46 comments on “Susan Walsh

  1. Hooking up Smart (oxymoron: since a hookup is transitory, that means that it is anything BUT smart) … exists to give sluts a leg up in identifying the really alpha men.
    Nothing to do with helping women at all, unless by helping it is mean helping sluts ride the cock carousel longer and be duplicitious.
    Her statements that I have read, remind me of Alte and other “so-called” conservative women bloggers that basically say all relationship failures are due to the man, women get “tricked” into relationships, and a nice guy would ignore the costs of future healthcare brought on by a deceitful, cockhopping wife, and the innocent kids who get the diseases passed on to them.
    Oh yeah.
    One woman Susan Walsh conveniently forgets: The mans’ mother.
    Which mother wants her son to marry a diseased slut? Which mother wants her son to marry a mentally insane woman? Which mother wants her son to have children that are diseased, because of the wife’s cockhopping?
    Every dollar towards treatment and rehabilitation for later health issues, is a dollar lost or a dollar unsaved. So, NOT ONLY does the nice guy “end up with the girl(slut) in the end”, he pays for all her mistakes as well.
    Which sounds like a very good reason to bring the dowry system to the US: Sluts pay a nice guy to marry them, because nobody knows what diseases and future health complications will arise after that union is legally binding.
    In all these interactions, the idea is as if the family of the man, does not matter. Only the woman and her family.
    So obviously, this is a case of “feminism” benefiting one set of women over another.
    So much for the “Sisterhood”.
    P.S. Yeah, there are so many “virgin women” out there past the teen years, they are as common as invisible pink unicorns.

    • Whoops, I also left out the invisible future cost of being married to a (former?) cockhopper:
      Greater chance of divorce.
      “The Man who Was Thursday”, I think, worked off of a report, chances of a divorce go up to 50% past a womans’ first partner before marriage.
      To Marry a slut is plan for a divorce(that you will be paying for), in other words.

        • You are missing the forest, focusing only on finding the tallest/widest tree, ignoring the fact that all of the tress have Dutch Elm Disease and died 3 years ago.

          The lesson is that you do not get married at ALL to a western woman.

        • The lesson is that you do not get married at ALL to a western woman.

          So why would a non-Western woman marry a Western man, unless she has the same values as Western women?

          You also neglect to mention that Western culture is diverse. There are insular religious communities in America whose women are as “traditional” as those in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

      • I, Enemy Combatant wrote:
        So why would a non-Western woman marry a Western man,
        unless she has the same values as Western women?

        (1) Because Western men have very good reputations as protectors and providers. The same qualities that Western women hold in contempt make them attractive in third-world countries where a high-quality provider can mean the difference between life and death.

        (2) There may be a shortage of men. In many countries in Eastern Europe, there aren’t as many men as women.

        You also neglect to mention that Western culture is diverse.
        There are insular religious communities in America whose women are as “traditional” as those in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

        The presence of a few religious communities such as the Amish hardly makes Western culture ‘diverse’.

        You also need to join those communities to marry a woman in there. Recruitment of outsiders is near nonexistent. Contrast that with non-Western women, who are frequently advertised in matchmaking services.

        • Because Western men have very good reputations as protectors and providers. The same qualities that Western women hold in contempt make them attractive in third-world countries where a high-quality provider can mean the difference between life and death.

          What evidence is that such a perception exists? In some Western communities , men have a tendency to go for the next woman after they knock up the one they were doing.

          Western culture includes a lot of diverse cultures ranging from Greek to Irish. Equating Greek and Irish is very much like equating Chinese and Korean.

        • I, Enemy Combatant says:
          What evidence is that such a perception exists?

          The foreign bride industry, for one. From my own travels I also noticed that women in EastAsia were much more friendly and willing to flirt with me then in my native US. The url below may also help give some understanding.

          http://diaryofamunchkin.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-farang-girls-hate-thailand.html

          In some Western communities , men have a tendency to go for the next woman after they knock up the one they were doing.

          So what? By definition, those men probably don’t look for foreign brides.

          Western culture includes a lot of diverse cultures ranging from Greek to Irish.

          Western culture = First world levels of wealth, mostly Caucasian populations, live in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

          Equating Greek and Irish

          Greece and Ireland aren’t the exactly cultural centers of the Western world. I’m not sure why you think mentioning two countries with a population of about 15 million between them refutes my generalizations. Most of what I’m saying refers to much more populous countries (such as the US) which have very undiverse cultures.

          is very much like equating Chinese and Korean.

