Women Talk, Men Do

talk

Towards the end of last week’s comment thread there were some very insightful questions about how Men and women communicate.

Jeremy:

Honestly, [Stingray], I’ve never met a woman who actually wanted…”deep meaningful conversations, often.” I think this is another lie that women tell themselves. What women seem to want, conversationally, is an authority figure. They want someone who can talk for hours about things they have no understanding of. They want to be intellectually dazzled more than participate in a “deep meaningful conversation.”

[…] To be honest, and this will sound like I’m being arrogant, most women I’ve spent any time conversing with are poorly-read, lacking creative thoughts, and have an abysmal understanding of politics and the world at large. Having said that, I still can’t stand it when women say nothing on a date.

Yohami:

”deep meaningful conversations” for a woman, means “emotional stuff about how I feel and what I want”, “reaffirmation and validation of my viewpoints” and of course “entertain me with stories that show me your character and make me feel good about myself for being with you”

So of course they want that often.

jf12:

Yohami, deep doesn’t mean just telling her how you feel about her feelings, it means also helping her to uncover her inner goodness in the way that she agonized for almost a few moments when she betrayed one friend at the expense of another. In other words, you hold your metaphorical conch of an echo chamber to her metaphorical ear and its solipsistic otoacoustic emissions, and she can hear what she wants to hear, deeply.

Stingray:

Woman are not good at and hate what men mean by a deep meaningful conversation. The argument and debate, presenting and then criticizing ideas, and the ad hominems (that so often you all can then get up from the table and it is ALL over). That is not our idea of deep conversation at all. Then the feelings are NOT good and most women hate it.

Deti:

And the last thing a woman wants in a “deep, meaningful conversation is for the guy to talk about things important to HIM or, even worse, about HIS feelings. HIS feelings, wants, needs, and desires are the LAST things she wants to talk about because that’s so….beta.

The best male friends I have share one or more common interests with me – a sport, a hobby, music, art, fishing, lifting, golf, etc. – and the best conversations I can remember with these friends occurred while we were engaged in some particular activity or event. Even just moving a friend into his new house; it’s about accomplishing something together and in that time relating about shit. When I lived in Florida some of the best conversations I had with my studio guys were during some project we had to collaborate on for a week or two.

Women, make time with the express purpose of talking between friends. Over coffee perhaps, but the act of communication is more important than the event or activity. Even a ‘stitch-and-bitch’ is simply an organized excuse to get together and relate. For women, communication is about context. They are rewarded by how that communication makes them feel. For Men communication is about content and they are rewarded by the interchange of information and ideas.

Women talk, Men do.

Josey Wales:

Women typically don’t give a shit about world affairs, history, etc. They just don’t seem interested in pondering, learning about, debating the big issues.

There has to be a bio/evo explanation for this, and my best guess is that women’s concerns/interests have always been more provincial, localized and trivial. Picture a bunch of women sitting around a campfire hen party cluck session in primitive societies… Sharing gossip as they threshed the grain or made clothes.

I’m inclined to agree this. It’s no secret that men and women’s brains are wired differently, but what’s interesting is the complementarity between between both sex’s brains. It’s a mistake to think that women’s neural predilections for emotion and intuitiveness is inherently a weakness or a liability, but it’s equally a mistake to think that men’s dispositions towards rationalism, problem solving and inventiveness.

Maps of neural circuitry showed that on average women’s brains were highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men’s brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions.

Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men’s brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women’s for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.

“If you look at functional studies, the left of the brain is more for logical thinking, the right of the brain is for more intuitive thinking. So if there’s a task that involves doing both of those things, it would seem that women are hardwired to do those better,” Verma said. “Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more.”

This pretty much confirms men and women’s communicative methods I outlined in The Medium is the Message:

We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do. Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling. Men prioritize content, women prioritize context. One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men. It’s result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men. That’s not to discount women as problem solvers in their own right, but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication. Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits, yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.” While more than a few women like to wear this as a badge of some kind of superiority, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they communicate is more important, or how they communicate it is more efficient, just that they have a greater capacity to understand nuances of communication better than do men. One of the easiest illustrations of this generational gender switch is to observe the communication methods of the “strong” women the media portray in popular fiction today. How do we know she’s a strong woman? The first cue is she communicates in an overt, information centered, masculine manner.

From an evolutionary perspective, it’s likely that in our hunter-gatherer tribal roles had a hand in men and women’s communication differences. Men went to hunt together and practiced the coordinated actions for a cooperative goal. Bringing down a prey animal would have been a very information-crucial effort; in fact the earliest cave paintings were essentially records of a successful hunt and instructions on how to do it. Early men’s communication would necessarily have been content driven discourse or the tribe didn’t eat.

Similarly women’s communications would’ve been during gathering efforts and childcare. It would stand to reason that due to women’s more collectivist roles they would evolve to be more intuitive, and context oriented, rather than objective oriented. A common recognition in the manosphere is women’s predisposition toward collectivism and/or a more socialist bent to thinking about resource distribution. Whereas men tend to distribute rewards and resources primarily on merit, women have a tendency to spread resources collectively irrespective of merit. Again this predispositions is likely due to how women’s ‘hard-wiring’ evolved as part of the circumstances of their tribal roles.

Men Like Women

When a man attempts to communicate like a woman (context-primary), women associate him with the feminine (i.e. he talks like a woman). This subconsciously indicates to her that a guy is Beta and making concessions of his maleness to better identify with the feminine. When you read about angry women feeling duped by the Nice Guy, who was only ‘playing nice’ in order to earn her intimacies, that deception is rooted in a guy relating to women as a woman would.

As you’re probably guessing, with the rise of social feminization, post-sexual revolution, men have been socialized and acculturated to express themselves increasingly as a woman would. This is part of boys-men’s earliest feminine conditioning; a calculated effort by the Feminine Imperative to train men to communicate as women do. I call this men’s “sensitivity training”, but in essence it’s a social effort to force men to rewire their brains to better accommodate a feminine-primary society. “Get in touch with your feminine side”, is really a plea for men to contort their natural ways of communicating into a feminine aligned mode of communicating.

The results however are very much the same as the faux-nice guy effect I describe. There is a subtle disingenuousness that the feminine mind perceives when a man communicates as a woman would. Alpha Men wouldn’t care enough to accommodate women’s communication preferences.

Incongruent communication styles is a tough obstacle for blue pill men to overcome when transitioning to red pill Game-awareness. The sincerity they hope to convey to women about their intentions is incongruous with how women’s limbic understanding of male communication style works. Men are men, because they talk ‘like men’ and are concerned with what Men are concerned with. Granted, the socialization of men to be more feminine-oriented doesn’t do a man any favors in unlearning this, but overcoming the fear of asserting himself as a Man and communicating to a woman as a Man would is imperative.

As most of the male commenters above will attest, there comes a point (usually for older, mature men with the experience to know) where forcing himself to relate to a woman on her terms is simply exhausting. It becomes mentally taxing to maintain interest – at some point men will want to speak their own language, feminine-primacy be damned, but it’s when he does revert back to his native gender language that he becomes more attractive.

When a Man drops the pretense of catering to the feminine, this is when he sets himself apart as a truly masculine agent. He is unapologetically masculine, and that is the mark of an Alpha – to not bend over into the feminine to better identify himself with the feminine. There is strength(and tingles) in our differences from women. So if you’re a newly red pill Man, start making efforts to consciously identify where you’re aligning yourself, your beliefs, your personality with accommodating the feminine and start unapologetically shifting them to a masculine-primary purpose.


181 responses to “Women Talk, Men Do

  • jf12

    To communicate does require some degree accommodation, though. Agreement to use common language, common semiotics, common memories, etc. Otherwise it’s one-sided hectoring or lecturing. So if she fails to accommodate the masculine then the only accommodating that can be done is by him. And if she fails by refusing, his only recourse is Dread.

  • Joe

    What a lot of mental masturbation. You use a word then mean the opposite and say it doesn’t work because what women is the opposite of what society and they say they want because really it’s supposed to be the opposite… and on and on it goes.

  • BC

    “War is a mere continuation of policy (politics) by other means.”

    Action is a mere continuation of communication (conversation) by other means.

    When a man changes from talking (relating via the feminine theatre) to doing (relating via the masculine theatre), he is still communicating, just by other (alpha) means. That is the whole point of “don’t tell, show.”

