and admire the scenery.
  • Walking lends itself far easier and more naturally to playfulness and energy than sitting at a table or on a couch.
  • The scenery lends itself to creating conversation topics. Point out the cool looking dog, laugh at the garish colours of that odd house, remark upon that beautiful tree; whatever. There’s a lot more to talk about when walking around then when sitting down.
  • If you know the area, if lends itself well to telling stories showing you have a full life (which is attractive to women). You can talk about the great pizza you had with your friends at Luigi’s, about the soccer game you won at the field over there, about that amusing story with your friends at that pub, or whatever other experiences you’ve had.

Note: If it’s winter or a blustery day, make sure to mention to her that you plan on going for a walk either when you ask her out or when you pick her up so she can dress appropriately. The walk will not happen if she’s not dressed for it.

Now that you’re out walking, what to talk about:

  • Do not talk about politics, economics, religion, or other controversial issues unless she brings it up first or you know (for certain) that she’s really interested in them. If you both share the same core religious beliefs, you can talk about that, but avoid deep theology, unless, of course, she brings it up.
  • Do not talk about your hobbies that women find boring (ex. video games, science fiction, Warhammer), unless you know she shares those interests. You can mention them if she asks what you like to do, but don’t spend any time on them. Nobody cares about your lvl 17 Orc Paladin.
  • Avoid talking about your job, unless it’s very interesting. If she asks mention it, but most of use have relatively uninteresting jobs; don’t bore her by dwelling on them.
  • Do ask questions. Ask about her about herself, her family, her hopes, her dreams, her hobbies, etc. (remember your Dale Carnegie), but avoid it being an interrogation. After you ask about her family, tell her a bit about yours or remark about . If you find yourself asking two questions in a row you’re probably doing it wrong.
  • Talk about yourself. Let her get to know you. Talk about your (interesting) hobbies, your sports, your family, your recent trip, what you read recently, your friends, etc. But make sure to include her in the conversation; if you’ve been talking for more than few minutes without her saying anything (unless it’s a long, but good story) you’re doing it wrong.
  • Talk about stuff you see or stuff going on around you.

All these conversation “rules” are solely to help you get conversation started (or restarted after an awkward pause). Once it’s started, let the conversation flow naturally. If you’ve got a good conversation going don’t ruin it by trying to hard or trying to stick to a set of rules. Simply go with the flow.

End the date at the right time. If things are going well and conversation is flowing, keep going, let the date continue, don’t cut it off when things are going well. On the other hand, if there’s a natural end point and you’re running out of things to say, end the date. (Ex: “There’s my car” or after a longer pause “I have things to do, we should head back”)

Don’t try to awkwardly prolong the date; end it a bit before it becomes awkward, and try to end it naturally.

Finally we get to parting. If you’re dropping her off, get out of the car and walk her to her door. If you met up, walk her to her car or bike. If you both walked, don’t just awkwardly walk away; make a definite part.

So how do you part?

That depends on a large number of factors such as how well the date went, your comfort level, her apparent comfort level, how much you like her, her apparent like for you, and your (and her) views regarding physical intimacy.

Whatever it is do not draw it out. Once you are at the parting point, make it short, a few sentences and a parting hug/kiss. Do not keep blathering away like an idiot; it makes things awkward.

If you don’t want to see her again, a hug or handshake, and a thanks for the date will suffice. Do not tell you’ll call her if you won’t. Thank her for the date and tell her you enjoyed meeting her.

If you do want another date, then tell her you enjoyed the date. Then either tell her when and how you’ll contact her again (something like, “I’ll call you in the next couple days) or if you know your schedule, lock down the next date (“I’d like to see you again, how about next Friday night?”).

Follow this with some physical contact, depending on how the date went and your comfort level. A few types of contact are always bad, such as a parting handshake or a side hug (the way I too often end a date). Here’s some good types of physical contact to end a date with:

  • A full kiss. This is high risk. If you go for this and get it, you can be sure the date went well, but not all girls are comfortable with it and there’s a good chance it could flame out. As well, some, such as myself, may think it is too high a physical ecalation for such an early time. Go for this if you’re both really digging each other and you’re comofrtable with it. If she turns her cheek, that’s fine; if she pushes away you’ve blown it.
  • A full hug. This is the safe move; it’s neutral and won’t win you any points but its positive, will rarely be rejected, and won’t lose you points (except among the most licentious of women). Make sure you lead and make it a confident chest to chest press with both your arms around her. Don’t lean over, don’t fumble awkwardly trying to avoid her breasts, don’t do a side hug, don’t make it awkward, and don’t be tenative about it. Commit to it fully and just go for it. Hold it for two or three seconds, but no longer.
  • A light kiss on the forehead or top of the head. This has some intimacy to it and can be positive, but it has a sort of paternalism to it, which may backfire on you.
  • Take her hand and give a light kiss the back of her hand, like an old school gentleman. This is usually positive, as it harkens back to chivalry and most women get a little giddy from that, but the traditionalness of it can occasionally backfire, especially with more feminist women.
  • A peck on the cheek. Fairly safe for a date that has gone well. It shows a bit of intimacy, but is not as forward as the full kiss. It can possibly end awkwardly depending on how conservative she is or if she’s not as in to you.

