Disprovable By Simple Empirical Observation

I found this on another blog.

As to Game, the idea that women are attracted to strong, intelligent, confident, respectable ‘Alpha’ types is absurd on the face of it— it’s disprovable by simple empirical observation. It’s the thugs, louts, bums and losers who have stables of willing women and scores of children by different moms—not any ‘Alpha’ types. Women, in our culture, feel no love for men; and I’m tempted to suspect this whole ‘alpha’ stuff was invented by the Game Theorists as a rationalization itself: Men, with Game, can pretend that women desire them because of their supposed sexual alpha-appeal. The Anglobitches lose quite a bit of their own sexual appeal once men realize that the opposite is actually true.

Game is a diversion (at best); not a solution to anything. The solution is to realize that Anglo-American women—who’ve been claiming that they don’t need men anyway—are useless as part of any solution. We can work with men in our culture, the women are better left to the degenerate males they prefer. Teaching men that we don’t need them at all is the first step to saving our culture.

Other than game being a “diversion” (since game doesn’t exist), I agree with what is said here.  All I have to do is go anywhere and look to see that this is true.  The best men, by whatever objective metric you wish to use (as in a metric not defined by women), are the ones unable to get any women to save their lives (except maybe when women need a chump to pay their bills or as a mark to steal from in divorce).  The worst men are drowning in female attention.

He’s also right that men don’t need women.  If you’re a man reading this, and you think you need a woman, you have effectively been brainwashed.

About these ads

24 responses to “Disprovable By Simple Empirical Observation

  1. When it comes to game, I am somewhere on your side W&N, but not completely. Here’s my reasoning.

    If you are a nervous, jittery and socially anxious person, or are not confident in yourself you are a lot less likely to have women be attracted to you (and make no mistake, it is women who select, not the other way around).

    PUA’s claim you can fake confidence and social skills but I don’t think that’s really true. At least I can’t do it. Some days I feel good and am fun to be around. I can be funny and confident and the center of attention

    Other days I feel like shit, and nothing could get me going. I could never fake confidence on those days.

    A major factor of attractiveness to women is your clothes and shoes. Many studies have shown that women react more positively to men who wear expensive suits and rate them both as more attractive and more suitable as a long term partner than men who wear casual clothes (T-shirt, jeans and a pair of cons), even when it’s the same man.

    A perfect example is the sexual harassment fail on “who wants to be a millionaire” (look it up).

    A air force pilot (who was a good looking guy) was totally sexually harassed by a self-described “horny old woman” on the show in front of thousands.

    I couldn’t help but think to myself that if you took this good looking guy, put some grease stains on his mug and dressed him up in dirty garage slacks and gave him a wrench, suddenly women wouldn’t find him so attractive.

    • Like Alex said, you can’t trust what women say about what they want in men. Only what they do. Women don’t know what they want in men.

      It’s not confidence. It’s experience. I started and run my own (very successful) business. Are you seriously going to tell me I don’t have confidence? If I didn’t have confidence I wouldn’t have been able to do that.

      The problem is experience or the lack there of combined with the apex fallacy. The top 20% (more or less) of men are getting most of the sex with 80% of the women. Thus women define what they think a man is based on that 20%. This is an example of the apex fallacy in action. A guy like me who in the bottom when it comes to experience with women can’t get anywhere due to my lack of experience. It’s a matter of, “can’t get a job without experience; can’t get experience without a job”.

      • Women _act_ as if they don’t know what they want in a man.
        This is so that:
        1. any man can feel they have a shot with her, and
        2. she can therefore feel free to say there is a “lack of chemistry” to raise the “price” to get her 3. to disclaim responsibility for their action, inaction, or outcome of interaction with any man
        4. to keep the guy off-balance in a relationship (it’s a form of disrespect, since a man you’re with that you _don’t_ want, is a man who’s wasting his time with you when he could be with someone else who appreciates him.

        Even that idea of “confidence” is BS.
        Women who are not after a man as a last resort, will talk about “confidence”. If a woman wants something from a man, everything can be overlooked… or it may be the woman really likes the guy (since they can tolerate a lot of abuse from men they really love).

        Women like to keep their relationships “secret” so that as many men as possible can be harvested for favours. It’s rare for a woman to admit she is dating a guy, unless _he has social status that she gains from being associated with him_, since the approval of their friends is usually of utmost importance. Not to mention that doing so means that she is effectively cutting off other guys to do favours for her (at least the ones that have a problem with trying to meet her “price” now that she is already dating someone).