    Even in the greater world, look at the Ukraine situation. Much has been said on various blogs comparing Obama (beta) and Putin (alpha). Well, guess what – Obama and the west are talking, whereas Putin and Russia are doing. And guess which one is more likely to end up with the Crimea (and likely other regions as well)?

    So if she fails to accommodate the masculine then the only accommodating that can be done is by him.

    No, he can hold frame, or kick her to the curb as well. Next!

  • LiveFearless

    Works in business too: When a man attempts to communicate like a woman (context-primary), women associate him with the feminine (i.e. he talks like a woman). This subconsciously indicates to her that a guy is… making concessions of his maleness to better identify with the feminine. When you read about angry women feeling duped by the Nice Guy, who was only ‘playing nice’ in order to earn her intimacies, that deception is rooted in a guy relating to women as a woman would.

  • HardcoreHookup

    I work in an office full of older women, it’s a state job. What’s the move? Do I go along to get along or do I communicate in a masculine way? What do I do when these women try to engage me in gossip, or pry into my personal life?

  • BDJ

    The masculine-primary focus is to fuck and not give a shit. In this post-feminist world, there are consequences that HEAVILY disfavor men. And that, I’ve experienced as of late and am lucky to ‘game’ myself out of the situation. Having done plenty of re-evaluation upon myself; I am still hitting on chicks and not giving a fuck.

    Male-Female interaction is only a one way street. Take for example myself, I can have deep meaningful conversations with my good friend and we can understand each other and he gives me advice. I can talk to a new acquaintance (who I am not sexually attracted to,) and we can have conversations that will benefit us by building upon our relationship to reach a common goal.

    You can not do that with women you are pursuing,

    Regardless of how much affection she has, the moment you express ‘what I want with you’ to ANY women, it will never happen. Think of that as your trump card, where you will have MUCH BETTER success if you keep it hidden until the opportunity presents itself. A women can be head over heels in love with you, but when the moment she knows you feel the same – she will run for the hills. She will suddenly lose interest and you will be left wondering what went wrong. What went wrong was your incapacity to define female logic. (Joke)

    As a result, men who do not understand game will continue to dig themselves a larger grave. These men may be good looking, tall and inherited millions. It does not alter how they approach and view female interactions. They have the advantage in being in an accelerated learning curve, but my focus will be on ‘average’ men. You average man is frustrated by the fact that they logically played their trump card with an illogical opponent (not to say women are the opponent; feminists – fuck off.) In doing so they have scared off their potential mate – their primary source for intimacy.

    Let me explain what intimacy is for young men. I have been bouncing red pills off my room mate for about a month. I explained to him his value, his mindset and why abundacy with women is the only way to go. I mistakenly introduced him to OK Cupid to get him laid and now his GF is a 200 lbs cum receptacle. His need for intimacy, which has been the crutch for modern men, took over his judgment. What can you say about my room mate? He was truly beta to the core, the moment they find any intimacy, they will compromise judgment, standards and bro-code to ful-fill their need for intimacy. It is the very same formula that all women use to seek validation.

    I will continue this tomorrow because I’m approaching the cusp of drinking and drunk so my words may come off autistic. I’ll be adding my conclusion shortly.

  • Kieran

    “The sincerity they hope to convey to women about their intentions is incongruous with how women’s limbic understanding of male communication style works.”

    Brilliant insight.

    One thing that interests me though, is how quite effeminate men, with feminine communication styles, are often able to do very well with women. I’m sure we’ve all known someone fitting this description.

  • Eris

    The ever more common phenomenon of boys growing up with single mothers bereft of any male input means that the biggest educators of masculinity for many are the TV and one’s peers.

    The female mind is often all over the place, jumping from one thing to another, over-analysing and focussed inward – women’s conversational style reflects this. The male mind is the complete opposite hence the negative effect on him if he engages in a female style of conversation for too long.

    Also women are far better than men at appearing to be open but actually filtering what they say. Men are not cut out for the silent mind games and tests that women unleash upon each other.

  • earl

    You do realize that woman came out of man. The feminine comes out of masculine as well.

  • vinay3543

    Men live in reality, women live in fallacy. Men rationalize, women fantasize. Men acknowledge responsibility, women are responsible for men acting responsibly.

    Of course, all this isn’t absolute, but in a world where time is restricted, a man has to go on generalizations if there is nothing else to go on.

    To follow up on from the point made in this post about female and male friendships, the below link will add more fuel to the fire.

    http://www.vinaywcmd.com/2014/01/female-fake-friendships.html

  • earl

    Besides no matter how you talk to them they will always complain you don’t talk the other way.

    Too emotional…he’s not manly enough.
    Too stoic…he can’t relate to me.

    It’s exhausting either way if you try to figure out how to communicate with women.

  • Copyleft

    A standup comic pointed out, “A woman doesn’t want to hear your opinion. She wants to hear HER opinion, in a deeper voice.”

  • bob k. mando

    this article is unintentionally relevant here:

    http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/03/game-characters-are-better-when-they-gossip-and-lie/

    the payoff quote, made by a woman?
    “Gossip is a type of dialogue that defines our moral compass, and without it, we don’t know what’s socially accepted.”

  • JS

    There’s something more to it than this. I’m a very action orientated guy, I hate talking about gossip and feelings, I’d rather talk about ideas and issues, but that drives women crazy. I’ve had several girlfriends who have been very critical that I don’t want to have “deep emotional conversations.” I’ve seen relationships fall apart because they don’t feel like I’m connected to them on an emotional level. I agree that they don’t want to talk about ideas and “man stuff”, but game hasn’t given any advice on what women want when they feel they need to connect emotionally. This article hasn’t helped with that except to say don’t listen to them when they say they want a deep emotional conversation. That leaves them very dissatisfied.

  • Softek

    I’m still a virgin, and it’s interesting to me to look at how that’s stayed the same. The communication aspect is huge. I could be spontaneous, really witty and funny — i.e, just fucking around and saying just about whatever came to mind without any regard for how they’d react to it — and that seemed to be headed for good results, but I’d always fuck up by opening up about my thoughts and feelings and looking for support. Every time I got ‘serious’ and revealed some vulnerable aspects of myself, the girl would come to resent me. That was the nail in the coffin every time.

    I can see no other choice for myself now other than to ‘fake it til you make it.’ I have to cultivate the state of mind of someone who gets all the sex/love/intimacy they want freely and easily to the point where it isn’t a big deal.

    Lack mentality probably subconsciously influences our communication, including body language. Instead of worrying about all the specifics, I think just getting rid of lack mentality altogether is the way to go — embrace abundance mentality.

    The mistake I’ve made is believing that I need abundance in order to have an abundance mentality. I don’t believe that’s true at all anymore. I’m starting to believe that mentality comes first, and results will follow.

    A lot of this fem-centric communication, having done it myself for most of my life, I would assume comes from lack mentality. The idea that as men, we need something from women — sex, love, intimacy. And in the ultimate irony, the feeling of neediness for what we want prevents us from getting what we want.

  • Stingray

    Men went to hunt together and practiced the coordinated actions for a cooperative goal. Bringing down a prey animal would have been a very information-crucial effort

    All I could think while reading this is women being allowed in combat. It’s all information crucial and the women are going to want to relate and at least a part of that (most?) will be toward the enemy.

    What could go wrong?

  • jf12

    @HcH your approach depends upon your intentions. If you wish to be accepted as a member of the elderly women group then act accordingly: Bring a small box of fairly expensive (e.g. $8) cookies to the next hen party and make good gossip friends. Works for me. For the record, I’ve never really had any problems relating to elderly women or young girls, because they aren’t looking for someone else besides me.

    If you want to be seen by them as A Real Boy for whom they might try to set you up with one of their nieces or something, then immediately start flirting with the youngest one, no matter what she looks like: Catch her eye, ostentatiously, in passing, several times, and smirk or wink (rather than gawk creepily) to let her know it’s all good. Then verbally start.

  • Stingray

    JS,

    Women want (and sometimes even need) you to be able to understand the nail. Not fix it. Just understand it.

    Now, you hate it. I get it. But if a LTR is what you are looking for, in order to be her Rock, sometimes you need to understand the nail without trying to pull the darn thing out.

    **Does it make rational sense? No. But what is going on for a woman is that she is overwhelmed with her feelings. She needs to dump them. So, she is looking for understanding (am I crazy for feeling this way?) and she is looking for affirmation (no, you’re not crazy). Then she can dump the feelings and the real problem is gone. The problem is not actually the nail, it’s the overwhelming feelings that she has lost control of.