Then tell her “See you later” and part. Don’t wait around after the goodbye contact; it makes things awkward.

****

Now you have a second date (or third or fourth, your first few dates should all be similarly casual and give you the chance to get to know each other).

Choose something else relaxed, fun, and inexpensive, preferably something you know she likes. In a pinch, ice cream can work again, but may look a little stale.

  • If you share a hobby, doing that together would be a great idea.
  • Minigolf is good. It’s fun and relaxed. So is bowling.
  • A hike in the woods, a stroll in a large park, or a walk at the zoo or aquarium can be a good adventure. It’s relaxing, fun, and there’s plenty of interesting stuff to see, talk about.
  • Ice skating is great for the winter; it allows a great interplay between playfulness and getting to know each other.
  • Museums, art galleries, etc. can be a good trip. Make sure to choose something she might be interested in.
  • If you have a local touristy area, checking that out can be a good idea. You can walk around, admire the sites, check out the stalls, and have some casual snacks.

All of these can also work well as first date ideas.

After the first few dates, you can try dinner and a movie or, even better, cook her a meal and watch movies at your place.

After that, you’re on your own. You should know enough about her by this point to be able to figure out how to spend time together. Let things work from there.

****

Lastly, cold approaches.

This is not something you’ll be able to do right away and will always be troublesome. You’ll probably need to build up to it. I still have difficulties with it. But here’s some exercises to help you build up to it.

Start by simply looking girls in the eye and smiling (make it a confident smile), as you pass them in the streets. In fact, try to make it a habit. Do this for every girl you see for two weeks.

The next two weeks, do the same, but say hi as well. Then keep walking (unless she makes a point to start a conversation with you; in which case talk to her).

The following two weeks, do the same, but if she smiles or says hi back, ask her how her day is going.

The following two weeks, if you see a girl you think is really pretty talk to her. If the clerk at Target is cute, as her about her day. Ask the gal on the bus what she’s reading or where she’s going. Ask the girl in line with you at the coffee shop how her day has been.

If any at any time, these turn into real conversations, and it seems like she might be interested, ask for her number.

If you get it, phone her two days later and set up a date. Then go to first date protocol.

Start small, and work your way up.

****

Random Tips

  • Remember your Dale Carnegie: smile. When interacting with women, be happy, be energetic, be positive. Nobody is attracted to the morose loser. (The brooding loner can be attractive if pulled off right; but if you need my help, you aren’t going to pull it off right).
  • Remember your body language. If you can’t be confident, at least look it. Also, look to women’s body language. I can not stress enough the importance of body language.
  • Take advantages of opportunities. If a girl says she really wants to go to a new restaurant, or see a new museum exhibit, or visit some place, or try some activity, she’s handing you an opening, use it. It’s a simple, “That does sound like fun, how about we go see that local play next week?” If she hands it to you, take it.
  • No movies or dinner for your first few dates. Save movies until after you’ve known each other a while, because they don’t let you to talk during them. Save dinner until you’re actually dating, as it costs a lot, is too stereotypical (and thus “boring’), and looks try-hard.
  • Don’t be desperate. Avoid phoning her more than once a day, and don’t phone her more than once between each date for your first half-dozen dates. Don’t text her twice in a row. After a date, wait a day or two before contacting her again. You can relax on these rules once you’re in a steady relationship.
  • On the other hand, don’t go too far the other way. If you wait to long, she’ll simply not respond.
  • Try to be natural. Don’t try too hard, don’t look like you’re trying to hard. Don’t try to put on a false persona. Act natural and confident.
  • Practice. Social skills are like any other skill; you need to practice.
  • Keep eye contact.

****

Your goal:

Your goal for the week is to look every girl you pass in the streets in the eyes and smile at her.

Also, if you see “her” this week who you’ve been unable to talk to, ask her how her day is going.

If “she” is a friend or acquaintance you have talked to, ask her out.


Sex – A Response to Scott Alexander

Scott over at Slate Star Codex has created the Anti-Reactionary FAQ, probably the first rational, comprehensive critique of neoreaction. (It also turns out he like Turisas. Huzzah!) Much respect goes to Scott for this; it was a comprehensive and fair work (unlike some pieces of drek), which, over time, (neo)reactionaries will have to respond to. Michael has already done a short, preliminary response, while Jim has critiqued one particular aspect of the FAQ.

