What Token Resistance Reveals

Token resistance is a bit of a strange thing, since initially it seems counterintuitive. Why would a woman resist that which she actually desires? In my pre-game days, such a thing would be likely to confuse and perplex me. Now, I think that token resistance is both a fascinating and fun thing that speaks volumes about the intriguing differences between men and women.

Most of the important truths about women aren't completely obvious. They are subtle things that you have to discover, either through your own experiences or vicariously, through the experience of others. Token resistance is something that reveals three fundamental truths about women.

1. Women Love Intuitiveness
I can't say why women so strongly like intuitiveness, but there is something that strongly attracts a woman to a man that she perceives as intuitive. Strong game always necessitates that a man be skilled at interpretting non-verbal communication such as tone, body language, facial expressions and unexplained actions. While this is never something a woman will vocalize, every woman secretly has a desire for her man to know what she's thinking without having to express it verbally. Token resistance, in this regard, is a test of a man's intuitiveness. If he listens only to her words, then she views him as unintuitive. If she knows that he knows that what she says isn't actually what she means, then she becomes more strongly attracted to him, because she feels that he understands her on some deeper level.

2. Women Enjoy Being Chased
Any sort of romantic male-female relationship, and especially the enjoyable sort, necessarily includes elements of chase. Generally, women like to be chased and men like to chase. Women like to be chased, because they enjoy being desired. They enjoy being attractive enough to be worth pursuing. Men naturally enjoy chasing and pursuing that which they desire. Masculine men are always driven and ambitious. They set their sights on what they desire, and they allow nothing to deter them from their quest. Not only does this element of challenge testify to the fundamental natures of both men and women, but the chase itself is an enjoyable thing. Even when the eventual outcome is known by both parties, the chase is still a thoroughly delightful part of the experience, for both people.

3. Women Love Dominant Men
Of course, this is probably the strongest reason of all. Given that women are hard-wired to desire to submit to a dominant man, a woman likes to know that her man is a leader who does things according to what he thinks is best. If a few words or a little resistance from her is able to deter him from pursuing what he wants, he certainly isn't very dominant. When a man remains undeterred from attaining what he desires, even in the presence of resistance or opposition, his dominance is clearly displayed. Without fail, a clear demonstration of masculine dominance is something that strongly increases the present attraction that a woman feels for her man. For this reason, token resistance is offered both as a test of a man's dominance and as an opportunity for a man to display his dominance.

Contract Quoting - The "Fickle" Fee

One of the advantages of intentionally working part-time is the added flexibility gained by having several extra hours every week. Occasionally, I will use that spare time to do a little bit of contract work for various companies. I enjoy independent contract work because it pays very well and it gives me a bit of work variety. Since my job skills are more than sufficient to meet any task I undertake, there are really only two challenges that I continually confront in taking on contract jobs. The first challenge is establishing excellent rapport with my clients and establishing a solid reputation in the eyes of potential clients. The second challenge is accurately quoting the tasks I undertake, so that I can maximize both value provided to the client and monetary profit.

The first challenge usually isn't too difficult. The second one, however, requires a delicate balance. Ideally, my rates should properly correspond to the task at hand. When I properly evaluate a task, I earn nearly exactly my target rate, while still leaving a little margin for additional customization, if desired by my client. If I underestimate a task, then the client receives no additional value, but my profitability begins to sink. Since my tasks vary a fair bit, it can be challenging to accurately estimate the amount of work it will take to perform the given assignment. Just today, I was struck by a realization that will greatly simplify my quoting process.

Generally, when I perform a task for a male client, the desired result is clearly understood by the client and easily communicated to me with a minimal amount of clarification and dialogue. Most men know exactly what they are looking for and can quickly describe exactly how they want it. However, as I was working on a task for a female client, I discovered that even with work-related tasks and projects, women can be quite capricious in their desires. The project that initially consisted of a request for one custom database query soon expanded into a request for two separate queries. Once both had been finished, she added several new criteria and field format requirements which had never been part of the initial request, nor part of the revised request. If I were billing on a hourly rate, this would be of no concern, but given the fixed price of the project contract, every new addition cut into my profitability.

Based on this experience, and my knowledge of human nature, I have decided to factor something else into my quoting process. From now on, I will now add a "fickle" fee to my contracts. I will take my base estimate and add a 30-50% markup, as a fickle fee, based on the following criteria. If the client is female, the fickle fee automatically applies unless she has consistently demonstrated a pronouced level of decisiveness and clarity of communication. If the client is male, the fickle fee is automatically waived unless he has demonstrated an inability to be decisive or to clearly communicate his requirements. By assuming that female clients will generally be capricious, and by generally assuming that male clients will be clear and direct, my quoting process should much more accurately match the amount of work I actually have to perform. It's by no coincidence that my work experience matches the truths Game teaches about the female nature.

By charging a fickle fee, I won't be as quickly frustrated by those whose desires and needs change quickly and without warning. That will result in a great synergy with my other contracting challenge: establishing and maintaining excellent rapport with my clients. It's hard to always respond well to people who make your work more challenging and complicated. By expecting women to be fickle, even at managerial and directorial levels, I will reduce my stress, increase my profitability and increase the accuracy of my quoting.

Simplifying Sexual Dynamics

Recently, I was having a conversation with a friend of mine (LB) who was having some girl troubles. A certain girl had been perplexing him and he was having trouble figuring out how she really perceived things. This, of course, was unsurprising to me, since I know that women are rarely ever direct or perfectly forthcoming about their emotions, especially concerning romantic possibilities. LB was trying to make sense of what had transpired and was very confused about the whole ordeal. Like most women, both her actions and her words conveyed a broad array of mixed signals. He recounted for me specific things that she had done and said and then tried to offer his interpretations of what she meant. Soon, he describing his attempts to figure out whether she was just sexually attracted to him, or whether she just liked him as a friend, or whether she wanted a relationship with him, or whether she was confused and flip-flopping constantly--it sounded like a complicated jumble!

I used to having troubles reading women and figuring out how to determine their perspectives and intentions. But, once you understand one simple fact, it all becomes quite simple. I told LB, "You're overthinking things. It's much simpler than all that." Fundamentally, there is only one thing you have to determine to know where you stand with a girl. Most women quickly and subconsciously assess the sexual value and relationship value of a guy upon meeting him. Generally, within the first 30 seconds to five minutes, she puts a guy in one of two categories:

Category 1 - Alpha - He is an attractive guy

Category 2 - Beta - He is not an attractive guy

When you're an alpha, a woman will do just about anything for you. You are in control of the relationship and can take things in whatever direction you want. You want to date her? You got it. You want to marry her? Piece of cake. You want to sleep with her and leave her? No problem. You aren't interested in her and just want to be friends? She's up for it. Want to bring her along for social proof or to buy you drinks? No sweat. While the pacing might be somewhat different, depending on the sort of girl, as long as you are an alpha, the ball is completely in your court and she's happy to follow your lead.

