Bitch Please- Women And Attitude And Emotions

“I’m selfish, impatient, and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control, and at times hard to handle. But if you can’t handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don’t deserve me at my best.”
- Marilyn Monroe

Quote from Marilyn Monroe. Hmmm. Although not much to look at by today’s standards, she was a movie star in her day and considered quite a sex symbol. But if the hottest woman in the world told you that, would you buy it?

“Attitude” (as in bad) and “female” go together like fish and chips. Women think attitude is cool. They seem to love guys with attitude and they love to throw it themselves.

But frankly, this is bullshit. Who needs it? This woman is just asking you to let her dump on you, or inviting you into a high drama relationship. Maybe you want to try a “Taming of the Shrew”, but otherwise what the fuck?

Here’s another twist- I saw this offered by a woman on an adult site. A rather homely, rather overweight woman. See my post on bad behavior by low-desirability women. She will not take a less desirable, less aggressive guy. She will wait her turn with some pseudo-alpha poser.

As the manosphere blogs regularly point out, the world (First at least) is filled with these entitled bitches. How do you deal with them? You don’t. It’s clear from the start there is no worthwhile outcome here.

You can’t negotiate good treatment from a woman. You must insist on it and walk if you don’t get it. Not as a negotiating tactic, just walk.

Shifting topic somewhat, women are 100% emotional in relationships and you must do all the thinking. They will get involved in very destructive situations because their emotions are telling them to get something. If things are not working she will not leave if she is emotionally wrapped up, you have to firmly dump her and not let her come back.

Personality and Mood Management

Roissy gives a field report and brings up two key matters, aloofness and guilt-

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/the-core-principle-of-game/

Season Of Tumult And Discord talks about the game of a very interesting guy, physicist and author Richard Feynman-

http://seasonsoftumultanddiscord.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/surely-youre-joking/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

What is a person? Who are we? Who am I? Who are you?

I’ll start with Feynman first. He is best known to the public for his testimony before Congress about the Challenger disaster, where he dropped a piece of the gasket material used on the boosters into a beaker of freezing water to show how it hardened in the cold. He also wrote a couple of books of memoirs.

We tend to think of physicists as introverted eggheads but Feyman was the polar opposite. He had a very outgoing, playful personality and was always engaging with other people. I took two physics classes in college and while the professors were not the cool dude Feynman was, they had some of the same traits. Physics involves trying to understand reality; math is a completely abstract system that refers only to itself. An intellectual or intelligent person does not have to be introverted; if they direct their curiosity towards people and things they will not be.

Clearly having a happy, playful, engaged personality helps. But what if you don’t? I’m frequently a moody, morose, depressed person. But sometimes I’m a happy, playful, curious, charming person, and not because I’m drunk or high. (Actually drinking alcohol often makes me quiet.) I recently got a motorcycle, and I find riding it makes me very happy. Other times I’m just relatively free of stress. It has occurred to me I need to find ways to keep myself in the happy state more and the unhappy state less.

A cognitive therapist and a new age author in the audience stand up and clap. “Bravo!” they shout. “You’ve realized the secret to life is understanding you control your own attitude!” I rush into the audience in a rage and beat the shit out of them. No, that is not what I mean. Your mind is not nearly so reductionist. Whether something makes you angry or happy you can’t control much, however you can control your exposure to it to some extent. Find things you enjoy, and do them regularly. Take note of what things upset you, and avoid them to the extent possible.

I think most people spend most of their disposable time on things that don’t make them happy. Take TV for example. Most people watch it only to fill time, and things they think they like are really no better than OK for them. Same with the internet. I read a lot about politics, which really just upsets me. If you are on your own time, and you are not doing something that actually makes you feel good, rather than distracts you, then do something different.

So the personality is somewhat flexible, and whether you are a happy person or a sad person can change throughout the day. I mentioned that some things you can’t easily control your reaction to; and yet if you are more in a good mood you will find it easier to cope with these things in a calm, relaxed manner. I stress that managing your mood is not a cognitive, rational process; it’s a matter of finding things that make you happy without using alcohol, drugs or food and leveraging that into other situations.

