Lions head

Looking over your shoulder

In philosophical terms I believe fundamentally that all things are true. To drive the point home in its simplest terms I’ll take another step forward and plant my foot directly in shit. Lies do not exist! While your sniffing the smell of that I’ll remind you that shit is neither true nor false good or evil. It is what it is, shit.

I read post after post and shake my head at the decay of male relevance, laws that point in a single direction and squarely at men. I’m shocked by blatant systemic corruption, false allegations of violence and rape and the responding hypnotic trance like rhetoric justifying it all. It’s impossible to absorb this crap without feeling like your falling backwards into an abyss of corrupt deception. Truth seems to have left the planet but has it really?

What I would say is that truth is what you see, and your ability to see it will determine the quality of risk management in your life. Truth is a perspective and nobody experiences truth in the same way. What we seem to forget or avoid or deny is the way in which we’re influenced to see the world and the tint of our rosy or not so rosy gaze. So in reading this realize that it’s a perspective, a truth to chew on that can easily be spit out and forgotten. Think of it as a science experiment that you can enjoy; you may even see some humor.

I know that as a species we dominate and the lack of competition allows us to not only believe but to aggrandize our absolute fucking brilliance. We in our existence are just awesome, we got it going on; we got this planet wrapped up and begging for mercy. We are just that good. We got Gods and we got science, we got hotdogs and baseball and like Rodger Waters said we got choice.

Anyone reading at AVFM for any length of time has surely read the numerous articles about evolutionary biology and all the phenomenal insights into our social development and psychology. Hunter gatherers and mating, and how we structure our lives in a gendered collaboration. This was all really good stuff, insightful and informing. Except that there was one dominant influence overlooked in all the brilliant presentations.

We distanced ourselves from ourselves and attempted to view behavior in a social and impersonal context of evolving eventuality. Stating as an outcome that it’s all pretty predictable and the roles of gender collaboration are functional and available for a little social tweaking. What the insight didn’t resolve in simpler terms is the corruption and unexpected dishonesty of our systems and the defining element of why.

What you can determine if you choose to review all the brilliant articles and discussion is that we failed to identify the essence and definition that motivates our socialization and renders men and woman equal operators of collaboration. We are predators and everything we do emanates from our will, desire and intention to feed. If you can get your head around that simple concept and slide it into your cerebral filtering system you may see some amazing shit in your own head. It’s a science experiment; remember!

Try reducing what you believe to be a sophisticated civilization of evolving brilliance and dominating relevance to its intrinsic nature of instinctual behavior. I do it by transforming every system and institution and every place that people gather for the purpose of surviving into a dead carcass on the savanna. Then I transform all the behavior I see into behavior that organizes feeding. When you see your place of employment as a dead carcass and the employees organized around it for no other reason than to feed on the freshest flesh; what you see starts to make sense.

Managers are not more than the guardians of the flesh governing the portions and distribution of the meat of the day, always holding back enough to keep the pack hungry. It’s important to get an education, it will determine the quality of meat you eat and which part of the carcass is available to you. When you see social justice through this lens, it makes perfect sense. We don’t give to charity because it’s the right thing to do we do it to protect our status at the carcass.

Our class system simply defines our willingness to cannibalize our own pack. Do you really think that anyone gives a shit about lesser predators or sending them to war for slaughter? My empathy mitigates my true nature; I am sorry you died but not sorry enough to stop it. After all, my vote is faceless and not all predators are like that. The humor resides in the conviction of true bullshit to convince me otherwise, I simply know what we are.

When I close my eyes and travel back to the savanna, nudging my way toward the meat just enough to feed and not get bitten, I wonder where the females with cubs are. With eyes closed I imagine the behavioral politics to get the cubs fed and just what is traded in the process and with whom. I see the attractor to powerful predators and the rewarding exchange of collaboration. I see that if the attraction is compromised in any way it can easily draw blood.

When with eyes closed I look to the female predator I see a very complex behavior of deception to ply her intentions. That her exchange with the strong only makes them individually weak, that lesser predators hate the stronger and covet their power. They may attack him by attacking her or she may influence lesser predators to challenge his power by exchanging discreet privilege. Her time is now and age will require her to approach the meat with only the power she possesses. Her ability to self-sustain in the order of feeding may place her behind the least of the males.

