One of the arguments that masculinity naysayers like to advance appeared on the Purple Pill subreddit Han Solo linked to in the “Do Not Adjust Your Set” thread. This is the “treat women as people” sexual strategy.
The claim is that an unapologetically masculine man will fail with a woman unless he deals with her at all times as a unique individual. They also claim that men rely too heavily on trumped up tropes and misinformation, and view dating as mortal combat instead of as a mutually satisfying experience.
The argument, as best as I can tell from the subreddit and from other observation, seems to go something like this:
“The problem is that men and women aren’t dealing with each other as individuals. You’re not getting to know or having a relationship with “women”, you’re getting to know or having a relationship with A PARTICULAR woman. Everyone’s different. Just because most men and women are [insert characteristic of choice here], you can’t say all men or all women are like that. At the end of the day, men and women are ultimately looking for the same thing – a mutually beneficial long term relationship. If men would just approach women in that fashion they’d have much better results. Everyone is relying far too much on generalizations about the opposite sex, and getting burned and frustrated as a result.”
At first glance, this sounds simple, easy, and eminently reasonable. If we can all just treat one another as human beings with individual wants and desires, we will all get the intimate relationships we all want. Although this is pretty basic stuff, let’s unpack and debunk this.
1. “Just Treat Women As People” encourages ignoring and discounting generally known principles of male and female nature.
Generalizations are useful precisely because they are generally true, by study and observation. When dealing with any woman, it’s foolishness to ignore what is generally known about women as a sex. Sure, Not All Women Are Like That, but Enough Women ARE in fact Like That, so a man must be on the lookout for whatever “that” is. A man must know and understand how women are generally, so that he can successfully relate to the particular woman he’s approaching, dating, having sex with, or married to. A man must not allow the exceptions and outliers to shape his strategies. Sure, it’s possible his woman might be a special snowflake. But it’s more likely that she isn’t, and the generalization holds true. A man must start with broadly understood, generally known principles of how women as a sex operate; and after that, drop it down to specifics with a particular woman.
2. “Just Treat Women As People” completely misunderstands the notion of sexual strategies and goals.
“Treat women as people” rests in large part on a belief that men and women are at all times advancing toward the ultimate goal of a permanent long term relationship. This is only partially true. It is true that some people at some points in their lives want an LTR. But, that is most assuredly not always true. Nearly everyone spends some phases of their lives specifically avoiding long term relationships.
a. It assumes all men and women are at all times rational actors, fully cognizant of their sexual/mating strategies, and up front and above board in stating their intentions and desires. One cannot assume all men and women are all following the same strategy and working toward the same goal at all times. Some men and women claim they’re following one strategy when by their conduct they clearly are following another. And, in the realm of intersexual relationships, there are many variables and intangibles that don’t always “add up” and can make it or break it with a particular individual. How does this person make me feel? Does this just not “feel right”? Will this work out with my job, career, and other interests? Is this person right for me but there’s this one little factor that I just cannot get past? Is the timing right?
And most people will not verbalize what they are doing or why they are doing it, assuming they are consciously aware of it. Much is unstated, presumed, and left for deduction in intersexual relationships. Both women and men, but especially men, are often penalized and demonized for being completely transparent in clearly stating their intentions and desires.
Decisions about interpersonal relationships are usually not fully rational, they don’t always “make sense”. Not everyone is purposeful or intentional about pursuing a given strategy. Many aren’t even conscious of what they’re doing; their strategies can be discerned only through observation. And even if they do know what they’re doing they can’t always articulate it or lay it out verbally for someone else.
b. It ignores differences between long term and short term strategies.
Some men are players and are not interested at all in long term relationships. Some men will look for wives in the future, but for now are content to “play the field” and won’t commit due to high standards. Some men are looking for wives now.
It’s well understood in the current North American SMP that most women (whether religious or not, whether they know it or not) are using the “lane-changing” strategy of leveraging their peak attractiveness and youth into serial sexual relationships with very attractive men in the hopes of extracting commitment from one of them; and after that almost invariably fails, obtaining commitment from a less attractive man. Some don’t want civil legal marriage; opting instead for long term relationships.
There’s a difference between long term and short term strategies, and not everyone is at all times looking toward a long range goal or an “endgame”.
c. It assumes sexual strategies and goals never change.
Proponents of “Just Treat Women as People” fall into the trap of assuming everyone’s goals remain constant and that they never change. Closely related to this is a faulty presumption that everyone is looking for the same thing at the same time, even if they don’t know it or won’t say so. These presumptions are demonstrably and observably false
The most common example of this is the “lane changing” phenomenon alluded to above. The opening gambit is a short term sexual strategy designed for rapid results and a longshot at commitment from a high value man. When it ultimately fails after an indefinite number of attempts, the tactic shifts to the long range goal of marriage to a “sure thing” beta. The strategy shift usually has nothing to do with the individual man, but on a number of other factors: (1) her perception of her interests, (2) her age, (3) her ability (or inability) to continue attracting high status men; and (4) the totality of all other surrounding circumstances.
Men at various times change strategies in order to serve their own interests as well. There’s no question that men change from short term to long term and back again based on surrounding circumstances. Many men aren’t preparing for marriage for many reasons, ranging from (1) the poor economy and inability to support a family; to (2) the inability to generate interest from sufficiently attractive women; to (3) the ability to obtain short term sexual relationships with a variety of women. But a strong influence in causing a man to shift from short term to long term is the quality and character of the particular woman he’s dealing with. Many men will consider an “endgame” with a woman who meets his standards for quality and character.
So for these reasons, the implicit claim that a person’s strategy is at all times to secure commitment from a potential spouse is simply untrue.
The “Just Treat Women as People” sexual strategy doesn’t work, because it doesn’t take into account the general principles of male and female nature that men know and need to know. It’s unworkable because it presumes across the board uniformity of tactics and interests without regard to sex. It is doomed to failure because it assumes that everyone will deal with each other in good faith and with clear verbal articulation of their interests, when they will not, and in many instances cannot, do so. Men must trust their general knowledge and never presume any constants in sexual relationships or attraction.
Word bond
1st you treat a woman like she is a child
Then you treat her like a child and/ or a sex object
Then you treat her like a child/ sex object/ pet.
“Just Treat Women as People” advice is little more than a derivative of “just be yourself” and “just be nice.”
A good way to deal with co-workers and nothing more.
What on earth are people, men? Treat women like men?
Gotcha, the next people that gets sassy is going to get punched in the face, that should do it. Always keen to do my bit for progressive liberal community service, that’s the kind of guy I am, nothing but helpful.
Phooey…..
Said it before; I had no idea. I had no idea it was working for me. Took me decades to figure it out.
Only thing I can figure is that treating women as people in non-dating situations (work, etc.) and not as potential punching bags communicates the height of non-neediness which I am told is really hot.
Anyway, worked for me, or would have if I’d had the wit to see it.
Treating a woman as an individual does not mean ignoring…who she is. It does not mean pretending certain things are not generally true. It does mean trying to see if they’re true for her and if so how strongly. Treating my wife as if she’s that Pandagon honey would be irrational.
Treating an intelligent, pro-active, energetic woman as if she’s a wilting lily, or vice versa, would be stupid, and the same goes for presuming she’s anything at all until you find out for yourself.
As I say, it worked for me.
YMMV, and welcome to it.
@Deti:
BOOM!–and tagging this…and you’ve done it again…
O.
The moment you treat women as “people”, aka, as you treat invisible men, they will get offended.
* * *
Women dont want to be treated as men, so who is people?
Somehow this branch of people deserves to be looked into its uniqueness, be appreciated and celebrated by its tiny differences, be given a judgement-free pass for its mistakes and flaws, be catered to its subtle and non subtle desires, spoken and hidden wants – this branch of people deserves automatic respect, deserves not to be objectified or cataloged or put on evidence or made feel in any way inadequate, but they keeps the right to objectify, catalog, judge and make others feel inadequate.
Because they are people, just a lot more special.
* * *
Women dont treat men as individuals, and in a broader sense, nobody treats anyone as individuals but as a mix of roles, hierarchies and broad strokes impressions that are more or less accurate, but somehow women deserve this “people” special treatment.
* * *
Just make every woman feel she’s the most unique piece of art of the universe.
Well you can. When you are the top man and you give her your attention. But it’s the “who” and not the what. And they will be all happy that you ask their name and stuff, because they are objectifying you and seeing you not as people but as an object of value, which increases their own value during the interaction.
Boom. The “monkey-sphere” is only so large: we can only treat so many people as unique individuals with fully-developed personalities. For the most part people’s identities are “the guy who brings the bagels,” “the woman at the cash register,” and “the man who takes away the garbage.”
And yes, you can converse and learn things about them, but that’s going to be a superficial knowledge. Ask yourself whether you know your local meat-cutter as well as you know your husband.
Chances are, you don’t, you just know a few things about his kids.
Skillfully used, you might make him feel good and get a discount, but that’s still not the same as knowing a person, as a person. That’s the skill of making people feel good about themselves.
Seducing a woman is not the same as making a woman feel good about herself. As any guy who has ever spoken to a woman can attest to.
[…] The moment you treat women as “people”, aka, as you treat invisible men, they will get offended. […]
#7 the heart of the matter: women want to be treated like women treat apex men. Newsflash: so do all non-apex aka invisible men. But men don’t treat apex men like women treat apex men, so it is both disingenenuous and deceptive for women to claim to want to be treated like people.
1. The majority of this deception comes from women wanting to believe their lack of libido is a virtue. Women pretend that the fact that they find most men undesirable, making those men “people” instead of “men”, is somehow better for those undesired men. “Don’t be like HIM”, women always say, ALWAYS referring to a real man aka visible man aka desired man. Women don’t want to feel desire for undesired men, and fervently wish those men would stay invisible.
2. Women don’t want undesired men to desire females. Women want to pretend that wishing undesired men were eunuchs somehow makes women morally superior.
It’s all a scam, but woem want desired men to see through their bluff.
“Just treat women as (more equal than other) people (aka men)”
deti, I’d like to focus on your implictit notion that LTR are LJBF i.e. asexual. Why do women want to pretend to belive that asexual is better?
“The moment you treat women as ‘people’, aka, as you treat invisible men, they will get offended.”
True, but so what?
Treat them like sexless people they get offended, treat them like women they get offended. A no win situation. I am sure it’s beyond my capacity to care one way or another how they feel. Civil, polite, and utterly indifferent is the best, and easiest course.
When the lust strikes another approach is clearly necessary, but that’s a different situation.
This is just another sex difference that plays itself out in this particular discussion I think.
Women tend to prefer, quite strongly, the concrete and particular to the abstract and general. I suspect (guessing) that this is a beneficial adaptation, because it assists when dealing with raising children (where having a more “hard” and “abstract” ruleset, in many cases, is not appropriate — although “Dad” is usually available as a kind of court of last resort to enforce things if Mom’s more “particular”, “tailored” and “flexible” approach doesn’t work).
Feminist Carol Gilligan mentioned this (not based on child rearing, of course, but more generally) in her book “In a Different Voice”, where she explained that women tend to prefer the specific details of individual situations when assessing what rules should be enforced on a given situation, whereas men tend to prefer rules that work in the abstract and are enforced regardless of the particulars. Men see the latter as fair and objective, whereas many women tend to see it as blunt, unsubtle, ham-fisted and often cruel, preferring to assess things in the very specific context in which they arose.
So the idea that “everyone is a special case and needs to be addressed in her own way” is a quintessentially female view of the world, whereas the idea that “general rules apply regardless of individual differences and quirkiness” is a typically male point of view, in assessing behaviors. It’s almost always going to be a conflict. The best way for men to proceed is to keep their thoughts to themselves (this is good advice in general in a world that is wildly hostile to any thoughts that are not approved by the kosher thoughts police) and proceed on the basis of their useful generalizations, rather than trying to adapt to the “every case is inherently unique and requires a unique approach” life view of women, because the latter, while it can be learned as a mode of interaction, is nevertheless alien to men, and feminizing.
Novaseeker..”Women tend to prefer, quite strongly, the concrete and particular to the abstract and general”…this is often asserted (among others, by C S Lewis, IIRC) and may be true, but consider: how does this fit in with the “zero tolerance” policies in the public schools, which are a pretty strong example of letting the “abstract and general” dominate the “concrete and particular”??…surely, given the gender mix in American education, a high % of these policies were put in place by women and are enforced by women.
David Foster,
Hypocrisy, a woman believes the general and abstract applies to everyone else, but not to her specifically. Thus policy, social norms, morality, and ethics are merely agreed upon lies to which the herd pays lip service whilst doing whatever the hell she/they feel like doing.
This is what results from a emotion driven worldview. It’s not about reality, but how one feels about reality.
Foster, Novaseeker
Women prefer quite strongly the abstract and general rules to be applied to themselves and everyone else, when convenient.
Examples:
A) Everyone else is getting free bread, so give me and my friends free bread. Gimme the same rights as everyone else.
B) We belong to good tribe X, they belong to bad tribe Y, we all rock, they all suck.
Women also also prefer quite strongly the concrete and particular to be applied to themselves and everyone else, when convenient.
Examples:
A) People who do Y are bad but when I do Y Im still good, because you have to consider my very personal excuses. This also applies to people I care about.
B) People who do X are good, unless I dont like them, in which case you have to consider all the tiny aspects that make them suck and then realize they are also bad, regardless of their actions. Or, maybe she is doing an ok job, but I hate her so I want you to fire her.
* * *
In other words, women prefer quite strongly whatever is convenient.
the “zero tolerance” policies in the public schools
Those are just a club used to beat people that they don’t like, like boys who use their fingers as pretend guns. Zero tolerance takes the matter out of their individual hands such that they can do their imitation of Pilate.
It seems we all agree that women want to be treated like men, except when they want to be treated different from men. In general, one way to be sure that women want you to treat women like women is for you to follow the Brady Rulez
1. Be handsome 2. Be attractive 3. Don’t be unattractive.
Otherwise, if you’re ugly, treat women like men. Simple, right?
Treat women as people is good to the extent that it deflates pedestalization. Its how a natural will perceive what he’s already doing.
It’s incomplete and often counterproductive for two reasons.
If you’ve got issues dealing with people in general, it won’t help you much and for betas whose most prominent interpersonal issue is people-pleasing/validation-seeking, it can actually make things worse.
It also reinforces the mirroring (aka, the golden rule) strategy that people who haven’t spent much time developing social skills rely on. While mirroring is a least bad basic strategy for dealing with people in general, it is disastrous for seeking a mate. So you have women trying to act like the cocky-funny, dominant men they find attractive, and men playing the submissive, supportive role they’re seeking, both unwittingly turning off potential mates.
Hmmmm….
Maybe we have a simple misunderstanding of the Golden Rule.
I try to treat people how I want to be treated. Women have treat me like crap generally. Women tend to respond positively to men that treat them like crap, at least as I understand it from my old bluepill beta perspective. SO maybe the way women treat me and men in general is how they actually wish to be treated. As well if they treat you as though your invisible, you should reciprocate.
“surely, given the gender mix in American education, a high % of these policies were put in place by women and are enforced by women.”
The higher you go into the administration ranks, where the zero-tolerance policies are instituted, the higher the concentration of white-knights. They’re the ones hiring all the women, and they’re the ones who love zero-tolerance. Zero tolerance is white-knight-flavored dominance and the women eat it up coming from these men. Needless to say, the women then apply it in the usual arbitrary manner.
#20 Do you think women actually believe they are trying to be funny, much less *attractively* funny, when they are being cocky and dominant? I’ve correctly assumed otherwise: that those women are actively trying to turn off the men that they are being so bitchy towards.
In contrast, we men were told, instructed, drilled into us, that women ought to prefer nice guys who bring them flowers and complete their honey-do lists. We were literally doing it because that’s what women said they wanted, and no other reason.
“Maybe we have a simple misunderstanding of the Golden Rule.”
Nope. The Golden Rule is not Tit-for-tat (eye for an eye), it sought to replace it (true religion transcends – i.e. incorporates and then rises above where practical – more than conquerors, it doesn’t merely replace).
The Golden Rule says if you want a submissive wife, be submissive, or if you want a dominant husband, be dominant. It’s ultimately solipsistic and thus a poor guide for social behavior.
“In contrast, we men were told, instructed, drilled into us, that women ought to prefer nice guys who bring them flowers and complete their honey-do lists. We were literally doing it because that’s what women said they wanted, and no other reason.”
You were told all kinds of bullshit. You believed that one since it relieved you of the burden of gaining any first-hand experience with women yourself. Hey, more time for Call of Duty.
this is often asserted (among others, by C S Lewis, IIRC) and may be true, but consider: how does this fit in with the “zero tolerance” poclicies in the public schools, which are a pretty strong example of letting the “abstract and general” dominate the “concrete and particular”??…surely, given the gender mix in American education, a high % of these policies were put in place by women and are enforced by women.
As others have already stated, it applies to them, not to us. They are happy to have rules apply to most of us in a relatively rigid way. The exception, of course, is the very attractive man — he shouldn’t have the rules applied to him rigidly, because he that would be a waste of an attractive man. It isn’t necessarily hypocrisy, however — they simply view us differently, and have a very pronounced “in group” preference for women, so apply the same rules to them that they would apply to their children, while “stranger” men are subject to the abstract rules created by men.
Women are happy enough with this. I encountered more than a few very, very smart women in law school who advocated the point of view that men should be subject to abstract rules, since we like them, and women should be subject to situational rules, since they like them. The justification is based on the validity of the subjective perspective, and its priority.
Desiderius says:
“You believed that one since it relieved you of the burden of gaining any first-hand experience with women yourself.”
Not quite, we assumed women weren’t all frauds, and liars. Granted, that was a mistake. Of course any number men backed up the lies along the way. And since many of us were taught from a young age that the parents were always right, we believed those lies because they were first told at home.
“Just Treat Women As Mammals” makes as much sense as a mating strategy.
The feminist hyperinsistence on fluidity of sexuality has become ossified, especially about the validation of any kind of sex provided only a woman promotes it, which includes no-sex as sex when women choose no-sex for a man: He doesn’t deserve sex, because women decided he doesn’t, so he must be sentenced to treating women as mammals.
