The general public, inundated with societal level shit tests like feminism and "but I just want a nice guy who will treat me right" carping, finds the notion of female solipsism far fetched. After all, the stereotype about emotional women has all but disappeared from polite society, so only an unrefined dolt could believe such idiocy. Yet for those that have taken the red pill, all the evident paradoxes of female behavior become clear.
I recently had this revelation concerning a couple that I've known since I was very young (not going to tell exactly how I know them). Now I don't relay this anecdote as a means of denigrating this couple that I actually admire; I offer it merely as a real-world illustration of how the carnal desires of women cloud their behavior and their thoughts. The man, Dan, is a lower alpha but a man's man who comes from a rural town and likes to get his hands dirty with woodworking and fixing motorcycles and cars. Yet Dan suffers from unjustified hubris, unable to realize his own faults even if said faults reflect little on his character or person. Specifically, Dan has essentially no memory. It's not that he has a bad memory - no, he basically has no memory. I've witnessed him forgot his niece's name, movies he's seen in the past month, short trips he's taken, and basic chores he has to do daily. Of course, he also doesn't remember faces, names, or people in general.
I first noticed it when I was around 9 years old. Being a precocious (read: annoying) little kid, I brought it up to his wife. She immediately rejected my observation and assured me that Dan has a "great memory". Over the years, I would bring it up occasionally and, each time, both Dan and his wife would admonish me for such a false characterization. Sure, I understood Dan's reaction as I'd always known him to be defensive about any perceived slight, yet his wife's reaction perplexed me. She must have noticed it as Dan would forget things in situations involving both of us. I mean, it's like Mini-Me walking into the room and not noticing he's a midget.
Around age 16, I accepted the fact that she would never come around, yet I remained nonplussed as to how someone could so adroitly circumvent the truth like that. Is delusion really that easy? Well, for a woman smitten by a man who expresses alpha qualities, it really is. I only understood this truth and the above paradox after Roissy and others awoke me from the collective beta male slumber. Take Victoria Beckham's recent admission that she never noticed David Beckham had a high-pitched voice:
I don’t really notice that he’s got a high-pitched voice. I just think he’s so goddamn perfect that people have to find something wrong with him. He never looks like s–t in the morning. Never. So he’s sitting there sending his e-mails, all ripped. Not an ounce of fat on him. And I thought, you done good, girl. I sure wasn’t thinking of his high-pitched voice.Quite simply, a women in love is truly blind, but not because of the patriarchy or a manipulative man. She is blind because she's motivated entirely by her emotional desire for an alpha male. And only those that have taken the red pill can understand this female trait.
Finally, let me add that I don't present this observation derisively. Women like what they like, just as men want T/A on a young blond. That's the way it is. If we must blame something for the unfettering of female solipsism it isn't the biological basis of women themselves, but rather the weakening of societal constructs that created a nation built upon stability and continence, not hedonism and the pathology that inexorably follows.
25 comments:
I've noticed the same thing. It often takes the form of women transferring the flaws of the men they like onto the men they don't. (To me, it's not an alpha-beta thing because the definitions of those terms are too squishy and imply greater precision than their really is.)
In one example, the brand new girlfriend of a really old friend of mine (we'd known each other for 20 years and been best friends for 15) suddenly found that her flawless new boyfriend had a really dodgy pal.
He and I were roommates at the time. He once tipped himself backwards in a rolling office chair as his girlfriend and I watched with fascination. When the inevitable happened his hands went through the (closed) (cheap) wooden cabinet door behind him. Later on she was told me she was tired of my breaking things, and cited the chair and the door as examples.
I eventually moved out because I was tired of me getting all of her angry-girlfriend flak. (Not an alpha-beta thing because, while he was way more of a natural leader than I, he was also way more sycophantic to women, politically correct, etc.)
A big difference between men and women is, men are much more willing to admit their overawe at pretty women. Not only do women have trouble admitting their superficiality as regards men's personalities, they also can't correctly identify the personality traits that attract them. "Manly" doesn't cut it, because "manly" sometimes means being emotional (showing anger/ passion/ jealousy at the right time) and sometimes the opposite (keeping a stiff upper lip). Sometimes manly means hard working, sometimes it means partaking of luxury, etc.
Beyond that, though, you're right: Male superficiality leads plenty of men to wander off of the road to a happy adulthood. There are too many hotties (haughties?) on side streets. And both genders share the tendency to overstress their own personal experiences with opposite-sex candy to shore up their belief that the opposite sex is worthless. Men remember the pretty, fit women who were dumb and immature more than smart responsible women. Women remember the hostile, apathetic men who were hostile and apathetic more than smart responsible men.
It goes without saying that that is unfair; the real problem is how much it clouds our perceptions.