I understand feminism and the process of gender predation. Without it I doubt that woman would survive much beyond the year 2525. The male has evolved to learn the sophistication of proxy predation; our whole existence is based on it. Our political structure and social class system is organized around young women and the older ones know it. Even our currency is nothing more than dry meat. The house, the dishwasher and all the appliances did not put the female in her most advantageous position; in the pack enticing the outcome of power. Few lesser predators understand her ability to lead by following.

That following creates the illusion of power and increases as an attractor to the benefits of power and the freedom to feed. She will simply strive to control one rather than many and control many by controlling one. It’s hilarious to realize that we have always lived in a matriarchy, that concentrating power is female in nature and intention. The only threat to the power of her narrative is not to believe it and not to follow it. That is more threatening than any violence or primal fear she possesses. Her inability to physically overcome her male counterpart has reduced the significance of her existence to the years of her fertility. The test tube of technology may threaten to wipe her out completely.

Don’t get me wrong I don’t object to our individual natures, I just don’t inflate what I see into narcissistic self-importance or a monotheistic “othering” of myself. I’m a predator, my eyes face forward for a reason, I’m willing to look in the eyes of my prey and share the dignity of the divine exchange. But I also know that the civilizing nature of social exchange allows me the illusion of being a predator by proxy and in most cases I am the proxy operative. I know when I look into the eyes of another, be it man or woman. I am measuring their significance in the hierarchy of predation and I know that they are too.

It requires no apology and there is something sublime in the simplicity of seeing it. It places concepts like Briffault’s Law, hypergamy, proxy violence, rape, domestic violence and false accusation into a completely different context. Is a predator really concerned about truth? Does a predator really believe in morality or ethics? Isn’t the only true skill of a predator its ability to reason? Isn’t the best way to cripple the force of reason to simply manipulate its narrative with bullshit? Isn’t that really what the internet is teaching us?

What’s cool about the internet is the inability to measure an adversary and apply risk management. It’s totally feminine in nature and resorts to the pure psychology of attraction by narrative. Men are individually clueing into the force of manipulating the appetite of opposition with narrative. But like all things social, internet violence is rampant; LOL and a good predator will gate the narrative to protect the she-wolf. After all the most threatening violence is the violence against the narrative. Woof woof.

I’ve decided to buy myself a pink keyboard because cross-posting is less expensive than cross-dressing and just as entertaining. My name is Phil, I call myself Bill but everyone will know me as Nancy. I’m sampling a new form of FTSU, the “F” stands for fluff and I intend to push the holy narrative in the most entertaining directions possible.

I understand that this perspective is several levels below cynicism, but I realized that in order to make sense of something I don’t always get to choose the position of where I stand if I want to see it. As any good predator should know truth is the hunt and what you find is your prey, just remember to bring the cutlery of your reason. Rarrrrrrr.

About J Galt

John is a father, writer, social commentator and mentor to young men. He is a regular contributor to A Voice for men focusing mainly on gender politics and pervasive social illusions.

View All Posts
  • Suzanne McCarley

    This article is a little cryptic and worth a second (and maybe a third) read. It intrigues me because I too try to define behaviors according to their “survival” value.

    “Few lesser predators understand her ability to lead by following.”

    That is one astute observation. After a few decades of feminism, “she” herself no longer understands this ability. And now she thinks she’s going to “win” by following an inept and corrupt leader; she has no idea she’s being led right off a cliff.

    • August Løvenskiolds

      My first pass through the article left me a bit foggy, but after your comment, Suz, I read it ALOUD, to myself. Bingo, got it.

      There is no doubt that humans have a strong and intrinsic predatory nature and that this shapes almost every aspect of our behavior – but there are other critical factors as well.

      Predation only works as a survival strategy when it gives way to the reproduction of offspring – the finest predator who dies fat and happy with no progeny is a biological dead end. When I volunteered in animal rescue I fostered nursing female cats and dogs who literally starved themselves to death rather than abandon their young and seek nourishment for relief – even when the nourishment was nearby and plentiful. Past a certain point, the moms selected certain death rather than taking even a slight break from nursing.

