Reset

As I wrote last time, patriarchy is over. The rules have changed, for better or for worse. I believe we will all be happier in general because we will be forced to meet women halfway, and doing this requires us to operate at their level. No longer is the female reality considered frivolous or inferior, but we now have to operate under the assumption that their world is as important as ours.

This is good because women live in the real world. This is bad because the mode of thought that complexity demands – the rational and abstract thinking necessary to a society based on law, stratification, and organization – by nature suppresses experiential reality. To be a man is to engage a world of forms, where the economy is more real than the food in your hand and the state is more real than the home. All things are relevant only insofar as they represent abstract reality. Well, wealth is generated at the state level but joy is generated at the home level. This is the consolation prize you’ve been offered at the tail end of the civilized world, no reason not to get acquainted with it.

And get acquainted with it you can.  The other good news is that women and men think differently, but these modes of thought can be familiarized and employed freely by both sexes.  There is a very small portion of men — what we call alphas, or the 1%; members of the secret society — who comprehend female consciousness and move as freely through the female social world as women do themselves.  This is the real world, and you can learn to participate in it.

So how do we begin engaging this real world?  I have a number of posts in the works about just that.  Their major theme can be dumbed down and distilled in the idea that the female mind employs the “right brain” more than any male, and that by learning to view the world through this lens you can come to understand how women view you and how to present yourself in a way that will preoccupy them.  With this understanding, it is significantly easier to develop lasting relationships with attractive women, and leverage this to attain a role within your community that suits your desires.

Looking back, I was happiest in my social life when I was well-known within different communities of people, had a larger-than-life persona, and commanded a level of notoriety that grew from adroit social manipulation.  In January, I will be moving back to the city after a year of relative isolation, and building myself back up to the level I was at a few years ago.  I will still post here about the face of masculinity, though possibly in a different way.

My sense is that many, many game blogs focus on the steps they find necessary to attaining social status, yet I have seen very few of them paint an accurate picture of what it looks like when you are actually there (Shouts out to RSD.)  Some of the connecting themes of my writing so far have been that status confers responsibility and that you cannot achieve power over others without gaining (and deserving) their trust.  I have focused almost exclusively on the alpha identity as it appears in a family environment and I am becoming interested in how it appears in a community setting.  I’m particularly interested in the overlap — it’s my contention that social complexity exists because men can extend direct power over groups of unrelated people and lead ever larger families.

Ultimately, I am curious whether the dichotomy of lover and provider as a personality type actually exists, and whether being a player now can prepare you for being a tribal warlord after the inevitable collapse of civilization and descent into the Hobbesian Road Warrior reenactment that will constitute the rest of your lives.

December is always the busiest month for my love life.  More to come on how to think like a woman and act like a man.  Thanks for reading.

CK

Advertisements

13 comments on “Reset

  1. modernguy says:

    Regarding achieving status by working your way up in the world of women: how do you think you’ll feel about it ultimately? I don’t think there’s a question that it can be satisfying, at least in the short term, but I think it depends on what kind of person you are. When you look at “naturals” or men that are at the social apex, they are always men that derive satisfaction from social interaction. They are stimulated in way that’s much more akin to the way women are stimulated than what we generally take to be the masculine mode of thinking. Look at guys like Berlusconi, he’s the kind of guy women love and also the kind of guy that loves the limelight, and it seems to me that these two things are intimately related. Those kinds of men are much more oriented towards the tactile experience. They prefer action to thought, which dovetails nicely with the preferences of women, and gives them an enormous advantage.

    • My opinion is that constitutional differences between people are not as set in stone as we tend to think.

      If you had asked me where I fell on this spectrum at 18, I would have said that I am very outgoing when I am with my friends but quiet in large groups. I have since gotten older and I am no longer as quiet in groups. Today, many would say I love the limelight maybe a little too much. So what changed? And what was the difference between small and large groups at 18?

      I think everyone derives satisfaction from social interaction, but most men weigh this satisfaction against the potential consequences of interacting — the possibility of rejection, the discomfort of uncertainty. This discomfort makes socializing unpleasurable for them. Frankly, I think everyone would prefer action to thought if there were no consequences of acting. There is less a division between thinkers and actors than there is a division between the anxious and the fearless. It is escaping this discomfort that divides one man from the next, and this is entirely possible through a number means, both internal and external.

      On that note, I think one of the hallmarks of masculine thinking is a preference for the predictable and distaste for the spontaneous. Learning to turn this on and off is something I hope to get into soon.

