What PUAs get wrong about ‘alpha wolves’

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/pick-up-artists-dont-understand-what-alpha-even-meansas-evidenced-by-wolves

Everything?

Alpha means being a Patriarch – married, traditional, monogamous, loyal, fertile.

They’re trying desperately to signal K-selected traits with an r-sexuality.
That’s why it fails. No, you fail, you’re inferior socially, found wanting.
It’s easier to signal being a good father and run (cowards) than to actually become a man.
There is also the matter that Alpha is an animal aristocracy, not only are you born into it but high fitness isn’t limited to males, there are Alpha females obviously because the Alphas of the pack are K-selected aka the Alpha Male only lies with his female. This isn’t a lion/pride arrangement and in prides, the lionesses hunt (work).
Protean displays as mixed messages?
Protean displays are done by defensive cowards when faced with a predator…. actually yeah, PUA < most women.

‘But it’s the alpha/beta hierarchy that’s really having a renaissance online. And its current use completely ignores the science behind it. So I went to a wolf park to study their “on the prowl” behavior.
“[Alpha is] a term that was coined in biology, just the first Greek letter in the Greek alphabet, just a convenience thing,” says Monty Sloan, senior animal curator and staff photographer at Wolf Park. “And it’s been kind of undermined by public perception of what that might mean.” First of all, wolf packs have two alphas: a male and a female. “There’s always two alphas in a pack. That’s what defines a pack. The pack might be two wolves, but socially, they are dominant. They are alphas. If more wolves enter the pack, they’ll submit to those two. And what you’ll see is a linear hierarchy develop.”‘

Like a ….class system?

Alpha is a power couple.

If you’re not married to an alpha while being one yourself, you’re not Alpha with a capital ‘A’, at most potential.

I’ve been trying to correct them on the ethology for years.

‘These two alphas are usually a breeding pair, and in wolves found in the Midwest, wolf packs are usually a nuclear family. This is why some wolf researchers have abandoned the term alpha altogether, like David Mech, whose book The Wolf popularized the idea of an alpha wolf in the 1970s. “[T]hey are merely breeders, or parents, and that’s all we call them today,” he writes on his academic website. Rather than one alpha male having some harem of lady-wolves at his beck and call because he’s so strong and butch, the alpha male is daddy.
You don’t fight to get to the alpha position, you usually inherit it. You’re usually in the right place at the right time,” says Sloan. “All you have to do is have offspring, and the offspring are going to grow up submitting to their parents. That’s all it takes.”‘

K-SELECTION.
Genetic superiority, proven by wits.

Genetic suicides or deadbeats can NEVER, EVER BE ALPHA.

I’ve mentioned the Darwin of why on here, it’s the Parental Investment theory.

Do they listen? No. That would involve real self-improvement and the sunk cost fallacy of bullshit e-books has wormed into their brain. Love is not a game unless you’re crazy. Taylor Swift crazy.

‘According to To Be An Alpha, a website dedicated to helping men become the alphas of their pack, alpha males that take control are “vocal and loud” and “aren’t afraid to get physical.”‘

Obnoxious and boyishly immature? Entitled?
They’re trying to rebrand a gobby chav teen as the epitome of masculinity?

‘Dominant breeding wolves aren’t afraid to get physical, but they don’t start fights either. “You don’t typically see a dominant wolf going around, parading around acting tough and aggressively confronting the other wolves,” says Sloan. “When you do see that, it’s usually a sign of a lack of confidence. Ironically, the animal is not very confident if it’s doing that, and it’s not comfortable at all.”‘

Freud. Signalling masculinity, like talking about it, means you aren’t. You’re lying and hoping people won’t forget you exist. That’s narcissistic, that’s solipsistic (wait, no, just egocentric and selfish). The abuse of ‘solipsism’, which funny at first as intellectual posturing, now grates.

Any man who must say I am King, isn’t a King?

If you insist on picking a sex that leads the Alpha debate, it’s female.