In his field report, Roissy concludes with how important it is to be aloof. Is aloofness a personality or character trait? I think any mood or attitude is a reaction to a given situation. These are strongly ingrained to us, but they can be changed to some extent. I used to be terrified of going into bars. I mean of just going in and having a drink. I thought everybody would think I was weird, that the bartender would think I was weird. I had to desensitize myself to this, which is a crude tool but sometimes necessary.

I need to observe and control my reactions to people. Avoidance is also a reaction; so when I don’t interact with people, I need to observe and control that also.

He mentions guilt at the end. Guilt is an internal emotional reaction rather than an external behavioral reaction; but those are ingrained as well. Guilt is how we feel if we feel we have violated some rule.

Part of my trouble in interacting with people is I feel strongly that I do not want to bother or annoy anybody, so I avoid interacting at all. If I do talk to somebody I worry a lot that I have acted stupid or annoyed them in some way, and I often feel happy that I talked to somebody, but somewhat flustered and embarrassed at the same time. I intellectually understand that most people enjoy a certain amount of social interaction for its own sake, and have very low expectations for its content; but I need more than an intellectual way of dealing with it. If I can think of anything I will write it up.

Morale And Motivation

This is Mayra Veronica, a Latin TV actress. She also does USO tours. I know she gives me something to dream about.

Energy From The Dark Side

Talleyrand, at Seasons Of Tumult And Discord (see blogroll) has a post about sociopathy versus empathy in the male character-

http://seasonsoftumultanddiscord.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/sociopathic-vs-empathic/

I commented with reference to a Joseph Conrad novella, “The Secret Sharer.”

This is not one of the best known Joseph Conrad stories, although I have seen it published in several editions with “Heart of Darkness”- both these stories are about a hundred pages long, so together they make a nice small paperback. I first encountered this story as a film shown in a high school literature class. I strongly recommend it; I think I can discuss it without any real spoilers, although as a psychological study spoilers aren’t really an issue.

A young merchant sea officer is assigned as captain of a merchant sailing vessel. It’s his first command. The story seems to have been inspired by Conrad’s own personal experience of his one brief command before leaving the maritime business altogether, about which he wrote a non-fiction account although I don’t remember the title of.

The young captain is an educated, refined fellow, as you would expect an officer of a British ship in they heyday of the empire to be. A ship then was a rather rough environment- it had a large crew of rough, lower class men, not necessarily inclined to defer to authority, isolated for long periods in a hostile environment without the comforts and entertainments of home. It was also quite dangerous and their safety was dependent on not only their own skill and the fates of ocean and weather but on the judgement of the officers.

This conflict is worth thinking about for anyone who aspires to be in any position of authority, even one so small and intimate as a man with a woman. The led both need and resent the authority of the leader. The seamen can’t run the ship themselves, they don’t have the knowledge or ability, and authority must be concentrated on one man. Their knowledge of their lack of adequacy hurts. The best case scenario is the captain is both highly competent and likeable and charismatic. They will feel safe and his authority will not chafe on him. They will even love him; and that love will be partly as a reaction to the buried resentment.

The next best thing is if the captain is just competent. The crew will know they are safe even if he is harsh or unpleasant with them, or just isn’t a personable fellow. They will be aware of their resentment but will control it, and they will feel quite comfortable doing so. They will not cause trouble or leave the ship, because their needs are met. They will complain but it will be the kind of complaining that is one of life’s proletarian pleasures, like smoking or being the fan of a lousy team.

Below that will be if the captain is both incompetent and unlikable. The crew may not mutiny, such incidents were pretty rare, but they will make their unhappiness known. They may go to a lower ranking officer with  complaints, they will shirk, and they will leave the ship as soon as they can.

The worst situation is if the captain is incompetent at wielding his authority but is a likeable person. The crew will feel unsafe but their like of the captain will prevent them from trying to change things by undermining his authority. They will be conflicted about leaving the ship. The smarter ones will realize the situation is unsustainable and quietly find other work. The less intelligent or assertive will cross their fingers and hope for the best.

