Alpha Mail: salute the rank

BC is struggling to respect a Gamma male:

With the series on Gammas, I was curious if I could get some advice from yourself and the Ilk on how a young man creating his own household deals with courting a woman whose father figure is the most Gamma man I've ever met. While some discussion can be had on regular, modern dating, my own situation involves traditional courtship where the woman has acted submissively towards me at every opportunity, shows every sign of feminine appeal/behavior, and then has such a Gamma father figure I can't help but act in disgust.

I generally just avoid him in every way, but the structure of courtship doesn't completely allow me to do so. He consistently sets himself into conflict with me in evasive, non-direct ways, denies doing so, denies all responsibility, and then tries to claim authority and place of masculine leadership via both credentials and his position as male role in courtship. No signs of results mattering, respect having to be earned (beyond telling me I must be earning his through submission), or any signs of real leadership aside from possibly in intellectual areas. I am baffled. I don't know how, but somehow this is the man that taught a woman to value leadership. I have the feeling he's of the high IQ, low social skills type, and able to theoretically define Catholic head of household, but completely unable to interact with men displaying such.

This is the kind of thing I thought was farce, or overexaggerated by how people operate online. Yet I've now had the trouble of having to actually converse with such men, and being put into a position where courtship puts me to gain the approval of a him sounds like a horrible parody.

There is a great scene in Band of Brothers when Captain Sobel encounters the newly promoted Major Winters. Sobel is bitter because he was ousted as the commanding officer of Easy Company prior to the D-Day jump and was replaced by Winters. Sobel disdains to salute Winters, but Winters reminds him: "We salute the rank, Captain Sobel, not the man."

At which point Sobel obediently salutes Winters, who snaps off a sarcastically-crisp parade-ground salute in return.

That's what BC has to do. Respect the rank of father-in-law, not the man who happens to be the prospective father-in-law. He has to know, and accept, that this man, being a Gamma, cannot handle authority over other men and is going to be inclined to abuse it from time to time. To which, the correct response is the time-honored one of put-upon sergeants dating back to the legions, perfect, literal, and mindless obedience.

Nothing drives those abusing their authority crazier, or makes them doubt it more, than unquestioning, unemotional and flawless obedience. Because they don't actually want obedience, they want approval. By giving them what they merit according to their rank, but denying them what they have to earn, this gradually teaches even the slowest learner that throwing his weight around accomplishes him nothing.

I'd even recommend BC go as far as address the man as sir. If he makes pompous demands, BC should, with a completely straight face and no sarcasm whatsoever, "yessir, absolutely sir" the hell out of them. He should question nothing, agree with everything; this is essentially the male form of agree-and-amplify. And he needn't worry about what his fiance thinks; women recognize this very well as an innocent form of taking the piss out of someone. After all, they are the sex that invented the game of ruling through submission.

Read More

Alpha Mail: face to face or forget it

CT feels as if he blew an opportunity:

I just blew an opportunity to meet a potential Christian wife.  Not a carousel rider. Found her online and got an intro(facebook) from a female high school aquaintance.

Anyhow, she started with the big compatibility questions.  I told her I wanted to meet for coffee or talk on the phone rather than use this damnable chat.  She said she never dated much and wanted to take it very slow. Chat only. 

A small voice in my head says, this rocket will never launch.

So I answer the questions and sure enough she's gone.  No attraction over chat.  Big surprise. I'm pretty sick about this a) because there are very few who aren't carousel riders. b) we agree on some of the big compatiblity issues.

So I read the post on breaking frame. How should I have handled this?

No attraction over chat? Over CHAT? That's ridiculous. The truth is that she either didn't like CT's picture or something in his profile, but she didn't want to look shallow in front of her friend. So, she subjected CT to a test, which like a good Delta, he promptly failed.

From the aforementioned post: "the interrogation test is not a qualitative one concerning what answers are provided by the man, but rather, a quantitative one concerning his willingness to submit to questioning. It's binary. If you answered the questions, then you failed."

What he should have done was one of three things:

1. Refused to answer the questions and sent her an email saying something dismissive like "No thanks. Shoot me an email when you're ready to be a big girl and actually leave the house." If she's going to act like a child, then treat her like a child.
2. Agree to answer the questions with one caveat. "I will answer one question for each picture of you in a bikini you send me. Two if they'll get me in trouble at work."
3. Ignore her. When she wiggles the bait and gets in contact later, nuke her with "Yeah, I don't think so. But hey, good luck! Name a cat after me."

Any of these approaches has better odds of going somewhere than meekly submitting to her interrogation. Look, it's not that fucking hard. BEING NICE SCORES NEGATIVE POINTS until attraction is firmly established. Get that through your thick BETA skulls once and for all.

I repeat: BEING NICE SCORES NEGATIVE POINTS WITH WOMEN.

Got it? And being meekly submissive to them is only that much worse. Women are not attracted to nice guys and they despise submissive men. Notice that the woman didn't give a damn about the fact that they agreed on the big compatibility issues. Passing the test had nothing to do with his answers to her questions. He was already toast because he was foolish enough to submit to her frame.

Read More

Alpha Mail: Diagnosis Gamma 2

Continued from Part 1:

Are You Gamma: Part 2

"You constantly throw out flippant remarks with the expectations they are always amusing, appropriate, and funny."

I do this a lot, it seems to be my main form of communication. Is it all about having a front, I don't really want people knowing who I am perhaps?

Ive also developed a tendency to stay "mad stuff". When I say mad I mean stuff your either not meant to say, its shocking or perceived to be shocking. The only purpose in saying it is to be shocking. Not sure whats happening there but I sometimes cringe the next day when I think about it. I did that last week about something. It tends to be with people who will laugh along whether its funny or not. If I suspect people will blank me or expose me I tend to just go quiet. I find people who I regard as "real men" intimidating, they are much less likely to find those things funny and I'm going to tend to feel cut out of conversations with them. They are what I'd think as "normal". I'm not sure exactly what "real men" and "normal" is but I know it when I see it. I think its to do with adulthood and maturity perhaps.

This, of course, confirms what we already knew. The Gamma's breezy, cheesy confidence is a massive false front. He is trying to impress people and establish a false impression, which often leads to attempting to control the narrative in order to prevent the falsity of that impression from being exposed.

The solution? Stop lying. First stop lying to yourself. Then stop lying to others. And quit being flippant. It's not clever, it's seldom funny, and it tends to be passive-aggressive:

This relates to the part of the list about competition, dealing with winning and losing. I've always played quite a lot of sport or competition although nothing athletic any more. One thing I've found playing pool is Ive found a level I'm winning at and rarely go any higher if it means my win rate will suffer. If I sense I haven't got an edge then I'll tend to move away from that or play that level the minimum amount of times.

I played in division 1 of regional league, till last year, and can compete reasonably well with lower level/B internationals if I'm playing well. I've had one particularly good run in a tournament at that sort of level but played very few. Given my ability I should probably be or have qualified for B international a few times over the years. The problem is competing at that level means I will definitely not feel in control, I'm up against players my own level or often better. The anxiety levels are much higher. In the tournament I did well in I struggled to eat or drink the whole day. When I did get beat I felt utter relief when I lost, all that anxiety gone, I joked to my friend at the time that you'll never see a guy with a bigger smile on his face after losing (more witty remarks?). This along with other experiences put me off playing at that level. Just didn't want to have to deal with those feelings/emotions.

The other thing is winning at pool makes me feel good but more importantly it can give me status in certain settings. Given I don't have it pretty much anywhere else in my life being "the guy who's good at pool" gives me some level of feeling of higher status. I can only get that at a lower level where those players look up to my game. Saying that I'd never play at a level where everybody is very bad I'm not sure why though but don't think it would feel like I'm "good". Need to beat people who at least think they are pretty good players to feel the sense of status I'm looking for. Objectively I am a "good" player, but being good and ending up with a 40% win/loss record feels worse to me than going a bit lower so it will be 60%+.