Another major misconception is that alpha males are dominant over alpha females. “The dominance between the sexes is not that important to them,” says Sloan.
The wolves I visited at Wolf Park were a group of siblings: Kanti, Bicho, and Fiona. Kanti is the alpha male, Fiona is the alpha female. She is also dominant over Kanti. “If there is an altercation between the female and Kanti, Kanti is on his back submitting,” says Sloan. “Even though she is much smaller than him, she is the dominant wolf in the pack.” This is typical of the packs in Wolf Park.’

tfw literal animals are more socially intelligent than you, Roosh V
It’s Bateman’s Principle, the mother makes babies and in K-terms, that’s all that matters. Eggs > Sperm
Women are more selective, women need to be protected but this is from other males, sexual competition.
How many men would die for their woman/children? How many of those are men?
Yet they claim they want a Patriarchy. Surrrre. Patriarchy isn’t male liberty, it’s male enslavement to women. At least, in Darwinian terms but at least the good men survive biologically. Women’s lib was liberation for the sexuality of men to fuck and run. Sexual Revolution was terrible for women, great for men. If you take away our vote and retain your own, all the legs will be shutting. And then other men will take yours, based on history.

“It turns out, not even peacocks truly peacock. We may think their visual display is pretty enchanting, but peahens aren’t always looking at the display. They’re listening. Peacocks vibrate their tail feathers in two distinct patterns; they twerk, essentially.”

shh, I enjoyed letting them make fools of themselves and it makes them easier to avoid
God Bless Ed Hardy for that.

Peacocking is actually about male attractiveness, genetic beauty i.e. the gym does nothing, lookism is real.

Death is genetic

Especially in the selfish, so the self-destructiveness of liberals (drugs, homosexuality, abortion, STDs) really is a feature, not a bug.

We already know sexual selection is genetic (r/K, HBD inheritance) so obviously natural is too.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/we-are-programmed-to-die-early-and-thats-a-good-thing

If death is gene-mediated, then who is programmed to live longer, r-types or Ks?

“Bar-Yam and his colleagues are arguing that natural selection actually favors traits that self-limit consumption and reproduction, not selfish maximalism, including lifespan limiting mortality. In other words, organisms may be able to have longer lifespans than they presently do, but natural selection has actually favored individuals that clock themselves out early.”

Unclear. Probably K but the variables are iffy.

They’re partially basing off the false idea that more reproduction is always good/favoured by evolution when actually it was responding to the selection pressure of high mortality. Now mortality is low, they should include quality, the alpha genes for the race between the sexes.
Fitness is not N children, that only applies when there is competition from r-types.

Sexual competition.

In a vacuum, K is superior for a society.

Empires rise with K, die with r.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/rk-is-timeless/

“Aside from August Weismann—who in 1882 did actually argue that death was programmed—it’s because when they considered the effect of evolutionary selection, they were taking averages across organisms and their environments instead of considering each individual organism in its local context. By removing the individual from its particular place or location within a given population, this average ignores the complex relationship between that individual and its environment.”

READ DARWIN.

“By looking at how an individual’s local context affects their fitness, Bar-Yam and his colleagues were able to show that traits which may be an advantage in the short-term (such as an individual’s longevity or ‘selfish’ resource consumption) can actually be a significant disadvantage in the long term, and vice versa.”

Implying it’s bad for the nation, the wider genetic kin group or thede.

Nature is nationalist.

“While this may work out well for the most selfish individuals in the short term, if Bar-Yam and his colleagues are correct it could be cataclysmic for our species in the long run.
“What people do affects their environment and that affects their ability to survive,” said Bar-Yam. “This is something we’re all well aware of today. If you overexploit your resources, you’re going to be in trouble.”‘

MALTHUS, she said, screaming into the void.

“As Bar-Yam points out, if death is genetically programmed, that also means it can probably be hacked.”

The problem with the autistic, they assume they know better than nature. They don’t even know what all these genes do in all conditions and they want to go chopping them out with CRISPR. You know why CF spread? It protects you from TB.

