Observations on "gender": The sexual marketplace is governed by forces that mirror the economics of supply and demand. Humans respond to incentives, but not all responses are rational or advantageous.
Many of those in the so-called "manosphere" speak the language of sociobiology, although it's not clear that they actually understand the fundamental concepts pioneered by E.O. Wilson, Lionel Tiger, et al.
For example, any intelligent person reading the "manosphere" soon gets weary of the dumbed-down and stereotypical "Alpha"/"Beta" discourse. Much of this rhetoric is badly misguided or erroneous.
In nature, the "Alpha male" describes social dominance or leadership within a group. In human life, many non-natural factors influence social dynamics. We are not wolves or orangutangs.
Dumbed-down talk about "Alpha" and "Beta" males in the "manosphere," particularly in PUA (pickup artist) forums, ignores or misrepresents much of what is useful and valid in the theory of sociobiology.
First, the advantageous traits of the "Alpha" male are natural. Some men just naturally have traits associated with dominance -- taller, more athletic, more extroverted, etc. -- which can't be taught or learned.
It is foolish to imagine that a short, awkward, introverted male can, by reading a bunch of vulgar pseudo-scientific discourse on Red Pill blogs, become a studly "Alpha male." Not. Gonna. Happen.
We must remember: Supply-and-demand influences sexual behavior, and the key to market success is to find the unmet demand, to take advantage of opportunities that others have neglected.
The mating-market failure is apt to continue failing if he believes that the key to success is mere imitation of behaviors that are (or may seem to be) successful for other men. Individual differences matter.
The 5-foot-7 awkward introvert is almost certainly mistaken to believe he can become a "winner" by mere mimickry of the tall athletic extrovert. Yet we see this foolish "monkey-see, monkey-do" game all the time.
The non-athletic boy who dresses in football jerseys, Nikes and baseball caps? This reflects a Cargo Cult mentality: "If I dress like a jock, I'll get laid like a jock." No, sir. You'll just look like an idiot.
Consider the pathetic "wigger" -- the middle-class white teenage boy who thinks he's gonna become a mack daddy by a ridiculous (and insultingly stereotypical) minstrel-show imitation of urban black culture.
PLAY WITHIN YOUR OWN LEAGUE. Make an appraisal of your strengths and weaknesses, and don't waste time, money or energy on imitating behavioral models that simply won't work for you, as an individual.
Any program of self-improvement for the loser in the mating game must be pragmatic (get a better haircut, go to the gym, dress sharper, etc.) and aimed at achieving realistic goals.
The 20-year-old loser who's never even gotten to second base with a girl has to understand that he must learn to crawl before he can hope to walk. Also, he must recognize that women are not his problem. HE is his problem.
A critical reading of Elliot Rodger's "manifesto" reveals that he was badly off-track by age 14. He was losing, but didn't know why, and his own self-justifying rationalizations were a huge part of the problem.
Like so many losers, Elliot Rodger had a habit of fixating on the unattainable beauty queen, and ignoring the ordinary girls around him. This is part of why he never learned to talk to girls in a *casual* way.
Male complaints about being stuck in the "friend zone" typically ignore all kinds of factors that lead to such situations, and also ignore the opportunities to be gained by having platonic female friends.
There is much wisdom in common-sense adages, e.g.: "Familiarity breeds contempt." "Absence makes the heart grow fonder." "Hunt where the ducks are."
If a guy keeps finding himself stuck in the "friend zone" with girls, why? Because he's magnetically attracted to girls who are out of his league. He habitually overestimates his own attractiveness.
Zooming in on the out-of-his-league beauty, the loser hovers hopefully in her "friend zone," becoming what is known in PUA parlance as a "Beta orbiter." He gives her attention and validation, foolishly hoping for reciprocal affection.
What the "Beta orbiter" doesn't understand is that his motives are transparent. She knows damned well why he's hovering around her -- it's obvious -- and women find this kind of behavior creepy.
Let me state a self-evident truth, for any losers who haven't figure this out yet: Attractive girls are accustomed to being swarmed by male admirers. Therefore, your admiration of her can never really be secret.