Had a bustup last year which is why Ive gone to another team in Div 2. It involved a guy who's about my level. A lot of people talk about frame and his seems to be very strong. I feel like guys like him can see straight through me. He was new to the team and perhaps over estimated how brittle I am given how I try to cultivate myself as the "drinker" "banter" "doesn't care" guy. He was just joking/ribbing with me, as well as going on a run of wins while we were practicing. I bottled this up a bit but it stung a lot, and I kept it in, getting ratty over that is pathetic so feeling that way must be kept in in my head. I got drunk later on and got ranty over who knows what. Think I stopped playing week after and wormed my way into another side at the club where I can play bad, scrape some wins, and still get legend status off the guys.

I'd rather play for Div 1 side and play in the tournaments but to do it I have to know how to manage those feelings/emotions so I don't end up blowing up and over reacting (over reacting doesn't have to be outward, can just be dropping out/bottoming out of things given little obvious signals to other people). I tend to avoid any situation where anxiety will increase to certain level, but in doing that I miss out on a lot. Its likely alcohol makes all this worse, however its become a huge social crutch to me, and my whole social life revolves around bar/pool/darts.

Being a big fish in a small pond is just another way of stating "fear of failure". What GW needs to do is STOP AVOIDING FAILURE. He needs to stop protecting his precious feelings at all times. My advice is for him to go into Division 1 and take his lumps. You have to learn how to lose before you can learn how to be a winner, which is different than merely winning.

When I was in high school, my private academy was in a strange situation athletically. Minnesota had a two-class sports classifications based on school size. We were single A in terms of our class size, competed in single A in most of our sports, but for some reason, we competed at the AA level against much bigger schools in a number of sports in which we were historically strong, which were soccer, tennis, skiing, and track. That was only with regards to the state tournaments in those sports, however, our conference competition all consisted of single A schools.

My senior year, I won the conference championship in the 100m and 200m. However, in the AA regional championship, we competed in the inner city region against schools like Minneapolis North, Minneapolis South, Minneapolis Roosevelt, and Minneapolis Henry, AA schools that featured mostly black teams. In the finals of both events, I was the only non-black sprinter and I finished 5th in the 100m and 3rd in the 200m, thereby missing out on state, as only the top two sprinters from each region went on to the tournament. (Guess which region usually won those two events?)

However, the single A "state champion" was a sprinter from my conference, a guy I'd beaten in every single race we'd run that year. I even ran him down from about five meters behind after a bad pass in the 4x100 relay, which was probably the best race I ever ran. So, a fair number of people subsequently asked me if I was upset about that, if I felt I should have been the "state champion" instead of him. But I never felt that way, because I always wanted to run against the best, and in fact, I ran my fastest high school times in both events in the regional races I did not win.

To be the best you can be, you have to go up against those who are better. And if you don't, the knowledge that you didn't will always eat away at your confidence and destroy any lasting pleasure you take in your lesser triumphs.

Read More

Alpha Mail: Diagnosis Gamma 1

Inspired by the Graduating Gamma series, one gamma we will call GW for the sake of privacy contacted me and asked me to share my thoughts on his situation in return for supporting our sponsors at Castalia House. I agreed to his suggestion and I have his permission to post this on the blog; this the first part of what he sent me:

I won't bother with too many personal details, maybe another time. I'm [early 40s], single, never married, no children, live on own, self-employed.

Not a complete train wreck, anyhow. He's leaving it a little late, but the raw material for self-improvement is there.

Are You Gamma: Part 1

This relates to the first 7 points. Having a tendency to need to be right about something, also being forceful with needing to be right about it by getting louder or more threatening in body language.

Example 1 - In public house getting drunk, was with father at time. Something came up to do with war and pacifism, that sort of area. The guy I spoke to was ex-army although I don't think front line sort of stuff. I'm not sure exactly how it went but I think I ended up berating him over something to do with pacifism and how it didn't make sense what he was saying. There was no reason for me to get wound up I think I just wanted to impose myself on him, being right maybe is just getting someone to back down or submit to me? My father was trying to get me to calm down with body language. The guy just walked off eventually. 

This ties in with something about my relationship with my father. Through adolescence he never came down hard on me, mother tended to have most of the control in that regard. Played darts with him from 16-18 and started drinking then. Would get very drunk, have blackouts and embarrass myself. While he would talk to me about it there wasn't anything that firm. Part of the problem maybe was I was quite polite and quiet when sober, and also slight in build. I think other people in the team/pub didn't say much out of respect for my father, I think I would have got hit a few times otherwise.

Two things I remember vividly about me and my father. One was probably a darts night, after drinking, where I must have been mouthing off to him. I think I was effectively belittling him, I remember he charged up the stairs and I was on bed and he had my arms down and was in my face, "is this what you want??!!" Thats the only time I ever remember him getting really angry with me. Maybe I needed him to stand up to me, was begging for it?

Was about 12/13. Boys down road (slightly younger than me) had knocked on door and run away so I went after them. As it turned out they had kicked ball over wall but it wasn't ours. I don't remember shouting but asking them why they ran away etc. Appears they told some porkies to their parents and made out I "pummeled" them . Given I was never within ten yards of them this seems unlikely! A hour or so later their father came up, my mother answered door. I'm not exactly sure what happened from there and whether the guy was getting aggressive or not but when my father came out as well my mother told him to go upstairs in the attic!! So he did. I think the guy just went and there was no trouble, presumably my mother was fearful of it escalating into fighting. Feel terrible thinking about that because it seems such a weak think to do. To go along with what my mother said and climb up the ladder into attic and leave her there.

His gammatude is hardly difficult to understand. His paternal role model was weak and his maternal influence was strong. He has a normal male inclination for conflict-resolution through violence, but it has been inhibited by his upbringing. So, it leaks out in bizarre and inappropriate emotional outbursts. He's basically looking for a beating, not because he is some sort of masochist, but because he's never been forcibly established in the social hierarchy, and he's now locked into a pattern of turning to drink to free himself from the social inhibitions that have been instilled in him.

And, like all struggles against inhibitions, when he temporarily breaks through them, he overdoes it.

Example 2 - Playing poker at end of night in pub with pool team mates, reasonably drunk. I'd been playing poker a bit online and was starting to play well enough to win regularly. Again I'm not sure exactly what occurred but it related to a particular hand where, to me, what they did was a sub-optimal play and they shouldn't be doing it. I may have been ribbed a bit for this which maybe stoked me up more. I then started a gradual rant which involved me challenging him to 20,000 hands as over that amount of hands I know I'd win (I'm not that good heads up so may have backfired). This quickly escalated. I said something else more personal not sure what, which got him wound up and it nearly came to blows although broke up swiftly.

This was caught on pub CCTV and I saw it the week after. People joked about it and so did the guy involved who didn't seem bothered and was more concerned whether I would move on from it. I'm guessing grudge holding is classic gamma behaviour. One thing that stuck with me was that I was more bothered that the CCTV showed me backing away. It would have wrecked me if they called me a bottler or something similar. My behaviour up to that point was less embarrassing than the thought of being exposed as a weakling or cowardly.

I think I used to rant a lot when at home. Lived there till about 32. I don't remember ever being challenged particularly.

This is textbook Gamma behavior.

1. Pick an unnecessary fight by inserting your opinion where it is neither requested nor wanted.
2. Try to resolve the conflict in your favor by flooding the situation with verbal diarrhea. Gammas are like salesmen who think as long as they are talking, the customer isn't walking. But this is a short-sighted tactic, as eventually, the talking is going to end, and the longer it goes on, the less it convinces the other party.
3. Back down when the conflict turns physical.
4. Hold a grudge.
5. Deny reality.

The fifth point can be seen in this line: "My behaviour up to that point was less embarrassing than the thought of being exposed as a weakling or cowardly." He WAS exposed as being a coward. He unnecessarily picked a fight, challenged another man, and when that challenge was met, backed down.

Here is my advice regarding the first part of his email.

1. Limit himself to three drinks per evening. If he finds himself overly tempted to order a fourth, call it an early night and go home.
2. Limit himself to no more than five sentences in a row without stopping and listening to the other person. The rants have to stop. They are immature and womanish.
3. Go and apologize to the other guy. Tell him: "I'm sorry I picked a fight with you the other day. At the very least, I should have given you the chance to kick my ass after I did it. Can I buy you a drink?" That's it. No excuses, no rationalizations, nothing else. Learn how Deltas handle conflict. Learn to submit. Because then, when it's over, it's bloody well over.

