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.


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

16 Responses to Anecdotal Evidence

  1. Stingray says:

    No matter how hypothetical a discussion might be, to a woman it’s ultimately about her.

    Yup, and keep in mind, she was probably thinking that you would think she would trick you by lying about birth control. One of the reasons she got so mad was, on some level, she thought you would think her a liar.

    Solipsism. Ain’t it grand.

    • Martel says:

      Correct, even though I said multiple times that I in no way wanted to imply she would actually do such a thing. I said it, but I could tell it never sunk in.

      Hence much of the problem we have getting our message out in a feminized society. For example, we say that it’s possible for a woman to lie about being raped, women hear that we’re suggesting that they as individual women would lie about being raped.

      I’m of the opinion that neither sex is more inclined to be either evil or virtuous than the other, but that’s a very difficult point to make when one sex takes every implication that its sex isn’t perfect as a personal insult.

  2. Emma the Emo says:

    I doubt she ever had a real debate in her life before.

    • Martel says:

      I noticed her boyfriend did actually have some charisma, but I could tell that her also deferred to her opinions a lot. I could tell she wasn’t used to being challenged, so you’re probably right.

  3. Robin Munn says:

    I don’t quite follow the thread of the argument: how does “If I fuck up, it’s on me. If you fuck up, it’s on me.” connect to lying about birth control? And actually, I need to ask what that means when it’s unpacked. My guess is a connection to child support laws as they currently exist: if the condom breaks and the woman gets pregnant, the man is responsible for child support. And if the woman screws up her birth-control pills (accidentally OR deliberately) and gets pregnant, the man is still responsible for child support, the way US laws are written. Is that the point of that line?

    I know the main point of your article was to point out how unhinged this woman got when you wouldn’t let her slip away from a point you were right about, and how she started to see the argument solipsistically… but it still bugs me that I don’t understand this one detail.

    Also, you miss blogging? Well, I also miss reading your blogging. Hope the book goes well and is finished soon(-ish).

    • Martel says:

      Despite your claims to the contrary, you in fact correctly followed my argument (which I admit I didn’t elaborate on in the post). I latched onto it as a statement to repeat because I could tell it was one that seemed in particular to bother her.

      Thanks for your comment about the blog. I’m hoping to blog with more regularity despite the book, perhaps one short post per week. Also, I’m calculating whether or not it’s worth taking the risk of putting myself in a better position to try more time writing.

      The tone of the book isn’t academic, but I’m researching it as extensively as I would a purely academic work. Most of my blog readers are inclined to agree with me, and if somebody calls me on a point it can be addressed in the comments. In a book I’ve no such luxury. Here I can say “women have no grasp of what men go through” because it’s a shared assumption among my readers, but in the book I have to back that statement up.

      I know I’ll never persuade Amanda Marcotte fans, but there are a lot of decent people out there who buy into a lot of feminist crap without realizing it (often they genuinely believe they oppose it), and those are the folks I think I can reach. However, doing that requires a different approach than I’ve become accustomed to using here, and it’s one that takes longer.

      • Robin Munn says:

        I think what puzzled me was why anyone would respond to that line with “that is SUCH BULLSHIT”. Unless she was arguing a pro-men’s-rights position, which we know she wasn’t. So that had be doubting that I was figuring it out correctly — this is a correct summary of the laws in the US as they currently are, so why would anyone be calling it bullshit? It makes no logical or rational sense*, and since I skew towards logic and reason I have a tendency to wrongly assume that others do too. Which is why I couldn’t initially work out her reaction, and thus thought that I must have been reading your line wrong.

        * The answer, of course, lies outside the areas of logic and reason, and you clued the reader to it when you mentioned her moving from third-person pronouns, he/she, to first- and second-person pronouns, you/me, earlier. She didn’t want to give up the power that the laws gave her over her (current) boyfriend, and THAT was the driving motivation behind her vehement denial that you might have a point. You know all that, of course, I’m mostly just working out my own thoughts on paper, I mean on the screen.

      • Robin Munn says:

        Whoops, that third sentence should have been “So that had ME doubting …”

  4. Agapoula says:

    It is possibly the first time I hear of a anti-EU bulgarian. LOL.

    I had a discussion at a dinner some weeks ago with a man, who is in favor of communism and is also a feminism lover. The discussion lasted about 1 hour and by the end I was so stressed by his ad hominens and no logic or respect in his argument. ahh.. :/ .

    Anyway, I am happy you are blogging again. 🙂 .

    • Martel says:

      I did see a steak of nationalism/patriotism (couldn’t be certain which) among a few Bulgarians when I was there, and that seemed to be the basis for her EU opposition.