  • AKA

    I agree with @JS and @HARDCOREHOOKUP — this article describes the problem and it’s theory very well. What we need is the ANSWER to the problem.

    @Rollo, how does the red pill man reconcile this issue?

  • jf12

    @Softek “The mistake I’ve made is believing that I need abundance in order to have an abundance mentality.” Correct so far. What you need to believe is that you COULD have abundance if you chose to pick up women you had no intentions of getting serious with. Rather than circumlocutious wishful thinking, an easier (!) and more frontal approach is best: initiate the picking up process with women that you do literally wish not to get serious with. You can stop any time you choose.

  • jf12

    @AKA re: “That leaves them very dissatisfied.” Answer: give women A LITTLE of what they want, so they will always want more from you.

  • The Ronin

    I was exposed to this the other night. I belong to a Theater group that goes to Plays and Movies every week, the group consists of men and women , some single some married. We car pooled to watch a play in another city myself, another guy ( call him Rick) and three single women, us two guys in the front. After the play Rick and I are in the front discussing the play, how it was staged, the lighting, the actors, how we would have set the stage etc., while the women in the back ( all aged about 45) were all giggling like school girls over updates on one’s Match.com account….

    The Ronin

    http://www.menversion3.com

  • Stingray

    As a caveat to what I said about the nail, women are going to need this sometimes. They are going to want it far more often.

    Frankly, women need to get better at managing their emotions on their own. A man doing this for her all the time is a kiss of death, while figuring out when she needs it is excellent for LTRs.

  • eris

    “Women, make time with the express purpose of talking between friends…….For Men communication is about content and they are rewarded by the interchange of information and ideas.”

    I also read that women overcome emotional trauma through talking about it whereas men overcome it through action. And this in a period when more men than ever are told to go to talk endlessly about their feelings.

    To what HCH said, is the concept of treating her/the women you work with as the “oldest daughter in the house”, in no way applicable? Although tiring, I wouldn’t have said being charismatic/diplomatic and masculine were mutually exclusive.

  • Mr. Roach

    My only slight beef with this analysis is that most “Alpha males” have an admixture of the feminine, which is to say, intuitive social skills, awareness of others and their place in the hierarchy, etc. The most purely masculine men are not traditioanlly masculine, but rather Aspergerish nerds that put off both men and women with their pure problem focus and inattention to “saving face,” the rules of hierarchy, etc. True alpha men understand people and get them to do their bidding either through deliberate efforts, a sense of showmanship, or simple native intuition. Think of Vladimir Putin and his Mussolini-esque gestures riding around on horses and wrestling bears and what not. It’s a show, but he’s aware of how it affects people around him, just as he’s aware how his gestures, body language, and choice of words signal strength and leadership. These are feminine skills used by a man for a masculine purpose.

  • jf12

    So, are we just gonna sit here and talk about it?

  • E

    @Rollo,

    Testosterone vs. risk.

    I’ve been evaluating the effect of risk and how it relates to how women communicate. Women lack testosterone, which lowers risk aversion. As such, they tend to avoid making hard decisions, taking strong leadership roles, and most importantly, making a stand (meaning what you say and saying what you mean). They can do these things, but it exacts a high toll on them and isn’t their key skill set. Because men have testosterone, we don’t stress out as much. We are more comfortable taking risks, which means we can make decisions, lead and take a stand with a lot less cost of stress, energy and anxiety (standard disclaimer that ever individual is different, blah blah).

    Feminine Double Speak.

    Women, rather than state what they want directly, use carefully crafted words and context to avoid committing to an opinion or course of action. This allows them the “freedom” to change their mind, to avoid responsibility, or claim that someone misinterpreted what they said. Women’s communication is based on context, and at it’s root, it is to avoid risk.

    This is easily seen with school-ages girls because they are not as good at covert communication. Peers will say things that hurt others, but quickly claim, “That wasn’t what I meant,” which absolves them of the crime. However, I’ve never met a women doesn’t know the exact effect their words will have (unlike men who frequently don’t). Those little barbs that girls say to one another are done to hurt and remove status, but are done so craftily that they can claim it wasn’t what they meant. They get the result of exerting power over another girl without the risk of taking a stand — all very covert.

    Manipulated decisions.

    Have you noticed that a woman won’t say what she wants, but she is working hard to get it? Countless times I’ve seen women they don’t care what we do (where to go eat, what to do on vacation, etc.), but they actually have something in mind. They want me to decide so she doesn’t have to, but then will use subtile means to get me to do what she wanted. The they use emotions, manipulation, acting behind the sciences, shame or guilt to nudge you to make the decision that they want but won’t commit to.

    By me deciding, she can veto the decision (by complaining or nagging about it) or go along with it (by doing nothing). In the end, if things go well, she got to do something cool without having to decide. If it didn’t go well, she avoided all responsibility for the decision. If she actually communicated her desires, she is part of the decision making process, and thus, responsible for her actions. By manipulating the situation, she uses covert communication to get her way without taking any risk.

    He who chooses the battlefield wins the war.

    One of the biggest things feminism is pushing for is to define “proper communication” as being feminine-based. The key problem with this is that by doing so, men will always be at a disadvantage. This is already seen by how cooperative/committee decisions is being taught in school. Gone are the days of doing your own work, and what is prized is how well the group does – the key feminine manner of communication and decision making.

    With feminine-based communication, facts are not as important as feelings. Now that feminine-based communication is the expectation, if you use logic and facts, you are deemed at a poor communicator. Men are expected to take classes to focus on communicating your feelings to the exclusion of facts or actually solving the real problem. This is very clear during marriage counseling. The mantra that women throw out is, “We need better communication”, by which they mean, I want him to communicate with me in my natural manner (and that he isn’t good at). They have a lifetime of the feminine double-speak, and as a result, they win the arguments. Even sadder is that they win the argument, but not the war — the real problems are not solved, and the relationship dies.

    Conclusion.

    Obviously, some communication should be feelings based, but not always. Most of the things that men do on a daily basis need to be done with fact-based communication. Using cooperative communication to avoid risk is useful some times, but not always. So guys, when it makes sense to be fact-based, do so and don’t be ashamed about it (people will use shame to control you).

    Also, the next time you find yourself frustrated at your wife/girlfriend, just remember, she is playing the feminine double-speak game because she is trying to avoid risk. She wants something, but doesn’t have the strength to ask for it directly. If you can “see” through her feminine subterfuge and find what she really is asking for, you can make the decision for her, and thus, remove the responsibility from her and the stress. It will make her feel more feminine and see you more masculine.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @jf12, I was waiting for that.

  • LucasBly

    @AKA regarding the solution to this communication gap, I would submit that a man should talk to a woman primarily as a man, and consistently resist those times she attempts to engage him in woman-conversation. This works especially well when she is in the company of other women, which you should encourage (eg: at parties, or at the office). That way, when either woman attempts to engage you in conversation, and fails, they will be forced to talk to each other about what a big masculine jerk you are (tingles), instead of talking directly to you. This leaves you free to talk to men about more important matters. In this way, I would adjust Rollo’s premise slightly: men discuss philosophy, women discuss men.

  • Mansyn

    It’s the men in our lives, or lack of them, that allowed this feminine-socialization to take place in our formative years. So many of us had fathers that did not take an active role in shaping us, and I lay the blame on them.

  • Sal Ceech

    Yesterday this kid(21?)put this on his FB status : On behalf of men I apologize to females for the male species” . I was livid when I read that. I replied surely you must jest an entire gender or species has to apologize?! . He deleted my comment .

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Testosterone vs. risk.

    There’s definitely something to this, especially when you consider that women in the proliferative phase of their menstrual cycle experience the highest spike in libido inducing testosterone:

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/25/your-friend-menstruation/

    It’s during this phase women are more likely to seek out the sexual attention of men with more masculinized features and behaviors (Alphas), and be most open to risk taking sexual behaviors they would be more self-conscious of when in their down cycle.

    That said, I would agree, there is a definite biological element to women’s communication methods. Martie Hasselton does an excellent breakdown of vocal cues of ovulation in women:

    http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/downloads/ovulation_voice.pdf

    @AKA, HCH, I hate to fall back on this, but knowing is half the battle. I’m not saying that men or women’s communication is better than the other (though feminization would argue for feminine-primary communication), and I know in a feminine-primary social environment this article will come off as my attacking the feminine communication just by my pointing it out, but understanding the difference between how either sex communicates – and what they find important in that communication – better serves a man’s Game as well as daily interactions with women.

