Badger has an excellent post up titled Treating Her Like A Guy (check it out, I’ll wait). He makes the point that pedistalization is often about treating women as if the rules don’t apply to them:
In this case, the answer is to use the opposite mental technique – adopt a bit of a sense that she is just one of the guys, and don’t treat her with any special favors you wouldn’t give a guy in a similar situation. In other words, “are you doing things for a female prospect that you would never do for a male friend?”
Does she say something silly? Call her on it, just like you would with the guys, and get her to laugh at herself.
I don’t have any insight to add beyond Badger’s wisdom, except to note that one complaint I’ve seen about those teaching game is they don’t always offer enough concrete examples for men to use as a how-to. After you’ve read Badger’s worthy post, you might benefit from this fairly crass but still instructional video. In the video a young man makes the exact mistake Badger is referring to. He supplicates to the young woman when he should be demonstrating his higher value. He is unfortunately but not unexpectedly quickly placed in the friend zone. However, he soon recovers and learns to treat her as if she were just another one of the guys. Here is another scene (with the same warning of crassness) where they meet again.
I hope this helps shed some light on what can be an otherwise difficult to grasp concept.
Hey, thanks for the shoutout. A bit of this attitude can really up a guy’s frame.
“He supplicates to the young woman when he should be demonstrating his higher value.”
Perhaps by acting a bit haughty, even proud? Here’s some more research news that might well be categorized as another “Roissy was Right” :
Smiling men less attractive to women: study
“Women consistently rated the proud men highest, with a rating of four to five. They rated happy men about one point lower. Younger women rated happy men lowest, while older women tended to rate happy and ashamed men equally and neutral men lower.”
And, as is often pointed out, men aren’t interested in the same things in women that women find most attractive in men:
“In all cases, men rated “happy” women highest — above five on the scale. Proud women were rated on average one to two points lower, and were rated lowest among those shown the online photos.”
So, “proud” (insert your favorite descriptor of todays empowered women) were rated lowest. Lower than a woman expressing shame, in fact.
Maybe this one belongs in the “The Manosphere was Right” category even more so.
Much as I am a big of a fan of The Badger Hut I wish I could agree that it is as simple as he seems to implies. My own experience – which would be my natural instinct anyway – is that, if you treat a woman as a you would a man because she is acting as if she were a man, then when it all gets too much for her (as it will) she will lash out, or start crying, or appeal to the nearest larger or more powerful man to come to her rescue, accusing you of inappropriate behaviour, or some other made-up cobblers, or say that you have ‘failed to acknowledge her as a woman’ – and I had that acusation made to me by an avowed feminist! You are, I am afraid, damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
The trouble with Game is that there are some men who have great success with women yet who appear to do so much wrong, from a Game point of view. Not that I am suggesting cringing betafication is the way to a woman’s heart, merely that you can never be sure what will and what will not work, and as ones instinct is to respond to female charm then that should – all things being equal – be the way to proceed. If, as we are told, a view of a person is formed within 90 seconds to four minutes of meeting, it would appear that there is not much one can do, to change the outcome anyway. Possibly the best advice is simply to be oneself – whatever that is – after all, why would you want to be anyone else?
Off Topic: An interesting editorial that calls out Pastor Mark Driscoll for a non-Biblical obsession with sex. http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/the-church-of-sex/
OK, but be a strapping version of yourself (H/T Athol Kay). Be a version of yourself who is outcome independent, i.e. I don’t give a sh!t what she thinks of my approach. If she likes me, great; we’ll see where it goes. If she doesn’t, oh well. NEXT!
If my wife wants to have sex, great. If not, that’s fine too — for now. (Push me away too many times, I’ll consider it marital abandonment and will deal with it accordingly.)
No more supplication. No more gifts or flowers to curry favor. No more “I’ll do whatever you want”.
Here is another part in the same series. Same warning applies.
“If my wife wants to have sex, great. If not, that’s fine too — for now. (Push me away too many times, I’ll consider it marital abandonment and will deal with it accordingly.)”
