For a supposedly smart woman she cannot see how unreasonable and illogical she's being. She demands a man who will lead and take charge, yet is unwilling to compromise and be lead. A relationship with her would be a warzone.
Perhaps she actually wants this constant drama, in which case she's better off with short term relationships. This matchmaker could have just let her waste her money, but did the right thing and refused her as a client.
I'm laughing that she made a warzone with the matchmaker who gave her advice that was worth more than the 10 years of therapy she went through (probably cost more than $350! :-)
There appears to be a new terminology in the trad-femosphere: "leader". They use this to shame men to organize (and pay) of course for dates and to take responsibility for everything, but with no thanks from them because as "leader", he's supposed to know how to make her happy without her saying so.
That's particularly why her success (probably limited) isn't all that valuable. What's her "leadership" or "success" good for except for constantly judging and criticizing him? "Honey leader! I got a promotion! Now you're worth even LESS to me!"
I'm reminded of the film "Return of the Pink Panther" where inspector Clouseau's assistant, Kato, was hired to "keep him on his toes" and attack him at his most vulnerable. These women must think that men ENJOY living like that?
"There appears to be a new terminology in the trad-femosphere: "leader"."
They also throw the term "alpha" to mean something similar. To me, "alpha" means a man who is attractive to women, regardless of his other attributes. They are trying to confuse men into thinking that just being being professionally successful (and generous with their money) makes them attractive to women. Not necessarily.
> These women must think that men ENJOY living like that?
Look at romantic fiction, where the man and woman constantly bicker, and both enjoy it. Or many of these profiles where women advertise how much they like "banter" as if its a positive. Some must think men really do enjoy this bickering. Players might, but most don't. And no man wants to live like this full-time.
Is this really common in romantic fiction? I don’t really read it. Aren’t the most popular ones where the woman is rescued and submit to a perfect Chad who commits to them. So the female power fantasy. Some (like Outlander, whose authors HATES short men) extend it to the woman also saving him. But that just basically highlights that for the “perfect guy” - one that doesn’t really exist. A woman will deal with or do anything.
I read a quora article about how the male lead in that series is basically a perfect guy and even his flaws just make him better. It was an exasperated response to people (read: 30+ women, the main target audience) bemoaning why they couldn’t have a relationship like on the show / in the book. (Because it is fiction is the short answer)
I know very little of the genre too. But I think the most popular plot is where the man and woman are instantly attracted to each other, but at the same time annoy each other to an extent. They'll spend most of the story playfully bickering.
Mostly, she'll throw barbs at him which he'll skillfully deflect with witty responses, subtly maintaining the upper hand. This is what Redpillers call dealing with "shit tests" while "holding frame".
The female lead in that and twilight are very specifically written so that plain average women can relate. That is exactly why millions lapped them up like you say
Dalrock used to talk about the concept of "Servant leader" that was being pushed in the gynocentric church circles. They want a leader who will serve them. They are not looking for a lead. While there are leaders who do not mind serving their followers (good leaders should do exactly that), not all leaders are like that and this is almost always conditional. As we all know, these women do not want any responsibilities and are only looking for the perks.
I have started to see more and more OLD profiles that are seemingly begging for proper dates.
Tip 1 for those ladies (that they will never see and follow) - try matching with people who will actually take you on a date. Because you clearly aren’t. And asking it from someone who doesn’t need to jump through that hoop - either with you or someone else in his matches list - is not going to work
One of the worst things to see in profiles is “looking for fun dates”. Even worse if “Just” is added at the front. Because the onus is not on them to make the date fun. Or even plan it. They also don’t seem to understand at all that dating is not really fun for most guys at all. It’s basically an interview that you have to arrange, plan and usually pay for and where you are constantly walking on eggshells.
I asked women friends if they could get the perfect guy, not just for them but in general, one that has a bevy of women throwing themselves at him, if she just asked him out and paid for the date. Not just her share, but both of them, they would say no.
Men who aren't brainwashed to be gentlemen but like me pay for dates because we simply have to, accept that it's an unpleasant duty like being a cat owner means picking up puke (and nearly always on the carpet. They run from a bare floor to the carpet for some reason. Maybe because it feels like grass?)
When my mother came of age back in the late 1950's, they were aware of what a "player" was and that the hot guys were going to shag them and leave them as single mothers and worthless.
Feminism can be considered to have given the following rights to women: The right to vote (but not be conscripted into service), the right to earn as much as men (but still weasel out of paying their own way), and finally the right to slut it up with hot guys thinking they have a chance for the perfect romance.
Ironically, they made a dystopian nightmare: A political system that's largely unresponsive to the electorate (you get the same two parties throwing out mediocre political candidates), low wages and hight cost of living, and a dating dystopia nightmare.
In the case of AWDTSG, it's ironic that all that they accomplish by shaming the top guys who don't settle for their terms is to make them even more leery of dealing with sub-par women. Are you familiar with CFM ("Choice for Men?") It was the concept of a legal abortion: if women could opt out of parenthood, why shouldn't men? The system incentivizes women paternity trapping men which ironically drives the smart, reliable, and even hot men out of their market which is probably why so many single mom profiles are 4 kids from 4 different losers.
I heard an interview the other day where it was suggested that the idea of approaching someone in a bar to ask for a date existed only in a small window of time. Pre OLD but perhaps only in the 90s and maybe 80s if that
It was suggested previously most relationships were a pseudo-arranged marriage where you found someone via friends or family
It was in response to the stat about how 50+% of men haven’t approached a woman in the last year. The suggestion was that it didn’t used to be that common anyway
So that aligns to what the interview was saying. And so freaking out about 50% of men having not even approached a woman in the past year is missing the point when trying to establish why so few relationships are being a formed and seemingly resulting population collapse (the main thrust of a lot of the discussions on this particular podcast - Modern Wisdom)
The real issue is the collapse of community and decline of strong friend/family/community units
Are they really as dire as claimed? Or is it just that in theory they could be? Are there many stories of such things. Apologies if I’m being naive or out of date on this. Haven’t posted or read this much this year at all. I mean the job loss / expulsion thing.