    As I suggest towards the end, I think the first best step men can make is to realize their way of relating to women, the way that seems to frustrate them most is due to a feminized conditioning meant to force them to relate as women. Unlearning this and beginning to relate in a masculine-primary way will serve them better in ways they’re most likely very afraid and uncomfortable to experiment with.

  • Badpainter

    E – “She wants something, but doesn’t have the strength to ask for it directly. If you can ‘see’ through her feminine subterfuge and find what she really is asking for, you can make the decision for her, and thus, remove the responsibility from her and the stress. It will make her feel more feminine and see you more masculine.”

    Translation: read her mind and accept that it’s all your fault when you read it incorrectly.

    I used to negotiate decisions. I thought this was showing respect for the woman. I was wrong. I tried mind reading and failed most of the time. Since this is where I will lose the game every time I now make decisions, and she either likes them or not. If she objects, and presents no alternatives, we go with my decision. If she complains about that: next!

    It’s this issue above all others why I find myself losing respect for women. I am growing increasingly intolerant of anything that is not exactly on my terms. I don’t deal well with the frustration, and discomfort that comes from giving a damn, and I don’t want to waste time with people I don’t give damn about.

    For some reason the burden is on the man to accommodate the woman’s communication style. Screw that. Let this be my shit test: she communicates her wants and needs above board, or she accepts what I choose to give with gratitude. I’m already single, I’ve got nothing to lose.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Mansyn, so noted.However, understand that we are well into the 4th generation of men who’ve become these failed fathers raised by the Feminine Imperative.

    Hard to teach what you don’t know. Beta fathers raising beta sons, to better accommodate the FI is at the self-perpetuation point.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @AKA, HCH, stick with this comment thread. Answers will come.

  • Jeremy

    @JS

    There’s something more to it than this. I’m a very action orientated guy, I hate talking about gossip and feelings, I’d rather talk about ideas and issues, but that drives women crazy. I’ve had several girlfriends who have been very critical that I don’t want to have “deep emotional conversations.” I’ve seen relationships fall apart because they don’t feel like I’m connected to them on an emotional level. …game hasn’t given any advice on what women want when they feel they need to connect emotionally…

    I believe that you are taking women at their word, not their actions. Women claim a lack of emotional connection as a method of creating an emotional conversation. It’s exasperation driving a woman to waving the big red flag of emotional context that’s being communicated to you. Her specific (un-met) need is likely not what she is asking for. The fact that you’re never talking about her probably bothers her 10X as much as all the talking about “man-stuff”. It’s not your communication style, or preferred topics that’s bothering her. It’s probably the fact that she doesn’t see herself in your thought processes enough that’s the problem. But who can say if you were neglecting that or not? I can’t. It’s possible you were just with some very self-centered women who wanted their men to talk and think about them 100% of the time. It’s also possible that you just weren’t as into them as they wanted you to be, and that became frustratingly obvious to them.

  • jf12

    Re: vocal cues. Given that a woman speaks nicer words in a higher pitch when fertile, could making her speak nicer words in a higher pitch cause her to feel more fertile?

  • Mike

    I think different goals explain the difference between male and female communication. Men need status in order to win a mate (their goal), while women need social security (their goal). Men obtain status by risking their lives to gain resources and defend them, so their communication style has to be accurate, effective and efficient. Women communicate to maintain a large social network (security), so their communication style has to form and maintain emotional bonds. To me, talking without an objective is a waste of time; but to my wife, talking is the objective, even if it’s unproductive, because it keeps her feeling safe & secure. She must think “if someone is willing to spend time talking to me about nothing, then they must like me, and that makes me feel a little more secure in this world”. If she can spend hours each day talking, texting, and facebooking with her network, she feels like everything will be O.K.

  • tom

    I think Schopenhauer addressed the issue in that segment of “parerga and paralipomena” known as “on women”. It’s a worthwhile reading, google: On Women – SCHOPENHAUER.pdf – yimg.com – Great article Rollo…

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Badpainter, I get what you’re driving at, however as I’ve stated before:

    There is nothing more satisfying for a woman than for her to think she’s figured a man out using her (mythical) feminine intuition.”

    I understand this sentiment:

    Screw that. Let this be my shit test: she communicates her wants and needs above board, or she accepts what I choose to give with gratitude. I’m already single, I’ve got nothing to lose.

    However, there’s a part of the feminine psyche that wants to sustain the solving of the mystery of a man. When men force women into the overt, they tend to make Appeals to a Woman’s reason, and women hate that.

    http://therationalmale.com/2013/08/07/appeals-to-reason/

  • jf12

    @Badpainter, I nowadays find myself as a Gulliver less hampered by my wife’s Lilliputian slender ligatures, but still frequently annoyed by them.

  • Jeremy

    So, if I put my engineering hat on, I tend to look at male and female communication styles as signal vs noise. Signal is the tone or tones you get that was intended to be communicated to you, it’s the only part of what you hear that can communicate explicit intent or information. However, it is a huge mistake to consider the noise the static) as conveying no information. Women communicate in this realm, in the “static” of language, the context. Likewise, in science, when you’re trying to learn something about a star, the star isn’t going to be transmitting to you in IEEE 802.16 about all the going’s on inside the core of the star. The star cannot communicate in that language, it is incapable. So all that’s left is essentially looking for patterns in static. The huge noise you get at all wavelengths actually tells you everything you need to know about what is going on inside the sun, if you only know what to look for, and confirm what is absent in the noise. This is contextual information.

    Both styles are useful. Contextual communication has high-bandwidth potential and allows for information to pass unnoticed, but (ironically) suffers from a slow full-duplex rate and is prone to misinterpretation. Communicating in pure signal is clear, concise, and relates information beautifully, but cannot be used to communicate covertly at all.

  • Badpainter

    Rollo,

    My main issue is the woman’s expectation that I will be able to read her mind, and at the same time expect me to be decisive, and grant her veto power over decisions for which she won’t provided any real input. I still try to read minds, and try to determine what it is she wants without the fighting the battle that comes from making her say it. I admit my course of action is likely to fail, but so have all the others. At least now I fail on my terms. All I’m refusing to do is grant the veto unless it’s communicated my way. Complaining that I have made the the wrong choice, without providing an alternative is simply not acceptable. The mind reading phase comes before the decision, not after.

    Please understand there is no appeal to reason on my part, not as an argument or discussion anyways. It’s an appeal to my sense of reason, she doesn’t to participate in that internal dialogue. So, I do my best to anticipate needs and wants and if I’m wrong I simply don’t care. If my efforts are not appreciated, if she can’t find a way to be less subtle, that’s her problem. I’ve several times been the king of the friend zone, and I’m really fucking good at it. I can listen a woman emote without rolling my eyes, or offering problem solving advice. But I am not any longer going to be held responsible for failing to correctly read someone’s mind.

  • D-Man

    @Mr. Roach,

    Excellent point and one the sphere often forgets, it’s a mistake to conflate social dominance too directly with masculinity.

    The stoic, high-T soldier is sent to die by the pot-bellied politician who couldn’t do a single chin-up; the ladykiller grew up with a big sister and her friends.

  • MoLoLu

    While I agree with the point made by Rollo, one thing strikes me in the comments: it’s all polarized, either-or.

    Why can’t one know a little of both and adapt whatever works? Why does everything have to be so black and white, right and wrong? Why can’t one approach just suit one situation better than another? Where’s the harm in a little flexibility and adaptability? Isn’t that how we survived so many generations, by adopting our skills to the current situation?

    Maybe it’s just me, having grown up around mostly girls and a few outcast boys, but that seems hopelessly counterproductive to see everything in blacks and whites rather than as individual situations that each have to be approached with the appropriate methods and tools. Where’s the harm in taking whatever approach provides the most results?

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I’d agree with your want for a more balanced approach to intergender communication, however the point still remains that for over the past 60 years feminization has prioritized feminine communication as the ‘correct’ form for men.

    The problem isn’t one form being better than another, it’s the need for men to disabuse themselves of their feminine-primary conditioning to default to women’s form of communication, and women recognizing and appreciating the male form.

  • jf12

    Re: “Where’s the harm in taking whatever approach provides the most results?” Which results?

  • caprizchka

    I am very pleased to be following the blog of another non-equalist. I hope that you’ll consider granting me the honor of reading a similar piece I wrote before reading yours, in “lady-speak”. http://caprizchka.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/why-i-am-not-an-equalist/

  • Josey Wales

    @Stingray: “Men went to hunt together and practiced the coordinated actions for a cooperative goal. Bringing down a prey animal would have been a very information-crucial effort.”