Well that’s quite a bit of ground covered without much mention of the story isn’t it? OK, we have the setup, a new captain uncertain of his authority sets out on a routine voyage. Could be thousands of men throughout history, but this is a sea story, and this particular sea story uses the classic sea story element of the stowaway.

He finds on his ship a mysterious fugitive from justice. This man is also a captain, who as he tells it while trying to keep control of his crew and save his ship in a storm, struck and accidentally killed a defiant seaman. He justifies his action by explaining that the lives of everyone on the ship were in danger, and had he not killed this one man they all would have died. The court trying him was unimpressed by this explanation so he had to escape. He tells the new captain he only wants to get off the ship on one the many islands in the Indonesian archipelago and start a life in the forest.

The new captain has to consider what this all means. Could a captain killing a seaman ever be justified? Isn’t the authority of the commander to be wielded firmly but lightly, and always with a sense of justice? Isn’t self-control a cardinal virtue? The fugitive claims that a captain may, in extremis, be forced to throw away all the civilized notions of law, justice, and legitimate authority, and kill- not out of anger, pique, or offended ego, but to actually save lives.

The new captain might easily be described as a “nice guy”- he is the product of a genteel middle-class British upbringing, and has always behaved with modesty and decorum. He has certainly supervised seamen in the past but always under the authority of another man. And yet he’s discerning enough to realize there is a certain dark, unmentioned aspect to the very high, if not absolute and unchallenged, authority he holds as commander of a sea-going vessel. He understands the position the fugitive was in, and he’s not completely sure he would have not done the same thing- if he could do it. Does he have what it takes to really command the ship? Does he have it in him to go so far as to kill a disobedient crew member, in order to save the ship and the rest of the crew? What does the crew expect- a decent, by the book fellow or tough captain who will allow no breach of discipline? And if so, how do they see him?

The world was a much more authoritarian place then but even so such ideas weren’t mentioned in polite society. I suspect the court trying the fugitive- I don’t remember its exact nature- sympathized with his situation but felt he had to be punished anyway for appearances’ sake. I never heard of this story in military officer training although it is spot-on for that, or any kind of management or leadership training for that matter.

What would you do? The new captain has one obvious obligation, as person of responsibility and authority- have the stowaway placed in irons, turn his ship around and deliver him to the police in port. But no one else seems to have noticed the man, and he has a schedule to keep. And having an experienced captain along for at least the first part of the voyage may be helpful. The man may be unhinged, he may even be a murderer, but he may have a few lessons worth learning for a new sea captain.

That last bit makes it sound like an after-school special almost. The point is being an authority figure is not always pleasant, and it may involve doing things that are officially condemned by society. You may have to be a dick sometimes. I suspect this lesson is supposed to be impressed on boys through sports, but that would mean many miss out on it.

As a man in a relationship with a woman you are her authority figure. She must trust and respect you before she likes and loves you. So you must sometimes discipline her for bad behavior, and you must sometimes deny her things she wants if they aren’t good for the relationship. This behavior will feel very unnatural and maybe even cruel, but if you are unable to be firm and in control you’ll wind up with the worst situation for the captain- liked but not respected. And this will cause her much more pain.

Layers

Shrek, lovable ogre of Disney Dreamworks origin, is a hard guy to get to know and love. As he explains to Donkey, he has layers-

There is an implication this is bad. I guess the happy crappy liberal psychologist ideal is we expose ourselves completely all the time, but any realist knows that’s not going to work. You need layers, of the right quantity, composition and thickness.

I read a book years ago about Japanese culture, and the author said the Japanese typically have a very thick outer layer, with which they keep not only foreigners but friends and coworkers at a distance until they are very well-known. Their inner layer however is very thin. According to him it takes a long time to get to know a Japanese person, but when you have reached a certain point they will be very exposed and have no defenses- exactly the reason for the thick outer layer. He said Westerners have a fairly thin outer layer- they make casual friendships quite easily but maintain a stronger inner barrier against possibly hazardous trust and intimacy.