          EastAsian cultures have common denominators, although of course they’re quite diverse. The presence of Confucianism, closely knit patriarchial famllies, and concept of ‘face’ are features they generally share.

  2. I have never, ever understood the infatuation of so many of the manosphere with Susan Walsh. It’s good that Dalrock finally saw through her nonsense. As a blogger he’s unusually data-driven, which may be why.

  3. Nailed it!

    Team woman is attempting to adapt to the so called game.

    But they are helpless to adapt.
    Simple self preservation should have adapted them long ago, but they are so self centered and self serving they fail to use logic to improve the future for themselves,making them easy prey for predators.

    They also miss the fact their own behaviors are what made these gamers.
    (never her fault)

  4. It is true that there are no 33-year-old involuntary virgin women.

    But it is also true that there are many 13 year old girls who lost their virginity involuntarily . That is something to consider.

    • Before I consider it, I’d like you to give me an idea of how many 13-year-old girls lose their virginity involuntarily. Is it a common occurence, as your troll implies, or a rare one? Some hard figures and references, please.

      • It is,sadly, a too common occurrence. A list of statistics is available at RAINN .

        A total of 44% of victims are under 18, which is not surprising, as girls that age are at least perceived to be vulnerable.

        • I, Enemy Combatant wrote:
          It is,sadly, a too common occurrence.

          Since the issue is such a political football and clouded with such high numbers of false accusations, I question that premise.

          A list of statistics is available at RAINN .

          Great. A rebuttal source is available below. Just to start off, the number of reported rapes for 2007 nationwide was listed as 90,427, with 23,307 arrests being made. This is a far cry from the 213,000 annual figure listed by RAINN.

          http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/

          A total of 44% of victims are under 18, which is not surprising, as girls that age are at least perceived to be vulnerable.

          From what I understand, the likelihood of rape of a woman being raped drops like a rock after about 30. So much for rape being a crime of power and not sex.

        • So much for rape being a crime of power and not sex.

          Of course it is about power. Why else would rapists preferentially target young females, aside from their perceived vulnerability?

          Just look at what happened with Jaycee Lee Dugard. The whole kidnapping, locking her in a shed, isolating her from other people- it was about power.

        • It’s about attractiveness, not power.
          There are plenty of 70 year old women/men who are quite weak.
          Going by your idea that rape is about power,
          why aren’t those people the most raped?
          After all, most of them would not be winning Mr/Mrs. Olympia strength contests.
          I, Enemy Combatant,
          you seem to be living up to 1 of the 2 real reasons behind feminism:
          1. To give women free sexual license so that they can slut around, while restricting (legal) male sexuality by
          2. Making it impossible for older males to be with younger women so that the cockhoppers of Step 1. have a cohort of sex-starved men to manipulate.

  5. “Of course it is about power. Why else would rapists preferentially target young females, aside from their perceived vulnerability?

    How about the fact that young girls are much more fertile than near- or post-menopausal older women?

    • How about the fact that young girls are much more fertile than near- or post-menopausal older women?

      Assuming rapists target young girls because they are fertile, does that not further prove that the motivation of rape is power? After all, what can be a greater expression of power for a rapist than to force a girl to carry his child within her own body?

      • You do realise that in order to create an offspring, you need both a sperm and an egg, right? Just because a woman is raped doesn’t mean that the resulting child is suddenly magically not hers.

        • You do realise that in order to create an offspring, you need both a sperm and an egg, right? Just because a woman is raped doesn’t mean that the resulting child is suddenly magically not hers.

          True, but it is also the rapist’s child. He used her body against her will to reproduce.

  6. I, Enemy Combatant wrote:
    Of course it is about power. Why else would rapists preferentially target young females, aside from their perceived vulnerability?

    Maybe because they’re usually hotter than middle-aged women?

    Just look at what happened with Jaycee Lee Dugard.

    Ok, sure. Since she’s a poster girl for missing white woman syndrome, she’s guaranteed to tug at heartstrings and the media will have a field day.

    locking her in a shed, isolating her from other people

    When you kidnap someone, letting her roam around town obviously presents logistical problems.

    Dugard’s case is an extreme aberration – classical kidnapping is extremely rare in the US and extraordinarily difficult to get away with.

    http://www.csicop.org/si/show/predator_panic_a_closer_look/

    If you’re going to engage in emotionally manipulative trolling, you’ll have to do better than that.