Apparently we’re all in agreement that “What’s Missing” is sex. As planned.
Got into some drama this weekend by treating a woman like she’s just people. A married lady friend has been bending my ear about making contact again with my old dance teacher. The dance teacher has been asking her other students about me, so she’s interested in me on some level. She wants to know where I’m dancing and whether I’ve gotten a new dance teacher. So, do I treat her like people? Like a guy? Like a man who’s a dance teacher?
Anyway, I went to one of her dance parties at a studio where she teaches this past weekend. (I left a country bar where I was having a great time chatting up some pretty 20-something schoolteachers and dancing with some lovely college-age gals.) At the dance party I danced with a bunch of people, but her other students (all dorky guys) ignored me except for one guy who’s pretty cool. Even the studio owners ignored me until a few minutes before I left, when they came over to say hello. (There’s some past history I’m not going into.) Anyway, I tried to make eye connection once early on with the dance teacher with no success. I ignored her after that and kept dancing, but I sat every now and then; the dance teacher could have approached me if she had wanted. It was her party and she was the hostess. The first approach was up to her. If I had approached, it would have broken my frame.
After an hour, I took off. So, the dance teacher totally snubbed me. (Machts nichts to me.) Would a guy have done that? No. She is a drama queen. So what sense does it make to treat the dance teacher like people? (This wasn’t a highly-sexualized club setting where women don’t expect to be treated as people.)
Was the dance teacher worried that I have some sort of romantic interest in her? There are pretty, scantily-clad 20-somethings practically throwing themselves at me when I dance at my country bar. Why would I be remotely interested in some older gal’s dry, amorphous opening??? Yet, obviously, the dance teacher doesn’t want to be treated like just “people.” And she isn’t just interested in regaining my business!!! She probably wants pedestalization and supplication and affirmation of her attractiveness like she gets from other guys. Of course, this means that she doesn’t want to be treated as people. (And why would I be interested in all that drama?)
I encountered more than a few very, very smart women in law school who advocated the point of view that men should be subject to abstract rules, since we like them, and women should be subject to situational rules, since they like them
If I get a sex change operation, can I pay subjective taxes?
So I guess the converse is that any time women have trouble in dating, it’s only because “they aren’t treating men like people.”
Of course, that would be met with the response that it’s men’s collective fault for not “manning up.”
(And why would I be interested in all that drama?)
Men mostly are not interested in drama. Women seem to not understand this. Why is this?
@jf12 28
“The feminist hyperinsistence on _fluidity_ of sexuality”
“A Beautiful Mind” “I mean essentially we are talking about _fluid_ exchange right?”
@jf12 29
“Apparently we’re all in agreement that “What’s Missing” is sex.”
Only in established LTR’s.
I’m not saying this is the only reason for “zero tolerance,” but it is a reason, and perhaps the most important reason. Or, really, two related reasons.
The school shootings of the 1990s were hyped by the media as some unique trend that showed that everything was going horribly wrong with the America. Statistical rarity aside, and event like Columbine was endlessly chewed over for days, weeks and months after the fact. The cry to “do something” was intensely loud in politics, among intellectuals, and in the culture generally.
Since nobody knew quite what to do, because all the “lessons” people had thought they had learned about Columbine were wrong (see the excellent Dave Cullen book), they came with blunt instruments such as “zero tolerance.” Actually, “zero tolerance” predates Columbine (which was of course not the first headline-grabbing school shooting) but it got a major boost thereafter. (My recollection is that the hysteria began over the Pearl, MS and Paducah. KY shootings, but then reached a frenzy after Columbine).
So, sort of like the TSA, “zero tolerance” owes its existence to the impulse to “do something,” anything, just so pols can show that they have done something. Whether it hurts or helps or does nothing is not really the point.
Second, what people in any position of authority fear above all is being second guessed after the fact. So, they rather like blanket policies that take away their discretion. No need to fear in that case. Follow the irons rules and no one can ever question your judgment, because you haven’t exercised any, nor have you had any opportunity to. You are relieved of all responsibility and of any potential criticism later.
@FB 33
“Men mostly are not interested in drama. Women seem to not understand this. Why is this?”
Cuz most women don’t care what men want. They are too full of themselves. “You go grrrrl!”
more time for Call of Duty
Man up and marry those sluts?
“The feminist hyperinsistence on _fluidity_ of sexuality”
What they really mean is that it is fungible. It is the yeast you should know.
Call of Duty is child’s play, which is why it’s fun. On the other hand, I got Brave New World Civ5 expansion for Christmas and I’m on turn #412 in my second game on Standard speed. First game I won a relatively easy cultural victory on Prince level, but I’m being forced to grind out a military game on Emperor level. Turn #411 took a week, restarting a lot, before I was happy. Although my citizens are permanently unhappy, not least because I have over a dozen puppet cities. Grownup games are a lot like work.
@Novaseeker 14
“The best way for men to proceed is to keep their thoughts to themselves (this is good advice in general in a world that is wildly hostile to any thoughts that are not approved by the kosher thoughts police) and proceed on the basis of their useful generalizations, rather than trying to adapt to the “every case is inherently unique and requires a unique approach” life view of women….”
Brilliant and very helpful!
“Brave New World Civ5″
As with any version of Civ5, steal an early worker or two from a city state and you’re good.
Then again, the point was that the greater challenge involves turning off the games and getting out there and taking your lumps.
There are some good women just as confused as the men are by the parade of bullshit coming from the culture. Help them make sense of it and you’re good.
My wife is glad I did.
Sure, I’ll take the time to understand a woman without the “…trumped up tropes…”. That is if she isn’t operating by them. So she needs to approach me, convince me she is worth spending time with her, ask me out, and take me out to a nice restaurant, with great steaks.
Color me as not holding my breath.
“It’s well understood in the current North American SMP that most women (whether religious or not, whether they know it or not) are using the “lane-changing” strategy of leveraging their peak attractiveness and youth into serial sexual relationships with very attractive men in the hopes of extracting commitment from one of them; and after that almost invariably fails, obtaining commitment from a less attractive man. Some don’t want civil legal marriage; opting instead for long term relationships.”
There’s also the “slumming with the herb” strategy that leads to the mid-30’s frivorces if it involves early marriage.
Women, especially the ones who would make the best wives, get addicted to the non-stop validation provided by their doting fathers and feminist teachers, so they seek a mate they can easily dominate who is guaranteed to keep the validation hits coming. The herb is an “easy” man who gives away commitment and validation too easily, akin to the “easy” woman who gives away sex.
Just like the men who do man up and marry those sluts, the women who slum with the herb believe that what they have going in is the sort of love/attraction it takes to sustain a healthy marriage, but they’ve fallen for the same BS that blue pill men have, and so the marriages falter.
Re: herbs. Yes, the analogs of sluts are not PUAs but instead beta herbs. The genders are not symmetric but symplectic: partially antisymmetric upon flipping.
Sexually-easy women are rare enough for most men, but commitment-easy betas are too common for most women.
Grownup games are a lot like work.
Civ V? Civ is child’s play. Try EVE. Now *that* is a second job. I still manage it on a part-time basis (unlike, say, 2006 when it was really like a second job due to sill commitments I made in the EVE world), but it isn’t like COD or even Civ. Civ is what I play (in the little time I do play, because I don’t actually have much time per week for any games, given other stuff I am doing) when I want to relax.
@ Desiderius
Exactly. The Golden Rule is fatally flawed. Just ask a masochist.
“If I had approached, it would have broken my frame.”
Likewise with her. She’s trying to attract a dominant man by being dominant. That’s why she’s still single. Can’t tell you how many times I experienced the exact same thing over the years.
She makes the excuse to herself that the man should make the first move. But that’s never really the case – the first move is the clear IOI. A very dominant man could conceivably plow through without that, but he’d better be flawless, as she’ll have too much hand.
A savvy woman will set up a situation where its appropriate for her to make an approach as well, signalling her willingness to give up hand. Given that she did that here, your dance teacher is getting closer to being non-single, but she may have lost her nerve at the last second.
There are some good women just as confused as the men are by the parade of bullshit coming from the culture. Help them make sense of it and you’re good.
A high-risk high-reward strategy.
“Sexually-easy women are rare enough for most men, but commitment-easy betas are too common for most women.”
If sex is all you want, its akin to stealing a worker. A couple small moves can make a huge difference. If grandkids is what you want, these days its akin to hardcore Diablo.
@ Escoffier
I’ve been skeptical of the hype about increases in mass violence, but I read an article that demonstrated that mass killings have significantly increased in America since the 70s: http://socialevolutionforum.com/2012/12/15/canaries-in-a-coal-mine/
“A high-risk high-reward strategy.”
They’re confused because they spent all their time making bank instead of figuring out men. Compared to the herbs she’s known, you’re Casanova. a savvy investor knows how to minimize risk.
mass killings have significantly increased in America since the 70s
Surprisingly, so has the marginalization of young men.
But remember, correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
Except when it does.
Sailer did a similar post after Newtown and concluded the opposite. Or, at least, that there may have been a surge in the late 1990s, but there was a decline after that.
I am not really sure whether there is a trend or not. My point was more that the MediaIntellectualsCulture all hyped the notion that there was, would brook no dissent, and insisted that we “do something.” Even though no one knew what to do. So one of the things we “did” was “zero tolerance” everywhere. Inaction was just unthinkable because when the next shooting happens, then the principal who knew that Johnny once had made a gun gesture with his right hand, well, he should have seen it coming and hence the latest shooting is his fault. So all the people with middling authority like “zero tolerance” because it relieves them of having to exercise judgment and from later having to take any responsibility.
Desiderius 44, 48:
Great, great comments.
Nova 14:
Thread winner. Best advice I’ve seen on this issue. Keep your thoughts to yourself, and proceed with what you know generally.
For sure the “media attention per death” has increased. That probably has much to do with the perception.
Nova 14: Thread winner
Good stuff indeed. That is why “hard cases make bad law” when women get involved. Typically women find some really sympathetic case (e.g. battered African women needing asylum, poor baby mama working two jobs) and try to change the law to “fix” the problem.
One could view it as women exploiting men’s weakness.
@ 20 I agree re the golden rule fallacy. Recently a girl friend of mine has been trying to set me up with a friend of hers who is as she puts it “a really really sweet guy who deserves to be treated better than he has been.” He’s a single dad, 8 years older than me. She introduced us several weeks ago and we have been talking by phone and texting and have gone on two dates. Knowing what I am learning here, I saw right away he was coming at me with a big dose of beta-tude. As an experiment I have taken the role of even more beta (rather than mirroring to him alpha behavior as I may have done pre red pill) and keep nudging him into the lead. But in a lighthearted, indirect, fun way. Like when he kept asking where I wanted to go on our first date I put it back in his court by offering a few styles of cuisine I liked, then he narrowed that down (sushi) then he wanted me to pick the place, I responded by sending links to three places and asking him to pick. All night I kept consciously countering any beta moves by deferring rather than mirroring. (interestingly the guy at the table next to us, also on a date, seemed to pick up on it as well and he started giving me some strong IOI which I refused to acknowledge or return, then he even broke into our conversation trying to make a connection w me, at which point I pulled out the alpha girl pants and politely but firmly shut him down hard and turned full attention back to my date. Another guy three tables away w a male friend, was also sending strong IOI, he was behind my dates back I also non verbally shut that down and refused to even make eye contact after, again turning my full attention back to my date. I did find that interesting and wondered if they were picking up on my submissive behaviors too? I have never experienced such strong IOI from other men while obviously on a date, weird.) anyway, the very nice date ended with an awkward kiss on the cheek because his beta style move was so serendipitous I thought he was trying to hug me (ak, awkward, guys please be more obvious w the “first kiss coming your way” signals! If all is going well, no need to sneak up.) anyway, we continued to talk and chat after the date and I kept making my interest clear so he wouldn’t misread the bungled kiss as a rejection, which i could feel he did at the time. That week he got promoted to general manager at his work. So I started teasing him in a fun way about “ohh look at you, boss man” and such. When he tries to hand me the metaphorical reigns, I respond by non verbally handing them back and politely reinforcing with actions not words “thanks but I don’t want to drive, why don’t YOU drive?” At first he was clearly confused by me flipping it but after a few times he got it. Like it clicked… “Ooooh you WANT me to take the reigns? You are ok with that? Really???” Once he got that, he dropped the beta act right quick and is now running with it and seems to be relishing the new dynamic. For example flat out telling me that the next time he kissed me it wont be on the cheek so I better be ready” (and 2nd date sure enough he approached boldly, confidently, and early in the date. That’s more like it!) All of this I am reinforcing, happily. Who knows what will happen long term but thanks to understanding projection and consciously not doing that, it seems to be headed to a better place than had I done the golden rule approach. The first time I recognized several years back that even though I am a strong, successful, liberated woman what really gets me going is a dominant (but not jerky or controlling) guy it quite honestly confused the heck out of me. That wasn’t ok, was it? I was a “modern woman” for goodness sake! It took me a few years to understand submissive doesn’t equal victim, dominant doesn’t equal abuser. Or at least it shouldn’t. And based on the wildly successful with women “50 Shades of Grey” book (outsold Harry Potter and While I have yet to read it, I hear it isn’t even that well written!) goes to show maybe I am not the only one secretly feeling this way, even if it never involves actual black leather. So yes I am an individual, I can’t guarantee all women feel the same, but like it or not I am fitting into some of the generalizations more than I may even be willing to admit (except anonymously online!) So there you go! Go forth, kiss your maidens boldly, be the man you are, you may be surprised to find it works a lot better than pussyfooting around it. And do it bc you LOVE women, in all their irresistible and maddening femininity, not from a place of assuming they are heartless or evil which is a big turn off. (Think Casanova or Don Juan, they loved women and women loved them back in spades for it.) Mutual massages and foot rubs and such (along with more assertive moves, like tossing her on the bed and telling her to get naked, then showing her who’s boss thrown into the mix every now and then as things progress, followed up with a nice back rub and some flowers thanking her for being your gal) do not unhappy couples make. Just try not to go too far with it, being a 100% jerk instead of a 100% beta. There’s lots of shades of grey in between! Maybe aim for dark charcoal grey? (Sorry bad pun, couldn’t resist.)
@ Farm Boy
He argues the same thing:
http://socialevolutionforum.com/2012/12/20/canaries-in-a-coal-mine-iv-alternative-explanations/
Bloom, poor dude.
@ Bloom #58
That was an epic read.
Oops IOI not soi, still getting my terms down!
@ 60 curious why you say poor dude?
@Desiderius 48
The primary reason that I went to the dance teacher’s party was to find out her attitude towards me. I’m not interested in mating with her–just seeing if I wanted to take lessons from her again. How comfortable was she with me? I knew that there was interest from talking with her students, but her comfort was lacking. Taking dance lessons from a female instructor is a LTR–lots of drama and no sex (generally).
If she were single and I were interested in mating with her, then your analysis would hold.
“She makes the excuse to herself that the man should make the first move.”
Sometimes the guy really does make the first move–especially when the girl is shy or the guy is a natural. I made the first move without any IOI where my fling was concerned. With both my college gf and my future wife–they both gave IOI’s before I approached. My approaching my fling was high risk–maybe foolhardy–but it panned out. I had been friend-zoned, but not overtly. She never said LJBF–she just let it be known that she was engaged.
Off-topic: How I switched from being friend-zoned to being viewed as alpha is instructive. I started off with lots of comfort but no excitement (as far as I am aware). I approached her in a group of friends at a table and whispered (isolation and instigation for further isolation) that I had a question for her but I needed more privacy. Alpha status rising, but still plenty of comfort. We relocated to another spot in the restaurant. Her submissiveness here is important. Her comfort level increased as a result of her accession to my request. I showed discretion by isolating, which also increased her comfort level. Again, it shows alpha understanding. Alpha status rising. My fling anticipated drama. Tingles jingling. Alpha status rising.
I asked for somewhere even more private (big instigation to more isolation and drama). Lots of tingles. Alpha status achieved. My fling suggested her dorm room (confirmation of comfort and alpha status). I took her hand as we walked there (escalation and more indication of alpha status).
So, we see that it is quite possible to move out of the friendzone if you can navigate properly. If you have a beta mindset, you will probably have trouble navigating. Why would you actually want to navigate out of the friendzone? Oneitis is bad news. Well, my fling was a 9. Probably not worth it for 7-.
Bloom, all of it, poor dude, I specially felt bad for him when the other men where walking over him and hitting on you, also when he was all surprised that a woman was allowing him to “drive”.
Also did he fuck your brains out yet, or is he threatening you to “be prepared!” because next time he might kiss you for real, like, in the mouth?
So why are you going for him exactly? you like dominant men, you’re trying to pick one who’s totally out of it, and you try to make him into it, which he’s doing… still, this is what you communicate:
“be the man you are, you may be surprised to find it works a lot better than pussyfooting around it. And do it bc you LOVE women”
The only way your man is ever going to measure up is being a man because he loves to be a man and isnt going to take shit from anyone, not from you, and not from other men hitting on you, and for sure not going to take direction from you.
But you can domesticate him, and you like dominant men. Kind of like teaching a kitten to roar.
My experience tells me that the minute you have a problem and you get angry and confront him to demand crazy shit, as women usually do, he’s going to bend back to pussyfication, and it’s over.
@Bloom
“For example flat out telling me that the next time he kissed me it wont be on the cheek so I better be ready””
That is better, but still sooo beta. I’d just do it. I knew that when I was 14 years old. Same year I hit puberty, lol. Maybe he needs to get his T level tested.
“the guy at the table next to us…started giving me some strong soi”
Sure, submissive behavior in a woman is extremely attractive. The guys around you probably picked up on the severe beta-tude of your date. Hopefully you can train him–good luck! I’ll be following your annals (yes, that was spelled correctly!
).
“dont be a pussyman who puts women on a pedestal, grow up and do this and this, because you love women”
Can women ever get out their self centered universe, even when its for their own benefit?
#58 ” I did find that interesting and wondered if they were picking up on my submissive behaviors too?” Yes. It’s extremely rare to see submission these days, and much more attractant than pheromones.
Re: “(Think Casanova or Don Juan, they loved women and women loved them back in spades for it.) ” Vice versa. Men whom women like are happy about women.