Read More

Winning, redefined

LR sends a very helpful email which helps demonstrate that the Gamma delusion is considerably worse than the average non-Gamma grasps:

Being somewhat Gamma myself, I recognized something in the course of reading your posts that may be of interest to you.

Gammas think they are Alphas.

It sounds insane, but it's true. A man who knows his place and sticks to that place is usually left to his own devices. Pay tribute to those above, demand tribute from those below, and if a man should disagree with either his own or your relative position in the hierarchy, then conflict will ensue to determine who is correct. It's a simple enough formula and it occurs frequently, if not daily, during the course of a man's life. Men tend to be very diligent about ensuring the proper order of things, but once that order is established, there is an element of stability. The victor may be magnanimous to the defeated. In turn, the loser is expected to acclimate himself to his new position.

Gammas introduce instability to this hierarchy. They refuse to accept their station, nor do they propose to increase it through deeds and experience. Like women, they come to expect a certain station in life and feel wronged when it is not provided for them. A common Gamma thought would be "why should he be the leader and get all the glory for himself?"

How many individuals come to your blog saying they are this or that? Maybe they claim they are half Sigma and half Beta or some such. But this is usually a Gamma thing. Those with high SMV don't need the validation of blog comments to determine their position in life. They know it, even if they lack the words to describe it. Even many with low SMV come to understand this.

Nor is this a new phenomenon. In the course of following the advice you have relayed to us, I have read The Meditations. While extremely helpful, and I would be remiss if I did not thank you and the original poster for it, I craved more. So I read Xenophon's Anabasis, and I recommend this to other Gammas also. It is instructive in matters of hierarchy. In that, it was clear that some of the soldiers were Gammas, talking behind the backs of their betters, plotting to gain power in the manner of women. One complained about the weight of his shield, and so Xenophon took it upon himself to carry the man's shield, and yet that man was angry with Xenophon for having done so. Very Gamma. And if they had achieved power, the army would have been annihilated. Indeed, whenever they grew restless and did things on their own, those men came to ruin.

Gammas think they are Alphas, but Alphas [and Betas, and Deltas, and Sigmas - VD] know that to let a Gamma have power is to court disaster. Perhaps that knowledge wove its way into instinct over the centuries, such that the hostility is now innate. The species wishes to preserve itself and Gammas are in the way of that. They should be beaten down until they acknowledge that they are the lowest of the low, even beneath the Omegas, for at least the Omega has opted out of the regular course of human affairs. At least the Omega knows his station.

I now know, having read Anabasis, that I am unfit for leadership. This is critical knowledge for any Gamma who wishes to improve his lot. I have at last acclimated myself to my station in life. Once you know your place in the hierarchy, you may endeavor to change it, to rise as a man as you gain knowledge, experience and skill. But you have a solid basis for knowing yourself, and that is good. Gammas must be broken, their notion of Alphahood expunged, their character, such that they possess, destroyed utterly. The survival of our civilization, like that of the 10,000, depends on this.

I found this hard to credit. I mean, what planet does the Gamma have to be orbiting to understand that his lack of popularity and female companionship means that his socio-sexual status is low?

I asked LR and he attempted to explain:

Willful blindness comes to mind, but that doesn't get at the root of the thing. Underneath the surface, the Gamma thinks himself a king, so anything that is preventing him from ascending his throne must somehow be unjust. Since the Alpha, in the course of his normal affairs, constitutes an obstacle to the Gamma's advancement, the Alpha must somehow be cheating the Gamma. It never crosses a Gamma's mind that he is no king, no superior being, since this has already been established as fact. Nor does the Gamma consider how the Alpha obtained his status. Since Gammas are prone to cheating their fellows, it is easy for him to suspect his opponent of the same behavior. Doubtless, thinks the Gamma, the leadership position was earned through subterfuge and oppression since that is how he would obtain it. This is why, even in the midst of intentional debasement, Gammas still possess that self-righteous smugness. Contrary to all wisdom, he believes he just demonstrated his status as a superior Alpha. He has exposed your game and dealt you a terrible blow, or so he thinks.

That's interesting, especially in light of the one Gamma of whom we know who did become a leader position of sorts, Mr. Gamma Rabbit himself, John Scalzi. He literally built his SF career on subterfuge (2 million monthly pageviews!) and oppression (the mallet of loving correction).

The Graduating Gamma author had a few thoughts on this as well:

Not all Gammas, but some absolutely think they are Alphas of some type and will redefine Alpha to suit their needs. Since they are never wrong = Alpha.

The majority of Gammas aren't this delusional though simply due to the fact that they can't reconcile being an Alpha with their mysterious lack of female companionship. It's too much for even a Gamma to deny. There are limits to the delusion for most. The real crazies are the ones which retreat to insisting that all women are being conned by dude-bros etc., which means they are the True Alpha and would be if everyone played fair or some other such fiction.

This explains some of the more bizarre notions I've come across from various individuals since first introducing the socio-sexual hierarchy. And it also explains why some Gamma males have resisted even the most obvious and observable aspects of the hierarchy so bitterly and have literally attempted to redefine Gammatude as winning.

"Gamma Rabbit likes people as they are, fears no one no matter how they live their lives, and is comfortable with himself and his own personal values of kindness, tolerance and diversity. Sure, there are some who look down on him and his ways, but you know what? Gamma Rabbit knows that those people are kooky, silly, wacky racist sexist homophobic dipshits, and aside from looking forward to the day when they might pull their heads out and join the rest of the human race, lets them alone to do their own thing. Because Gamma Rabbit has other, better people and things to think about."

Fantastic! What a masterfully inventive reframe of the entire human socio-sexual hierarchy. All so one Gamma male can continue to convince himself that he's on top.

Read More

Alpha Mail: Extreme Gamma

FC asks if there is anything she can do about her middle-aged Gamma brother:

I'm enjoying the gamma posts. They explain a lot of behaviors I'd noticed without being able to put them into a coherent frame. I really liked the parenting advice today. It sounds like solid generic parenting advice since all kids indulge in that behavior to some extent. The points concerning the need to be right even to the point of turning a petty matter into a full blown argument  or social embarrassment sound very familiar.  I'm curious how you would deal with a gamma-type in your immediate family who has no apparent inclination to change.

My brother has a very pernicious habit of asking for advice on his life which clearly reflects a fear of changing, being wrong, and taking real risks. He lives with my parents, is in his 40’s, and has never had a girlfriend. He asks for advice about "his problems", and then picks apart your opinions on his circumstances, tells you all about why your advice won't work for him, and why your opinion is wrong. This especially seems to happen while we are having drinks or just watching a movie, generally having a light, good time.  It basically pisses all over the evening.

This is a particular thorn in the side for me because I'm aware I’m needy. I instinctively want to fix people. I feel pained for him and his missed life. It's a conversational bait and switch that caught me for years but now that I recognize it, I don't know how to respond to it because a large part of me would like there to be some response that would wake him up. Engaging him on this topic at all just seems to feed into his sense of rightness. Is there any way I could shut down these types of behaviors and still try to nudge him in a better direction? Or maybe I just need to accept I'm not equipped to do that?

This sounds more like an Omega than a Gamma in some ways, but the attitude she describes is pure Gamma. However, it seems to be very hard for some people, especially women, to accept that not only is it beyond their ability to change another adult, it is neither their responsibility nor their right. FC's brother is content with his life as it is. It may not be what he ideally wanted, he may not be all that he thought he could be, but obviously he is content with it. If he wasn't, he would do something about it and he would be grateful and heedful of advice concerning how to change it.

What he is doing when he asks for advice about his life is simply making himself the center of attention. He doesn't want the advice, he has no intention of changing anything, he just wants everyone to talk about him. FC can either oblige him or she can reject his attention-seeking, but regardless, she needs to stop taking his pretensions seriously. Of course he talks about "his problems", what else does he have to talk about? His property taxes, his kids, or his wife? He doesn't have them!