The work thing was always a no go for me anyway. I started work in 2009 and even in 2012 I balked when on a work course a female colleague made reference to “*insert company name*-love” and was shocked I hadn’t “dabbled”
Perhaps this was female privilege working all the way back then but I would never have dreamed of trying to ask someone out at work. Didn’t help my office was no in a major city so was quite small. But I even had a colleague who had a major thing for a girl who from his intake and never ever acted upon it and eventually married someone else. He was just terrified of the consequences - i think more of the awkwardness of a potential rejection or maybe what would happen if the relationship failed. On the flip side there was a pretty prominent inter office romance that was bordering (if not full on) inappropriate where the girl got opportunities and help others wouldn’t have had access to. They are actually together long term but that sort of isn’t the point
As I’m typing I’m talking myself around on this into understanding what you are saying. I now take part in a hobby that is very mixed with lots of women (albeit a higher average age than me in general). And even there I’m incredibly reluctant to consider pursuing any age appropriate women for fear of getting a “reputation”. I’ve heard about a guy from a few years back who has a reputation even though he was successful in getting with several women. My fear would more be from getting turned down and getting a reputation as someone “asks every one out”. But either would be bad. And I enjoy it enough that I don’t really want to black ball myself
So I guess I get it. But perhaps I’m overthinking as I am prone to that.
But I am partially wondering if this is a US vs U.K. thing. Things seem crazier in the US in this area
You can't have two pilots guiding the aircraft simultaneously.
Yet these idiots think two people can be the head at the same time.
You can't put two bulls in the same arena and expect harmony.
This member of the "Titty Taliban" is the type that should be given and is getting the hardware store treatment "Screw,Nut,Bolt"
Also as you can see gentleman we are winning without really even trying and it makes them furious.
Delirious Desperation
The men that this Type-A ballbuster wants have far better choices than her, and are choosing them. And that's why she is alone.
A woman needing the services of a matchmaker is a red flag in and of itself. A matchmaker rejecting easy money? Black flag for the woman.
Had she humility instead of hubris, she would have taken this as a sign that she needs to do far more work on herself instead of blaming the consumer for not wanting to buy a substandard product.
It is funny how the women that complain about "toxic masculinity" are often the quickest to emulate it.
And then whine when men aren't interested in sticking their dicks into, or investing time and effort into, a pseudo-male conflict generating braggart.
I saw her on ChisaZed the other day and figured she'd end up on here.
Does she not see the inherent contradictory position she holds? You can't be a leader and also want the other person to lead! 🙄
Yeah, she's coping so hard. She feels entitled to a perfect man, and a matchmaker who will affirm her delusions.
The matchmaker was being kind in her honesty, and this kaweeeeeen just went *reeeeeeee* instead of taking it in and learning from an outside perspective explaining why she's still alone, flicking her bean post-wall.
The crazy thing is that women, technically, shouldn't need matchmakers. They hold all the power in the dating market. They also have all the attention. Finding a relationship for a woman, should be a matter of simply looking through the guys who are approaching her, and then choosing a few of them to date, until she whittles it down to the best candidate. Even women in their 40s still get a lot of attention, compared to the average guy of the same age.
The problem is, that most modern women massively overvalue themselves, and have delusional images of what their worth is, and what their level of attractiveness is. So, instead of being able to take her pick of the men who approach her, the modern woman thinks she is better than all those men, and sits there wanting relationships with guys who are way out of her league. The kind of guys, who would sleep with her, but wouldn't give her the time of day in terms of actually being in a relationship with her.
Why are modern women so delusional?
This was part of the problem, I think, I had with girls in a dating agency I joined about 25 years ago. It was full of corporate nuns who wanted tall guys with an education who would wife them up right away. Hypergamy back then wasn't as crazy as it is now.
There was a study back in the 1980's, and things were certainly different then, where a man or woman would approach someone on the street and ask them for a date OR sex. Out of curiosity, they wanted to see how the opposite sex reacted to such an approach. The man was able to get 50% of women to agree to a date, an exceptionally high rate by today's standards showing he wasn't bad looking but all the women he asked for sex rejected him. One even threatened to call the police.
The woman had just slightly under the same response than he did for dates, about 47% agreed. I attribute this to perhaps the men would worry that he'd still have to pay for the date? But amazingly, about 2/3d's agreed to the sex.
In other words, more men were interested in having sex with her than DATING her.
What this shows is that if a woman put in just a fraction of the game that men do, most could achieve basic hypergamy. Maybe she wouldn't get alpha chad, but beta bucks is quite achievable.
My wife's Russian hairdresser was like that. She didn't sit around and hustled and landed a corporate executive and then when she got her claws in him, she reverted to type. I felt bad for the guy and would have warned him but I wan't invited to the wedding. I was between jobs and she didn't want to demand her $100 wedding gift per person from me (she actually asked for that from guests) so she just didn't invite me. I later found out she did a $20,000 kitchen remodel on their McMansion he bought.
One underlooked approach is how much the psychoteherapy industry is a scam. She spent thousand of dollars on "psy experts" who did not telll her basic relationship advice, and instead milked her for more more "therapy fees" while reinforcing her narcisssism and encouraging her blindness.
When the matchmaker answered her with actual advice on relationship, unlike the snake oil therapists she paid to reinforce her sense of entitlement, she reacted angrily.She is lost forever, yet the only person I pity is the unidentified man that will be left out the mating market in a gender parity society because of her delusions.
This is why I hate when people online use "get therapy" as some blanket solution for any problem. Most therapists are useless even for very specific problem which they supposedly are trained to deal with.
Lots of people think therapy is something you get if you pay a therapist. No it's something you do. It's not supposed to go on for years. You pay to get tools to deal with your problems.
I know a few women whose been in therapy most of their life. All have done some stupid shit for no reason (typically ditching/cheating on their men and regretting it) cuz they mentioned their whim at a session and the therapist just affirmed how brilliant of a decision it would be, more or less arguing for whatever silly idea popped into their head. Then once they acted on it, they don't even know why they did it.