“So all the people with middling authority like “zero tolerance” because it relieves them of having to exercise judgment and from later having to take any responsibility.”
Full maturity requires the willingness to make prudent judgements and to take responsibility for the consequences. This was the generation determined to die before they got old. Looks like they just might make it.
#58 ” Once he got that, he dropped the beta act right quick and is now running with it and seems to be relishing the new dynamic.” and that was after one date. One date, in which the woman EXTREMELY unexpectedly was submissive towards him. It goes to show just how far beat down men are these days – right where women want them. Women WANTED men to be this way, or else women would have been submissive all along.
One difficulty you will encounter, probably by the third date if not before, is other women noticing him enjoying you being submissive, and hence him enjoying preselection bias: you will have built him up in other women’s eyes. In fact, as soon as it happens then the genie is out of the bottle.
#65 “he’s going to bend back to pussyfication” not necessarily. He isn’t tied down to her, but she is publically submissive to him so he will be seeing the fruits of preselection working for him very soon if not already. Preselection works very very fast for turning a beta-acting man into an alpha-acting man.
jf12, she will make him revert to beta, because women are betamakers. The seed for beta is in her approach and I doubt she can get rid of it:
“do it because you love women” – she’s still the qualifier.
The same reason he can follow that is the reason he cannot do it on his own, he lacks backbone. A man has to do stuff for himself and because of himself, and then fight against the world and lose and finally conquer, and then repeat that until the process is so familiar there’s nothing else but confidence.
Preselection will only give him a taste of it. It will all disappear when the tune changes to:
“I dont care about what you want – do this because you love me”
Deti
This is the “treat women as people” sexual strategy.
Except that the term “people” is never defined. By leaving that critical term ambiguous, a big loophole is created big enough to drive a Prada delivery truck through.
Women are all about ambiguity and plausible deniability in their interpersonal strategies, because that plays to their strengths (verbal ability, for example).
Thus this is, as other men have noted, a feminizing approach. No wonder it is popular on that subreddit…
#73 “Preselection will only give him a taste of it.” but oh what a taste! It’s like magic, especially when a man has not experienced it before.
“women are betamakers” yes but the betamaking process is by her de-preselecting, i.e. by treating him publically with contempt. I managed to learn as much in the previous year: the REASON so many women treat their husbands with contempt is to ruin them for other women, because if she builds him up enough then he is much more likely to get another woman. Although an inveterate beta myself because of my expectations through experience, just a small taste of my pre-selection alpha has a number of previously unexposed women currently attracted to me.
The reason women treat their husbands with contempt is they feel contempt, and then because it works: pushing him down so he has to work up to qualify to her, and do whatever she wants him to do while he’s at it. Basic manipulation
Women will take a very charismatic and successful man and treat him with contempt as son as they think they have him snared. If the guy bounces the shit back they get offended + tingles, if he takes the shitty treatment he becomes the “yes dear” pet hubby, which elicits even more contempt
To say that they ruin the man in order to ruin him for other women, is like saying that men make their own wives fat in order to ruin her for other men. I guess there’s a % of that somewhere, but it sounds to me like an attempt to make the story sound quasi-noble, “I only ruin you because Im afraid” rationalization.
If that was the main force, the guy saying “I love you and only you” would be received with gratitude and relief, instead of being received with yet another dose of contempt, which is what these guys get.
Women will take a very charismatic and successful man and treat him with contempt as *soon as they think they have him snared.
@ yohami, thanks for the additional info. A lot to take in but I will ponder that.
I suppose I was trying out the theory that guys act beta because it’s what they want in women and vice versa. So I am testing that theory. Is the “nice guy” act just confusion? What would happen if he gets green light to not do the beta act? what will happen if i conciously do the opposite of mirror? i have no idea of the outcome. time will tell if it implodes by date 3 or 4. You guys can’t put this out there and expect women not to test drive the theories.
What I have been told works all my life doesn’t seem to, why not try something else?
Agreed it would be best had he already discovered all this, not sure I can lead it then let go of the lead but we will see. In any case maybe we will both learn something new.
As for has he f’ed my brains out yet, the answer is no. Not that he hasn’t made it clear he would like to. But that wraps back to another thing I am reading here, men may want women to do that short term, but marriage/ltr material that does not make, right? I have at least four fuck buddy offers already on the table (from alphas I know are not looking for anything but that and I believe them) and no, i have not taken them up on it. Thats not what I seek. Never has been. That’s just asking to get pumped and dumped, not exactly a girls dream come true. Seen many a girl friend lose that game to try to be an alpha tamer. Right? Or no?
What I really want is a mate, and I mean fully in, someone who gets me and me them and its good and fun and leads to happily fucking ever after.
Yes i did say that. Another mediocre or miserable relationship, no thanks.
Sigh… Why is it so darn complicated?
@ Yohami, Bloom, jf12
Most women want alphas. They like to hold on to the myth of the natural alpha. Hence why they pushback so hard against any discussion of red pill or even against non-red-pill men trying to be more attractive. They want to see the finished results, not the process that goes into it.
Bloom is not like that. She understands that alphas are made, not born. Thus, she is comfortable taking up a frame that allows the guy to grow into an alpha.
#78 “Is the “nice guy” act just confusion? What would happen if he gets green light to not do the beta act?” Yes, it’s just confusion. If he gets the green light, the man will be very happy to alpha up.
#76 close but not right. Both women getting fat when the men are snared and men getting beta when snared are both the result of the woman no longer fearing the man and thereby feeling enabled to treat him with contempt, since she wants less sex now that he’s familiar.
@ Bloom
I edited it.
Alpha is not following a semaphore but carrying one. Alphaing up when you have green light – permission and nurturing- is beta.
Just sayin’
Bloon, best of luck.
@ Yohami
Then few people are true alphas.
Most “natural” alphas are the way they are because they got the green light to act alpha when growing up.
I was a nice guy (TM) until I was 27 or so. It was a “confusion” but its not about what women want. Its about the nature of women itself and the nature of men, and breaking the fear and, ehem, “just being yourself” but not the politically correct kind.
Kids are twisted against themselves, being told they are bad as they are, twisted into stranger shapes, and then told “just be yourself”.
So there’s confusion but its not about what women want, this is misleading.
The reality is that what women want doesnt matter at all, and the issue is framed in a wat that chasing what women want, and pleasing women, is the holy grial that defines manhood.
If the guy changes into alphaboy because he wants to please women, he’s still fucked.
He wont give you the real man vibe, and you will grow to hate him.
The real man vibe, you will get it when a man is there doing his own thing because he wants to, and is being affectionate towards you and shows that he loves you and cares, EVEN THOUGH HE DOESNT NEED TO. He doesnt need your approval, he doesnt need you to survive, he doesnt need you as a guide, but still, he’s there with you, because of love.
@Bloom 78
“Is the “nice guy” act just confusion?”
No, it’s due to cultural programming. It’s not an act. It’s what men have been trained to believe. Naturals like me are able to resist the programming somewhat. The programming is quite powerful and pervasive and difficult to resist. It’s still a struggle for me.
I think that there’s a recent post on J4G about this.
@ Nemesis, natural born or DIY alphas, you cant get there with a pleaser frame.
#85 “but still, he’s there with you, because of love” I do not believe it. I do not believe an alpha can be in love, nor can non-in-love love be a strong motivating factor for an alpha. Being in love makes a man beta because he will want his love to be pleased above all else.
@Nemesis 84
“Most “natural” alphas are the way they are because they got the green light to act alpha when growing up.”
No, we just escaped the Matrix. Maybe with some help from others.
@YOHAMI 87
+1
@jf12 88
True love might be possible with the Patriarchy.
@Ms. Bloom 58:
OK, time to de-cloak and offer the following off the cuff observations and completely unsolicited advice. What I’m about to say you would 100% within your right to respond, by telling me to take a long walk off a short plank; but in light of what you’ve shared in this discussion and the “Handbags” one, I feel compelled to do this:
1. Get a snub-nosed .38 revolver pistol for home/business and personal protection. It’s a pistol that you can’t go wrong with – easy to operate, never jams and has more than enough stopping power, even if you don’t hit the target center-mass (for example, if you catch a perp in the leg or arm, its enough to take him down, or at the very least significantly slow him down). Plus, it fits very nicely in a purse or on your person, stash it under your pillow or nightstand/under the bed, etc. Keep the ammo well away from the hammer when in the crib, and get you at least one “quick-loader” – Google it) for it so you can put all 5-6 rounds in at once, and you’re good to go. Semi-autos are nice to look at and many of them are pretty good, too – Sig Sauer comes to mind – but they’re quite pricey (unless you do black market, and we don’t want you to do that) and can jam due to all the moving parts involved. Plus you gotta keep putting rounds in the clips, other maintenence, etc. Besides, one of the other great things about the good ole snubby is that it packs a whollop if you have to buffalo someone in a close-quarters toedown. I’ve seen quite a few knuckleheads get their wig split something fierce by some blue steel in the form of a revolver. “Saturday Night Specials” are still very much the business, bunk what you heard.
2. Get a pump-action shotty – something relatively short in length, no stock, so you can get around the crib quickly with it. It also doubles as a short quarterstaff weapon again, in the event you ffind yourself out of ammo and are in a hand-to-hand toedown with a perp or three in the crib/business. Get shells full of bird/ratshot, that’s enough to make perps back up – in fact, the very act of them hearing you pump the slide on the shotty is enough to make them think twice.
3. As for “Hercules” vs. “Beta Dad” – I’m with the fellas on this one: the latter is a no-go, from all I’m hearing. No dis to him, but let’s face it: you’re not in a position to be bootcamping a guy, especially in light of the things you’ve had to deal with recently (the meth head thing, etc.). If you gotta do all that right now when things are cool, what are you going to have to do when the you know what hits the fan the things get real? Is he gonna be up for that – are you gonna have to make like Annie Oakley or something? Assuming Herc doesn’t have any major flaws to him, what I would recommend you do is: let him outfit you with the firepower you need, hit up the range with him as defacto dates so you can learn how to shoot etc., and then, *quietly*, thank him by inviting him over for dinner and then break him off something fierce. This ensures that you have protection around that other dudes will have to think twice about. And trust me, Men DO think about such things – which brings us back to Beta Dad – notice how you – YOU – had to fend off at least three other guys who were making serious incursions into homeboy’s territory. Now think of a situation that’s much more serious…do you really want to be out there dooing the Wonder Woman thing, because Steve Trevor just ain’t up for the job?
Hey, I mean, if the Amazon act is your thing, far be it for me to knock it…but that’s not quite the vibe I got from you. So you make the call on that one.
All I know is this: Men can and will size a Woman up, be that for goood or for ill, based on if she has any Men around at all, and if so, WHAT KIND of Men she has around. One of the reasons why Ms. Brown Sugar chose me is because, and a I quote, “you look and handle yourself in a way that says, you ain’t gonna be punked or shook by any Man, regardless of size, etc. – and I find that a huge turnon.” And she’s 100% right. In fact, the ONLY time Men approach her is when I’m not around – and the very first thing out of their mouths is, “Where your Man at?”. At which point she sends them on their way. All things being equal, when a Men or group of Men see another Man and a Woman together, they can and will assume they’re together – and if the Man in question has any hint of punk in him, that’s like blood in the water for them dudes. That’s what you saw the other night, and since you saw it happen in the same place with multiple dudes, that is NOT a good sign insofar as Beta Dad is concerned. Your inherent submissiveness doesn’t help matters either – with a sitch like that, dude’s gotta be on his A-Game for real,or, you get what you got the other night.
4. Cosign Ms. Liz’s suggestions on the dog thing. Put the other one down and get you either a German Shepard or a Lab, and have it in the crib/business with you. They act as early warning detection, plus backup defense if you need it. Also, have a few baseball bats secured in areas around the crib/business – they’re legal and pack quite a punch when used right. Plus, they keep you from going to the gun(s), unless you absolutely have to.
5. Finally – going back to Beta Dad. You’ve been a real gem to him, so do him a solid and put him down with some of the Red Pill stuff you’ve learned; grip him a few books, like The Game, Married Man Sex Life, No More Mr. Nice Guy, Bang!, etc. Tell him to study up and when he’s got himself together for real, you’ll introduce him to some really great gals similar to yourself.
OK, I’m done here.
O.
#90 yes, that may have been the ultimate purpose of teh Patriarchy, which I’ll define herein “teh Patriarchy is the nigh-universal societal acknowledgment that women ought to submit to their men”: because being in love makes a man so beta, his wife has to force herself to stoop even lower to submit, which makes them both wonderfully connected.
Wrote ‘People are People’ about a year and a half ago:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/11/06/people-are-people/
Deti, you do an admirable and accurate assessment of the Blank Slate, people-are-all-unique trope, however, I’ve found that the primary reason most Blank Slaters revert to individualism standards as a basis of their social interactions is because anything less than a complete, higher moral ownership of one’s “nature” smacks of genetic (or social) determinism.
It’s interesting how different interpretations of personal accountability vary amongst different mindsets. If I say “it’s endemic of liberal/conservative people to be thus” the same guys will nod in assent. If I say “women’s nature is thus” or “men’s natures are like this” then the determinism they believe comes along with it absolves them of misconducts because of it and therefore sidesteps (to varying degrees) personal accountability.
Then there’s just the White Knights who think that their special concern for a woman’s autonomous, self-deciding individualism will be appreciated enough to get them laid eventually.
As most of my readers know, I recondition retired racing greyhounds. As such I’m very aware of how my breed interacts with other dogs and the characteristics of other breeds. Not all pitbulls or rottweilers are hostile or dangerous, but I know enough about the nature of the breed to be wary of, and account for that breed’s intrinsic characteristics. Individual dogs may be docile and well natured (according to their training), but I’d be foolish to say I consider each dog individually when I know the nature and reputation of that breed.
Love is an emotion, and a spiritual bond: It’s not a hierarchical situation, and love is not a pedestal.
* * *
Love doesnt turn you into a beta: you’re a beta, who loves.
* * *
If love is beta on its own, then what is to be said about the recipient of that love? women cant feel love then? because most women are not betaized by their hubbies but taking the lead.
How about love for your kids. Do you become beta for them?
Love for your friends etc.
But assuming you do become the pleaser and the follower in each interaction, then, again, what about them? they dont also become the pleasers, so they dont love you? your kids friends wife, nobody can feel love, just the beta?
Please.
To love is not to please. Just because you get down on your knees every time and that’s the dance you know to dance, that doesnt mean that is the dance and the only one. And the evidence is in the people you’re dancing with.
#94 The in-love feeling is totally distinct from love for kids and friends.
@ Obs
I just don’t get this logic. No doubt there is some truth to it, but I think I don’t think it’s nearly as useful an indicator as it would seem.
I strongly believe that when shit hits the fan, many “betas” will be up to the task. At the same time, many paper alphas will be nowhere to be seen.
#93 I think by “treat me like a person”, a woman specifically means treat her like her biology doesn’t trump everything. And yet the red pill specifically reveals that biology is the Oz behind any curtaining of social conventions. I think it’s too much to be asked to act as though you can’t see him, once you can see him, unless maybe Oz enjoys it!
So, what women want by “treat me like a person”, therefore, is the usual: to be Gamed (i.e. treated biologically correctly) without HER feeling like she’s being Gamed.
“#78 “Is the “nice guy” act just confusion? What would happen if he gets green light to not do the beta act?” Yes, it’s just confusion. If he gets the green light, the man will be very happy to alpha up.”
In my case, it wasn’t an act, its who I wanted to be. Its a twisted version (twisted by the constant need for approval) of the healthy quest to lead a virtuous and honorable life.
I also believed it would give me a leg up in the MMP, but without taking care of the approval-seeking/mirroring (i.e. anti-game), that was moot. I naturally alpha-up now because I have experience achieving excellence (and the confidence/outcome-independence that comes with it) in other walks of life, and because my wife admires the hell out of me. That’s why I chose her. she’s not chopped liver herself.
As for this man, Bloom, as usual Obsidian is talking out of his ass. It all depends on why you’re with him. If you’re with him because you admire him and are thus truly attracted and also because you share long-term goals, its likely that admiration itself will alpha him up over time. If you’re with him because he’s easily dominated and will give you frequent validation regardless of your behavior, yeah, that won’t work. In that case, you need the natural alpha who wont let you get away with that.
Bloom,
How did you discover the manosphere ?
We guys do enjoy seeing some of our basic rules of decorum enforced, as exhibited in this classic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzToNo7A-94
Translation: Don’t let your mouth write checks that your body can’t cash.
Re: pair-bonding, in-love, and “who I wanted to be”. Oxytocin is the glue of pair bonds. In men, especially oxytocin-sensitive men who fall in love hard, oxytocin produces a strong feeling of Us vs Them “You and Me, emphasis on You.” This is the pair bond for men. In men in love, the continual flood of oxytocin becomes its own reward, and they will not voluntarily unplug. Basically a man in love can remain in love indefinitely unless forced to stop.
In contrast, although women feel an echo of men’s romantic love in their oxytocin responses, in all women a continual flood of oxytocin invariably will produce motherly feelings: that’s indeed how women experience “true love”: motherly. The farmer takes a wife, but the wife takes a child. Women, sadly, do not pair-bond correctly. After a short honeymoon period, remaining in love causes a woman to retreat sexually; AWALT. The current evo-psych reasoning is that her motherly feelings towards her now too-familiar spouse cause her to resent his sexuality. This is due both to built-in incest avoidance, as well as the feminine imperative to seek novel sperm, since evo-presumably within a few years she’s already reproduced with the current man.
Biology, then, is destiny. The Game-obvious strategy for the man is to pull away, to become less familiar to the woman, really to the point of becoming The Stranger, which is the exact opposite of who he wants to be, ESPECIALLY if he’s in love. In fact, he will have to fall out of love to successfully pull away.
Do not get a snub nose .38
That was good advice years and years and years ago. Like 20 of them or so
There are any number of pocket size 9mm’ s, moderately priced with same or slimmer profiles, smother trigger pulls, better sights and damn near double the round capacity. Not to mention internal mechanical safeties and high reliability rates.
People mean well, but they rarely known what they are talking about.