    Very true, but that’s only half the story. As coordinated as such information-crucial efforts were, verbal communication between men was and is still often minimal and based on DOING rather than talking.

    Consequently, it’s significantly more non-verbal and effective from a task-oriented standpoint. From Rich Zubaty (“What Men Know that Women Don’t) again:

    “Watch a basketball game – darting, dribbling, signaling with a bobbed head, motioning with an eye-twitch, passing to the place where the guy is SUPPOSED to be. Male relationship happens faster than the speed of talk.”

    A relevant example from just this morning: Went mountain biking with a couple friends and three new guys I didn’t know for over 3 hours this morning. Over the course of 3 hours, including the car ride up and back, we probably filled a total of 5 minutes with conversation… And yet, I now consider these new guys “friends” and we’ve already texted each other back and forth for future mountain bike rides, sent mountain bike crash videos back and forth and so on.

    Where men do enter the “verbal” realm of conversation, it’s typically discussion about BIG issues — politics, spirituality, exploring life’s mysteries.

    Women, by contrast are significantly more verbal, but convey less useful information and are more duplicitous in how they wield language. As has been stated above, they don’t say what they mean.

    Here’s a perfect example:

    My mom is from the south… Southern women use the phrase “Well, bless her heart” in conversation often. It’s not an expression of sympathy for someone’s troubles or circumstances.

    In fact, my mom explains that once uttered amongst a group of women, the reaction from the female listeners is physical and visceral: They all immediately stop talking and lean in to the conversation simultaneously because they know they are about to be on the receiving end of some prime gossip.

  • BlackPoisonSoul

    @Stingray – women’s real problem is that men don’t give a shit about the nail and women think that we should. The moment a woman tries to talk about the nail with a male friend, that male should know instantly and deep in his gut that he’s been friendzoned. Time to walk away because she thinks of him as another female – probably through his feminised communication style as per Rollo.

    @Rollo – the left-right brain hypotheses was debunked a couple years ago after taking CAT scans of 1100 brains as they were functioning. No significant difference when doing logical/creative things. Note that I’m not saying that women’s brains aren’t wired differently than men’s, that’s a separate situation entirely.

  • Stingray

    based on DOING rather than talking.

    I was wondering about this too, in terms of women on combat. I am wondering how women will respond to the hand signals men use when on a mission and there is no talking.

  • Stingray

    women’s real problem is that men don’t give a shit about the nail and women think that we should.

    No, men don’t care about the nail, I agree. But many men do care that their wife has a problem whether it is because he genuinely wants to help her or because he’s just tired of the complaining, he wants to make the problem go away. Men need to understand that very often, the nail is not the problem. Her emotions are.

    The moment a woman tries to talk about the nail with a male friend, that male should know instantly and deep in his gut that he’s been friendzoned.

    Yes. Don’t be that guy. Women won’t typically *dump* on men they are attracted to because they are afraid of running him off. However, in terms of a LTR, it’s different.

    But again, women need SERIOUS improvement in managing their own crap. There is a time and a place to hold fast to your Rock. Not because Suzy from Yoga said something hurtful.

  • Morpheus

    Outstanding comment E!  You really nailed the differences in communication style.

    With feminine-based communication, facts are not as important as feelings. Now that feminine-based communication is the expectation, if you use logic and facts, you are deemed at a poor communicator.

    Ha.  I had to chuckle at this one.  Aunt Giggles over at HUS (Hooking Up Smart) would incessantly accuse me of being a “poor communicator” because at the risk of being arrogant I am lethal with logic and facts, and I routinely exposed her factual inaccuracies and shitty logic.  Of course, she was a master of using context, and plausible deniability to give herself the “freedom” to always backtrack or redefine what she “meant”.

  • Steve

    Nail on the head rollo

  • BlackPoisonSoul

    Stingray – to clarify “the nail” = her emotions. We always know that it’s her emotions that are the problem (insert picture of roguish wink).

    From experience with marriage, I no longer bother listening to a woman’s emotions. Literally a woman who has what I consider too many or inappropriate emotions will not make it to an LTR – let alone marriage. It’s simply not worth being around that amount of immature chaos.

  • Bachelorocles

    Yohami put it best: “‘deep meaningful conversations’ for a woman, means ‘emotional stuff about how I feel and what I want,’ ‘reaffirmation and validation of my viewpoints.’”

    And then there’s that priceless gem from Glenn:

    “Just because it pleases me to learn.”

    I have regular deep conversations with several close buds – history, politics, religion, women, sex, evolutionary psychology, current events, economics, music, movies. There’s a real give and take in these conversations. There’s no shame in being wrong, no gloating when one’s right. It’s like we’re on a mutual quest to better understand things. The conversations are always playful and it’s typical to veer into shits, giggles, and belly laughs about funny shit, but we always walk away with a better understanding of life.

    Women (especially educated women) become competitive (like insecure young men, strangely) and they don’t know how to be wrong gracefully. I realized long ago she either cannot or will not go where I go. She will not understand me. And that’s a burden? benefit? of the red pill.

    “Whereas men tend to distribute rewards and resources primarily on merit, women have a tendency to spread resources collectively irrespective of merit.”

    I agree but with this difference. Among animals species which have evolved to form matriarchal hierarchies like meerkats and bonobos, there’s still a tight pecking order. But females evolved to distribute resources not randomly, but directly to their offspring. Men, on the other hand, invented politics based upon merit, honor, and justice.

    The female communication style evolved in small groups united in child rearing and a household pecking order designed advance her offspring. Plato suggested the natural small family unit must be eradicated so a just politics can be achieved and the greatest Roman Emperors appointed adopted heirs (can you imagine a woman not selecting her own son?). For men, communication involves mutual problem solving and a quest toward understanding life. For a woman, all things for her relate back to her nest (even when they don’t — hence, solipsism).

  • Booze over Bitches

    “So if you’re a newly red pill Man, start making efforts to consciously identify where you’re aligning yourself, your beliefs, your personality with accommodating the feminine and start unapologetically shifting them to a masculine-primary purpose.”

    Too much work. I’d rather just get drunk.

  • blogster

    E @ 11.12am 4 March 2014

    That’s an excellent analysis of the present situation and continuing trend. Just yesterday there was a piece on The Economist web site about the differences between male and female brain anatomy (the well publicised differences in corpus callopsum) centred around autism as shown by The Rain Man movie.

    Female commentators stated that talking about differences between male and female brains was ‘sexist’. Translation: you’ve offended my personal feelings, so it’s wrong. Several men tried to point that differences in biology are reality, but it took a woman to point out the same thing before women backtracked, then changed the subject, stating that pointing out such differences was ‘hurtful’ and not ‘helpful’ (i.e., changing the frame). When asked to specifically point out the ‘sexist’ elements of commentary, they did not respond (i.e., be accountable for their comments).

    The primacy of feminism in the MSM as the lens through which all discussion is passed has succeeded in removing logic and rationality as a benchmark for debate through such measures (accusations of sexism or misogyny). Being forced to face reality, responsibility, failure and accountability.is deemed ‘hurtful’.

  • Badpainter

    “When asked to specifically point out the ‘sexist’ elements of commentary, they did not respond”

    Women hate to be asked questions the answers to which require them committing to a defined position, logical argument, or set of facts. This is especially true when the subject is emotionally provocative and personal. The time is near when the mere act of asking a woman a question may be considered as an intellectual assault, or perhaps even a psychological rape.

  • blogster

    Badpainter @ 3:15am 5 March 2014

    The hilarious thing was the context. The obvious difference in brain anatomy/functioning results in more diagnosed cases of autism in men than women, hands down.

    The article highlights autism with phrases such as ‘weaker’ and ‘problems’ – yet the women commenting still found room to criticise it by default because it doesn’t follow the typical modern feminist mantra of us all being equal and alike except for ‘gender conditioning’.

    The article is basically saying men are hard done by generally as a result, yet women are clamouring for the victimhood position. Talk about perpetuating stereotypes.

  • Exfernal

    @BlackPoisonSoul
    If only viewed as the left hemisphere versus right one, then it’s true. Compare the breadth of communication between language centers in both hemispheres for women vs forward-backward communication between cerebellum, associative cortex, motor and sensory areas for men. Generally, women seem better at wordplay, men better at forming models and templates relevant to the real world (all usual caveats still apply).