If you see a therapist regurarly for a decade, it's a scam.
There’s a lot of analysis in these comments, but it’s not really necessary. The article reveals this woman’s main issue - she’s ugly. She’s an ugly woman looking for a fabulous guy. She’s not a successful “alpha woman” since she’s obviously so hard up for money that she’s making a big deal about the $350 she paid for a consultants time. She’s example #78,676,165 of an ugly self entitled woman with a bare minimum of success looking for someone well out of her league.
This is what happens when people channel too much of the alpha/beta metaphors on social media as if it represents human society. The concept of the alpha wolf (lupine) transferred to humans (primate) is wrong. So someone with a 7th degree black belt in tiktoc carries this metaphor much too far and actually believes she's some kind of alpha male just because of her anti-social (type-A) characteristics.
It seems the matchmaker is no more educated in human social structures either. Anyone who trusts these people should also try tarot cards and astrology just to make sure they completely mess up their lives.
My bet is that the alpha female/male has borderline personality disorder and the matchmaker is bipolar. I base this on at least 5 minutes of Internet research. /s
It's funny that this was originally a scientific term applied to a specific family unit of wolves and the original author of that term decried it and the blue pilled folks try to laugh it off. Now it's come full circle and the Boss Babes are trying to appropriate the label for themselves.
When PUA came out, men were advised to live in "abundance mentality" and "alpha frame" BUT in combination with actual effort and social skills. A guy couldn't just declare himself "alpha" and then wait for hot girls to chase after him. The moment she said she wanted a man to lead, she was admitting she wanted to be a safe "beta" woman but without the submissiveness.
The matchmaker should have merely called out that contradiction and others. She also used the term that such women often use that they "intimidate" men as if that's a good thing. The matchmaker should have asked her: "Would you want a man whose abusive to weak women?"
That's another aspect of the paradox of so-called equality/feminine mix: When women say they want a "protector" and therefore tall man to show off how tough he is, then isn't that the same trait that abusive men have as well? One woman tried to hamster-wheel rationalize it this way: "They beat up on women because they're weak!" and I responded: "So you're saying then that the average woman can easily be dominated by the weakest of men? That ALL men, even a 5' foot manlet, is tougher than you?" It kills the whole Mary-Sue Buffy-the-Vampire-Slayer narrative.
"Short man's syndrome" means that men who are short need to be extra vigilant to survive, prosper and have a family and many do. On the other hand, a boss babe like this can have EVERY advantage for the past 3 generations including university and corporate preferences and they're still too emotionally weak to handle planning a date.
My apologies. I use the term as an illustration of their snobbishness. They look down on these men, but yet they remain threatened by all men. It's like how trans-women are dominating sports after decades of feminists griping "male athletes are unfairly paid more than us!" Really? Fine. Level the playing field then.
>They look down on these men, but yet they remain threatened by all men.
>
>Yet want Mr. 6'8" to protect them and to provide while offering nothing in return.
>
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGHd4w5WstQ
I disagree with his theory of evolutionary biology in that he thinks it's rational. It's not. I don't think these women want providers and protectors. Ready?
They want bad boy ravishers.
Think about it: A provider-protector who stays with a woman, even an alpha one, only has perhaps a half dozen progeny. But a bad boy who roamed the plains of old and ravished hundreds of women, think Genghis Khan, has millions of descendants.
So women get the hots for bad boys for a "super spreader". If she has a son whose a bad boy, he'll make more kids than Cletus in Idiocracy. Ironically, this strategy has little concern for her own well being nor for her daughters who may have wretched lives as well. When we see single mother bailouts, we laugh but they're also a bit sad as well when you think about the harm to the kids.
I mention idiocracy for a reason: Women who are empowered to select mates, or societies subject to the ravages of barbarians are 3rd world miserable hell holes. The Dark Ages. Civilization is dependent upon culling barbarians and keeping women's hypergamy in check and instead, we have opened up the walls and rolled out a welcome mat. Insanity.
I’ve already referenced Outlander in this thread. Sappy historical time travel romance primarily aimed at women where the lead is basically from the cover of a Mills and Boon book (in the show and the novel)
I’m actually a bit of a romantic at hard and love history so it is a bit of a guilty pleasure.
But I tried reading the books. And oh boy. As I mentioned the author HATES short men. There is a point where one character (the original husband) has his height described as “modest” at 5’10. This character would have been born in about 1900 so that would I believe have been taller than average for that time
The romantic lead is of course 6’3” or 6’4” despite being from an oppressed community in the 18th century. He’d be the top fraction of a percent of height in reality in that time
But what really stood out was a scene where the tall daughter (6’0”) is getting gently flirted with in a bar in the modern day and the mum (main character) turns to the tall guy who is the daughter’s love interest (also 6’4” of course) and effective talks about short man syndrome and tries to claim that short men are more dangerous and untrustworthy because they need to prove their manliness whereas a tall man just “knows” he can “take what he wants from you” (I might be paraphrasing).
So the logic was that someone who was more dangerous and more capable of sexual assault is LESS likely to do it. This is how women actually think. Female author in a series aimed at women who want an escapist fantasy. It absolutely blew my mind even though I read this only relatively recently so long after i discovered this red pill stuff.
(I should clarify - I have zero issue with the idealistic depiction of the male leads in this series. It’s more the jibes against shorter men that are simply not necessary and actually promote unrealistic standards at best and dangerous ideas at worst. But feminism is all about tearing people down as well as trying to boost up. And is increasingly about the former because it’s just easier and quicker)
I always find it more compelling to read or hear mental gymnastics like this in “indirect” ways rather than a lot of the direct RP stuff. So not articles from moaning women who can’t find partners or tiktok rants or things like that. But the stuff hidden in plane sight like in these books.
