Why We Don’t Like You

and what you can do to change it.

Today Vox linked to a charming little analysis of the Manosphere by none other than Feisty Woman.  Vox adequately obliterates her argument, which rests on the assumption that Roosh (of all people on the planet) is “a pent up indignant sexually frustrated buffoon.” [emphasis mine].  He also nicely sums up why men don’t like intelligent women:

So, why do we tend to downgrade the attractiveness of women who are intelligent?  Because women who are intelligent are nearly as prone to lack honor, intellectual integrity, and genuinely intellectual interests as their less intelligent sisters, but due to their pride in their intelligence and their feelings of superiority, they are far more prone to foolishly challenge male intellectual authority in order to validate their self-perceptions and/or get their dominance buzz.  In other words, intelligent women tend to be a massive pain in the ass without providing much to compensate for their disagreeableness.

I don’t disagree, but in the interests of presenting Her Feisty Highness with an olive branch, I’d like to explain the problem to her (and perhaps others) on a somewhat deeper level.  Despite her lack of self-awareness, Feisty also writes:

I feel there are a lot of ills and injustices within the feminist movement that have had a profoundly destructive impact on society (I will be writing more about that in the coming weeks) of which other treacherous and cantankerous movements have spawned and gained momentum and notoriety.

This means there’s hope, and dammit, when i see hope, I exploit it!  Yes, this is a woman who has dismissed an entire movement based on one dismissive tweet and another supportive one (solipsism anyone?), but I watched Star Wars way too much as a kid, so I’m inclined to focus on the good in others.

Vox adroitly explains why men often find intelligent women unattractive, but the fact remains that Feisty and millions of other women really really think we should.  The only way they can reconcile that fact that we don’t is “[F]ear”.

So I’ll see her fear and raise her one projection.  Chicks dig men who dominate them.  One of the ways a man can dominate a woman is intellectually.  Therefore, women find intellectually dominant men attractive (notice I said “intellectually dominant” and not “smart”; there’s a huge difference).

Because women find such men attractive, men are supposed to find such women attractive.  Although Feisty doesn’t like feminism, she does buy into its premise that men and women are essentially alike.  She finds it hot when a dude can stump her in an intellectual argument, so if a guy doesn’t feel it rise when a woman stumps him, there must be something wrong with him.

And as we buy the feminist lie that what turns women on should be what turns everybody on (and that what turns men on is superficial, of course), such projections multiply.  Women don’t mind dating guys who are a bit older, so men should hunt cougars.  Women don’t care quite as much about looks, so if we like pretty women we’re being superficial.  Women want powerful men who with impressive resumes, so they devote their twenties and thirties to building their resumes and then feel cheated when none of us give a damn.

The same goes for being “feisty” (although we don’t call straight men that).

Regarding intellect specifically, there’s also another phenomenon at work.  Women like to test their men, to make sure that they can measure up.  A woman who prides herself on her intellect sees this as the best way to probe her man for weakness.  Furthermore, because it’s her best shot at beating him, she’s likely to repeat the same intellectual fitness tests.  Continually.

And eventually we just get sick of it.  We don’t feel some horrid onslaught of insecurity when you best us in a political argument, eventually we just get bored with it and realize that there are other women with whom we can just relax.  A woman has to be careful with her testing.  Yes, she’s got to make sure we’re dominant, but just a bit too much, if it’s a worthy guy, next.

I haven’t had the same problems as other guys in this regard in that I’m so rhetorically and dialectically dominant that even the smartest of women give up on trying to best me this way almost immediately; sometimes they recognize this in the first five minutes, sometimes it takes an hour or so, but they all soon learn they’ll need to find another way to get under my skin.  Before I learned Game, because this was my best way to impress women, it became a crutch.

It’s not a crutch anymore, largely because I’ve ignored the advice of people like Feisty.

Nevertheless, the point stands.  I value intellectual curiosity in a woman, but I personally find intelligence itself to be neither here nor there.   Intellectually curious women can help expand my own mind; merely intelligent ones find me attractive because I possess the kryptonite that neutralizes their super powers.