  7. Since game doesn’t exist, women aren’t just automatons responding to men. They are responsible for what they do, and I was holding women responsible.

    Omega, this is perfect. Bravo. And if we think about it, this ties together why PUAs believe in conspiracy theories & Ron Paul, embrace faddish diet plans, obsess about status, and believe crackpot sociobiological ideas.

    It is my conjecture that the entire “game” phenomenon is a product of decades of self-esteem education combined with protective parenting where nothing a child does is ever wrong. We’ve all seen wild children in supermarkets tearing up the place while Mommy ineffectively tries to reason with them in a sweet voice. Eventually, these children grow up. Nah, that’s not quite right — they don’t grow up, they grow older.

    Never being held responsible for their actions, such individuals automatically believe in their high status and go to great lengths to preserve this illusion. They believe diet and nutrition is something magical, as if we don’t control our food intake and amount of exercise. Politics is the same thing — it is out of our control, for secret elite conspiracies behind the scenes determine the fate of nations, not the policies our representatives implement. And with sociobiology — we’re not responsible for our behavior — genes and biomechanical laws determine everything.

    If we’re all puppets, then we’re all puppets. Game therefore comes with a self-refuting paradox: if everything is determined, then no one can actively learn game, for game couldn’t be a result of directed effort. This has things backwards. Nature determines initial attraction. People decide whether they like someone or not based on the first minutes, if not seconds, of interaction. Game can only help weed out bonehead mistakes that spoil the attraction later, like pedestalizing, running your mouth, etc. etc. Gamers act like they’re in control of the initial attraction, which, if they believed their own theories, simply just couldn’t be case. But the PUA clowns need to believe in some sort of merit behind their imagined status, as if they have a super-secret insight no one else has access to. Because, like the kid running around in the supermarket aisle, they’ve always been special, and always will be.

    • Nature determines initial attraction. People decide whether they like someone or not based on the first minutes, if not seconds, of interaction. Game can only help weed out bonehead mistakes that spoil the attraction later, like pedestalizing, running your mouth, etc. etc.

      While this is true, Game supposedly manipulates nature as to incite attraction.

      (I am not arguing that Game actually works in inciting attraction; I am simply noting what it claims.)

      • While this is true, Game supposedly manipulates nature as to incite attraction.

        But thats the point, when you use the word *nature*, you mean things not under your control, not able to be manipulated by you. So nature determines attraction means *things you cannot manipulate determines attraction*.

        • But thats the point, when you use the word *nature*, you mean things not under your control, not able to be manipulated by you. So nature determines attraction means *things you cannot manipulate determines attraction*.

          Nature can not be manipulated?

          People have been manipulating nature for nearly ten thousand years.

        • First of all, no, nature cannot be manipulated. Nature has laws that we can discover and obey, not manipulate (i.e we cannot get nature to do what we want, rather, it is up to us to obey natures laws.).

          But it is really just a semantic argument (in another sense we do *manipulate* nature). JHB simply used *nature* to suggest that sexual attraction depends on things that are outside our conscious control. Thats all.

          It just seemed to me that you were not getting the point that was being argued – that sexual attraction is not dependent on what a man does. Nature was probably not the best word to use to make that clear, anyways – heck, gamers would claim that natural is precisely what game is.

        • It just seemed to me that you were not getting the point that was being argued – that sexual attraction is not dependent on what a man does.

          It is true that there is some randomness when it comes to being attracted to a particular person.

          But even in this chaos, there are definitely patterns. I notice the near total lack of morbidly obese men with poor hygiene hooking up with supermodels, for example. (Or for a sex-reversed analogy, the near total lack of morbidly obese women with poor hygiene hooking up with young, handsome billionaires.)

        • My suspicion that you were not getting it was right 😉

          To make clear – behavior does not cause sexual attraction (being alpha, being confident, being dominating, being indifferent – none of that causes attraction).

          1) No one said it was random, least of all me.
          2) Being non-obese is not a way that you behave towards women.

          We are just countering the gamer claim that behaviors like acting alpha or acting dominating can cause sexual attraction. Attraction was decided before you *did* anything.

        • @EnemyCombatant

          Gamers actually believe that an obese man can get a supermodel just as easily as a hot guy, if he simply walked, talked and acted differently. I’m not kidding!!

          George did a good job of clarifying, but let me clarify further. We non-gamers say that a man’s “PHYSICAL attraction” is set at the moment you enter the room. It’s based on permanent and semi-permanent traits such as height, weight, facial features, physical type, general style type. I.E things that are either permanent or need months to be changed.

