What’s “Deserve” Got to Do with It?

Leap of a Beta over at Staged Reality posted an interesting discussion that exemplifies the different prisms through which men and women view the world.  I’ve observed countless discussions like this online, on TV, and in person, and I’ve learned how to turn them to my advantage.  This post is an attempt to show you how to do the same.

The debate is primarily over whether or not somebody “deserves” his station in life.  Although debates over “deserve” have their place, “deserve” is one of the words in the English language I like least, for it clouds meaning more than it clarifies (other words that fit into this category include “selfish”, “selfless”, “sacrifice”, and “fair”).

“Deserve” is a word that describes attitude, or one’s perspective as to how things should be, but it’s also a word with a hell of a lot of baggage.  If a girl dresses in scanty clothes and passes out on the pool table during a frat party, does she deserve to have the entire pledge class penetrate her in her sleep?  I would argue that she doesn’t, but she was asking for trouble.  But does “asking for trouble” constitute deserve?  If you forget to signal a turn on a bicycle, do you deserve to get smashed by a truck?  Crystal would say “the ‘deserve’ seems harsh.”  Chad would disagree:

The squirrel that doesn’t store enough nuts deserves to starve. The farmer that doesn’t save enough seed to replant, accurately predict the weather, take proper care of his crops, have food/money stored, or have friends/family as a support system, can also be said to deserve starvation. A company that doesn’t save money for slumps deserves bankruptcy. A man that doesn’t take care of his health deserves ill health. A family that moves without researching possible natural disasters (and preparing for them) deserves what comes to them. The man that continues to date controlling girlfriends deserves them for his own enabling behavior while blindly going through life without getting to know someone before committing to them nor changing any of his own behaviors that would attract predators to their victims.

Does this mean that when I saw an iPod left by the sink at the gym that I should have left it there because he deserved to have it stolen for being a dumbass?  Or should I have just taken it myself?  It’s a worthy debate, but this post is less about making a point and more about how to make a point.  Right or wrong, I turned it in to the front desk.  If you think I shouldn’t have, feel free to take me to task.

In this discussion and so many others, I see people talking past each other.  I prefer getting through to them, and understanding why people think the way they do (even when I disagree) is one of the reasons I can do that so well.

As an expression of attitude, deserve is in the realm of G:  ideals, right, wrong,  The reason the males weren’t getting through to Crystal is that their respective G‘s (whether or not somebody deserves what comes their way) derived from an difference perspective on A, the underlying prism through which they view reality.  It’s almost impossible to convince somebody that the moon landing was a worthy investment if they think it was staged in a Hollywood studio.

This is why I prefer to address A first, before I even touch on G.  This frustrates the hell out of fellow conservatives and libertarians when I’m discussing politics with a lefty, but by the end of the conversation they always congratulate me and ask how I pulled off such a rhetorical coup.

A is A, and that never changes.  It’s A whether you’re young or old, black or white, male or female.  Nevertheless, what we think A is varies considerably depending on our background, experience, assumptions, and biology.

Men are physically stronger than women.  We implicitly understand (after we’ve overcome any brainwashing) that we’re on our own, that life is what we make it, that we’ve got to assume we’ve got control over our own lives if we want to have any hope of actually having control over our lives.  We need courage and tenacity.  Our key to success is independence.  We can’t afford to pass the buck, because even if it’s not our fault we failed, nobody gives a shit:  we failed.  To us, life is about what we make of it.

By nature, women are more reactive.  Not only are they more susceptible to the machinations of the Hamster, they’re physically weaker and more dependent on the good will of others (and more likely to get it).  A woman born with an ugly face will have a much harder time overcoming her handicap than a man with the same problem.  If she’s ostracized, she’s far more likely to suffer much more acutely than a man, especially if she has children in tow.  By and large, she’s far more dependent.  Her quality of life is more contingent on forces beyond her control.

And even in a modern world in which factors like physical strength aren’t as much of an issue, she’s instinctively wired to think as though it’s 2,000 years ago.

Everybody knows that circumstances beyond our control can and do affect all of us; if your arms gets blown off, you’re not going to do as many push-ups (or if somehow you do, it’s going to take a lot more work).  Likewise, even the most deterministic philosophy professor concedes that we’ve all got some control over our own lives (see how he responds if you punch him in the face and cry “I couldn’t help it.  I have no free will!)