For those who know jack-shit about evolution: the vast majority of mutations are bad, not just bad but fatal (anti-fitness, dysgenic) and that’s why it’s good when nature throws away the genetic equivalent of a shitty doodle on scrunched-up paper. That’s why humans evolved to die quickly, to spread up the overall rate of mutation as a species but also to conserve gains quickly too with shorter generational duration (more breeding in same time).

How many people deserve to live that long? Will it include youth or the shit years, extended for centuries? Who wants to slave away for centuries, cos they can’t financially retire? Biohacking is fraught with technical issues.

Encouraging men to be criminals isn’t ‘alpha’

This is the stupidest Alpha posturing post I have ever seen.

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/live-bold.html

The manosphere makes the simple error of availability bias: they base all of their advice on an entire sex, which exists worldwide with as much variance as men, around the narrowest of demographic bands: white American sluts with nothing better to do than hang out at bars (alcoholics).

You can spit in a girl’s face and she will still be attracted to you. You can call her terrible vulgar names and she will still be attracted to you. You can even beat her up repeatedly and she will still be attracted to you.

Do you want to attract borderlines? Because that’s how you attract borderlines.

Women aren’t crazy, the ones attracted to you are.
Once you hit double, triple digits of failed affairs, the problem isn’t the women, the common denominator of failed relationships is you. Dodging responsibility is such a feminist move e.g. women shouldn’t carry weapons to defend themselves, why are women being attacked?

Do you blame the people giving you this advice? No. You know they’re trashy when you got involved and you liked it. You don’t get to change your mind at the end and pretend you were taken in. The PUA-types like Bad Girls and want a Good Girl’s Happy Ending. It’s deluded as the career woman thinking she can pick up a man at 30 like dry cleaning.

No wonder these guys get hauled in front of the courts on assault charges and rape accusations, they 100% deserve it if this is the nonsense they internalize. Then play Victim like the bitchy gamma they secretly are. If confronted by such a woman’s brothers, uncles or father, they’d shriek like a banshee, we all know it. This macho posturing is now opening up the door to incitement, since when is attacking women a show of strength? I covered the reddit abusers trying to justify their crminal actions as redpill (using it as a shield, little cowards) when actually redpill theory is essentialism, traditonalism, that treats the weaker sex with respect because they don’t have to prove anything to anyone (this is all homoerotic posturing to other, decent men, who are naturally disgusted). It gets worse.

You can be a complete psychopath, murder your parents, or tattoo a swastika into your forehead, and more than a few women will actually find that attractive.

Kevin-Hart-Really-o rlly lies

All it takes is one sperg to believe you. These are the ones saying SlutHate are deluded for thinking women value looks (lookism). Hybristophilia is a fetish. It occurs in men too. That’s like say all men are trannies, and secretly want dresses, because a few men like to wear little girl dresses and feel a desire to self-castrate. It’s so damn wrong I don’t believe I have to point this out, what are you all thinking? You don’t know the female mind better than us. We don’t know yours better than you. Quit playing Professor Xavier and gaslighting already vulnerable mentally ill women into fitting your delusions on the entire sex (the ‘You Really Wanted It’ line is used by rapists btw, that won’t look good in court). You can make a vulnerable person believe anything (see white female Islam converts for a fitting example), but that doesn’t make it true.

The signalling to other men re violence should involve violence toward other men.
If someone challenges you to a fight in a bar, you don’t punch his girlfriend, what the hell is wrong with you? What happened to the manosphere (my guess, keyboard alpha entryism) to make this signalling reach the mass hysterical point where saying this is not only OK but met with praise?

I just.... I don't even know what to....what??

You have criminal responsibility and moral agency, you’re old enough to know better. So many people reading this are 25+, well beyond the age total ignorance is acceptable. Weren’t these guys saying we should hold men to a higher moral standard because they need to lead women? And to do it all to impress some slut? What sort of pedestal BS is that? No bitch is worth prison!