  • Tam the Bam

    BP :- “the mere act of asking a woman a question may be considered as an intellectual assault, or perhaps even a psychological rape.”
    I guess that makes me an intellectual sodomite then, because just about the only way I can convince a woman to accept a proposition or course of action is to kick the backdoors in, by convincing them that they thought of it.
    It’s simply a case of inserting bite-size chunks of one’s argument at intervals in her stream-of-consciousness emoting (if there are any of course lol) and agreeing, at first not-to-enthusiastically or she’ll smell a rat (or hamster), and gradually increasing the enthusiasm with which one approves “her” brilliant idea by ‘redescribing’, in the interests of clarity ‘cos I are so stupid innit ;¬], each successive element, and going “oh god I never thought of that” or some such shite.

    It is of course, you’ll have recognized, precisely the mechanism employed when forced to deal with a demented/drunk/distracted superior at work.
    Imagine Capt. Edmund Blackadder say, trying to manipulate General Melchett out of some suicidal mass frontal assault. Or Reggie Perrin dealing with his insane, narcissistic boss(I think I may have originally pinched this wizard wheeze from there).
    The brilliant thing is that it actually does work. I couldn’t believe it at first “lolwut?! .. only a total mug ..”, for what I now, decades later, understand are reasons of women’s seemingly invincible solipsism, narcissism, utter self-absorption, inability to logic, or even remember accurately (i.e. not hamstered round to their convenience, completely rewritten Zelig-style). “If it makes Meeee feel good, then it’s Right, dammit!”. So I’m Dr Feelgood.
    Harnessing the titanic force of the Hamster, like a sand-worm.

    I only break it out in absolutely crucial/timecritical situations where I need their co-operation and actual presence (rare), it’s a lot of effort, and I do need to take a shower a.s.a.p. thereafter. It’s probably not even gamma behavior, possibly even .. female.
    S.O.P. is just to go ahead and do whatever, and shrug off or stare down the whining.

  • jf12

    @Tam “It is of course, you’ll have recognized, precisely the mechanism employed when forced to deal with a demented/drunk/distracted superior at work.” yep. Brilliant analogy, having been there and done that. “It’s probably not even gamma behavior, possibly even .. female.” a gam’s gotta do what a gam’s gotta do.

  • Bachelorocles

    @blogster

    “The primacy of feminism in the MSM as the lens through which all discussion is passed has succeeded in removing logic and rationality as a benchmark for debate.”

    I don’t think logic and rationality have ever been a benchmark for public “discourse,” especially in the US. But feminism has clearly made things worse.

    The following story was posted in the Manosphere (I can’t remember where) as an example.

    Three male students at the University of Ottawa in a private Facebook conversation discussed hard fucking some female president of some student organization. The conversation is outed and this private conversation is taken as evidence of “rape culture,” “misogyny,” and “slut shaming.”

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/02/anne-marie-roy-decries-rape-culture-at-university-of-ottawa-after-she-was-target-of-student-leaders-sexually-graphic-chat/

    What are the odds said Special Princess actually likes and has had her heels aimed at the ceiling and hard fucked?

  • girlwithadragonflytattoo

    It’s interesting, I’ve written about this topic before (at least, on communication)… I agree that there are differences are important, and I love how you clarify that neither is typically better, it’s just the way they are….

    http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/marriage-sex/

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @dragonflytat, while I don’t necessarily believe that either gender-specific form of communication is superior to another, I should note that the Feminine Imperative most definitely believes that the feminine form is superior and has made every social effort to ridicule, deride and mock the masculine form as part of its agenda.

    If you watch / listen to any popular media within the past 50 years, the foundation for gender interactions always ridicules masculinity, or makes masculine characteristics a fault or problem that only a woman can uniquely solve. By virtue of his maleness, he’s an idiot and needs a woman to fix things for him.

    The way that the Feminine Imperative (via feminist ideology) achieves this is through a default presumption that the feminine form of communication is superior to a fumbling, blunt, caveman-like male form of communication.

    The FI has been so successful with this gender-communication dominance that we don’t even blink when we hear male actors / singers default to it. Capt. James T. Kirk becomes Jean Luc Picard becomes Captain Janeway if you get my analogy.

    This feminine communication dominance has become so socially pronounced that now the FI feels comfortable in removing ‘men’ and any masculine inference from the English language:

    http://therationalmale.com/2013/05/06/remove-the-man/

  • jf12

    @Rollo, the usual example given is that “The man should just listen to her talk about the problems in their relationship, using the feminine form for communication, instead of trying to fix the problems, using the masculine form.” It’s as if women, and their enablers, WANT there to be unfixed problems in relationships, in order to give the women something to talk about …

  • Jeremy

    @Rollo Tomassi

    …I should note that the Feminine Imperative most definitely believes that the feminine form is superior and has made every social effort to ridicule, deride and mock the masculine form as part of its agenda.

    Somehow this reasoning feels quite awkward. I think the FI needs male communication to be put down because facts almost always trump feelings. I don’t think any belief in superiority is required. In order for the FI to “gain ground”, masculine communication which relies on definition, fact, and observable results, must be torn down. It must be torn down because when women have constructed a gigantic web of lies to justify their feelings, it only takes a single fact to tear it all down. Masculine-primary communication is frankly too damaging to the women in positions of power who cannot handle it, and I tend to believe there’s lots and lots of women in that position.

  • Tam the Bam

    Well to be fair guvnor a ‘masculine communication’ TV show would make for piss-poor dramatic dialogue. Be like a Buster Keaton movie, but not in the least bit funny and certainly less hectic. Stuff would just .. get done. Methodically.
    And Spock would be told to just STFU and stop babbling like a nervous girl in estrus.

  • Jeremy

    The “A” Team was pretty masculine. It made for great TV. Mind you, without a victim at the beginning for them to make all their crazy explosions/shooting/etc.. later, there isn’t much show. The Prince needs someone to save, or there’s no story.

  • Yesod

    Tommassi:

    Could we sum up that women primary way of communication is complaining and whining?

    Now, a little bit off-topic as I am not so knowledgeable of your complete work, I have seen you’ve written a couple of very good articles recently. I have some questions:

    1. About “good girls”: how do you view this issue? Some manosphere bloggers claim that most “good girls” are actually false good girls, either as part of their strategy to make a smooth transition from AFBB, or because they’re just too much entitled. They claim for instance, that most of them are not so interested in having a husband and children, but only in the marriage event itself as a kind of social proof that she is attractive enough to lock down a valuable mate. Entitlement here could refer to wanting an easy life. As a matter of fact, I think, both sexes are to blame for wrong expectations about married life and making up a family, but the problem is that men are held accountable, even legally and financially in cases of “frivorces” whereas women usually are not.

    2. Sometimes I’ve heard in the media some older women/actresses complaining about how they are not pursued anymore my men; or that they are pursued only for other interests. This reminds me of another blogger that used to write that male depression is real and deep, as they grow accustomed to a life of devaluation by the opposite sex (either by being valued only for the wrong things; or by having their romantic dreams shattered early on in the competitive SMP created by women in which ligtht sociopaths are more valued than they who always did the “right things”, have character, etc.). In other words, the depression and lack of sexual value some old women complain about is the daily reality of young men. They (these women) just could realize it in the hight of the sexual value.

    3. You’ve written before that women expect men to “just get it”. Here you and others share your experiences about how women are not really interested in discussing men’s feelings and needs (hints to entitlement). Apart from this and other incongruences which are a source of suffering to a lot of “Nice Guys”, do you think that in the rejection and belitlement of purportedly “weak” (or “pedestalizing” or supplicating) guys there is an aspect of sadism? Is this something common to both sexes or is it more of a feminine characteristic? I mean, sexual attraction cues are amoral for both sexes? If so, isn’t there a mismatch in which women will expect understanding and solidarity from men when they’ve lost their sexual power, whereas they were incapable of being solidary and understanding with the “supplicating creeps” before, in the height of their sexual power? Is it the reason why the AFBB transition is so feared and despised by the manosphere, among other reasons? When the time is appropriate, I would like to know your thoughts.

    All the best.

  • Yesod

    Correction: They (these women) just could NOT realize it in the hight of the sexual value.

  • Kate

    Its very simple. When women talk about their problems to a man, they are NOT looking for solutions. They merely want to express themselves. In fact, they may become upset if solutions are suggested. They should preface what they are saying to the man with something along the lines of “I’m not expecting you to fix this” or “Would you mind listening for a bit?”