FC also needs to stop feeling pain for him and his "missed life". He hasn't missed anything he really wanted. He is leading the life he has chosen. God has granted him that privilege and FC needs to do so as well. The man is in his 40s. He's not going to change now. The time to intervene was when he was 9, not more than three decades later. He has constructed his Gamma delusion bubble, now let him live in it in peace. No one is equipped to change a man so strongly rooted in his ways; even if her parents threw him out of the house tomorrow it is unlikely he would modify his attitudes in the slightest.

My practical advice would be to stop offering him advice and to simply offer sympathy if she is in the mood to put up with his narcissistic preening, and to tell him that she's not interested in hearing the same old song and dance if she is not.

Read More

Alpha Mail: raising Gamma

Boys Mom in a Girls World is rightly concerned about her son:

My husband and I both enjoy reading your blog, having been drawn in by the economics and intrigued by the sociohierarchy stuff.  We have four boys and we're doing our best to raise them as the upper betas our demographic knows and loves  (conservative homeschooling Christians).   Our oldest, 9, is a total born and bred gamma though.  Extremely social, conscientious, has to be right, extremely defensive, runs in a fight and then justifies it later.  Nothing is ever his fault (something else he loves to discuss in great detail).  He's scared of literally everything. My husband is more the Ron Swanson-type, so neither of us know how to parent this child (who it probably won't surprise you to hear is diagnosed ADHD, and has a slightly autistic looking IQ score...unevenly high and low in different areas).

Any suggestions for helping pre-gammas to develop into something other than full blown adult gamma?  He hates team sports but does well in parkour and is otherwise your typical boy.

He's currently cowering in the corner because he thinks he might have seen a bee, which is what prompted this email. 

All right, that last bit made me laugh. I have to admit, I have no idea what the Ron Swanson-type might be, but given the female contempt for gamma all but dripping from this email, I think it is safe to say that what we have here is a nature-inclined gamma-in-the-making rather than a nurture-bred one. A few suggestions:

• Always force him to admit that he was wrong when he was wrong. Make him say the words. "I was wrong." Make him explain to you why it was his fault and make him say the words. "It was my fault because X, Y, and Z." Every time he tries to rationalize away his being at fault, refuse to accept it and dissect his excuses. Essentially, refuse to let him construct his delusion bubble.
• Call him on his revisionist histories. Every time he tries to slide one by, point out what actually happened. Force him to admit that the correct version is what actually happened.
• Don't shame his cowardice. Instead, praise the courage of his brothers and say nothing about him. When he does take baby steps in that direction, praise them.
• Don't force him into team sports, but have your husband work with him to determine if he's naturally gifted at any of them. Then slowly bring him around by having him play with one or two of the boys on the local team and point out how much they need him, how much they could use him. Obviously, if he's not good at anything, don't push him into it.
• See if there are solo sports you can get him to try, the more aggressive the better. Perhaps there are competitive parkour races?
• Have his father teach him how to fight. If his father doesn't really know, perhaps some father-son MMA classes would be a good idea. And make sure that you let him know that it is okay for him to fight and defend himself, that no matter what the school says, you'll back him up and he won't be in any trouble as long as he wasn't being a bully.
• Every now and then, let him pick and argument, then brutally vivisect his argument and show him that he's not even capable of operating on the same level. Smart kids, especially boys, need to be intellectually beaten down from time to time in order to develop intellectual humility. Be harsh, the object is to break his pride and it won't be broken easily, particularly if he's prone to historical revisionism. Multiple repetitions will likely be necessary before the lesson sticks.
• Use his social consciousness as a lever. Don't appeal to his self-respect or his honor, appeal to what other people will think of him.

Read More

Alpha Mail: question and answer

Peter wants to graduate from Gamma male:

Now that i am calm, i really need a starting point. At this point i don't care how painful it is. I just need to know what needs to be done no matter what, so i won't feel so lost. Where i should start, what should i study, what i should start doing, what must i gradually change etc etc. Those are the question i am asking here. You could say that i am asking for guidance here.

1. Stop lying to yourself. Learn to catch when you are revising history and editing reality in order to make it more acceptable to yourself.
2. Stop lying to others. Stop spinning every story to make yourself look better. Stop exaggerating your accomplishments and minimizing your mistakes.
3. Stop the drama. Don't go overboard. Whether it is good or whether it is bad, tell yourself: "this is no big deal" and "this, too, shall pass."
4. Start working out and lifting weights. Start getting your body accustomed to the endorphin release. Within three months, you'll start craving it the way you now crave sugar and carbohydrates.
5. Don't run from confrontation. Fight or submit. That's what men do.

Jack Amok, meanwhile, relates a confrontation between an Alpha and a Gamma:

Saw an interesting ALPHA-GAMMA exchange at work today. The Gamma disagreed with the Alpha's approach to a problem, and the Alpha responded to the technical details of the Gamma's objections. They went back and forth a bit, and at this point, you could have agreed with either side (it was a problem where each solution had its strengths and weaknesses). But the Gamma apparently couldn't tolerate the disagreement and after a couple of minutes suddenly made a personal attack against the Alpha. He basically said "I don't understand how you can be so incompetent as to disagree with me" and then proceeded to talk over the Alpha's response.

The Alpha perceived a challenge to his position (or at least an unacceptable level of disrespect) and suddenly his voice and demeanor took on massive edge. He is also a huge dude. Looks like an NFL lineman. It was really a rapid change, light-switch getting flipped sort of thing. The Gamma logged off his computer and immediately went home for the day, even though it was only mid-afternoon. He was literally unable to continue working after a confrontation which he himself had provoked.

Notice the various elements of the socio-sexual hierarchy at work:

• Alpha: doesn't mind straightforward conflict, will not tolerate disrespect, is comfortable with direct and physical conflict. The political is not personal.
• Gamma: can't tolerate disagreement or criticism, bitchy, cowardly, puts himself in situations he is not equipped to handle. The political is personal, the technical is personal, everything is personal. Runs from direct confrontation.

Now, what sort of man would you rather be? And observe the Gamma is totally unprepared for his disrespect to meet with a dominant response. Unlike an Alpha, he doesn't fight, unlike a Beta or Delta, he doesn't submit. He flees.

The Sigma, of course, doesn't get into that situation in the first place because he neither knows nor cares about the Alpha's problem, let alone his approach to solving it.

Read More

Alpha Mail: Leaving Gamma

And learning to lose the gammatude:

As a recovered gamma and now delta who is now happily married with a good wife and a family I thought I’d offer my sure fire way to stop being a Gamma and move into greener pastures. Why Gamma and not another class? First I’m qualified, and second I have a suspicion the number one reader of Game blogs and sites are Gammas looking to escape. So here it is:

Brutal self-honesty.

I’m going to break this down into four posts which cover the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual aspects of life. Everyone wants the keys to success and in America we are damned near obsessive about finding techniques we can use for self-improvement. In reality escaping Gammahood is a moral issue as it deals with honesty, but how this plays out in the four aspects of one life will be explained.

This should be helpful, because the ability of the non-Gamma to explain to the Gamma male why he is wrong and how his thinking can be adjusted is often limited. It's easy for the non-Gamma to see that the Gamma is wrong, but more difficult to communicate that wrongness to him in a manner that he is capable of hearing and accepting.

The fact that most Gammas are willfully delusional and lie first and foremost to themselves only makes the challenge more difficult. But one who has recovered from the mindset might be better able to make headway in penetrating through their psychological defenses.

Read More

Alpha Mail: representation is not liberty

A commenter yesterday asked me several questions related to democracy, women's suffrage, and liberty:

Don't you believe that women should not be allowed a say in government?

Yes. That is the libertarian position. I can anticipate the flaws in your thinking. First, you are incorrectly conflating democracy with liberty. Second, you are failing to grasp that libertarianism concerns maximizing liberty. This cannot be done when women are permitted a voice in government, because they favor security over liberty.

How do you reconcile this position with the lack of agency above?

I don't claim women have a lack of agency. I never have. It is the equalitarians who insist that women must be held irresponsible for their decisions and actions.