        Does this sound adversarial? Don’t blame me, women choose.
        And while we can’t blame them for how they choose, we can choose not to be used, by keeping our eyes open. Briffault’s Law and all that…

        • “Women who are not after a man as a last resort, will talk about “confidence”. If a woman wants something from a man, everything can be overlooked… or it may be the woman really likes the guy (since they can tolerate a lot of abuse from men they really love).”—P Ray

          Absolutely One of my ex-girlfriends opened my eyes to this fact. I’m probably in the minority of MGTOW that listens to extreme metal, looks a bit like the part, and trains with fighters for cage fighting. I’ve had women that acted as if it wasn’t “metro” or sophisticated enough for them despite my depth and background, or intimidated I them because of the superficial trappings. For this particular woman I was seeing, she thought was individualistic and “hot.” It was bad-boy-like for her.

          When a woman really wants to be with a man, ulterior motive or no, she was seek him out. Granted, women may do the selecting, but they will proverbially step over other women to get to a man they want while dishing out crappy advice to other men how to get women. Most of that advice is bogus because they are arbitrary and hierarchical in the way they approach despite the claims of “equality.”

          You can have all the confidence in the world, but if a woman has made up her mind (or more likely, let her friends and peer group influence it for her) that you’re not the one, you’re a creep, a loser, or just another guy, you’re pretty much out of the running.

      • Of course, when you can analyse what’s going on, you will discover some women become very unpleasant when you figure them out… they will accuse you of being bitter.
        Scientists must be real bitter people then, they’re trying to figure out the universe.

        You will be told that “nobody has a right to judge” “I follow my heart”(isn’t that a form of judgement?) and “don’t worry, a girl will come when the time is right”(they don’t mention that the time is right… for the girl – as people getting hit on by broke single mamas, or women with the past experiences of abuse, children out of wedlock, sexually transmitted disease or mental problems make up most of the single ones that “choose to approach NORMAL men” — since they have nothing to lose, and nobody to be judged by (or a lot of encouragement from their cackling sisterhood)…

    • “A major factor of attractiveness to women is your clothes and shoes. Many studies have shown that women react more positively to men who wear expensive suits and rate them both as more attractive and more suitable as a long term partner than men who wear casual clothes (T-shirt, jeans and a pair of cons), even when it’s the same man.”

      Yep. You’ve nailed what I’ve been saying for years. You can sum up things very simply without resorting to a lot of knowledge of PUA. If you are have some looks, affluence, a wardrobe, connections, and popularity, there will be a certain level of women invariably interested in you.

      • Partially true, and an endorsement of the term “familiarity breeds contempt”.
        If women only see you dressed at your best at nightspots, you’re going to succeed barring racism…
        However, going through workaday life, if they see you at your highs and lows, the attraction goes to 0 quickly.

        Women think that a date is pleasurable. It is, FOR THEM.
        For many men, it’s an interview, for a person who more often than not, is going to be the wrong one for you.
        Pick up on the cues early… if a woman sees fit not to introduce you to her friends, answers questions with questions, checks up on what you say at every opportunity, does not interact with you outside of the public eye and only contacts you when she’s in trouble (and can later deny doing so)…
        YOU ARE BEING PLAYED FOR A CHUMP.
        Ignore her and move on.

        Women get away with such insincere behaviour because the penalty of doing so is low: a man complaining about being used by a woman will get insulted. Only other MRA’s and MGTOW’s will understand that crap.
        The one skill necessary to keep men sane, is the ability to disengage quickly. Quitting a game that’s set you up to be a loser is the smart thing to do. A woman who appreciates you will make sure you know it.
        A woman who doesn’t… is just trying to get you to ante up so that she can move ahead. You are basically a stepping stone for her.

  2. Women do not love men, period. The only guarantee of a stable relationship is the woman’s inability to back out. That’s why no-fault divorce is a complete disaster.

  3. A major factor of attractiveness to women is your clothes and shoes. Many studies have shown that women react more positively to men who wear expensive suits and rate them both as more attractive and more suitable as a long term partner than men who wear casual clothes (T-shirt, jeans and a pair of cons), even when it’s the same man

    Don’t forget that those studies are based on asking women what they like. At the same time, many studies show that women don’t actually get wet for what they cociouso say they want.

    It means all those studies you mentioned are invalid until repeated with devices measuring physiological attraction. Again, plenty of studies that hook machinery onto women and find women are getting for things other than they themselves think they are.