It has occurred to me the omega personality is much like the Japanese personality- a hard outer layer, which shows the world a lack of emotion and interest, concealing a gooey inner center, which is pretty emotional, maybe even childishly so. Surviving in a chaotic, hostile environment- such as a highly religious family, a public school, or a prison- requires showing the absolute minimum of emotion or enthusiasm about anything. You then go out among normal people in normal situations and they think you’re a weirdo.

(Note to any social conservatives reading- a politically liberal and politically correct home has all the same problems as a religiously conservative and strict home. I know because my family of origin was both. Note to liberals reading- yes such a thing actually exists and your beliefs are no panacea.)

Appropriate and successful social functioning requires a variety of layers. Socially skilled people have an outer layer only for dealing with strangers and new people. The more cynical call this “being phony” but in an anonymous urban society this is a valuable tool. You can get along without it only if you have social institutions such as churches or clubs for making friends and finding spouses.

This layer is the trickiest. I think this layer is where the “nice guy” problem comes in. I don’t think the typical omega has the nice guy problem because they don’t have even that level of development of the outer layer. A somewhat higher status low-status male- a gamma? a lower beta? will still be concerned that others are a threat, and thus with erroneous reciprocal thinking try to show others he is not a threat. But as I have said in Western society even omega women are pretty safe and well-treated so they see this as submissive behavior.

Your outer layer should never say “non-threatening.” Or, it should say non-threatening in another way than submissive. The most important qualities to convey are relaxation and calmness. People who will go out of their way to stress you out- women and bosses in particular, and any higher status people you deal with in general if they are dicks- are the ones who will insist the most on seeing this calm outward demeanor.

Another important thing is some kind of mark of differentiation. This is what the “peacocking” thing is all about. People in Western society are not rugged individuals, in fact they are barely individuals at all- they wear the same clothes, drive the same cars, eat the same food, and watch the same movies and TV shows. If they are guys they all want to fuck the same women, and if they are women they are after the same high-status men. Being well-dressed, or possibly with some kind of flair or outrageousness, makes you stand out in the static. I think this is why people get visible tattoos, but these have become just another hipster affectation. For visual this would be something you wear; personality-wise something you might tell people in a first brief conversation with them.

Beneath this you would have a layer you expose to co-workers and casual acquaintances; somewhat personal information and vulnerabilities. Beneath that are layers you expose to a) women you have a sexual relationship with and 2) close friends. Which of these is more personal? Friends I suppose. I have had the same friend (yes I basically have one friend) since college but various women have come and gone.

What’s the ultimate in intimacy? The fiancée/marital relationship? I am beginning to think not. It seems to me there are things you can tell close family members, a therapist or religious counselor you should not tell your serious girlfriend or wife. Frankly they don’t want to hear about your issues, even if they say they do, and it just scares and upsets them because they think they should be able to do something and they can’t, or you are supposed to be the big strong man and showing too much hurt ruins this for them.

I am working on my outer layer. My boss it turns out actually likes to provoke me, so I am just telling him “ain’t gonna do that, tough shit” and he has no choice but to buy it. My lack of inner layer management has probably ruined a couple of relationships with foreign women so I will have to go back to the well there.

I’ve Seen Things You People Wouldn’t Believe……

I have always thought Roy Baty’s (played by Rutger Hauer) monologue at the end of Blade Runner sort of summed up my life, so I include it for you here.

Roy Baty isn’t really a bad guy; he just wants, desperately, to live. Decker realizes in the end that Baty could have killed him but didn’t because at the end Baty loved and valued life, even Decker’s life, the man who was trying to kill him. Baty accepts his short, limited life for what it was and what value it had.

When I was in Marine OCS our barracks were next to the Replacement and Separation Platoon, which was where those who washed out were kept while being processed out. On top of failure they had to endure a few days of going to formation and to chow in civilian clothes. One day we were out for inspection and I looked up at the cattle car passing by with the unfortunates, and caught the eye of one. He gave me a thumbs up; he himself had failed but he was invested in the process, and wanted to see someone else succeed. I did, just barely, but that is another story.