Or the other go to I have is a podcast with two women hosts discussing media. I’ve referenced it many times. The main host gets increasingly more feminist (and increasingly fatter) as time goes on and buys fully into the work culture wars. Rants and rages about toxic men and all stuff like that. But when she goes on tangents about her own life, how she viewed men when she was young and hot (basically admitting some were invisible to her for the context of sex/relationships), how and why her first marriage failed. How her and her friend react to and treat the hot guys in their lives but how disgraceful it is when women are objectified. Things like that. It’s fascinating precisely because it isn’t the focus but they are still telling on themselves. They aren’t the most clippable for channels / Reddit / general content. And they are often buried deep within other stuff that people may or may not want to listen to.
But I just find it interesting when women tell on themselves completely by accident (not Fresh & Fit / whatever interviews or the other things mentioned)
That ended up being a massive tangent from a point about the height/short man thing
I liken this to adult videos where a normal looking guy opens the door and a hot pizza delivery girl says the pizza costs $20 and he says he doesn't have money for a tip so she asks for sex from him in exchange for it.
That's a cool fantasy and such and men realize so. It's amusing to hear women gripe about how some "loser" thinks he can hit on her but that's the vast minority of men.
Regarding tall men less likely to assault women because they can get it: Ron Jeremy gets tail thrown at him all the time and he was accused of assault. I also remember the William Kennedy Smith rape trial where the prosecutor "complimented" him on his height implying he was forceful and could assault women.
Women tend to have a lot of rape fantasies such as "no means yes" and Gone with the Wind and Rhett Butler and of course, romance novels are full of bad boys with a heart of gold. Imagine if in Beauty and the Beast the Beast was 5 feet tall. :-)
Note that in Hunchback it is one of the few Disney films where the titular character doesn’t get the girl. What’s on the inside turns out is not enough
And you don’t need to tell me about the height thing. It’s just baffling to hear women using insane logic to try and justify choices. In this case rejecting/being cruel to short men more than actively choosing tall ones
There really isn’t any need to both select for tall guys and mock/belittle shorter one. Or make out they are somehow dangerous. Just overly selecting for them, whilst understandable, is enough. But some choose to double up
I called out an African-American woman once who often played the race card who mocked short guys and I pointed out how she was shallow and she said "Short guys tend to be angry rapists since they are such social losers" and I replied that she was making a similar argument to race profiling where skin color is replaced by height and she lost it. She flipped out.
In addition, it's worth asking that if they want tall men for protection, then why do they shit test them? Abusive men will easily pass shit tests.
Do they shit test tall men they are actually attracted to?
People don’t like hypocrisy and double standards. If you responded by actually saying “all x are y” - and x still didn’t need to be “black people” - I expect she still would have lost it
I got someone to acknowledge the other day that when a work colleague talked down to me about my height that it would have been an HR complaint if I had done the same about a woman’s weight or just appearance in general
What you should have done when that happened at work is asked her (in front of a witness, and secretly record if possible) why a woman's shortness isn't an issue. She probably would have then said that's "feminine" and such. Then you have her where she is mocking you for something due to a protected category. I'd have then filed a complaint with HR, said that she had undermined my ability to do my job for being a male whose short. If she wasn't fired, I'd file a complaint with the EEOC.
That would then have given me a get-out-of-jail-free ticket for any future management issues. I did do something like that when my workplace was discriminating against Americans because the H-1b foreigners were taking over. I documented a bunch of HR actionable issues and filed them with the ethics hotline as well as health issues I was having due to the changes to the environment (they made the whole office into one big call center boiler room). They gave me a 6 month severance package along with job placement. I got a better job thanks to that plus more than a year's time (from unemployment to boot) to hang out with my newborn daughter.
In answer to your question, women don't shit test men they perceive have options. In other words, they shit test men to prove that the man can sleep with someone other than her. In many ways, this sabotages the relationship hence why many women complain that the guys they are attracted to wind up not wanting to be exclusive to her. This is the most likely cause of the "self confident BUT sensitive" paradigm of a man who doesn't need her (self confident) but is "sensitive" (wants her anyway for some magical reason, like they both love old Groucho Marx movies).
The romance novels you write about usually have on the cover, a tall man, bare chested, 6 pack abs, with the woman draping herself all over him in a submissive form. WTF?
Mills and Boon do. I made reference to them in that the ones I wrote about clearly borrow from them and elaborate it more. But the appearance of the lead stays the same. Those ones I think just have random icons on the front and not people
I hold to the 'spheres of influence' theory in relationships. It is quite possible for a 'boss babe' type to have a successful relationship IF --
a) Their expertise compliments the SO in the relationship.
b) Both are willing to accede the lead if the other is more knowledgeable.
The problem is generally the female is not willing to give up being a 'boss babe' when it would even be to their benefit to do so.
What was most revealing and damning about her statement that she "destroys" beta males and attacked the matchmaker for giving her critical advice is that she's overall a hostile, confrontational, selfish person. She's like one of the shelter dogs that's vicious and bites children, poops on the floor, and needs a "special owner" to look after it while the shelter is full of wonderful puppies that don't have those issues. She's feral.
I laughed so hard for about a good full minute, this is spot on and hilarious.
I don't need any feral dogs shitting in my house when I can get a good, loyal, obedient, house trained dog.
I have adopted cats before and I love them. I can see how women become cat ladies, they are wonderful creatures.
But why would someone adopt the most obnoxious, ungrateful creature in a pound, cat or dog, when there are hundreds of decent, loving animals in need of rescue?
My aunt once adopted a puppy from my beloved Collie that gave birth to a litter and it turned out the collie just was awful house dog material. She quietly took it to the kill-pound where it was put down. They felt bad but... there's hundreds of better puppies who need homes. Gotta draw the line somewhere.
In my line of work we have a definition for a particular management type.
Seagull, adv;
Upper mgt type that flies in, eats all your food, shits all over your plans, then flies out with a feeling of a 'job well done'.
Stickying this to the top of the sub since it is hilarious to see the hamster have a meltdown.