Read that sentence again. Study it. What it means is that you should never expect to take her by surprise. Your slow-motion "friendship" game is always transparent to her.
This is why losers are forever complaining about being stuck in the "friend zone." If a girl is actually interested in you -- if you are a plausible suitor -- her interest will be apparent almost immediately upon meeting her.
There is no need to re-invent the wheel, when it comes to finding love. The most old-fashioned sort of common-sense advice is usually the best, because human nature produces predictable patterns of behavior.
Why is it, after all, that Nora Ephron's romantic comedies always hinge on what has been called the "meet cute" encounter? Because, from a woman's perspective, her feelings in that initial meeting are the key factor.
Yeah, re-read that sentence, too. It's important, if any guy who's a loser wishes to increase his chances of winning: "You never get a second chance to make a first impression."
What do I tell my own sons? Mind your posture. Hold your chin up. Walk like you know where you're going, and don't have all day to get there. Be conscious of the impression you convey by your movements and mannerisms.
Make good posture a habit, and good manners, too. Old-fashioned courtesy -- "please," "thank you," "yes, sir," "no, ma'am," "excuse me," etc. -- becomes more remarkable as it becomes less common.
Most of what feminists denounce as "misogyny" and "toxic masculinity" can be categorized more basically as rudeness and bad manners. Parents are neglecting to teach courtesy, and boys lack effective mentors or role models.
The man who engages in behavior that feminists label "toxic masculinity" is not necessarily more of a sexist than the well-behaved man. Indeed, many examples demonstrate that feminists are easily deceived by the smooth operator.
Spend some time reading feminists writing about affairs they remember fondly, and it's often amusing. She totally got played, and yet he was so cleverly charming that she either doesn't realize she got played, or doesn't resent it.
This raises another point: Generally speaking, women are subjective and superficial. What matters is not what happened, but how they *feel* about what happened, and they always cut a good-looking guy more slack.
What's remarkable, if you spend years observing female behavior, is that women are seldom aware of how superficial they are in their judgments of men. They don't acknowledge how they are influenced by "The Halo Effect."
"The Halo Effect" -- humans naturally believe that good-looking people are also good people. We attribute positive values to people who are physically attractive. We do not wish to believe that a pretty face can hide an evil mind.
It is true that women, in general, are less oriented toward mere visual beauty in their appreciation of men than vice-versa. Yet good-looking men -- especially tall men with athletic physiques -- always get the benefit of the doubt.
Because women's preferences are not infinitely elastic, it's amazing how some losers think PUA "game" can magically transform them into players, as if their objective disadvantages did not impose any limits to their success.
Ceteris parabus, the man who is tall, athletic and handsome will always be a winner with women, without regard to tactics or strategy. A loser who thinks PUA "game" can magically overcome his inherent disadvantages is a fool.
Human nature produces observable patterns of behavior, and losers tend to have certain tendencies and habits that explain why they can't win. Typically, the loser lacks self-awareness. He can't see his own deficits and self-defeating habits.
To repeat what I said at the beginning: "Humans respond to incentives, but not all responses are rational or advantageous." It is irrational or disadvantageous responses to incentives that typify the loser.
The crucial point: How has feminism changed the incentives within the sexual marketplace? Human nature is immutable, but behavior is influenced by incentives. Men must be careful to avoid self-defeating responses.
"Red Pill" guys are correct in their basic hunch that men are unwise to think they can win the sexual marketplace by a policy of appeasement toward feminists. Becoming an effete SJW "soy boy"? No, that won't work.
Feminist themselves have often expressed their contempt for the unctuous solicitude of the "male feminist" type. They recognize this as an essentially dishonest tactic, the perverted wolf in SJW sheep's clothing.
In this, "Red Pill" guys are essentially correct: Insofar as any woman actually likes men (a stipulation that excludes most feminists), she can be expected to prefer men who are authentically masculine. Human nature prevails. Sic semper hoc.
What is necessary is an analysis of the contemporary mating market that yields effective and advantageous responses to the incentives. But having lectured at such length to reach this point, I've said enough for one day. Selah.
Click here to read this entire thread on a single page: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1002875…