When you're a beta, the girl is in control of the interactions. She is in control of the relationship and will allow exactly what she wants to happen, but nothing more. Generally this results in either no contact or the dreaded "friend-zone." With some girls, particularly ones who are more promiscuous, they may even have no qualms about kissing you or sleeping with you, but that still doesn't change the sexual dynamic. In other cases, they may string you along and get you to buy them drinks, dinner and gifts, while knowing that nothing with ever materialize from it.

Now, while it is possible to change categories, the main directional flow is downward. There are things that an alpha can do to diminish his attractiveness in a woman's eyes. Enough of this sort of behavior and he will eventually become a beta, in her eyes. It is also theoretically possible for a beta to be viewed as an alpha, but such a thing is rare enough that it is very nearly a miracle. Fundamentally, whatever category you are first placed in is the one you remain in for the duration of the relationship. Understanding and interpreting sexual dynamics is as simple as figuring out which category you are in. You can understand the entire drift of a relationship by simply figuring out whether a girl perceives a guy as an alpha or as a beta. There doesn't need to be a lot of analysis and thinking about the whole thing. Either attraction is there or it isn't. It's as simple as that.

In the case of LB, he was confused because the girl said that she wasn't interested in a relationship with him, and yet she offered to sleep with him. Such mixed signals are extremely confusing for anyone who doesn't understand the simple principle of female attraction--but it all becomes quite clear when you understand sexual dynamics. I told him that even though she had no qualms about making out with him or sleeping with him, she viewed him merely as a category 2 guy, and therefore no lasting relationship would be possible. A day later, after LB had talked with the girl, he called me up and told me that I had been right. The only reason she had offered to sleep with him was out of pity. It would have been a pity fuck. Sexual dynamics are always simpler than they seem. Social awareness and an understanding of what attracts men and women is a vital and indispensible ally in successfully navigating the dating world. It's a simple thing, but there's a bit of a learning curve.

Fairy Tales and the Dangers of Hypergamy

The other night I was relaxing at a coffeeshop, drinking some tea and reading some fairy tales. Currently, I've been making my way through Grimm's Fairy Tales, a collection of popular Germanic tales which was originally published in 1812. One of the tales that I read really struck me with the applicability of its truth to the modern audience. It is a tale of the dangers of female hypergamy when combined with arrogance. It is a tale of the effectiveness of Game in opening the eyes of a woman to a more accurate assessment of herself. It is a tale of the effectiveness of patriarchy in curbing the harmful excesses of women blindly following their hypergamous instinct. Without further ado, I offer you the story of King Thrushbeard:

King Thrushbeard

A King had a daughter who was beautiful beyond all measure, but so proud and haughty withal that no suitor was good enough for her. She sent away one after the other, and ridiculed them as well.

Once the King made a great feast and invited thereto, from far and near, all the young men likely to marry. They were all marshalled in a row according to their rank and standing; first came the kings, then the grand-dukes, then the princes, the earls, the barons, and the gentry. Then the King's daughter was led through the ranks, but to every one she had some objection to make; one was too fat, "The wine-cask," she said. Another was too tall, "Long and thin has little in." The third was too short, "Short and thick is never quick." The fourth was too pale, "As pale as death." The fifth too red, "A fighting-cock." The sixth was not straight enough, "A green log dried behind the stove."

So she had something to say against every one, but she made herself especially merry over a good king who stood quite high up in the row, and whose chin had grown a little crooked. "Well," she cried and laughed, "he has a chin like a thrush's beak!" and from that time he got the name of King Thrushbeard.

But the old King, when he saw that his daugher did nothing but mock the people, and despised all the suitors who were gathered there, was very angry, and swore that she should have for her husband the very first beggar that came to his doors.

A few days afterwards a fiddler came and sang beneath the windows, trying to earn a small alms. When the King heard him he said, "Let him come up." So the fiddler came in, in his dirty, ragged clothes, and sang before the King and his daughter, and when he had ended he asked for a trifling gift. The King said, "Your song has pleased me so well that I will give you my daughter there, to wife."

The King's daughter shuddered, but the King said, "I have taken an oath to give you to the very first beggar-man, and I will keep it." All she could say was in vain; the priest was brought, and she had to let herself be wedded to the fiddler on the spot. When that was done the King said, "Now it is not proper for you, a beggar-woman, to stay any longer in my palace, you may just go away with your husband."

The beggar-man led her out by the hand, and she was obliged to walk away on foot with him. When they came to a large forest she asked, "To whom does that beautiful forest belong?" "It belongs to King Thrushbeard; if you had taken him, it would have been yours." "Ah, unhappy girl that I am, if I had but taken King Thrushbeard!"

Afterwards they came to a meadow, and she asked again, "To whom does this beautiful green meadow belong?" "It belongs to King Thrushbeard; if you had taken him, it would have been yours." "Ah, unhappy girl that I am, if I had but taken King Thrushbeard!"

Then they came to a large town, and she asked again, "To whom does this fine large town belong?" "It belongs to King Thrushbeard; if you had taken him, it would have been yours." "Ah, unhappy girl that I am, if I had but taken King Thrushbeard!"

"It does not please me," said the fiddler, "to hear you always wishing for another husband; am I not good enough for you?" At last they came to a very little hut, and she said, "Oh goodness! what a small house; to whom does this miserable, mean hovel belong?" The fiddler answered, "That is my house and yours, where we shall live together."

She had to stoop in order to go in at the low door. "Where are the servants?" said the King's daughter. "What servants?" answered the beggar-man; "you must yourself do what you wish to have done. Just make a fire at once, and set on water to cook my supper, I am quite tired." But the King's daughter knew nothing about lighting fires or cooking, and the beggar-man had to lend a hand himself to get anything fairly done. When they had finished their scanty meal they went to bed; but he forced her to get up quite early in the morning in order to look after the house.

For a few days they lived in this way as well as might be, and came to the end of all their provisions. Then the man said, "Wife, we cannot go on any longer eating and drinking here and earning nothing. You weave baskets." He went out, cut some willows, and brought them home. Then she began to weave, but the tough willows wounded her delicate hands.

"I see that this will not do," said the man; "you had better spin, perhaps you can do that better." She sat down and tried to spin, but the hard thread soon cut her soft fingers so that the blood ran down. "See," said the man, "you are fit for no sort of work; I have made a bad bargain with you. Now I will try to make a business with pots and earthenware; you must sit in the market-place and sell the ware." "Alas," thought she, "if any of the people from my father's kingdom come to the market and see me sitting there, selling, how they will mock me?" But it was of no use, she had to yield unless she chose to die of hunger.

For the first time she succeeded well, for the people were glad to buy the woman's wares because she was good-looking, and they paid her what she asked; many even gave her the money and left the pots with her as well. So they lived on what she had earned as long as it lasted, then the husband bought a lot of new crockery. With this she sat down at the corner of the market-place, and set it out round about her ready for sale. But suddenly there came a drunken hussar galloping along, and he rode right amongst the pots so that they were all broken into a thousand bits. She began to weep, and did now know what to do for fear. "Alas! what will happen to me?" cried she; "what will my husband say to this?"

She ran home and told him of the misfortune. "Who would seat herself at a corner of the market-place with crockery?" said the man; "leave off crying, I see very well that you cannot do any ordinary work, so I have been to our King's palace and have asked whether they cannot find a place for a kitchen-maid, and they have promised me to take you; in that way you will get your food for nothing."