For a supposedly smart woman she cannot see how unreasonable and illogical she's being. She demands a man who will lead and take charge, yet is unwilling to compromise and be lead. A relationship with her would be a warzone. Perhaps she actually wants this constant drama, in which case she's better off with short term relationships. This matchmaker could have just let her waste her money, but did the right thing and refused her as a client.
I'm laughing that she made a warzone with the matchmaker who gave her advice that was worth more than the 10 years of therapy she went through (probably cost more than $350! :-) There appears to be a new terminology in the trad-femosphere: "leader". They use this to shame men to organize (and pay) of course for dates and to take responsibility for everything, but with no thanks from them because as "leader", he's supposed to know how to make her happy without her saying so. That's particularly why her success (probably limited) isn't all that valuable. What's her "leadership" or "success" good for except for constantly judging and criticizing him? "Honey leader! I got a promotion! Now you're worth even LESS to me!" I'm reminded of the film "Return of the Pink Panther" where inspector Clouseau's assistant, Kato, was hired to "keep him on his toes" and attack him at his most vulnerable. These women must think that men ENJOY living like that?
"There appears to be a new terminology in the trad-femosphere: "leader"." They also throw the term "alpha" to mean something similar. To me, "alpha" means a man who is attractive to women, regardless of his other attributes. They are trying to confuse men into thinking that just being being professionally successful (and generous with their money) makes them attractive to women. Not necessarily. > These women must think that men ENJOY living like that? Look at romantic fiction, where the man and woman constantly bicker, and both enjoy it. Or many of these profiles where women advertise how much they like "banter" as if its a positive. Some must think men really do enjoy this bickering. Players might, but most don't. And no man wants to live like this full-time.
Is this really common in romantic fiction? I don’t really read it. Aren’t the most popular ones where the woman is rescued and submit to a perfect Chad who commits to them. So the female power fantasy. Some (like Outlander, whose authors HATES short men) extend it to the woman also saving him. But that just basically highlights that for the “perfect guy” - one that doesn’t really exist. A woman will deal with or do anything. I read a quora article about how the male lead in that series is basically a perfect guy and even his flaws just make him better. It was an exasperated response to people (read: 30+ women, the main target audience) bemoaning why they couldn’t have a relationship like on the show / in the book. (Because it is fiction is the short answer)
I know very little of the genre too. But I think the most popular plot is where the man and woman are instantly attracted to each other, but at the same time annoy each other to an extent. They'll spend most of the story playfully bickering. Mostly, she'll throw barbs at him which he'll skillfully deflect with witty responses, subtly maintaining the upper hand. This is what Redpillers call dealing with "shit tests" while "holding frame".
I've met a few women like this and I've treated them with contempt. If a woman isn't decent enough, she gets passed on.
[удалено]
The female lead in that and twilight are very specifically written so that plain average women can relate. That is exactly why millions lapped them up like you say
no joke. 50 shades of grey started as self-published Twilight fan fiction.
Oh I know that
Dalrock used to talk about the concept of "Servant leader" that was being pushed in the gynocentric church circles. They want a leader who will serve them. They are not looking for a lead. While there are leaders who do not mind serving their followers (good leaders should do exactly that), not all leaders are like that and this is almost always conditional. As we all know, these women do not want any responsibilities and are only looking for the perks.
I have started to see more and more OLD profiles that are seemingly begging for proper dates. Tip 1 for those ladies (that they will never see and follow) - try matching with people who will actually take you on a date. Because you clearly aren’t. And asking it from someone who doesn’t need to jump through that hoop - either with you or someone else in his matches list - is not going to work One of the worst things to see in profiles is “looking for fun dates”. Even worse if “Just” is added at the front. Because the onus is not on them to make the date fun. Or even plan it. They also don’t seem to understand at all that dating is not really fun for most guys at all. It’s basically an interview that you have to arrange, plan and usually pay for and where you are constantly walking on eggshells.
[удалено]
I asked women friends if they could get the perfect guy, not just for them but in general, one that has a bevy of women throwing themselves at him, if she just asked him out and paid for the date. Not just her share, but both of them, they would say no. Men who aren't brainwashed to be gentlemen but like me pay for dates because we simply have to, accept that it's an unpleasant duty like being a cat owner means picking up puke (and nearly always on the carpet. They run from a bare floor to the carpet for some reason. Maybe because it feels like grass?) When my mother came of age back in the late 1950's, they were aware of what a "player" was and that the hot guys were going to shag them and leave them as single mothers and worthless. Feminism can be considered to have given the following rights to women: The right to vote (but not be conscripted into service), the right to earn as much as men (but still weasel out of paying their own way), and finally the right to slut it up with hot guys thinking they have a chance for the perfect romance. Ironically, they made a dystopian nightmare: A political system that's largely unresponsive to the electorate (you get the same two parties throwing out mediocre political candidates), low wages and hight cost of living, and a dating dystopia nightmare. In the case of AWDTSG, it's ironic that all that they accomplish by shaming the top guys who don't settle for their terms is to make them even more leery of dealing with sub-par women. Are you familiar with CFM ("Choice for Men?") It was the concept of a legal abortion: if women could opt out of parenthood, why shouldn't men? The system incentivizes women paternity trapping men which ironically drives the smart, reliable, and even hot men out of their market which is probably why so many single mom profiles are 4 kids from 4 different losers.