But I get it.  They have other ways.

If Feisty’s honest with herself, she’ll admit that women aren’t turned on by “sensitive” guys who are kind and understanding but don’t have any fight.  Maybe she can then also recognize that men don’t find women attractive who have lots of “fight” but aren’t particularly kind and understanding.

So Feisty, if you’re inclined to listen, I advise that you recognize that we’re different, that our differences are a good thing.  Be a little more understanding of where we’re coming from.  Listen, read, and ask questions that don’t come across as attacks.  Really consider that as much as you may dislike feminism, you’re actually buying into a lot of it.

You’re not hopeless, seriously.

So take a deep breath, loosen up those clenched little fists, relax, and embrace your femininity.

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

41 Responses to Why We Don’t Like You

  1. The Navy Corpsman says:

    “Do you feel threatened by an intelligent woman?”
    “Are you threatening me?”

    The Navy Corpsman

  2. I hope her intelligence isn’t as high as she thinks it is, considering how she swings it around like a dead cat on a Tilt-A-Whirl. To quote Thomas Sowell –

    “There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs”

    • Martel says:

      Great Sowell quote. Intelligence =/= wisdom. Wisdom requires humility and common sense, which intelligence can supplement. But without the requisite humility, intelligence merely feeds the ego and decides that it knows better than everybody else on everything.

      And intelligence rarely takes faulty premises into account. No matter how smart you are, if you think 2+2=5, all of your calculations will be off. A dull person will catch mistakes like that much more quickly than a smart person.

      • …without the requisite humility, intelligence merely feeds the ego…intelligence rarely takes faulty premises into account…

        We could spin this into a house/electronica song.

        Smarter Better Dafter Wronger

      • Martel says:

        I’m willing to sell my words for the right price.

      • Work it
        Make it
        Do it
        Makes us


        More than

        Is the

        Fake degrees and HR jobs and
        Alpha fux and beta bux and
        Taxes, welfare, wealth extracting transfers
        Work is never over!

        Make them harder, make them bitter
        Logic dafter, ever wronger
        More than ever, hour after hour
        Work is never over!

        “Harder Bitter Dafter Wronger” – (c) 2013 Daft Kunt

      • Martel says:

        Record it!

      • If I were able to mimic the vocal distortion effects – and had a couple high-pitched, nasally, feminist-sounding “singers” – I would have recorded and posted it already. As it is, a lot of the melody comes from the vocal FX. You got any studio equipment and experience?

        Then again, I did find this to work with…

  3. earl says:

    Roosh isn’t frustrated sexually.

    But he is frustrated. His anger is coming from somewhere.

    • Martel says:

      We see a similar phenomenon with lots of millionaires and third-world dictators. Money, sex, and power are what drives us biologically. We’re apes, but we’re more than apes. Were we merely smart apes, money, poon, and power would lead directly to happiness, but that’s obviously not the case.

      Roosh is a master of a biological imperative, but he doesn’t strike me as particularly fulfilled. He’s become a High Priest of a false god, and he’s learning that false gods don’t deliver.

      But in his defense, he has some incredible insights into human nature, and I suspect that only exacerbates the problem. A sociopath can be happy as a master of biology; a decent person can’t. He knows there’s something more but is so wedded to biological imperatives that he can’t yet see it.

      Still, he’s a seeker. I can’t see into his soul, and I suspect his capacity for relationships may be damaged permanently, but I do think that one of these days he might get it.

      The operative word is “might”.

    • Lord Highbrow says:

      “Wisdom requires humility and common sense”

      Hi Martel, I thought I might add here ‘Wisdom requires humility, common sense and experience’. My dido encompassed all of those qualities and now that he’s passed away, I miss him all the more for it.

      I often look back at who I was as a teenager (I’m 38 now) – you know, the time in my life when I knew everything 😉 – and realise just how much I didn’t know. Although I know more now than I did then, I also try to grasp the concept of knowing what I don’t know. I learned that from reading Donald Trump’s ‘The Art of The Deal’. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend it, it’s a really great book.