The King's daughter was now a kitchen-maid, and had to be at the cook's beck and call, and do the dirtiest work. In both her pockets she fastened a little jar, in which she took home her share of the leavings, and upon this they lived.

It happened that the wedding of the King's eldest son was to be celebrated, so the poor woman went up and placed herself by the door of the hall to look on. When all the candles were lit, and people, each more beautiful than the other, entered, and all was full of pomp and splendour, she thought of her lot with a sad heart, and cursed the pride and haughtiness which had humbled her and brought her to so great poverty.

The smell of the delicious dishes which were being taken in and out reached her, and now and then the servants threw her a few morsels of them: these she put in her jars to take home.

All at once the King's son entered, clothed in velvet and silk, with gold chains about his neck. And when he saw the beautiful woman standing by the door he seized her by the hand, and would have danced with her; but she refused and shrank with fear, for she saw that it was King Thrushbeard, her suitor whom she had driven away with scorn. Her struggles were of no avail, he drew her into the hall; but the string by which her pockets were hung broke, the pots fell down, the soup ran out, and the scraps were scattered all about. And when the people saw it, there arose general laughter and derision, and she was so ashamed that she would rather have been a thousand fathoms below the ground. She sprang to the door and would have run away, but on the stairs a man caught her and brought her back; and when she looked at him it was King Thrushbeard again. He said to her kindly, "Do not be afraid, I and the fiddler who has been living with you in that wretched hovel are one. For love of you I disguised myself so; and I also was the hussar who rode through your crockery. This was all done to humble your proud spirit, and to punish you for the insolence with which you mocked me."

Then she wept bitterly and said, "I have done great wrong, and am not worthy to be your wife." But he said, "Be comforted, the evil days are past; now we will celebrate our wedding." Then the maids-in-waiting came and put on her the most splendid clothing, and her father and his whole court came and wished her happiness in her marriage with King Thrushbeard, and the joy now began in earnest. I wish you and I had been there too.

Though published 200 years ago, this tale is remarkably relevent to today. Though in this story, only the princess holds herself in higher esteem than she ought, in modern America many women consider themselves "princesses" and are proud and haughty enough that no suitor seems good enough for them. Though the hypergamous impulse itself, desiring to marry a man of equal or better social class, is not intrinsically a bad thing, when combined with pride, it is horribly destructive. The rise of feminism and the over-glorification of women has put our society in precisely such a position. Even last week I was talking to a middle-aged fellow who has to clean the dishes and do the vacuuming because his wife is incapable of satisfactorily completing simple domestic chores. In many ways, modern women have less to offer in a relationship, and yet are extremely arrogant and self-deceived about their desirability. For this very reason, numerous secular men are actively avoiding marriage. This tale speaks truths that we all need to be taught or reminded of.

Also well depicted in this fairy tale is the cure for the deadly combination of pride and hypergamy. The princess was humbled and returned to a right state of mind as a result of the direct intervention of two men. The first man, quite obviously, is King Thrushbeard. He was truly an alpha male. King Thrushbeard is kind, goodhearted, wealthy, respected, humble, musical, creative and wise. He never condemned the princess for her pride or became defensive at her insults. Instead, through his words and actions he helped her to see the truth about herself. He was firm, he was assertive, he was authoritative, and yet he loved her truly. That is a beautiful example of the redemption that a goodhearted, wise and dominant man can bring. But, there is a second man who was instrumental in the restoration of the princess. Her father, the King, played an indispensible role in her humbling. While he clearly wanted the best for her, she was too blind to see her own problem. It wasn't true that no suitor was good enough for her. It was only true that she undervalued many of her suitors because of her arrogance. Her father intervened directly by giving her in marriage to the first beggar that asked. Fathers play an instrumental role in shaping the lives of their children. In a patriarchal society, the father is the head of his family, and his word is law. The kind but firm leadership of the King was a necessary part of the restoration process. In today's world, too few daughters obey their fathers, and too few fathers are bold enough to command respect through their words, actions and presence. This is a twofold problem. If men were again taught to be strong, wise, relational patriarchs, both of these problem swiftly vanish. As it stands in today's society, those women who are infected with the debilitating combination of pride and hypergamy will spend their days continually searching for the ever-elusive "Mr. Right," completely blinded to the simple truth that they would eventually reject him, even if they find him, because of their haughtiness.

Two Prevalent Forms of Reductionism

As humans, we conceptualize our world. Since reality is as vast and complex as it is, we create mental categories and models to explain how our universe works and how we should function within it. Both categories and models are very useful, and both are indispensible for finite creatures capable of abstraction. However, due to the fundamentally limited nature of models, sometimes we overlook or ignore crucial information. The best models in any area of life are the ones that reduce a given interaction to a comprehensible series of components, while still retaining all of the critical elements of the interaction. The falling of an apple, for example, involves a vast number of physical interactions. However, such an interaction can be nearly perfectly explained by the Law of Gravity, which describes the physical attraction between objects. Though wind, friction, chemical reactions and intervening objects may alter the way an apple falls, gravity alone is able to explain the vital component of how and why an apple falls to earth. That is an example of a sound and pragmatic model.

Reductionism, on the other hand, is an attempt at explaining an interaction which ultimately leaves out one or more vital elements. It results in models that lack sufficient explanatory capacity, due to overlooking, ignoring or denying applicable truths. Any reductivistic paradigm, then, is a worldview that overlooks, ignores or denies vital truths. While this might seem like a purely academic topic, the forms of reductionism that I wish to discuss are anything but pedantic. In particular, there are two forms of reductionistic thinking that have major practical implications and impact numerous aspects of life. Of these two forms, women have a tendency to lean towards one sort of reductionism, while men are more inclined to lean towards the other.

Yesterday night, I was spending some time with a new friend that I just met. Alex is currently doing a bit of substitute teaching and is contemplating pursuing a teaching credential. We were chatting about some of his classroom experiences and he noted how superficial many kids are today. Often the seemingly smallest things that he did, said or even wore would profoundly impact his students' perspectives of him. One day he walked into class and several of the kids made remarks about his Converse shoes. They viewed him as a cool person, simply because of the shoes that he wore. In another classroom, upon entering he was immediately barraged with mostly innocuous questions (and a few less-innocuous ones). When one girl asked him if he was married, he held up his hand and asked, "Do you see a ring on my finger?" He didn't answer the question directly, since he felt that it wasn't really any of his students' business. Immediately, a few of the kids lost respect for him and commented about his answer being "all snooty." Alex and I then began discussing the possible reasons for why kids are so superficial these days. Attitudes and perspectives never emerge in a vacuum. They are always learned.