  4. Agree. I don’t need a woman and the woman that this culture is producing is ensuring that I don’t want them either. I can’t put my faith in women that took liberation and did nothing but use it to be sluts and demand respect on top of it. Scary.

    • Thank them for their honesty though. I can assure you that the women in Asia are far more devious… at least my friends would agree. It’s unfortunate, but UNTIL you find someone worth spending your life with after having done the appropriate quality control (which varies from sample to sample)… or if you find yourself in a real good situation where you WANT to be with someone (and you are pretty sure from their past that they have good character and feel the same),
      SAVE your money, go your own way. Not worth losing everything to someone you can’t see a future with (and if you are not fully aware of the legal ramifications)

  5. I heartily concur with the conclusion you offer in this post White and Nerdy. When I think more on this post, I wonder: does this empirical evidence contradict the tenets of the theory of evolution by natural selection? If only the worst are selected to find mates and reproduce, what does this mean for the future of the human species?

    • The worst are “selected to find mates and reproduce” only in a time of ignorance and plenty… when the cushioning factors are relaxed, the situation will change.
      The faster more men recognise this fact, the quicker the situation will change.
      Alphas and the women who love them need others to be suckered into shallow relationships to allow them the freedom to wantonly indulge their desires.

      • I appreciate what you are saying P Ray. If we were genuinely living in a “sink or swim” situation that our “primitive” forebears had to face, the dating scene would be radically altered quickly.

  6. I went on a woman meeting spree a few years back. Face to face, I met more than 60 women.

    The single moms – many of them had children that were near or fully retarded – their children were also either severely lacking physical coordination or were physically deformed in some way.

    Not the kind of children that “alpha males” produce.

    In addition to this, another “commonality” that I noticed – typically, the man that they made kids with was cheating on them with usually more than 1 woman.

    I would say that feminism encouraged these woman to make very poor selections for mating.

    To clarify: feminism basically hints that women are all-powerful, and men are not worth their weight in piss. Hence, it does not matter who a woman breeds with (omega or alpha) – therefore, they find a man that they believe is defunct, and they can “fix”.

    Once these morons realize that a woman is trying to “fix” them (i.e. control them), they retaliate in the only way they know how – physical violence. Of course, who hit first (most likely the woman), is also being exposed.

    And, some women in extreme cases actually went bonkers and tried to kill the kids they made, realizing their mistake – yes, I met women who confessed things like this to me to – i.e. “I made a mistake, and I wanted to end my own life without leaving that mistake behind for somebody else to deal with”. Of course, none of the women I met went through with it – but, some on the news back in the 90’s did.

    Sorry for the long rant.

    • What I’ve taken away from feminism has always been only the 2 things that I’ve seen(and I keep repeating):
      1. License for all females to only choose to have sex with a few men with no assurance of commitment, thus allowing the females to be monopolised without sanction by a few men AND

      2. To make it impossible for older men to have relationships younger women… because the banged-out older women need “the men who are not wanted” for resources, after the “man they did want” traded them in for a newer model (again, the fact that these women held these men in such high esteem that the “men who are not wanted” were considered “suitable for sacrifice” upon the high altar of divorce, alimony, cuckolding, STDs and mental illness that many of these women brought with them, so that these women could CONTINUE their “relationships” with the “men who are wanted”)…
      makes it very difficult, if not impossible to trust women from Generation X.

    • Oh hang on… the females CHOOSE to only have sex with a few men. And because the “men who are wanted” who often happen to be the ones with the most options (along with clout in some ways), and other men who want to be like them, think that is desirable, they throw the “men who are not wanted” under a bus.

      Think about it the next time a woman your age asks for commitment: she’s probably thinking of the first guy she had sex with that you will never match up to despite being a comparatively socialised person.

      And you’re going to be paying for her to be cheating on you…!

    • “I would say that feminism encouraged these woman to make very poor selections for mating.” Richard

      This is one reason why I find the diluted versions of sociobiology among many player advocates to be a poor understanding of mate selection. There will always be women after the apex of alphas. No question. But the idea that women go for men for the “best” genes is a pile of crap.

      Without going on and on, I really think these women are justifying being with lower-tier men in order to devolve into matriarchal ghetto. As much they will say that they don’t (ultimately) want this, the proof is in the results. And “betas” get only crumbs of attention and are still shamed and demonized if they don’t want hold up the girders of a society that doesn’t give a shit about them unless the plumbing needs to be fixed or the power goes out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s