So what's the point of any kind of representation then, except for you and your ilk? Eventually people who don't find that the system works to their advantage will advocate for a different one. Women will want security over liberty, the poor redistribution, minorities special consideration, etc. So it boils down to libertarian tyranny. Liberty for all, ruthless repression for those who oppose it, and ultimately, liberty for the powerful, paternalism (at best) for the rest. Might as well be clear about it.

The commenter is hopelessly confused and is conflating several distinct concepts. Let me first make a few obvious statements:

1. Voting is not liberty. Voting is merely a tool. Liberty is an end. And as the Founding Fathers' distrust of democracy aka "mob rule" shows, the expansion of voting privileges is not synonymous with the expansion of liberty. Quite the opposite, as it happens.
2. Not being permitted to vote is not a lack of agency. A new US immigrant does not have voting rights, and yet he remains fully responsible for any crimes he commits as well as any taxes and debts he must pay.
3. Most people observably act against their own best interests. The number of obese and overweight people proves that people do not eat to their own advantage, therefore it is naive to the point of foolishness to claim that they always vote to their own advantage.

Now, all government is about "paternalism" in one form or another. The question only concerns what priority is going to be forced on the governed. Is it ideology? Is it servitude? Is it security? Or is it liberty?

Maximizing liberty for all does not mean maximizing liberty for every single individual, for the obvious reason that many individuals hate human liberty and wish to constrain it. If you would have liberty, then, it is necessary to distinguish between those who love liberty and will defend it, and those who hate liberty and wish to destroy it. There is no contradiction there, in fact, logic absolutely dictates that maximizing liberty can only come about by actively defending liberty against its foes.

For various reasons, most women are naturally opposed to liberty. They instinctively attempt to restrict the actions, speech, and even thoughts of others. Therefore, they cannot be permitted influence in any society that wishes to remain even remotely free for long. Past political philosophers understood this, as do modern politicians; it is not an accident that women's suffrage and proportional representation is literally the first point in the Fascist program.

And it does not take either a genius or a PhD to recognize that there are few movements that hate human liberty more thoroughly than feminism.

Women were able to vote in the Soviet Union and Ba'athist Iraq, but how much liberty did they enjoy? I want women to be free, which is precisely why I assert that they should not be permitted to vote. They are far too inclined to vote themselves into chains. Besides, in a West that is presently ruled by an unelected European Commission on one side of the Atlantic and an unaccountable bi-factional ruling party on the other, it is ludicrous to pretend that anyone's vote, male or female, counts for anything anymore anyhow.

Read More

Alpha Mail: Daughters of divorce

BL asks about the risks of divorced parents:

I have a question for Alpha Game that I would be interested in your thoughts on.  I think it is too politically incorrect to ask anyone else. I know that children of divorced parents have a higher chance of divorce. I was going to automatically eliminate all women who had divorced parents; however, I have been surprised at what a large percentage of women have divorced parents.  Would you recommend avoiding all women with divorced parents or what criterion would you judge them on?

A lot of women do have divorced parents and it is definitely a strike against them. However, not all divorces are created alike. I would consider divorced parents to be more of a yellow light than a red flag; it's important to learn why the parents are divorced, when the parents divorced, and what her relationships with her parents are like.

For example, my parents are divorced. But they divorced long after my formative years, when I was in my late thirties, after their marriage was subjected to extreme situational stress. So my upbringing, and my psychological attitude towards marriage and family, is more or less identical to the average individual whose family is intact. This sort of thing is going to be true of some women.

Other mitigating factors:

• A good, healthy relationship with a father or step-father
• A large extended family
• Genuine (as opposed to cultural) Christianity
• Young parents married out of necessity
• Strong traditional orientation
• High level of domestic skill 

Warning factors:

• Bitterness
• Feminism
• Anger at either parent
• Pride in mother's independence
• Promiscuity, drug use, or tattoos
• A tendency to be quarrelsome 
• Predilection for romance novels and emoporn movies

Divorced parents are not an absolute red flag because we are not our parents, they are an influence, not a causal factor. But one should be quicker to next a woman whose parents are divorced than one would normally be and one should refrain from giving them any additional benefit of the doubt.

Don't pay much attention to her asserted opinion of divorce, unless she is convinced it was a good thing. Most women will talk about divorce being A Bad Thing, but that has very little significance with regards to the likelihood of her following her parents' example.

Read More

Alpha Mail: Divorce in Italy

Hermit asks about the pressure to make divorce easier in Italy:

I have been reading your blogs for some months now. I would like to ask for your opinion on a matter that regards game and marriage but also the way leftism is changing society and relationship.

Until a few years ago I was an atheist, leftist, high IQ gamma and now I'm following a long march to fix everything in my life, for now with decent success. Everything started when I recovered my faith, I can actually relate to and confirm everything you said about many leftists atheists being feminized gamma males with lack of empathy and basic social skills.

While I eliminated almost all of my old readings, sometimes, living in a left-wing family, I still bump into their literature. Today I read a journalist on "Internazionale" answering to a reader about marriage. I would like to hear your opinion about this exchange, in particular about the final part and the mindset in a marriage relationship.

A female reader asked "I am divorcing from my husband; why it looks like the law, instead of helping us, makes everything even more difficult?"

The journalist replied: "According to ISTAT (italian institute of statistic) 49% of italian marriages end with divorce. But we continue to consider divorce as an unforseen event and we accept to embark into a slow, expensive and mentally tiring proceeding. We see divorce as an exception without realizing that now is the rule. Like it or not, divorces are very common and the proposals of reform on "fast divorce" are a legitimate way to be more pragmatic and let many italians spare sorrow and money. But as usual the loud screams of the "paladins of family" succeeds in distracting politics from the reality of facts. Years ago I've heard a swiss female sociologist propose temporary marriage terms that had to be renewed after ten years. If the marriage isn't renewed it is considered to be immediately null without any additional slow bureaucratic procedure and expensive lawyers. I'm amused to think how the dynamics of the couple would change in the year of the renew: maybe many would be motivated (or forced) to regain the momentum and bring out the best of themselves to be reconfirmed by the spouse."

The law is intended to make divorce difficult. It's not supposed to be easy, in fact, from a Christian perspective, it should be impossible barring physical adultery on the part of either the husband or the wife.

But in today's post-Catholic Italian society, pragmatism and deference to the short-sighted female perspective triumphs over all, as it does throughout most of the post-Christian West. This is no surprise, it was inevitable once the voting franchise was granted to women, and we are still experiencing the inevitable consequences of those decisions.

What is presently called "marriage" is the law's mockery of the institution. Not only because the State now increasingly permits male and female couples to pretend to be "married", but because what the State puts together, it most certainly can put asunder whenever it wants. So, there is no reason whatsoever to attempt to protect the State's legal parody of marriage or care what mutated form it eventually takes, except in that it will likely be used to further strip resources from men and transfer them to women.

Read More

Alpha Mail: Sex in orbit

Roger with six "r"s points out that orbiting is an effective sexual strategy, it's merely not an efficient one:

Orbiting/white-knighting is not just an occasional behavior of weak beta males. It is one of the key sexual strategies of the human male. It works. These guys will get laid now and again.

This is absolutely true. I have a friend who once dedicated three years to orbiting the same girl until finally she broke down and went out with him; they lasted less than half as long as a couple as he had spent orbiting. And this was a successful outcome!

The point isn't that orbiting never works, but rather, that it comes at a tremendous opportunity cost. I can't even imagine how many opportunities of equal quality my friend let pass because he was so fixated on that one woman, but it was probably over a dozen. Orbiting is the exact opposite of the abundance mentality; no man who subscribes to the concept of the Girl Tree will tend to find himself caught in orbit for very long.

Read More

Alpha Mail: too slow, sport

A reader hasn't learned the Window of Opportunity concept yet:

I got burned by a chick today. Met her a week ago at a well known clothing store.  I had to buy an article of clothing as the one I had was starting to fall apart.  She suggested some articles, we found one that worked.  Then she asked, "Is there anything else your little heart desires?"  She asked the same thing two days later after helping me.  She asked what I was doing afterwards and I told her nothing (I was a bit slow on the uptake).  I asked her and she said she was going to watch some shows on Netflix. 