The reason some kids are very superficial is because they have adopted a form of reductionistic thinking that isn't confined to hall of high schools. Our culture, in many ways, has become very superficial. Many people view style and image not merely as important, but as nearly all-encompassing. This is Stylistic Reductionism. It is pervasive. It is a horribly flawed way of seeing the world, that leads to poor ways of interacting. You see this form of reductionism is the very ways people enslave themselves to social status, whether by wearing the latest clothes, driving nice cars, opting for endless cosmetic surgery operations, continually seeking high-status romantic partners, and refusing to associate with lesser-status people or social outcasts. In this sort of worldview, image is king. How one appears is more important than who one actually is. Public perceptions are more important than character. Presentation is far more important than substance. If someone doesn't seem attractive and interesting enough, then they aren't worth talking to or spending time with. It is a world of snap judgements and endless comparison; life is a perpetual masquerade. This is Stylistic Reductionism. In its overglorification of image and appearance it overlooks the necessity of substance.

The other form of reductive thinking, which is embraced by a very different sort of person, is Substantive Reductionism. It is the polar opposite of Stylistic Reductionism. Some people view image, appearance and style as completely unimportant. Instead, what matters is the essence of someone or something. A person's inward character is all that matters. Just have good character, and be yourself. What matters is simply how something functions, and not its aesthetics. You see this form of reductionism in people who are completely unconcerned with appearance, whether by dressing in a sloppy or frumpy manner, walking around in public with poorly groomed hair, having mannerisms that betray an indifference to how their actions are words are perceived, leaving their houses cluttered and messy, speaking articulately but seeming distant and unengaged with their body language, having their desks piled with reams of papers, and lacking an appreciation for art or beauty. In this sort of worldview, image is irrelevent. Because of that, there is little consideration given to social status or even social perception. People with this sort of thinking often have some difficulties in every area of life, whether in job-seeking, in dating, in fitting in with social groups, or anything else involving people. They also often lack an appreciation for aesthetics, and therefore miss out on an entire section of life. This is Substantive Reductionism. Its overemphasis on substance and the genuine essence of a thing or oneself leads to imbalance and completely overlooks the importance of style.

As it nearly always is, truth is a balance. Yes, it is true that image matters. Yes, it is true that substance matter. To focus solely on image is to become superficial and lose connection with oneself and the people in one's life. To focus solely on substance is to ignore the vital importance of grace, beauty and social tact. Those who embrace Stylistic Reductionism focus so much on status and appearance, that they often lose parts of their soul in the process and are unable to connect deeply with others. Such a person becomes a Chameleon, easily adapting to the present social group and conveying precisely the desired image, but never being true to the image conveyed. It is an eternal deception. Those who embrace Substantive Reductionism focus so much on being genuine and true to their ideals, that they often alienate others by expressing controversial opinions or judgmental thoughts without considering whether it is the appropriate place or time to express them. They are often unaware of the messages that their words, actions, posture and tone conveys to other people. The fact is, most people have a tendency to lean towards and value either style or substance more than its counterpart. Yet, the ideal perspective is a balance of the two which rightly recognizes both the importance of subtance and style, realizing that it is crucial for there to be a correlation between how something appears and how it actually is.

In many ways, Game Theory is a recognition of the Stylistic Reductionism of modern women. Women, being more naturally socially aware, have a greater tendency to embrace Stylistic Reductionism. They are very concerned with how they appear to others physically, intellectually and socially. Even their purchases are often heavily influenced by the desire for social approval. They care not only about who a man is, but how he presents himself and how he is perceived. One of the central truths offered by Game Theory is that women are, by nature, hypergamous. Their attraction for a man, whether a complete stranger or their husband of many years, is directly influenced by how he is socially perceived. Women want to be with a man who has status. Women want to be with a man who is respected as a leader of men and who is desired by other women. Hypergamy and valuing social status, image, appearance, style and connection are all good things. Stylistic Reductionism, however, is a perversion of those good things. Women are naturally hypergamous, but they are not naturally Stylistically Reductionistic. That is a new and infectious strain of cultural disease that permeates modern America because of the philosophical relativism of the day, which undermines and even denies substance, and because of the pervasive nature of visual media, which glorifies image through its ceaseless use of photo and video. We are an image-driven society, which apmlifies and distorts the natural propensity of women to be image-centric and status seeking. Such reductionism is one major pitfall that modern women incessantly tumble into. It is good to value status and social approval, but it is very dangerous to overvalue status and overlook the criticality of essence.

Similarly, Game Theory is an antidote to the Substantive Reductionism of modern men. Men, being more naturally logical and analytical, have a greater tendency to embrace Substantive Reductionism. Men are often more concerned with solving problems, overcoming challenges, and figuring things out than they are worried about connection and social perceptions. How it works is always a more pressing question than how it appears. What you are doing with a person is more pertinent than how you feel about whatever you're doing. Because of that, men often don't focus as much on aesthetics or appearance, either in their manner of dress, in their workspaces or even in their homes. Men tend to be either simple and conservative in how they dress, or somewhat sloppy and disheveled. A few of my younger brothers look more like ragged waifs than well-dressed boys, simply because they aren't concerned with how they appear. Likewise, in dating, many men think that just being a nice guy is enough to win a girl's heart. They properly recognize that character and heart are important. However, they also fail to recognize the importance of how they dress, how they present themselves, their body language, how they interact with people, what stories they tell and/or any number of other social behaviors. Game Theory is something that is developed by men to help other men become more socially aware and improve their ways of interacting with other. By studying Game Theory a man can understand the messages that are being conveyed by how he interacts with others, and can learn to read other people better. This is something that many modern men desperately need, especially because of the decline of patriarchy and the lessening involvement of fathers in the lives of their sons. Modern men are not taught to have a holistic worldview that recognizes and values the importance of image, social status, personality and style, in addition to the importance of character and essence. This directly affects men's success in numerous arenas of life.

Given that all of us have a tendency to overvalue either style or substance, it is critical to be aware of our own internal biases, so that we can avoid imbalance and the negative consequences of living a life of imbalance. While Stylistic Reductionism is more commonly a feminine mistake and Substantive Reductionism is more commonly a masculine error, there are certainly some men who overvalue image while neglecting essense and there are some women who overvalue functionality at the expense of beauty. Wisdom dictates that each of us should be aware of our own imbalances and seek to temper them by choosing to embrace a balanced perspective. Both substance and style are vitally importance. What a person or thing is, does matter. How a person or thing appears also matters. We must be sure to keep both in mind at all times. It is not enough for something to be good or to be true, it must also be beautiful. It is not enough for something just to be beautiful, it must also be good and true. Reductionistic thinking is very easy to do. But a proper model of our world acknowledges and appreciates the importance of both appearance and essense. Women are glorious because they do value status, image, appearance, and beauty. Men are glorious because they are practical and value the substance of people and things. Yet, we must be vigilant in order to avoid overlooking, ignoring or denying the truth and value of the other.

A Woman's Antidote to Aging

Given that we live in a world of continual physical decay, aging is something that all women eventually have to face, and something that many of them fear and fight to avoid. For a short period of time (from 16-26), a girl can enjoy looking her best, but from that point on, it's a downward trend. Even with an excellent diet and exercise routine, time is an unpreventable thief that steals her beauty continually. Five years later, she lacks the same beauty and luster that she once had. Fifteen years later, her body has deteriorated even further and her complexion has begun to lose its softness. Twenty-five years later, she already retains only a fraction of what beauty she may once have had. Time is never merciful. For those women who place much confidence in their physical appearance, aging is one of the very worst things that can possibly happen to them.

