The Best Article on Campus ‘Rape Culture’ Yet

Not much commentary from me, but I really think that this article by Heather MacDonald deserves a lot of attention.

Some choice quotes [emphasis mine]:

It’s a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the alleged campus rape epidemic—but no one calls. Could this mean that the crisis is overblown? No: it means, according to the campus sexual-assault industry, that the abuse of coeds is worse than anyone had ever imagined. It means that consultants and counselors need more funding to persuade student rape victims to break the silence of their suffering.


None of this crisis response occurs, of course—because the crisis doesn’t exist. During the 1980s, feminist researchers committed to the rape-culture theory had discovered that asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing results—very few women said that they had been. So Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published.

Koss’s study had serious flaws. Her survey instrument was highly ambiguous, as University of California at Berkeley social-welfare professor Neil Gilbert has pointed out. But the most powerful refutation of Koss’s research came from her own subjects: 73 percent of the women whom she characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped. Further—though it is inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily have sex again with the fiend who attacked her—42 percent of Koss’s supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.


Just as a reality check, consider an actual student-related rape: in 2006, Labrente Robinson and Jacoby Robinson broke into the Philadelphia home of a Temple University student and a Temple graduate, and anally, vaginally, and orally penetrated the women, including with a gun. The chance that the victims would not consider this event “serious enough to report,” or physically and emotionally injurious, is exactly nil. In short, believing in the campus rape epidemic depends on ignoring women’s own interpretations of their experiences—supposedly the most grievous sin in the feminist political code.

None of the obvious weaknesses in the research has had the slightest drag on the campus rape movement, because the movement is political, not empirical. In a rape culture, which “condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as a norm,” sexual assault will wind up underreported, argued the director of Yale’s Sexual Harassment and Assault Resources and Education Center in a March 2007 newsletter. You don’t need evidence for the rape culture; you simply know that it exists. But if you do need evidence, the underreporting of rape is the best proof there is.


Federal law requires colleges to publish reported crimes affecting their students. The numbers of reported sexual assaults—the law does not require their confirmation—usually run under half a dozen a year on private campuses and maybe two to three times that at large public universities. You might think that having so few reports of sexual assault a year would be a point of pride; in fact, it’s a source of gall for students and administrators alike.


Campuses do everything they can to get their numbers of reported and adjudicated sexual assaults up—adding new categories of lesser offenses, lowering the burden of proof, and devising hearing procedures that will elicit more assault charges. At Yale, it is the accuser who decides whether the accused may confront her—a sacrifice of one of the great Anglo-Saxon truth-finding procedures. “You don’t want them to not come to the board and report, do you?” asks physics professor Peter Parker, convener of the university’s Sexual Harassment Grievance Board.

The scarcity of reported sexual assaults means that the women who do report them must be treated like rare treasures. New York University’s Wellness Exchange counsels people to “believe unconditionally” in sexual-assault charges because “only 2 percent of reported rapes are false reports” (a ubiquitous claim that dates from radical feminist Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 tract Against Our Will). As Stuart Taylor and K. C. Johnson point out in their book Until Proven Innocent, however, the rate of false reports is at least 9 percent and probably closer to 50 percent. Just how powerful is the “believe unconditionally” credo? David Lisak, a University of Massachusetts psychology professor who lectures constantly on the antirape college circuit, acknowledged to a hall of Rutgers students this November that the “Duke case,” in which a black stripper falsely accused three white Duke lacrosse players of rape in 2006, “has raised the issue of false allegations.” But Lisak didn’t want to talk about the Duke case, he said. “I don’t know what happened at Duke. No one knows.” Actually, we do know what happened at Duke: the prosecutor ignored clearly exculpatory evidence and alibis that cleared the defendants, and was later disbarred for his misconduct. But to the campus rape industry, a lying plaintiff remains a victim of the patriarchy, and the accused remain forever under suspicion.


But the post-1960s university is nothing if not capacious. It has institutionalized every strand of adolescent-inspired rebellion familiar since student sit-in days. The campus rape industry may decry ubiquitous male predation, but a campus sex industry puts bureaucratic clout behind the message that students should have recreational sex at every opportunity.


In October 2005, at a Delta Delta Delta formal, drunken sorority girls careened through the host’s house, vomiting, falling, and breaking furnishings. One girl ran naked through a hallway; another was found half-naked with a male on the bed in the master suite. A third had intercourse with her escort in a different bedroom. On the bus back from the formal, she was seen kissing her escort; once she arrived home, she had sex with a different male. Later, she accused her escort of rape. The district attorney declined to prosecute the girl’s rape charges. William and Mary, however, had already forced the defendant to leave school and, even after the D.A.’s decision, wouldn’t let him return until his accuser graduated. The defendant sued his accuser for $5.5 million for defamation; the parties settled out of court.