Nevertheless, biological realities directly affect our perspective on A.  The male perspective is:

Generally, what happens to you matters less than what you do about it.

And for females:

Generally, what happens to you matters more than what you do about it.

Hence Crystal’s emphasis on circumstances beyond one’s control:

People’s spouses die tragically, people can be fired when companies go under, people’s homes get wrecked in floods- many dont deserve that.

I would have picked better examples, like how people are born in North Korea or without ears, but the point stands.  Crystal’s emphasis, the female emphasis, is on forces beyond our control.

(And she does say “If where you are today isnt what you want, you OWN the change”, which is a hell of a lot more than lots of women will concede without extreme duress.  Credit where it’s due.)

But Crystal also demonstrates her femininity is a way I’ve elaborated on here [emphasis mine]:

I deeply believe we need both more personal responsibility, and also more empathy.

Men assume that we can best help one another through forms of tough love, ripping into them and tweaking their pride, thereby fostering independence and stronger fighting spirit.  Women assume that the soft approach works best.  Call this feeding the Hamster if you will, but it is what it is.

And it’s not going to change.

So instead of trying to change Crystal in ways she can’t be changed, I would have tried a different approach.  Instead of try to refute her empathetic nature, work with it.  For example:

Obviously, a lot of horrible things can happen to people that’s entirely beyond their control.  I’m not denying that.  But, and you’ve got to admit this, sometimes people don’t take charge of their lives nearly as much as they could.  And even if they objectively can’t change something, if we’re drowning them with sympathy instead of encouraging them to take charge of their own lives, they’ll just stagnate.  You’re a libertarian, you understand this.

Ultimately, (and I’m not saying under every circumstance every single time) we do have a great deal of control over our own lives, and that control doesn’t just evaporate because for a while our lives happen to suck.  When that’s what we emphasize, we’re much more likely to be able to make the most of it when something beyond our control goes wrong.

As hellish as it’s got to be to go through certain things, that’s how it is and you can’t deny that.  Pain doesn’t change reality.

So far, I’ve dealt entirely with A, with fact and rational analysis, not opinion.  Yet I’ve also respectfully acknowledged her soft womanly nature.  We’ve got agreement on fact, so now I can try to persuade.  Agreement on A is the best way to get to G:

Take some guy loses his arm in an industrial accident, and it wasn’t his fault.  You’re right, he didn’t deserve that.  However, what’s he going to do about it now that it’s happened?  Isn’t that what’s ultimately more important?

Maybe he didn’t deserve to lose his arm, but does he deserve happiness?  When you look at heroes like Jim Abbott, if he just hides away in his apartment all day every day, wouldn’t you agree he maybe deserves to be unhappy, even if he didn’t deserve to lose his arm?  I’m not saying it’s always fair, but our lives are what we make of them.  Shit can happen to us, but what we do about it matters more.  Nothing can take our minds from us, our free will.  That’s why I’m saying we get what we deserve.

And we find there’s overlap here with Crystal’s very words:

People, particularly those who’ve been affected by tragedy or loss, may respond better to what you suggest if you focus on the idea being solely responsible for your own happiness, and less on the deserve part

But they might not, for kindness can kill.  There’s good reason to focus “on the deserve part”, but by working with her nature instead of against it, you’re more likely to get her to see your side.

Game and Rhetoric stem from the same understanding of human nature, but in certain respects they differ substantially.  One of these is how to handle the feminine.

In Game, the most effective tactic (especially in the US) is to plow through her soft nature with your masculine hardness.  Alpha her into submission.

In Rhetoric, her soft and caring side needs to be manipulated and twisted to your advantage instead.  She cares.  And so does everybody else on the left (supposedly).  In Game, acquiescing to the softness turns you into a softy yourself and you lose.  In Rhetoric, in a feminized world in which there’s no greater sin than apathy, pretending that this isn’t the case and plowing through people with cold reason only increases their resistance to you.

I admit it’s a hell of a lot more fun to rip somebody a new one, but it simply doesn’t work as well if your goal is to get them to see things your way.

This entry was posted in Game, Politics, Rhetoric. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to What’s “Deserve” Got to Do with It?

  1. TGR White says:

    You missed a great opportunity. The post should have been titled “Derserving’s got nothing to do with it.”

    Nice reframe but I believe even if Crystal bought everything you her panties would still drop for a bad boy if the tingles were strong enough.

    • Martel says:

      True, but I wasn’t talking about getting her panties to drop. There are times (@ dinner parties, etc.) when you’re talking politics with a woman and you aren’t trying to bang her.

      HOWEVER, I can’t guarantee tingles, but by doing this I have gotten lots of googly eyes. No matter how she comes at me, I twist it back in a way that seems eminently reasonable, and she find that she has to agree with me. Whether it’s quick wit and cutdowns or more dialectical, I take every frame and make it mine.

      It’s not badass Alpha, but it is expertise Alpha. Once when it was six vs. me, after the first three changed their minds, none of the females could take their eyes off of me, even though I was EMPHASIZING how soft and caring I was.

  2. Thanks for the advice. It makes sense of how to frame the ideas to be more acceptable to an individual coming from a viewpoint like hers: open to logic, but still with an emotional twist that needs to be handled carefully or avoided all together. I opted for the latter, but this example was an extremely deft way of doing so. It gives me a good foundation to work from in the future.

    • Martel says:

      Because we guys respond better to overt competition and straight logic, we assume that’s what works best with females, and it doesn’t (when you’re trying to persuade them of an idea, not necessarily when you’re trying to seduce her).

      The goal of every one of these talks is to bring it into the realm of the dialectical, but the way to do that is rhetorical. Rhetoric involves emotion and making a good impression. It’s BS. We recognize it as BS, but it works when used correctly.

      But thanks for the references and stuff. I didn’t have time to get into her entitlement (the universal female default), but I might later on.

  3. Stingray says:

    Please elaborate . . .

    On the one hand you have the alphas of Buddy McRockhammer and Jerkface St. Asshole. Are these men attractive? Alas, yes they are. But only because today, they are what most women experience as alpha. In relation to the betas, these are the dominant men. However, there is a class of men who are ever more dominant than Rockhammer and Jerkface. These are the men who have a mission and who know how to love. All men know how to or can experience the feelings of love, but not all can love in the sense of a verb or agape. Men whom women will call jerks or assholes, but they are not really. Not in the sense of Rockhammer. Women will call these men who know how to love assholes because these men will give a woman what she needs, not what she wants. These men are, at least in my opinion, the true alphas. The real dominant men. The apex. These are the men who don’t give a flying flip about what anyone says or does, because they have a mission in life and no one will stand in their way. You’re either there to help or you get out of the way. They know how to love and they do so with a passion, much to the wife’s happiness and frustration. (I instantly think of the men in the movie Second Hand Lions. Have you seen it?)

    You display many of these qualities in this post and elsewhere. Though you don’t need to worry so much about stuff like “for informational purposes, not ego-stroking, of course”. The people who matter to you already know that.

    Serious marriage material is what many women are looking for, though they have no clue how or why they are until it is too late.

  4. Martel says:

    Please send me an email (located in the “full profile” part of the sidebar just below the hammer) or get me your address some other way (I couldn’t find it on your site). I have a new form of Game on which I’ve been theorizing that I’d like your take on. I’m not able to field test it for lack of time and prospects, but I’d like to bounce it off you to see if I’m onto something.

    Also, if you’re able to point out where “elsewhere” is, I’d like to know so as to find out if I’m doing what I think I might be doing.

    And do you happen to know if that movie’s available on Netflix streaming?

    • Stingray says:

      If you go to your comments page in the dashboard, my email will be right under my handle there. If for some reason it’s not, let me know.

      Elsewhere is just the comments that you have written at other blogs. Rollo’s and SSM’s and mine jump out but Rollo’s most notably. I wish I could point to a specific comment, but I can’t. More specifically in this post. What you did with the women, holding frame, not giving an inch, but taking the time to explain it in a way that she can understand is . . . well . . . catnip. If you did it while being funny, cocky (in that fun way, with the smile. You know the one I mean), without giving anything of your position, but leading her to yours in a strong yet friendly way, then those girls were making eyes at you for a reason.

      That movie does not stream on Netflix but is available on DVD. If you’re able to get your hands on it, you should. However, the men in the movie do not have any romantic prospects as the movie is about a boy (their nephew). However, you can absolutely take their frame and apply it to most anything. Given your posts on how boys are raised so poorly, I think you would really enjoy this movie.

      Another man that pops out to me is Mel Gibson’s character in We Were Soldiers. I can’t remember much about any of the scenes with his wife, but I am sure they are well done. That movie is streaming on Netflix.

  5. Emma the Emo says:

    “Men are physically stronger than women. We implicitly understand (after we’ve overcome any brainwashing) that we’re on our own, that life is what we make it, that we’ve got to assume we’ve got control over our own lives if we want to have any hope of actually having control over our lives. We need courage and tenacity. Our key to success is independence. We can’t afford to pass the buck, because even if it’s not our fault we failed, nobody gives a shit: we failed. To us, life is about what we make of it.”

    I was a part of that debate, and I gotta say I could feel this assumption behind the post, but you expressed it in words much better. To me, both sides seemed illogical, but when their lives are taken into account, it makes more sense. If you can shift blame and win on it, it’s not such a bad strategy after all. If you can’t afford it, then everything is on you. Although some bloggers say the so-called black knighting can work for men.

    • Martel says:

      Thanks for the compliment.

      Regarding black knighting, I think it works best within a specific organization with over-arching rules. If this gets instituted, it’s be a field day for black knights:


      But it’s hard for us to ask for genuine sympathy, and it’s harder for us to get it. Part of why black knighting can work is that it’s obvious to the guy himself that’s he not a victim, he’s just playing one to make a point. The moment he lets himself suspect that he’s turning into a whiny bitch, not only will he be less likely to act, anybody observing him will lose respect for him.

      So even if the two men are doing the exact same thing, from an Alpha frame it’s both fun and effective, but from a butthurt beta frame it’s less likely to even be tried, and if tried is more likely to fail.

    • I’m glad you understood the point, despite my inexperience at expressing those particular thoughts and beliefs.

      • Martel says:

        That’s what I’m here for.

        Yes, I understand your point, and it’s an invaluable one. Unfortunately the ability to think rationally and the ability to communicate rational conclusions to the irrational are very distinct skills.

        For whatever reason, I can do both. What Roissy is to scoring, I am to getting people (especially women, but I’m no slouch with guys either) to see things my way.

        It’s another (perfectly understandable) conflation between “G” and “A”. People should think their way through issues, but they don’t. We act as though they should respond to cold, hard, reason, but our national political mental frame is so skewed that without proper framing, reason will more than likely turn them off.

        Likewise with “telling it like it is”. Conservatives and libertarians have been framed as MEAN, so flying into somebody only reinforces that frame.

        However, victimhood has been sanctified. Therefore, if somebody rips into you, you can frame yourself as the victim of abuse and LIGHT INTO THEM with unfettered viciousness and get all sorts of props.

        Thanks for supplying me with a great post idea.

      • Sure thing. I was glad to, it’s something I’ve been working on. I found the red pill and quickly learned that my ‘nice guy’ traits were tied up with personal issues that require me to speak out and express my thoughts, ideas, and boundaries.

        Learning how to do so has lost me many friends, put my career in hot water a few times, but brought me mental health, satisfaction, and personal growth. As you can see from the original post and conversation, I’ve developed the ability to convey my thoughts one way, without emotions over riding my thoughts. Now I just need to add the emotions back in enough to show that I’m not a heartless bastard but still understand the world.

        Able to make decisions with the trends of humanity in mind, while making allowances for the exceptions to the rules. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, as I feel most liberals believe, but rather are a compartmentalization between grand policies and ability to adapt to individual circumstances.

  6. Pingback: Using Rhetoric For Good | Something Fishy

  7. Pingback: Follow the Links | On the Rock

  8. Pingback: Rhetorical Bloodsport | Alpha Is Assumed

  9. Pingback: Crappily Ever After | Alpha Is Assumed

  10. Pingback: Princess of the Damned | Alpha Is Assumed

  11. Pingback: Your Body, Your Baby (Non-Rational Interlude) | Alpha Is Assumed

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 )

Connecting to %s