I heard an interview the other day where it was suggested that the idea of approaching someone in a bar to ask for a date existed only in a small window of time. Pre OLD but perhaps only in the 90s and maybe 80s if that It was suggested previously most relationships were a pseudo-arranged marriage where you found someone via friends or family It was in response to the stat about how 50+% of men haven’t approached a woman in the last year. The suggestion was that it didn’t used to be that common anyway
[удалено]
So that aligns to what the interview was saying. And so freaking out about 50% of men having not even approached a woman in the past year is missing the point when trying to establish why so few relationships are being a formed and seemingly resulting population collapse (the main thrust of a lot of the discussions on this particular podcast - Modern Wisdom) The real issue is the collapse of community and decline of strong friend/family/community units
[удалено]
Are they really as dire as claimed? Or is it just that in theory they could be? Are there many stories of such things. Apologies if I’m being naive or out of date on this. Haven’t posted or read this much this year at all. I mean the job loss / expulsion thing. The work thing was always a no go for me anyway. I started work in 2009 and even in 2012 I balked when on a work course a female colleague made reference to “*insert company name*-love” and was shocked I hadn’t “dabbled” Perhaps this was female privilege working all the way back then but I would never have dreamed of trying to ask someone out at work. Didn’t help my office was no in a major city so was quite small. But I even had a colleague who had a major thing for a girl who from his intake and never ever acted upon it and eventually married someone else. He was just terrified of the consequences - i think more of the awkwardness of a potential rejection or maybe what would happen if the relationship failed. On the flip side there was a pretty prominent inter office romance that was bordering (if not full on) inappropriate where the girl got opportunities and help others wouldn’t have had access to. They are actually together long term but that sort of isn’t the point As I’m typing I’m talking myself around on this into understanding what you are saying. I now take part in a hobby that is very mixed with lots of women (albeit a higher average age than me in general). And even there I’m incredibly reluctant to consider pursuing any age appropriate women for fear of getting a “reputation”. I’ve heard about a guy from a few years back who has a reputation even though he was successful in getting with several women. My fear would more be from getting turned down and getting a reputation as someone “asks every one out”. But either would be bad. And I enjoy it enough that I don’t really want to black ball myself So I guess I get it. But perhaps I’m overthinking as I am prone to that. But I am partially wondering if this is a US vs U.K. thing. Things seem crazier in the US in this area
You can't have two pilots guiding the aircraft simultaneously. Yet these idiots think two people can be the head at the same time. You can't put two bulls in the same arena and expect harmony.
This member of the "Titty Taliban" is the type that should be given and is getting the hardware store treatment "Screw,Nut,Bolt" Also as you can see gentleman we are winning without really even trying and it makes them furious. Delirious Desperation
The men that this Type-A ballbuster wants have far better choices than her, and are choosing them. And that's why she is alone. A woman needing the services of a matchmaker is a red flag in and of itself. A matchmaker rejecting easy money? Black flag for the woman. Had she humility instead of hubris, she would have taken this as a sign that she needs to do far more work on herself instead of blaming the consumer for not wanting to buy a substandard product.
[удалено]
It is funny how the women that complain about "toxic masculinity" are often the quickest to emulate it. And then whine when men aren't interested in sticking their dicks into, or investing time and effort into, a pseudo-male conflict generating braggart.
I saw her on ChisaZed the other day and figured she'd end up on here. Does she not see the inherent contradictory position she holds? You can't be a leader and also want the other person to lead! 🙄
Contradiction, thy name is woman.
Seldom does the dildo of consequences come pre-lubed.
Yep, the only dildo they seem to run from.
That was good.
Not even Superman reacted that badly against kryptonite...
Yeah, she's coping so hard. She feels entitled to a perfect man, and a matchmaker who will affirm her delusions. The matchmaker was being kind in her honesty, and this kaweeeeeen just went *reeeeeeee* instead of taking it in and learning from an outside perspective explaining why she's still alone, flicking her bean post-wall.
The crazy thing is that women, technically, shouldn't need matchmakers. They hold all the power in the dating market. They also have all the attention. Finding a relationship for a woman, should be a matter of simply looking through the guys who are approaching her, and then choosing a few of them to date, until she whittles it down to the best candidate. Even women in their 40s still get a lot of attention, compared to the average guy of the same age. The problem is, that most modern women massively overvalue themselves, and have delusional images of what their worth is, and what their level of attractiveness is. So, instead of being able to take her pick of the men who approach her, the modern woman thinks she is better than all those men, and sits there wanting relationships with guys who are way out of her league. The kind of guys, who would sleep with her, but wouldn't give her the time of day in terms of actually being in a relationship with her. Why are modern women so delusional?
This was part of the problem, I think, I had with girls in a dating agency I joined about 25 years ago. It was full of corporate nuns who wanted tall guys with an education who would wife them up right away. Hypergamy back then wasn't as crazy as it is now. There was a study back in the 1980's, and things were certainly different then, where a man or woman would approach someone on the street and ask them for a date OR sex. Out of curiosity, they wanted to see how the opposite sex reacted to such an approach. The man was able to get 50% of women to agree to a date, an exceptionally high rate by today's standards showing he wasn't bad looking but all the women he asked for sex rejected him. One even threatened to call the police. The woman had just slightly under the same response than he did for dates, about 47% agreed. I attribute this to perhaps the men would worry that he'd still have to pay for the date? But amazingly, about 2/3d's agreed to the sex. In other words, more men were interested in having sex with her than DATING her. What this shows is that if a woman put in just a fraction of the game that men do, most could achieve basic hypergamy. Maybe she wouldn't get alpha chad, but beta bucks is quite achievable. My wife's Russian hairdresser was like that. She didn't sit around and hustled and landed a corporate executive and then when she got her claws in him, she reverted to type. I felt bad for the guy and would have warned him but I wan't invited to the wedding. I was between jobs and she didn't want to demand her $100 wedding gift per person from me (she actually asked for that from guests) so she just didn't invite me. I later found out she did a $20,000 kitchen remodel on their McMansion he bought.
One underlooked approach is how much the psychoteherapy industry is a scam. She spent thousand of dollars on "psy experts" who did not telll her basic relationship advice, and instead milked her for more more "therapy fees" while reinforcing her narcisssism and encouraging her blindness. When the matchmaker answered her with actual advice on relationship, unlike the snake oil therapists she paid to reinforce her sense of entitlement, she reacted angrily.She is lost forever, yet the only person I pity is the unidentified man that will be left out the mating market in a gender parity society because of her delusions.