The incident wasn’t as unusual as it sounds. A year earlier, a William and Mary student had charged rape after having provided a condom to her partner for intercourse. The boy had cofounded the national antirape organization One in Four; the school suspended him for a year, anyway. In an earlier incident, a drunken sorority girl was filmed giving oral sex to seven men. She cried rape when her boyfriend found out. William and Mary found one of the recipients, who had taped the event, guilty of assault and suspended him.

But in the fall semester of 2005, rape charges spread through William and Mary like witchcraft accusations in a medieval village. In short succession after the Delta Delta Delta bacchanal, three more students accused acquaintances of rape. Only one of these three additional victims pressed charges in court, however, and she quickly dropped the case.

A fifth rape incident around the same time followed a different pattern. In November 2005, a William and Mary student woke up in the middle of the night with a knife at her throat. A 23-year-old stranger with a prior conviction for peeping at her apartment complex had broken into her apartment; he raped her, threatened her roommate at knifepoint, and left with two stolen cell phones and cash. The rapist was caught, convicted, and sentenced to 57 years in prison.

Guess which incident got the most attention at William and Mary? The Delta Delta Delta formal “rape.” Like many stranger rapists on campus, the knifepoint assailant was black, and thus an unattractive target for politically correct protest. (The 2006 Duke stripper case, by contrast, seemingly provided the ideal and, for the industry, sadly rare configuration: white rapists and a black victim.)


Modern feminists defined the right to be promiscuous as a cornerstone of female equality. Understandably, they now hesitate to acknowledge that sex is a more complicated force than was foreseen. Rather than recognizing that no-consequences sex may be a contradiction in terms, however, the campus rape industry claims that what it calls campus rape is about not sex but rather politics—the male desire to subordinate women. The University of Virginia Women’s Center intones that “rape or sexual assault is not an act of sex or lust—it’s about aggression, power, and humiliation, using sex as the weapon. The rapist’s goal is domination.”

This characterization may or may not describe the psychopathic violence of stranger rape. But it is an absurd description of the barnyard rutting that undergraduate men, happily released from older constraints, seek. The guys who push themselves on women at keggers are after one thing only, and it’s not a reinstatement of the patriarchy. Each would be perfectly content if his partner for the evening becomes president of the United States one day, so long as she lets him take off her panties tonight.


“Promiscuity” is a word that you will never see in the pages of a campus rape center publication; it is equally repugnant to the sexual liberationist strand of feminism and to the Catherine Mac-Kinnonite “all-sex-is-rape” strand. But it’s an idea that won’t go away among the student Lumpenproletariat. Students refer to “sororistutes”—those wild and crazy Greek women so often featured in Girls Gone Wild videos. And they persist in seeing a connection between promiscuity and the alleged campus rape epidemic. A Rutgers University freshman says that he knows women who claim to have been sexually assaulted, but adds: “They don’t have the best reputation. Sometimes it’s hard to believe that kind of stuff.”

Rape consultant David Lisak faced a similar problem this November: an auditorium of Rutgers students who kept treating women as moral agents. He might have sensed the trouble ahead when in response to a photo array of what Lisak calls “undetected rapists,” a girl asked: “Why are there only white men? Am I blind?” It went downhill from there. Lisak did his best to send a tremor of fear through the audience with the news that “rape happens with terrifying frequency. I’m not talking of someone who comes onto campus but students, Rutgers students, who prowl for victims in bars, parties, wherever alcohol is being consumed.” He then played a dramatized interview with a student “rapist” at a fraternity that had deliberately set aside a room for raping girls during parties, according to Lisak. The students weren’t buying it. “I don’t understand why these parties don’t become infamous among girls,” wondered one. Another asked: “Are you saying that the frat brothers decided that this room would be used for committing sexual assault, or was it just: ‘Maybe I’ll get lucky, and if I do, I’ll go there’?” And then someone asked the most dangerous question of all: “Shouldn’t the victim have had a little bit of education beforehand? We all know the dangers of parties. The victim had miscalculations on her part; alcohol can lead to things.”

As long and numerous as these quotes are, there’s way much more in the article.  It’s long, but I can’t recommend it highly enough.

Is the mainstream finally starting to notice that something’s gone terribly wrong?