My humble blog was mentioned a couple of times. He mentioned my analysis of how the communists won, and quickly analyzes a Republican platform in response. I’ll provide a greater response to this in the future, when I have the time for a decent one.

For this post, I’ll concentrate on his section “5: Are modern ideas about race and gender wrongheaded and dangerous?” where my post, One More Condom in the Landfill, was referenced. I will be working on the gender aspect for this post and will respond by section number. So, my focus will be on 5.1-5.3, as 5.4 gets into stuff on social justice rather than sex itself. I should note Bryce has already made a post concerning this, but his is more theoretical in nature, so I will make my own.

****

5.1

Sexual surveys on lifetime partners are usually not fully reliable, as the number can vary significantly depending on estimation strategies. Women underestimate, men overestimate.

The data on lifetime partners is, as he points out, minimal. 6 for men in 1970 and 2006, 2 for women in 1970 and 4 in 2006. He ends up using French data instead, but the French are not English and have a different culture, so I’m not sure if this would hold.

Instead, let’s look at bastardy rates, a more easily measured proxy for promiscuity. As we can see on this graph of CDC data from the Heritage Foundation, bastardy has been on a steady increase since some time around 1960.

This steady increase has occurred despite the increasing availability of both the pill and abortion. It is obvious that sluttiness and promiscuity has increased.

If we look back to one of Scott’s sources we find this gem:

American illegitimacy ratios in the eighteenth century and after the Civil War seem to have been about one or two percent, well below the five or six percent found in England and Wales at the time(s) (Smith, 1980, p. 372; Wells, 1980, pp. 354-55; Laslett et al., 1980, p. 18) and very far below the 30-plus-percent ratios found in the U.S. in the 1990’s.

Imagine a bastardry rate of only 2%.

It is obvious sluttiness has increased drastically.

****

5.1.1

In this section, Scott ignores the religious argument, and I will too, for one argues with one’s (reasonable) opponents on grounds both can accept.

The decline of marriage would be the major argument, as he acknowledges. He posts this graph but misses the commentary on the graph.

The commentary states:

My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5-9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience. Older women, and women with more dating experience, are more likely to have learned which personal qualities will work best for them in a marriage partner. As a result, such women choose more wisely and tend to experience lower divorce rates. Now, it also happens to be the case that older women have had more time and occasion for pre-marital sex! Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5-9 pre-marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men.

Scott does not take this confounding variable into effect in this piece.

This one chart comes from unpublished data from anonymous source. Sadly, it is the only source I know of where divorce risk is measured by number of premarital partners.

Most data either looks at either whether a person had premarital sex or not, or lifetime partners, which can be confounded by additional sex partners post-divorce.

If we look at data posted by the Social Pathologist elsewhere:

Only four nationally representative studies have examined whether premarital sexual experiences are linked to divorce (Heaton, 2002; Kahn & London, 1991; Laumann et al., 1994; Teachman, 2003). Nevertheless, the core finding—the association between premarital sex and increased risks of divorce—is robust[Ed]. Teachman (2003) found that women who had sex only with their future husbands did not have higher risks of marital dissolution, which suggests that the premarital-sex effect on divorce is related primarily to having sex with multiple partners

Each additional sexual partner increased the odds of infidelity by 7% while increasing years of education seem to decrease the risk by 10%.

The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.

Here’s some data showing adultery risk is higher for promiscuous women.

Here’s another chart showing that delaying sexual activity reduces divorce risk:

Here’s a chart, it counts all partners not just premarital ones:


Even beside divorce, there’s a large array of social and personal ills that come from promiscuity and higher numbers of sexual partners.

There is other information, but it all points to the same conclusion; the more sexual partners and the younger the woman is when first having sex, the more likely the risk of divorce.

By focusing only on that single chart, Scott misses a wide array of data which all tell the same story: a slutty women is a divorce risk and an adultery risk.

Even if we accept that one chart alone, Scott’s argument falls apart.

Being a virgin leads to a greatly lowered chance of divorce, a fact Scott just shrugs and dismisses it, accepting that premarital sex is an inescapable norm among the non-religious .

The whole point is that premarital sex should not be the norm. People (at least those intending to marry) should not be having premarital sex.

A doubling  (or tripling) of the divorce rate is not something we should just accept. It is damaging to the very fabric of society as parents’ divorce is associated with an increase in almost every socially non-desirable trait we measure (from poverty to crime to poor educational achievement).

[Edit: Removed two charts that did not fit with the main point and simply confused things. Moved a few things around, added a bit, and generally improved section 5.1.1. Thanks Ozymandias. 25/10/2013]

****

5.1.2

In a broad perspective the point is correct – empirically, men with more psychopathic traits, less agreeableness, and greater narcissism have more sexual partners.

He agrees on this point, but goes on to equivocate between men and women, then essentially shrug his shoulders (“I have no idea how to solve the object-level problems”).