          Now don’t get me wrong… A man’s behaviour DOES affect other types of attraction, yes

          -> A man can make a woman romantically more interested (romantic attraction) by the way he treats her and how he acts. TRUE

          -> A man can make a woman more personally attracted (personal attraction, as a person), by the way he acts. TRUE

          However, sexual attraction is fixed on room entry

          However physically attractive a guy is to a woman the moment she notices him entering the room, is the highest it’s going to be [for that night]. Gamers actually believe that by saying certain lines, they can make a woman that wasn’t physically attracted, to now become physically attracted to the guy by the end of the night, just because of what he said or how he said it (I’m not kidding!! They believe this shit).

          Again, they’re specifically talking about PHYSICAL attraction. Most of us believe that love (romantic attraction) can be affect by behaviour. That’s not in dispute. Gamers actually believe they can TRICK a woman into being physically attracted to a guy (i.e. they believe they can get obese guys together with supermodels, despite no evidence of it ever happening).

        • You guys generally have it right.

          Supermodels do often marry fat guys, old guys, short guys, bald guys, etc., but that is usually after babies rabies kicks in. The woman simply shifts into resource extraction mode and gets the best beta provider.

          If women are looking for fun, physical attraction matters. But with women, such attraction is less about a man’s biological stats, and more about the whole physical-behavioral pattern — how a man walks, carries himself, attire, does he have slow smooth movements or quick jerky movements, pitch of the voice, cadence, general attitude, etc. A buff dude can still turn off women if he is a complete spaz, while a smooth dude’s potential will be capped by physical limitations. If you’re not realizing your potential, game can help, but game can’t change your potential. If you’re a 5 who is acting like a 3, game can help you act like a 5, but it can’t change you into a 9.

          Women in the eyes of men have much more leeway for acting like an idiot, and much, much less margin for error in the stats department.

      • @ JHB, mostly true, except I would say the social skills involved are far more simple and basic than you seem to be suggesting (basically, dont act like a spaz should do it 😉 ) and I also think game and acting *alpha* and *dominating* will make you look like a ridiculous fool and is an impediment in developing the normal social skills that are all you need to bed women who like your look.

        • and I also think game and acting *alpha* and *dominating* will make you look like a ridiculous fool and is an impediment in developing the normal social skills that are all you need to bed women who like your look.

          Unless you are a lot more touchy than almost any man, then “normal social skills” isn’t all that is necessary.

          Not supporting Mystery, the more I hear, the less I like. Just saying that there is an additional set of things that will make sex a lot more likely. Numbers Game to find women that “like your look” is not “normal social skills”. Knowing that women HAVE a look is hardly whispered… including by Mystery.

          There are additional things that help. Whether “Game” communicates these things in a useful way(or at all) is another matter entirely.

        • I’m not sure what you are saying here Barnum….are you saying guys need to know that it’s a numbers game based on girls having “looks” they are searching for? If so, I acknowledged that. I just added that once you find such a girl all you have to do is have normal social skills, the kind you use in every day situations.

          So you do the numbers game and find chics that dig your look – then you use normal social skills to create a harmonious social interaction not different from other social interactions so that the woman feels comfortable acting on her attraction to you. That’s pretty much it.

          If you’re saying that you need to do more to make women sleep with you, beyond finding the girl who likes your look and have normal social skills…if THAT is what you are saying, I am afraid I have to disagree with you completely, after doing a ton of experimentation with game and just being social.

          Sometimes we guys like to add a layer of mystery to essentially simple processes.

    • Game therefore comes with a self-refuting paradox

      One of the things that helped me get out of the game cult was to notice that that it is absolutely riddled with self-refuting paradoxes that nobody is supposed to notice or discuss and you are supposed to just accept on faith. Like 1)Never try to impress a girl, but 2) You do must constant DHVs. Stuff like that. Or, 1) You have to be dominant, but 2) You have to constantly check if the girl likes your behavior and adjust if she does not.

      You begin to grasp that even if it were true you could create sexual attraction through confident, dominant behavior, game is a set of techniques that are the opposite of confidence or dominance. It is one massive misunderstanding of the dynamics of true confidence

      Gamers dwell in this twilit world of shadows and double-think and double-speak where all sorts of bizarre verbal paradoxes are designed to put your mind in this logical funk where clear thought is impossible. The more you accept one self-refuting paradox, the more your mind is primed to accept more, thus poisoning your ability to think critically at its root.