To be alpah you have to value yourself, your sense of pride, etc above all else. Can an alpha love? I say so but it is conditional on her behavior
@ Bastiat #100
Funny how we never see him tackling any women…
@ sfcton
Second this.
@Bloom
If you like and admire him and feel attracted to him enough then I’d proceed with the “experiment” a while longer and see where it goes.
If by feeling free to take the reins he starts to more and more, and does so sufficiently over time then it’s all good and maybe he just needed this in-the-field dose of red pill from you to realize that in spite of the blue-pill, femcentric society he’s been marinated in he has “permission” to be a man, his own man and to act like that towards you.
Unless you have far better suitors pouring out of the woodworks then you have little to lose in going out with him more and seeing where it goes.
OTOH, if he doesn’t increasingly take the reins then he might not be the one for you but it will have still been an eye-opening experience for him.
Regarding the question of a “generalized approach” versus treating every woman as an “individual”, the question is a bit of a false choice. It isn’t either/or but both. The very beginning requires a generalized approach because you don’t know her as an individual. Over time, and as the conversation/interaction progresses you can address more of her “individuality”. I think what critics object to is the idea of a “generalized” approach working when plenty of field experience suggests just that.
What’s odd is most people would recognize we used “generalized approaches” in all facets of life. When you go on a job interview, you are using a generalized approach. If a guy, you wear a suit and tie, and don’t show up in your pajamas, workout clothes, or Friday night going out gear. You don’t walk in cracking jokes. You do use some “individual” approach unique to that company but most interviewing is fairly standard boilerplate responses. One can be coached to “interview successfully”. It is no different approaching, interacting, and conversing with women. For whatever reason, most women take offense at the idea of interactions being planned, consciously strategized. They “should be” the result of some spontaneous, organic process where you are both unique snowflakes. I think many women have a problem with the idea that the things you can do and say to make her attracted are basically fungible to 8-9 out of 10 other women, and that in fact you do NOT have to treat her as an individual in the beginning to get her interest. The truth of the matter is that showing too much interest in her as an individual is going to be counterproductive.
Jf12:“After a short honeymoon period, remaining in love causes a woman to retreat sexually; AWALT.”
That hasn’t been my experience.
Recently a girl friend of mine has been trying to set me up with a friend of hers who is as she puts it “a really really sweet guy
The guy is doing a lot wrong to be described this way. This is the way guys who are friendzoned get described.
That week he got promoted to general manager at his work. So I started teasing him in a fun way about “ohh look at you, boss man” and such.
See, this is great material you gave him here to work with. There are so many ways you can go with this in terms of cocky funny banter. This is where the total beta guys fuck it up. They don’t understand how to take this and run with it.
The first time I recognized several years back that even though I am a strong, successful, liberated woman what really gets me going is a dominant (but not jerky or controlling) guy it quite honestly confused the heck out of me. That wasn’t ok, was it? I was a “modern woman” for goodness sake! It took me a few years to understand submissive doesn’t equal victim, dominant doesn’t equal abuser. Or at least it shouldn’t. And based on the wildly successful with women “50 Shades of Grey” book (outsold Harry Potter and While I have yet to read it, I hear it isn’t even that well written!) goes to show maybe I am not the only one secretly feeling this way, even if it never involves actual black leather. So yes I am an individual, I can’t guarantee all women feel the same, but like it or not I am fitting into some of the generalizations more than I may even be willing to admit (except anonymously online!)
Bloom, you should write a blog
Keep your thoughts to yourself, and proceed with what you know generally.
As BV as said, show don’t tell.
Women are happy enough with this. I encountered more than a few very, very smart women in law school who advocated the point of view that men should be subject to abstract rules, since we like them, and women should be subject to situational rules, since they like them. The justification is based on the validity of the subjective perspective, and its priority
Ha. How convenient. And how often do those “situational rules” go against them? I bet not very often. Of course, this very paradigm violates the abstract rule of fairness and impartiality.
We consider women to be people. Contrary to feminist assertions, there is nothing radical about the belief that women are people. We treat women like people; we just don’t treat women like men. Different people, different treatment.
So what’s really implied by the “just treat women as people” is “just treat women as men”. This has a major problem with it for the following reason:
Bloom:
See this is the problem. If a man exhibited maddening femininity, we’d treat consider him heartless and evil. If we treat women as men, this is the logical outcome.
On the other hand, if we treat women as women, and value them for their femininity, then things actually work out.
And my head is now spinning….
I was almost afraid to read on obsidian from when you said you were going to give it to me straight (gulp!) but then found I pretty much agree w you and can see your points. No I don’t want to be Annie Oakley. No I don’t want to be manning up if there’s a man around. Same time, had he clocked the guy I don’t think that would have gone over on a first date, and this was before he had the “ah ha” green light moment. It would be interesting to see what he does next time. Hercules likely would have come unglued, or as you say would they may not have dared look my way at all is a good point. (Funny people as your wife where you are, that was what people always asked me as a teenager about my brother!)
In the rest of my world I am fine with “manning up” if the situation calls for it. In my work, it so uncommon to see a woman in the role, people still always note my gender along with the title. “she’s a ‘female’ x” i do it because i love it and it challenges me and interests me, not to prove any point about my gender. I would say what I do but am afraid anyone with good google skills could probably figure out who i am from it, because thanks to being a female in an otherwise male profession, i get a lot of press attention for it. Not to mention i am highly visible and active in my community as well, because of my business. that said, I am ok with being an Amazon in most of my world (namely because it seems to be who I just am rather than something I am trying to be) But in my relationship, no. I know that maybe makes no sense.
Someone put it to me like this, just like finding the perfect house, you’ll know it when you see it. There won’t be any remodeling needed. Good analogy, takes patience to house hunt endlessly, but he’s probably right and it echos what obsidian says, anything less probably won’t ever really work.
Beta dad is a great guy and I do admire him, but am I remodeling? Will that work? Even if I wished it would?
At the same time Hercules is not without his, ahem, issues, notorious skirt chasing being one of them. And he’s not going to win any PC awards or get a sensitivity training certificate anytime soon. So I would likely be trying to remodel there too. And he truly doesn’t care what anyone thinks, Alpha that he is, so he will likely be skirt chasing and popping off regardless of the situation for life, and I know that would not work for me which is why his advances have only lead to me telling him my life is complicated enough! But maybe I underestimate him, as I saw the other day. He was married and is also a single dad of two girls, who are good friends w my oldest daughter, as they lived two houses away. He picked a true vixen of a wife, his best friends wife at the time, and she proved even less faithful than he, and it was a mess. (Surprise!) They are coparenting very well, surprisingly, but shes still a train wreck player of a gal, working four hearts at a time right now! How she even manages that crap I have no idea. So there’s that history too and I am yet friends with her, although not close, as well.
So maybe my alpha is yet to come along? The other alphas who have extended the f buddy offer, one is a doctor 20 years my senior but not my type physically, the other is a married millionaire, and the third is a highly successful local business owner with a serious girlfriend (but maybe not that serious?) all got the big NO.
Which leads me back to the question, are alphas really capable of a ltr/marriage? Or am I giving off some f buddy vibe? Or am I doomed? The loyal Beta won’t work, just like the too many options alpha won’t work? Really? Boo.
As for the danger of showing interest in beta dad and somehow lifting the lid on his alpha pandora’s box, if he suddenly goes all skirt chasing crazed, well I would consider it self selection, chase away but that’s a deal breaker as far as being w me (as is a guy being who in another relationship already yet making advances at me.)
You guys may want to consider a dating advice blog, I am sure it would be highly popular! (As well as targeted with much venom from those who dont want to see…)
As for what lead me to the manosphere? Like I said what I had been told was how it works in love wasn’t, so I started searching for answers about how men think, plus trying to understand myself, and found therulesrevisited.com which was my portal into red pill. It’s been an eye opener!
@Sfcton 102:
First, for those not in the know, like Ms. Bloom, here’s a Wiki on the Saturday Night Special: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snubnosed_revolver
Second: my grand dad, who served in the Marine Corps as a Drill Seargent, kept his Colt .45 semi-auto pistol after the war (WW2); it made up his personal arsenal of weapons – about 2 more revolvers (one a standard “police special” Colt .38, the other a “Saturday Night Special” .38 snub-nosed revolver; both 6-shots); two pump-action shottys (one with a full barrell and stock, the other with a significantly shortened barrell and no stock); several Winchester double barrelled shottys, full-length barrells and stocks; one “unofficial” sawed-off double-barrelled shotty (which he kept under the counter, in case things really got hectic); and a 30-odd-six – you know, the kind you used to see in the Westerns? (he also kept quite a few old-school billy clubs, saps and baseball bats around the shop and at home, as well as carrying one on his person when he made a run; on more than one occasion, he had to use that on a would-perp punk out on the streets, and sent them to get their noggins stitched back up at Temple U’s hospital)
My grand dad had some serious firepower, and rightly so, since, like Ms. Bloom, he too had a business to protect – actually quite a few, since he owned two mom-and-pop cornerstores, a small apartment block of about a dozen flats, and about half a dozen other rental properties. So he had assets to protect. And in one of Philly’s historically consistently roughest areas – North Philly.
There were a few times when he had to go to the gun, too, when some punks tried to relieve him of that day’s till – and do you know what my grand dad’s go-to weapon of choice was?
Yup, you guessed it, the good ole snubby. Was able to keep it right on his hip and he always wore a “car coat” style jacket that went down to about your butt, so it concealed it very nicely. Boy, did those perps get a surprise that night! One of them caught a bullet in the arse, another in the leg, the other ran off like the punk he was.
Most shootings, and I’m sure you know this SFC, take place within roughly ten feet of the shooters – so there’s really not a lot of need for fancy sights and what not. Same deal with lots of rounds – in fact, I’ve been witness to shootings on the bricks where a knucklehead has emptied all 16 rounds out a clip from a Glock or something and didn’t hit a darned thing, other than innocent passers-by, LOL. And the cops are no better – try reading up on some of the reports.
So all that mumbo-jumbo you spouted off sounds great in theory or out on the range; but out on the bricks, it don’t mean jack if in the end, you can’t hit what’s right in front of you.
There’s a very good and simple reason as to how and why the good ole snubby’s making such a big comeback over the same aount of time you noted in your remarks above: because it’s cheaper, more durable, compact and most of all, very easy to operate, maintain, load and shoot. Ms. Bloom ain’t qualifying down at Quantico here; she’s just trying to protect herself, her livelihood and her family (2 daughters). A snubby’s excellent for that, because when perps hear that .38 sound off, trust me, they WILL head in the other direction. The last thing a perp wants to square off with is someone who’s packing heat for real. Nines, unless they hit a vital area, don’t do much. Tupac get sprayed with one and survived it (circa 94), and I’ve known people like that, too. Had he got hit with a snubby, he would’ve expired sooner than he did in the Fall of 96.
So, no, none of what I’m saying to Ms. Bloom is coming out of thin air; I speak from both my own direct eyewitness experience, and that of my grand dad’s, again, out on the bricks of one of the roughest areas of Philly.
It works.
O.
@ Obsidian
It really depends on the quality of ammo. While you’re certainly correct about people tending to do fine after taking multiple hits from a 9mm, the same could happen with a .38.
In fact, this is one of the reasons to get the 9mm – you’re less likely to empty your gun and find yourself in need of more ammo, simply by virtue of the higher capacity.
@Bloom, he Just Doesn’t Get It:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/08/22/just-get-it/
@Bloom, also, there is no Beta with a side of Alpha:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/10/02/up-the-alpha/
“Someone put it to me like this, just like finding the perfect house, you’ll know it when you see it. There won’t be any remodeling needed. Good analogy, takes patience to house hunt endlessly, but he’s probably right and it echos what obsidian says, anything less probably won’t ever really work.”
This is complete, unmitigated bullshit.
@Bloom
Wait for perfect and you’ll be waiting a loooong time.
I don’t think you are waiting for perfect but I think that’s one of the biggest failings for women (and some men too): expecting perfect chemistry, perfect compatibility, perfectly just getting it. When people desire perfection so much then no one measures up and unhappiness is the result.
#108 Yes, it’s true. In young couples essentially all (99%, whatever) women unilaterally dial back the sex from daily to a couple or so times per week (the ubiquitous Annie Hall “compromise” between a male’s “hardly ever” and a females “constantly”) after the honeymoon period, while males still desire it the same frequency as in the beginning for years and years and years later. Yes, there are references.
In older (post menopausal) couples, the woman ratchets down the sex even slower, again essentially always unilaterally, to a couple or so times per month. The men have essentially zero input, as in almost all things that go on inside the house. This is our American life, and outliers are anomalies.
You advice is old and behind the times. Yes a .38 works but it is not the best option. This is not 1994 or 1970…. why would you recommend something that worked great a generation ago but has basically become obsolete? Should she use a Tandy computer?
9mm’s with modern self-defense ammo has a one shot stopping rate in the low 90%. The FBI research is pretty conclusive. . 40 is somewhat better but more difficult for women and novice shooters to manage. Much more. Any rate, stopping the attack is what matters. Her attacker most likely will survive because her next step will be calling 911, which means medical help is on the way.
People do fine after taking .45’s to the chest as well. Seen men take multiple hits from machine guns and keep running, or sniper rounds through the upper back….. Pistols are poor man killers and the best you can do is make the best worse choice.
People die from bleeding out, or they just lay down and die because they lose their will to live or fight.
A typical .45 gunshot wound removes less then 1% of a man’s body mass, and it is not surprising men can keep fighting after they are shot. You can shoot a man in the heart, and he still has enough blood, air etc in him to keep moving for a goodly bit. You can put a man down quickly if your round breaks the right bones…. Nothing to rely on. Most gunshot wounds are survivable. Unless you shut the central nervous system down. Which takes shit ton of training, money etc to rely on
Most crime events are stopped with 2 shots or less fired. And involve one criminal something like 90% of the time too. However the cost of a snub nose .38 is pretty much the same price for a comparative quality semi auto. .38 ammo cost about what 9mm ammo cost. So for the same out lay of money, you can be better prepared for what ever may come.
Your advice was good to go 20+ years ago, but there are much better options today. It is always better to have more rounds then less. Always. Particularly when you can basically double the round count with no noticeable difference in footprint. People die from bleeding out, the more holes you put in them ( or fewer larger holes) the quicker they bleed out. 10 rounds give you that option. Or God forbid if there is more then one attacker. Rare but it does happen
This is is not a slight to your grandpa, but technology changes weapons and ammo improve.
True, re waiting for perfect. Some are going to fit better than others for sure, but the whole package? I agree, that’s fantasy land. My absolutes include no cheating, be a good person of moral character, chemistry is important bc after all if your committing to exclusivity there should be some great sex involved, right? (Otherwise thats called being friends.) Have a job you are passionate about or good at or at a bare minimum for goodness sake go to… I am old fashined that way, it doesn’t have to be any certain income but I am not a gal who wants to be the breadwinner, and certainly not the sole one (I already do that now) and be committed to commitment (loyalty and fidelity and sticking it out come what may is big, big, big for me.) From there, there are the not absolutes but would likes… Like shared hobbies, similar world views, we get each other enough to avoid regular ongoing power struggles… But the absolutes seem pretty reasonable, one would think? Otherwise I would abandon my morals and go for the best deal…millionaire married guy… but that’s just not me… I’d take being single over selling out. Such an idealist!
@ Bloom
Yes, but all that won’t necessarily be available in an alpha package. Contrary to Obsidian, Yohami, or Rollo, I think beta dad may very well be capable of alphaing up and becoming a good partner.
Bloom,
Re: firearms
Make friends with people that own guns and will take you shooting, shoot a bunch of different guns. Buy the one you like to shoot. Go to range that rents guns and shoot everything. Personal preference, and being comfortable with the gun are more important than any technical advice.
If you buy the perfect defense weapon and hate shooting it you’ll never practice. You need to practice. You need a gun you like holding in you hand. The ideal gun for you is likely not the ideal gun for me. It should feel like a natural extension of your hand not my hand.
Take a class. Read up on the local laws. Ignore advice from Joe Biden. Don’t get caught up in the debates about automatics vs. revolvers vs. shotguns vs. assault rifles everyone is both right and wrong (except Joe Biden he’s a half witted cretin).
What matters most is being comfortable with shooting, and comfortable with the gun you’re shooting.
And practice, practice, practice.
Bloom. If you get involved in shooting, you will find people whose hobby it is, who have thousands of dollars invested in guns and who drop a hundred bucks on ammo in an afternoon.
There are also people, usually vets, for whom shooting a gun is about as much fun as running a chain saw only less productive. They do it because it pays to keep up the skill, just in case. Annoying necessity.
And some in between.
For several reasons, including the inevitable legal proceedings should you shoot somebody, it would pay to be able to prove an effort at being competent at it. So, quarterly, anyway.
Also, get and absorb Andrew Branca’s book on self-defense and the law.
Yes I know I would need to be way more comfortable w the firearms before getting one. The shotguns were heavy and akward but I get that you don’t have to be close or a good aim so that’s in the plus category, and the sound alone would likely send them running. Handguns seem more my scale as far as weight and such but again I would need to learn a lot more before getting one. I think for now I will get some gel mace, not that it will kill anyone but its better than nothing till I figure it out. And really just reading all this makes me think, I really don’t want to be in that role, i think serving tea and refreshments sounds way better. But I am for now and if it came down to them or my kids… It would be Bye bye wo any second thought. But I know I would need to be really comfortable, second had comfortable, to keep it together under pressure. Probably shooting the thing into the air every few weeks or having Hercules or a friend w a gun come shoot those every now and then until I get it sorted out would spread the word — that crazy neighbor lady is armed, watch out!
luckily my friendly country store owner is getting a firearm license and is now stocking ammo, handy! But really, given my choices, it’s a world I would rather never explore.
Bloom,
You do have quite the fan club. About weapons, Obsidian’s advice about baseball bats makes a lot of sense. The problem with weapons is that, by the time you realize that you need one, it may be too late. Since you’re considering locking up your firearms, that will preclude getting to the quickly.Getting a dog is also a great idea. I have to admit that I like Black Labrodors. I grew up with one.
Your check list does tend to exclude a lot of alphas. Keep seeing Beta Dad. Who knows where this will end up? While the manosphere does promote alpha, it does seem to me that beta qualities are essential to keeping a relationship together and you are looking for long term.