However, there is something that can make a woman more beautiful over time, even as her physical appearance fades with the passing years. This realization struck me just a few days ago. On Sunday morning, I arrived at church quite a bit early and seated myself in an empty row near the front. A few minutes later an elderly lady in her late 70's, accompanied by her husband, seated herself next to me. Physically, she wasn't much to look at. She wore a simple blue dress and a cute hat on her head. She didn't wear any makeup, and her face had plenty of wrinkles. But her face, wrinkled as it was, had a sort of sweetness and serenity written on it. Just to make small talk, I wished her a happy new year, and asked how she was enjoying 2010 so far. Her reply was one that was filled with so much gratitude, peace and joy. She told me how thankful she was that God had given her another glorious year of life. We just talked briefly, since the sermon began not long after, but I had the most unexpected realization as I was talking to her. While physically, there was nothing especially impressive about her, as I heard her speak, I began to see her as beautiful--she had such a sweet spirit, such a heart filled with love for God, such a graciousness of manner, and such a presense of mind. Old as she was, I could sense so much life and beauty in her soul.

This is the Biblical antidote to the aging process. In his first epistle, Peter writes to women, "Do not let your adornment be merely outward--arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel--rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:3-4) Peter speaks directly to the deep desire of women to be beautiful. Aging is inevitable and unavoidable. A woman will, without fail, become less physically beautiful over time. However, inner beauty is something that is not subject to physical decay. Inner beauty, stemming from the soul of a righteous, gentle and peaceable woman, is something that is thoroughly incorruptible. A physically beautiful woman is certainly glorious to behold. However, physical beauty is something that is primarily a matter of good genes--it's a tribute to God and to a woman's parents, but not to a woman herself. Inner beauty of the soul, contrarily, is something that is not innate and is not solely a matter of genes. A woman who has cultivated an inner beauty has something that will not fade, and that is a tribute both to her effort and to God's glorious work in her heart. That is something to be proud of!

As such, though it is certainly good for women to dress well and enjoy their physical beauty, especially when young, cultivating an inner beauty of the soul is a necessary pursuit for any woman who wishes to retain her beauty or become more beautiful over time. A heart that is full of love, compassion, care, generosity, peace, mercy, and gratefulness is a beautiful heart. Strangely enough, such a heart even noticably preserves physical beauty as well. And that is what I saw when I spoke with Edna on Sunday. Time had stolen all the beauty it could from her, and yet she was still beautiful. When the worship band played their songs, she raised her voice in song and raised her hands in love for God. Her love for God, her love for people, her love for music, and her appreciation of life were unmistakable. She was beautiful!

Androgynous Nation - The Prevalence of Jeans

Often the most seemingly random topics find themselves percolating in my mind. The past couple of days I have been thinking about jeans--you know, the denim pants that everyone wears. I would actually say that jeans are quite wonderful, if it weren't for the fact that everyone wears them. To be sure, they are fairly practical, and they are at least decently comfortable. Actually, what bothers me most about jeans has almost nothing to do with jeans at all. What bothers me is that women wear them. Everywhere you go, women are wearing jeans. Old women and young girls, trendy chicks and frumpy gals, gorgeous babes and grotesque women all have a commonality in that they all wear jeans. While there are occasional obvious exceptions, as a rule, women wearing jeans look significantly less feminine than girls who wear more traditionally feminine garb.


As I was growing up in a socially conservative family, occasionally my mother (who ironically now wears jeans most of the time) would read some sort of article on how women wearing pants is immodest or unbecoming in some way. I even remember watching a video sermon that nearly insinuated that wearing pants was a symbol of rebellion and a rejection of authority. At the time, I really didn't care one way or the other, since what women should or shouldn't wear seemed to have no pertinence to my life. While I still wouldn't quite agree with such an extreme socially conservative position, I find it both interesting and even somewhat surprising how similar the view of many secular and even liberal minds is to such a position. The truth is, those who understand and value the intrinsic differences between men and women, between masculinity and femininity, also recognize that certain forms of dress are more masculine and certain ways to dress are more feminine. Femininity in women is something that is desirable and attractive. All other things equal, women who act and dress in a more feminine manner are nearly universally considered more attractive than women who act and dress in a less feminine manner. Sadly, modern culture has lost sight of that simple truth in its destructive march toward an egalitarian utopia.


In fact, since the rise of feminism (which is quite a misnomer, since it diametrically opposes all things feminine), American culture has set forth an androgynous ideal in nearly every aspect of life. Men are told to be more sensitive, less angry, more talkative, more submissive and overall less masculine, while women are taught that they should be stronger, more determined, more independent, more assertive, more driven and overall less feminine. In many ways, this cultural shift is perfectly mirrored and revealed by the very clothing modern people wear. Not long ago, Dave in Hawaii wrote an excellent blog on how this shift in thinking has changed the way women dress today. Personally, I think that the prevalence of jeans and other unisex clothing flawlessly illustrates the fact that modern America neither understands masculininity and femininity nor values them.

The truth is, a woman wearing jeans is something much bigger than simply the wardrobe choice of a single individual. Either consciously or unconsciously, it is a symbol of conformity with the modern utopian ideal, which is based on the flawed premise that there is no ultimate difference between men and women. A girl wearing jeans is either making a statement that she accepts what culture teaches without critically examining it or is a making a statement that she rejects the natural differences between men and women and chooses to forsake the pursuit of beauty and femininity to chase after uniformity and aesthetic dullness. Neither of those statements are good ones to make. Why should a woman typically dress in a way that minimizes her natural beauty? Why should dressing up to look nice only be for special occasions? Androgynous dressing is as much an affront to nature and God's design as wearing a burqa is. In one case it's a rejection of femininity because of fear and lack of self-control, in the other case it's a rejection of femininity out of spite and rebellion.



While it virtually goes without saying that the way a person dresses has a major impact on how they are perceived, I especially notice how much a girl's wearing jeans changes my perspective of her. Recently, I saw a girl that I'm mildly attracted to at a social function. She was wearing a really thick and colorful sweater, had her hair pulled back in a ponytail and was wearing some generic-looking jeans. As I looked at her, the word "boyish" sprung to mind completely unbidden. Never before would I have connected that particular descriptor with her. Just the fact that she was wearing jeans radically changed my instinctual impression of her. In contrast, a little while back I ran into a girl that I don't consider very attractive, but on this occasion she was dressed very nicely. She wore a cute dark coat and a medium-length skirt of subtle color. Just because of how she was dressed, she looked sweeter and more feminine than usual. Some would say that such perceptions and impressions of girls based on how they are dressed is a bit shallow and doesn't take enough factors into account. To this I simply reply that how a girl is dressed is not merely an aesthetic factor (which does matter a lot to men), because it is also something that speaks volumes about how she perceives herself and the world.