The reactionary project (at least those that aren’t PUAs) is attempting to do more; we have a model we know works from history and we are trying to reimplement it.

Simply allowing the cads to run amuk and having the good men go without is a recipe for social disaster, I’ve outlined here, here, and here.

*****

5.2

He accepts that divorces have elevated, but doesn’t acknowledge there is a steady, long-term trend of increase since 1860 and divorce rates per married couple still remain almost double what they were at 1960.

Also, he says that progressivism has created a natural memetic “immunity” meme to divorce.

I would suggest instead the decline of divorce is instead linked to the decline in marriage rates; ie. those who are less committed to marriage and more likely to divorce are moving in together rather than marrying then divorcing, driving the divorce rate down.

You can see this easily in the chart Scott provided:

Divorces spike, then as marriage rates decline so to do divorce rates per married couple, but this rate remains almost double what it was in 1960. The decline in divorce rates per population is decreasing, simply because the family is disintegrating by not getting married.

He asks why progressives are less likely to divorce:

College-educated women have about half the divorce rate of the non-college-educated (source). More conservative states have higher divorce rates than more liberal states (source). Atheists have divorce rates below the national average (source). Some of these factors seem to remain even when controlling for wealth and the other usual confounders (source, source).

The education and atheist arguments are mistaking IQ and/or a low time preference for progressivism (atheists tend to be smarter on average than religious folks because most unintelligent people stick with their default philosophy, which, in the US, is religious). Conservative (ie. Southern) states would likely have high divorce rates due to high levels of blacks which have a much higher levels of divorce. (Nevada, likely has the highest divorce rate for what seems like a self-evident reason; Vegas).

Essentially what Scott has shown here but not noticed is a long-argued contention of reactionaries: smart upper-class folks can have progressive values and still function because they are smart upper-class folks, but when applied to the less intelligent lower classes these values are socially destructive, because poor, stupid people do not have the time-preferences to function despite the harm from these values.

****

5.3/5.3.1

Here he essentially argues that the depopulation of the US doesn’t matter because foreigners with foreign values are immigrating here and replacing native Americans. Also, you’re a racist if you think this is a problem.

I will just say that this is exactly the problem that reactionaries have with depopulation; he’s not actually refuting anything, he’s simply confirming our arguments. (Also, every reactionary is used to being called racist, so, that won’t really work).

If Scott can’t see the problem with foreign populations with different cultures and values replacing the current population, I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince him here.

I just hope he doesn’t mind losing his progressive values when non-progressive minorities start voting against progressive laws.

****

5.3.2

He’s probably right here on the effects of low-IQ fertility on intelligence, which is why I don’t (or at least try not to) espouse the idiocracy line. The effects of dysgenics through fertility are something that will not substantially effect us, in and of themselves, for a very long time, too long a timeline to worry about overmuch now.

Instead our focus would be on the mass importation of low-IQ immigrants, which will have a more immediate effect on society.

I would also focus on the effects of single-parent, low-IQ homes with many children on the national treasury through government welfare, education, and health programs. This problem will rear its ugly head far sooner than dysgenics due to fertility rates will.

****

So, there we have my first kick at the FAQ. I’m sure there will be others down the road.


Guest Post: The Myth of the Wage Gap

Today we have a guest post from Tanner King, a fellow Canadian on the wage gap. Remember, we accept submissions for any blog-related topics. If you have something to say, feel free to send it in.

Once in a while a new statistic regarding the “gender wage gap” will find its way into the mainstream media. Generally we nod along and agree that disparity between earnings for men and women is unfair and should be rectified.

Then we change the channel. Rarely do we consider the implications of these statistics.

Usually they’re just two simple numbers placed side by side. A Toronto Sun article posted in April of 2012 states, in reference to women employees, “Overall they earn 77 cents for each dollar made annually by men…”

This article claims that a female working the same position with the same hours as a male will still make less. You will often notice vague language being used when these statistics are presented. What do they mean by “the same hours”. Is this the same hours per year; is it the same hours p er week? Perhaps for ten years a man and a woman in an executive position work the exact same hours and make the exact same amount of money, but then the woman takes time off for maternity leave, while the man continues to work and make more money, and maybe even achieve a pay raise.

A 2010 study by the Canadian Library of Parliament states “…the gap between women and men underlines the fact that they do not use their time in the same way and that the task of looking after dependent family members is largely borne by women.”

Generally when statistics like this are presented they don’t even go so far as to specify the type of jobs that were looked at or the amount of hours or the education of the people surveyed. It will just be a vague comparison ignoring most contributing factors. This is a tool that can be used to make the gap seem as vast and insurmountable as possible.

Additionally, despite what a lot of these studies would like you to think, this is not some worldwide conspiracy of oppression keeping females down. For example Ireland has the highest gender wage gap in the world…. in favour of women. Irish women without children earn 17 percent more than the typical male worker in the same position according to research by the OECD.