Posted in Culture, Feminism | 13 Comments

Anecdotal Evidence

The other night I encountered a Bulgarian-American woman just before closing time in a bar.  She was cute (albeit not gorgeous) and seemed to be in her late twenties.  She spoke English with a slight Bulgarian accent, and as I later learned she came here when she was fourteen.  I wasn’t hitting on her, I just wanted decent conversation.  Besides, her boyfriend was nearby, talking to other people.

After discussing Bulgaria for a bit (I’ve actually been there), the conversation migrated to the European Union as her boyfriend migrated away.  We both disliked the EU, and as long as that remained the topic of conversation the conversation was pleasant.

Soon the conversation somehow migrated to questions of maternity leave, and this soon prompted her to proclaim her strident support of feminism.  I made it equally clear that I’m by no means feminism’s friend.  Her face registered shock.

I normally try to soften my initial declarations of my political views, but sometimes it isn’t possible, and this was one of those cases (or maybe I just didn’t feel like it).  Parenthood/maternity leave/paternity issues were the frame through which her views on feminism were introduced.  She asked me if there could ever possibly be a case in which a man’s responsibility for a child could possibly differ from a woman’s.  The first thing that sprung to mind was if a women lied about using birth control.

Thus, a flurry of accusations and evasions.  “What if the condom breaks?”  That’s not fraud, lying about being on the pill is.  “What if the pill doesn’t work?”  Again, not fraud.  Nothing’s perfect, but the chances that the pill will fail if taken properly are considerably lower than if either taken improperly or not taken at all.  “What about rape?”  Who the hell lies about birth control before being raped?  Rape is a different issue entirely.

Her tendency to attack rather than so much as admit that lying to a sexual partner would be wrong if it were even conceivable that any woman would ever do such a thing tagged her in my mind that she was among the Anointed.  As I’ve stated before, the only reasons to discuss this stuff with the Anointed are to either convince an audience listening in or practice.  By now there was no audience, but after reading so many feminist articles recently I was most decidedly in the mood for some practice.

She’d evade, I’d bring it back to my initial point, even though I was well aware that lying about the pill is hardly the most pressing issue regarding modern gender relations.  One of my rhetorical rules is to allow for no evasions.  If I make a point, they have the option to either refute it, concede it, or effectively call into question its relevance, for if you allow an opponent to engage in a ridiculous evasion once, the discussion is thus framed as one of ping pong; you’ll follow her from point to point forever and never get anywhere.  She chose no valid option, so I held her to the fire:  lying about birth control is wrong and fraudulent behavior on the part of the female.  Admit I’m right and we can talk about something else.  Don’t, and this is where we stay.

We moved from the outside of the bar onto the street (about ten feet) and back came her boyfriend.  She told him I’m not a feminist.  He said, “Every man should be a feminist because it’s important we support the women in our lives.”  She gave him a high-five but didn’t seem to care if I stayed or not.  He left (evidently to somewhere else in the vicinity).

She ran her own business (I’ve no idea what) and threw out all sorts of stats about maternity leave.  I’d give a quick summation of my views on maternity leave, give her credit if she ever happened to say something that wasn’t nonsense, and bring it back to lying about birth control.  She’d somehow bring up rape, I’d again tell her that rape is awful but has nothing whatsoever to do with what we were discussing.  Back to sex and birth control.

We made our points referring to a hypothetical couple, referring to “he” and “she” and their hypothetical sexual relationship.  However, I soon noticed that “if she has sex with him” became “if you were fucking me,” and it wasn’t me who initiated the transition.  The hypothetical woman trying to steal the seed of her hypothetical man was now her hypothetically trying to trick me into getting her pregnant.  I was now the man who didn’t care if the condom broke and she was the potential victim of my evil masculine machinations.

Shortly thereafter she was moving in closer and yelling.  She threw out “that point is SUCH BULLSHIT” after I said something perfectly reasonable, to which I calmly but firmly replied “not at all” and explained why I was right.  She sighed audibly to catch her breath and said something about rape again.  I brought it back to my initial point, eventually deciding to repeat the refrain, “If I fuck up, it’s on me.  If you fuck up, it’s on me.”


“If I fuck up, it’s on me.  If you fuck up, it’s on me.” (I’ll readily concede that the Christian prohibition against swearing is one I frequently have difficulty upholding.)