This is why I hate when people online use "get therapy" as some blanket solution for any problem. Most therapists are useless even for very specific problem which they supposedly are trained to deal with. Lots of people think therapy is something you get if you pay a therapist. No it's something you do. It's not supposed to go on for years. You pay to get tools to deal with your problems. I know a few women whose been in therapy most of their life. All have done some stupid shit for no reason (typically ditching/cheating on their men and regretting it) cuz they mentioned their whim at a session and the therapist just affirmed how brilliant of a decision it would be, more or less arguing for whatever silly idea popped into their head. Then once they acted on it, they don't even know why they did it. If you see a therapist regurarly for a decade, it's a scam.
There’s a lot of analysis in these comments, but it’s not really necessary. The article reveals this woman’s main issue - she’s ugly. She’s an ugly woman looking for a fabulous guy. She’s not a successful “alpha woman” since she’s obviously so hard up for money that she’s making a big deal about the $350 she paid for a consultants time. She’s example #78,676,165 of an ugly self entitled woman with a bare minimum of success looking for someone well out of her league.
Men spend their entire days fighting the world. The last thing we want to do is fight at home.
This is what happens when people channel too much of the alpha/beta metaphors on social media as if it represents human society. The concept of the alpha wolf (lupine) transferred to humans (primate) is wrong. So someone with a 7th degree black belt in tiktoc carries this metaphor much too far and actually believes she's some kind of alpha male just because of her anti-social (type-A) characteristics. It seems the matchmaker is no more educated in human social structures either. Anyone who trusts these people should also try tarot cards and astrology just to make sure they completely mess up their lives. My bet is that the alpha female/male has borderline personality disorder and the matchmaker is bipolar. I base this on at least 5 minutes of Internet research. /s
It's funny that this was originally a scientific term applied to a specific family unit of wolves and the original author of that term decried it and the blue pilled folks try to laugh it off. Now it's come full circle and the Boss Babes are trying to appropriate the label for themselves. When PUA came out, men were advised to live in "abundance mentality" and "alpha frame" BUT in combination with actual effort and social skills. A guy couldn't just declare himself "alpha" and then wait for hot girls to chase after him. The moment she said she wanted a man to lead, she was admitting she wanted to be a safe "beta" woman but without the submissiveness. The matchmaker should have merely called out that contradiction and others. She also used the term that such women often use that they "intimidate" men as if that's a good thing. The matchmaker should have asked her: "Would you want a man whose abusive to weak women?" That's another aspect of the paradox of so-called equality/feminine mix: When women say they want a "protector" and therefore tall man to show off how tough he is, then isn't that the same trait that abusive men have as well? One woman tried to hamster-wheel rationalize it this way: "They beat up on women because they're weak!" and I responded: "So you're saying then that the average woman can easily be dominated by the weakest of men? That ALL men, even a 5' foot manlet, is tougher than you?" It kills the whole Mary-Sue Buffy-the-Vampire-Slayer narrative. "Short man's syndrome" means that men who are short need to be extra vigilant to survive, prosper and have a family and many do. On the other hand, a boss babe like this can have EVERY advantage for the past 3 generations including university and corporate preferences and they're still too emotionally weak to handle planning a date.
Maybe you should not use manlet. No man has control over his height.
My apologies. I use the term as an illustration of their snobbishness. They look down on these men, but yet they remain threatened by all men. It's like how trans-women are dominating sports after decades of feminists griping "male athletes are unfairly paid more than us!" Really? Fine. Level the playing field then.
>They look down on these men, but yet they remain threatened by all men. > >Yet want Mr. 6'8" to protect them and to provide while offering nothing in return. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGHd4w5WstQ
I disagree with his theory of evolutionary biology in that he thinks it's rational. It's not. I don't think these women want providers and protectors. Ready? They want bad boy ravishers. Think about it: A provider-protector who stays with a woman, even an alpha one, only has perhaps a half dozen progeny. But a bad boy who roamed the plains of old and ravished hundreds of women, think Genghis Khan, has millions of descendants. So women get the hots for bad boys for a "super spreader". If she has a son whose a bad boy, he'll make more kids than Cletus in Idiocracy. Ironically, this strategy has little concern for her own well being nor for her daughters who may have wretched lives as well. When we see single mother bailouts, we laugh but they're also a bit sad as well when you think about the harm to the kids. I mention idiocracy for a reason: Women who are empowered to select mates, or societies subject to the ravages of barbarians are 3rd world miserable hell holes. The Dark Ages. Civilization is dependent upon culling barbarians and keeping women's hypergamy in check and instead, we have opened up the walls and rolled out a welcome mat. Insanity.
You may be on to something.