Have you actually seen Dark Triad people IRL? I don’t mean streaming Dexter on Netflix and feeling witty or reviving a videotape of American Psycho or Fight Club. Actual psychopaths and sociopaths? Have you seen what their life outcomes are and what happens once they’re past their prime (35+) and people stop putting up with their abusive nonsense and giving them 12th chances? When they’re held to an adult standard?

Read Hare’s accounts of psychopaths and read how bitchy and depressed they are and you will know pretty damn quickly these are people nobody should emulate. They hate themselves and their own lives and punish others out of envy.

You know what happens to them?

Dead or prison-raped, in general.

What marvellous advice for modern men already getting that Men Are Evil propaganda from the feminists, thanks for the show of faith in boys. That’s exactly what they want you to do, so much so I suspect this may be a black ops coup of the Narrative.

It leads me to believe the manosphere bought into black gang culture and genuinely believe criminals are glamorous, as opposed to the truth, where they’re as low as junkies and nobody shows them respect.

Going by this, any man showing deference to any woman socially (called manners and etiquette, boors) is a ‘pussy.’ Considering the type always slinging that insult (themselves losers), who cares what those manboys think? That’s the general attitude of every great man I’ve ever met.

‘Oh, you call me a pussy. Am I supposed to care?’ 

If you can be moved around like a little pawn by a word, you’re no better than the SJWs. If calling you chicken like Marty McFly will make you kill yourself, you aren’t brave, you’re terminally stupid.
Sticks and stones, bitches! Don’t react to a few non-applicable terms like they’re a punch in the face or an insult to your manhood.

If all you care about is counting notches, you don’t have any honour to speak of and everyone knows it.

This is meant to be an evopsych argument (women are programmed to like this – in the State of Nature, not the 21st century, numbnuts) but all the evidence points to Types. Plural. As in, different people evolved to like different things. Human taste is irreducible to a single demo, like sex. In basic studies on body type, a simple measure, computerized, we can agree it’s empirical, men thought women like Muscle Man. Huge, hulking, high maintenance. To this day, men dare disagree with the findings, as if women don’t know what sexually appeals to them, as if you can gaslight an entire sex into finding what you have sexually attractive (an anti-evolution position), just like the fat acceptance feminists (‘tingles’ is also an inaccurate term, the brain codes for attraction, a physiological response isn’t vital/instant as it is with men, it’s projection for the weakness of their own body betraying their interests, like we care), and they go on to insist that their bulking of gainzzzz is actually about women, instead of signalling social desirability as a tribal member to other men (the homoeroticism upsets them). Watch the way they compliment each other at the gym. Watch them. Hella gay.

Notes

Spitting in someone’s face is illegal. It’s assault. It’s considered worse than, say, a punch, because it transmits disease. Sometimes ranked up to battery without actual contamination. It’s a filthy thing nobody in the First World should be forgiven for doing. Live in the Middle East, they do it all the time. Considering it’s usually done by men to women too weak to throw a punch, this would be an aggravating factor for sentencing as an act of misogyny, don’t take cues from porn, addicts. They’re paid to pretend they like bodily fluids.

Lynsey [1995] is the case law relevant to the UK.

Doing things because a girl wants you to is beta.

Changing everything about your life around what you think women think is omega.

Changing your actions because of what people might think of you isn’t manly.

Being a cad used to have a social cache because it was difficult and could get you run out of town or worse. Nowadays anyone can get laid if they drop their standards enough. The glory has gone. You go to the nearest American city and buy a cougar a drink at 2am. Casanova you ain’t.

This isn’t school, who cares about being cool anymore?

Anti-socials don’t have good social relations. Duh?

‘And it doesn’t matter if you try to conceal your cowardice by calling it “being a gentleman”‘ – Not the words of traditional men in support of a Patriarchy, where all the men are forced to be gents. When they say they support such things, it is a lie and again, signalling, because men who truly believe that wouldn’t treat their peers with open disdain.

Compare with: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/when-gamma-reacts.html

“He is a coward and will abandon most everything to save his skin, and this fact gnaws on him internally. Being so narcissistic he is unable to imagine other people not being secret cowards so he will regularly talk of being brave and accuse others of being cowardly.”