At this point although there was nobody in our direct vicinity, I could tell we were attracting attention from drunken stragglers.  I could also see police in the distance.  Her eyes shot into me like daggers.  Her volume caused heads to turn our way.  I could tell she wasn’t going to change her mind, but she was about to grab me (whether in a “good” or “bad” way I couldn’t tell).  I figured it was time to go.  After all, if a woman decides to hit a man, who’s going to get the blame?  If she fucked up, it would be on me.

And as far as getting her number, she wasn’t my type.

So I looked straight into her eyes, repeated my refrain, and walked away.

“YOU FUCKING BASTARD!!!!!!  WRONG!!!!  SO WRONG!!!  YOU’RE A FUCKIING MONSTER!!!!!  MONSTER!!!!!!” gradually fading into the distance as I make my way up the street with a nice wide grin.


It would have taken some skill to transition, but I’ve seen that look in a woman’s eyes before, and it’s never been followed by the friend-zone.  Overtly opposing feminism may not be optimal Game, but it sure as hell beats being nice.  I find this to be evidence that although women may not want you to oppose them, they actually do.

No matter how hypothetical a discussion might be, to a woman it’s ultimately about her.  Moreover, she’s likely to project that mindset onto others, assuming that her conversation partner isn’t arguing about a hypothetical either and instead making a point that matters especially to him.  Therefore, I think by choosing that particular issue, I inadvertently framed myself as an Alpha, a man with similar concerns as professional athletes who have to worry about their flings stealing their semen out of their condoms.  After all, Betas need not be particularly worried about women trying to fraudulently maximize the use of their seed.  Even though I’ve only had one incident that might relate to what I described (a girl once tried to slip off a condom right before we had sex in a prior epoch of my life), she assumed that women trying to trick me into impregnating them was first and foremost in my mind.  Thus, I believe it’s of particular importance that if you want to support an issue particular to men that would strike women as being of concern to Betas (i.e. paternity fraud), be certain you’ve first framed yourself as Alpha, for an Alpha defending Betas will come across as far differently than a Beta whining about the possibility of somehow getting screwed over himself.  Indeed, the possibility of being destroyed by unfair divorce laws and being tricked into impregnating a woman are both valid concerns for men and both reflect what we don’t like about women, but discussing the latter will strike most women as somewhat authoritative, the former as butt-hurtedness.  Obviously, make your point, but be aware of the possibility that defending something that primarily affects Betas may well frame you as a Beta unless you sufficiently inoculate yourself.

I really wish there had been an audience, for I suspect that anybody witnessing her meltdown would have sided with me.

Although during prior political discussions I decided not to listen to that little voice inside that didn’t want to say anything that might cause me to be disliked, this time that voice wasn’t there.  At all.  Love me, hate me?  I didn’t care.  I was right, I knew it, and that’s what mattered.  Furthermore, I wanted to make my points enough to engage that part of my brain that made them but not enough to stress about it.  If for an instant or so it looked like there was a remote possibility she’d get the upper hand, I calmly neutralized it.  This shows me that I am in fact becoming more the man I want to be.

I found the blasé way in which she treated her boyfriend downright hilarious.  It was difficult stifling my laughter.

If I encounter her again, I’m curious about what will happen.  If she says she hates me, I’ll tell her to join the club.  “No, literally.  Do you want to join the club?  I’ll have the local chapter president get in touch with you.  I think ‘Martel’s Despisers’ (sounds better with my real name) meets every other Sunday or something.”  Moreover, would a random woman waking up to me and slapping me serve as some sort of “social proof”?  I’ve been holed up at home or Starbucks writing a lot lately, but this isn’t exactly a huge city so I may well find out.

I have no idea what her name is.

Anyhow, I’m plodding along with my book, having fun but wishing I had a lot more time to devote to it.  And I miss blogging.  That’s why I wrote this.

God bless you all.


Posted in Alpha, Feminism, Game, Rhetoric | 16 Comments

Outlier Amplification Effect (Updated)

I believe that even most of us in the Manosphere who believe that men and women are fundamentally distinct allow for the existence of outliers:  men who love decorating and nurturing, high-T women with a killer competitive instincts.

Unfortunately (especially regarding women), the modern West has developed the tendency to assume that just because some women would never be content as housewives that no women would be happy as housewives.

This stems from the Outlier Amplification Effect (OAE).  The OAE is society’s tendency to view outliers as being more typical than they actually are.  Not very many guys play guitar, but when guitar players are called to our attention, it creates the subconscious impression that there are guitar players everywhere.

The first aspect of OAE applies not only to sex but also multiple other type of outlier:  gays, artists, etc.  Those of us who don’t fit the norms tend to stand out.  People who aren’t happy complain.  The squeaky wheel squeaks.