But, don't just take my word for it. Decide for yourself. What sort of girl looks more beautiful and feminine: a girl wearing jeans, or a girl wearing a dress or skirt? While androgyny is something that contemporary culture advocates, it seems clear that working towards such a goal defies nature, makes a people more drap and dull, deprives the world of much-needed beauty, makes both men and women less attractive, and shows a lack of appreciation for God's creation. Now, if a woman wants to diminish her beauty and attractiveness by dressing in an androgynous fashion by wearing jeans, then she is certainly welcome to do so, regardless of the stupidity of such a goal. But in such a case, at least it should be an informed rejection of nature and her own physical appearance, rather than simply cultural conformity out of ignorance. Those women who properly know their place in the world and value their appearance will dress themselves in a feminine manner and avoid wearing clothes that would look equally fitting on a man.

Inner Game Traits: Indifference

In response to my last blog, Thoughts On Inner Game, one commenter remarked that even though it might be useful for me to integrate the other six main fundamentals of game into my life, that perhaps, since I am a high-quality guy, indifference would not be a trait worth cultivating. A year ago, I might have agreed with him. However, I think the reason he doesn't think indifference would serve me well is not that he misunderstands me or my aims, but simply that he misunderstands the concept of the form of indifference being advocated by proponents of Game.

Admittedly, if pure indifference were being set forth as an ideal for men to aspire to, I would probably oppose it. But, what is being postulated is not a pure form of indifference or apathy; instead, it is a selective indifference with a focus on long-term consequences and meaning rather than short-term feelings and experiences. It is a selective indifference that results in greater emotional stability and a groundedness that serves as an effective foundation for rational decision-making, even in the midst of difficult situations or transitory emotional turbulence.

As such, the quality of selective indifference primarily emphasizes two things. First, selective indifference is a general indifference towards any particular girl or relationship. Secondly, selective indifference is a general indifference towards a girl's present emotional state. This means that sometimes you can allow yourself to care about her emotional state or the status of your relationship with her, but that such considerations should be the exception, rather than the rule. Next, I will expand on each type of indifference and explain the value of selective indifference in boosting male attractiveness.

The first type of selective indifference that is crucial is a general indifference towards any particular girl or relationship. It doesn't matter whether you're meeting a new girl, in a long-term relationship or married, it is crucial to have a perspective that is bigger than the relationship. Practically, this means a couple of different things. Above all, it means that your life is bigger than her. You don't need her in you life since you already live a full, fun and independent life. If she breaks up with you or divorces you tomorrow, your life will not be shattered since you have your own friends, your own interests, your own values, your own life goals, your own spiritual foundation and your own hobbies. A woman never wants to be the center of man's life. She wants to join him, get wrapped up in his world and accompany him on his journey through life. She wants to be part of his life; she doesn't want to be his life.

Additionally, selective indifference towards a particular girl or relationship means that not only do you have a life that is much bigger than her, you also are not especially concerned with losing her. Since you are a high-quality man, you are attractive to many women, and if she decides to be foolish enough to end the relationship, it isn't a big deal, because you can easily find a better woman who wants to be with you. Since you don't need her for your life to have meaning, and you don't need her to have relational success, you aren't dependent on her in any way. I would also like to point out that being indifferent to losing her is not the same as being indifferent to having her in your life. While you are happy and thankful that she is in your life, you are not fearful of losing her. While you enjoy her presence, you also aren't bothered, bored or unhappy when she isn't with you. This sort of indifference synergizes with the traits of independence and confidence. The fact that you don't need her sets up a framework for gratitude. If she is enhancing your life, then you will feel thankful and glad. If she is bringing you down, then you can simply end the relationship or spend more time doing your own thing until she fixes her behavior. The confidence that you exude from this sort of indifference makes you irresistible, and reminds her of what an exceptional and strong guy you are.

The second type of selective indifference that is crucial is a general indifference towards a girl's emotional state. While females primarily view the world and live their lives through emotional lenses, the male nature is radically different. Women tend to confuse their present emotional state with truth. When she doesn't feel loved, she completely believes that you don't love her. When she doesn't feel heard, then she believes that you're not listening. Whatever she feels, she views as truth. Men, typically, are not as emotion-centric. While we definitely feel emotions and make decisions based on emotions, men are always cognizant of the fact that life is bigger than emotions, and that actions are more important than feelings. If this fundamental difference between the male and female perspectives on life is not understood by both men and women, then conflict and communication problems are certain to arise. Alternately, if this difference is minimized by men becoming more feminized and emotion-centric, men lose the vital aspects of masculinity that women crave. A woman subconsciously longs for man who is in touch with his emotions, but who is also emotionally stable. A man who is completely out of touch with his emotions is inhuman, and therefore incapable of emotional connection, which women need. However, when a man is both in touch with his emotions and also in control of them, he possesses the inner strength necessary to stabilize her emotions and comfort her when she needs that. She knows that nothing she feels will be too much for him to handle. No matter what she is going through, he is capable of providing emotional solace since she knows that he isn't afraid of her feelings, won't be manipulated by her emotions, and won't lash out at her for expressing her emotions. That masculine emotional stability is something that women long for and need in a man. He must be able to be an emotional leader in the relationship.

However, selective indifference towards a girl's emotional state isn't just for her benefit. It's also crucial, as a man, to actually have complete emotional independence. To the degree that a man has control over himself, he also has influence over others and impact on the circumstances in his life. If your happiness is dependent on how your girl is feeling, then you are in for a wild ride. Girls' feelings change all the time, and you won't be able to be happy when she's tired, in a bad mood, upset about something, or PMSing. To give someone else so much control over your happiness is a certain recipe for disaster. Additionally, being in fear of a girl's emotional reaction will cause you to act in ways that are fear-based, apologetic and submissive. You can hardly be a leader worth following if you are constantly concerned with the possibility of your thoughts, actions or decisions upsetting her. Either you end up not doing things that would upset her, and lose an integral part of yourself in the process, or you adopt a submissive and groveling posture when she is upset by something you've done, which will cause her to lose respect for you. Internal emotional stability is a necessary trait for any man who wishes to attract a high-quality woman and build a solid relationship. Dave In Hawaii has written a brilliant post on the subject of relationship dynamics, and how it is vital for a man to establish his own emotional frame and not be subject to the capricious nature of the female emotional roller-coaster ride. This second type of selective indifference synergizes well with both calmness and assertiveness.

I believe that these two types of selective indifference and two aspects of each are valuable traits for any man to incorporate into his life. While a man is certainly free to concern himself with the present status of a relationship or with a woman's emotional state, the typically stance he should adopt towards both is one of indifference. Having a well-rounded life with numerous central pillars ensures that nothing major will collapse, even if a relationship with a particular girl ends. Women are attracted to men who have full, purposeful and connected lives. Having confidence in one's own relational skills and ability to attract and sustain quality relationships is another foundational aspect of independence. The confidence and security that a man has in both of these areas of life are very attractive to a woman, since she wants to be with someone who lives well and who doesn't depend on her for strength or security--she wants to look to him to provide those things. Emotional stability and groundedness are vital for a man to make good decisions and be a strong leader. A woman will always feel safe and emotionally cared for if she knows that her man will be completely unfazed by her emotional state. Additionally, for a man to be himself, he must take ownership of his thoughts, opinions, values, beliefs and actions. He should always have a mindset that ensures he is living his best life at all times, and never waver or buckle under social pressure, stress or fear. A woman will have great respect for a man who is confident, bold and unapologetic about the way he lives. She will rightly view him as a strong leader, and will feel confident that she can follow his lead and trust his instincts.