This is not one minor happening wherein the wage gap is reversed in favour of women either. A 2010 USA Today article reports that “Women ages 22 to 30 with no husband and no kids earn a median $27,000 a year, 8% more than comparable men in the top 366 metropolitan areas, according to 2008 U.S. Census Bureau data…” The same article goes on to say “It isn’t true for all women in their 20s working full time — overall, they earn 90% of what all men in their 20s make — just for those who don’t marry or have kids.

Canadian economist Morley Gunderson comments, “Factors emanating from women’s role in the household (e.g., reduced hours in the labour market, reduced mobility because of household ties, education that is less labour–‐market oriented, interruptions in labour market careers, willingness to pay for workplace amenities that are family friendly) are important determinants of the pay gap.”

There is a wealth of information on the web regarding common majors for males and females. I would recommend looking up the statistics specific to your area, or simply talking to people. It’s staggeringly clear that, more often than not, men choose majors more suited to the job market. That means more likely to get a job right out of university, and it means higher wages overall. Women are typically drawn to liberal arts, design, public relations, and things of this nature. It’s no secret that there is not a lot of women in engineering, statistically one of the best choices in major.

Even through a small amount of critical thinking and research we are able to uncover a number of factors contributing to the wage gap in countries all over the world. The important thing is to take statistics for what they’re worth. Check the sources and understand that just because concrete numbers are presented does not mean there is not a bias.

It should also be noted that in Canada, as with the U.S., gender pay equality is a law. If any woman believes that her employer is paying her less because of her gender she has the ability to take legal action.

Feminist research groups will often try to claim any statistics that conflict with the idea that the wage gap is motivated solely by discrimination are lies perpetrated by an overbearing patriarchy. All that can be said to that is to do your own research, talk to people you know, and create some comparisons of your own.

Sources:

http://iwf.org/news/2790172/
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/18/women-still-confront-yawning-gender-wage-gap-study
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2010-30-e.htm
http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/close-the-gender-gap-now_9789264179370-en#page1
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2010-09-01-single-women_N.htm
http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2009/12/do-men-or-women-choose-majors-to-maximize-income


1-10 Scale: An Analysis

Last week I wrote about the Archetypical Modern Women. It was my most popular post ever by views and was also one of my most commented posts as well. Most manospherians liked the post, but there was one common criticism that seemed  virtually unanimous: I overrated the woman, she was not a 7. The consensus seemed to be she was a 5, although a couple commented she was a 3 or even lower.

I explained my reasoning in the comments: “she’s thin, young-ish with a moderately cute face. She’s not beautiful, but a youngish, plain sort of pretty with a slim build would fit my definition of a 7.”

I generally don’t use the scale in real life; in fact, I can not remember ever having using it in RL, but there’s a small possibility I have. In normal conversation, the scale is kind of silly; the descriptors of beautiful, cute, unattractive, etc. are usually more than good enough and are more humanizing. (That and a numerical scale sounds sort of spergy, and I have enough problems with that as it is).

On the other hand, I occasionally use it on the blog as it is a simple comparative method; more human descriptor cans be open to interpretation and can have different meanings. While a numerical scale at least gives the illusion of objectivity.

But after the criticism of my assigning the label 7 I wanted to figure this out, my inner data nerd was aroused, so I’m going to analyze this more. I’ll warn you now, this is going to get spergy and is going to be dehumanizingly analytical.

Oh, and before I begin, Truthmosis at RotK has a post up on the scale that I came across while writing this. Check it out.

I’d also like to point out that, to some degree, beauty is subjective, so a numerical scale is not the be-all-end-all of female beauty. There are certain objective metrics of beauty: a 0.7 hip-to-waist ratio, symmetry, and other such indicators of fertility and health, that (almost) all men are naturally drawn towards. These can be a basis for an “objective” 1-10 scale.

But outside of that, there are numerous subjective factors on which men disagree. For example, I really like fair-skinned, light-haired, innocent-looking women (ie. cute women) and detest tattoos and piercings. A tongue piercing disgusts me and is an automatic 3-point drop. So, if I were to rate a woman with a tongue piercing a 5, others who don’t find it disgusting, might rate that woman an 8. Another example: I’ve never figured out why the Captain likes Jennifer Aniston or many men like Angelina Jolie; never seen the appeal.

Anyway, with that caveat out of the way, here we go.

****

The first thing to do when creating a scale is decide the system the scale will use. The two major ones are the bell curve and the decile system. Men as a whole tend to use a bell curve system (on a 5-point scale), but I’ve tended to think in a decile system.

In a normal bell curve system (and looks would be normally distributed) a scale would be related to standard deviation. In standard deviation, 68% of all women would fall within one standard deviation from the mean, while 95% of all women would fall within two, and 99% would fall within three.