      I try to spend as much time as possible these days listening to what people with more experience in areas I have an interest in acquiring knowledge have to say and keep my damn fool mouth shut.

      • I got “Art of the Deal” for 75 cents.

      • ShlomoShunn@gmail.com says:

        I wonder what Roosh’s childhood was like. The answer would reveal a lot.

        Remember, Straus’ THE GAME begins with Mystery having a nervous breakdown. His relationship with his father and family crippled him. He thought endless vag would make up for the love he lacked.

        Poon, money, etc. are all necessary for the good life, but in moderation. They can easily become addictions for those with unresolved needs.

        The world is filled with sad rich folks and men trying to find peace in endless pieces-of-patooter. The obsessive nature of vagina-seekers is like watching gourmands eat endless “great meals” who are nonetheless ever-unhappy. Meanwhile, others are sated with simple fare with friends at McDonald’s or Appleby’s.

        Guys bragging about their “lays” are like folks bragging about money. Who are they trying to impress? It’s like listening to someone reel off his advanced degrees. If he’s truly smart, listeners will know without havig to hear about all the sheepskins.

      • Martel says:

        @ Highbrow: I’d agree that wisdom USUALLY requires experience, but I’ve met a couple of nine year-old with more wisdom that the average mid-30’s SWPL. Also, without humility and common sense, no amount of experience can possible break through someone’s thick-headedness.

        @ Schlmo: I just got “Why Can’t I Use a Smiley Face?”, and I’m hoping it will reveal something. Part of the problem with pedastalizing women (AKA worshipping a false god) is that it can lead to blind over-reacting. In the case of women, what can make the problem even worse is that the more you despise them, the more they tend to like you. As much as Feisty seems to hate Roosh, I be he’d have no problem seducing her (if he were so inclined, which I doubt he would be).

  4. The Navy Corpsman says:


    “Do you feel threatened by an intelligent woman?”


    “Are you threatening me?”
    “Are you intelligent?”
    “Are you a woman?”

    The Navy Corpsman

  5. Aurini says:

    That bloody nails it; I need intellectual companionship out of a woman (if she doesn’t understand jokes about Greek Philosophers she’s not for me), but 95% of the time they come along with both attitude, and a failure to acknowledge when they’ve been bested.

  6. A woman that can engage in a discussion and humbly admit when she’s wrong, but still be curious to explore the right answer afterwards; is rare indeed.

    I doubt that Feisty is one of them.

    • Martel says:

      I concur.

      In the comments, she dismisses one female commenter with “I did my research honey”. However, based on what she wrote in her original post, she gave us no reason to believe that. Her post makes it look like she got an angry tweet and extrapolated that to the entire ‘sphere. I’m not doubting she checked out RoK or whatnot, but if you “did [your] research”, then your readers should be able to tell that from what you write. If they can’t, it means that the writer didn’t do his or her job properly, and snarky cutdowns aren’t the appropriate way to respond when you’re called on it.

      Furthermore, in the comments (but not the original post) she praises Dalrock. Good for her. However, Dalrock IS a part of the Manosphere, and he cites Heartiste regularly. Still, she ripped into the ENTIRE Manosphere in her original post, and when we call her on it, she defends herself with “But I like Dalrock!” Well, then you should have said that in your original post, “honey”.

      There are lots of negative ways that one could describe Roosh, but “sexually frustrated” isn’t one of them. Instead of admitting she goofed, she claims that something must be wrong with him because he can’t find monogamy. Perhaps there’s something wrong with him, but sexual frustration isn’t it. She may or may not be wrong in her overall assessment of his character, but the words she initially used to describe him were WRONG. Not slightly off, not poorly worded, WRONG. W. R. O. N. G.