The second aspect is exclusive to masculine women is that the way in which they deviate from natural norms is inherently more likely to be noticed by others and to call attention to itself.

Who is more likely to sit at her computer for hours on end complaining about the pervasiveness of the patriarchy, the angry feminist or the fairly content housewife?  The female reporter exposing the sexism inherent in whatever industry has a more masculine disposition than the average woman.  Compared to the most women, she’s more ambitious, more inclined towards confrontation, and more visible.

Which leads to a selection bias of sorts, for a disproportionate number of women we see speaking about sex roles are women who inclined to oppose them.  This leaves the impression that most women would absolutely despise the idea of staying home to raise the kids, when in reality it’s merely most women we hear from.

The deferential feminine woman leaves less of a visible mark, making her seem less prevalent that she might actually be.  As masculine women gradually take over a higher proportion of the debate, it leaves an even stronger impression on young women and girls that this is what most women are like.  If you just want to find a husband and raise kids, you’re more inclined to feel like a weirdo.

Although truly ambitious masculine women might be outliers, virtually every women has a few such instincts.  The more women get the impression these instincts are the feminine norm, the more likely they are to follow these instincts instead of their more nurturing ones.

This effect is mirrored in the study of history.  In 1843, who was more likely to write a screed about gender relations, the happy housewife on the farm or the rich urban socialite who despised the constraints of society?  Was the novelist more inclined to write about the happy grandmother or the woman who’s bored to tears and thus driven to adultery?  Although the happy woman of the past left an indelible mark on the lives of those around her and society as a whole, there’s little record of her on paper.

Moreover, is the modern historian more likely to seek out the memoirs of the aggrieved women of the past, or will he focus on those few writing from the women of the time who actually liked how things were?  The venomous screed from the angry proto-feminist of 1843 will flash in neon throughout academia, the contented sketches of family life will rot away in some drawer.

(If a man of the era writes something describing how happy the women were, his self-serving observations can be dismissed out of hand.)

I’ve alluded to this effect on other sites but haven’t seen it elucidated in detail by anybody else, so I figured it was time to do so.  Indeed, there’s also an opposing Outlier Suppression Effect that occurs in more traditional societies, but we’re not seeing much of that today.

However, it’s important to keep in mind when we discuss our ideas with others that there’s a distinct selection bias inherent when we discuss these issues.  Feminine women don’t make as much noise as the masculine ones.  This leads us to think that they’re less common than they are.

Unfortunately girls get that same impression, leading fewer and fewer of them to embrace their natural femininity.  Although perception is not reality, this is one of those ways in which it most definitely changes it.


After finishing this, three other things occurred to me.

One, this effect also applies at social gatherings.  Everybody in the room is likely to notice the brash young woman captivating the room with her obnoxious wit.  The demure young woman in the corner may well be noticed by some of the men, but not so much by the women.

Two, this applies in organizational settings.  For example, in a church the more masculine women will speak up if they find something to be anti-woman, whereas the more feminine women will tend to either let their husbands object on their behalf or remain silent.  If her husband says something, whether or not his wife genuinely agrees with him will be forever suspect.

Third, this is part of the reason that political conservatism tends to still get swept away by greater societal forces.  The conservative women who get the most attention (Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, etc.) tend to have a more masculine temperament.  Thus the most prominent female voices in the conservative movement will tend to be less inclined to promote traditional sex roles.  Even if they do, it will strike people as weird.  Imagine Dana Loesch harping on about how much better would be for women to defer to men:  it doesn’t work.  This again leaves the men to do it, which comes across as self-serving.

Posted in Culture, Feminism | 14 Comments

A Nugget of Positivity (link updated)

Considering the depressing nature of my last video (that many of you weren’t even able to watch in its entirety), I figure this time I’ll post one that’s a bit more positive.

[Update:  My work computer hates YouTube, so here’s a link to another website with the video that’ll have to do until I switch computers.]

Enjoy your moment in the spotlight, sir.

You deserve it.

Posted in Culture | 2 Comments

No Comment

[Update:  It looks like they took it down.  Here’s a link where it still seems to be in operation:  Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism by]

Posted in Culture, Feminism | 13 Comments

The Rearing of the Childrens

Today instead of imparting you yet more of deti’s wisdom, I request a bit of help.

In my non-blog writing, I’m at a point where I need to explode the myth that men and women are different only because that’s how we’re socialized.  I’m refuting idiots like this.