As you can see, selective indifference, properly understood, is an invaluable trait for any man to possess. The direct benefits to a man's life are both numerous and extensive. Additionally, being more attractive to women is an indirect benefit of living the kind of life that gives you confidence, emotional stability, assertiveness and security, which are all necessary to adopt a true posture of healthy selective indifference. Because of your lack of neediness, you are in a position to attract a high-quality woman and enjoy her, without becoming dependent on her. Though indifference is an easily misunderstood trait, when properly understood, it is clearly a valuable and indispensible one for all men to strive for. It is a crucial part of inner game.

Female-Instigated Divorce

In some of the discussion generated by this post, I stated that I am "extremely radically opposed to vacuous female-instigated breakups and divorces." My sister then wrote:

I notice that you are "Extremely" opposed to the ones instigated by girls. I don't think that's right. Guys are JUST as depraved as girls. I am extremely opposed to girls not instigating break-ups for the right reasons. You should (in my view) be radically opposed to MALE-instigated divorce. Why are you putting down the girls here?

While I quite agree with her point that men are certainly as intrinsically sinful as women and are not morally superior to them, the radical relational disintegration that we see in modern America is not as much of a balanced issue as one might expect. It is true, that I am quite opposed to male-instigated breakups and divorces. However, these are far less common than female-instigated ones. According to Alfred Cohen's Statistical Analysis of American Divorce, originally published in 1929,

Women's freedom or the modern emancipation of the wife from dependence on the husband is asserted to be a leading cause of divorce by most judges. Their opinions are supported by evidence that 71 percent of all divorces at the present time are granted to wives. That the wife instigates the suit in divorce court has been preeminent in American family history. In 1867, when the divorce rate in the United States was only one-fifth its present size, wives were then granted 64 percent of the total divorces.

And, in the past century, little has changed regarding the instigation of divorce. Stephen Baskerville writes:

In the largest federally funded study ever undertaken on the subject, Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver demonstrated that few married fathers voluntarily leave their children. Braver found that overwhelmingly it is mothers, not fathers, who are walking away from marriages. Moreover, most of these women do so not with legal grounds such as abuse or adultery but for reasons such as “not feeling loved or appreciated.” The forcibly divorced fathers were also found to pay virtually all child support when they are employed and when they are permitted to see the children they have allegedly abandoned (1998, chap. 7).

Other studies have reached similar conclusions. Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen found that women file for divorce in some 70 percent of cases. “Not only do they file more often, but . . . they are more likely to instigate separation.” Most significantly, the principal incentive is not grounds such as desertion, adultery, or violence, but control of the children. “We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce” (2000, 126–27, 129, 158, emphasis in original). One might interpret this statistic to mean that what we call divorce has become in effect a kind of legalized parental kidnapping.

While I am opposed to male-instigated divorce, the simple fact of the matter is that American divorce is and has been an overwhelming female-instigated thing. In 1867, 1.78 times as many women instigated divorces compared to men. In 1929, 2.34 times as many women instigated divorces as men. Presently, 2.45 times as many women instigate divorces as men. That seems a bit lopsided to me. While, this overwhelming sea of female divorce might possibly be ameliorated if there were reasonable grounds for divorce, such as infidelity or abuse, the statistics clearly show that this is not the case. Most divorces are instigated by women and most of the divorces instigated by women are instigated for unreasonable and/or vacuous reasons such as "not feeling loved or appreciated" or wanting control of the children. This means that most female-instigated divorce is either based simply on emotion or is initiated out of a desire for control. Getting divorced is bad enough. Getting divorced for the wrong reasons is even worse. Given that women are instigating divorces overwhelmingly more often than men and mostly for unreasonable reasons, I am radically opposed to such destructive irresponsibility.

And destructive it is! Divorce is not simply the termination of a single romantic relationship. It's effects are far-reaching and horribly destructive. In his book, Fatherless America, David Blankerhorn calls the modern American crisis of fatherless children, "the most destructive trend of our generation." In his study, Is There a Fatherhood Crisis?, Stephen Baskerville writes,

Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders--all correlating more strongly with fatherlessness than with any other single factor, surpassing even race and poverty. The majority of prisoners, juvenile delinquent inmates, high school dropouts, pregnant teenagers, adolescent murderers, and rapists come from fatherless homes. (Daniels 1998, passim)

Not only does is divorce a rejection of God's plan, an affront to one's partner and a sacred violation of one's vows, but it is horribly destructive for one's children, who must go on living life as fatherless. It is horribly destructive for society who not only has to deal with the initial fallout from a destroyed marriage, but also is directly harmed by the actions of fatherless children who go wrong because of growing up fatherless.

This is a subject that I am passionate about because it is destroying our society, wounding countless people, affecting many people I know and even affecting me personally. My grandparents, after being married for over 35 are in the process of getting divorced. My grandmother instigated the divorce out of a malignant desire for control. Since the whole fiasco began, she has been adamantly avoiding our family and won't even see us on holidays. Also, the toll it has taken on grandpa's health has been immeasurable. The past two years have physically aged him more than past fifteen years before that. It deeply pains me to see his suffering because of her wrong actions.

While it would be unreasonable to unfairly unilaterally blame either sex for the problem, there is clear evidence that the chronic American divorce epidemic is primarily female-instigated, and is typically instigated for vacuous or power-hungry reasons. There is clear evidence of the horrifying impact it has had on the personal, social and national health of Americans. So, while it is true that I am opposed to male-instigated divorce, that is not the bulk of the issue we face today. Female-instigated divorce is a major issue in our country, and it is clear that the blame for so many divorces primarily lies with women. I blame Germany for instigating World War 2, because they are responsible for their evil attempts to dominate Europe. Similarly, I blame American women for instigating the divorces that they do, because they are clearly responsible for a vast majority of the divorces in America, and consequently, they are responsible for the social fallout of such divorces. That is why I am extremely, radically opposed to female-instigated divorce.

Discrimination Is Necessary For Social Reform

Today I just read an interesting and controversial article by Laura Wood, entitled Why We Must Discriminate. In it, she argues that for gender roles to be restored, for families to begin heading towards healing rather than towards the increasing dysfunction that is rampant in America, and for the resultant good of our nation, the legal environment must be changed in order to allow businesses to utilize customary discrimination and favor hiring men. In her own words:

First and foremost, we must restore customary economic discrimination in favor of men. America’s businesses and institutions must be free once again to favor men over women in hiring. If they are not, family life will never return to a reasonable state of health; the happiness of women and children will continue to decline; and men will fail to flourish and prosper.

Customary discrimination, in relation to the sexes, is the voluntary and informal practice of favoring men over women in hiring. It is not encoded in law or enforced by regulation. It exists as a result of a common understanding that men must support families and cannot adequately do so if they compete with large numbers of women, a form of competition that lowers their wages and reduces their marketability. The relative stagnation of men’s wages in the last 50 years proves the point.