  2. Firepower says:

    I certainly DO hope you recognize Female Power
    They are celebrating their largest haul in the US Senate
    Now, in addition to staffing most of the Federal Government

    They can finally show how much better they are than insensate men
    With resounding successes like Nancy Pelosi, Susan Rice and Super Hilary

    • To be fair, I was pretty blown away by Hillary’s performance as Secretary. I worked at State last year and watched her do incredible things. It didn’t hurt that she regularly alluded to Obama’s piss poor performance in the foreign policy department. It did hurt that every day was International Women’s Day over there, and she was effectively working to export American feminism to 3rd world countries. Needless to say her presidency would be the fucking apocalypse.

      • Firepower says:

        I understand you wish to be collegial toward Hillary – we are all trained to be graciously deferential to females and helpless minorities. It shows your good upbringing.

        Regardless, I would point out the current debacle of foreign policy. Nuclear Iran. Egypt’s fall. Arab Spring, China’s growing power. Missile-launchin’ North Koreans et al. Not since WW2 has the USA failed so miserably.

        Just recall Asange’s WikiLeaks documents about the *ahem* Shakespearean dissembling of the US State Dept.

        Get ready for President Hillary. You’re not likely to see a White Male as President ever again – unless it’s a Leftist Liberal like Jerry Brown or Jon Stewart.

        • She politely attributed all of that to Obama’s weakness anytime I heard her talk behind closed doors, while working to build alliances with Southeast Asian countries to contain China down the road. The push to identify USA as a pacific power has pretty much been 100% Hillary, which is a strategic use of diplomacy Kissinger would probably be proud of.

          You can surely assess my philosophy from the writing up here, but I’m not going to write someone off a priori because of their gender. Hillary is a political realist with atrociously leftist and anti-male social goals; I wouldn’t want her attaining any domestic political power but I’m not going to lie when she’s been a better diplomat than anyone else Obama could have conceivably picked.

          • Firepower says:

            Our international predicament approaches 1939 levels.

            We have no allies. Our Libyan Ambassador is dead.
            Our only true ally is a neutered England 1/300th the size it was in 1912.

            We appear a fat, decadent idiotic giant to all those I listed above.
            I’ll take George P. Shultz any day.
            We have NO foreign strategic diplomatic victories to trumpet.

            ALL, while the Emergent PC Girl’s Club aka US Sec’y of State estrogenizes the entire West.

            • Pissing away the arab spring, allowing the muslim brotherhood to come to power in Egypt, shitting the bed on Libya then covering it up before election, pursuing “engagement” with Iran, telling Israel to piss off….100% of these policy decisions were made by Obama. Hillary performed wonderfully at APEC, Obama pissed it away in Phomh Penh, to provide a microcosm of what’s been going on the past 4 years.

              I can’t say I disagree with you, I’m just having a hard time seeing what you’re trying to convince me of. If you’re trying to say that Hillary Clinton is a manjawed feminazi who would dramatically exacerbate any war on men you believe in, I think it’s obvious I agree. If you’re trying to say that she, and not Barack Obama, is responsible for America’s pitiful condition, I think you’ll have to provide actual evidence for that. Everyone already knows we’re going to shit.

  3. Just found your blog and read some. I am confused though, based on your prior posts and even the conclusion of this post, I dont understand this opening :
    “As I wrote last time, patriarchy is over. The rules have changed, for better or for worse. I believe we will all be happier in general because we will be forced to meet women halfway, and doing this requires us to operate at their level. No longer is the female reality considered frivolous or inferior, but we now have to operate under the assumption that their world is as important as ours.”

    This sounds very much like placating to females, I dont want to assume since some of your other writing contradicts this. But this opening reeks of it esp. ‘No longer is the female reality considered frivolous or inferior’ who is saying that? Because I have not heard anyone ever say that before. That is a typical straw man argument feminists use to stir victim mentality.

    Males do not have to meet females halfway, its more like 90%. Wondering what you were trying to get at with this?

  4. […] “[Your last post] sounds very much like placating to females, I dont want to assume since some of your other writing contradicts this. But this opening reeks of it esp. ‘No longer is the female reality considered frivolous or inferior’ who is saying that? […]

  5. > I believe we will all be happier in general because we will be forced to meet women halfway

    No, this is very bad. Sexual dymorphism developed because specialization is superior to homogeneity.

    As a man, you can’t get pregnant, can you? Can you get half pregnant? No, and you never will.

    Women still suck at being a men and they will never be as good as masculine men. The masculine women might be better at being a man than feminized men, but that is just failure of those men.

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