Keep seeing Beta Dad. Who knows where this will end up?
My Dad was a beta, and a good guy. My Mom would agree.
FuzzieWuzzie, this is for you,
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/03/bear-simulator-is-like-a-mini-skyrim-but-youre-a-bear/
Farm Boy,
I love it!!!! There is an added bonus-Anita Sarkeesian can’t sat diddly squat. (Razzberries to her) The post also mentioned “Bears vs. Art” which I found intriguing.
” You advice is old and behind the times. Yes a .38 works but it is not the best option. This is not 1994 or 1970…. why would you recommend something that worked great a generation ago but has basically become obsolete? Should she use a Tandy computer?”
O: LOL – you gotta be kidding me, right? OK, let’s take a look at tech in our age:
1. On the PC side, everyone knows that Windows hasn’t put out a good OS since XP; Vista was horrid, and 7/8 were only marginally better. On the Mac side, the latest version of their OS didn’t receive rave reviews either. In either case, the fundamental platforms of their OS’ have pretty much remained the same from when they first came on the scene decades ago. The only real things that have changed is processing speed and storage space. When Quantum computing finally hits the shelves, then we’ll have made real progress on the computing front.
2. There’s been a resurgence of “dumb phones” because far too many “smart phones” are crap when and where it matters most – making phonecalls. I don’t own either an iPhone or a Blackberry (and if I do get one, it’ll likely be the latter), and in fact have several such “dumb phones” and I do quite well keeping in touch with the people I need to; all I need is to be able to make calls and texts. If I need anything else, I know how to make it work for my phone(s).
3. The biggest thing going in personal computing these days are, as everyone knows, tablets/pads and the OS’ that run them, namely Mac and Android. Thing is, you can get a cheapie tablet for under $100, root it, load up the latest Android OS on it and it can go toe to toe with any iPad or other high-end tablet out there.
My point? It’s that it all really comes down to what you need and how much you’re willing to pay to get it. Most people walking around don’t need high-end, military or para-military grade stuff in order to defend themselves, or have super high-end tech in order to stay connected and do their daily business. A lot can get done in relatively low(er) tech fashion, surprisingly so, for a fraction of the cost. And we see evidence of this around us all the time.
“9mm’s with modern self-defense ammo has a one shot stopping rate in the low 90%. The FBI research is pretty conclusive.”
O: LOL. Like I said, this ain’t Quantico, and I’ll take the word of a grizzled Big City cop over anything an egghead down there has to say about these kinds of things.
“. 40 is somewhat better but more difficult for women and novice shooters to manage. Much more.”
O: Agreed – which is why I didn’t mention it, and another reason why I didn’t speak on 40 cal semi-autos, quite a few of which I actually like, by the way…
“Any rate, stopping the attack is what matters. Her attacker most likely will survive because her next step will be calling 911, which means medical help is on the way.”
O: Yup – and a .38 snubby is perfect for that. I speak from firsthand experience, my grand pop and pop did it quite a few times…
“People do fine after taking .45′s to the chest as well. Seen men take multiple hits from machine guns and keep running, or sniper rounds through the upper back….. Pistols are poor man killers and the best you can do is make the best worse choice.”
O: LOL. Who said anything about “killing” anyone? We trying to make neighborhood perps, or in Ms. Bloom’s case, meth heads and other forms of rabble, back da eff up. Catching some hot lead in the butt tends to do that…
“People die from bleeding out, or they just lay down and die because they lose their will to live or fight.”
O: Tru dat…
“A typical .45 gunshot wound removes less then 1% of a man’s body mass, and it is not surprising men can keep fighting after they are shot. You can shoot a man in the heart, and he still has enough blood, air etc in him to keep moving for a goodly bit. You can put a man down quickly if your round breaks the right bones…. Nothing to rely on. Most gunshot wounds are survivable. Unless you shut the central nervous system down. Which takes shit ton of training, money etc to rely on”
O: Out on the bricks, knuckleheads move in close and go for a head shot…
“Most crime events are stopped with 2 shots or less fired. And involve one criminal something like 90% of the time too.”
O: Don’t forget the fact that the majority of shootings take place within ten feet or less of the shooters involved…
“However the cost of a snub nose .38 is pretty much the same price for a comparative quality semi auto. .38 ammo cost about what 9mm ammo cost. So for the same out lay of money, you can be better prepared for what ever may come.”
O: I’ll have to check on that one; you may be right about that from a comparative pricing standpoint.
“Your advice was good to go 20+ years ago, but there are much better options today. It is always better to have more rounds then less. Always. Particularly when you can basically double the round count with no noticeable difference in footprint. People die from bleeding out, the more holes you put in them ( or fewer larger holes) the quicker they bleed out. 10 rounds give you that option. Or God forbid if there is more then one attacker. Rare but it does happen”
O: Sure – but from what I’ve seen out on the bricks over the past few decades, I am not at all convinced that more rounds, or semi-autos per se,=”better” – indeed, from what I can tell, again actually being out on the bricks, being in firefights, talking with lots of cops, and my grand dad and pop’s experiences, most dudes don’t know how to handle semi-autos properly, and that includes cops, and the best shooters I’ve seen just so happened to be the ones who were working it out with good old fashioned revolvers. The fewer rounds may be the incentive to force one to focus on better aim, who knows. I just know that in my grand dad and dad’s case, and in the case of quite a few old ladies I knew who put a bullet in a perp, those snubbys were no joke. I’d personally take a Saturday Night Special over a Glock any day of the week. Just make sure I have a quick reloader or two with it.
“This is is not a slight to your grandpa, but technology changes weapons and ammo improve.”
O: None taken, and if anything my grand dad would laugh. Semi-autos have been around for more than a century, and haven’t fundamentally changed much; revolvers, in this case the snubbys we’re talking about, have been around for longer than that (first introduced in the latter 19th century!), and nothing fundamentally has changed about them either, unless you want to make a ruckus about them being made of composite crap, much like many semi-autos in our time (one major reason why they can jam, by the way). He handled lots of different weapons, including his service .45 semi-auto, and I don’t think it was an accident that he chose his snubby as his go-to firearm of choice in a toedown. Sure, he had many other firearms to resort to, and he did on a few occasions, but those instances where he needed it the most, the snubby came through.
O.
I think in the context of a female who isn’t really familiar with firearms a revolver is the best choice. I like my 38. It is easy to clean, easy to load, doesn’t jam and there’s no bullet left in the chamber when the clip is ejected because there is no clip. Less moving parts. Just my .02. My husband prefers his wide assortment of other types of handguns (so do our sons). He is an expert marksman. i have far less of an interest in firarms. The pistol is mine and I don’t like the others (though i have shot them on occasion at the range) because I like things simple.
” About weapons, Obsidian’s advice about baseball bats makes a lot of sense. The problem with weapons is that, by the time you realize that you need one, it may be too late. Since you’re considering locking up your firearms, that will preclude getting to the quickly.Getting a dog is also a great idea. I have to admit that I like Black Labrodors. I grew up with one.”
O: Absolutely true – having a hammer is no good if you can’t get to it with the quickness. But in light of the fact that Ms. Bloom’s got daughters in the crib, it’s a good idea to have the weapons safely secured.
So, she needs a workaround – and that’s where the dog(s) come in handy. They can run interference for her while she tools up. Also, the good ole Louisville Slugger is an excellent, legal and often non-lethal option to have that she can keep real close at hand, like under the bed, or under the counter while running her business, etc. She can whip it out and BLAAAW!!!-smash something fierce with that, you know what I’m saying? If the original Slugger which is made of wood is a bit too heavy for her to handle, she can even use a softball aluminum version – lighter, quicker to maneuver, but can still deliver a world of hurt, especially if she knows where and how to swing it.
Once again, I can personally attest to this completely legal improvised weapon: earlier I talked about my grand dad. Well, when I came out of highschool, my very first job I got by way of him; he worked for a big industrial roofing company out in Kenzo that did many of the city’s biggest jobs. So, I moved in with him and my grandmother so we could go to work everyday together, etc.
One night they went out (they had date nights almost up until my grandmother had her first stroke), and my grand dad had all the weapons locked up. But that didn’t stop some uninvited guests to come snooping around. I could hear them in my grandparents’ bedroom, which was the master bedroom of the house. The bathroom was right behind their room, and my room was right behind that, with connecting doors throughout. I kept my Louisville Slugger under my bed for times like this, and I silently got it and opened my door leading into the bathroom, then took a few breaths, and burst into my grandparents’ bedrooms, swinging the bat for all it was worth.
The perps, and it was two of em, jumped through the window they climbed in; I partially clocked one of them on their way out. They scrambled on the roof of the second floor on their way down to the ground, and I ran downstairs after them out the front door to confront them, letting loose the dogs on the way out.
When they say that Black Men Can Run, believe it, LOL. They got outta Dodge with the quickness. I called it in to 911, and when my grandparents came home told them what happened.
Now, keep in mind – we had auto lights both inside and out, an alarm system that automatically alerts the cops, and dogs – and still, the perps tried us. What they didn’t bank on was me being home, and being armed with a baseball bat. Since I knew the lay of the land better than they did, I got the drop on their butt, and landed a good blow on at least one of them before he got completely out of the crib. I shoulda grabbed hold of him and dragged him back in so I could beat him to a pulp with the bat.
Now, I don’t own a bat today, although now that I think about it, it wouldn’t be a bad idea if I got one just for safekeeping. But what I do have is a collection of canes, which I’ve mentioned before — and some additional improvised street weapons that I carry on my person:
1. An improvised/homemade billy club, made by sawing off the top end of a spade shovel handle. It’s a little over a foot long, and I simply drilled a hole through the end so I could put a lanyard through it to make sure I don’t drop it in the event I get suckerpunched while in a toedown. I keep it in my backpack as a backup to my cane, or for some reason I don’t have my cane and need to even the odds (I always assume that I’ll be facing multiple attackers out on the bricks, and that they’ll be packing heat)
2. Utility knife: since I do a lot of home rehabbing and the like, I always have plausible deniability with this one. I’ve got one of those utility knives that flips out like a lockback knife or switch blade, and I usually change up the blade, when I’m not using it like that once a week, or if I’m using it during my work once a day. So there’s always a fresh blade in there. Perfect for slicing/dicing/poking perps.
3. Jumbo gel pens, two for a buck from the dollar store: these come in handy as improvised daggers in a toedown, and neither my cane, billy club or utility knife are close at hand. I always carry a few of these on my person, and I make sure they’re not the kind with the push-button at the top, but rather the ones with the cap you have to take off. Great for signing my John Hancock as well as poking a perp up in the soft tissue if push comes to shove.
Ms. Bloom mentioned getting a hold of some pepper spray, and this is something I highly recommend, especially for the ladies; it’s non-lethal and makes for a perfect surprise that you can either get away from after you use it, or to followup up with another surprise. I’ve experimented with concocting my own powders and the like by using regular household spices from the cupboard – some good ole cayenne pepper is a good start.
That’s another thing while I’m thinking about it: legality. You always have to assume that you’ll be in court explaining why you did what you did. You want the jury and the judge, to be able to see themselves in your position – is what you did, reasonable under the circumstances – or was it excessive and cruel? This is another reason why you gotta be careful when it comes to firearms, and what kind you get. Military-looking stuff is gonna put a lot of people off, especially in the post-Adam Lanza/George Zimmerman environment. Pistols with lots of rounds and high-capacity mags and the like, all high-tech looking and what-not, uh-uh.
On the other hand, and let’s take Ms. Bloom as an example: she’s a White Woman, singlemom of two daughters. Works in a Man’s world in terms of the business she runs. Just trying to make it on her own. She runs afoul of some meth head perps, tries to evade the sitch, has no other choice but to resort to her “purse special” .38 revolver, a perp catches a bad one…maybe he dies, maybe he doesn’t. In court, they hold up the weapon Ms. Bloom uses…a .38 revolver. NOT a high tech, high end piece that Jack Bauer or Jason Bourne or James Bond would use.
Do you really think she’s going in? Do you really think she’s being found guilty?
See, that’s the thing that I absolutely love about my cane(s) – it gives me instant plausible deniability. I use it to help me get around, but it’s really a melee weapon that hides in plain sight and is 100% street legal. I can even get “weapons-grade” canes – and I have – and it not be a problem. Dozens of cops have seen me with my cane and paid me no mind, and so have potential perps. Sure, if they’re packing heat and I’m not, and they get the drop on me, then yea, they’ve got me – but that’s happened only very rarely, and in those instances I was able to walk away from it. More often than not though, what happens is that it provides powerful deterrence. For one thing I’m a young guy to be carrying a cane, and can move a whole lot faster than those normally associated with carrying canes. Second, my cane doesn’t look like the typical “old fart” canes that are commonly seen around. And third, yes, I most definitely know how to use it, and potential knuckleheads understand this.
So they move on.
But, if I had to make use of it, how would it play in court? I “have” to use a cane, I’m minding my own business, a few knuckleheads want to relieve me of my purse (read: backpack), and we get into a toedown, with a few of them being a bit worse for the wear from a combo of some well placed blows from the cane and my fists.
Does the jury convict? Think of how many potentially cane-carrying or otherwise borderline disabled people would be on a typical Philly jury. Think about how many them have family who are in a very similar sitch.
Chances are very high that Mr. Obs walks.
O.
Contrary to popular opinion, you most certainly do have to aim carefully with shotguns and buckshot.
A woman with a baseball bat is much less off a day deterrent then a man or a teenage boy with a baseball bat.
There is no reason why Bloom could not keep a pistol on her at all times. Keeping it locked up is a common newbie mind set, but one based on unreasonable fear vs reality
You’ve purse is not the best place to keep your firearm.
The FBI stats come.from researching when cops use their firearms. This is the best possible way to do such research for a maryid of reasons. Mostly because they can rule out the largest amount of variables and unknowns. And frankly there is still a ton left over
Cops are a poor source of info on this as they tended to see the aftermath of violence and dish out very little of it on there own. Also most cops are way, way under trained and don’t see near as much a they like to portray. Yes most cons are not particularly determined, but you do not base your self defense plans things like that.
The point about enjoying shooting the firearm is a good one, which is why my 1st suggestion was a midsize or full frame semi auto. Larger pistols are also more accurate. They reduce recoil management, which is generally an issue for women and novice shooters and increases the likely hood you’ll enjoy shooting the firearm. As the distances between rear sight and front sight increases, accuracy improves. Barrel length plays a factor in improved accuracy and velocity which aides in lethality. There are enough options out there for anyone to find a semi auto that fits there hand but few people will enjoy shooting snub nose .38’s or pocket 9’s.
Cars have been around for 100 years as well, yet there have been tons of technological improvements. Same on semi autos. They are better then ever, simple to use, many with no external safeties to mess with and more reliable then revolvers. Some even have less working parts.
This is not my soap box hobby horse. I have never made a dollar that did not revolve around fire arms and violence. To a much greater degree then any big city cop. I research, train and live these things on a rotating basis. A .38 isn’t a bad option. I carried a .357 for years until technology caught up with the potential of the 9mm, but technology has improved and there is no reason to opt for second best.
A shooting is justified or it is not. The kind of weapon you use is not a factor…. sort of. Where people get into trouble is shooting when they should not, use handloaded ammo and when they modify the trigger pull bellow 4.5 pounds ( if I recall correctly). That you used a .38 or a glock or a Bowie knife or run them down with your car is not relative.
You have most assuredly moved on to talking about what you do not know.
@Ms. Liz 133:
” I think in the context of a female who isn’t really familiar with firearms a revolver is the best choice. I like my 38. It is easy to clean, easy to load, doesn’t jam and there’s no bullet left in the chamber when the clip is ejected because there is no clip. Less moving parts. Just my .02. My husband prefers his wide assortment of other types of handguns (so do our sons). He is an expert marksman. i have far less of an interest in firarms. The pistol is mine and I don’t like the others (though i have shot them on occasion at the range) because I like things simple.”
O: Boom. And here’s an interesting article I’ve stumbled across in the past hour, just by Googling the search term “purse special revolvers”: http://www.thewellarmedwoman.com/what-kind-of-a-gun-for-a-woman
Earlier I talked about my grand dad; now I’ll talk a bit about my dad, Papa O. Like grand dad, he too was a Marine, and therefore was highly familiar with firearms, most notably rifles and the .45 semi auto pistol. But like my grand dad, he too highly favored the .38 snubby, double-action pistol as his go-to gun of choice. In fact, he owned several of them (whereas my grand dad only owned one, as far as I knew) – one to keep on his person; and one for each of his vehicles, two vans (one for work, the other for pleasure). He’d keep em under the dash in special holsters he installed there, in case he didn’t have his snubby on him or couldn’t get to it, etc. and could simply reach down a bit and whip it out. Remember the story of how he and Mama O met? Remember how it was said that she had to beat guys off with a stick? All that stopped when she met Papa O – word got around quick that her new guy was not at all averse or hesitant to put a bullet in any guy who came sniffing around her, LOL. He also carried a slapjack, too, for those instances where he might get in a toedown that didn’t require jerking out the steel.
Oh, and in case anyone’s interested or wondering: cops still carry snubbies as their BUG (backup gun), either in an ankle holster, pocket of their uniform jacket, some concealed holster on their person, etc. – and for very good reason. The same ones I’ve been discussing throughout this thread. That’s right, when their department issued-nines don’t do the trick out there on the bricks, their last resort is the snubby 38. And it almost always comes through, too.
Like I said, if I were going to pack heat, my first choice would be a snubby 38, for all the reasons we’ve both been saying. Out on the bricks, it don’t come down to who’s an expert marksman, it comes down to who can whip out their piece the quickest and make some noise – and hitting the target, which will be within 15 yards or less – too.
O.
@Sfcton 135:
“Contrary to popular opinion, you most certainly do have to aim carefully with shotguns and buckshot.”
O: I don’t recall anyone saying otherwise…
“A woman with a baseball bat is much less off a day deterrent then a man or a teenage boy with a baseball bat.”
O: Oh, how sexist of you.
OK, yea, if a perp sees Ms. Bloom or Ms. Liz, say, coming at him with a bat, fine; but if either lady gets the drop on said perp – BLAAAAW!!!
