Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Preselection: A different take

The day after I drafted this post, Charming Disarray made a comment in 'The lovable rogue' which made me wonder if she comes under this category of woman described here, at least in part?
Here's (an excerpt of) her comment:

"Concerning men whose mothers and sisters adore them which in turn influences other women to see him the same way, there's a guy I know who fits that description perfectly. And I totally fell for it at first. And then.....there were a few occasions where he showed he couldn't be counted on, and I now grow increasingly impatient with the worship he gets from his womenfolk. But maybe that's me being an "outlier" again. :P "

Hm...I think when it comes to 'preselection', our CD really is an outlier.

Here's why I think so.

There is one popular mantra I have never quite reconciled with.
And I am someone who actually does agree with much of the wisdom of The Manosphere.
So I am by no means a foe of The Manosphere.

But this one issue bugs me. Or rather it did for a long time - until I figured out what my problem was.

My 'stumbling block' to complete reconciliation with The Manosphere lies in the phenomeon of 'preselection'.

I completely agree that women are hypergamous.
I even think it is necessary.
I completely agree that men need Game to 'win' in the current dating milieu.
I completely agree that women need to be more feminine.
I completely agree that women should be submissive to their husbands (note I did not say 'subservient').

But I was fiercely opposed to the idea that women only want men who are wanted by other women.
Because I knew of the existence of many women for whom this is patently false.

I have figured out, I think, what the 'problem' is.
These women are on the whole, 'masculine women'.
And they are by no means the majority.
But they are what one would call ' a significant minority'.

And in fact, The Manosphere is not wrong about these women's preselection.
They do like 'preselected' men.

The only difference when it comes to preselection between these women and other women is...
Preselection ...by whom?

The Manosphere claims that women want men who other women have previously (or have currently!) chosen.
So a man who surrounds himself with lots of beautiful women will have a better chance of attracting a woman than one who is obviously a loner.
A man who is married will often report a higher interest in him by other women when he is wearing his wedding band, and indeed when he is in the company of his wife than when he is alone.
A man whose online profile includes photos with women will often get more responses.
A man who is recommended to a woman by another woman is more likely to attract the woman than one who is recommended to her by a man.

In all these cases, I believe it is not just that the man has previously 'got' other women, because afterall, some or most of these women he surrounds himself with will be relatives or platonic friends.
I think what's more important for the woman who may be interested in this man is, is he safe to be around? If he is around other women, even if they are his own sisters, he is somehow 'safer' than if he is never to be found in the company of women.
Nevermind that he may be a serial killer and his sisters will lie through their teeth to cover for him: the important thing here is that another woman deems this man lovable enough to 'cover for'. If he is someone's 'lovable rogue', that's all a woman needs to know.
Somewhat illogical, but true :-)
Very few women will feel brave enough to approach a true loner without any evidence of this 'social proof' by another woman. There would have to be an overwhelmingly valid reason why this lack of 'social proof' would be overridden by a woman.
Like there are bizarre externuating circumstances - like in a war.
Like he is 'special' enough that her hypergamy (whch is the highest instinct in a woman) is sufficiently satisfied and she is no longer looking for other 'qualifiers'.
In other words, he is supremely alpha and has short-circuited his way into her heart straightaway :)

I get that.

But there are women, believe it or not for whom none of the above apply in even a remotely abstract way, let alone a tangible way.

Because these women are looking at a man not by his relationship to other women, but to how he measures up to other men.

These are the women who are wired to be unimpressed when their elderly female neighbour says with a sly wink: "You know, I have a son who is a doctor in New York. Maybe you should meet him."
Because to this woman, a 'recommendation' by a man's mother is too easy.
Because she knows that every mother loves her son. No matter how much of a 'rogue' he is :-)

This same woman will sit up and show interest if her married male co-worker says to her, "My old college room-mate is coming to town from New York to go to the game /go hunting /spend time at The Hamptons with me. He is single and 'looking'."


Because the man of interest has been endorsed by another man. Who is the best judge of men.
Because these women want to know how much a man squares up to his peers, i.e. other men. They don't care how many women a man has beddded (in fact they are put off by a man who has a high 'number'), but instead want to know how many men he has beaten in competition, whatever that competition my be.
These women are judging a man by his higher functions rather than his baser achievements.

These are the same women who will use words like 'honour' and 'respect' in their everyday vocabulary.
And they are certainly judging men as a man would judge a man.

And so when the guy they are dating drops the bombshell that he is married, or is in a relationship, hoping this will make the woman more interested in him, he is blindsided by the fact that she can't leave his presence fast enough, never to return.

For these women, (current) preselection by other women, i.e. anything other than strict monogamy is an automatic deal-breaker, their 'non-negotiable'. Past preselection is negotiable, but only if it was kept at a minimal level. They won't be part of any harem, soft or hard, for sure.
And they never listen to 'the herd' unless 'the herd' has something sensible to say about a man.
They will happily date the geek no-one wants, as long as the geek has the respect of his fellow geeks.

There is always a silver lining :-)

So... I don't really know if CD falls squarely into this category or not, i.e. I don't know if she was never ever going to be impressed by the man's female entourage's pedestalisation of him at all anyway, or if she really 'joined the herd' in the sense of agreeing with them about how great this guy was, and only backtracked when she discovered the herd's analysis of the situation was 'inaccurate'.
I dunno.
Perhaps CD could clarify, in light of what I have discussed in this post?

Any other woman feel this way about how they 'assess' men?
Any man notice this phenomenon play out in a woman he knows?

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily think that this alternative 'preselection' pattern by a minority of women is superior to the usual preselection one. I just find it interesting enough to write about :-)


just visiting said...

OH...MY...G*D! You NAILED it. I couldn't quite put my finger on this before. All I knew was that the manosphere's theory on preselection just did not apply to me. I was an outlier. Or was I?

Many of the women in the sphere have certain traits in common. Many are "masculine minded", though not to be confused with unfeminine. Quite a few of us have noted that certain aspects of game either don't apply or can actually turn us off. (I can't link to BB's post "The rule of three" but that's a good example.) We get accused of playing special snowflake, but, I think hypergamy wires differently for us. Again, not better, just different. Your observation of preselection by men instead of women was what I couldn't put my finger on before. This makes sense.

Hmnnnn, come to think of it, I think that Roissey has noted that game doesn't seem to work very well on high t women. Though not all masculine minded women are high t, I think previous blog posts by you and Belita have shown that there's a high number of high t women either commenting or normally lurking in the sphere who fall into the masculine minded spectrum.

Perhaps the next time a citizen of the manosphere mocks with NAWALT or special snowflake, I'll direct him to the Chateau.

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

Thanks - I must admit, this whole preselection thing had me puzzled for a long time too, because I knew it didn't apply to some women I know (and maybe to me neither), but I had no idea why, until I stumbled upon the answer to the riddle in an accidental manner and suddenly the light bulb went off in my head :-)

You are absolutely right about the Manosphere women...they are certainly a self-selected population in that they do identify with men in many ways, and yet as you rightly point out, they are actually not the 'masculinised' types one would expect.
Some are unbelievably feminine, and strangely enough, it is precisely this contact with men that makes them more feminine.
Another paradox!
(You and I are collecting paradoxes like some people collect stamps LOL).

I think the reason for this is that these women are intrinsically patriarchical, and so they are naturally rebellious towards a matriarchical system (and for sure they don't do well with feminism).

A child of patriarchy looks to men for direction.
If such a woman has a father or brother to endorse a man for her, fine, she will consider that endorsement as gospel. If there is no male in her immediate entourage to do the endorsement for her she will look for another man to do it rather than a woman. This might well be subconscious, kinda like a habit.

As to Game, JV, I think many of these 'masculine women' are arguably susceptible to Game. But only Game of the 'steak' variety or a mxture of 'steak' and 'sizzle' as opposed to just the 'sizzle' variety on its own. (I love this analogy by Bellita - makes me laugh every time!)
So perhaps Roissy has noticed that it takes more 'real character' to Game such a woman and not just the standard fake 'spiel'.

Anonymous said...

@ ST

You are solidly on about a branch of the Western female that is overlooked in the Manosphere.

I agree that these women need the "steak", but adding a dash of the "sizzle" is a bonus for them.

As for the paradoxes that you, JV, CD, and Bellita keep uncovering... A paradox can usually be para-doctored.


Anonymous said...

I'm curious, and it's late, so I am just posting this real quickly... don't mean to stray too far from the topic, so I'll just blurt it out.

Do these masculine women also report/have issues with female supervisors?

My wife wants to know, we both look forward to reading any thoughts.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bill,

What does 'para-doctored' mean?
Me not understand :-)

@ NC,
Your question is an interesting one.
Assuming I could be labelled as a 'masculine' woman then from my own experience I would say that it very much depends on the woman boss. It might surprise you to learn that I have never had a horrible female boss myself. Actually this surprises me too given the reports of 'b*tchy female bosses' one hears so much of.
However I myself have seen them in action, (as in they are around in my place of work, I just have been lucky enough not to be under their jurisdiction, so to speak, and I have enough anecdotal evidence from friends/relatives to know that this phenomenon is not a myth).

Whoa, looking back, ALL the female bosses I have had would fit the description of 'masculine women'. Fair, loyal, encouraging, if there is a need to be critical, it is ALWAYS constructive, never DEstructive. No difference in attitude from the male bosses I have had. I have honestly never worked for a b*tch. Heck, come to think of it, all my female bosses (and gosh, this even includes the nuns from school) with only one exception, have been clearly high T (and yet strangely VERY feminine).
Oh my God, no wonder I seem to have so much familiarity with these women. I encounter them rather a lot!

Hm, is this a self-selection thing? I seem to gravitate towards them, even if I am not 'choosing' them per se.

If I had had to work for the other type of female boss we hear so much about, i.e. the one who seems masculine but only because she has the negative masculine traits where a woman is concerned - aggressiveness, overly competitive (all appropriate traits in a man but weird in a woman) and is therefore truly un feminine, I think I would have flipped. People who work for these women often do.

Does that answer your question?
I hope other women answer this question too.
it's a very interesting question. Elucidating for me.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it answers it. My wife once worked for a woman who was uber feminine, but not one whit of the good side of masculinity. Other researchers she worked with were just fine, however.

I had several 'masculine' type females who were very good supervisors, such was part of the reason I promoted them. They understood computer geeks, and realized you cannot treat them the same as factory-line workers or clerks or other non-geeks. But, I knew of (w)itches in other companies that had females under their supervision, who literally hated their female bosses.

I'll not generalize (too much), but, when I still owned the company, my best supervisors were female, my best software sales staff were female, and my best coders were male. One could point to all the research about the strong points of females such as communication, but I never really paid much attention to that; it was about the individual and the job they did.

Aggressive, overly competitive... interesting choices of traits you wrote there. For me, those were not wanted nor needed in my company. I was far more interested in providing software which did the work that the client wanted, at a price that was fair, with support that was as fast as it was complete. Since we concentrated on financial software, as well as stock trading and commodity trading, we knew our reputation was our best selling point. Being aggressive or overly competitive would have been seen as Micro$oft type marketing, which has been a negative in the software world since the 1980s.

The Navy Corpsman

P.S. I did fire three of my supervisors, over the years, all male. Two for serious breaches of security and one for sexual harassment that was so bad, so flagrant, and so humiliating for ALL my co-workers, that the victim didn't even sue me. Twenty minutes after hearing the complaint, and listening to the recording she made with her computer, I escorted the former supervisor out of the building. That was 1999, and I still grimace to think about it. I may be old fashioned, but this guy was a Neanderthal.

The Navy Corpsman

Anonymous said...

Another thought, after reading your original post again...

Is it males approved by males, or males approved by males that already have the respect of this female?

In other words, would a woman necessarily need to know something about the guy who just told her that his single buddy is coming to town? If she barely knows the guy that is recommending the buddy, surely that would imply less trust earned? Conversely, if a woman already respects this guy, and he recommends a pal for her to meet up with, would not that trust make her preselection that much more powerful?

Having been both poor as a churchmouse and wealthy, as well as single and married, I can confirm that married and wealthy are by far the more common selection criteria.

I submit to you, that masculine may be the wrong adjective to use in describing this personality trait in women. I realize it has the benefit of being accurate in that it encompasses several traits that we commonly accept as being the province of males, but those traits are also not exclusive to men. Plus, while it may make perfect sense to say a 'masculine' woman is also quite feminine, you're losing those males that see the word 'masculine' and immediately get a mental image of a butch female who needs her mustache waxed. Consider these phrases:

Old fashioned woman
Male-oriented woman
Non-herd-mentality woman
Outlying personality woman
Traditional woman

Each has some accuracy as well as some possible negative connotations, but they seem to fit better than the word 'masculine'. At least in my humble opinion...

Having always been a bit of an outlier myself, I have a fondness for anyone who also sees themselves as being outsiders in a world that confuses them far more than it makes sense. Sort of a tribal thing, I suppose. Last week, I held the door open for a female, just doing a kindness, and I got the start of a lecture on degrading females. I interrupted five seconds into the tirade and explained that I held the door open for the male who was with her, also; did that imply that I felt no one could open the door for themselves? I told her to stop being offended that other people were kind, and start acting like a human being, capable of accepting kindness and maybe paying it forward. I walked away, and the 10-20 people around the doors began to applaud.

They want to be assh0les, fine, but they don't get to think theirs is the only opinion worth shouting.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

@ NC,

Brilliant suggestions as to what to call this woman we are all describing.

Interestingly, over at Bellita's, we had a little spat over the correct tterm to use...some preferred 'high T woman, some thought 'alpha woman' was better.

I like all of yours...with the possible exception of the outlying personality thing...makes me think immediately of DSM-IV. Not good.

To answer your question, I think it has to be a male whose values she respects, yes, even if she doesn't know him that well. But there has to be something she respects about him. In the case of her male married co-worker, it would help if he is a good 'team player at work, for example. In the case of the fellow geeks she may not know all the other geeks personally, but if they are hardworking geeks, that may be all she needs to know to take on board their endorsement. I guess the boundaries are blurred on this one.
See what anyone else thinks...

Anonymous said...

Ahh.. yeah. Borderline personality, I should have caught that one, and not included anything with 'personality' in it. I kinda like 'Traditional' because it has been used as an epithet by multiculturalists etc for so long.

I suspected that a male's opinion must be based in some form of respect, before a woman would buy into his recommendation of a possible date/mate.

Now, this begs the question: Do men have preselection bias on the opinions of others, male or female? I'll reserve my thoughts on this til some others weigh in on your post.

The Navy Corpsman

just visiting said...

@ NC

I know what you mean about the label. A few different terms have been thrown out there. Interestingly, it's not the masculine minded women who bristle at the terms or descriptions.

I've only had one female boss that I didn't click with. She though I was gunning for her job, which I wasn't. Though, for the most part, my adulthood has been spent as a homemaker or self employed.

Pre selection by men

I'm just starting to reflect on this now, but it makes a lot of sense to me. Women gushing about a man or hanging off of him are not likely to influence me into thinking the man is more attractive. Less so if I feel like I've been toyed with. The same man being praised highly by other men...different story.

Anonymous said...

@ ST, JV, and NC

A few thoughts:

1. Maybe the term is "Red Pill Woman". She gets that feminism in its current incarnation is a lose-lose for almost everyone.

2. I think the endorsement by a man who is known to be both Alpha and Beta carries a lot of weight with the RPW. Because that is the sort of man she respects most. One who can balance the assertive (Alpha) with the supportive (Beta).


Spacetraveller said...

@ NC,

If I may pitch in re male preselection...to try to answer your question, might I bring in my least favourite subject - statistics (ugh, getting a headache just thinking about stats).
Specifically, the terms 'Positive Predictive Value' and 'Negative Predictive Value' come to mind.

But first I have to say that the older a man is, the more likely he will be totally self-reliant when choosing a mate. So he won't listen to anyone else - male or female. Whereas a woman no matter how old, will usually not choose a mate in isolation and will listen to either men or women (or both of course) depending on what 'type' of woman she is in terms of preselection behaviour.

I think your question is more aplicable to younger men, say under 35.

I am reminded of Donald Trump picking the wife of one of his sons (I think it was Donald Jr). He spotted this beautiful girl, and he simply went up to her and said, 'you will marry my son'. And that's exactly what she did. Donald Jr apparently had total trust in Papa Trump. So far, I believe Papa Trump was right. The younger Trump couple are doing great.
My grandfather did exactly the same thing for one of my uncles. He spotted his future wife before my uncle did. Thirty years later, they are still going strong.

So younger men will listen to a trusted male 'senior' in choosing a mate, in my small experience of this.

Will he listen to a female? On the whole, perhaps not. Many young men are finding out that Mother or sister is NOT the best 'go-to' person for relationship advice. That's Blue Pill stuff.
With one notable exception.

I have noticed in a HUGE way that when a mother tells her son that a certain woman is NOT good for him, she is usually right, unless of course she is a horrible woman who wants to sabotage her son's relationships so she can have him all to herself, as JV described her ex MIL to be.
A woman's relationship advice is more useful for its 'Negative Predictive Value' than 'Positive Predictive Value'. The other way round for a man's advice.

This is what I have observed so far...

@ Bill,

+1000 for both your points.
I really like the term 'Red Pill Woman'.
Close enough to 'pink pill' :-)

Anonymous said...

@ SpaceTraveller,

Thanks for the kudos on Red Pill Woman. Feel free to use it, with some vague attribution.

As for paradoxes being para-doctored, it's a bit of a pun from Robert Heinlein's "All You Zombies".

On a tangential note, I fed a young woman the Red Pill tonight. Not all together, but in bite-sized pieces. We'll see whether that seed bears fruit.

Please keep up the good work. We're you an American, I'd view you as a national treasure.


Spacetraveller said...

@ Bill,

Ah, I gotcha. Paradoctored, paradox...
See? I told you I was slow.

"Please keep up the good work. We're you an American, I'd view you as a national treasure."

Awww, thanks. You're making me swoon :-)

I hope the young woman you spoke to got your message.
Please give us an update as and when.

Anonymous said...

Red Pill woman, works well. It implies a Woman Going Her Own Way, with respect to the same pressures and screwups society has made of gender relations.

Having had a couple days to read opinions, and think on my question, I suspect you're right, Spacetraveler, in that older males would almost certainly depend on their own opinions when considering a potential date/mate. However, I'm not so certain that males under 35 would be more likely to listen to anyone else when considering the same topic. I could make a case using history or biological pressures that forced males to be self reliant in critical decisions such as hunting and exploring new territory, but that might not be the whole reason. I believe that society itself has programmed males over the past 5-10,000 years of human civilization efforts to be self reliant on many many levels. Without citing any references (too lazy to look them up) many anthropologists have theorized that females created society within civilizations begun by males. About the only real example I have is the frontier of the Old West in the USA, and from that, the settlement of the entire North and South American continents. Much of these settlements were begun by males, but laws and government didn't really come into being until females began to sail to the New World.

Consequently, I wonder if males aren't semi-programmed to rely upon their own judgment with respect to much of their life decisions, including mate selection. Some have argued that the search for wealth is all about the wider mate selection that relatively higher wealth brings. Donald Trump may have selected his daughter-in-law for his son, but I submit that the family wealth made it possible. Of course, it may also be that Trump's son was an outlier, one that was willing to listen to advice more freely.

I'm not much of a sociologist, and they might laugh at my feeble attempts to understand gender relations and societal pressures over the history of human civilizations, but I do consider myself to be a reasonably decent observer of human behavior. Generally, I'm the quiet guy at parties and dinners, watching other people. That comes from my grandfather's teachings while I was growing up, and attending a Catholic-run boarding school and living in two worlds at the same time.

The other question that forms in my mind, when contemplating these topics, is one that was alluded to when someone said on another post, that "Quality seeks quality". Without pointing to a single gender as the problem, if this premise is assumed, why are the divorce numbers so high, across ALL socio-economic strata? Does this assume that quality or lack thereof is distributed evenly amongst all 'classes' of people? And, as you pointed out also in a previous post, if the low hanging fruit becomes impossible to pick, will either gender start to put some effort into their marriages? This is the origin of my belief that changing divorce law will not solve completely the issues we see in marriage today. I've read far too much on both the Manosphere and Womanosphere to believe that. The worst part of it, I'm not sure I can come up with a way to fix it, either. All I do know is, we've social-engineered ourselves into a corner, with both men and women suffering the consequences. I'll not say who suffers more, I'm an observer, not an empath.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

@ NC,

"Without citing any references (too lazy to look them up) many anthropologists have theorized that females created society within civilizations begun by males."

+1. This is the basis for my mantra, 'As women go, so goes society'.
Because 'society' is a woman's creation. Same as 'civilisation' is a man's creation.

"The other question that forms in my mind, when contemplating these topics, is one that was alluded to when someone said on another post, that "Quality seeks quality". Without pointing to a single gender as the problem, if this premise is assumed, why are the divorce numbers so high, across ALL socio-economic strata?"

I guess 'quality' in this sense has nothing to do with social class.

About younger men and their tendency to consider someone else's opinion, I accept that perhaps the examples I cited (Donald Trump Jr, my uncle) may indeed be outliers.
I wish some younger men will tell us how they did their 'selection' and how it turned out/is turning out. (But somehow I fear there may be very few takers for this question as perhaps the young men who read this and other 'sphere blogs may well be MGTOW!!).
As a woman, I would find it hard to take a decision such as this in isolation, I must admit. I will always need someone's approval when it comes to a big decision such as lifemate selection, be it male or female or both.
But you men are wired differently, so I marvel at your modus operandi, 'cos it's foreign to me.

When you say a Red Pill woman 'Going her Own way', what do you mean exactly?

For me, it certainly does not mean the same thing as the Male MGTOW.
I am sure many women who are Manosphere lurkers or even 'honorary citizens' would tell you that they very much want to be with men. Their way of achieving this of course differs from other (Blue Pill) women's way, sure.
'Cos we love men too much. (And I mean this in the sense of liking/caring about/enjoying the company of men, and not in a seedy sense LOL).
So whether you men like it or not, you're kinda stuck with us.
In or out of the Village, we don't really care, as long as we are with you guys :-)
You'll have to fight us off ya. Tough task, 'cos we're like leeches. Scary creatures we are :-)

Here's a little secret: we prefer the company of other Red Pill Women and you men.
We're just as fed up with Blue Pill women as you are...
Even if we have an allegiance to all women, because (darn it!) we are also wired to be loyal to the team.

The only way round our little double bind is to try to convert as many Blue Pill women as possible into the Red Pill types that we like. That way, everyone is happy :-)

Not easy, but we'll die trying :-)
We kinda have no choice.

just visiting said...

Hmnnn woman going her own way. I can kind of see it, as it goes against societal norms. Though ST is right, we seem to be more of the type to convert others. Though, it brings up an interesting point about our little corner of the sphere. MGTOW.

I'd known that Bellita was an ex nun, though I hadn't known that ST had contemplated it. So here's my disclosure. During the ages of 6 -12, I was convinced I was going to be a nun. (Nevermind the fact that I wasn't Catholic. lol.) To this day, I still am drawn to movies or books about nun's. Though I'm far to drawn to men to ever live that life. BUT..I wonder if the law of attraction draws MGTOW and us together in conversation . In a way, isn't it a female version of MGTOW. Now, we didn't follow that path, but we contemplated it. Perhaps that's why, even though these are blogs written by women, we come together.

Anonymous said...

@ ST

See Thomas Kuehn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

You don't get very far, very fast by trying to convert those in mid-life. They have too much tied up in the Old Order of thinking.

Change the thinking of the young.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Anonymous @ 4.11PM,

Banging one's head against a brick wall comes to mind.
Been there, done that :-)
But I never seem to learn. I keep going back for more pain.
In this sense, I am truly insane according to the definition by Einstein.

@ JV,
LOL. Heading for the convent IS the ultimate in WGHOW, ha ha!

But to be fair Bellita went much farther than I in this. I guess with me and many Catholic women, especially those who went to convent schools/Catholic (boarding) shools, it's just a question of familiarity. I have always had nuns and priests around me. It was only natural to suppose that I could be like them.
I am curious as to your own nun aspirations too, even though you are not Catholic! Where did yours come from??

What do you think about the possibility that a lot of nuns ARE Red Pill Women in disguise?
Certainly the ones I know are very Red Pill.
None of them are tainted with all this feminist nonsense.
To give a specific example, when the whole debate about ordaining women as priests came about, none of my nun friends were even remotely interested in becoming priests. They all wanted to remain nuns because they could see that their role as nuns was different from the priesthood and was just as valuable.
I guess one can't extrapolate secular values to religion, but you get the picture...
These women fit the 'high T' label to a T (excuse the pun).
So yes, you are right, JV. If you and I had become nuns, we would still perhaps be Manosphere lurkers, perhaps even more so :-)
This is so funny...

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveller said...

"When you say a Red Pill woman 'Going her Own way', what do you mean exactly?"

Very carefully, he says, "The same as Men Going Their Own Way, but with the understanding that it means Her Way, whatever that may be". A non-herd woman, a woman whose Way may or may not be towards marriage, or any other route.

One thing I noted in reading posts and blogs on MGTOW, is that freedom to do whatever one wants, is central to that idea. I'm not saying you, or Just Visiting or Charming Disarray are looking to give up on finding Mr. Right, but that you're not settling for Mr. Right Now. There are other aspects of the manifesto of MGTOW that don't apply, and some that do, to a woman such as yourself, but I'll leave that to you to decide, I'm not about to assume things about you that I cannot possibly know.

And, I realize we're stuck with you, although my wife and I left the village several years ago, we're all still stuck with each other, to greater or lesser degrees. I could move to Alaska, or you to Northern Canada or the Australian Outback, but we'd still have the Earth in common.

"You'll have to fight us off ya. Tough task, 'cos we're like leeches. Scary creatures we are "

I spent a year in war-torn Beirut. You'd have a difficult time scaring me. You know the old saying, "He's been shot twice, dropped dead, and stepped on."? That's me, in a nutshell.

I'm quite certain that most any female that spends any amount of time actually reading some of the Mansphere probably likes men. I caution to understand that MGTOW also like women, albeit they have a funny way of showing it. Bitter pills have forced them into understanding the real nature of the dynamic now at work in the western world, as well as the laws in divorce, child custody and all the other issues that make the bitter pills, red pills.

As for the Blue Pill women... I think that's not applicable to the female (and males!) people that have brought us to this social weirdness. For one, it implies they're the majority, and I don't think that's true, yet. Sure, the majority of women (under 35) have been brought up in a brave new world, but I don't think they all buy into the plan, and just as more and more men are beginning to drop out of the plan, I'll bet there will be increasing numbers of women who refuse to pick the easy way. I'll probably not live to see it, but that's why I am learning as much as I can about it, for my grandkids.

I don't think you'll get many younger males commenting on this blog, they're busy trying to find a mentor in the Mansphere, being the product of broken homes and/or absent fathers.

@Just Visiting

Here's something I've only ever told my wife: I had planned, before joining the Navy, to become a hermit, probably in some wilderness. I was convinced that humans were headed for nuclear death. After learning some of the possible negatives of such a lifestyle, I decided to see how bad it really was, and joined up. Even in the worst of human suffering, there are always reasons to hope, and I found that in Beirut.

Finally, I have always thought that there was a certain type of person, an independent sort, who didn't really like going along with the crowd. I knew a few in the Navy, a few in school, and I met a lot when I ran my own company. Maybe all us that go our own way are just the same independent types who would prefer to do things our way.

Fortune favors the bold?

The Navy Corpsman

just visiting said...

Fortune favors the bold? That's what I keep telling myself.

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

"Fortune favors the bold? That's what I keep telling myself."

Hahaha! I am not sure why this comment of yours made me laugh, but it did :-)


Anonymous said...

Thanks , I've just been looking for info about this subject for ages and yours is the best I have discovered till now. But, what about the conclusion? Are you sure about the source?

Spacetraveller said...

@ Anonymous,

Thank you!
I am not sure I fully understand your questions though. If by 'the source' you mean formal data or research, then no, I don't have any such sources. I have only observed this phenomenon in some women, but I notice that the Manosphere use the word 'preselection' in a slightly different context from what I notice in this group of unusual women.

Anonymous said...

I completely 100 percent AGREE with everything you said. I have also found this to be true just in knowing "woman and men" and their interactions with one another. Bravo, Bravo.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Anonymous at 4:39PM,

Thank you for your nice words.

It seems paradoxical, but I find that it is MEN who are the best judges of femininity in a woman, and it is still MEN who are the best judges of masculinity in their fellow men!
How odd...

It can only mean one thing: that women are intrinsically rather poor at judging which man is the right man off their own backs.
Except a small class of woman that we clumsily call 'The Masculine woman' here.

So women (in general) need the help of men in picking the right man for themselves. So father, brothers, male friends are rather important for this function.

It is just my observation, but I have found it to be so accurate it is getting scary :-)