Fast forward to two days later I go back for another sale they're having and to ask her out.  She formally introduces herself.  I never tell her my name (though she could look it up due to me being a preferred customer).  We joke for a bit and I ask her what her plans are.  She's hanging out with friends afterwards (not going to get into specifics but it was a closed get together).  Should've asked her for a future date out but didn't. 

The following day I go into get some shoes.  Someone else helped me out BUT she made a point to come over and talk to me.  We weren't alone long enough for me to ask her out.

I get a call today, the shoes are in.  I go over there and although someone else greets me at the store, she, basically, jumps in and  asks what I need.  We shoot the breeze again and I ask her out for a beer.  It turns out she has a boyfriend and she doesn't think he'd look too highly on that.  I made a comment to the effect of, "Well, that's a shame."  As I'm leaving, she smiles and says, "Goodbye!" followed by my name. 

Now, I've asked several friends, including two of whom are women, their take on the situation.  One called this chick out for flirting with me even though she has a boyfriend.  The other, disappointingly (as I believed she would've called her out too) said I could've found out she was taken a week ago and then hastily added, "but I'm sorry."

Per the hierarchy, I think I'm a low beta or high delta.  I can tell you that sixteen months ago I wouldn't have ever thought of asking someone out like her or even have known how to joke around.  I credit you, Tomassi, Dalrock, and DG for that.  So thanks one and all.  Also, I'm in my late 20's.  Are there any real generational gaps I should be aware of vis-a-vis women?  What are your and the readers' thoughts on her?  Additionally, did I move too slowly?

First, let's get things straight. You're a delta. Your behavior was about as conventionally delta as it is possible to be. A woman sent you clear signals of interest, with a mild spice of challenging contempt, and you failed the test about as flawlessly as possible. The clear sign of the delta: waiting for permission and encouragement to approach.

Second, she is a flirt and she's seeking dominant men. Her repetitive use of the phrase "little heart" is intentionally belittling. Any time a woman uses a term like that and the first phrase out of your mouth doesn't involve "massive tool" or "giant penis", you've lost. The correct Alpha response would be something on the order of "my little heart is good but my giant penis thinks we should go for drinks when you get off". Never let a woman saddle you with a deprecating term without reframing. It's very simple: whatever term they use, apply the opposite.

Of course, men of sufficiently high socio-sexual status can play the opposite game. I was once in the gym doing shoulder press with two 80-pound dumbbells, thereby inspiring a gym bunny to call out: "Geez, what are you compensating for?" I didn't interrupt the set, but immediately called back "very small penis!" which cracked her and everyone else up.

Third, you're missing the point. She may or may not have a boyfriend, (although if she is pretty she has a few orbiters on the string at the very least), but she was potentially looking to trade up. Hypergamy dictates that girls with boyfriends are often going to flirt with men they think might be a better deal. If you can't deal with that, then go find a woman who is 1 or 2 points below you in attractiveness and content yourself with her being loyal, faithful, and true. Any girlfriend who perceives herself as being at or above your level is going to occasionally flirt with the idea of trading you in. That's not because she's an unfaithful slut unworthy of your protection and manly chivalry, it's because she is a woman and that is what women do.

Fourth, in case it isn't clear by now, yes, you moved far too slowly. Stop looking for "the right moment". The right moment is always NOW. Women have windows of opportunity, and the more attractive she is, the faster that window closes. She might have gone out with you the first time or two. Once you showed that you're just a lowly delta in need of encouragement in order to find the courage to approach, she lost whatever interest she had.

Read More

Alpha Mail: the BETA shield

A reader observes white knights actively defending women from the consequences of their own actions:

A woman-writer posts about getting creeps asking for one-on-one sessions. She jokes that they can have one... for a million dollars, ha ha! So I don't know this person, but I gently point out that this is not the best idea. She's basically admitting she's a prostitute and inviting these same "creeps" to talk her down on the price. This is actually a relatively well known parable that she's put herself into....

Well the reaction is all too typical. Her beta orbiters swoop in to protect her from the insinuation that she need ever have any sense. They have to one up each other showing how cultured, refined, and right-thinking they are with regards to feminism, humanism, and chauvinism. I can't imagine what it must be like... going through life having a veritable team of full time cheerleaders that would do everything in their power to protect you from ever having to think, to reason, or develop a moral compass. But that's what this is....

It is of course even worse in the church. R. C Sproul is a pretty good guy for the most part, but in his survey of the Old Testament a falls apart when he gets to Job. When Job's wife says, "curse God and die," it wasn't such a bad thing, really, and (according to Sproul) we shouldn't get hung up on it. After all, she has such a caring heart that she just wants to have her husband's suffering alleviated. (Never mind that she is basically repeating the words of Satan from a few verses earlier... and never mind that alleviating suffering in this case basically boils down to euthanasia.) The woman's been dead for thousands of years and yet Sproul has to stick up for her.

Women in a Bible study who have lived a sheltered life will respond poorly to anyone that points out what's going on with this. They will even go to the point of defending the abortion of kids with Down Syndrome-- after all, preventing suffering is what our heart is all about, they say. It's unreal the lengths that they will go to avoid having to take a firm moral position on anything.

I have no idea if this revulsion to responsibility is instinctive or socialized, but it is very bad news. It means you cannot rely on women to train children in any aspect of morality, theology, or ethics. But culturally, we defer to them in those matters on the assumption that they tend to be more spiritual than men. The reality is that we've delegated these things to a class of people that have an almost perfect shield against any sort of consequences or responsibility.

One thing about GamerGate is that reveals just how big a thing this really is. Zoe Quinn cheats on her boyfriend and she instantly has every major media outlet at her service to provide shielding. This is why it's futile to argue with women about anything. Not only do they have the option to use unfair tactics and then get a pass on it, but they always always always outnumber you. Tramps, sluts, and even dead women can easily maintain a coalition of twenty people that will routinely shout you down.... It's unreal.

I don't recommend arguing with women about these things. I recommend simply treating this sort of woman with the same disdain and lack of respect you would treat the logic presented by a retarded child attempting to defend his decision to defecate in his own bed. No individual, male or female, who refuses to accept responsibility for his own actions, can be considered a moral adult or an intellectual peer. I don't automatically defer to women on anything, and I certainly don't regard them as peers sans evidence of actual higher brain function.

Now, I trust my wife to train our children because she has reliably demonstrated both the aforementioned brain function as well as acceptance of her moral culpability for her actions. But she is not most women; she has never made a habit of attempting to evade the consequences of her decisions, good or bad. She is observably a moral adult and expects to be treated accordingly. It is a mistake to assume all women are moral children, even if it is a less egregious one than assuming that all women are not only moral adults, but are also morally and spiritually superior to men.

As with men, the proof is in the observable actions. Women can and often will behave like moral adults when they are expected to do so. It should not be surprising that when they are permitted to behave like moral children and permitted to evade negative consequences, many of them elect to do so instead.

And as for being outnumbered, what of it? Being outnumbered doesn't matter so long as you outgun the other side, both literally and intellectually.

Whatever happens, we have got
The naked truth, and they have not.

Read More

The other side

As some readers correctly surmised, Eliza's narrative was not entirely accurate. The gentleman involved shares his perspective:

I'm the guy from the story. For what it's worth, I read through both the post and the extensive comments section. I was absolutely shocked to find this post, since Eliza never mentioned to me that she intended to make this story public.... I'm not a Red Pill person myself, and if we're being totally honest, I found many of the comments to be somewhat misogynistic. But it also seems like some of the people posting had some misconceptions about me and how I acted — and after reading Eliza's piece, I can hardly blame them!

First off, I have no idea where she got the "temper tantrum" term from. It's a fairly gross misrepresentation of what I thought was reasonably dignified behavior. I felt she was sending me mixed signals by inviting me over for one-on-one drinking, and as soon as she said no definitively, I simply got up, put on my shoes, and left. I explained to her in a clear, calm voice that I felt misled, and simply meeting up to build a platonic friendship wasn't my intention. I even shook her hand to make sure there would be no bad blood.

