Han Solo is a charming scoundrel who loves money and saving his own neck. He kills bounty hunters with guns trained on him and isn’t afraid to argue with feisty princesses. But somewhere along the line, an underlying loyalty didn’t allow him to abandon his new-found friends to the Death Star and eventually he fell in love with Leia.
Han is a great example of many effective ways to act around women. Through video and transcript we’ll analyze his moves and, more importantly, his underlying attitudes. I’ll add my commentary and also point out how the timid “beta” pleaser would act instead and ruin things.
This post is for any boys and young men, perhaps working or in college, who have seen this phenomenon.
A common trope among feminists and traditional conservatives is to blame young men for not “clearly seeing what’s all around them” and adjusting accordingly. This is particularly the case when boys and young men begin to see how girls respond to them, and to other men. It usually goes something like this.
1. Moms, dads, teachers, pastors, Sunday School teachers, and other authority figures in a boy’s life carefully and methodically teach him to be “Nice”. Deferential, obsequious, fawning, pedestalizing, supplicating.
Over the past few months we’ve been discussing, in fits and starts, little by little, issues pertaining to Sexual Politics as they manifest and play themselves out in contemporary Black America, primarily through the eyes and perspective of “Tyrone”, the smart, solid, level-headed Blue Collar Brotha who’s made a decent life for himself, and who tends to be either a lesser-romantic option for better-heeled ladies, or an Invisible Man to them altogether. He is based on the little more than a page (out of more than 260 overall) written about him in actor-turned-Black-relationship-guru Hill Harper’s NYT and Essence bestselling book, “The Conversation”. I’ve decided to write using this literary device for a whole host of reasons, at least a few of which I intend to share with you all today.
So, let’s get right to it.
Since Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s (in)famous 1965 report/study “The Negro Family”, there have been literally scores of books written about Black mating patterns, practices and the like; for example, I have sitting in front of me tomes written by such well-heeled researchers as Stephanie Coontz, Charles Murray and Edin & Kafelas, just to name a paltry few, and they all seem to have a bent to them that goes something like this: the studies always seem to focus on the ladies’ side of things, and when the guys are discussed, they are usually ne’er do well types.
First, the standard disclaimer applies, NAMALT and NAWALT.
One of the interesting things about the Red Pill/Game/Intergender Dynamics is you start to realize there are broader applications than just the world of dating, mating, and sex. The concepts are also applicable to the work world, and could have a substantial impact on your work, how you are evaluated, and your career progression. Let’s say a corporate middle manager is your direct supervisor. Whether that middle manager is male or female matters greatly to your work demeanor, and how and where you direct your energy.
I personally would try to avoid having a female boss if at all possible UNLESS I have a existing warm personal relationship with her.
Here, I review many of the salient presentations from an annual conference on Evolutionary Psychology hosted a few years back. A report on many of the presentations is brought to us by none other than Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society. Social constructionists and cultu who like to label Evo-Psych as ‘pseudo-science’ should take note that Shermer speaks quite favorably of Evo-Psych (throughout this post, emphasis is my own):
I should note at the top that on this, the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species, it is embarrassing that it is only now that the application of Darwinian principles are fully coming online in mainstream psychological research laboratories.
This is a fascinating tale of Bolsheviks waging a war on the traditional patriarchal family and, in the process, unleashing hypergamy, top-male polygyny, rampant divorce, wide-spread abortion and millions of broken hearts. I love sharing such things since so many blue-pill pushers deny that human nature is capable of such things, (to channel Bill Burr) as if we were talking about Bigfoot, like we’re saying the Moon is made of cheese or something.
The Elites Set the Tone
I’ve often argued that it’s the elites who have the most influence on the direction a society takes. Usually the very top elites are male but sometimes they’re female and often the female elites serve the purposes of the male elites, putting the apex alpha males at the very top of society most of the time. Generalizing the realpolitik Golden Rule–whoever has the gold makes the rules–we have: whoever has the power makes the rules. Most of the power lies with the elites, though some of it lies with the masses.
In the case of the early Soviet Union, and in line with Marxist ideology, the traditional family was seen as a pillar of the enemy and had to be destroyed. The Bolshevik leadership set about the rather ironic implementation of a “free market wild west” for love, removing the old regulations that governed the sexual and marriage market places.
Please allow me to introduce myself. I’m known as Obsidian, and we share a number of things in common; we’re both Philadelphians and we’re both advocates for causes that we’re passionate about. Just as you’re an activist for Women’s causes, I guess you could say that I’m reppin’ for the Fellas out there, too. I’m a blogger and one of the founding fathers of a blog collective known as Just Four Guys (also known as “JFG” or “J4G”), which was founded last year. We write about various Men’s issues aimed at raising awareness among the general public about them. In fact, it was through one of our regular readers – a gent from the United Kingdom, no less – who brought your recent remarks about how “Men are failing us” a little over a week ago and that appeared in a local news article posted online to my attention. Through that, I was able to get the full skinny on your activities, which included a recent rally in response to a spate of “handbag shootings” that have occurred here in Philly.