In a 1-10 scale 5 would be the mean. Most like we’d use 2 sigma (SD:2.5) above the mean to signify a 10 and 2 sigma below to signify a 0. 1 sigma would make far too many 10s, and 3 sigmas would mean only 2% of woman are above a 7+.

A 2 sigma scale would mean means that about 2% of woman would be 10s and 2% would be 0s. About 14% would be 7.5-9.5s and another 14% of woman would be 0.5-2.5s. The vast majority of woman (68%) would be 2.5s-7.5s.

We could also use a 2 sigma to signify 1s and 9s (SD:2). On this scale 2% of woman would be 9+ and another 2% would be below <1. 14% of woman would be 7-9 and another 14% of woman would be 1-3. The large majority of woman (68%) would be 3-7s.

If I were to use a bell curve, the latter is likely the one I would use because no one uses 0 on the 1-10 looks scale and many think (and I agree) that there are no 10s. Limits could easily be put at .1 and 9.9 without negatively effecting the rest of the scale. Not to mention the use of whole numbers rather than decminals greatly simplifies the scale.

So, if we’re scaling women’s looks on a 1-10 (Mean:5, SD:2) we can use a stanine scale to find the proportion of woman at each number.

On the other hand, if we use a decile system 10% of women would be 1s, 10% would be 10s, etc.

The former is more useful for statistical calculation, the latter is easier to use for everyday talk. It is a lot easier to calculate: she’s a 10 because she’s in the top 10% of people, she’s a nine because she’s in the 80-90% range, etc. than it is to calculate: she’s a 9 because she’s 2 SD above the mean and is in the top 4% of woman.

In more practical immediate effect, the former will result in a lot of 4-6s and few 1s and 9s, while the latter will result in an even distribution of all types of woman.

****

Knowing this, how can we systematize the calculation of where an individual woman falls on this scale. That”s likely impossible because beauty is to some degree subjective, but we can give it a shot. This analysis will focus on adult women of child-bearing age because menopausal women are no longer sexually attractive.

In the US 32% of women aged 20-39 are obese. If we used the decile system, that would mean the obese take up all of 1s through 3s. If we used the bell curve, the obese take up 1-3 and most of the 4s as well.

But obesity is not the only indicator of unattractiveness, some women just have the bad luck to be born with a deformity of an extremely unattractive face. If, for simplicities sake, we estimated that 8% of women are simply born deformedly ugly (not unattractive or plain, just ugly), that means that on both scales 1-4s are made up of the deformed and fat.

So, simply not being obese or deformed would immediately make a woman a 5 in either scale.

Back to weight, in addition to the the obese are the overweight. 64% of adult women are either obese (BMI >= 30) (36%) or overweight (BMI of 25-29.9) (28%), so we’ll assume the 28% overweight rate hold for women 20-39. So, we now have 60% of women aged 20-39 who are overweight or fat, but let’s remove 5 percentage points because the BMI does sometimes classify fit people with muscle as being overweight. So about 55% of child-bearing age woman are unattractive due to be overweight or obese.

I can not find any numbers on the percentage of woman that are unattractive due to face alone, so I’ll have to make up some assumptions. Let’s assume, for the sake of ease, that 10% of women who are not fat, have faces that are unattractive enough, that a moderately fat woman with a decent face would rate higher on a scale.

With that assumption we now come to 65% of women are either fat or as unattractive as a fat woman.

(Check out this BMI visualizer to understand what is meant by overweight and obese).

In a decile scale that means that a woman who is not fat or equally unattractive is automatically a 7; in a normal distribution scale a woman who is not fat or equally unattractive is automatically a 6.

This gives us a starting base.

I do not have the time or ability to start messing around with the ins and outs of symmetry, eye size, distance between the eyes and mouth, and all the other micro-variations that distinguish beauty. Suffice to say though that most men can tell objective beauty of these micro-variations fairly easily.

So, we can assume they’d mostly agree.

****

Based on this here’s a 1-10 scale we can use based on the decile system.

1-4: Obese and/or deformedly ugly
5: Fat or ugly
6: Chubby with a cute face or unattractive
7: Plain, not fat
8: Somewhat attractive
9: Slim and pretty
10: Curvy and beautiful

Here’s on based upon normal distribution:

1-4: Obese and/or deformedly ugly
5: Fat, chubby with an unattractive face, or ugly
6: Plain, not fat or chubby with a cute face
7: Slim and pretty
8: Curvy and beautiful
9: The best of the best (very rare)
10: Does not exist

The normal distribution lumps the middling and moderately attractive categories together but allows for the distinguishment of the really beautiful from the beautiful, while the decile scale allows for more distinguishment from the middling, but lumps all the beautiful together under 10.  The decile system leaves more distinguishment in those of middling beauty, but lumps the good looking into 2 categories.

From the impression I get from people write on the manosphere, they seem to use the normal distribution system. If we go back to Truthmosis’ discussion of the topic we can see that his scale more or less matches the normal distribution, as does his picture scale.

So, I guess I should start using the normal distribution scale to match up with others around here.

****

Anyway, back to the women who started this discussion:

As we can see, she’d probably be plain, not fat. So, my initial impression of her as a 7 on the decile system was correct. If we used a normal distribution she’d be a 6.

Someone ranking her a 5 is implying she’s ugly, which I do not think this picture supports. Whoever ranked her as a 3 is just dead wrong; she’s neither obese nor deformedly ugly.

****

A few last notes:

I knew the obesity crisis was bad, but I was surprised that 64% of adult women and 74% of adult men are overweight. That’s just plain nuts.

Also, only about 40% of women would be attractive enough to be worth even considering marrying (not even including other factors). So, if you’re looking to marry, make sure you’re in the top 40% of men or you’re going to end up with someone fat or unattractive.

I hope you’ve enjoyed my spergy little analysis.


Response to the 70’s Show Dude

I’ve come across this video a number of places now, most recently at Sis’. It annoyed me the first time I watched it out of curiousity, but I ignored it. But it keeps coming up, so now I want to say a couple words on the great philosophical musings of the guy who played a stoner on that show about the 70’s:

He makes three points (starting at about 2 mins in). The first and third points are unoriginal but good, opportunity comes from hard work and  build your own life, but everybody is ignoring those two. The one point everybody is focusing on is # 2:

The sexiest thing in the world is being really smart, thoughtful, and generous.  Everything else is crap, I promise you.  It’s just crap that people try to sell to you to make you feel like less, so don’t buy it!”

The first objection is that it is simply not true.

Intelligence is not sexy. If being smart was sexy, awkward nerds would would get the hot girls, engineers would be rolling in poon, Stephen Hawking would dominate People’s Sexiest Men, and porn videos would be indistinguishable from Khan’s Academy. We all know how true that is. (Protip: It’s not). Likewise, being thoughtful and generous are not sexy. Saying otherwise is just deluding the gullible.

Just because something is good, does not mean it is sexy.

But the bigger problem is not the untrue conflation of intelligence and sexiness, that’s the type of relatively minor white lie which our society so does love.

The bigger problem is that to the punked stoner sexiness is the goal of intelligence. The axiom of point #2 is a basic assumption shared by stoner dude, his screaming, teenage fans, and everybody throwing this video around is that sexiness is the the primary goal one should aspire to.

Intelligence is not lauded because it advances civilization. It is not lauded for the glory of God, or even the glory of man. It is not lauded for the good it may bring others. It is not lauded as tool for finding and acquiring virtue.

No we should not be virtuous for virtue’s sake or the greater good. We should not expand our capabilities for the betterment of man. No, you should be intelligent because it will engorge Jimmy’s dick and will make Janey tingle.

Welcome to the new hedonism, where aspiring to be a sex object is inspirational.


The Archetypal Modern Woman

I think we now have the physical incarnation of the manosphere archetype of The Modern Woman. From this point on, when someone wonders what the manosphere means by the modern woman, we have a specific person we can point to.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you: Tracy Clark-Flory.

You may have heard of her before, but the dude did not take my advice to RUN NOW, so the story just got better. But before I get to that, I’m going to outline exactly how she makes the perfect archetype of the modern woman.

We can start with the double-name, which came pre-marriage, suggesting she comes from a feminist line. She has your typical worthless degree (BA in English from a Californian liberal arts college) and a job at the liberal rag Salon writing about sex and relationships.  We can see from her profile picture above that she was fairly good-looking, a solid 7.

That’s a good start, but it gets ever so much more entertaining.

During her pretty years, she spent her youth on hooking-up and casual relationships. In her owns words, at 24 she “had roughly three times as many hookups as relationships,” but she’s not a slut as she “never had a one-night stand, only several-nights stands.” She passionately defended the hook-up culture arguing it never hurt her going through guys like she was “making an enthusiastic check mark next to every box” on “the Career Center’s job placement questionnaire.

She did indeed have fun times in her youth, but they did not last. A couple of years later, she still defends the hook-up culture and encourages one night stands, but she softens saying, “maybe we’re beginning to also allow ourselves more nuanced feelings about our hookups.  Like Klausner and Anderson, we can now acknowledge regret over a one-night stand, without being considered, or seeing ourselves as, forever ruined women…”

Just a year later, she begins to express second thoughts about casual sex, stating that most people find friends with benefits relationships to be “overwhelmingly negative.” “At some point [she] realized that, despite [her] insistence otherwise, [she] actually wanted those sorts of intimacies, only with an actual commitment.”