They have jumped the shark.

red dwarf ace rimmer interior alligator surfing

Nice guys win – Study reports women repulsed by liars and cheats

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3336987/Actually-s-nice-guys-girl-thank-Women-lose-men-cheats-liars.html

Once a cheat, always a cheat.

Who’d wanna invest in a relationship with that? Would they lend money to a druggie?

But it turns out that women do actually prefer kind, considerate and charitable men over rivals who may be better looking but have lower moral standards.

New research shows women who are initially sexually attracted to men start to lose interest when they find out they are cheats, crooks or liars.

But men who fancied beautiful women showed no signs of going off them, even when they discovered they were of dubious character.

It’s a massive case of projection. They don’t care so they assume women don’t either.

The findings, published in the International Journal of Psychology, suggest that ‘bad boys’ rarely get the girl in the end.

eye roll omg shut up boring bored damon ian drinking

Colour me surprised.

Genetic suicides.

The results showed that the women were then much less attracted to the bad boys – no matter how good looking they were.

What’s the point in nabbing a 10 today if he’s gone tomorrow, when the baby arrives?

But the men were still drawn to women they considered sexy, even if they were bordering on evil.

Manosphere in a nutshell.

Blaming us for their issues since Biblical Eve.

In a report on their findings the researchers said: ‘Men were significantly less sensitive than women to experimental moral manipulation.

translation: they were using a different head

‘Male attraction at first sight to a strange woman seemed relatively less permeable to moral factors than female attraction to a strange man.

‘It is likely that in women, compared with men, physical attraction feelings are less dissociated from moral and personality factors.’

Women’s conscience factors into attraction.

The brain is the biggest sexual organ, after all.

Nobody tell the douchebags and fuckboys, we rely on their bragging about their corrupt ways to screen them out. It’s like the people who brag about how much they can eat at a buffet – congratulations on your lack of self control?

Manosphere wrong on evolution again

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-science-of-sex-most-important.html

I mentioned parental choice obliterates most of their theories. In favour of Dad-types. In evolutionary terms, the man who reproduces is the Alpha. Notches count for nada. It’s like the spergs who record a tally of all the sexual acts they’ve done with a woman. Like, do you want a medal? It’s somewhere here just check the evolution tag, probably. Maybe the little girls marrying creepy old men myth.

No matter how much evidence stacks against their silly little notions of supremacy, they’ll never admit they’re being unscientific. Sometimes, we’re worse than the feminists.

This aims to be a neat summary. Neat explanations are frequently superior.

The system of parental sexual choice seems to be unique to humans – which makes it a matter of exceptional biological interest: we may be the only species that has not evolved to choose our own mates.

<laughs in CH’s direction>

…Another way of describing this is that parents screen or filter prospective spouses – and individual preferences only work within this pre-screened and filtered population. Consequently, modern men and women are not adapted to select a partner from an unscreened population – and not equipped with the proper instincts to assist their choice; so they are vulnerable to deception and exploitation.

Much like a…. game….

…In sum (and in terms of their biological fitness) modern men are too worried about working hard, and not worried enough about meeting and impressing individual women.

The opposite of MGTOW. (lmao)

So men and women who are apparently, in biological and historical terms, extremely well-qualified as potential husbands and wives, remain unmarried and childless in large and increasing numbers.

Social Alphas.

…Another omission is the role of intoxication by alcohol and drugs. Much of modern sexual behaviour is initiated in parties, bars and nightclubs; and occurs more-or-less under the influence of intoxicants – and this in itself deranges delicate brain functioning and destroys the benefits of behavioural adaptations that may have taken centuries or millennia to evolve.

An intoxicated person is maladaptive.

The first thing a traditional society would do is ban nightclubs.

Repost: ‘Alpha genes’, Patriarchy and the Alpha Female

Why? Easier to search for. The reddit trolls can do their worst (bitch). Slight edits made.