And you’ll deal with it by…what? Getting butt-raped in divorce court? LOL! As if you had any power to begin with!
Meh, Hollenhund. If I have no power, if I have nothing to work with, if my wife really sees me as that devoid of value and worth, then I might as well file for divorce myself, quit my job, empty the bank accounts, kiss my kids goodbye, and go Galt.
Seems to me that his advice to wives is pretty good. Submit to your husband, and keep his nut sack drained. I have a little more respect for Driscoll now than before (which is, admittedly, still a low bar).
From the article:
“This is not normal. Asking your wife to walk ahead of you in public so you can ogle her rear end is not normal. ”
Really? Why not? He’s just having fun, and most women like it.
“Having mystical visions of parishioners in sex acts is not normal.”
He’s got a point there. That’s downright creepy.
@ Passer, Naughty:
I’m no Driscoll fan. He’s a “man up” crier in the worst sense of the word because he uses the Christian faith as a bludgeon to do it.
What’s significant to the Kupelian article to me is this: World Net Daily is a diehard neoconservative news outlet that caters to social conservatives. Articles like this always devolve into white knighting. Took Kupelian a long time to get on his trusty steed, but he finally got there:
“In the same way, common sense tells us God did not create women – including married women – to have to compulsively service the needs of oversexed, insecure, angry, egotistical men at all hours of the day and night. And women definitely shouldn’t be psychologically manipulated by authority figures into believing they are disobeying God, Jesus and the Bible if they don’t become sexual Stepford wives.”
Translation: Women don’t have to have sex when their men want it. Any man who wants sex from his wife is oversexed, angry, insecure and egotistical. And any man who suggests that a wife has an obligation to have sex with her husband is guilty of psychological manipulation.
No more gifts flowers or curry flavor. Marry away from the Indian subcontinent
This makes sense. When a woman isn’t funny, don’t laugh. I think Badger’s point is more about treating a woman as a human being, and not pedestalizing them. When you elevate them, you DLV yourself, and they can see through your supplicating behavior. You need to be honest with them.
I rather not have the mindset that I’m treating her like one of the guys. That would mess up my game – women are not one of the guys.
March 7, 2012 at 10:41 am
George Washington himself needed to ‘train’ himself to be the man he wanted to be. I think that that is a good indication that introspection and self improvement is needed to become the man I want to be.
It is based on what you see you want to be and practicing the attributes of that kind of person. It is very much like a beta training themselves to immitate and then be an alpha. No man should be left to an abused life as a beta, except those who refuse to change. It worked for George Washington and should work for most men.
I love how the double-standard is exemplified in those clips. “Friend” really means deferring to her in everything, “friend” means you recognize your orbiter status and become an emotional punching bag, it doesn’t mean friend as a guy would ever mean it.
I just slapped a womans back and said “you asshole”….
Funny, the reaction wasnt what I expected
I start from the belief that most women are vain, ignorant and self focussed. As they prove me right or wrong, they get negged in light of who they are revealed as.
The older they are, the gentler the negs are. Younger women in the workace can be incredibly irritating. In which case i will treat them as one of the guys and ignore them as much possible.
The best workplaces have been those with the fewest women. Much simpler dynamics, plus men usually stab openly when they attack or criticise. That women back stab so often makes them a pain to work with.
” is that, if you treat a woman as a you would a man because she is acting as if she were a man, then when it all gets too much for her (as it will) she will lash out, or start crying”
Hahah do I know you in real life? Are we twins?
Especially in the work environ, treating the cute new girl as “one of the guys” will quickly get you accused of creating a hostile work environ, or reduce her to tears as you said.
Reminds me of the case of the women’s studies lecturer bringing up an official complaint of sexual harassment by one of her students for ignoring her.
So if it works on a women’s studies major, it can work on anyone.
What do you expect? We evil males use Master Suppression Techniques on women 24/7.
This all seems so elementary to me.
Though I guess that’s the point.
I started rebelling against feminism at least since I reached puberty. Not the equal rights part.
The personal is political part. The idea that men shouldn’t be leading and benevolently (for the most part) dominant over their mates. Never ever agreed with that at least since puberty.
I’ve for a long, long time known that feminists regularly and habitually lie up the yin yang and the feminism suffused American mainstream media about never call them out on it. When they do it’s typically years later after the legal changes the lies had generated had already occurred.
For example, sexual harassment law. I was against it from the beginning. Affirmative action for women which came in much earlier, the same. I was also deeply suspicious of the dead beat dads campaign to raise child support=becoming also stealth alimony when paid by strong earners campaign from the beginning, looked into it, and was at the time much against. VAWA I was more a bit hoodwinked about. I had no idea how hair trigger it was. Certainly none of the news media said that. I had no idea how guilty until proven innocent it was. I had no idea how orders of protection forcing merely accused men of women who had no physcial injuries to move out of their house and cease all communication worked. It’s eggregious yet the news and magazine media NEVER talk about this. That’s amazing.
Shouldn’t this be called “Treating Her Like An Adult”?
When you discuss this, you need to keep in mind the context. In Badger’s original blog, it was in a sexual context – he was writing a guide for a beta to bang some chick (likely in his social circle). Women you encounter in other contexts may be treated slightly differently (e.g the workplace).
I’d disagree with the “treat her like a guy” way as a part of social circle game anyway. It’s an easy move towards the right side of attraction for a beta who’s so used to pedestalising chicks, but it is still a safe, rather neutered zone, because there is no sexual tension built up. What a man needs to do is to treat her like… a woman. Not like how a typical modern man treats a typical modern woman (arse kissing behaviour) but like in times gone by. As a certain woman who can’t get enough of me once commented on my reaction to her attention seeking game, she can never tell if that look on my face is merely amusement or contempt. You want to set it up so that she can’t help but seek your approval.
“Having mystical visions of parishioners in sex acts is not normal.”
He’s got a point there. That’s downright creepy.
I don’t know, it’s just the “imagine the audience you’re addressing naked” thing taken to its next logical step. Although, if his church is as packed with blue hairs and MILF’s who’ve hit the wall as my old church was, I agree it’s 100% creepy.
This blog is full of crap.Yes divorce is still unfair in most of places and should have equal legal implications for man and woman, but being against it?Should marriage be a trap.An in a lot of post you talk about promiscuity and not marryng sluts, but I know many girls who have casual sex when single and are faithful when dating.More faithul than some supposedly chast and quiet women.
You can cry and complain as much as you want to.But fortunately the world is progressing, with many flaws, paasing through some chaos tha exists in every change, but is moving forward and away (thankfully) from the not so thoughtful conservative views you have.
T – “But fortunately the world is progressing, with many flaws, paasing through some chaos tha exists in every change, but is moving forward and away (thankfully) from the not so thoughtful conservative views you have.”
The world may be progressing, but society is decaying all the same.
Check the stats on the rate of marriages. It’s been steadily dropping. Many young women are sold on the feminist idea that they don’t need a man, and thus spend many good years not being serious about relationships, and making themselves unmarriageable (even if their bio-clocks start ticking loudly as they hit 30, their high levels of promiscuity is likely to be a big turn-off).
But, even an even larger effect is starting to play out. Men, especially young men, have had ample opportunity to see for themselves the pitfalls of Marriage 2.0 and it’s BFF Dicvorce 2.0.
Dalrock often makes the point that there is not “marriage Strike”. He’s right – at least in that there has been no wide-spread organized effort to convince (young) men not to marry. Yet, a great young men are deciding on their own that they are not interested in making the significant effort to make themselves fit for marriage, because they have calculated that the risks inherent to the 2.0 twins just are not worth the rewards of marrying a modern women – who’s not particularly (statistically) likely to actually be a good and loyal spouse anyway.
It isn’t a just a few men in the Manosphere who “cry and complain”. Increasingly, it’s women who are finding themselves past their prime, their looks fading along with their fertility, and without prospect for marriage. Men are slowly, but surely, beginning to adopt the “no rings for sluts” proclamation – not loudly, not getting into anyone’s face about it, but quietly, privately, for themselves, as they realize that it’s for their own good.
So, now you can cry and whine about this blog and those who comment here all you want. reality is reality, and there is no escaping it. The world is progressing, yes, but it isn’t headed where you think it is. There isn’t some “Brave New World” on that horizon. Technology is advancing, but socially, it’s more likely that we are headed for a new Dark Age.
And, frankly, any crying and whining you think you sense here is more likely to be about that, and not about the loud, but still meaningless, threat of you self-imagined “progressives” leaving us behind.
Anonymous Reader – “Shouldn’t this be called “Treating Her Like An Adult”?”
You might even consider it treating her as an equal.
And, isn’t that what women claim that they want, anyway?
March 8, 2012 at 3:03 am
Early stages here, but I’m calling this one a White Knight. We’ll need more information to downgrade it to Mangina staus.
Do you think it will come back and keep repeating the same idiocy or will it shift what it says without responding to any one like a good troll.
Time will tell, but it bores me already.
Legion – “Early stages here, but I’m calling this one a White Knight.”
I took it for slut who is offended by the negative attitudes shown towards sluts.
That “you’re a bunch of conservatives” attempt at shaming, and the suggestion that it sees itself as “progressive” (a.k.a. anti-social norms leftist) seems to point towards a sex-posi, gender-feminist in my estimation.
Maybe it would be willing to better identify itself for us? If it crawls out from underneath this bridge, to stand in the the illuminating light that shines here once again, that is, of course.
Hey T, if you’re still reading, go check out Vox’s , Of sluts and sexual insecurity .
I doubt you will enjoy it, but for someone as bereft of knowledge as you, it just might be educational.
Odds are you are female, because of this narcissistic reasoning:
“””I know many girls who have casual sex when single and are faithful when dating.More faithul than some supposedly chast and quiet women.”””””
I know some people who smoked 4 packs a day and are healthy into their 90’s! Yippee smokem if ya gottem!
I am so incredibly weary dealing with these people who cannot imagine a bigger world past their own experience, who have no concept of rules and exceptions of generalities and how they differ from stereotypes…..basically of statistics even in a very qualitative way.
Hint: The other posters wherent talking about the guys you know then!!!!!!!
Yes it is great to leave conservative views behind inst it? I mean look at the benefits, culturally, sociologically, we are on the very cusp of Utopia!
Pingback: Antipodean interactions. | pukeko.net.nz
Dalrock, your second link doesn’t work anymore.
Otherwise, nice links.
“Be a version of yourself who is outcome independent, i.e. I don’t give a sh!t what she thinks of my approach. If she likes me, great; we’ll see where it goes. If she doesn’t, oh well. NEXT! ”
YES, we shouldn’t live our lives whimpering for her approval. What woman could love that? But it sounds like you are living your life for your own self-absorbed whims and tantrums, stomping around in cowboy boots. Is that manly or childish? Live your life for something greater than yourself and maybe you’ll be man enough to win her heart.
“You want to set it up so that she can’t help but seek your approval.”
LEAVING her guessing until she grows desperate for your approval? There’s some wisdom in it, and a lot of self-absorption. Have any of you ever heard of the word LOVE? It seems to be a foreign concept to several of you.
And by the way, chivalrous gentlemen and knights of past ages would not be slapping you on the backs for your views on women, they’d be slapping you in the face. With a metal gauntlet.
Unmarried women of old would not have borne a child out of wedlock, and had the legal right to take the father to court to win the lion’s share of his assets, either.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Once upon a time, an unwed mother would have been branded a slut and become unmarriageable.
Nowadays, single mommies are heroes. But you know that, already.
I find that genuflecting before the supreme gender always helps affirm their moral superiority.
Funny, though. . . All those biblical characters never pursued their wives, to win their hearts.
To the bat cave, Robin. . . Clearly we’re doing this all wrong. Maybe a few indoctrination sessions on women’s awesomeness might help. Vagina monologues, perhaps? How about a sex and the city movie marathon?!
Badger locked up his blog. Dalrock, maybe you can get him to open it back up?