      But like so many other “intelligent” women, she refuses to back down, perhaps believing that it would cause her to lose respect or something. What she doesn’t get is that if she admitted her screwups, she would GAIN respect instead. Instead of aimlessly flailing in her attempts to defend and deflect from her factual mistakes, she could then switch the conversation to questions about why we’re so hostile, why she doesn’t think we have what it takes to oppose feminism, etc.

      So she’s exemplifying the very pride that Vox ripped into with every defensive comment she makes. She’s epitomizing exactly why we don’t like “intelligent” women, so much so that Vox’s post was almost a perfect play-by-play prediction of how she’d react.

      Which is sad because she wants a lot of the same things we want.

      On the other hand, while nosing around her blog I’ve learned that I’ll never lack for a post idea ever again.

      • “On the other hand, while nosing around her blog I’ve learned that I’ll never lack for a post idea ever again.”


        I think that there’s a large difference in intelligent men and intelligent women by how they act before and after they make statements such as hers. Men seem to be more likely to thoroughly study an issue before making a proclamation of their beliefs. Likely because we face challenges every day to what we stand for, and have to be able to defend it. Yes, some men still are subject to selection biases, but they are still able to pull up many more examples to defend their ideas than the average woman.

        The average intelligent woman is more likely to find one or two anecdotal cases defending her theories, and then use her intellectual powers via rationalizations to defend those theories, rather than statistics or reality. Then, because she sees so many strong men she admires refuse to back down, she refuses to as well.

        Like you and Vox said, pride.

        I might have to read more of her posts and comments if they’re as amusing as you say

      • There are lots of negative ways that one could describe Roosh, but “sexually frustrated” isn’t one of them. Instead of admitting she goofed, she claims that something must be wrong with him because he can’t find monogamy

        Has Roosh ever said he’s looking for monogamy? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems pretty low on his list. If so, can’t say something is wrong with him for not finding something he was never seeking.

      • Martel says:

        @ nightsky: If Roosh wants monogamy, I’m unaware of it. Again, not wanting monogamy can fairly be described as a character flaw, but Feisty seems to assume that the only reason he can’t find monogamy is that no woman will give it to him. Either way, she’s still wrong about him being sexually frustrated. She dodges and weaves and changes the subject and attacks, but she can’t simply admit that she made a blatantly erroneous assumption

    • ShlomoShunn@gmail.com says:

      I treat women like guys. That is, I’m selective and don’t expect compatibility with many.

      Very few men are my close buds. And while I want them to be smart, I also want them to be humble, humorous, loyal, and able to “sense” a lot. Similarly, I like women who are smart, but also savvy enough to “read” situations. Strong, but compassionate. Know when to offer support, when to be needed. It’s more art than science.

      “Feisty” comes across like a freshman at an all-girls school who feels she has to argue with, and beat, every man she encounters off-campus. She doesn’t “get” how tiresome that is for men.

      She also reminds me of the janitor in old “In Living Color” skits. He endlessly tried to impress students with his smarts, botching many “big words” in the process.

      Feisty Woman’s insecurity is palpable. She tries soooooo hard to impress. Everything is serious and urgent. She’s not relaxed, making it hard for folks to relax around her.

      She’s probably Mommy Dearest around her kid, too, insisting on perfection.

      I strongly suspect her husband is henpecked. She probably brings a clipboard to bed, holding up Olympic “judging cards” after trysts.

  7. Great post. Thank you for putting my blog at the end there. 🙂

    She looks very pretty on her photo that link leads to, it is such a shame when women let themselves down with ignorant feminist attitudes, even when they claim they don’t buy into feminism, it’s clear that she’s been influenced. But there is hope for her and many others, they need prayer and wisdom, (and probably a dominant man’s words to try to set the record straight for them.) Your post would be a valuable read for her.

    Intellectual curiosity, like you said, is the best. The desire and willingness to learn is much nicer than a woman who already thinks she’s so intelligent that she knows everything.
    I think some intelligent women often like to use the “Oh men are threatened by intelligent women” excuse, to justify any problems they personally have with the opposite sex, instead of being honest with themselves and addressing what their real faults are, and focusing on changing them.