“There is no reason why Bloom could not keep a pistol on her at all times. Keeping it locked up is a common newbie mind set, but one based on unreasonable fear vs reality.”
O: Again, no disagreement there; the issue is about keeping loaded weapons ready to go at home when (presumably young) kids are about. As I said in my previous vignette about my having to confront intruders alone, my grand dad was always armed – carried his snubby on him at all times, and more firepower was never far away if needed – but he always locked up the arsenal at home. And I’m glad that he did, because what would have happened had one of those perps had gotten to his gun case and gotten one? I might not be here today. Sure, they might have been packing heat already to do the job to begin with, but why give them even MORE of the same? As it turned out, me with my Louisville Slugger (and the all important element of surprise) evened the odds nicely…and yea, I was still a teenager at the time.
“You’ve purse is not the best place to keep your firearm.”
O: Again, I don’t recall anyone saying otherwise; but since you bring up purses, here’s another trick for the ladies: “load” your purse. By that I mean, put a brick in it, or a can of stewed tomatos, something like that. When a perp tries to make a move on you, you mollywhop the beejeezus outta him – BLAAAAAW!!! I’ve seen that move quite a few times, too – something my mom and her girlfriends would do back in the day – “loading a pocketboot” – and it was and remains, highly effective. It won’t work with those little “clutch” style purses; you have to have an “Aunt Esther” from Sanford & Sons-style purse – what they used to call back in the day, a “pocketbook”. I see they’ve made something of a comback, those larger style purses, probably to accomodate laptops and the like; well, those are perfect to “load” with a surprise for a would-be perp. Completely street-legal, too.
” Cars have been around for 100 years as well, yet there have been tons of technological improvements. Same on semi autos. They are better then ever, simple to use, many with no external safeties to mess with and more reliable then revolvers. Some even have less working parts.”
O: Noted – nevertheless, my part fromm earlier stands: there haven’t been any major fundamental changes in the way guns are function, computers compute, or phones work. Same deal with cars – they still run on gas with combustible engines, use four wheels, etc. Electric cars and hybrids haven’t proven scalable (and thus affordable). Don’t get me wrong, I love the Tesla, but even if I could afford the price tag, which is formidable, I probably wouldn’t go for it when I could get a wheel for a whole lot less and gets me from “A” to “B” just as quickly.
” You have most assuredly moved on to talking about what you do not know.”
O: I’m a Black Man who was born and raised in one of the toughest urban environments on planet Earth.
Any questions?
O.
@Ms. Bloom:
” Yes I know I would need to be way more comfortable w the firearms before getting one. The shotguns were heavy and akward but I get that you don’t have to be close or a good aim so that’s in the plus category, and the sound alone would likely send them running.”
O: Precisely. The sound of you pumping the slide on the shotty will likely do it. But if not, then definitely the “bang” it will make. They do make pump-shottys that are shorter/lighter than what you may have dealt with, with the possible tradeoff that they may hold fewer rounds and/or have less in the way of overall firepower; if this is the case, no problem, the vast majority of perps won’t be able to tell the difference. All they know is they’re in the sh*t with a chick who’s armed and knows how to use it, LOL.
“Handguns seem more my scale as far as weight and such but again I would need to learn a lot more before getting one.”
O: You had mentioned that you had a neighbor who owned a country store or something; they had recently gotten a gun (don’t know if it was a pistol or rifle)? See if you can hang over there and watch them target practice, then see if you can practice a few rounds yourself. It’s free and will give you a chance to see what holding/firing a gun feels like. It’s a start.
“I think for now I will get some gel mace, not that it will kill anyone but its better than nothing till I figure it out.”
O: Definitely – I wholeheartedly advocate ladies such as yourself having mace/pepper spray, even if you’re armed. Its a good option to have, especially if you use it by surprise, as it opens up options for you – whether you just want to get the heck outta there straightaway, or whether you want to followup with yet another “surprise” in the form of a swift kick/knee to the nether regions, clawing at his eyes, chopping/punching him in the throat, etc and then, getting outta there.
“And really just reading all this makes me think, I really don’t want to be in that role, i think serving tea and refreshments sounds way better. ”
O: LOL!–believe me, you are not alone. Quite a few ladies – and this includes Sistas, believe it or not – feel exactly the same way.
“But I am for now and if it came down to them or my kids… It would be Bye bye wo any second thought. But I know I would need to be really comfortable, second had comfortable, to keep it together under pressure.”
O: You’re going to do just fine. The way you handled that meth head situation? Just keep that in mind.
“Probably shooting the thing into the air every few weeks or having Hercules or a friend w a gun come shoot those every now and then until I get it sorted out would spread the word — that crazy neighbor lady is armed, watch out! ;)”
O: Yup – there is always strength in numbers, too.
“luckily my friendly country store owner is getting a firearm license and is now stocking ammo, handy! But really, given my choices, it’s a world I would rather never explore.”
O: I can dig it; but the reality is, that given your situation, it would be wise to at the very least, consider your self-defense options. After all, it just isn’t all about you – its about your girls, and your livelihood, too.
O.
It’s interesting to see the parallels in the discussions here concerning women’s choices in men and women’s choices in guns. It is essential to choose a gun that you will shoot, for example, in the same way it is essential to choose a man that you will sex. And the gun will work the same way it worked last time, and the man will too. But it’s a choice, and if you choose not to decide i.e. “I’ll get mace instead” or “I’ll get cats instead”, you still have made a choice.
Nope you simply do not know what you are talking about. Like most city folk, and almost all amateurs, you think your small life experience is the sum total of what’s going on.
Bloom, in addition to the good advice here I will throw in my own $.02.
I’d probably start with an asskicking-capable dog—but only if you have the time to treat the animal as a loyal friend and not as a protection device—and harden the house with serious locks, (preferably Medecos), strong doors/ frames, and with outdoor lighting. Keep your cell phone and charger in the bedroom. Fire extinguishers and first aid kits and so on would also be parts of the system.
Nothing is perfect—if you get attacked by some professionally-trained Batman operator, he’ll always get through and there is not a whole lot than anyone can do about it. But most bad guys are looking for an easy mark.
You would normally want the bedroom door to be quite serious—exterior grade—and to keep it locked at night, but with the small kids that may not be the best idea. Are their rooms adjacent to your own? The general concept in the tactical community is that, in the event of a break-in, you want to stay in the hard room, call the cops, and have a weapon and lighting source trained on the door from a good location within the room. You wouldn’t want to leave the room to go “check things out.” *You also need to be able to positive ID any threat before you start putting rounds downrange.*
However, if you have kids in the next room they will need to be secured and you need a plan to get them into the safe room or to smoothly exit the house to another location. They will be very scared, semi-functional in terms of cognition, etc. However it is resolved, a live home break-in is usually a life-changing event with psychological ramifications that will last for years. It’s a very serious situation.
Re: weapons. I carried a SIG 226 for about five years and took it to a lot of shooting schools, including Rogers and Mid-South, but in the many moons since been having a love/hate relationships with high-end 1911s and a generally practical “love” relationship with Glocks. At this point, I might take a 1911 platform into a shooting competition, but will use a Glock in high round-count training or for self-defense *with the possible exception of an STI Tactical 4.0 that I do trust). I personally shoot 1911s better than I do any other handguns but the range of malfunctions and problems I have seen with them has made them more of a sexy fetish/collector thing for me at this point. If you are willing to make servicing the weapon a religion, then you might feel differently.
I know a lot of really tough guys who are carrying nicely-tuned snubbies when they have to work very low-profile. If you go with a snug you can take snub-specific courses that deal with the particulars of that platform.
If someone breaks into my house and forces an engagement that person will probably be facing something more substantial than a pistol.
If you attend a private-sector tactical shooting class in the U.S.—there are a lot of really good ones out there now—you will probably see at least half the students carrying Glocks of one form or another. The most esteemed instructors—guys like Paul Howe of CSAT—are normally carrying Glocks for both tactical work and concealed carry/plainclothes. Most of the females in attendance (the classes are overwhelmingly male, but the ratios are changing as more women feel the need to provide for their own physical protection—or to use the classes to meet protection-capable men!) will be carrying Glock 19s specifically.
This can be area where having a certain type of alpha as boyfriend or husband can be worth some of the downsides that come with being with such a high-maintenance, typically vain individual. In my experience, the women who specifically love alphas tend to look at performance during hypothetical extreme events or dangers or competitive social situations and use those to form the overarching guide to mate selection, while the women who specifically want betas tend to look at having support and helpmeet functions during the day-to-day life. I can see an argument for either one, but the folly is in expecting “alpha on demand” and failing to realize that these traits are very expensive and require active cultivation and encouragement by the woman (e.g. “Come back with your shield, Spartan. Or on it.”).
TL;DR version: think of layers of defense starting with the perimeter of your house and then intensifying as things get closer to you and your kids. If you choose to carry a weapon, get good training.
Here are some of my thoughts about home defense.
Stopping power is most important for home defense. Second is that your shots don’t hurt other members of your family by going through walls. Third is reliability.
I like Greg Illifritz’s article on stopping power at http://www.buckeyefirearms.org. I like Jeff Cooper’s thoughts about self defense in “To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth.”
You’ll want night sights at a minimum. Probably you’ll want a flashlight on your gun as well as a laser pointer. The flashlight may keep you from shooting a family member. Having it on your gun will allow you to use both hands to control your pistol. The laser pointer will show you where you are aiming.
I use a 1910 .45 automatic with solid bullets as my quick access weapon at night with a .38 special revolver with hollow point ammo as backup. I have an 870 12-gauge short barrel riot gun loaded with bird- and buckshot close by all the time. There are fire irons handy, too. No kids to worry about though.
If you worry about kids, carry a loaded clip on your person at all times and keep your automatic weapons unloaded up high and covered with a cloth so that kids can’t see them but you can reach them in an emergency.
A .22 pistol is cheap to practice with, easy to control, and you can do combat shooting with it. A .22 solid bullet in the head is usually deadly and easy to do at close range in combat if you’ve practiced combat shooting a little. You have to keep up your skills of course. You can also pepper an opponent’s body quite quickly with a .22 pistol using hollow point ammo so that the effect is somewhat like getting hit with buckshot from a shotgun. Five hits with .22 hollow point and he’s probably going down. You can easily fire that many in a couple of seconds. You can get .22 clips with 10 rounds easily.
You can do a lot of practice with a .22 cheaply, then a little with your other pistols so that you are used to using them and their rate of fire, etc.
If your opponent has a bullet-proof vest, you’ll need a rifle or a shotgun or a .357 or .44 magnum pistol.
That should have been 1911, not 1910.
I understand Office Linebacker is now in a wheelchair. One of the betas he assaulted for not recycling was packing.
The other half of the discussion is, as usual, missing from the subreddit. If men are supposed to “just treat women as people”, what if any obligation is there upon women? Since women, as a group and NAWALT, tend to treat men as walking ATM’s / fashion accessories / sperm vending machines, etc. rather than as “people”, it appears that once again we have the one-sided obligation in support of the one-sided choices. That is, men are somehow obliged to treat women “as people”, whereas women can choose to treat men like machines, like pack animals, like handbags, etc. in fact like anything and everything except people.
With the caveat that “people” isn’t defined. Since feminism is the notion that only women are human, it follows that treating men like women is “just treating them like people”. Of course, men and women are not the same – women are not men who can have babies, and men are not defective women.
Once again we see two things: unstated, unquestioned premises, and the notion of men as objects rather than human beings.
Postscript:
As an aside, I recall the experience of teaching some women to shoot both pistol and rifle. They were easier to instruct than men, in one critical way: it was a a topic they didn’t assume they already knew everything about, and therefore were open to being told how to do things. It’s much more difficult to unlearn falsehoods than to learn new and correct things.
Everyone on this thread should find a copy of Principles of Personal Defense by Jeff Cooper and read it at least two times, then re-read it once per annum afterwards.
@fuzzie a female in a room full of men often gets attention, start talking about guns and by golly apparently popularity follows!
I really, really appreciate all the thoughts on both the home front security and the alpha/beta conundrum.
Ironically last night, 8:40 a guy in his 20s comes to the door (I did not open it this time) says he’s broken down and his cell phone is dead can he use my phone? I said thru the door, what’s the number, called it for him, then told him to go wait at the country store for his friend who was on the way. Then I called 911 with a report, his description, and the number he had me call. Then I called my neighbor who used to own the store (he’s 85 and retired) and asked him to drive by the store to make sure the guy was there. He was. My neighbor grilled him a bit, determined his story rang true, and called me to let me know. I know the name of every neighbor in this valley, another excellent self defense strategy! I felt bad for being so unfriendly to the stranded motorist, but considering recent events…hope he understands.
Ordering the gel mace today for starters. It shoots 20 feet and is $19 on eBay. The firearms, I will get checking out the suggestions in person. Plus the shooting range might not be a bad place to meet defense minded guys, eh? Just kidding!
When my neighbor called back I told him I wanted to get a gun (he was a firearm dealer and has carried a conceal all his life. ) He said he didn’t think I could live w myself if I shot someone. I told him if I had to choose between living with that or living with the aftermath of one of my girls getting hurt or killed bc I didn’t, no question I would be ok w blasting the perp. (not for just knocking on the door but if they try entering then I would say fair game, I am sure that would be considered self defense.) no question if there was clear and present danger, I would not hesitate. It’s a momma bear thing.
Now my confession of shame – after the guy moves on I realize that two of my downstairs doors, including the one he came to, were unlocked. My bad. Won’t happen again.
This is conventional wisdom and probably true but there is another side to it. That is, women tend to be less independent-minded and more easily led than men are. If you frame it like that rather than as “women are better students” it doesn’t sound quite as complimentary to women. Sometimes being easily led/taught is a good quality to have, sometimes it’s not.
Even in this red-pill forum a lot of guys are eager to help the damsel in distress. Old habits die hard.
@ Obsidian
It makes no sense to compare firearms technology with computing technology. Mass-market computing technology has stagnated because it has turned into a feminine-consumer-oriented industry. They focus on creating fancy gadgets with bells and whistles and lots of pretty colors that women and feminized men will snap up. Additionally, the tech industry is oriented towards rapid turnover, so computing products are not built to last.
Additionally, the 9mm is not a fundamentally new platform either. It’s merely become optimally engineered over time.
@ johnathan, not sure i get the point? Male or female, knowing when to follow and when to lead is a good skill to have. Lets flip that logic. Should a man refuse to listen to a female or male cardiogist for example, no matter how alpha, or hes risks being thought not true alpha? learning from those who know more about a given topic is simply efficient and wise. I could refuse all this advice on principle of (?) me being an independent capable woman who can figure it out herself, I suppose, or these guys could tell me I am an Independant capable woman, figure it out and dont come back. But the fact that we can have this discussion, that I feel welcome here, speaks volumes I think against the assumption that red pill = a bunch of woman hating sexist pig bastards. There may be some, but in all I am not seeing that. And in the end if men and women abandon each others company altogether, or only use each other as a means to an end. How is that better? I see a lot of red pill guys here trying to improve gender relations! And that’s not a bad idea for all involved. Here here red pill!
I think the supplicating beta vs. willing-to-defend alpha is a false dichotomy.
I think it’s perfectly possible to have a supplicating beta who will be willing to do what it takes when needed. At the same time, it’s perfectly possible that an “alpha” will run and head for greener pastures when it actually counts.
Think of a real life Ser Jorah Mormont.
Keep in mind it is a beta who is used to needing to do what is necessary: an alpha gets things done for him.
Also Morpheus and all, I know I have been commenting here a lot, enough I have considered starting my own blog to discuss some of my thoughts on red pill / blue pill from a woman’s perspective. Not sure I want to commit to a regular blog but for all the things I post here I am thinking 10 other things I could also say so but don’t bc its related but off topic so perhaps it is inevitable: for now thanks for letting me hang in the cave a bit, much obliged! You will all be welcome to comment away there, and I will continue to read here and elsewhere round the web. Fascinating stuff, all this is….
@nemisis agreed. Consider a military unit. One alpha or clearly defined alphas of various rank. And betas. Many more betas than alpha. Courageous each and every one! My goodness, they are really the frontline! Consider an army of all alphas? Would t work, which is much of what the bootcamp experience and learning to take orders wo question is about. (Here i could jump off onto a tanget of what a military of all women might function like, but will save that for my future blog.) Beta does not in my mind = bad/weak/wuss but it seems some men here see the term as an insult. Maybe bc there are many different perceptions of what alpha and beta mean? Still wrapping my head around it. Me thinks there is much to say in praise of the beta!
Alphas are males for whom females willingly, perhaps fearfully, perform physical services, especially bringing them food, doing grooming, and exerting themselves in sex, and the alphas seldom if ever have to actually exert themselves for females’ servicing. In total contrast, betas are those males whom females insist must perform INSTEAD, in service of the female. This includes any situation in which the females tries to weasel out by saying the male merely must do things “too” or “first”.
In the majority of human hetero couples, the woman makes the man scratch her back more than twice as often as she will scratch his. For example.
And even my friend, a woman who has done two tours in Iraq was always “in the village” aka the compound, not on the front line. That’s another tangent but a male friend in the service (special forces) explained it as such when we were debating a woman who wanted to join their unit, which is black cloak/bleeding edge frontline/actually behind the line unit. (now in contrast this unit is all alphas, and it works, yet even they have a very defined hierarchy.) while the woman in question was physically capable and a great person who would have given it her 100% patriotic all, he said because of group dynamics it wouldn’t be possible – they would have to focus on two battles then, the mission at hand and then also protecting her. Even if she asked them not to. He swore they would not be able to overlook coming to her defense in a way they did not feel the need to do for each other, although they would have all given their lives for the other. Was it sexist? Or was it the way things work? Are some things truth regardless and maybe should be accepted instead of dismantled/challenged/painted with the sexist brush? I thought it was a valid point, not about her not being able to do or not to the job. (Background: I worked student hire civil service at a military base in college that supported this special forces unit and am a military brat myself.)
@JF12 154:
Boom. About the most concise, functional definition of what an Alpha or Beta Male is. Gotta use that!
O.
@Jonathan:
” Even in this red-pill forum a lot of guys are eager to help the damsel in distress. Old habits die hard.”