Yup gentiles are lesser beings

The ‘alpha genes’ are the ones that get passed on in a Patriarchy. The genes of the titular Patriarch, the dad. Cads are scum in these societies, along with tarts, not fit to lick their work boots. The beta male in a Patriarchy is the man who cannot or will not become a responsible husband and father. They’re the status level of the Japanese herbivores. Alpha genes build and reaffirm their own societal structure, they aren’t cucked out to the reckless hedons.

Cad and tarts who cannot settle down (even settling with one another) will have an atrocious later life. Nobody will support them. There is no support network. Those who will not, for whatever reason, will not be given the opportunities by Patriarchs, created by Patriarchs, that should go to the other Patriarchs (this is why men only got hired in certain fields beyond requirement, because women weren’t Patriarchs either) in the hope of future reciprocal investment or family connection (by marriage). The old boy’s network has no room for bachelors. They have no skin in the game, they have no social proof. They cannot get on professionally, nor will any respectable family introduce them to their daughters. You’ve heard the idea of hiring a man preferentially because he had a family to support, right? The Patriarchs’ network at play. Just like voting rights being accorded by property ownership aka societal investment required to support a family. This was also open to women once they could inherit prior to being open to all men (read: the nomads asking we end universal suffrage are retarded). Once rooted in a place for life, you’d better behave. It’s a check, it’s all a check. Pass or fail. Like the Church law. That’s why we have religion. And God is a literal father. God is also All-Father, Lord of the Universe.

laughing rdj crack up

I love it when (always male) atheists brag and you can almost see the religious people in the room shrinking from their lives and refusing to help them in future.

The ‘alpha female’ does exist, much to the hatred of cads because she shows them up. Feminists have tried to emulate this woman unsuccessfully by mimicking her external appearance (this doesn’t work with virile men either). She is respected by these men, these Patriarchs, and allowed as an exception despite her sex (which they graciously overlook) because she fits the criteria and behaviour (character, honour, must support a family for practical reasons) and doesn’t cause trouble. She deserves to be there. Powerful men aren’t misogynistic, that’s from a position of role insecurity like all sexism. They look forward to additional competition, in fact. She becomes a woman at home as a man ceases to be a professional upon leaving work, there is role flexibility, the family and its structure and support are important.  Alpha females are rare (the product of two alpha parents and their quality) but demonstrably exist.

Weak men (virginTOW, many PUA) hate them the most for supplanting ‘their’ role they refuse to take up and further insult, out-competing them. They will imply they are promiscuous (in spite of contrary evidence) because they need to believe it would be possible for them to achieve it themselves (and reaffirm their ego) and so insult their lucky mate too (like saying he’s being cucked when he clearly isn’t and we live in a world of DNA testing).

Why do they do this?

IF the barriers to entry aren’t one sex (m/f) like they mistakenly thought it was (told by feminists harhar) but the other sex (promiscuity/quality scale, r or K) their worldview collapses. They become ‘bad men’. They fail in life. It was entirely their choice, they cannot blame women for it. The music stops.

I fucked up, they know subconsciously. What do I do? I must fix this. What can I do? What are they doing?

Their reaction to this is a furious rush to Have it All (settle in the case of feminists and ‘players’) and convince themselves they’ve beat the system (sound familiar?). Predictably, they fail because people see them for what they are – desperate and faking it (we use various psychiatric terms nowadays).

They can’t stand happy monogamy. They hate it. Of course they can’t fake it. They burned out their pleasure circuits on meaningless drinking, drugs and one night stands. They are incapable of fully pair bonding anymore and until recently, saw this as a sign of their success as men (not being tied down) because they were lied to about the ideal nature of men (not sociopaths using people up like soul food), when it betrays a broken lack of human empathy and connection in the cold light of day. Of course no one in their right mind would take them after their ruin and shame. If they do manage to trick a poor sap (see the Simple decision game theory post), they will still cheat. If their spouse is Mr or Mrs Perfect they will cheat even more. They hate their spouse and they hate their marriage. They deserve divorce. Both sexes deserve to be divorce raped because they breached the contract and entered into it dishonestly. This is why society (Patriarchy) pressures marriage – K opportunity arises from it. These people are brats. The support network and opportunities dry up and they blame…. the system. Oh what a shock. It isn’t their fault again.

Myth: There are no successful Matriarchs (and by extension, Matriarchies).

Matriarch societies like Italy do pretty well. They’re at First World standard. Much of Europe is Matriarchal, the women run the house. If you disagree, you don’t know Europe. The men wanted to strike out because the home was secured. We all know about Tiger Moms by now. Genius women were allowed to play with the Big Boys – so long as they didn’t try to lower or alter the standards. Hello, Hypatia, anyone? Supreme BAMF. The beta males of that society thought she made such a disgrace of their manhood by existing they tore her apart. She’s the Patron Saint of the Alpha Female. Being an alpha female is more dangerous for this reason. Both women and weaker men are trying to take you down (this fed into the narrative of oppression). Many limit their influence to the privacy of the home for this reason (and we never hear about them in MSM because they’re happy).

War and r/K

That’s the connection I see.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/nation-wimps/201510/the-mating-game-is-changing-and-you-wont-believe-how

A paucity of men would naturally recreate this condition post-war. The remaining men would be the fittest by Darwinian standards, connote status and unconsciously wish to repopulate. Yes, we called this the Baby Boom.

Women do not like sharing their resource, husband, as men do not like consolidating theirs (on one woman, if they are not in love). Men see women as a valuable resource when scarce (a society where most were married and time on the market ‘in society’ was short) but in modern times, most young people are on the shelf, and have advances from their elders to contend with too.

It won’t remain this way. Already I see this happening in real time.

As resources (economic) contract, women will find their voice and demand (marriage or nothing) what they wanted to ask to begin with. Women don’t want to date. It gets boring. Neither do men. Both want something else. What else do the men offer now? ‘Muh dick’ is going to be a sick reply, a base animal response, some women will no doubt become prostitutes to fill the demand when the economy tanks and continue to fund their lifestyle. This is the traditional way and it’s going to happen. Men are not entitled to sex (read: female fertility) but believe this because it’s been practically free for so long. They have forgotten its value and with it the value of women. Why grow up? Why be a real boy when they have all the ‘rights’ and none of the responsibilities? Women are not entitled to male resources either but many aren’t even being given the chance at marriage, and the divorce system can be understood as a form of social reparations from this. It encourages marital settling in women, because if it doesn’t work out with the manchild Mr Second Best, you get a cash bonus from his failure to be a fit husband and can try again, with a persuasive dowry.

The original fault lies with men. If they refuse to grow up and lead, the other issues usher forth.

Feminism has robbed women of the confidence to ask that ONE important question (you want to be a housewife???) and subsequently taken away many of the attributes a man would seek in a wife for good measure.

Further, at least some of what is being reported as rape stems from regret over drink-fueled encounters devoid of emotional connection.

Bingo. Alcohol makes people desperate. Women don’t want casual sex, feminism told them they did. It’s the man’s fault, men have the active role and refuse it (they won’t ‘man up’), then wonder why society is slowly collapsing around their ears. He deceives her, to get sex, then he wonders why she uses his lies against him in a trial.

I describe you, you hate me. Really, you hate yourself and everyone knows it.

Promises are verbal contracts, college students are mature enough to know this. Consent is based on verbal conditions, so promises become vitally important. The seduction laws will end up coming back in and that will be the end of PUA forever. Hallelujah.

A symptom of this manchild phenomena is that women have had to become more masculine to compensate, simply to survive in an atomized society alone. Certainly, there is a little more competition but it’s simply out in the open now. We’re told it’s empowering to be a bitch. Any man wishing to criticize women for doing what it takes to survive in a world without men is a male gamine, a manic pixie dream boy, yet to grow up.

They meet a guy, he calls every couple of months, they spend a night or two together each time, and then they’re miserable because they’re emotionally attached to him and want more from him—for which he might even call them “needy” or “greedy,” should they summon the courage to ask.