    When men talk about a problem with a woman, the woman should go into high listening alert as this means the man is looking for a solution to the problem or he wouldn’t have brought it up in the first place. Rest assured that any conversation topic brought up by a man is something he wants to discuss.

  • caprizchka

    @Bachelorocles: *I don’t think logic and rationality have ever been a benchmark for public “discourse,” especially in the US. But feminism has clearly made things worse.*

    The Twentieth Century could be called the Behavioral Conditioning Century wherein people are being “taught” to think with their feelings in the grand experiment known as massive compulsory schooling. Naturally, women are “better” at “thinking with their feelings” making females the ideal “livestock” (along with castrated men) and a select few segregated studs. Feminism turns out to be Behavioral Conditioning at its finest and the obvious inevitable phase of the scientific livestock management perfected in the heterogeneous United States slavery pyramid scheme experiment. It works so well that it is being exported through the propaganda mill that also happens to be situated right here in the United States.

    *What are the odds said Special Princess actually likes and has had her heels aimed at the ceiling and hard fucked?*

    Domesticated bitches all secretly fantasize about how life would be running with the wolves. It’s called “freedom”. Sheep? Not so much.

  • girlwithadragonflytattoo

    You’re right, even the latest Disney movie, Frozen, was overtly feminist in it’s ridicule of masculinity… :( And I loved the music in that movie… sad. To me it was so recognizable, and just as ridiculous because most men aren’t idiots that don’t know anything. I know better, and at least the women (most of them) that I know, know better as well.

    My father & brother are not idiot men, and neither is my husband!

    I think it gets to the point to where they are so overt with making men look that way in media that it’s offensive and a turn off to women who are aware it’s faux masculinity.

  • blogster

    @ Bachelorocles

    Probably to be more precise, if you look at news outlets, discussion of issues prior feminism and prior the last 10 or so years (where infotainment is the norm and accelerated by social media, which of course is fem-focused), it has been stripped of any pre tense of debate or discussion, or consideration of hard issues. At least previously, while you may have had leftist vs right framework for debate, at least it was based on presentation of arguments and consideration of substantive issues (even if ideologically driven and prone to distortion or selective use of evidence, arguments).

    Instead what typically happens today is that there is some topic that has some semblance of newsworthiness, but then the angle taken by the media is sensationalistic, focused on personality clashes, drama, gossip, the trivial, fashion etc. in short a feminine approach to discourse and a feminine media environment.

  • Richard

    “It’s a mistake to think that women’s neural predilections for emotion and intuitiveness is inherently a weakness or a liability”

    Rollo – you’ve been spending way too much time in female company….

    Emotional Liability : Women cannot keep a secret – period….

    if a husband tells his wife he’s having a bad time at work, or he’s having impotence trouble or any kind of sexual kink, anything about his ex girls friends, family issues on his side… ANYTHING! – you can be sure that will be spread to any and all of her friends, even women she hasn’t seen in months, but chats to on facebook will get to hear all the intimate details of whatever issue you might be having. I’ve heard all the intimate details of husbands that I’ve never even me via girlfriends.

    WORSE – she doesn’t do this sharing process to seek advice, guidance, inspiration or for any reason other than just puffing off emotional smoke like a volcano, and it’s never to one confidant, the whole gaggle get to hear it.

    What’s the point in having a relationship with a person, that just blabs to the world…. if you have to be stonewalling all your personal stuff you might as well live alone and not have the liability.

    Intuition Liability : BFFs can appear over night, because she feels some strong ‘intuitive’ bond with this new friend. That new friend can download all kinds of new negative attitudes, gossip and within 5 minutes knows more about your relationship and her ‘feelings’ than you do. Later the BFF is then booted for a new one.

  • Bachelorocles

    @Kate

    “Rest assured that any conversation topic brought up by a man is something he wants to discuss.”

    I agree — men like to discuss things like adults. We control our emotions as we control our bowels.

    @caprizchka

    “The Twentieth Century could be called the Behavioral Conditioning Century wherein people are being “taught” to think with their feelings”

    Has there ever been a golden era of mass rationality? Or has rationality always been the preserve of a small elite?

    “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” — Nietzsche

    @blogster

    “Probably to be more precise, if you look at news outlets, discussion of issues prior feminism and prior the last 10 or so years (where infotainment is the norm and accelerated by social media, which of course is fem-focused), it has been stripped of any pre tense of debate or discussion, or consideration of hard issues.”

    I agree. We once had William F Buckley’s Firing Line on television!!! I agree that feminism has helped muddle the waters but lets not forget our news outlets discovered that entertainment reaps more profits than straight news — and news today is pretty much entertainment and covert advertisement.

    But lets not be too hard on feminism. To get sex, my father had three choices: marry (and work to support his wife), go to prostitutes, or sleep on the sly with other married women. Today, thanks to feminism, I am free openly to pursue multiple sex partners and I don’t have to marry (in other words, I get free sex and still live the bachelor life).

  • Valentin

    Funny, I came to the same conclusion in HS just with different wording. I think mine was “women act, men are” if I remember correctly. Completely anecdotal rambling incoming: I noticed that women loved to pretend they were something (say an intelligence service agent) by playing dressup and making GQ poses and duck-faces. Guys on the other hand “pretended” by learning to shoot handguns and reading stories of MI6 and CIA missions.
    In every way when I was a teen: women pretended to be a dream person by playing dressup and making a sexy pose while guys took some practical aspect of the job/role and practiced it for fun.

    It never really changed, look at todays sudden attention-whoring that is the “grrrrl gamer”: they dress up in video-game T-shirt and do a sexy pose while not knowing jack shit about gaming besides the 5 mins a month of CoD they play.

    It absolutely makes me sad when I see how vapid and useless women are sometimes.

  • Kate

    “I agree — men like to discuss things like adults. We control our emotions as we control our bowels.”

    LOL The mark of a true man: in control of his bowels AND his vowels :)

  • Jeremy

    @Richard

    Emotional Liability : Women cannot keep a secret – period….

    if a husband tells his wife he’s having a bad time at work, or he’s having impotence trouble or any kind of sexual kink, anything about his ex girls friends, family issues on his side… ANYTHING!

    No, women *can* keep secrets, as evidenced by how easily they get away with cheating on their SO. What you’re experiencing is a difference in value between information and context to your average woman. Men regard their secrets as the military regards it’s secrets, information that in the wrong hands reveals vulnerabilities, weaknesses, etc… Women do not generally keep such things a secret to their friends. Weaknesses and vulnerabilities are like sand at the beach to a woman speaking to another woman. They are not automatically going to regard that as worth keeping secret. That is just their natural misunderstanding of male communication structures that leads them to think such things.

    Women do keep secret; the people they’ve screwed, the number of times they’ve had sex outside of marriage, their own past patterns of behavior, the friends they might value outside of the current circle they’re talking to. Women operate in a status “heirarchy” that does not look for weakness to expose, but instead looks for guilt by association, nature of associations, or socially leverage-able information (think blackmail).

    Your average woman would never disclose her “N” count and generally won’t discuss her own behavior, even to another woman. But she’ll talk for days about how she lost weight, and the specifics of how she did it.

    Your average man won’t discuss details of his body or health and strength status, but he’ll talk about the behavior of his wife and kids without a second thought.

  • caprizchka

    “Has there ever been a golden era of mass rationality? Or has rationality always been the preserve of a small elite? ”

    The level of literacy within the personal correspondence of the farmers and homesteaders that initially made up the majority of the denizens of what is now the United States, along with that of civil war soldiers, says to me that yes, there was. Of course, they did have religion, whereas nowadays, we call it “science” but it is still biased and framed. I don’t think there is such thing as human thought that is free of bias or framing and that meanwhile freedom has degraded, and mental capacity has devolved. So much for the Progressive Era.

    “Today, thanks to feminism, I am free openly to pursue multiple sex partners and I don’t have to marry (in other words, I get free sex and still live the bachelor life).”

    If that’s what makes you happy, power to you, although I’d just as soon credit the sexual revolution. My partner gets sex, affection, housekeeping, cooking from scratch, and other girlfriends. I get sex, affection, handyman and mechanical services, the opportunity to serve the man I most admire, and some nights off to do with what I will. Monogamy is overrated and so is monotheism and monopoly, which, by my reckoning, are the same thing.

  • caprizchka

    @Bachelorocles, please see above.

  • Softek

    @ Valentin:

    That’s funny. I never thought about that.