As soon as I left, I started getting a string of angry, invective-laden texts from her, calling me "manipulative" and a few other choice words that aren't fit for print. I'm not sure what I did to earn this treatment, but I kept an even keel and kindly asked her to desist. She did — after about a day. We've since buried the hatchet (as long as we're crystal clear on where our relationship stands, I don't mind being platonic friends), but make no mistake: This was very aggressive behavior on her part, and I did my level best to keep my cool throughout. I believe I succeeded.

Furthermore, I have no idea where she got this idea of "entitlement" from, especially coming from me. I didn't believe she owed me any kind of physical contact, but obviously I was hoping to get it. I believe I made appropriate overtures, engaging her on a friendly level at first, then escalating the situation to something that could turn more intimate.

If you want to call this approach "beta" or "gamma" or what-have-you, fair enough, but this is generally how I go about attracting women, and it works well most of the time. If women are interested, great! We'll make out, or have sex, or whatever's most appropriate. If not, fine! They're not under any legal obligation to be interested in me. I'll bow out gracefully and see who comes my way next.

Translation: this guy is a High Delta, on the low-key side, doesn't like to work too hard for a woman, and is probably more attractive than the average man. He lacks socio-sexual dominance, which is why he tends to underkick his coverage, and he obviously has little Game. Which is fine for him, because he does well enough that he can take it or leave it, as it happens to come or not. He's more concerned about behaving in a gentlemanly and "dignified" fashion than he is with scoring; he only wants to score on the terms he deems appropriate and acceptable.

Eliza on the other hand, is obviously a narcissistic drama queen who is attracted to socio-sexual dominance. That's why she sent me something like five or six emails the first day and expressed her desire to "understand" the mind of a complete stranger on the Internet.  She's neither the first nor the 20th woman who has attempted to strike up a private dialogue with me this way. She's also more attractive than the norm and is accustomed to having orbiters at her beck and call. When this gentleman didn't correctly read her intentionally mixed signals, (whether she'll admit it or not, she wanted him to at least try to push through her token resistance), she was angered, first by his contemptible failure to pursue her aggressively, second by his refusal to gracefully accept his demotion to orbital status.

The handshake, in particular, is what triggered the fury. Having failed as a dominant sex partner, (demonstrating his own inferiority) he then rejected her kind offer to permit him to orbit her in a manner that, to a woman, indicated sexual contempt. He would have done much better to simply leave without explaining himself, as had he done so, she would have been upset and intrigued rather than angry and resentful. The "temper tantrum" to which Eliza referred was pure psychological projection.

Had he been a Gamma, the claims of a tantrum would have been credible. A Delta like this, not so much. I have no dog in this hunt, nor do I know who is telling the truth, but the she-said he-said is interesting for how it illustrates many of the theoretical concepts we have discussed in action.

As for the differences in the two narratives, a woman's story is rather like the government and conspiracy theories. You may not know what truly happened, but the one thing you know for sure is that it didn't go exactly the way you were told.

Read More

Romance isn't friendly

Here is the other part of Eliza's missive that I intended to address:

I was friendly, just friendly, with a guy once, at a bar that I go to frequently and at which I have lots of friends (male and female). He friended me on Facebook. We started talking, and we had a lot of the same interests. He was pretty cool, although I wasn't interested in dating him. He asked me to hang out, and I said sure. He then mentioned something about a "date," and I gently but explicitly clarified that I was not interested in dating him or anyone at the moment, but I would be more than happy to hang out as friends. In the same conversation, we decided to just split a bottle of wine at my apartment and chat.

He came over. We were having fun. We were talking about all of our mutual interests. And then he brought up the idea of dating me again.

"I am not trying to be cruel here," I said, "but I want to be clear, to manage expectations. I am not interested in dating you, and that's not going to change."

He threw a temper tantrum.

"I swore off women a few weeks ago," he said, "but I made an exception for you."

Basically, "how dare you not be interested in me when I was interested in you?" Even though I had made it very clear that I was not interested, he had assumed that I still was. He did the right thing, I guess. He didn't give up when I turned him down. But it was pretty revolting, rather than attractive. It was basically the "friendzone" idea - that if a man is interested in a woman, and he is nice to her, and he does all the "right" things, he is entitled to her dating him. If she's not interested, it's because she's a bitch, or friendzoning him, and it's entirely unfair. It's not because, well, she's just not interested. And that's her right. Just because a man "does the right things" doesn't mean he "gets" the girl, like in a video game where if you play it right, you win.

 It's actually not a question of "how dare you not be interested in me when I was interested in you", but rather, "how dare you spend time with me while not being interested in me." If someone is interested in you romantically, and you permit them to go out and spend time with you despite your lack of romantic interest in them, you are being selfish and cruel. That is true of both men and women.

It doesn't matter if you "clarify that you are not interested in dating him or anyone at the moment"; it doesn't take a genius to figure out that "not interested at the moment" is often going to be taken as "maybe in the future", especially by nice guys who have been told their entire lives that if they only hang in there and be themselves, eventually they will be rewarded with True Love from a Good Woman.

That was the cause of the temper tantrum. He had done everything right. And yet, he didn't get the girl.

Eliza is trying to spin this as male entitlement, when really it is nothing but the selfish entitlement of the desired. If you're not interested in dating someone, THEN DON'T GO OUT WITH THEM. Not as friends. Not as anything. Stay home and be lonely, because otherwise what you're doing is using them for companionship, which is every bit as cruel as using someone for sex. Probably crueler, actually, because at least if you're being used for sex, there is a good chance you'll get off on occasion. Of course she would be "more than happy to hang out as friends", because she was more than happy to use him without giving anything he wanted in return.

The friendzone is inherently unfair. It's the desired female counterpart of the male sex stable, in which the desired male keeps the various living sex toys he periodically summons to polish the royal penis in one form or another. As with female emo porn vs male visual porn, society is presently operating under the mistaken impression that women using men for companionship is somehow better than men using women for sex.

It isn't. Using people is wrong, whether one is honest about it or not. Sex slavery and theft don't magically become acceptable simply because the individual committing it is willing to admit that he's guilty of it.

Read More

A woman inquires about Game

EH sent a long email with a series of questions. Here are some of them:

It seems like being Alpha is different from Pick Up Artist culture. PUA, from what I understand, is about getting laid every night of the week. But it seems like Alpha Game is more of an entire lifestyle. How to attain the life you want. How to manage relationships with women, both long- and short-term. What women actually want and how to be that. But also, how to interact with men. I found your blog through your exchange with Dave Futrelle, after clicking through a few links on the "Confused Cats Against Feminism" tumblr. And it seems like you classify even that interaction with a man as an Alpha-Gamma interaction.

Am I right that it's much more of a lifestyle thing? If so, what are the characteristics of being an Alpha? Or can you point me to a few  illuminating articles? I read the 16 Commandments of Poon. Can you give me a quick, couple-paragraph summary of the overall AG philosophy?

I think that a large part of it is that it's about not being/appearing weak. What exactly is weakness? Is kindness weakness? Is gentleness weakness? Or is it more that reticence and insecurity in your decisions and beliefs are weaknesses?

The interaction between Mr. Futrelle and I would be more precisely characterized as a Sigma-Gamma interaction, but close enough. PUA culture is merely one aspect of Game. Alpha Game is a broad spectrum series of observations, reflections, and random ideas concerning intersexual relations and how they impact society. Game is not a lifestyle thing, it is a philosophical heuristic.

The core philosophy of AG is that a man can learn successful patterns of behavior and improve his position in the socio-sexual hierarchy by observing and imitating the patterns of behavior exhibited by socially successful individuals.

Male success is heavily dependent upon not being or appearing weak. Weakness is the lack of strength, be it physical, mental, or moral. Kindness is not weakness, but it is often perceived as weakness by women. Gentleness is not weakness, but it is often perceives as weakness by women. Reticence may or may not be weakness. Insecurity is a weakness.

The gap between reality and the female perception of reality is one of the chief intersexual challenges with which every man must deal. It may seem unfair that the kind, gentle man cannot initially show his true nature to women he wishes to be attracted to his because they will have a strong tendency to reject him as weak, but the rules of attraction are what they are.