      Cultivation competes rather well with predation as a predictor of survival – in the biblical myth, the first vegan farmer (Cain) slew the first rancher (Abel).

      An apple tree can feed you longer (if not as well) as the rotting carcass.

      Cooperation and community-building also complicate the predation narrative – before food-storage tech, the best place to store one’s excess meat was in the belly of an ally who just might be to one with the excess fresh kill meat to share next week.

      If we didn’t need each other, we would evolve eyes in the back of our heads and a built-in starbucks machine to keep us awake.

      The very sclera of our eyes is uniquely white so that our friends and our hunting dogs can track more easily what prey we are focusing on, which supports a cooperative model of predation, rather than a totally self-interested one.

      So, predate away, but don’t forget your bros, hoes, and hos.

      • Suzanne McCarley

        So very true, but I took away the thought that in our cushy modern world, we tend to ignore the predatory side of our natures. Most of us don’t need predatory instincts to survive, at least not in ways that are obvious, so it’s easy to dismiss predation as a choice. Like so many of our instincts, we don’t bother to learn about it and understand it. Yet it influences us constantly.

      • Keith

        Thank you for reminding me of cain and able* and that the meat offering was held in higher esteem.
        (I love allegory that promotes legal precedent)

        Predators do collaborate how does one break that collaboration? Food?
        Interesting that as the manufacturing base disappeared feminism became more publicly virulent and hateful.
        With eyes closed I ask why feminists howl and wonder if they howl at destabilization rather than collaboration.
        Yes females hunt.
        Can you have global feminism without trillions of dollars of destabilizing debt in every nation that promotes it.
        Maybe the best way to end radical feminism is to devour the higher alphas influencing stability.
        Or destabilize them by breaching the gap in the gender war and creating dialogue.
        Maybe a website with viewable video conferencing between feminists and MHRA’s will soon happen.
        Or you tubers getting together in the same video to discuss and create dialogue. Maybe collaborative discussions will kill 70% of text trolling.
        Maybe dialogue will create a consensus that neutralizes governing feminist rhetoric.
        Maybe predators need to get back to collaborating instead of destabilizing.

  • MGTOW-man

    Just repeating some of the points of your article that I was intrigued with and hope stand out for the readers:

    “I read post after post and shake my head at the decay of male relevance, laws that point in a single direction and squarely at men. I’m shocked by blatant systemic corruption, false allegations of violence and rape and the responding hypnotic trance like rhetoric justifying it all. It’s impossible to absorb this crap without feeling like your falling backwards into an abyss of corrupt deception. Truth seems to have left the planet but has it really?”
    —I think, if true, relative to women/feminism that women are socialized to create their own and that men are socialized not to say a thing about it.

    “It’s hilarious to realize that we have always lived in a matriarchy, that concentrating power is female in nature and intention. The only threat to the power of her narrative is not to believe it and not to follow it.”
    —haven’t women always wanted to control? Punish too, if need be, whatever gives them control. Then, they talk about the patriarchy and the oppressive nature of men?

    “When I close my eyes and travel back to the savanna, nudging my way toward the meat just enough to feed and not get bitten, I wonder where the females with cubs are.
    —very interesting point. You see, what comes to my mind by this reading, there is no patriarchy. It was all about survival, what worked best regardless of how it felt to man or woman. Still true today, but not seen as relevant.

  • Legion

    Nice theory, I subscribe in some part to it. Alas, you miss one important thing: Human’s ability to make independent decisions.

    • MGTOW-man

      I couldn’t agree more. Despite the “survival pull”, there is some truth in “changing course.” The cognitive capacity of humans lends total capacity to that of snapping out of their conditioned expectations—especially in these modern times.

      Women have done it, so can men!

      Males are NOT doomed by their hard wiring—or more aptly said, do not have to be! The thing is, we need to get men and boys to be independent-minded. It all starts with how boys are raised—what the current men teach by example.

      Feminist-minded women, together with their traitorous male cohorts, want all the power of teaching. And they will get it unless men step in.

      So where are all the real men? Remember the “protection” duty? Well, failing to protect the world (and families) from the atrocities of misguided feminist selfishness is not very manly, you know!