Intriguing post. I've never considered that there may be a general difference between the leaders elected before female suffrage and those elected after.
Some mitigating factors, I believe, are that non-alpha men also tend to be drawn to alpha men, and conversely alpha women tend to dislike alpha men (although they will tolerate them for sex).
It seems our reciprocal blindness is clever euphoric neurochemical trickery. Without it, would we ever get together?
@ B Lode:
A big difference between men and women is, men are much more willing to admit their overawe at pretty women.
Yes, good point. I didn't really have time to get into this in the post so I'm glad someone mentioned it. How often has a man uttered, "She's hot so I don't really care."
Formerly JP98:
Here is a good study that will give you some idea as to how things all started, re: politics and candidates changing after suffrage.
"Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditure and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives."
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
Thanks for the link -- sounds interesting (and depressing).
Now I--I would have noticed that high-pitched voice immediately because a male voice-- a rich, full, resonant voice-- is sensual to me whereas, while I love broad shoulders and a deep chest, ripped six-packs are not at all a turn-on.
Why? Because I know that guys with such abs have worked and worked on getting them. Rightly or wrongly, that speaks of narcissism to me, of a guy who pumps iron for hours on end, then admires himself in a mirror from every angle. The less "adorned" a man (tattoos, piercings, the latest hairdos --ugh, the shaved look, the spiked look), the more his body screams,"Look at me!" the less sexy he is to me.
I like a natural-looking man. The male body, most of them anyway, are larger than my body (that's good), are stronger than my body (good), are hairier than my body (good). The male brain is different from mine (most of the time good!); and the male voice is much deeper and resonant than mine-(hmmm, hmmmm, really, really good!)
Now, I am not saying that had I met Jack Nicklaus as a college co-ed and found him to be attractive in every other way that I would have let that high voice of his turn me off to him, for perhaps every one of his other qualities would have overrruled my taste for a manly voice, but I KNOW that I would have noticed it.
I once went out with a guy who was barely an inch taller than I. He was, on the other hand, very masculine in every other way that was important to me so his height didn't stop me from being attractive to him, even though I was very much aware of his height. He had a great voice, though!
When a man loves a woman, she can do no wrong ....
When a woman loves a man, he can do no wrong ....
It's not complicated nor is it alpha or beta maleness, it's just being in love. Blame it on the limbic system.
I think that women like strong men (not necessarily alpha males) who show a bit of vulnerability and sensitivity. But the most important thing to know is that a woman will be attracted to a man who makes her feel good about herself, rather than a man who continually brags about himself. The reason is simple: women are much more insecure than men.
A man with a high degree of intellect, if he is not careful, will often appear like a pedantic snob to women. We're all selfish in our relationships to some degree, and I am probably more solipsistic than I care to admit. Sometimes, however, it's just better to make of point of showing more interest in her than exhibiting our virtues.
"I think that women like strong men (not necessarily alpha males) who show a bit of vulnerability and sensitivity."
You've got it right, and it really just comes back to the old saw about balance in almost all things being the best. Men can be strong in a woman's eyes w/out being heartless, crude, or insensitive (in fact, these are the opposite of "strong") just as a woman can be hot to most men w/out her being an airhead or a slut.
It's true that if a guy is sooo hot he's grown used to women throwing themselves at him, indeed expects them to do so, and if a woman is soo hot she's been used to guys slobbering at her feet and she expects that, these types do not provide the balance most of us want in life. We can only enjoy such types fleetingly when we are very young.
Most women will tell you that their boyfriend/husband is never sexier than when they see him doing something nice for someone without being asked.
As a subcategory of that, I will add that never is a man manlier than when he shares his time with a child. Total turn-on.
.... yet I remained nonplussed.... ..... could so adroitly circumvent
I like your site but lose the thesaurus. You seem like a younger guy trying to pad your writings with them there fancy terms and it comes off nerdy.
@ RG:
I actually never use a thesaurus (maybe once a post at most), but I have made a concerted effort recently to stop using a large number of those "big" words.
I like your site but lose the thesaurus. You seem like a younger guy trying to pad your writings with them there fancy terms and it comes off nerdy.
I've never had the impression that OneSTDV is trying to use fancy terms. He just sounds like a well-educated person.
Soviet applied Occam's razor when he cited that study:
"Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditure and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives."
Women will be slightly to the left of men due to their natures, much as Hispanics are always a certain degree to the left of whites. Don't over-complicate it the way the MSM does with race and voting. BTW, I am not averse to the idea of taking the franchise away from women. Heck, I sometimes agree with Florence King and think monarchy is the way to go :)
I agree with every sentiment B Lode expressed.