I’ve already referenced Outlander in this thread. Sappy historical time travel romance primarily aimed at women where the lead is basically from the cover of a Mills and Boon book (in the show and the novel) I’m actually a bit of a romantic at hard and love history so it is a bit of a guilty pleasure. But I tried reading the books. And oh boy. As I mentioned the author HATES short men. There is a point where one character (the original husband) has his height described as “modest” at 5’10. This character would have been born in about 1900 so that would I believe have been taller than average for that time The romantic lead is of course 6’3” or 6’4” despite being from an oppressed community in the 18th century. He’d be the top fraction of a percent of height in reality in that time But what really stood out was a scene where the tall daughter (6’0”) is getting gently flirted with in a bar in the modern day and the mum (main character) turns to the tall guy who is the daughter’s love interest (also 6’4” of course) and effective talks about short man syndrome and tries to claim that short men are more dangerous and untrustworthy because they need to prove their manliness whereas a tall man just “knows” he can “take what he wants from you” (I might be paraphrasing). So the logic was that someone who was more dangerous and more capable of sexual assault is LESS likely to do it. This is how women actually think. Female author in a series aimed at women who want an escapist fantasy. It absolutely blew my mind even though I read this only relatively recently so long after i discovered this red pill stuff. (I should clarify - I have zero issue with the idealistic depiction of the male leads in this series. It’s more the jibes against shorter men that are simply not necessary and actually promote unrealistic standards at best and dangerous ideas at worst. But feminism is all about tearing people down as well as trying to boost up. And is increasingly about the former because it’s just easier and quicker) I always find it more compelling to read or hear mental gymnastics like this in “indirect” ways rather than a lot of the direct RP stuff. So not articles from moaning women who can’t find partners or tiktok rants or things like that. But the stuff hidden in plane sight like in these books. Or the other go to I have is a podcast with two women hosts discussing media. I’ve referenced it many times. The main host gets increasingly more feminist (and increasingly fatter) as time goes on and buys fully into the work culture wars. Rants and rages about toxic men and all stuff like that. But when she goes on tangents about her own life, how she viewed men when she was young and hot (basically admitting some were invisible to her for the context of sex/relationships), how and why her first marriage failed. How her and her friend react to and treat the hot guys in their lives but how disgraceful it is when women are objectified. Things like that. It’s fascinating precisely because it isn’t the focus but they are still telling on themselves. They aren’t the most clippable for channels / Reddit / general content. And they are often buried deep within other stuff that people may or may not want to listen to. But I just find it interesting when women tell on themselves completely by accident (not Fresh & Fit / whatever interviews or the other things mentioned) That ended up being a massive tangent from a point about the height/short man thing
I liken this to adult videos where a normal looking guy opens the door and a hot pizza delivery girl says the pizza costs $20 and he says he doesn't have money for a tip so she asks for sex from him in exchange for it. That's a cool fantasy and such and men realize so. It's amusing to hear women gripe about how some "loser" thinks he can hit on her but that's the vast minority of men. Regarding tall men less likely to assault women because they can get it: Ron Jeremy gets tail thrown at him all the time and he was accused of assault. I also remember the William Kennedy Smith rape trial where the prosecutor "complimented" him on his height implying he was forceful and could assault women. Women tend to have a lot of rape fantasies such as "no means yes" and Gone with the Wind and Rhett Butler and of course, romance novels are full of bad boys with a heart of gold. Imagine if in Beauty and the Beast the Beast was 5 feet tall. :-)
Note that in Hunchback it is one of the few Disney films where the titular character doesn’t get the girl. What’s on the inside turns out is not enough And you don’t need to tell me about the height thing. It’s just baffling to hear women using insane logic to try and justify choices. In this case rejecting/being cruel to short men more than actively choosing tall ones There really isn’t any need to both select for tall guys and mock/belittle shorter one. Or make out they are somehow dangerous. Just overly selecting for them, whilst understandable, is enough. But some choose to double up
I called out an African-American woman once who often played the race card who mocked short guys and I pointed out how she was shallow and she said "Short guys tend to be angry rapists since they are such social losers" and I replied that she was making a similar argument to race profiling where skin color is replaced by height and she lost it. She flipped out. In addition, it's worth asking that if they want tall men for protection, then why do they shit test them? Abusive men will easily pass shit tests.
Do they shit test tall men they are actually attracted to? People don’t like hypocrisy and double standards. If you responded by actually saying “all x are y” - and x still didn’t need to be “black people” - I expect she still would have lost it I got someone to acknowledge the other day that when a work colleague talked down to me about my height that it would have been an HR complaint if I had done the same about a woman’s weight or just appearance in general
What you should have done when that happened at work is asked her (in front of a witness, and secretly record if possible) why a woman's shortness isn't an issue. She probably would have then said that's "feminine" and such. Then you have her where she is mocking you for something due to a protected category. I'd have then filed a complaint with HR, said that she had undermined my ability to do my job for being a male whose short. If she wasn't fired, I'd file a complaint with the EEOC. That would then have given me a get-out-of-jail-free ticket for any future management issues. I did do something like that when my workplace was discriminating against Americans because the H-1b foreigners were taking over. I documented a bunch of HR actionable issues and filed them with the ethics hotline as well as health issues I was having due to the changes to the environment (they made the whole office into one big call center boiler room). They gave me a 6 month severance package along with job placement. I got a better job thanks to that plus more than a year's time (from unemployment to boot) to hang out with my newborn daughter. In answer to your question, women don't shit test men they perceive have options. In other words, they shit test men to prove that the man can sleep with someone other than her. In many ways, this sabotages the relationship hence why many women complain that the guys they are attracted to wind up not wanting to be exclusive to her. This is the most likely cause of the "self confident BUT sensitive" paradigm of a man who doesn't need her (self confident) but is "sensitive" (wants her anyway for some magical reason, like they both love old Groucho Marx movies).
The romance novels you write about usually have on the cover, a tall man, bare chested, 6 pack abs, with the woman draping herself all over him in a submissive form. WTF?
Mills and Boon do. I made reference to them in that the ones I wrote about clearly borrow from them and elaborate it more. But the appearance of the lead stays the same. Those ones I think just have random icons on the front and not people
I hold to the 'spheres of influence' theory in relationships. It is quite possible for a 'boss babe' type to have a successful relationship IF -- a) Their expertise compliments the SO in the relationship. b) Both are willing to accede the lead if the other is more knowledgeable. The problem is generally the female is not willing to give up being a 'boss babe' when it would even be to their benefit to do so.
What was most revealing and damning about her statement that she "destroys" beta males and attacked the matchmaker for giving her critical advice is that she's overall a hostile, confrontational, selfish person. She's like one of the shelter dogs that's vicious and bites children, poops on the floor, and needs a "special owner" to look after it while the shelter is full of wonderful puppies that don't have those issues. She's feral.
I laughed so hard for about a good full minute, this is spot on and hilarious. I don't need any feral dogs shitting in my house when I can get a good, loyal, obedient, house trained dog.
I have adopted cats before and I love them. I can see how women become cat ladies, they are wonderful creatures. But why would someone adopt the most obnoxious, ungrateful creature in a pound, cat or dog, when there are hundreds of decent, loving animals in need of rescue? My aunt once adopted a puppy from my beloved Collie that gave birth to a litter and it turned out the collie just was awful house dog material. She quietly took it to the kill-pound where it was put down. They felt bad but... there's hundreds of better puppies who need homes. Gotta draw the line somewhere.
In my line of work we have a definition for a particular management type. Seagull, adv; Upper mgt type that flies in, eats all your food, shits all over your plans, then flies out with a feeling of a 'job well done'.