O: Good point!–and I think this goes right back to my previous post:
http://www.justfourguys.com/hanbags-4-peace-meets-the-defenders-of-maidan-compare-contrast/
I think the key difference between Ms. Bloom here, and Ms. Sanchez in my previous post, is self-evident…is it not?
O.@Jonanathan:
@jf12 that sounds more like a rigid Dom/sub, Master/slave relationship definition, nothing wrong with that if both parties agree, who am i to judge…(a common misconception tho is that the sub is unwilling/powerless/victim but from what I have been told theres a big “no means no” rule, the sub is not w/o regard or her/his own limits, the sub sets the limits and those limits are always respected. Not all Doms are maschchists, either — some are sensual Doms who get off on making a woman get off, torturing her w orgasms and sensual pleasure rather than w pain. I am not making it up! Not that I have gone into the world of kink myself bc its too poly for me, being a one guy gal, but if I had to choose a Dom
) but I think my definition/understanding of alpha/beta is a little less S and M. But to each their own! 
(And a whole other topic for my blog!)
@Bloom
The points are that 1) there are different ways to look at the same things and 2) there are tradeoffs in human nature, and differences between the sexes, that a lot of people won’t acknowledge.
The conventional framing is: Women tend to take instruction better, men tend to think they already know everything.
An alternative framing might be: Women tend to be more docile and easily led, men tend to be more independent-minded and creative.
Both statements are correct and they are really different ways to say the same thing. However, the first statement is repeated widely by men and women while the second statement is un-PC and will usually get a rise out of women. The main difference is that the first statement notes the positive qualities of one characteristic of female nature and the negative qualities of the corresponding male characteristic. The second statement does the reverse.
#158, no, alphaness and betaness having nothing to do with SM (or BD for that matter). If the man makes the woman get off, he is being beta – him servicing her. If the woman makes the man to lie still while she pops a couple of pimples on his back, he is being alpha – her servicing him. It isn’t complicated, in fact it’s very clarifying if you let it.
I doubt anyone in SpecOps would side step the mission to rescue a woman team member. We have all pretty much stepped over wounded team members or been stepped over while wounded by team members during one mission or another.
I have never noticed women being easier to instruct at anything on any topic. Even when she was willing…. there’s like a natural lack of athletic ability that makes even teaching them to shoot require extra time and words
If I may, I’d like to mention that relying on pepper spray/mace is risky. I don’t recall the exact percentage, but a portion of the population is actually “immune” to the effects of the spray, to varying degrees. Whether a natural resistance, or as a result of drugs/alcohol/mental health issues, it simply does not work on everyone 100% of the time.
Another thing to consider would be the fact that often, the person deploying the substance ends up with a faceful of it themselves, due to environmental factors (i.e the wind blowing the wrong way), or by the dynamic nature of a violent encounter. I have had to run through clouds of the stuff a few times while responding as back up, and it’s not fun. Not fun at all.
Granted, this may be less of a concern with the gel based version; I personally have not had any direct experience with that product.
Bloom,
I think you like all this masculine attention. I have to admit that I like ateention from the feminine.
I am glad to hear that the late night knock at the door was legitimate.
I disagree pretty strongly with Obsidian in #138, in his remarks on shotgunning in home defense, as follows:
a. drug addicts, psychopaths, and professionals do not run away when you rack a shotgun slide. They respond to different inputs than we do.
b. to self-announce one’s presence by racking a slug, by definition one must enter — unarmed — the hallway or room with the bad guy. Only one of the people here is qualified to do that. I suspect he wouldn’t bother.
c. the shot-spread of a 12 gauge at 21 feet is less than the diameter of a softball. So it’s pretty easy to miss, in the dark, with shaking hands, a 180 pulse, and other distractions.
d. good luck if one of your arms is out of commission: most of us aren’t good enough to cycle a pump action with one arm, before the person 20 feet away takes it away
e. 5+1 or 6+1 shots (a pump action’s usual capacity) is not a lot of shots.
f. Anyone thinking about home defense firearms, who shares a house with other people or lives in an apartment building, needs to think about wall penetration.
So I love my old-school shotguns, but I think they’re oversold for home defense.
***
Other notes:
A girlfriend is on a few shitlists from her postings overseas, and her employer gave her a Glock, and said Good luck! when she came home. She usually points it in the right direction and it’s fairly painless to train with. (I have a Model 19 (the one BB says all the girls brandish!) and have put 500 rounds through it with only a couple of glitches, and those probably ammo related.) So I agree with BB’s recommendation on Glocks. I also enjoy looking at my 1911 more than I enjoy its reliability. I do prefer the 1911’s trigger action, and I’m thinking of getting another one. I have two pants-pocket pistols in .380: a Ruger LCP and a Walther PPK/S. The Ruger has been more reliable.
For her home I’m going to get her a .223 or try to find a semi-auto, short-barrel 20 gauge shotgun. Interesting note on DC gun laws: one must apply to register even a long gun, and the weapon can only be registered to one half of a cohabitating couple (rendering its use in self-defense technically illegal, if it is not owned by the trigger-puller).
[Footnote: the girlfriend is an apostate Mormon, and in one of the more bizarre and enjoyable getaways with a sex-pozzie SIW that I’ve had, I drove her to Nauvoo and Carthage IL to tour the Mormon historical village, as well as the jail (Carthage) where Joseph Smith was lynched. I know very little of Mormon history, but I note that there is very, very little difference in what happened to Chris Stevens and what happened to Joseph Smith — the latter at the hands of the good Christians of frontier Illinois. That is a deeply disturbing event, Smith’s killing, when one examines it.]
[Also, Jonathan Browning was a Mormon and had a shop that is now a small museum in Nauvoo, though it was his son John Browning who was the genius gun designer (e.g., 1911 and BAR).]
@jf12, I am not sure I would agree that alphas are only serviced but never reciprocate pleasure. That kinds sounds like what one would expect from a transactional encounter (like w a prostitute, and even then money is exchanged) than a mate. But hey if she’s down w it and he is too, to each their own. I like a more every body wins experience myself. Curious if you are in a relationship and how thats working, if its your approach?
So basically we’re all suppose to go back to being children ?
A person may not like the idea of interacting a certain way with someone based on their appearance, speech, body language etc, but these things do tell us something about people and are important to our survival.
‘Solipsism’ – Some have mentioned it already, the concept is new to me but I feel is appropriate in helping describe the ‘women as people’ strategy.
Cool article.
OK, this discussion has totally veered off into Theatre of the Absurd-level stuff. A few thoughts:
1. I have found over the years that, the Internet has, for some strange and odd reason that I have yet to figure out, the uncanny ability to vastly distort everyday reality; everyone on the Internet is from Lake Woebegone or something – no one is average, or heaven forbid, below it. So when discussions arise about everyday encounters, all of a sudden self-styled experts parachute in with supposed expertise in all of the minutiae you’d could ever need or want. The “funny house” effect of the Internet is something that I have never been bored with, but at the same time, it is something that can be, to me at least, deeply irritating.
2. For anyone to attempt to suggest that Ms. Bloom is somehow emblematic of Mens’ “problems” in our time, a la “The Damsel in Distress” thing, just beggars belief. If one really, truly, honestly thinks that there is no distinction whatsoever between Ms. Bloom and Ms. Tymea Sanchez, who I’ve written two posts about to date, said person or anyone who thinks as he does, has a much deeper problem than supposed “damsels in distress”. I mean, really.
3. We have just had an exhaustive debate – debate! – about whether a snubnosed .38 pistol is a good selection not just for Ms. Bloom, but for just about anyone. This, when we’ve had firsthand testimony from another Woman in the forum – Ms. Liz – who is married to a NATO fighter pilot(!) who himself, has an extensive firearms collection and is, in her own words, “an excellent marksman”, say that she prefers her .38 for all the reasons I’ve laid out way back upthread. We have heard from Bastiat, an ex-Navy SEAL, who knows guys who work in varying levels of LE who rely on snubbies as BUGs. We know that cops, both on the beat and undercover, who also go to snubbies as BUGs, for more than a century straight and to this very day as we speak. And I gave the direct experience of my grand dad, a shopkeeper – much like Ms. Bloom – who had considerable success actually having to use his concealed carry snubbie, on more than one occasion in the defence of his business and family. I just could not keep from shaking my head at the sheer level of funny housing at that one.
4. Then, the umpteenth round of “Who’s on First?” with regard to what does or does not make one an Alpha Male rears its ugly head – something that I’ve NEVER encountered in real life. And it’s truly irritating as all get out. But I think I get why there’s so much angst over it, and why there’s been attempts to parse it, etc – and it ties directly into Ms. Bloom’s recent experience with Beta Dad:
Because most Men know, deep down, that they ain’t it.
That’s why.
And instead of merely addressing themselves to BE it, they instead want to weigh-down ANY discussion of the matter – hence the “Build a Better Beta” chorus here in the forum. I mean, really – if you can’t see what Ms. Bloom reported, about how SHE had to fend off like three dudes in succession with her guy for the evening right there, and you still think “he can be saved” – a grown-arsed Man with a kid of his own(?!?!?) – then, I simply do not know what else to tell you. I mean, so what, Ms. Bloom – a Woman who’s a singlemom of two kids, a business owner, also has to Build a Better Beta, too – is that it? How about this bright idea: homeboy gets a clue on his own, gets his act together, and THEN comes correct – how about that?
5. Ms. Bloom is NOT squaring off against professional contract killers jumping outta black heliocopters on her front lawn; she’s dealing with vagrants, of which the PACNW has a lot of I understand, meth heads, ditto, drifters/strangers like the one she wrote about yesterday – that sort of thing. Maybe a few biker types. Maybe a stick-up kid. Something like that. But NATO-grade professional soldiers-for-hire? CIA Black Ops types?
Please.
So all that “laser sight this” and “FBI stat” that, is superfluous, and does more harm than good. All it does is show off what you think you know about the real world for most people, most of the time, out there on the bricks.
And it is seriously, woefully counterproductive.
6. Right now, as we speak, there is a discussion obtaining over at You Know Where, about “muscleheads”, and the supposed notion that key voices in the Manosphere advocate that every Man must – MUST! – workout to the point of looking like Hanz and Franz. But WHO in the Manosphere, actually says this??? What I hear in and from the ‘sphere is, that most Men in our time are seriously out of shape, either too skinny or too fat, and need to get their stuff together on the workout tip – and YES, that involves weights. Not “machines” – IRON. It means getting in shape – not looking like Arnold in his heyday, or Lee Haney. Just getting in shape. Getting some definition in the arms. Get some semblance of a “V” going. Getting rid of that God-awful eyesore of a gut. It means not looking like an emaciated worm. How in the world anyone can take that to mean “Juicehead Arnold” is honestly beyond me.
But, you see, the Internet’s funny house effect kicks in, and sets the stage for people, in this case Women who, because THEY have a thing for a certain “type” that apes The Beatles circa 1964, it therefore means that ALL Women everywhere, for ever and ever, Amen, must ipso facto, share that same thing for that same certain “type” – and a quick and casual look around in the real world confirms for all of us, that this is simply not so. And instead of merely saying “to each her own” and leaving it at that, these ladies have to go on a windmill tilting tear against stuff nobody ever said.
Freaking ridiculous.
I write because it is high time some degree of realworld realism, practicality and good ole commonsense, rooted in what has proven to actually work out there on the bricks, was brought into the digital public square so it have its day in the Sun. It is something that unfortunately, is NOT common online, where everyone is a high-level elite expert in all manner of esoterica, where everyone is a special snowflake, where even the most simplest of things can be parsed and granulated to the death, ad nauseum, for the simple reason that most people would rather hold on for dear life to their whacked-arsed ideologies and not do a darned thing to change, rather than dealing with the hard work of actually making change for a better life for themselves and everyone around them. I write because I am beyond sick and tired of being sick and tired of the daily BS that I have to continually suffer through, both online and off. And I write because I am of the view that somewhere out there, are guys like me – regular, everyday dudes – who are just trying to make sense of this Brave New World that we inhabit.
#RantOverForNow
O.
“Ms. Bloom is NOT squaring off against professional contract killers jumping outta black heliocopters on her front lawn…”
@ O – Lmfao! And thank goodness I am not too, but that was a great visual!
#168:
I thoroughly enjoyed that, Obsidian. I actually LOL’d at a few points. I particularly enjoyed point number 1. So much I’ll repeat it:
I have found over the years that, the Internet has, for some strange and odd reason that I have yet to figure out, the uncanny ability to vastly distort everyday reality; everyone on the Internet is from Lake Woebegone or something – no one is average, or heaven forbid, below it. So when discussions arise about everyday encounters, all of a sudden self-styled experts parachute in with supposed expertise in all of the minutiae you’d could ever need or want. The “funny house” effect of the Internet is something that I have never been bored with, but at the same time, it is something that can be, to me at least, deeply irritating.
Well said, sir.
#165 I’m married, and I’m beta, so it is the opposite of reality that I get serviced by my female. Like the vast majority of marriages, I HAVE to do her instead of her doing me. There almost never is any win-win, because of the women.
“Because most Men know, deep down, that they ain’t [Alpha].” Obsidian said it wrong. Most men have it yelled in their face every single stinking day by their wives.
Re: fending off other men. Although my experience is very limited with women being My Woman, totalling two, I’ve never had to fend off other men when I’ve been present. Yes, presumably sometimes there is the “Stand down fellas, you can’t have her, she’s all mine. It’s my lot in life, sigh.” factor when she gets all uppity, but there must be something else (and no it’s not the bulge of my concealed carry). Not that I’m especially jealous but when in love I’m automatically hypervigilant, so if men had tried to begin to indicate they might cut in, I would have noticed. Especially when I was younger, and scrawnier.
There was an article this year concerning mate guarding, women’s weapons of warfare being purses and shoes. A woman uses the fact that her man spends on her as social proof which keeps other women away. Roughly speaking, (gruffly, I must have been snoring or something, along with spring sinus stuff, and my voice is growlier than usual, and I’m supposed to sing a song tonight, sigh), a man holding his wife’s moderately expensive purse in the store while she tries on fashionable shoes, is the most guardedest mate: she has guaranteed no other woman will be interested in him.
It seems unlikely that my wife is behaving differently when I’m there, which keeps other men away, so it must be me. But I’m not self-aware enough to know what mate-guarding signals I’m emitting.
#165 I believe there are two hamsters in women’s brains that battle about the primate alpha/beta distinction.
1) Since the majority of men are beta, maybe 80%, chances are a woman’s man is beta and she can’t stand the thought. Even as she acknowledges it, “yes, he scratches my back twice as much, but that’s because he does it so well!”, she doesn’t want to have to admit it.
2) In the rare cases that the man is alpha, the woman literally doesn’t perceive her servicing as it is. “Oh, but I ENJOY making him sandwiches. That’s my favorite part of the day. I’m doing it for me, tee hee.”
But the alpha/beta distinction is quite real, and in fact is made more real to me every time women dispute it.
@jf12
“Most men have it yelled in their face every single stinking day by their wives.”
That is so depressing. Don’t groom her. Totally ignore her if what she talks about isn’t important to your health and happiness. Walk your own path in a way that doesn’t rely on her _as long as she’s in rebellion_.
At least my wife grooms me. She just won’t meet me at the door when I come home and that makes me mad. Then, when I confront her about it asks, “Why should I?” Then I say, “Because you should show me respect.” And she says, “That’s a two-way street.” I refuse to qualify myself to her even though I meet her at the door when she comes home. She’s in rebellion. And all the insecurity tests are annoying. So I end up ignoring her. And she ignores me, which is fine. I have my social life and she sits at home.
@ O:
I just quoted part of your comment on my blog. It is simply too well said to be left buried here in the comments section. Internet folk need the occasional reality check.
@Obsidian
“Because most Men know, deep down, that they ain’t it.”
I think that being asked “Are you beta” even scares alphas to some degree. If a guy ignores the question and the woman gives a response that indicates that she thinks that he’s beta, that can be scary. A man needs to maintain his frame when that happens and realize that a woman’s opinions about his status really aren’t important–especially not from their wives. He needs to be aloof from their hamsterization. Generally, when women perceive that, they will switch their opinions. Not that it should affect the man’s frame in any case.
Whenever I get a shit test from a woman, that nasty question, “Are you beta?” rears its ugly, scary head. And I have my doubts for a brief time. And some women probably do perceive me as beta, which is fine since I’m not interested in them anyway and simply ignore them. Yeah, that could be perceived as alpha aloofness and the women’s response is to find a man who will pay them attention. But I don’t really care.
@Obsidian
“Ms. Bloom is NOT squaring off against professional contract killers jumping outta black heliocopters on her front lawn…”
My comment is aimed more at men.
In the event of a civil breakdown, it’s good to be prepared to defend your home against an attack by a small gang. The M16 is notoriously unreliable and must be maintained diligently in order to avoid jamming. The AK47 is reliable but inaccurate, hence is likely to force engagement at closer ranges with multiple targets.
The Mini14 is reliable and accurate. It uses the same inexpensive cartridge as the M16. That cartridge is very deadly and effective for quick stoppage. The AK47’s 7.62×39mm cartridge has better penetration than the .223, but you will need to engage closer anyway, so that really becomes less important since the .223 can penetrate a car door fine at close range.
The Mini14 allows engagement at longer ranges than the AK47 and is much more reliable than the M16.
Second Obs on guns and the instant appearance of more info than you could need.
To make an analogy; back in the day, hot cars were important to young people. A number of top 10 r&r songs were ABOUT CARS. “She’s so fine, my 409″ “little deuce coupe”, etc. Guys talked endlessly about them.
But guns…. I used to be interested in guns. Hung with some guys who were really into them. Question: Is the M2 carbine an assault rifle. It does what assault rifles do, so yes. The cartridge isn’t necked down, so no. Guys nearly got into a fight. Car talk was always jovial.
Another analogy. Saw a chart on a tactical blog about how long it takes for a guy to pass out if this or that artery is opened. Yeah. In a knife fight with all kinds of crap going on, I’m going to be holding out for a move at the old brachial, yessir.