    • Keith

      Obviously there’s nothing scientific here, its an exercise in imagining (for me) why we are such a violent society.
      Why for the most part we are unaware of proxy violence, why we normalize violence. I’m very curious why and how violence migrates from a narrative to a systemic policy. Especially since we are capable of independent decision.

      Or as they say in Monty Python’s Holy Grail………. come and see the violence inherent in the system.

  • Not buying it

    Simply Magnificent article,Keith

    The analogy & the deep analysis of the real state of affairs when it comes to the real nature of the relatioship between men & women since the early downI of history.
    The astute naturally or intelligent with some knowledge of evolution, psychology & some real life experience can see how absolutely true the points you are making in this article Sir, Simply brilliant.


  • Ray

    Is there any room in there for the better angels of our nature?

    Despite the historically barbarous aspects of our species driven behavior we live in a modern, “civilized” world, where the ideal of “civilized behavior” is still striven for by the “more highly evolved” among us – in theory if not in fact.

    I concede, it’s hard not to be cynical, when Camelots fall and Armageddon looms ever larger with every new global tension. Are hope, justice, peace, etc., then only unattainable concepts fit only for the reaching for by mystics and “people of faith?” Are they concepts lying just beyond the grasp of erudite scholars and government administrations? Perhaps so if the history of war and conflict in human “civilization” is any indicator, but I would pray it were not so. My heart cries for it.

    • Legion

      There is. Every day. I’ve lived my life in some of the shittiest parts of the world, and I’ve never seen so many acts of simple, human kindness, decency, compassion and goodness as people who have no reason to do so, who’s existence is a daily struggle against poverty.

      Humans are cruel. But they are also kind. They are ruthless as they are compassionate.

      We are not beyond Good and Evil. We ARE it.

  • Ray

    I kept flashing back to this video, during the parts of this article that seemed to be referring to a lion pride,

  • JJ

    I totally agree with the article; and its premise.
    You are spot on that we have actually always lived under a quasi-matriarchy. I sense this article cryptically assumes feminism has stolen the edge of the greater predators 9successful men in government, finance, whatever). Yet I would argue that it still does and in far greater influence in our time then this article implies. It is spot on in the observation of women “leading while following.”
    Feminists enjoy using the leadership of the strongest males to better their influence on the chessboard of human interaction and production. With modern technology, they can do this on a larger scale, and more efficiently with only a few at the top. Your average lioness is convinced she is doing the “Lord’S Work” like our wonderful 22 year old leader of FEMEN.
    The difference is that they don’t feel they need men anymore, they are better without us.
    The Marxist ideals of feminists merely make them think, in their hubris, that they can do without the vast majority of men. That they can literally defeat the genetic math of male leadership on paper that has gotten us where we are for thousands of years; completing everything men have done better. All while wearing the latest fashions, and five cubs in tow.
    Granted, they “persuaded” (read Steinem with Kissinger for example) politicians to go their way; and the strongest politicians found a way to use them. Like the Clintons, Reagan, Obama, and some other smaller fish to gain positions of influence and giving bills like VAWA in return for their support.
    Yet on the Savannah; it is the Lionesses who hunt the game. It is the males who defend the pride. Lionesses have a hard time fighting off hyenas, and a few other conundrums (Nile Crocodiles) that the males easily ward off for them. These women are not going to accept this willingly as 55% of the vote.
    A quote from :
    “Because most cooperative societies are despotic, it has been difficult to test models of egalitarianism. Female African lions demonstrate a unique form of plural breeding in which companions consistently produce similar numbers of surviving offspring. Consistent with theoretical predictions from models of reproductive skew, female lions are unable to control each other’s reproduction because of high costs of fighting and low access to each other’s newborn cubs. A female also lacks incentives to reduce her companions’ reproduction, because her own survival and reproduction depend on group territoriality and synchronous breeding. Consequently, female relationships are highly symmetrical, and female lions are free agents who only contribute to communal care when they have cubs of their own.”
    American women actually do operate this way; which is why I love this article soo much. What is funny is that our females are trying to act like the big predator male. Without having to prove she is capable. When tested, she can always rely on a bigger male (read the state) to come to her aid.
    Our women no longer play house; they play army nanny. The American woman is a wolf who thinks she is a lioness that does not need a male lion’s protection. She is also akin to an air plane with engine failure; merely a rock going to the ground.