      I know I’m weird, but I LIKE getting ad hominems; to me they’re a chance to call BS on my opponent.

      The best way to oppose rhetorical BS (of which ad hominem is the most common example) is to simply call it out. “That’s a clever name you called me, but you’re making me think you’re incapable of actually addressing my point. Even if I actually were a racist misogynist evil patriarch who hated puppies, that aspect of family law would still be unfair” or “how does my being a farthead change facts?”

      The more inclined somebody is to use rhetorical crap, the less likely they are to actually know what the hell they’re talking about. Most see it as an effective attack, I see it as weakness.

      • Agapoula says:

        When I was a child and would argue with my sisters or other children, when you start to lose the argument, in our childish anger/frustration one of us would call the other ugly, or stupid. I remember my father said one time, that the one who calls the other ugly or stupid in a argument has already lost the argument. I did not quite understand why at the time, but it stuck in my mind, to always try to stay to the point of the argument and not attack the person for something completely irelevant.

        I do admire that you like getting ad hominens, and you can respond to them and still stay to the point, however, it just irritates me. I consider it disrespectful for the effort the other person has put to their argument.

        I am sufficiently irritated after a ad hominen that I have no patience to actually continue the discussion. 😦 .

        I always thought women usually use ad hominens more and seem to be worse debate opponents, (in my experience), until I started to really pay attention to how left wing men discuss. It is enough to make me run from anyone discussing politics…usually. 🙂 .

      • Martel says:

        Thanks for the admiration, but that’s just my thing. There’s usually an area in which an annoyance for one man is a challenge for another, be it in sports, business, or whatever else. Promoting Truth is directly related to my Mission, so for me defeating the crap that stands in Truth’s way makes me feel alive, and I can’t do that if I don’t come across the crap.

        “I am sufficiently irritated after a ad hominen that I have no patience to actually continue the discussion. 😦 ”

        Which I understand. To draw an analogy, I have a friend (not close) who loves physical fights. When he hears “fighting words” from some dude, he’s bothered, but he likes it because that gives him the chance to do what he loves. I also feel “irritated” when I get an ad hominem, but more importantly I also feel that this is a chance to solve a problem that I feel called to solve.

        Regarding “respect”, very few people will lose my respect for doing such a thing because so few people have my respect in the first place. As far as feeling insulted, I merely accept that to most people the notion of “respect” is utterly foreign to their way or thinking. That’s not to say I won’t confront how they are and call them on it, but I’m never surprised by insults.

        One difference between left wing men and women is that the men usually know the BS they’re doing deep down but don’t care, women genuinely can’t tell the difference.

  5. 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.”

    Martel’s Hellspawned 8thcircle Rapepromotion Society.

  6. Joe says:

    Different kind of AE, as fuel for your book. Note that this is from a female-centric satire site:

    This site is either the best piece of Black Knighting I’ve ever seen, or a full-on wedge driving into de nial’s dam.

  7. SirThermite says:

    Read your post here after you linked to it from Alpha Game. Had a similar experience myself last spring when the subject of birth control and paternal responsibility also came up at a bar, but instead of the girl being a stranger she was an acquaintance I’d seen and communicated regularly with for about 6 months, and there were also a couple other guys we both knew taking part in the discussion.

    I pointed out the the unfairness and hypocrisy of those who justify legalized abortion, who argue that no one has the right to deny women’s reproductive choices or control their bodies…while these same people expect the legal system to force the bodies of unintentional fathers into defacto indentured servitude (child support for 18 years upon threat of jail time) if a woman lies about her birth control or accidentally gets pregnant, and then decides to keep the child. With power and choice comes responsibility- why should a man who doesn’t want to become a father be forced to support a woman’s choice to become a mother, when unlike him she has the power and choice of A) taking a pill or injection that allows for unprotected sex with minimal risk of pregnancy and B) independently deciding whether or not be a parent for up to 9 months AFTER conception? Hell, she can even adopt the baby out if she wants to have offspring and spread her genes without actually bearing any further responsibility for them. I’m not pro-abortion, but I was essentially black-knighting by pointing out that as long women continue to allow abortion to be legal, they should have no right to demand paternal support for their bastard children.

    My 30-something female acquaintance initially threw down a weak threat that “we do not want to have have conversation,” then essentially argued that any man who doesn’t wear a condom is responsible if he becomes a father, and also stated that she’s “against abortion” (even though I doubt she’s ever seriously spoken out against it, or even consciously selected a pro-life candidate during and election). She also said she thought I was “a sexist,” to which I pointed out that I was actually the one arguing for equality. Shortly afterwards she left, deactivated her Facebook account I never received another text message or request to hang out from her again. Definitely and interesting experience

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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