I found your remarks in the aforementioned interesting, to say the least, because they track so very well with some of the very things I’ve said in as many months; you see, it has long been my contention, that human activity – in this case crime – is the result of other human activities – in this case mating, or more precisely, who mates with who – and that if we’re really serious about getting to the bottom of these problems, we need to forthrightly address these things. Your comments, which were quite pointed in the article, goes right to the heart of the matter.
Some or maybe all of you have noticed the intelligence push on other parts of the net, and I couldn’t help but weigh in.
One thing that fascinates me is how “intelligence” is automatically assumed to be equivalent to “interesting”… and that couldn’t be farther from the truth.
I think it’s important to note that “intelligent” and “interesting” are not only two completely different things, but have zero correlation in my experience. I can think of countless people who weren’t too bright but interesting as hell and fun to hang around, and plenty of incredibly intelligent people who were painfully boring.
There are those making the rounds in and around the Manosphere, telling men they should not learn Game . The argument goes something like this:
“Game is immoral because players and cads use it to sleep with sluts and low value women. Game is immoral and poison. The “good stuff” can’t be extracted from the “bad stuff”. The only way men should learn masculinity is from their fathers, or from a strong patriarchy. If you didn’t learn it from your fathers, or from good men, well, sorry. Sucks to be you. We don’t have anything else or better for you. Just don’t go near Game.”
The implication of the argument is that women and marriage are only for naturals, i.e., for men who learned “the right stuff” about women either on their own or through sound instruction from other men.
Just in time for Valentine’s Day, yours truly just so happens to run across yet another “myth busting” diatribe that supposedly “debunks” a supposedly common Manospherian trope – the idea that Women, taken together as a group, have “all” the cards when it comes to the mating dance. As I’ve previously shown in my post about the false dichotomy between Inner and Outer Game, such “myth busting” notions actually gives us Manospherians a golden opportunity to set the record straight, put the facts out there, and create the maximum amount of agita in the hearts of the haters, of which there have cropped up quite a few in our time. We here at J4G thank the haters in the Femosphere and elsewhere throughout the Cathedral, for giving the Manosphere so much of its time and energy – you flatter us! – and consider all your attention proof if there ever was any, that the ‘sphere has you all running scared – and scared you should be. Very, very scared.
In today’s post, we examine the question: do Women, have an “unfair” dating advantage – or, do the sexes – Men and Women both – have “equal” amounts of dating “power”, as the Egalitarians would have us believe?
Many pixels have once again been spilled and generated in discussing the great “Whither Game?” question. We’ve been through this with the MHRA wing. The Christomanosphere is also questioning Game, its foundations and its efficacy.
I don’t know whether a split in the Christomanosphere, reactosphere and PUAsphere is coming or not. Those questions don’t concern me as much as what can be done now to help men coming up and into one of the worst sexual and marriage marketplaces in recorded history. Indeed, this entire society is outright hostile to men’s interests.
The study described the eerie similarity between cad-centric societies and our present society. Given this similarity, a natural question is whether today’s cads are indeed being selected for. It is entirely possible that the natural connection of sex with birth has been torn apart by the availability of contraceptives and abortion.
The woman from the article, The Day I Stopped Falling for Jerks, seemed like she’d been taken from Sphere Central Casting. Was I dreaming? It seemed to “good” to be true. Hypergamous? Check. Fucking bad boys? Check. Changing lanes after one too many pump and dumps? Check. Not appreciating her loyal, current boyfriend? Check. Alpha widow? Probably.
“Genius is knowing what’s important.” -Albert Einstein
Last Friday after a rather lengthy hiatus (and due to popular demand, I might add), I resumed my Rambunctious Truth-Teller in Residence post at the popular Afrosphere hangout, Very Smart Brothas; the discussion centered around Damon “The Champ” Young’s impending nuptials, which gave my leave to pose a series of questions obtaining on “Black relationship” concerns, in this case Marriage. The responses, as one might expect, were quite interesting, to say the least.
Unfortunately, however, yet hardly surprising, the responses in the main, just goes to show that too much of an ostensibly “good thing”, in this case “education”, can actually prove to be quite a bad thing, if one isn’t very, very careful. I say this because last Friday’s responses to my series of questions could not be a better case study in just How Obtuse Can Black Folk Who Read Good can actually be. Because my time was limited, and because it was clear that my interlocutors either didn’t get what I was getting at, or was willfully trying to sidestep it, I thought to use my post today to clarify matters. To that end then, I have taken the liberty of reposting both my initial comments to VSB, as well as selected comments by certain of its forum participants, so as to spare the J4G audience the pain of having to wade in the morass that is the Disqus commenting system – an entity that I hate with the passion of a thousand Suns(!).
We give a lot of advice to men at this site. Sometimes, like Obsidian, we help women to not suck in the sack. But before you get to the bedroom advice, you ladies first have to find a man to call all your own. So this is for you ladies, to keep you from singing the “Where Have All The Good Men Gone” blues.
1. YOU DON’T LOOK YOUR BEST. This is the number one reason women fail with men. This is the main reason you are not getting interest from men and you’re not being approached. You need to put some effort into your physical appearance. But don’t despair. The bar is quite low. You don’t have to be a supermodel; it’s a falsehood that all men need Kate Upton. It all breaks down to: