I kind of figured that the reaction to last week’s articles appearing in the Weekly Standard and the New York Times-both having to do with the modern day American dating scene-would be pretty much cookie cutter: “Feminism is to blame”, blah blah blah. And to be sure, all the Usual Suspects-Feministing, Feministe, Jezebel, Bitch Magazine, etc et al, didn’t disappoint.
But what really struck me, aside from the most rank intellectual dishonesty by these writers, was their near universal take on the “left behind” of the Males in the dating game-
Basically, in a word, they can pound sand.
Either that view was made tacit in say, the column presented by Jezebel.com, or, it wasn’t addressed at all, under the pretense that *all* guys always had it good under the old system and way of doing business. To see such a naked, raw display of hypergamy by Women who swear up and down a more enlightened, egalitarian view of life was eye-opening indeed.
Of course, much of the big, and huge, problem I personally had with both articles-and this comes as someone who was largely supportive of what both pieces had to say, mind you-was in their very narrow view demographically. Both pieces focused on young college aged folks, at least nominally middle class if not considerably higher up the food chain, and of course, virtually all White. Whenever discussions like these ensue, they almost *never* approach them from the perspective of, or cater to, Blue Collar Brothas like me. For all intents, we don’t exist.
But at any rate, I thought the overall reaction to the articles, on the part of the more or less official Femosphere commentariat, was quite disappointing, and not for the reasons one might suspect. For example, I have no problem with their disagreeing with the arguments or points either piece was making-I’m disappointed because, for all their sound and fury, the best the Femosphere could do in response to either piece was to basically engage either in weaksauce Ad Hominem attacks on the authors and their supposed intentions, or erecting strawman arguments that never existed in the first place. I mean, how about actually grappling with the basic facts on the ground: that Women don’t really want most Men out there, that more and more Men are dropping out in relation to Women, and all of this has profound implications for how our country will look and even feel in the years moving forward. No one, at least not I, is attempting or desiring that we “turn back the clock” on the progress of Women at all. All the articles are saying, is that things HAVE changed, and that we need to give some serious thought as to how all of this will play out in the not too distant future.
Perhaps one of the things that most upset me about the reaction to the articles, was not only the “pound sand” shoulder shrugging on the part of many Fempundits, but also their simultaneous whipping up on Game training-not only do they don’t have much empathy for the Male losers of the new dating game, but they don’t want him to attempt to help himself either. Its a kind of cruelty that really took me aback, all the while trying to paint the kinds of gals who hook up with the Tucker Max’s of the world as some kind of statistical oddity; tantamount to rhetorically pissing in every Man’s face while trying to convince him that its raining outside.
The whole thing was just so patently disingenuous that it was enough to make any reasonable person roll their eyes, if not retch outright. As a Man, you get tired of hearing all the obfuscations and BS from Women who are ostensibly on the ball for crying out loud. Is it their ideology that so blinds them to the basic facts on the ground, or has what Game theorists been saying all along basically true-that Women either can’t be objective about what really turns them on, or, they are incapable of being brutally honest about it? As far as I’m concerned, either one will do, because the end result is the same-these Fempundits decry PUAs and putdown “schlubs” but they offer NOTHING in the way of real solutions that gives said “schlubs” a fighting chance in the dating scene, be it the college campus or beyond-other than the shopworn “be yourself” and of course, “date ugly girls” line of (un)reason.
Look, let me make something very clear here-I have no problem in the least with what a Woman wants to do with her life; if she wants to succeed in her business dealings, school, etc, et al, good on her, I say. I just don’t get all the near hatred for guys who weren’t blessed with natural gifts. Are they to be damned to a loveless, sexless purgatory? Should they do nothing to try to improve their lot in life? Or should they simply “know their place”-language and sentiments that, to be frank, I’d thought ironic to be coming from folks who profess to be the standard bearers of progressive thoughts and beliefs.
To say that there are hucksters and/or misogynists in PUAland is a given; to say that there are loser guys who whine and complain without making any effort on their part to try to make things better in their own lives, same. And to be sure, I think I’ve gone out of my way to address both in very stark terms. But for the detractors of the recent Weekly Standard and NYT pieces to putdown both, while offering no real alternative, really says it all to me:
That the ONLY ones who will care about Men, are Men themselves. Even more to the point-the only one who cares about you, is YOU.
So, if you’re a guy reading this, you can be rest assured that there will be no commission to find out why guys are attending school less. There will be no other viable alternatives out there that will help you succeed with Women other than the aforementioned PUA/Game community, regardless as to how many detractors shriek and moan (Denise Romano); and YES, Women can and will continue to pass over ostensibly “good” guys in favor of ones who seem more superficial, because they can. In fact, if anything, those two pieces should have told you, that Women today have more ability and incentive to do this, than ever before, simply because of the gains via Feminism that have been made over the past half century or so. Now, its perfectly within a guy’s right to grumble about what he’s read, heard and seen for himself, or, he can basically take one of two courses:
1. Learn Game to the best of his ability, or
2. Drop out and accept his fate with some modicum of dignity.
Complaining on and on won’t work because you’re going up against tens of thousands of years of conditioning; simply put, it’s unmanly to bitch and moan. No, it’s fair that Women can complain and someone will hear them, more often than not other Men-but then, Life ain’t fair. It never has been, and it never will be, *especially for Men*. This is why Sports is so important, because it teaches boys and young Men that very often, Life will be unfair-that the best teams don’t always win. Being a “good” guy isn’t enough in our time now. It. Just. Isn’t. You need to bring more to the table, and it’s perfectly OK if you don’t have what it takes. It’s a Wise Man who knows his limitations, nor should he have to accept that which he truly doesn’t want. In fact, I would highly recommend he not settle for a Woman he doesn’t really want if for no other reason than it dishonors both himself and her. If he cannot measure to acquire the Woman he truly wants, it is better for him to simply accept his fate with quiet, stoic dignity. Merely complaining and bleating on and on never got anyone anywhere. If it did, none of us would be discussing this very topic, right now.
What’s that you say?-that Women shouldn’t be so damned picky and superficial? Sure, that makes sense to me, but, here’s the thing: they have a RIGHT to be as picky, superficial, vapid, shallow and downright foolish as they want. Last time I heard, this was America, where people have the right to Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness. Keyword in all caps. They have a right to pursue that Alpha cad and try to make him commit. They have the right to turn you down, for any number of reasons. And so on. Nothing will change from your being upset about that, my Man. Nothing. The only thing you can is change yourself.
Trust me, if anyone knows that, it’s me. I was brutally shotdown by Women for being “too short”-and let’s face it, when was the last time any of us heard a Woman longing for a guy *under* 5′10″? I’ve yet to see it. Sure, what Women actually wind up with is one thing, but still my point stands, virtually no Woman sets her sights on a shorter guy. Just a fact of life, and of course it hurt-just like it hurt to be brutally rejected because I didn’t go to college, or have a degree, or because I worked with my hands or because I didn’t drive a fancy car. But what I had to learn was that again, those Women had the right to choose who they spend their time with, regardless as to what I thought of their selection criteria. I could choose to remain bitter for the rest of my days, or I could choose to try to improve myself on things I could actually do something about-and yes, I could consider perhaps spending time among people who actually enjoyed having me around. And until such people came along, then perhaps its a good thing that I spent time with myself.
What gets me about the Fempundits though, is that while I recognize their and any other Woman’s right to choose as to who she wants to be with, for any reason whatsoever, they seem not as willing to extend me or any other Man the same courtesy-somehow, if I don’t want a Woman I know for a fact had been chasing knuckleheads down and being dogged out by them for years, and now she’s turned to me and I *politely decline*, somehow I’m the one who’s stuck up.
Ain’t that a blip.
No, it’s the same, simple principle of recognizing the Right of Freedom of Association-I respect her right to spend her time as she choose. Is it so much to ask that in return? Without any rancor or acrimony on my part, in the least.
Hmm.
Anyway, I suspect many, many more such articles to come out from among the Chattering Classes as the Great Mancession continues on throughout the decade. And somehow, I won’t be surprised, if we simply never get any straight talk from the Usual Suspects in response.
The Obsidian