That level of entitled bullshit from men (love, affection, sex, cooking, company – the role of a wife, free) is going to fly straight out the window and clear into the Sun, never to be heard from again. She plays her poker chips too early and loses them. Women are beginning to see their fault and Millennials are beginning to reject feminism.

The imbalance is being corrected.

“Relationship preferences and sexual behavior of individuals are responsive to context,” Schacht says. “Men want fundamentally different things from relationships when males are rare than when they are abundant. The rare-male male is the stereotypical fling-seeking cad we expect him to be. However, the abundant-male male is the committed, devoted male from the age of Camelot.”

Patriarchy is coming back.

The manboys should be scared. A boy has a natural enemy – man.

p.s. This explains the entitled character of the stereotypical Baby Boomer.

p.p.s. The ‘alpha genes’ are the ones that get passed on in a Patriarchy. The genes of the titular Patriarch, the dad. Cads are scum in these societies, along with tarts, not fit to lick their work boots. The beta male in a Patriarchy is the man who cannot or will not become a responsible husband and father. Alpha genes build and reaffirm their own societal structure, they aren’t cucked out to the reckless hedons. Cad and tarts who cannot settle down (even settling with one another) will have an atrocious later life. Nobody will support them. There is no support network. Those who will not, for whatever reason, will not be given the opportunities by Patriarchs, created by Patriarchs, that should go to the other Patriarchs (this is why men only got hired in certain fields beyond requirement, because women weren’t Patriarchs either) in the hope of future reciprocal investment or family connection (by marriage). The old boy’s network has no room for bachelors. They cannot get on professionally, nor will any respectable family introduce them to their daughters. You’ve heard the idea of hiring a man preferentially because he had a family to support, right? The Patriarchs network at play. Just like voting rights being accorded by property ownership aka societal investment to support a family. Once rooted in a place for life, you’d better behave. It’s a check, it’s all a check. Pass or fail.

laughing rdj crack up

The ‘alpha female’ does exist, much to the hatred of cads because she shows them up. Feminists have tried to emulate this woman unsuccessfully. She is respected by these men, these Patriarchs, and allowed as an exception despite her sex because she fits the criteria and behaviour (character, honour, must support a family for practical reasons) and doesn’t cause trouble. She becomes a woman at home as a man ceases to be a professional upon leaving work, there is role flexibility, the family and its structure and support are important.  Alpha females are rare (the product of two alpha parents and their quality) but demonstrably exist. Weak men (virginTOW, many PUA) hate them the most for supplanting ‘their’ role they refuse to take up and further insult, out-competing them. They will imply they are promiscuous (in spite of contrary evidence) because they need to believe it would be possible for them to achieve it themselves (and reaffirm their ego) and so insult their lucky mate too (like saying he’s being cucked when he clearly isn’t and we live in a world of DNA testing). IF the barriers to entry aren’t one sex (m/f) like they mistakenly thought it was but the other sex (promiscuity/quality scale, r or K) their worldview collapses. They become ‘bad men’. They fail in life. It was entirely their choice, they cannot blame women for it. The music stops. Their reaction to this is a furious rush to Have it All (settle in the case of feminists and ‘players’) and convince themselves they’ve beat the system (sound familiar?). Predictably, they fail because people see them for what they are – desperate and faking it. They can’t stand happy monogamy. They hate it. Of course they can’t fake it. Of course no one in their right mind would take them after their ruin and shame. If they do manage to trick a poor sap (see the Simple decision game theory post), they will still cheat. If their spouse is Mr or Mrs Perfect they will cheat even more. They hate their spouse and they hate their marriage. They deserve divorce. The support network and opportunities dry up and they blame…. the system.

p.p.p.s. You know it’s bad when Roosh, of all people, suddenly wants to get married. He senses the window closing. He doesn’t get it – you can’t switch sides. You can’t change teams. As an adult, you choose by your actions and on those he will be judged. We don’t ask job applicants whether they think they should get it, we look at their CV. Self-respecting women will look at the way he’s treated women, the verbs he uses like bang as if we’re ketchup bottles and make up some excuse.