There is something I detect in this post that bothers me and it calls to mind a falsehood that I see perpetuated in parts of the manosphere: women can't be trusted to pick their men well. The opposite is the truth. Women are the choosy ones and it would only make sense that the result of this evolution is that we choose better, the downfall of a few underclass and trashy women not withstanding.
Razib at Gene Expression and Audacious Epigone have recently discussed how much of the beliefs in the manosphere reveal that many of its adherents do not appreciate how awesome evolution is and I agree. Think about your breastfeeding post where you did appreciate this. Remember even that women are especially sensitive to sniffing out men, completely subconsciously, whose major histocompatibility complexes are quite different from her own. And those are just for starters...
Why go on about this? Because it can be harmful to the men themselves by forgetting that it is they who have to be most careful about trusting their judgment when it comes to a wife. The Old Testament was warning young men about this over 2000 years ago: beware of the blinding power of lust. If men didn't have confidence, large egos, and the superior ability to lead and invent, we'd still be living in huts. Unfortunately, this means the traits that help with judging character and reading people are short-changed leaving men vulnerable to manipulation and misreading others, especially women.
Guys, trust the judgments of the important men in your life. They will always be correct and never lead you astray, but your lust and ego will. And if they say your woman has "crazy eyes", run!
While your overall hypothesis may be true, the Beckhams aren't a good example. His high voice is a trivial characteristic. He's physically gorgeous, a high earner, and from all I can tell (not knowing him personally) he seems to be a decent guy and a good father. His wife is enchanted with him because he is an athlete (very masculine) in as perfect shape as is humanly possible, and he's nice to her and their children. What's not to like? Of all the "flaws" he might have, his voice, which has nothing to do with character or performance, is nothing.
Oh boo hoo! Did Hugh Hefner just marry a 70 year old woman because "she is intelligent and has a really nice personality"? No? Oh, fancy that.
Based on my experience, I would guess that men and women both are vulnerable to this problem, roughly equally.
When I worked in corporate America, I noticed a good deal of favoritism by male managers towards attractive young female subordinates.
Also of interest is the "Libertarian Girl" hoax.
"Women are the choosy ones and it would only make sense that the result of this evolution is that we choose better,"
There are three problems with this argument:
First, conditions have changed quite a bit since the times when humans evolved.
Second, a "better" choice in terms of propagating one's genes is not necessarily a better choice in terms of one's personal well-being.
Third, for much of our evolutionary history, girls actually did not exercise unfettered discretion in choosing a mate. Other family members would have a lot of input.
It's interesting that men, particularly men descended from civilized parts of the world, typically have an instinctual drive to do nice things for girls they are courting. Even though there is no surer way to turn the girl off. What could account for this disconnect? I suspect that the man's instincts on this point are aimed at winning over the girl's parents.
In any event, there is no question that men and girls both make poor choices as a result of misguided instincts. It's very common for a man to marry the prettiest girl who will have him without regard to her personality. Even if she is a complete bitch who will cause him a lot of grief.
However, the problem is more acute with girls since they tend to be actually repelled by men who are kind to them and attracted by men who are mean to them.
Anyway, it's true that girls exercise more choice than men when it comes to mating. I would guess that with marriage, it's much more balanced.
I find the memory thing interesting. I have a friend who has this same problem (although she is aware of it) and I suspect it may be more common than we realize. My friend could not, for example, remember the name or face of her boss from four years ago, or remember anything prior to age 7.
Re the question of vocabulary:
In his most recent post, Sailer paraphrased an Einstein quote: "Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Along those same lines, I would say, "Use the smallest word needed, but no smaller."
OneSTDV seems to manage this better than most.
Of course she (Victoria Beckham) didn't notice!
She was a prole (Posh Spice, chosen for the role due to designs towards raising her societal level) who became the wife of a bloody icon!
Give it another 5-10 years, shell still be clinging to her husband while spreading herself to the first transitional "Alpha" who deigns to pay attention to her (by that time, if not now) visibly decrepit status, while continuing to attach herself to her husband like a depraved lamprey.
Not surprising that people are biased in favor of their partners. But what evidence is there that this has anything to do with the partner being an alpha?
The alpha/beta dichotomy would be more convincing if there was, you know, actually some quantitative evidence for it, you know, somewhere. The actual data show (and I feel comfortably verifying it on the ground) that women, especially those in their teens, are less sexually active and experimental than they were two decades ago. Partner counts and frequency have remained virtually static over the last 40 years in the US.
A brother will protect his mentally handicapped younger sister in the same way. Try taking a shot at a girl's gay guy friend, and watch her fume. It definitely loses you points every time. Of course, a woman enamored of a man tends to act just as the one in your example does, too.
@ AE:
Data?! Haha, where we're going we don't need any data.
After learning "game" and spending enough time experimenting with how to attract women, I came to this conclusion.
You can be whatever you want, as long as your alpha.
Post a Comment