However, one of my biggest challenges is that I’m largely ignorant of children’s movies, television programs, and books.  I’m aware of plenty of you-go-girlism in young adult stuff like The Hunger Games and Divergent, but for the under ten crowd I’m lost.

So I request your assistance.  I’m looking for stuff that either promotes the idea that girls=good/boys=bad, stuff that encourages girls to be aggressive action heroes, or that encourages boys to be soft and sensitive.

If you’re aware of a children’s movie, show, book, or game that does this, please leave it in the comments.  A quick summary of the way in which it’s socializing kids would be helpful but isn’t necessary.  Also, although my emphasis is on more recent stuff (from within the past 20 years), if you know of something older put it down.

I much appreciate any examples you can provide.  I know my overall point is right, but I’d much rather not have to waste my time watching stupid cartoons to prove it.

More enlightening posts to resume shortly.

Posted in Arts, Culture | 43 Comments

Why Men Are Pissed Off (guest post by deti)

Men are not pissed off because some girl had sex with a couple of football teams’ worth of guys.  They’re pissed because she lies about it.

Men aren’t pissed because women are attracted to good looking men with chiseled physiques and easy charm who don’t put up with shit from girls.    They’re pissed because women lie about this (and most men lie about it too and HELP women lie about it).   They downplay their sexual attraction to such men for fear of looking shallow and superficial.  Or at least before Sheryl Sandberg, they used to fearthe appearance of shallowness.

Look.  Guys aren’t lying about the fact that they like girls with pretty faces, nice hair, big boobs, firm butts, and long legs who will have sex with them with a minimum of effort.   You ladies should fess up about what really trips your triggers too.

Men aren’t pissed because the sexual marketplace isn’t fair.   They’re not pissed because the homecoming queen won’t fellate them.   They’re not pissed because a cute girl broke up with them.   They’re pissed because people lie to them about it and tell them those girls are just stupid and shallow, when in fact they’re not.   What’s really going on there is that those girls understand the actual rules of the game they’re playing.   They understand their sexual market values and are milking it for all it’s worth.

Men can deal with unfairness.  They can deal with their place in the pecking order.  They can deal with the fact that most girls don’t like them.   They can deal with the fact that nobody owes them anything.  They can deal with the fact that life can be a shit sandwich.  They can deal with life being “catch as catch can”.   They get that things won’t come easy to them and they’ll have to work their asses off for whatever they can get.

What they’re pissed about is the lying, the fraud and the dishonesty.  What they can’t deal with is being told to play by a different set of rules than everyone else is using.   What they can’t deal with is people telling them that things are one way, when in fact the truth is something very different.

They’re pissed because everyone lies to them about the SMP and tells them they have all these advantages on the SMP playing field.  They’re told to “check their privilege”.  They’re told the SMP playing field is level, when it isn’t.   They’re pissed because everyone lies to them about what women find attractive.  They’re pissed because women lie to them about what they find attractive.

I remember as a young kid hearing and reading stories, news articles and reports, about how Woody Allen is so attractive.  Funny guys, guys with senses of humor, are so attractive and desirable, we were told.

Woody Allen is an ordinary New York City dweeb who happened to become a respected filmmaker with a bent for telling funny stories.  Through some hard work, luck, networking, getting the right jobs, and serendipity, he was able to get into filmmaking.    Allen has a keen eye for describing life, death, God, Judaism, relationships, sex, love, loss, morality, and immorality in humorous and insightful ways that resonate with the common folk.  His talent has made him wealthy and put him in the upper echelons of society.  (Or at least it didbefore that whole Soon Yi thing.  Don’t miss the point I’m making here.)

Take that same funny, talented guy, call him Allen Konigsberg (Woody’s real name), and put him in a job in middle management for BigCorp in Omaha or Scranton or Bakersfield.   Still sexy?  Still gets to date Diane Keaton and Mia Farrow?   Yeah.  Didn’t think so.

THAT’s what they’re pissed about.   You telling them they’re Woody Allen, when in fact they’re Allen Konigsberg – just like MOST guys.  You tell them to just be funny like Woody and they’ll get the girl.  Just have to have some money, a good job, and  the girls will come
a-running.   Most guys who LOOK or ACT like Woody Allen don’t get the girl.   So stop lying to them about it.   Figure out the truth, and tell them THAT – that they’re NOT Woody Allen.  They’re not going to be rich or famous.   They’re not going to get the girls they want, so they’ll have to settle for the girls they can get.

So just tell them the truth

Posted in Alpha, Culture, Feminism, Game | 8 Comments