  • Tlaloc

    Women as the ultimate power holders by their influence to the top male is something debatable. It happens sometimes; specially nowadays with Feminism being mainstream but this is more a trait of our times.

    A strong dominating leader does that: dominates. He dominates the opposition including the female factor. We are not talking here about some pansy put in place as governor by the private organizations today. I am talking about the most power hungry men in history. Men who conquered and that imposed their will to millions of people by means of religion or war or both. To think that a single woman was to manipulate the military actions of Genghis Khan by something like sex withdrawing or jealousy plots is ridiculous. For one, he had an harem always supplied with fresh young women at his disposal. It has been said by historians he used to sleep every night with six young girls, carefully selected and rotated by his staff regularly. For two, he believed fanatically he was destined to be the ruler of the world; his calling was far stronger than keeping happy any woman. And three, he could always employ force to make things happen.

    In the other hand, think about the prophet Mohammad; he had an harem too. Do you think that some woman was to manipulate him to influence the course of his job? No way. He is the one who is going to dictate how millions of women will behave including their sexual behavior. The religious institution he formed centuries ago is still going strong and is displacing the Feminist society. Demographic projections into the future predicts he is the one who will have the last laugh in the gender war. How funny that it is a man’s actions from the past the ones that are really making a difference today against feminism.

  • the Tired Low Social

    is this there another way to describe what you’re talking about keith? i’m having a bit of trouble getting it all at the moment. i get the part about the female using the one male to control a lot more and such, but i think i’m having issue with the carcass part

  • Jim Thompson

    The very first sentence of this essay is oxymoronic! If we are to take it seriously, it dismiss’s all the wrongs in the world such as false rape claims and all the other injustices many good men and women who contribute to this site fight for. The reasons for the multitude of crimes against humanity? Are they true “philisophically” as you put it? I have only read a few of the comments, but I’m astonished that I have not read any other comment on this so far.
    The remainder of the essay may have merit, but you lost me right from the start.

    New age nonsense! Shame.

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      I tend to agree, the “philosophically” claim is misplaced, to put it politely. While there is merit is some of the points made, some of the the contradictory statements were impossible to reconcile.

    • Keith

      It is absolutely an oxymoron, it could have been better put no question. It was simply an exercise in taking one step beyond the moral mire to try and see more.

      Hence the point you can spit it out at will. It just represents a different landscape and view and ethics applied differently. There’s nothing persuasive intended. In fact I personally don’t dismiss false claims but I do question why they are dismissed to the point of being systemic.

      The underlying question I pose in this piece is-are the wrongs in the world systemic or organically personal. If it’s shameful and new agey to ask such a question then the people on this site fighting injustice are wasting their time and unable to distinguish the difference. Any single persons moral compass is not universal. But the nature of the people on this site is much more profoundly universal, introspective, intuitive and insightful.

      Why? is it systemic or organically personal.

      Sorry if the piece was offensive to you but I am curious what color of shame would you assign.

  • ubermensch

    MGTOW all the way.

    Pump ‘n’ Dump.

    Eat, drink and be merry.

  • Robert Sides

    > “we failed to identify the essence and definition that motivates our socialization and renders men and woman equal operators of collaboration….We are predators…”

    Among other things. But as was EVENTUALLY (!) noted, we can and do feed ourselves in many ways. Carrots as well as carcasses.

    And we do more than “feed.”

    So, really: what’s the message of the article…in 50,000 words or less? :>)

    > “and everything we do emanates from our will, desire and intention to feed.”

    Actually, no. Our needs, as was famously noted, are hierarchical. Once fed we go onto other things: creating architecture, painting, fishing, listening to music, committing flatulence.

    Also, not to be rude, but why be “cryptic”? To prove… brilliance?

    Ever heard of Strunk & White?

    Feminists perfected the art of telling simple lies by creating dense, effed-up, contorted 500-volume encyclopedic bullshit treatises. Do we really need to out-Foucault them?

    Why not cut to the chase, calling a spade a spade instead of a refined-ore barnyard implement?

    Clever repartee has its place I’m sure. But I doubt it’s during heavy artillery shelling by fembots. We’re splitting hairs while feminists split up families.