    When I was a kid I liked TV shows like Dragonball Z and Rurouni Kenshin. So I ended up doing karate for around 7 years and took kendo for 2 years. Later on I got into a series called Hajime no Ippo and then I started watching videos online to learn boxing, integrating what I’d already learned from martial arts, and eventually getting a decent heavy bag.

    I also was huge into Jimi Hendrix (and still am) not too long after picking up the guitar (only a few months into it I think), and at one of the first shows I played with my friend we did “Voodoo Child” and I played the outro solo with my teeth and everyone went nuts. I also remember hearing Leo Kottke’s “6 and 12 String Guitar” album for the first time, and I wanted to be like that, so I learned how to play his songs and started going out and doing shows alone with a 12 string.

    Now fast forward a bunch of years and I’ve learned how to do guitar repairs and am getting into building acoustic guitars, still play regularly, exercise and meditation are regular habits, nutrition became a huge interest as an offshoot of my interest in health and developing bodily strength and technique in all kinds of fields…

    …so yeah. I always liked immersing myself in “pretending” to the point where it became reality. I just never thought of it that way.

    It was always…I don’t want to LOOK like that guy…I want to BE that guy. Then eventually I got more comfortable with myself and was most concerned with being me, but it’s still the same — taking practical aspects of things and practicing them for fun, which can end up turning into serious pursuits.

    I really looked up — and still look up — to one of my mentors, and I’ve noticed I’ve tried to be like him. He can weld unbelievably well, come up with insanely creative and brilliant mechanical ideas that are minimalist and simplistic so they’re accessible to anyone…

    …so I’ve taken on more projects on my own and have learned how to use more power tools that I never touched before in my life.

    Looking the part and everything is secondary to actually embodying what we’re idolizing. To have the mastery, the skill sets, the knowledge, the confidence, experience, etc. Now that’s fun.

  • Junior

    @Rollo Tommassi:

    In a previous post you wrote A similar amplification also becomes heightened when a woman is the focus of one or more Beta orbiters. The persistent affirmation by, and supplication of, Beta men puts that Alpha in a spotlight. A constant atmosphere of Beta attention and concern has an effect of preselecting that (more) Alpha Man for a woman.

    I would like to have this explained further because I guess this is very important for guys to realize, especially if they’re the “nice” type (as I have been myself :)).

    Another topic I would like to have explored here in your blog is: what is a good girl? Sounds like a stupid question (and I admit it is to some degree), but I explain further:

    Have a look at the picture of this girl: Alina Plugaru. Doesn’t she look like a nice, good and timid girl? Well, if I talked with her in the library, school or church service, I would probably think so. I could realize, for instance, that she’s one of the most famous porn stars who had recorded such hardcore porn clips.

    Well, I really like to watch hardcore porn and sort of is the kind of sex I would like to have with my girlfriend. But then, strangely enough, I hardly consider the possibility of having a girl like her as a girlfriend. Is it because I cannot reconcile both as a man? I mean, cannot my girlfriend be my “porn star”?

    On the other hand, I wonder: what is then the definition of a “good girl”? And how on earth could I know that the girl I deem to be “good” and “nice” is not actually a covert “porn star” in bed? I wonder if my “good” and “nice” girlfriend could be as well my “porn star”.

    Moreover, I wonder: if so many of these porn stars actually look like normal girls, could it be that normal girls might like porn star like sex just like I do? I also wonder: can I realize my “porn star” dreams and still keep a good standing with girls? I mean, if I have sex with many girls this will improve my standing with girls, as opposed to being a “nice guy”. And even if I do intend become promiscuous and I am sort of “monogamous”, can my girlfriend be a porn star “in the closet” just waiting for me to uncover it?

    And how is all this related to your concept of girls “gaming themselves” and attraction amplification? Do porn stars go through an “epiphany phase” as well? And finally, would you marry a porn star? :) Kidding…

  • Junior

    Thanks Rollo! I will have a look. Just a small correction to my previous comment: “…I could not realize, for instance….

    Meanwhile perhaps you might help me figure out how “good girls” dance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La_RoGd25w4. She also looks like a good girl. :-D

  • The Burninator

    @Kate

    ” When women talk about their problems to a man, they are NOT looking for solutions. They merely want to express themselves. ”

    For what purpose? Why not just vent at the cat? Additionally, men are known problem solvers, so it seems to delve more into sadism to basically force a man to sit and listen to endless problems when he is explicitly instructed to not try to solve the problems being discussed. In fact, it’s emasculating.

    Point of fact is, when I’m given the “I just need to vent, don’t try to fix what I’m going to talk about” I instruct the woman to then seek out another woman to talk about it with. Two reasons: 1) If it’s not related to our relationship then what interest would I have to sit in torture for upwards of an hour or two listening to somebody prattling on about problems that I’m not allowed to help fix and 2) If it is related to the relationship, and you don’t want me to fix what you’re complaining about, then you are simply too drama filled and irrational for me to continue listening to.

    Speaking in the generic “You”, of course.

  • Jeremy

    Clearly, Burninator, women value a man’s attention more than his reason.

  • The Burninator

    There are better, less annoying ways for a woman to get my attention. But yeah, I know, and I generally don’t indulge that particular type of request. That’s what girlfriends are for, to “talk without a purpose”.

  • Glenn

    @ Caprizchicka – “Monogamy is overrated and so is monotheism and monopoly, which, by my reckoning, are the same thing.”

    No, they all just happen to begin with “mono”, that’s all. Monogamy provides for paternal certainty while also being the sine qua non of true romantic virtues. We in the Red Pill world are so unused to the idea of monogamy as desirable, we tend to forget how common it is. Half of married couples don’t cheat and many single people are mostly serially monogamous. Monogamy is seen as a sacrificial offering of loyalty, really, more like fealty. There is much more to say about its origins, but it’s quite a big deal.

    Monotheism stems from the utility of having one overarching overseer – religions tend to move from polytheism to monotheism. Having one all powerful, all seeing being is a tremendously powerful meme. It’s makes all kinds of stuff possible – starting out with the worshiping said being. Taking only one God is not an act of forsaking other gods as one does with a woman when being monogamous, but rather is acknowledgment that the other gods are not the “true” god. So, it’s quite different.

    Monopoly’s occur when governments grant licenses to enter certain businesses or outright prevent competition (banking, for example). Examples of this were the telco and transportation industries in the U.S. until we deregulated them in terms of pricing and marketing. It’s a concept that couldn’t be farther from monogamy or romance if it tried.

    It is funny when women try to sound smart though. As for the rest. Well, the part that smacked me in the head was what happens as men get older. I’m 51 and wow, more and more I just don’t even bother having intelligent conversations with women. It’s become intolerable to even try – and they respond with more interest and respect as I just act like a man and reject their shit-tests and game them. It works so much better to just be who I am.
    No more egg-shell walking, no more biting my tongue or keeping my mouth shut. I actually just leave interactions with women that aren’t interesting to me – and they don’t seem to mind. It’s a relief for both of us.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I think the main disconnect is that men are now expected to relate like women. Thus, your reason and your capacity to solve any problem or complaint is irrelevant – the feminine is the dominant social frame now, so sit there and listen to her like her girlfriends would.

    This is one reason I’ve always said, women have boyfriends and girlfriends; if you aren’t fucking her, you’re her girlfriend. Not because you’re necessarily a passive Beta, but that’s how women perceive men – as a girlfriend, when they communicate as her girlfriends would.

  • The Burninator

    @Rollo

    Precisely. I suspected we saw eye to eye on this. I make it clear at the very start of any LTR that I am the man and not her girlfriend, nor will I be pinch hitting for girlfriend status. Laid out in front, directly, at the beginning and it seems to go rather well afterward. And they respect me all the more for being up front about it, to be frank. As you state in the article, you move into the masculine frame of communication. If you can maintain it, life will get very, very good for you with women.

  • Kate

    @Burninator: Did I indicate somewhere these conversations would last for hours? Sure, you can outsource everything a couple could share to some other person, but then what would be the point of being together?

  • Jeremy

    Kate, “being together” is a compromise of competing interests, if there is no compromise, there is only surrender.

    I could just as easily turn it around, and accuse a woman of going against the marriage because she doesn’t want to play street basketball with me and the guys. After all, if I “outsource” my fun needs, what’s the “point of being together”?

  • Kate

    Going against the marriage? There’s enough strawmen around here for a very successful farm!

    Women talk. Men talk about something else ;)

  • Jeremy

    You’re being deliberately dense Kate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,002 other followers

%d bloggers like this: