The Regret Brought on by Feminism, in the Eyes of a 60 Year Old Woman

I hadn't spent time with my parents in a long time up until very recently. We're not estranged or anything. We have a very loving and friendly family; simply I have been busy being an adult and living my life. My parents are fucked-up people, like most people, and like most Boomers parents they gave me some weird notions about men and women, but they are good at heart and I am way past the point in my life where I worry about things like that.

Anyway, in the course of spending a couple weeks in close proximity to my beloved family, I had some interesting discussions with my dear mother. I think she has always assumed that I would get married... certainly in the past I talked about it from time to time. Well, several years have passed since we truly talked about that kind of thing, and I think I surprised her with how much I have changed. I surprised myself, actually. Having a discussion with a long-lost family member is almost like having a discussion with a past version of your self.

Having just returned from Africa and Europe recently, I dropped a casual remark about how American women move like battleships. She said, "You mentioned that the other day, too."

"Really?" I said. I genuinely didn't recall saying that, though I don't doubt I did. It's become such a casual, throw-away observation for me that saying it in no way stands out in my mind. But my mother is used to the classic pedestalizing that's only functional in a patriarchal society, that such comments stick out in her mind, I suppose.

But she's not totally blind to how things have changed. My mother may be in her 60's, but she's not stupid. She recently told me a story about a girl I went to high school with, let's call her "Heather." Heather was pretty hot back in the day, if I recall. I fully expect that she turned out to be a good-looking adult woman, but I haven't seen a picture. My mother brought her up because she's "going through a divorce."

(Incidentally, you have to love the shameless dodging of all responsibility inherent in that passive voice construction, "going through a divorce." As if it were something thrust upon you by an outside entity. You "go through" an IRS audit. You don't "go through" a divorce. You choose it.)

Heather and her husband have been married for less than two years. She's taking the house they bought with his money and, of course, alimony. When my mother told me this story I couldn't hide my contempt. I basically spouted off about how marriage was a terrible, terrible idea for a man in the United States for precisely that reason.

My mother gave me a somewhat concerned look, as if she agreed, but did not want to fully confront what I was saying. "But, Dogen, don't you think it just shows how important it is to pick the right woman?"

I shook my head sadly. I didn't want to lay the full force of my opinion on my poor, aging mother. I just told her that everyone thinks they have found the "right person," and it's foolish to assume you must be the exception. Besides, I do believe my mother once encouraged me to ask this Heather girl out because she "seemed sweet." And besides, I told her, American women don't know how to cook or clean; they don't know how to be sweet and genuine; and they are generally sluts (I phrased that part a little more gingerly); and yes, they move like battleships.

She countered that it's because "women in this country have more equality," (implying of course, that women in other countries must live under the boot of patriarchal tyranny).

I said, "No, not more equality. That's the official version. But really, it just means that they are more like men and less like women."

"Well," she said, "women are expected to act like men. They have to. They have to work in the business world and stuff. People need two incomes to get by today." (My mother worked full time most of her adult life in addition to raising four kids — of course my Dad worked and raised the kids, too.)

"They brought that on themselves, Mom. That wasn't the case for most of Western history up until about 30 years ago. Women wanted it to be this way, so they got it."

My mom got that miffed expression I know so well that means she doesn't want to talk about it anymore. But she added, "Some women wanted that. The loud ones. A lot of us would have been perfectly happy to raise our kids and love our husbands."

I let the topic go. I didn't want to make my mom any sadder than she was. But the way she said it nearly broke my heart. This is the awful world we have created, where people are afraid to make the choices that should make them most happy, because it's not "equal" enough. My mother's own generation victimized her — though to a degree, of course, she took part in it. It's never totally black and white. But to hear my mother say that, to see the sad expression in her eyes, filled me with sadness and with contempt for all the misery brought about in the name of "equality."

Vee must all suffer in zee name of eqvality. YOU VILL BE EQVAL!!!

Are Confident Girls Sexy?

Time and again I hear girls bragging about their high self esteem and tell other girls to work on their level of confidence as dating advice (if you care, go read some online ads at dating sites and you see what I mean).

There is no doubt that a man's "confidence" as one of the most obvious outward signs of male status/power has a profound effect on women. But is the opposite true as well?

If you ask most guys, including those who are obsessed/cerebral about meeting women, the answer will be a clear "no". The only think that makes a woman attractive is her looks.
The dating market follows two simple laws:

Women judge by Appearance

Men judge by Looks

Or, as biologists express it:
"male preferences typically focus on direct indicators of female fecundity such as body size, and rarely result in the evolution of ... sexual displays in females."

Could it be, then, that women mistake their own preference as that of the other sex?

This is almost certainly true. Men often fall victim to the same fallacy and obsess about their looks instead of working on their "sexual display". Most men have a hard time accepting that their looks do not matter at all. So it is not too surprising that women do the same mistake. Given the profound gender difference when it comes mate selection, we all fail at putting ourselves into each other's shoes.

Yet, it is also conceivable that the story is not that simple when it comes to male selection. Most women I talk to can easily produce anecdotes that seem to prove their point. According to these stories, even some of the most gorgeous girls can fail to "score" when they are depressed or needy - not unlike guys.

I tended to be skeptical about these claims, but having had the unique opportunity to "coach" women in meeting men, I realized that there is truth to that. Women who smile a lot and happily engage in conversations at the bar seem to invite more approaches by guys than the same girls sitting broken heartedly in a remote corner with obvious sadness in her eyes. Surprisingly, neither her choice of clothes, nor the amount of approach invitations seem to matter in that situation. Guys shy away from a woman who radiates "not being in the mood".

Even more surprisingly, I have witnessed many times how even the most attractive girls can ruin their chances by becoming openly aggressive, "needy" and too direct in their approach to men. Women who openly become sexual and try to score make outs with any guy who is brave enough to not run away from their ravenous display of peaked libido, consistently go home alone. They typically launch (each other) into an escalating display of man hunt that eventually prevents guys from approaching (at least the guys they are actually competing for - the horde of drunk guys that mistake this situation as a unique opportunity to score a cheap drunk fuck get rejected accordingly).

More so, while the female preference for male dominance/status displays is as ubiquitous in nature as the male preference for direct signs of female fertility, there is an increasing amount of controversy among evolutionary biologists whether or not males might also judge females by more indirect behavioral cues (in any case, there is increasing appreciation for a profound role of male mate choice).

Taken from that angle, there might be reason to doubt the simple assumption that all a woman needs to be hot are a cute, face, great tits and ass. While a slim body, a voluptuous rack, full hair and a smooth symmetrical face all indicate female health, youth and fertility, there are more factors to guarantee a man's sperm to meet a fertile egg.

Certain ailments will express themselves in behavioral differences due to physical and mental discomfort. And given the lack of significant changes in a woman's physique during ovulation (estrus), all a man has to go by to dissect the girls that promise the highest chance of instant insemination success are subtle cues in her behavior.

It does not seem to be too far fetched, then, that women claim that they do not only care about their looks based on past experience. A woman's appearance can conceivably boost her sexiness (think pole dance). This can be contrasted with the observation that a man's looks do not matter at all. So, when it comes to choosing mates, men might be the more complicated (and choosier) sex after all.

How to make sure you sleep alone on New Year's Eve

My first contact with the seduction community went awry. To this day I wonder what difference it could have made had I listened any earlier.

It was just days before New Year's a few years ago when a friend of mine called and asked me about my plans. I hadn't any. He hung up, and arrived at my doorsteps a few hours later with a big smile on his face.

"No excuses" was all he said, and minutes later I sat in his car on my way to NYC.

His plan was to visit friends of his and stay there for a couple of nights, including the big one, to finally get a chance to actually see the all drop. I was not sure what to think about that.

It was late that night when we arrived in Brooklyn. The flat was located in one of those "upcoming" areas that people in their late twenties like to populate. We knocked on the door, beers in hand.

A petite Asian girl with shoulder long hair opened the door and smiled. She was tomboyish, but cute. We went inside and met the other people. A young Chinese girl, rather pretty despite her bad teeth and a guy with long blond hair pulled back in a pony tail. He was the one my friend knew from his college days. We sat around a table and started to banter. There was an instant connection. We went out to Harlem that night - and had a blast. We went for breakfast the next day - and had a blast. We all reassembled for dinner at night, just to go hit the bars again.

The next morning my friend's buddy took me aside. He had rightfully sensed my naivete with women, and was poised to take those goggles of ignorance off my eyes. His initiation was well set out. By talking about evolution, he had caught my interest. He showed me a copy of "The Game" and proudly flashed his black fingernails. What I thought was just another trendy, hip, artsy, New York metrosexual fad turned out to be a gimmick to attract women!

I was captivated for a bit. I smiled nervously at his obvious accusation of being unattractive. I flipped through the book which looked like (and he called) the Bible, shaking my head in disbelief. It all seemed so - out there. Guys running around laying girls as if it were a sport. Isn't that what you stop doing once you leave the frat house? What's wrong with just having a girl friend?

Yet, everything he said seemed to make sense. My curiosity turned into excitement when I realized that he basically suggested a practical application to the evolutionary theories floating around academia. Could it be true that one can use the knowledge about our biological roots - something I strongly believed in - into your own advantage? There would be a certain irony if you could prove it to work on those very same people that deny the instinctive nature of human behavior.

But the black fingernails...


I just couldn't get my head around the black fingernails. It just didn't seem to make sense. It didn't seem right. Did he really do it just to get laid? I just couldn't take it seriously. He sensed my skepticism and gave up.


My friend and in ended up staying longer in NYC than originally planned. On New Year's the girls lead us over to one of their friend's places in Queens. It was an apartment close to the river. The fire stairs were rigged so that one could get up on the roof, where she actually put some furniture for lazy summer afternoons. We were promised a party, but there were only two drunk girls lingering at that place who looked disappointed when they realized that our group made for a total female-to-male ratio of 5:3 (with one of the guys being too close a friend to serve as walking sausage).

The social dynamics shifted accordingly. When we got (heavily drunk) on the roof around midnight to watch the fireworks taking off across the river, the girls had lost all ability to hold back. I felt like a naked supermodel walking into a hardware store. The New Year hugs became thinly veiled attempts at making a physical connection. Later on, one of the girls even stripped down to her lingerie "to get ready for bed". Each time a girl showed interest in one of us, the other ones got even more interested. I soon realized that none of them had planned to sleep alone that night.

But, amazingly, we all ended up doing just that.


Sometimes I think back to that trip in disbelief. What happened that night was the result of (everything that is wrong with) the "nice guy" mindset. I had cockblocked myself by believing societal norms. I had actually believed that these girls were not interested in casual sex. If they were, so I thought, they would send a clear signal. And lacking social calibration and an understanding of sub-communication I had completely missed that they were basically screaming it right into my face.

What I didn't realize that night is  that girls cannot go around and loudly proclaim that all they want to do tonight is put their mouth on the member of the guy with the least amount of kindness in the room.Unless a man demonstrates that he is not "judgmental", women will always behave as if they the only way to their happy trail is through a series of dinners, flowers and poems.

And if a guy clearly shares this mainstream belief, girls are forced to adhere to that stereotype even more in order not to lose their face. Now I know that the girls that night had thrown around nonreciprocated signals to the point of frustration. They were stuck between their urge for rough steamy sex and the need to play along as pure angels in search for a husband. And one of the most important differences between frustrated chumps and successful men is that the latter are able to see through that scam.

This is a perfect example of when what many think of as acting "friendly" is not only stupid but really an asshole move. I did not just frustrate myself that night, but more so the women who had brought themselves to the brink of publicly declaring their slutty fantasies - just to be turned down by a "judgmental" guy.

And that is what it looks like from a female perspective, as women cannot fathom that many guys act this way out of ignorance. The men they lust for under any normal circumstances are not the type of guys who are confused about a woman's sexual desires. It is only when average frustrated chumps get into an extraordinary situation such as the one described above that women are forced to face the reality of (and pay for) their own selectivity.

Ego Boosters

The better beta (aka Mark Baachman) put up an interesting post about the female tendency to come up with pseudo male ego boosters, typically at the early stages of a relationship.

We all know them. Here are some classic examples:

"No one has ever made me cum like you do."
"This was the best sex I ever had."

"You are so big."
"You and me have the perfect physical fit."

"I've never done this before."

All of these lines are obviously designed to stroke the male ego (and as Mark lines out rather clearly all of them are easily dismissed if you really think about it).

Just think back to the time of your own initial experiences, or read the posts on internet boards by insecure, inexperienced guys who are striving to become better with women:
Guys with little sexual experience often get plagued by enormous doubts about their erection size and duration, sexual performance, or whether or not she orgasmened.

All of that stems from one and the same fear:
Has any of my predecessors achieved to induce similar or greater pleasure to my girl?

Of course, all of this goes away once a man climbs up the sexual hierarchy. Increased experience proves any man that what he really should focus on during sex is his own pleasure, not hers. After banging a barage of chicks in rapid succession a man will also realize that worries about "technique" and "performance" are male concepts and irrelevant to girls. Great sex for women is defined by their emotional experience before during and after. And when it comes to penis size - as a good friend of mine once put it: "It's like worrying whether your mouth is too small for talking. Once you give speeches regularly the whole idea just seems absurd."

So who is the target when a woman pretends to be inexperienced and overwhelmed by the sexual prowess of her current lover? The fact that the occurrence of these lines is strongly linked to relationships might be a clue. While the ultimate female fantasy is the paradox of having a beta-ized relationship with an alpha male, most girls do not succeed in tying down the top dogs. Most long term relationships are held by guys who fall in the middle of the "Fuck, Marry, Kill" trichotomy.

It is conceivable, then, that women use these lines in relationships with the (unconscious) assumption that they are dealing with a rather inexperienced man. And in order to achieve commitment she will have to deal with his doubts (on paternity certainty), especially if it is clear that she has experience. A man might be more likely to stick with a woman if he believes that she is unlikely to find a better sexual experience somewhere else. There is a reason that men throughout cultures world wide prefer to marry virgins.

But, how come women say these things even if you obviously are a highly experienced man?

There are two clues for that. The first is that women seem to really believe these lines when they say them. It is a classic example of the female "what I feel is what is real". Women in relationship often describe their previous sexual experiences as "faded away". Female promiscuity does not arise from a desire to have many partners in rapid succession. The female mind is able to absolutely focus on the man at hand (no pun intended).
The other clue is that pretty much every guy I know has heard one or more of the above at least once in their lives. This consistency across women and circumstances suggests a deeper, presumable biological (instinctive) root. Just like shit tests, there might be a genetic basis for this type of behavior.

Taken together, there is reason to believe that when in a relationship, women will go through an emotional phase where they fantasize about the sexual prowess of the man they are about to "get more serious with". In my experience this happens at the exact transition from (ir)regular "sexing" to "seeing" each other. More so, women will do so regardless of the type of man they are with, thereby inducing the feelings that are well described in Mark's post if the man is experienced enough to cut through the bull. The ultimate reason for this strange behavior is to soothe a man into a state of higher (assumed) paternity certainty.
It therefore is just another shit test.

The Other Enemy of Masculinity

Some weeks ago, reader el chief left a comment about his suspicions on the link between pollution and the seemingly increasing trends in gender abnormalities.

As a professional biologists I have learned to be skeptical about environmental doomsday scenarios, yet skepticism always goes both ways. However, a quick google search at the time revealed less data than interest group propaganda, along with controversies surrounding some of the most straightforward, simple questions.

It all came flashing back when I flipped through an issue of "Men's Health" while doing cardio at my gym (Despite its tabloid makeup, MH often surprises with very insightful and well written docus on general health issues such as the alarming decline in NIH funding and the massive problems arising from the profound irrationality of the animal rights lobby - all of them recommended reads).

To my great surprise (given the pc/feminist brainwash we encounter daily in the mass media) the editorial of the December issue closely mirrored some of the complaints we know from anti-equalist/men's rights blogs: Men of all ages are much more prone to health issues (men are designed as the expendable sex), yet somehow women seem to get first when it comes to fighting gender-specific disease.

If you have the time, I urge you to read the piece entitled "The Lost Boys of Aamjiwnaang" for yourself (or at least the brief summary on their blog). But in either case, keep on reading. There is much to say about the suggested link between polluting chemicals and lowered levels of testosterone in young men given the context of this blog.

The article title refers to a reserve of Indigenous Canadians that borders on a region so heavily industrialized it is nicknamed "Chemical Valley". As you might expect, there is quite a bit of pollution around there. At least there are much higher concentrations of man-made chemicals in the water and soil of this region than the doses that we all are exposed to. And that sandbox-scenario allows scientist to get harder data on possible links between these substances and changes in human physiology.

And this is where it gets interesting.

There is a whole bunch of studies that show that there is a troubling trend in industrialized nations, including the US, Japan and Canada: Women give birth to less and less men.

Nature has an efficient way to deal with the fact that men die more easily than women: It produces more male babies. Normally, there are 105 baby boys for each 100 newborn baby girls. Thanks to their frail genetic makeup, the higher susceptibility to diseases and the testosterone-caused accidents stemming from increased risk-taking behavior, most of these boys will be long dead when the baby girls enjoy their retirement. But by producing more male babies, there are at least enough men around to inseminate the stronger sex. Yet, this effect is about to disappear.

The problem is that nobody really knows why. The effect is still rather small, and there could be many external factors contributing to the overproduction of girls (just think about it: women often take hormonal contraceptives for years and generally get kids later in life than they used to). And then there is the problem that "correlation does not imply causation". Not surprisingly then, there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding the interpretation of these data in the scientific community.

So how can you find out whether one factor might be more causal than the others? The best way is to perform measurements where the factor under scrutiny gets altered while everything else remains constant. This can be done in the laboratory (using animals). And the results of these experiments point at the pollutant toxins: many of the substances that permeate our environment in never before seen concentrations act as feminizers. By blocking testosterone and/or mimicking estrogen these "endocrine disruptors" have shown to gender transform a whole variety of species that get exposed to them (estrogen and testosterone are not restricted to humans or even mammals; they act the same way in fish and lizards and many other animals).

But how can you show that this is also the case for humans? This is where the Native Canadians in the Chemical Valley come into play. Given that they are even more exposed to these chemicals than the rest of us, they should suffer more from the consequences. And when it comes to the ratio of newborn males, it couldn't get any more clear: While researchers found the expected overproduction of baby boys during the eighties, things have changed drastically in the late nineties. Now only 35% of newborns are male (you can imagine the consequences for those communities).

But, while this is not the only heavily polluted area that features a decrease in the ratio of male offspring (there are interesting parallels to at least two incidents in Italy and Taiwan), there still remains quite a bit of controversy if chemical pollution is to blame for the worldwide decline in men. Yet, even the spokesmen who were hired by the chemical corporations dare only say that the data is not yet conclusive and that "there needs to be more work" done. That does not sound to me like they are convinced of the opposite, let alone be willing to relocate their own families into this region and voluntarily restrict their fluid intake to the water in those rivers.

As the article lays out - the chemicals under suspect tend to accumulate with age in male bodies, and have the additional property of being extremely potent in rather small doses. And while the article focuses on a single effect - the decline in male offspring - one can but wonder what other changes these feminizing chemicals might have on the male body and mind (cancer is one of them). After all, low testosterone is known not to do anything good to men:

•    fatigue / lethargy / depression
•    impotence / loss of libido
•    loss of muscle / weakness
•    gynecomastia ("man boobs")

So, what are these substances that researchers list as main suspects?

[Note: I am no expert and all of this consists of second hand information]

BISPHENOL-A:

- found in 92.6% of Americans

- AVOID (likely source): drinks from plastic bottles and canned food (any packaging marked with a '3' or a '7' inside a triangle)

DIOXINS:

- large class of chemicals; produced during incineration and other industrial processes

- they're now part of our food chain and literally almost everywhere around us

- AVOID: fat (choose lean meat and low fat dairy instead); cigarettes (no brainer); microwaving, scrubbing and dishwashing plastics

DDT/DICOFOL:

- found in 73.8% of all Americans over age 12

(99.7% of us carry the breakdown-product DDE, which has similar feminizing properties)

- likely source: banned pesticides; still lingering in the soil

- AVOID: non-local produce, unwashed produce, unpeeled root vegetables (i.e. carrots and potatoes)

PHTHALATES:

- used as plastic softener (increasingly phased out)

- AVOID: fatty foods, certain personal care products, packaging labeled with a '3' inside a triangle (some might contain phthalates), rooms recently covered with PVC tiles

HEXACHLOROBENZENE:

- found in 99.9% of all Americans over age 12

- likely source: pesticides that got banned globally decades ago; yet still in our food chain (esp. fish and wild game)

So there you have it. While not uncontroversial, it is possible that we are exposed to feminizing agents potent enough to induce measurably impacts our physiology. Whether any of these chemicals (or their combination) could have an effect on hormone-regulated behavior is pure speculation. Yet, it would be surprising if anything strong enough to alter our gonads would spare gender-specific behavior. When it comes to a population wide decline in masculinity and manly behavior there might be more factors at hand than the cultural impact of feminism.