    Maybe it’s just me. Maybe I’ve been too long in the trenches. I just want more clarity of expression and action. Too often I see the opposite: boyos acting like Huck Finn, lazin’ down the river; no cares and all the time in the world.

    I’m reminded of a scene from the movie, “Sometimes A Great Notion.” A lumberjack’s foot gets pinned under a fallen tree as water rises. The coming flood will float the cut trees down-river to a lumber mill. Eventually the guy’s head submerges. A relative then desperately tries to keep him alive, providing air underwater (mouth-to-mouth) until incoming water can raise the log and free his foot. Of course, the trapped guy chooses that exact moment to make faces, starts laughing, begins to cough, chokes on the water, and dies.

    Yeppers, that’s just how WE need to act.

    Our Titanic sinks. Is it really wise to break out copies of St. Augustine’s confessions and parse the meaning of nose-picking in ancient times?

    The protagonist in the “Naked and the Dead” showed humans are motivated by love as much as anything else.

    Porpoises starve themselves when separated from pods. Given food and no companionship, they choose death.

    So, caring and loving is obviously important to humans and other beings. So what are we DOING to stop feminism? Because the greatest and deepest evil of fembotulism is its seeking to destroy love, especially between men and women. It wants to render the yin-yang symbol (ever wonder why an ancient culture would create such a sign?) irrelevant.

    Sure, MGTOW is an option. But another is confronting and stopping “Betty’s Beasts.” Because otherwise, beyond a certain point, civilization as we know it WILL crash.

    It happens already when guys are alone when they don’t want to be. Misandric laws have priced relationships with females beyond their market. It’s not worth, literally, male time or money to merge with females who can devastate them financially, emotionally, and otherwise on a whim.

    It happens when “fierce and feisty” Muffin-the-Feminist turns 45 and realizes she will never have kids… and men no longer find her attractive. All she has is a job she hates, surrounded by younger women hellbent on booting her out. The good thing, I suppose, is that being so man-hating and “independent,” she never married. Ergo, she spared men the bitter burden of supporting her wide-load arse during her dotage.

    Country-wise, it comes when enough men say, “No mas!” That’s when guys refuse to sacrifice their own happiness to please bitter crones. They choose not to marry. They refuse to join the military. They decline to defend borders or repair bridges. Instead, they say: “Hey all you Friedan Freakazoids: it’s YOUR effin’ turn to finally do all the dangerous shite you took for granted when we did it. We’re done, Enough! We’re going ghost, living off-the-grid. Don’t worry about us, though. We’ll do just fine. After all, we took hard-science courses when you studied the origin of female urinals. The only thing you old buzzards CAN do is bring us the names of young women. Good luck unclogging your toilets, too!”

  • Robert Sides

    > “A strong dominating leader does that: dominates.”

    True. But what does that mean, really? Where does the need to dominate come from? How is it attained? How is it manifested?

    Like “power,” domination has many definitions.

    Conquering Roman generals/emperors, during triumphant processions, had a Nubian slave continually whisper in their ears, “Remember, thou art but a man!”

    It was a reminder, amidst popular acclaim, that even the mightiest of males are mortal. Caesar certainly learned that lesson.

    So it’s never as simple as a lone human male suddenly becoming Superman. And it’s never without cost.

    Hitler, for example, was 50 when Germany invaded Poland. I bet by then even Eva Braun could have clocked him with a frying pan. Yet he commanded one of the best armies in history. How?

    A would-be “alpha male” has to build alliances. He needs loyal Praetorian Guards, Companions, and others who buy into his program (either out of fear or reward or holding similar beliefs). He can’t do it alone.

    Also, even the best gunfighters can be killed by shots to their backs. A master swordsman can face too many attackers at once. Or be poisoned. Or get shot by an arrow.

    Plus it was not unheard of (then and now) for women to seduce men in order to kill them. They’d wait until the king slept or fell ill or so on, then strike. Or she’d leave the bedroom door unlocked so hired killers could enter and complete the job.

    Ergo, a rise in status often brings the need for bodyguards.

    That’s why being “top-dog” can be over-rated: the downside is rarely talked about.

    It’s like “dominating” PUAs. They brag about getting tons of “pounded pelt,” yet rarely show pictures of their “10s.” Even if they show pictures, who’s to say what (if anything) actually happened?

    Also, what’s the cost (in terms of time-effort-money) of horn-dogging? At 60 one guy might brag about having ridden a 100 miles of Vagina Highway. Another might say he had 10 relationships while also traveling, mastering the guitar, raising children, etc. Who will be happier?

    Sex isn’t everything. And often what’s sought is something else: being held. Body contact. Conversation. Most men are denied that outside relations with women. That gives women power.

    It’s like men are taught they can only eat if women prepare the food… and she won’t cook if he can’t fuck her. So he APPEARS to be obsessed with sex when he just wants food.

    Everything, including sex, can be overdone.

    Also, seeking to dominate is different from wanting to lead. They stem from different needs. Loved kids learn to love. Hurt people hurt others.

    Pursuing power has costs. If you wind up owning a dozen houses around the world, how many can you live in at one time? How many friends can visit you? How old will you be before you really kick back and have fun? How much is enough? Is multi-tasking good or like wolfing down an 18-course French dinner in 18 minutes?

    So many questions.

    Does seeking “numbers” makes us “number” emotionally.

    What price, status?

    What does having 5,000 Facebook “friends” mean?

    The answers are all so…individual. Because everyone comes from a different place. Ergo, different things are needed to reach new “balances.” A shy person might need to become more assertive. A take-charge dominant person might need to back-off and delegate more. Only they will know what truly makes them happy… PROVIDED they haven’t become emotional zombies.

    Guys often suffer who follow female dating advice. And even today, a guy who waits for women to meet him will wait a long, long time. So I understand why guys learn “game” and how it can be fueled by a certain level of “Fuck you! It’s my turn to treat YOU like shit!” It levels a playing field previously favoring women.

    Still, at some point I hope folks will want to spend time with equals. That will be hardest for men in our misandric times. They don’t “game” their buddies, but have learned to be leery of Ms. Snowflakes.

    So to women who attack Game: stop making it necessary. Start being sexually assertive and responsible. Stop being cowards. Start wearing Big Girl Thongs and taking equal risks.

    Men are socialized to believe they don’t innately deserve love or happiness. Instead, they’re taught they have to EARN both. It’s a horrible, horrible lesson.

    And a lie.

    Yet when it takes root (during abusive/neglectful childhoods), it can– and often does– ruin entire lives.

    Once you get on the “have-to-earn-love” treadmill, it’s hard to get off. It’s also why it’s so easy for women to manipulate guys: we become divorced from our feelings.

    That “divorce” is at the heart of the movie, THE BLUE ANGEL. In it, an otherwise “smart” professor becomes a silly schoolboy after falling for a cabaret singer.

    Instead of living a balanced life, he’d lived almost entirely in his left, linear, logical brain. He became an arrogant academic, living in his head, ignoring his heart. So he could not hear or heed warnings coming from his right, intuitive, creative, emotional brain…ones that told him the woman was dangerous. So he falls into her trap and literally becomes a clown mocked by those he once thought himself “above.”

    Another example: the Tiger Woods Syndrome. That’s when a guy, to earn love from a never-pleasable father, spends all his time perfecting a one-trick-pony project dad pushed.

    Eventually, accumulated needs build up to the point where the internal dam bursts. Then the guy does drugs or rents prostitutes or marries a model… vainly trying to make up for lost time. Mostly it turns out badly since too much time has passed. The current need is to mourn that loss. THEN what’s left can be savored.

    Unfortunately, the tendency is to keep pushing to flee past demons or attain future succor. Like Michael Jackson. He ended his life drugged, desperately trying to forget a painful childhood by making a comeback in the very profession that had robbed him of it.

    Never-Never Land, indeed.

  • Jim Thompson

    Reply to Robert Sides.
    In my opinion, your comments should have been the essay rather than comment(s) on that syntax twisted, grammar distorted, self contradictory, convoluted assembly of words!
    How about your work it up into essay form in it’s own right?
    There is a touch of the “Joe Bageant” in your writing.
    Note: That is very much a complement from me!

    • Keith

      Good point he should be submitting articles, completely agree.