    • Martel says:

      I was trying to come up with an ending that summarized what she needs to do, and eventually it hit me: “She needs to…..embrace her femininity. Wait, isn’t there a blog called that? Why, yes there is!” I thought it fit in that her blog persona and yours couldn’t be farther apart.

      She’s married, and at first I thought it was possible that he was dominant but just didn’t care what she does online. There are plenty of feminists out there who roar around all day until they get around their man and then turn into a kitten, and the guy simply doesn’t care what she’s like when he’s not around.

      But then I skimmed over her twitter feed and noticed that she’s tweeting about the Chippendales. The dude may be a rich former college football player, but he’s henpecked.

      Her feminist attitudes definitely contradict her opposition to feminism, but I try to use such contradictions as leverage points to persuade them. Sometimes, if somebody doesn’t like feminism, if you can point out why and how they’re actually feminists, it can help turn them around. However, this is much easier to do in person than on the internet. In person I can nail them on every evasion right when they make it, corner them, force them to recognize their own contradictions, etc. Online, you can make the best point ever and there’s no way to know if they’ve ever even read it.

      So she’s probably read my post, but I’d be amazed if she ever acknowledges it. I haven’t given her any openings for personal attacks (which she won’t tolerate from others but uses incessantly herself), it’s all women who “like” the post, I don’t say anything that isn’t easily observable, so it would be very difficult for her to acknowledge that my post even exists without admitting that her own post was wrong.

      The Hamster is very strong with this one.

  8. Emma the Emo says:

    You know, sometimes you walk into an area where you don’t know the rules, and say something which sounds inocuous to you, but it dead serious to them. And then they rip into you and you pretty much have to defend yourself, truth be damned. It helps to be right, of course. But to avoid losing face and to show you are not to be messed with, you fight and fight, until they pronounce you a troll and ban you (or you feel sufficiently avenged and leave). It happens in real life and online. It is not an argument, it’s a fight. Most often happens with people you already don’t have any investment in. You criticize her for being wrong and defending her wrongness even after being found out. Well, I dunno how she feels, but I’m willing to bet she feels like she’s under attack from people she was never friends with. Of course she’s gonna fight you. She has no reason to trust that once she says “Ok, I was wrong about that one”, you won’t laugh and rip into her more.

    Of course, the whole thing is stupid, but so are duels and other crap where you could have just said “can’t we get along?” and shaken hands.

    That’s not to say she was right. She didn’t have to post that whole post, filling it with shaming language. You have to think long and hard before you post a shaming article about someone. Think before you speak, and less of these fighting situations will happen.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Btw, this isn’t a criticism, but rather a possible explanation to what might be happening.

      • Shlomo says:

        Great post! I’m guilty of digging my heels in, too, when I should be the bigger person. It’s hard not snarking sometimes.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Lol, yes, the best solution to this is to simply avoid starting nonsensical fights. Then you won’t have to choose.

    • Martel says:

      Your explanation makes plenty of sense. You also described why “intelligent” women can be so annoying. They “talk shit” like guys do, and then when they “talk shit” back to her, she gets even more defensive/aggressive.

      I suspect she might feel a bit like the female Marine in this post: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/dont-hit-me-im-a-girl/

      Almost all of the comments on her post are negative, and it took about five hours for her to approve each of my comments (so she’s probably getting a lot more negative feedback than she expected). She’s demonstrably wrong on multiple fronts, but her only concession has been the occasional distinction between the Christian and secular wings of the manosphere.

      But there’s been no change in tone, and although she’s banning “personal attacks” she attacked some elderly guy for having a flabby ass.

      “Think before you speak, and less of these fighting situations will happen.”

      Exactly. I’ve been critical, but my pushback has been downright gentle compared to her initial attack. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

  9. I think the problem with “intelligent” women is that they are always looking for a debate, how to prove themselves and really don’t know how to relax (like you said) and be fun to be around.
    But at the same time, I wouldn’t completely dismiss intelligence. A goal-oriented, ambitious man may want an intelligent wife because she could make a good help meet. She would use her intelligence to further his career and help achieve his goals.
    In short, I don’t really think the problem lies in intelligence but knowing how to balancing intelligence with a humble, quiet, and gentle spirit.