I haven't read many articles specifically advocating discrimination, and I happen to agree with her argument. The truth is, feminism has been economically and socially detrimental to individuals, families and communities. Having gender-focused anti-discrimination laws does benefit businesses, but at the expense of everyone else. Personally, I believe that anti-discrimination laws of all sorts distort incentives, reduce liberty and encourage a flawed understanding of the concept of legal equality.

Specifically regarding women in the workforce, feminism may have initially appeared to be liberating. By allowing women to choose whether they pursue a family or choose a career, the apparent effect is that women have more freedom. When women first began entering the work force, it was economically advantageous for a family to earn a second income. The male provider already earned enough money to provide for his family and so adding a secondary income substantially boosted discretionary income. However, by nearly doubling the supply of labor, the equilibrium price of labor dropped dramatically. Because of the artificially low market value of labor, men and women both earn less money than if the labor market were limited to just men or just women. This decline in real income almost necessitates two incomes. Since men earn substantially less than they did before women entered the market, the amount of money needed to adequately provide for a family living in modern America is nearly equal to two full-time incomes. This means that with the rare exception of men who are wealthy, for most families, neither parent can afford to be jobless. While previously women had the option of having a job or staying at home and raising a family, now they are required to work, just to make ends meet. The resultant effect of feminism is that while previously most women didn't work, now most don't have the option of not working. Nearly twice as much work is required to earn the same amount of real income.

As bad as the economic aspect of women working is, the social effects of this are where the real harm lies. Since most women must work, they have significantly less time to spend raising children, making a difference in the world, and savoring life. There is less time for familial relationships, less time for being involved in the local community, less time to spend teaching children how to life virtuous lives, and less time for relaxation and personal hobbies. The lack of all these things serves to increase stress, decrease family unity, decrease enjoyment of life, decrease non-business related social development, and decrease the quality of childrens' education. Women's loss of social freedom and social influence is a major loss for them, directly, and for men and children, indirectly. Presently, there is a culture bias against women remaining at home and raising their families full-time. Educational instutitions and businesses profit from women in the workforce.

Why would women ever accept a return to discrimination?

The end of customary discrimination was never in the interests of women. It has forced the majority to help support their families while raising their children and managing a home. The experiment was tried. The apple was eaten. Women now see that careers come with personal costs and that many jobs are not as thrilling as feminists claim. They are ready to embrace discrimination again.

I think Laura is absolutely right. Right now, for the sake of individuals and families, America desperately needs to revoke anti-discrimination hiring laws and businesses need to intentionally choose to hire men over women. Gender discrimination is 100% necessary for America to begin true social reform. The health of our nation, the happiness of our people, the morality of our citizens, and the cohesion of our families depend on it. Let us discriminate intentionally and assertively, without apology!

Women Are Romantically Irrational

There are some men who think that women are impossible to understand or comprehend. I am not one of those men. However, it makes sense to me why some would have that sentiment. Though women are comprehensible, they are typically romantically irrational. Though there is certainly nothing precluding them from acting and speaking rationally, this is not the status quo in modern America.

What exactly do I mean by irrational? Something that is rational is driven by logical thought and follows the ideal path as set forth by the intellect. Therefore, irrational behavior is anything that is inconsistent with logical, intellect-based living. More specifically, when I refer to the romantic irrationality I mean a few different things. First, a woman's stated romantic criteria often differs from her actual romantic criteria. Second, a woman's romantic interest and romantic pursuits are governed more by emotions, physical chemistry and subconscious psychological drives than by their rational criteria. Third, few women realize this discrepancy.

By irrational, I do not mean simply that women often make decisions primarily based on non-logical criteria. For example, supposing intellectual reasoning and emotional resonance lead to the same decision, there is nothing intrinsically irrational about making such a decision. However, when conscious thoughts and emotions lead in opposing directions, choosing to follow one's emotions even when it will result in a substantial loss or personal harm is irrational since the decision flies in the face of reason and logical behavior. A pattern of behavior is irrational if, when a woman is confronted with choices that causes her intellect and emotions to be divided, she consistently chooses to make choices based on emotion rather than intellect. In such a case, she is primarily governed by non-logical, non-rational urges. This is not something that is biologically hardwired into women, since scientific experiments have shown that men and women typically reach the same decisions when using pure logic and intellect. Since there is not a biological reason for irrational romantic behavior, irrationality is a choice.

Often in searching for a romantic partner, men and women have a list of qualities that they are looking for. However, for women, the type of man they are actually looking for and the sort of criteria they are actually seeking are quite different than the qualities that they say they are looking for and truly believe they are looking for. Examples of this are evident everywhere. I have no doubt that you know of some girl who has rejected a suitor or broken up with a boyfriend who nearly perfectly matches her stated criteria. Personally, I have been told, "You are exactly the sort of guy I'm looking for; I just don't love you that way." With said girl, I know for a fact that I met virtually all of her stated criteria. But, she wasn't looking for the sort of man she thought she was. Another common example of this irrational behavior is witnessed with girls who are in unhealthy relationships, but are unable or unwilling to leave. Recently, I was talking to a friend who was considering breaking up with her boyfriend. He is broke, selfish, alcoholic, slightly overweight and doesn't treat her considerately. All of her friends were urging her to dump him because of his parasitic effects on her life, but after a few days of deliberation she chose to stay with him and try to work things out. Her logical mind sees the obvious truth, but that is not what drives her to make the choices she does. These two examples are hardly rare.

Does this inner divide render women incomprehensible? Not at all. This practical divide does make interacting with women quite confusing. When you assume that women want what they say they want and you get an unexpected reaction, it leads you to question something. One might think that women are intentionally lying and being manipulative. Though true in some circumstances, this is generally not the case. Most women are quite convinced that what they think they want is what they actually want. Both men and women err when they think that a woman's mind is what drives her decisions and causes her to act. Once a woman's irrationality is taken as a given, she then becomes comprehensible.

Since a woman is romantically driven by emotions, physical chemistry and subconscious psychological drives, understanding these is key to understanding women. Understanding the thoughts that fuel emotions, physical conditions that affect emotions, and psychological drives that trigger attraction set a solid foundation for better interaction. Possessing the ability to discern the real meaning of a woman's words, rather than simply interpreting them literally, is also integral to developing and sustaining quality romantic relationships. Because of this, knowing how to listen for the deeper message in a statement or question is a vital skill to have. Learning to read the tonal variances and body language of a woman will provide much more insight into what she is thinking and feeling than her words ever will.

Is it a bad thing to be irrational? Not necessarily. Though foolish decisions are harmful to everyone involved, irrationality itself isn't always a harmful thing. In some ways, the very fact that women are emotional creatures who are more empathic, more nurturing and more driven by emotions than men makes them special and beautiful. Gender differences are meant to be enjoyed, valued and savored. When the romantic irrationality of women is not properly understand it will unswervingly lead to confusion and frustration. However, when people recognize that women do not primarily interact with the world on a logical, intellectual basis, then they are free to fully enjoy the best that women have to offer.