My father, desperately interested in guns while fighting the Germans, was monumentally uninterested n them for the rest of his life unless something stupid was going on in the movies. I was interested in guns until I found–given the tax payers buying my ammo–they’re about as interesting as a chain saw. But I did qualify as expert in the battalion weapons, pilum and gladius. Joke, guys. I still have hair.
Obs’ note about the fevered interest in the detailiest of details is right on.
I have big hands, much battered one way or another and my thumb doesn’t go where most guys’ thumbs go. Is a wheel gun the best deal….? Rhetorical question.
As to alpha: I know some guys who dominate conversations because they follow somebody else’s end of sentence half a beat faster than anyone else at the, say, table. Does that make them alpha? In our circle, you don’t interrupt, so they have the floor. Means what, exactly?
I think–been told–I’m “take charge”, but I don’t recall that happening except in circumstances generating adrenalin. Alpha? Beta? Something else? I am, take-charge or not, reluctant to ask somebody to do something for me, and even feel mildly uncomfortable about somebody doing it without me asking. Alpha? Beta? Something else?
Had some guests recently, one of whom was a guy in his late forties. He asked if there were any physical jobs he could do while he was here. We live sort of in the country and yard work is more than manicuring something half the size of a tennis court. I thought of asking him to dig through the snow until he found the wood pile, but then I thought he must think I’m feeble. Punk. So I said no.
Alpha? Beta? Something else?
And if I decide I rate the alpha star, what then? Still have to pay for my coffee.
And if somebody else says I’m one or the other or something else…then what?
@jf12 sorry to hear that. I am not one to go around quoting scripture but have her look up proverbs14:1 and have a little meditation on it. (A wise woman builds up her home but a foolish one tears it down with her own hands.) it amazes me how many women will treat a man this way then wonder why she’s got an unhappy marriage.
“Just Treat Women As Cats”
My beta mating strategy was
1) Oneitis on the most unapproachable woman. I figured I must have a better chance with her since, unlike other women, she also rejected all other men and not just me. In contrast, a slutty woman’s mating “strategy”, of being easy for all men except the one man she expects to marry, must be the single most backwards and evil thing imaginable.
2) DHV, DHV, DHV. This is beta move, in case you didn’t know. Alphas don’t have to bother.
3) Treat her like a queen.
I think the better alpha strategy is
1) Treat her like a slut, like all other women act towards you.
2) Let her handwash your socks in her sink, but only if she proves she’s worthy.
Neither of these mating strategies involve treating women like real people.
Bloom. Good point, but…. People are expert at–are trained for–casting blame.
Take increasing the minimum wage. CBO says it will cost 500,000 jobs. So if it happens, what will those who voted for it anyway or supported it in some way say? It’s the fault of those greedy businessmen. That they were warned…? Meaningless. If you can’t see you screwed up–which is why blamecasting is so popular, to keep you from seeing it–you learn nothing.
So after the woman meditates on the scripture, she can either see herself at fault or…cast blame and not see herself at fault.
Your money is on…?
jf12:
“I think the better alpha strategy is
1) Treat her like a slut, like all other women act towards you.
2) Let her handwash your socks in her sink, but only if she proves she’s worthy.
Neither of these mating strategies involve treating women like real people.”
Elegant and brilliant.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think we should occasionally circle back around to note that alpha/beta are often domain- and context-specific. In the primal sense an alpha is a guy who is configured to dominate other men under very physical and psychologically brutal conditions. He would be rewarded with an unusual level of resource control and these resources would presumably include premium quality/quantity of sexual access.
…But now we have situations in which the end-state (resource control) can be achieved by means which would have not been available in an ancestral environment. If you will excuse my reductionism for a moment, I would say that this gives a man potentially at least three ways to appear “alpha”:
1. Show the ends, if not the means. …To have the end-state—resource command—by any means necessary and signal this command in compelling ways. In other words, to dangle $$$ and their proxies and use them for mating advantages via a strategic orientation, etc. This guy may not display qualities that would have been popular with the ladies in a more violent historical period, but he can still be very successful with women who care more about resources than about how they are gained.
I think it was Warren Buffett who said of his old friend Bill Gates that a few centuries ago a guy like Gates “would have been some wild animal’s lunch.”
2. Show the means, if not the ends. …To display the cluster of intrinsically-alpha traits that in ancestral times would have been highly correlated with resource command (genetic fitness, strength & physical prowess, confidence, lack of stress reactivity, status among local male tribe, etc.). This is the quintessential “hot badboy” version of alpha. It does not necessarily have to be associated with resource command in order to work.
3. Show both the ends and the means. …To combine both modern/resource-alpha and paleolithic/badass-alpha in one package.
It seems to me that what all these prototypes have in common is an entitlement/abundance mentality when it comes to sexual opportunities, although the guys have perhaps reached this state by different means. How a man comes to this mindset is, IMHO, a fascinating question.
I think that we all probably know guys who have the raw materials to be alphas, but who for whatever reason—probably pure ignorance—do not have that final abundance mentality when it comes to the SMP. They are probably great catches for some women. We also probably know guys who lack any of the normal raw materials, but who do have that abundance attitude. Women get really upset with them.
“Neither of these mating strategies involve treating women like real people.”
Nor should any proper mating strategy treat women as real people. Real people, collectively, for the most part are at best amusing and at worst no damn good. You can’t take most people seriously. However, mating is a serious business. You probably should take both the process and the woman you trying to mate with seriously. The manosphere wouldn’t exist if this were merely a trivial pursuit.
#184 there are plenty of men who are alphas around men but women treat them like betas. Like Bill Gates for example: the biggest shark in the tank, but women didn’t care for him at all. So it’s a lot easier, and more productive for mating strategies, to just focus on males’ alphaness and betaness being determined by how women treat them.
In that context, in today’s world, alpha males are coddled by women from boyhood. He doesn’t have to “dominate other men” in any way. His mom fights his battles for him, his female teachers mark him higher, the female HR rep greases his salary, his female aides make cover stories for his affairs, his wife bails him out, etc. Scott Brown is a fine example on the Republican side, and Anthony Weiner on the Democrat side.
I meant #183, Bastiat Blogger.
“… everyone on the Internet is from Lake Woebegone or something …”
Well, as a Norwegian bachelor farmer, I am truly offended, OFFENDED, by this remark. (I’m of the opinion that the Internet is not fueled by electrons but outrage, of course.)
I also enjoy learning about everyone’s home defense preferences. For example, I hadn’t thought about having Mrs. Smith install a steel door on her bedroom, as BB suggested. I also think the Ruger ranch gun that eadsgamer mentioned is one of the few .223 options she can get registered in DC, though it will still be mag-limited, which may lead us back to a Mossberg 5+1 (and a mighty big buttpad). Finally, the problem of situational alphatude is one I’ve certainly been thinking about lately, as my abundance mentality appears to swell or recede in an inverse relationship with the degree to which I’m infatuated. (And you want an abundance mentality? Contemplate a few sister-wives. Mrs. Smith strangely glows when one reflects on the sexual burdens of the polygamous man — not what one expects from a stalwart “feminist”.)
So as always, I appreciate nearly all the opinions expressed here, even those that do not reflect the views of J4G’s ownership, who kindly afford us the forum. Oh, and I’d still prefer to walk into a dark hallway with a stacked Vepr over my converted bullpup 870, or my Steyr Aug over a wheel-gun. I guess this makes me something of a keyboard poseur, a gun queer. It’s probably just compensation. Much to think about today.
Jf12, let me make sure I understand your framework. Your approach looks at men who treat women fairly *poorly* by some humanist standard (value-loaded term, I know) and get away with it. These are classified as “alphas.” It also finds men who treat women fairly well by the same internally-consistent behavioral standard and yet are punished for it. These are classified as “betas”.
So presumably we end up with a 2×2 matrix that has “Treats Women Well: Yes/No” across one axis and “Rewarded by Women: Yes/No” across the other. How would the model classify a man in category Yes/Yes or a man in category No/No?
PS: I think you are onto something with this general definition (of alpha as it relates to the sexual marketplace) and would like to see you develop it even more, perhaps adding explanations for the underlying reasons why/how the quadrants exist.
@ Obsidian
“4. Then, the umpteenth round of “Who’s on First?” with regard to what does or does not make one an Alpha Male rears its ugly head – something that I’ve NEVER encountered in real life. And it’s truly irritating as all get out. But I think I get why there’s so much angst over it, and why there’s been attempts to parse it, etc – and it ties directly into Ms. Bloom’s recent experience with Beta Dad:
Because most Men know, deep down, that they ain’t it.”
– That’s why I stay away from alpha/beta conversation. Their vision of an alpha starts with themselves so every discussion boils down to “he’s not an alpha cause he did this/wears that, and I don’t do that/wear that.”
“6. Right now, as we speak, there is a discussion obtaining over at You Know Where, about “muscleheads”, and the supposed notion that key voices in the Manosphere advocate that every Man must – MUST! – workout to the point of looking like Hanz and Franz. But WHO in the Manosphere, actually says this??? What I hear in and from the ‘sphere is, that most Men in our time are seriously out of shape, either too skinny or too fat, and need to get their stuff together on the workout tip – and YES, that involves weights. Not “machines” – IRON. It means getting in shape – not looking like Arnold in his heyday, or Lee Haney. Just getting in shape.”
– Another conversation I stay away from as some people’s only counter argument is to go to the very end of the spectrum.
Tell a man to get in shape he’ll say he doesn’t wanna look like a musclebound freak.
Tells a man he needs to stand out in a crowd he’ll say he doesn’t wanna wear a huge fuzzy hat.
Tell a man he needs to stop being such a “nice guy” he’ll say he doesn’t wanna be an a**hole.
Tell a man he needs to learn game he’ll say he doesn’t wanna be a PUA.
If supposedly there’s only one alternative and it’s bad, that means their current way of life is ok.
#188-189
Yes I do classify every man as an alpha who is treated well by women even when he treats women poorly, and every man as beta who is treated poorly by women even when he treats them well. But those are *operational* definitions; that’s how you can tell if a man is alpha or beta.
And there are relative degrees and caveats of course, but in practice it’s easy to discriminate. For example we could suppose a beta male might be treated fairly well, limited tit-for-tat, if he does exceptionally well. Let’s suppose on the way home from work he picked up the *right* take-out dinner this time, and did the dishes the *right* way this time, and sat through her show the *right* way making the *right* comments this time, and massaged her feet the *right* way, etc. and then finally from 11:17 PM – 11:34 PM she allowed him to enjoy himself with her for the first time in a long time, except of course he had to do her the *right* way first as always. In practice, that is NOT a win/win for the beta man, nor win/lose nor lose/win or any kind of winning. It’s lose/lose/lose/lose/lose.
Yes, I think the relationship between the genders is symplectic, not symmetric.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symplectic_matrix
We are partially antisymmetric upon flipping things. For example, given that a man is suppose to love his woman and a woman is supposed to respect her man, her respect makes it easier for him to love her, but unfortunately his love makes it harder for her to respect him. The negative sign goes on the woman’s part, and this absolute phase is determinable because of lesbian bed death.
#187 Great discussion points. “Finally, the problem of situational alphatude is one I’ve certainly been thinking about lately, as my abundance mentality appears to swell or recede in an inverse relationship with the degree to which I’m infatuated. (And you want an abundance mentality? Contemplate a few sister-wives. Mrs. Smith strangely glows when one reflects on the sexual burdens of the polygamous man — not what one expects from a stalwart “feminist”.)”
I think the reason infatuation was invented was to ensure men had an inverse abundance mentality. Since infatuation produces instant betatude, it may have been necessary in our distant caveman past when reproductive men tended to be more alpha than they needed to be.
Bizarrely to me too, AWALT i.e. like Mrs. Smith. All women believe it perfectly natural that men would find polygamy worse *sexually* while women would find it better *sexually*. Since that is the complete opposite of reality, although I’d like to prove it for myself, that indicates something interesting is going on, like a cave-hamster finally inventing the hamster wheel, by gnawing the shape out of a cave rock.
[…] similar. As you might expect the comments are rife with “well-not-in-my-case”, “people are individuals” personal anecdotes, but the grouping of the graph plot is too similar not to recognize a […]
Preventative: Okay, plots show a trend, or a correlation or something.
But there are individuals for whom these things are not true.
Now what?
Bird shot for self defense…. Stupid. So much firearm related stupidity spouted here it almost hurts
Ton. Everybody who has an idea can back it up, sometimes with what seem like unimportant details. Without offering an opinion on birdshot, I recall what somebody said about it: Close enough, which would be the case inside a house, the perp gets the entire shot pattern which means all the material and all the kinetic energy, which is likely to seem inconvenient.
But, this being one of the trade-offs, anything missing him, either an entire round or a few odd pellets, aren’t going to penetrate walls and kill the neighbor’s kid, or your own.
Get to give, give to get. A compromise.
And, as I said before wrt guns, worthy of endless argument.
Meanwhile, nobody’s asked a guy who’s gotten a full load of birdshot whether he preferred it to a full load of #12 shot the other time.
Nice explanation, Richard.
Same sort of discussion here. Lots of ideas. (Also, a guy living in an apartment uses birdshot because of the wall penetration issue.)
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/robert-farago/question-day-shotgun-use-home-defense-ammo-use-mods-made/
BV. As I may have said, I know the Infantry weapons, although my fencing didn’t include the gladius. But I don’t know sillyvilian weapons very well. I’ve fired a shotgun three times–M97 riot gun, the only shotgun with bayonet lugs–with the buck load.
But from time to time, with a kind of horrified fascination, I’ve dialed into some of these discussions. They make the argument over whether the M2 carbine is an assault rifle look like a black/white issue.
Still, the home defense birdshot thing is at least understandable.
As a general rule, in home defense we’re not facing a hopped-up Moro, or a fanatical banzai charger with nothing to lose. The gorily dramatic result , or the dramatically gory, might be too much gun, considering other considerations.
Bird shot is consistently non lethal at all ranges. Meaning it will not stop the bad guy. Make him bleed etc but it is a surface wound. Three pizza boxes will stop bird shot….. leather jacket, heavy denim or winter coat…. bad, bad, bad idea
You are often facing a hopped up, professional criminal. People get worked up into a berserk like rage for the dumbest of reasons, multiple attackers are rare, but increasing slightly…..
The idea you should be set up for the best case of the worst case events is stupid. I’m not saying you need a no man down suit etc but deliberately setting yourself up for second best options or options that are ineffective or building in 0 tactical flexibility is nucking futs.
There has been 0 arrest or law suits regarding over penetration ( though I have not research the topic in 5 years or so) which implies its making mountains out of mole hills….. Which should not be read to fire all willy nilly.
This isn’t even about the rifle selection mentioned…… Which is also stupid piled onto stupid.
I have four loads of buckshot and two slugs in my 870 (NJ), 12 rounds of buckshot in my Vepr (Iowa), and a whole lot of other shit, including a Steyr, in suburban DC.
SFTCN, you can call that stupid, or not. The fact is that any cat living in an apartment building with tissue paper wallboard has an overpenetration problem, and anyone living under any anti-gun regime, has enormous trade-offs to manage. (In DC yesterday a man was convicted of a felony for having 25 homemade lead bullets in his home (for an antique muzzle loader he kept in Virginia); he was originally arrested because he had one — one — shotgun shell on premises. His angry ex-wife sent the cops, who searched his home based on her tip alone. The judge admitted that he didn’t know a muzzleloader from a water pistol, while admitting that the man had no weapons in his home. QED: he’s a felon.)
For a primer on how anyone defending himself may well be in jail a few minutes later, go here:
http://prepperchicks0.homestead.com/Self_Defense_Law_By_M_Hayes.pdf
or here:
http://www.usacarry.com/general-legal-considerations-use-firearms-self-defense/
I don’t really care if you find it stupid that if I attempt to look at this issue beyond the limitations of my personal preferences. Someone shot in the face with a single birdshot load is not getting up, for quite a long while, if ever. Thanks for sharing your personal preferences. They’re quite clear.
@BV
Using heavy quail load birdshot at point blank range has tremendous slowing power if hit in the torso and will disable or kill if hit elsewhere. It can potentially kill even when hitting the torso.
An 18″ barrel with open choke 12 ga. will open up a fair amount over 15 feet (maybe to softball size) and hit with the force of a bat.
Round 1: birdshot hits; target slowed with no return fire
Round 2: birdshot hits; target slowed more with no return fire
Round 3: buckshot hits; target dead
When the police arrive, you can say that you tried non-lethal loads, but the target wouldn’t stop.
I have an AR15 in the house. It would certainly stop a bad guy. Even a bad guy high on PCP and/or “bath salts”. But it would also go through the wall in my house, and possibly take out the neighbor’s son while he is sleeping in his room.
Let’s try something else. Somebody put me some wisdom here:
A Kaybar for home defense because the curved tip provides draw, while you carry a Fairbairn because it’s slender and doesn’t print as easily, despite a relative lack of draw.
Point is, this could go on forever, too.
But DON’T.
Buck shot is not a bad option. Old school, gets the job done but is not as tactically flexible or as lethal as deer slugs.
Liz, it’s called ammo selection. Like frangiables, and quality ballistic tips. As I also stated, according to the FBI, no one has ever been sued or brought up on charges for hiring someone sleeping in another apartment etc etc.
#206: Per ammo, fair enough.
A basic google with the words ‘gunfire through wall apartment charges’ will give you plenty of hits. I didn’t look long, there were charges of reckless endangerment, ect.
But that isn’t really the point. EVEN if I would never be charged for hitting a person in the house next to me or apartment next to me and beyond I don’t want to be the person who accidentally hit someone in the house, apartment, park with a bullet because I used a high-powered rifle. I can’t imagine the guilt of doing something like that.
[…] And we don’t even get good advice! […]
When a man approaches a woman in social situations such as parties. When men speak to a female and their attraction is obvious it puts pressure on the female straight away, you may see this as bad ‘game’. The pressure can be overwhelming, the woman thinks she needs to give the man her number because he made the approach. She wants to avoid confrontation. When the guy approaches/talks to the woman without that pressurised agenda in the back of his mind (or just very good at hiding it) then she does not feel the pressure and can relax. She is more likely to give her number in this context. But after this interaction has finished he should not keep on with this strategy, otherwise he may be friend zoned. Of course, I’m not referring to men who top of the food chain, I’m talkin about the average guys.