    • Martel says:

      You are correct.

      Unfortunately, in today’s feminist society, “smart” girls are trained to think of their intelligence as a reason to have a really big ego. Therefore, what could be positive becomes annoyingly negative.

      Feminism is training our girls to make their own best traits their own worst enemies.

      • AnonymousBosch says:

        Feminists are simply women of moderate intelligence who believe the piece of paper they get from a university is proof that they are of higher intelligence, which, despite their professed belief in equality, (and that IQ Tests are not a true measure of intelligence and are prone to racial and gender bias), fuels their ego. They all become supercilious, which proves the hypocritical cognitive-dissonance involved in their rhetoric.

        I’m almost three standard deviations from the norm. I’ve never been remotely-threatened intellectually by a women, and, at 42, I’ve given up hope that I ever will be.

  10. dannyfrom504 says:

    intellectual is fine. intellectual and entitled cancels aout attractiveness. i can’t imagine any man wanting to deal with that on a day-to-day basis.

  11. Cara says:

    Martel, you make some excellent points. However, keep in mind that It is a fine line that both males and females are walking in this society, and men have a fair share of the responsibility for it. If men hadn’t bought into feminism, it wouldn’t exist. Some men who think they haven’t bought into it, do so indirectly by expecting women to take charge and be “independent” (really, is any one of us truly independent of anyone else?), meaning that we should be career women as well as taking care of home, family and the ever more fragile male ego (yes, in this ever more PC world, men are among the easily “offended” too). Women devote their twenties and thirties to building their resumes because it’s what MEN communicate to us by word or deed and then when we’ve done all that, we are expected to simply turn that off at home – of course, after we’ve gotten dinner on the table, cleaned the house and put the kids to bed – and then turn all of that off and be the soft, supportive, feminine, accepting women we we all need to be, without daring to “challenge” anything our partners say because of course, that is too stressful for HIM!

    By way of seeking a mate, if we dare to even hint at the idea that he might be expected to be the dominant financial support if he realistically expects such loving and soft acceptance at home, we are accused of….well, all sorts of things, naturally. Even other women will line up to attack us on that one, especially if we want to stay at home, raise our own children and create for our spouses a welcoming place to call home. We who are trying to figure it all out don’t know what you want any more than most of you do, and what we have figured out is that it’s mostly an impossible road ahead for an awful lot of people. I’ve seen a fair share of marriages work, but it takes a special commitment to communication, partnership, forgiveness, affection and determination to shut out most of the pervasive outside noise. If any of these factors is missing for either partner, it eventually fails.

  12. TMG says:

    I value intelligent women in my life as co-workers and friends. If I were “intimidated” by intelligent women this wouldn’t be the case.

  13. Pingback: Intellectual Combat and Game | Something Fishy

  14. Pingback: Link Love Friday | M3

  15. AnonymousBosch says:

    Given the recent Manosphere discussion re: Feisty Woman and intelligent women, I’m utterly-confused.

    I’ve read through a few pages of her blog, and I wouldn’t classify her as remotely-intelligent, and i’m insulted by her ego-stroking conclusion that we’re intimidated by her *due* to her intelligence. Her writing lacks direction; a coherent thought process; and is resoundingly-puerile. She even breaks basic laws of grammar and sentence construction, but not from a experimental place of post-modern expression, just from barely-literate thought. The fact that she claims to be an English Major is a damning indictment of the sad state of American Education.

    You’re all taking a moron who has demonstrated zero value far too seriously, and any discussion of her is a waste of time.

    You’re discussing Ralph Wiggum.

  16. Pingback: Don’t Fight, Win (Part II) | Alpha Is Assumed

  17. Garota Quadrada says:

    This post is so sexist it hurts. Ridiculous.
    Being smart does not mean being masculine.
    Rethink your life.

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