Goddammit A Man Has To Dream

I want shit. I want lots of nice, cool shit. I want a BMW S1000RR, and I want a BMW R1200RT as well. I want a big SUV so I can put them on a trailer and go to cool places and ride. I want a big house in a nice place to keep all my toys in. I want an M5 too. I want a nice, hot piece of Latin ass to keep me warm. I want a nice boat with a compressor where I can leave all my scuba gear, and I want one of those grills you hang off the back so we can cook the lobster and halibut right there.

Life Sucks

I have been planning on doing the exercises in “Rules Of The Game”, and I got started while I was unemployed but my job situation is cramping my style. Right now I’m in a cheap motel in a snowbound small town without a rental car. I will be in these straits for a few days. I am also planning on doing the StyleLife Academy exercises but again, my circumstances, to say nothing of my crippling social anxiety, are holding me back.

Hopefully things will improve shortly.

New Blog

Virgin at 50 is a new blog-

http://virginat50.wordpress.com/

I will be interested in what he has to say. Welcome to the blogroll!

The Game Mindset

Recently there was this bit on Seduction Chronicles about the “friend mindset”-

http://www.seduction-chronicles.net/2010/02/04/the-friend-zone-mindset/

The problem of mindset is the fundamental, existential one of game, or male-female relationships in general, or relationships in general, or possibly life in general as far as I know. What approach do we take to other people? What approach do we take to situations? The problem here described as the “friend” mindset seems to be tentativeness at root. You will only wind up being “friends” with a woman if you permit it. If you make it clear you want a sexual, romantic relationship in which you the man take the lead, you will either get that or nothing.

Hoping that other people will behave how you want, and give you what you want, is a dead end that will lead to frustration at best, or constant fear and uncertainty at worst. People will either a) do what you want, without that having been clearly communicated, b) do what you want, after it has been clearly communicated, or c) not do what you want, whether it has been clearly communicated or not. A) is a question of luck, not something you want to rely on routinely. B) is a question of communication, something non-dominant people typically have trouble with. C) is the result of a) or b), it doesn’t really matter which, and it is either acceptable or unacceptable.

If you do not control you relationships with other people, or control them only weakly and indirectly, passively accepting what you get is a strategy you may have to follow. If you have a crappy job, and you have no other job available, coping with the conditions you work under is all you can do for the moment. You should however, look for another job, do something to improve your skills, or otherwise make some effort to improve conditions.

I consider myself a very smart person but I’m still not smart enough to get what I want through manipulation or indirect communication. I still have a great deal of fear of direct communication, as non-dominant people do.

I have always hoped, as I think all guys without game have hoped, to find a woman with whom game would be unnecessary. However I am coming to the conclusion no such woman exists. Women who claim to want “non-traditional” relationships, the “modern woman” or feminist, seem to require game most of all. Less attractive women, who should theoretically be inclined to accept something different, paradoxically seem to need game for reasons I have talked about earlier. Roissy’s theory about fat women being easy to get laid, thus experiencing alphas in one-night stands, and thus craving an alpha ever after, seems to be true. If she’s bi she will go for a woman with game before a guy without game.

The least amount of game will be required by highly traditional women. Even they will require some game though. The male role will be defended by the social structure and church which will help a great deal though. Asian women seem to require less dominance, or will accede to a male who displays less dominance, but that may not apply to highly Americanized ones.

My parents had a kind of strange relationship. My mother completely acceded to my father the leadership role in the family, but he declined to fill that role. He came home, gave her his paycheck, and disappeared behind the paper with a drink, or in front of the TV. His interaction with the rest of the family was quite minimal; it was almost like he was a boarder. I don’t know if my mother was non-dominant, or just within that relationship. She was president of a prestigious sorority and held a few different jobs which were prestigious for women of that generation.

In any case there is no woman with whom you don’t need game. You must (I must) permanently take on the game mindset. I must insist on the kind and quality of relationship I have with any woman; I must assert the leadership role, I must insist on what I want, and I must end the relationship if an acceptable agreement cannot be reached.