      This tendency towards mystification and obfuscation reaches its climax with The Fifth Horseman, who always shows up intoning mysteriously like some kind of High Priest *90% of men will never understand game!* (right, because this invention of uneducated children is more complicated than nuclear physics) – designed to make you think there is some mysterious way that it all makes sense and all the apparent paradoxes are not real, and that you should not trust your own critical faculties. It is a confidence trick.

    • JHB, those are some excellent points. Since the paleo-gamers have never been held responsible for anything, they have never worked for anything. Thus they believe no one else has worked for anything either. They’re so incapable of doing any work that they even come up with excuses for not pulling a lever in a voting booth for Ron Paul like Ron Paul will be assassinated if he is elected.

      It’s pathetic.

  8. “He used her body against her will to reproduce.”

    It’s a biological reality that a woman’s body is used to reproduce. Every sexual living organism on Earth uses the female’s body to reproduce. To claim that a man uses a woman’s body to reproduce is to claim that men and women are somehow separate entities and are not part of the same species. That’s just ludicrous.

    • It’s a biological reality that a woman’s body is used to reproduce. Every sexual living organism on Earth uses the female’s body to reproduce. To claim that a man uses a woman’s body to reproduce is to claim that men and women are somehow separate entities and are not part of the same species. T

      I never claimed men and women are different species.

      I claimed that when a rapist gets his victim pregnant, he uses her body to reproduce against her will .

      • You didn’t get the point. A man does not use a woman’s body to reproduce, period. The human species uses the woman’s body to reproduce. Every sexual species on Earth does.

        If a woman willingly have sex with the man, it is still considered as a man using a woman’s body to reproduce? According to your definition, yes. That’s just non-sensical.

        • A rapist could probably care less about getting a woman pregnant; he just wants to get his rocks off. Since pregnancies from rape are very uncommon, I think we can conclude that it’s just some peculiar personal obsession that Enemy Combatant has.

        • It’s like all these women never heard of the birth control pill or the morning after pill.
          Oh yeah, all single mothers were raped.
          By a rapist, who held AND fed them against their will, their families didn’t care enough to report their disappearance, and 9 months later the babies were born.
          That’s what is reasonable to assume from what I, Enemy Combatant has said.
          Which sounds pretty incredible.

        • A rapist could probably care less about getting a woman pregnant; he just wants to get his rocks off. Since pregnancies from rape are very uncommon, I think we can conclude that it’s just some peculiar personal obsession that Enemy Combatant has.

          The fact remains that rape is about power.

        • @I,EC —

          Just because rape (I mean rape-rape, also known as forcible rape) involves an exercise of power, in that, the particular act of rape involves domination, does not mean that rape is about power. Women who theorize about this stuff typically project their own sexuality upon the other sex. For men aren’t sexually hypergamous; they usually don’t look at sex in a status-seeking categories.

          The feminist theory makes rapists sound like kleptomaniacs who steal just to steal, rather than, let us say, people who steal to get the stuff, or steal to inflict harm upon the stolen, or steal because it is there for the taking. Some men believe they are entitled to whatever they want to have. Some men hate women and enjoy seeing them suffer. Some men are completely opportunistic. Feminists don’t like to hear this because it implies women, by the way the dress, may sexually arouse unscrupulous people in their environment who simply don’t give a damn about what they should and should not do.

  9. “A rapist could probably care less about getting a woman pregnant; he just wants to get his rocks off. Since pregnancies from rape are very uncommon, I think we can conclude that it’s just some peculiar personal obsession that Enemy Combatant has.

    For the record, I did say that young girls are much more fertile than older women.

    One the one hand, I was trying to ruffle some old, menopausal-approaching, childless career woman-feminists’ feathers (hehe), while on the other hand, fertility often do translate to sexual attractiveness. The rapist may not have any specific plans to reproduce, but his libido towards a post-pubescent woman is inversely proportional to her age.

  10. Pingback: The Man-0-Sphere Is Paranoid | The Black Pill

  11. Nope. this is what Susan Walsh said about the the 80/20 perspective, not 20/20 as you seemed to interpret it above. And quote :

    “…as Badger claims, 80% of women give “disproportionate attention” to 20% of the men. I don’t doubt that if you asked every woman on campus who she’d most like to get with, 20% would get the most votes. That is not the same thing as what percentage of women are having sex with those 20%. This question of semantics is critical.”

    !

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