Read More

Alpha Mail: a similar problem

From the inbox:

I have been married for [a few] years. I have [multiple] children with my wife who it is relevant to mention is [Asian]. We live in [the Asian country].

As far as my rank on the Game scale goes, I'd say I have a lot of gamma tendencies which were probably at their worst during high school and my early years of university. All the sort of behavior that I later learned women find unattractive was exactly the way I would act. I changed as I grew up and I lost weight, was introduced to Game, got a bit more confident and things improved. I think it is important I mention this past though because I probably display these tendencies more since marriage.

After I'd begun dating my wife one of the first things she mentioned was how I had ignored her the first time we met - something I noted as a sign of improved Game. We were fine when we dating and had a good sex life and both of us would initiate intimacy and we both usually reciprocated. This was healthy but our first year was turbulent for other reasons largely related to money. Since our first child, my wife has generally not initiated intimacy and when she didn't refuse, she became a lot more mechanical and treated it like an inconvenience. It continued on well after the birth and after our child became easier to manage.

She made the same sort of excuses mentioned by the spreadsheet man. She was tired, didn't feel like it, was sick and often stomach pains were the excuse. When I get angry or frustrated she will actually tell me I should just masturbate. She once suggested I'm treating her like a prostitute and she has also broken down with water-works when pushed. This is now just as bad after our second child was born. I should add that even her desire for a second child wasn't matched by much sexual desire towards me.

When she does reluctantly become intimate she avoids kissing me, letting me touch her breasts and sometimes keeps herself partially clothed. She more importantly doesn't seem to enjoy it and I''m not selfish or quick with her or. This has frustrated me because it is sometimes weeks or months between encounters and even when she does reluctantly do it, she is as described. Recently she's also been going to sleep early on days where we planned (around children) to be intimate.

Now since we've been married I have generally maintained a good weight, I don't drunkenly try to mount her or force her in any way. I have been given signals and even hit on by other women when at other social events, whether with friends or work related. I have always refused these advances without a thought or avoided flirting back. I naturally want the marriage to work especially with children and not a chance in hell of keeping them under the [Asian country's] legal system.

I have gone about things a few ways, I have told her explicitly that I can get what I want somewhere else if she won't. She was previously jealous of other female co-workers and friends - especially before marriage. She has responded to such suggestions by telling me I would "lose everything" if I ever did while maintaining a cold shoulder towards me.

The above was a bluff of course. I don't want to cheat on her and I would be wrong if I did but I have recently been very tempted. She still maintains the same cold attitude and I have recently been hit on by someone I am attracted to. Nonetheless I've resisted these advances but I would be lying if I didn't admit to being tempted. And this is what really worries me because I am tempted by female advances where I wasn't before. I could live with my lackluster sex life before by telling myself that the children should come first and adultery is adultery however I try to rationalize it. But as you can imagine, I am at the very least reluctant to stay married to her once my children reach maturity no matter how much it ends up costing me to leave.

The only things I can think to add are that she also belittles me, telling me I'm lazy even though I work full-time and recently got promoted. She constantly holds the children up as threats and associates not obeying her wishes as somehow not caring about the children. She plays my older child against me sometimes telling me I scare him when I am angry to her. She also uses them as excuses for not feeling like sex. A lot of our marital problems can be blamed on the lack of money flow but I don't much feel like getting more liquidity for someone that treats me like she does. Living where we live and her reluctance to move also make this a bigger problem. And despite this, we are actually quite comfortable and not lacking for anything generally speaking.

This debacle illustrates the central problem with marriage 2.0. The man simply lacks any material leverage, while the woman has the entire power of the state at her back. And unfortunately, while most women prefer to be at least a little circumspect about resorting to the leverage this gives them, the wife openly revels in her dominant position in the marriage. My strong suspicion is that she married him to avoid being married to a dominant man of her own culture and since the novelty and imagined status of the Westerner has worn off, she really doesn't want to be married to him anymore.

There are two things to keep in mind here. First, not all marital problems can be solved. Second, all strategies for addressing and attempting to solve marital problems have to be viewed in terms of estimated probabilities. It's not about knowing the magic word or striking the magic pose, but rather giving oneself the best chance of success. And sometimes that best chance is still a long shot, which appears to be the case here.

This man will have to decide what level of personal degradation he is willing to accept for the sake of being near his children. My belief, however, is that children are always secondary to the marriage. They are the fruit of the marriage, but both the husband and the wife who insist on always putting the children ahead of their marital partner are making a fatal mistake that will ultimately harm the children.

After some reflection, I think the emailer should simply return to his homeland by himself for two weeks to get his head clear. Being in foreign land is intrinsically unsettling in multiple ways. He should just go, without asking permission, without making a big deal of it, and without staying in close contact while he is gone. If she asks why he is going, he should tell her, honestly, that he is thinking of returning home and he wants to see what his employment prospects are there. No mention should be made of divorce or ending the marriage, no threats or ultimatums should be given, just a simple statement of intent.

She will probably react with dire theats. These must be met calmly and with civil resignation. "I understand, all the same, this is what I'm going to do." There is no point in explanations. She already knows perfectly well why he is considering a permanent return. And once there, he needs to seriously think upon whether he wants to continue to live his life that way or not, and if he wants his children to witness the ongoing humiliation of their father or not. There is no correct answer here, it is an intrinsically subjective call.

These ugly situations are much harder where children are involved, but to paraphrase the Biblical wisdom, he who seeks to gain his children will lose them. The only way to prevent a woman from using your children against you is to make it clear that doing so will accomplish nothing whatsoever, and since he's already made a very bad mistake of trying to bluff her, and having his bluff called, she's not going to believe any posturing on his part short of actually packing up and leaving for a time. The only way to nullify open threats such as these is to materially demonstrate their impotence.

It must be admitted that there is a chance that the woman will file for divorce during those two weeks. All he may accomplish here is to speed up the inevitable. But even that can be seen as a positive step of sorts. To be honest, this doesn't sound like a marriage so much as a wintry battleground.

Read More

Alpha Mail: identifying female solipsism

Bob Mando usefully explains the way in which female solipsism tends to manifest itself:

To [a female solipsist] the most terrible reality of all is the one in which anyone OTHER THAN an adult woman has any say or influence on events. This is really the Narcissist's inability to comprehend ( much less respect ) the boundaries of others.

Marion Zimmer Bradley gets off on fondling her own daughter? Okay, because 'children don't have erogenous zones'.

A husband wants to have sex with his wife? Impermissible because it interferes with the woman's absolute control of the relationshit ... and therefore must be characterized in the most ludicrous terms possible ( so if the woman has just given birth after 20 hours of labor the husband can demand to maritally rape her? you sick Christian bastards! ).

The reason why [the female solipsist] runs to the defense of all adult women everywhere ( the reason of the Sisterhood, actually ) regardless of the vileness of their actions is simple: possession of the One, True, Glittery Hoohaa. It's the flip side of every specific woman being a special snowflake who should be able to demand undying and sexually exclusive access from the man of her dreams.

Because she doesn't actually respect the existence of anyone else, when confronted with a story about a different woman the only way [the female solipsist] processes it is by casting herself (identifying with ) whoever the adult woman in the story is.

Notice that this gives men an easy way to test for female solipsism. Simply criticize a woman who is not the woman with whom you are speaking, and who shares no significant characteristics with her except for her sex. If the woman leaps to the other woman's defense in a manner that indicates she is identifying with that woman despite their differences, the chances are very high that she is solipsistic to an extent that will cause relationship problems.

The solipsist inserts herself into EVERY topic being discussed.

TOPIC: Marion Zimmer Bradley rapes children?
ANALYSIS: What if SHE were to rape a child? SHE would certainly not want to be held responsible and punished for it.
CONCLUSION: Marion Zimmer Bradley did not do anything wrong when she raped children.

TOPIC: A wife's obligation to have sex with her husband.
ANALYSIS: What if SHE were to get married and find herself bound by an obligation to have sex with her husband? SHE would certainly not want to surrender any control over her sexuality to a man.
CONCLUSION: Marriage does not create any obligation for a wife to have sex with her husband.

Read More