Her descent into absolute sluttery isn’t quite done yet though. Two years later, in 2012, she sees her favourite male porn star in a bar, and decide she has to fuck him. So she does. The sex is the narssicistic, hollow, rote sex one would expect from such an encounter:

It’s exactly what I had breathlessly watched him do many times before, but this time it seemed mechanical and theatrical. Instead of being entertained, I was doing the entertaining, and I suspect he was too — but for whom, exactly? We were the only audience.”

“Despite the emptiness of it, [she] felt a sense of accomplishment over my conquest.” Yet, a little while later she begins to question herself and “began to feel shameful”, “What kind of man will want to be with a woman who’s slept with a male porn star?”

But don’t worry, her hollow, meaningless sex had meaning and made her a better person. She now has “a whole new appreciation for the difference between fantasy and reality, and how much sexier the latter can be when you aren’t striving for pornographic perfection.”

By pure coincidence, “not too long thereafter I got into a relationship with just such a guy.” This had absolutely nothing with the the profound sadness and hollowness she felt from her “conquest”.

At this point she’s careening towards the wall face-first:

The combination of aging and her empty experience with the porn star send her into a frenzy of self-introspection. She realized she “spent her twenties having lots of good sex, but faked her way through nearly every climax.” She “now climax[es] reliably, sometimes even effortlessly, with Steve [which] seems nothing short of a miracle.” She finds out she likes having relationships, even ones which grow out of hook-ups.

Realizing that she likes relationships, she then does exactly what every modern women does when faced with age and emptiness, starts demanding “real courtship.” Just half a year after she shags a male pornstar on the first night and writes about her awesome relationship with Steve, she finds a new beau. But this one is different, this beta boy doesn’t start with hook-ups, like Steve, no, he brings her aging self flowers. She is “shocked to find that traditional courtship is pretty great.” Yay for her.

But unlike the porn star or Steve, beta boy does not get sex that same night. Nope, beta boy is special and “there’s a specialness in waiting until you’re comfortable enough with someone to get naked together while totally sober.” Beta boy has to work for what she gave the rest of the world so freely. He had to go on five dates, pay for big meals, pick her up in a cab, etc. before he got what McPornstar and Steve got for being available in a bar.

With her newfound love of traditional courtship (ie. making beta boy earn her sex and love), she then starts trying to convince everyone that men love relationships, but dislike casual sex, because that would be convenient would it not?

Recently, we found at she has a happy ending to her tale. She’s getting married to beta boy and is talking about becoming a mommy. In a shocking twist, it turns out beta boy was actually  someone she first met “around the same time that I wrote that first hookup essay.”

Looks like beta boy’s been pining away for five years and finally made good (after she spent the last of her youth on dozens of other men).

She could have had his love the whole time, but “even if [she] could, [she] wouldn’t in a million years go back and shake [her] 23-year-old self and tell her that she’d already met her future fiancé.” She just loves her memories of empty fucks with pornstars and her relationship with Steve far too much to give them up for boring old love with beta boy.

But this is good for beta boy because she “would have loved him the same.” Why her “hookup years made [her] more accepting of [her] fiancé’s imperfections.” Can’t you just feel the love she has for him.

Having had her alpha fux and having secured her beta bux, she is still encouraging other women to follow in her path. Her story is a “reminder that the hookup hand-wringers are wrong, and not to be trusted.” It’s a story of true love winning out; young women can fuck whoever they want and still end up with a pliable beta to pay for their children.

****

So, in a nutshell, Tracy Clark-Flory is the the stereotypical, nay, archetypical, modern woman. She fucks uncountable alphas, ignoring the beta who likes her, throughout her years of youth and prettiness. She realizes how empty it all is, but only once the wall approaches and the good times are coming to an end, so she uses the last of her fading feminine charms to husband-up the barely tolerable beta.

All that’s needed now is her complaints about how beta boy won’t divide the chores properly, followed by a story of how she’s falling out of love with him, followed by her divorce within the decade. Then there will be stories about how being a single mother is hard, how dating as a single mother is hard, and how there are no good men left.

If we’re lucky (and beta boy isn’t) there might even be a hilarious story of how she pined for Steve throughout the years of her marriage to beta boy.

So, whenever someone demands an example of alpha fux/beta bux, or wonders what we mean by the modern woman, we only need to point them to this post.

Here’s to you Tracy Clark-Flory, you are the Archetype of the Modern Woman!

You won the mating game. You got the alpha fux and have almost attained the beta bux. To you we raise up a rousing course of “da professional womenz ode.”

****

I’ll say it one last time, just in case he comes across this:

To the guy marrying Tracy: RUN AWAY. Run as hard and as fast as you can before you are legally bound to her. Do it; this will not end well for you. I hope, for your sake, you find this and take heed my warning. If you don’t lulz will be had at your expense in the future.

****

A lot of the information was cribbed from Susan and Vox.